Search Documents

By William D. Spielvogel

The Massachusetts Highway Department awarded the Porter Street Outfall Project to the J.M. Cashman Company in November 1991. Timely completion of the Project in one and one half years is critical to the start of the subsequent Third Harbor Tunnel North Approach project. Existing subsurface conditions and the Project's location at Boston's Logan International Airport significantly increases the difficulty of construction. The major contractual work involves relocating a reinforced concrete double box culvert supported on a continuous wood pile foundation. This existing culvert crosses and interferes with the future Third Harbor Tunnel North Approach alignment. Two parallel culverts constructed approximately 20 feet from either side of the future Third Harbor Tunnel alignment replace the existing double box culvert structure. Under the original contract design, approximately 3,100 feet of 14 ft. by 15 ft. reinforced concrete culvert is cast in place adjacent to the west side of the Third Harbor Tunnel and is located in the center of the Airport's main service roadway, Harborside Drive. This culvert is the Porter Street Combined Sewer, PSCS, which handles a combined flow of sewerage from the East Boston community and storm water runoff from Logan Airport. In addition, approximately 2,230 feet of 17 ft. by 15 ft. reinforced concrete culvert is cast in place adjacent to the east side of the Third Harbor Tunnel and is within 20 feet of an active aircraft taxiway and heliport. This culvert is the Bird Island Flats Storm Drain, BIFSD, which handles storm water runoff from the Logan Airport airfield. The existing outfall, on the west side of the Third Harbor Tunnel alignment is to remain in service and is to be connected to the new PSCS and BIFSD culverts. Therefore, a portion of the BIFSD culvert is designed as a bridge to span 128 ft. across the Third Harbor Tunnel excavation during construction.

Jan 1, 1994

By Dawn Shuttle

In trying to find a grout, or some kind of stabilizer that would work in this application, we established some performance criteria. Of those, what I controlled the most was viscosity, then I had a whole list of other criteria. I needed a long, controllable gel time, durability and the ability to set and stabilize the soil. So I looked through a lot of different stabilizers, some really crazy ones and also the typical chemical grouts that are used. The typical chemical grouts were eliminated because of long-term durability concerns, the need for having extended gel times, and several other concerns. I would be happy to discuss that with you further after the talk if you're interested. But, generally it was based on viscosity, gel time, and the need for extended gel time. In terms of the relative density of the sand many other grouts could have been used. But the main issue was trying to develop this way to do low pressure grouting that would not cause invasive disruption of the site. We couldn't go in and grout it, put centers, so most of the other grouts wouldn't work for various reasons. The forty percent relative density samples were prepared by plubiation. That was both during the cyclic testing stage of the research, which happened a few years back, and also during the box model and the laminar box models at RPI. In terms of what criteria were used to determine the success of the grouting, when I initially started this work what I did was take the grouted samples and I subjected them to cyclic triaxial testing. What I did was take a look at the cyclic deformation resistance of different concentrations of grouted colloidal silica treated sand. I looked first at 20% concentration because I wanted something that I knew worked and then I gradually decreased to 15%, 10%, and 5%. What I was most concerned with was that it did not liquefy and that it was able to hold together it and experience some deformation. But most importantly it needed to not liquefy. So, that was the biggest issue in determining the success of the grouting. In terms of the centrifuge modeling it was done by looking at several components: from looking at the pictures of the bending moments, looking at the acceleration records and how the acceleration records were transferred through the soil, looking at the reduction in the lateral displacement and those kinds of issues. So let me show you the difference.

Feb 10, 2003

By Michael Arnold, Jonathan Delgado

In 2017, Bauer Foundation Corp. (BFC) was awarded the contract to install the deep foundations for the new 17-story Hotel Tower and the Low Rise Casino Expansion at the Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino in Tampa, Florida. The site was underlain by extremely challenging Florida Limestone geology and surrounded by occupied existing buildings and infrastructure. To overcome the challenges of the difficult subsurface conditions, and to successfully complete the foundation installation without impact to the surrounding buildings and casino operation, Langan Engineering (EOR) and BFC were required to modify both the design and installation techniques during construction. The scope of work included 147 temporarily cased drilled shafts to depths up to 230 ft (70 m) below ground surface (BGS), 76 permanently cased micropiles up to 200 ft (61 m) BGS, and more than 300 augered-cast-in-place (ACIP) piles up to 125 ft (38 m) BGS. Voids and zones of high permeability in the limestone created many challenges for execution of the foundation scope including ACIP piles overbreaks of more than 400% above neatline volume, and construction induced ground subsidence/collapses adjacent to structures supported on shallow foundations. This paper will discuss site limitations, design and construction challenges, difficult geology, varied soil conditions, and lessons learned. PROJECT The project is located at Seminole Hard Rock Hotel and Casino Tampa, Florida, as shown in Fig. 1. Seminole Tribe, the owner, started the construction of a new 17-story Hotel Tower and the Low-Rise Casino Expansion at the beginning of 2017.

Jan 1, 2018

By Maurizio Siepi, Fabio Santillan, Lyndon Bedford, Carlo Crippa

"Abstract: Wolf Creek dam, on the Cumberland River in Kentucky, US, operated and maintained by the Nashville District of the USACE, is the Corps' largest reservoir east of the Mississippi river. The 1748 m (5,736 ft) long Wolf Creek dam combines earthfill and concrete gravity sections. Construction began in 1941 and was completed in 1950. The dam showed signs of instability in the 1960’s, and in the late 70’s an in-depth project of rehabilitation was undertaken, using both grouting and secant piles. The works saved the dam, but in the late 90’s further signs of distress worried the Nashville district of USACE which, after a study conducted on the water seepage, concluded that construction of a new concrete barrier cut-off wall was needed. In 2009, the $341.4 USD million contract was awarded to TREVIICOS-SOLETANCHE JV.The new wall, located upstream of the concrete monoliths, has a minimum thickness of 60 cm (24 in.), and runs the length of the embankment, into the right abutment, for about 4,200 feet. The founding depth reaches 84 m (275 feet), well below the zone of solutioning. With a total surface approaching 92,903 sq.m (1,000,000 sq.ft), the Wolf Creek barrier wall is unlike any other project in the world.The construction of the cut-off wall followed a complicated but logical sequence of several operations, involving a variety of technologies: grouting, hydromill, directional drilling, and secant piles with reverse circulation. The intensive rock grouting program was aimed to minimize the risk of slurry loss and extend the positive cut-off further deep. Subsequently, an Encasement Concrete wall was installed with hydromill, toeing into the rock, to protect the embankment during the following phases. Smart holes were then drilled into the Encasement wall down to the final depth. Eventually, the holes were used to install the secant piles by employing the reverse circulation piling method.An extensive verification campaign has confirmed the superior quality of the cutoff wall consisting of 1200 secant piles, exceeding by far USACE’s requirements. The main project was substantially completed in early 2013. A small portion of secant piles wall will be installed downstream of the dam, to close the switchyard, finishing the project in the early months of 2014.IntroductionWolf Creek Dam is located on the Cumberland River in south-central Kentucky. The Nashville District of USACE operates this multipurpose dam to provide hydropower, flood control, water supply, and water quality benefits for the Cumberland River system and surrounding region. Lake Cumberland, created by the dam, impounds 7,400 million cu.m (6 million acre foot) at its maximum pool elevation of 232 m (760 ft) above sea level. This lake is the largest reservoir east of the Mississippi and the ninth largest in the United States, and attracts 4.89 million visitors, more than Yellowstone National Park (2.87 million).This paper describes the recently completed works for the rehabilitation of the dam, accomplished by TreviICOS-Soletanche JV with the construction of a new Barrier Wall."

Jan 1, 2014

[ ]

Jan 1, 1994

By José L. M. Clemente, John R. Davie

"Abstract An extensive pre-production static and dynamic pile load testing program was conducted for a coal-fired power plant. The static load testing program included axial compression, uplift (tension), and lateral load tests. Three types of piles were tested: Monotube, closed-end pipe, and step-tapered. The load tests were used to (a) determine pile driveability characteristics for each pile, (b) verify pile load response behavior, and (c) provide data to support the selection of a cost-effective piled-foundation system for the plant. A recent publication (Clemente and Lewis, 2013) describes the compression load testing program, the interpretation of instrumentation measurement results, and pile selection criteria. This manuscript describes site subsurface and groundwater conditions and installation of probe piles for testing, focuses on the uplift and lateral load testing program, and provides a comparative interpretation of the load test results.INTRODUCTIONThe pre-production probe pile load testing program described here was conducted for a 202-megawatt, coal-fired power and steam generating (cogeneration) facility. A schematic layout of the main plant (power block area) is shown in Figure 1, which also includes the locations of clusters of preproduction probe piles and boreholes drilled near these clusters.The load testing program included 24 pre-production probe piles driven throughout the power block area. The probe piles were driven at locations T-1 through T-8, shown in Figure 1. Three types of piles were driven at each location: Monotube pile; closed end, straight shaft pipe pile; and step-tapered pile. At each location, the three piles were driven in a row with the pipe pile at the center, and the center-tocenter spacing between piles was equal to about 1.5 m (> 3.5 pile diameters for the largest pile). No pile cap was used to connect the three piles, and the three piles driven at locations T-1 through T-8 will be referred to as pile clusters. A complete suite of static load testing (compression, tension, and lateral) was performed on each individual pile at Cluster T-2 and on the step-tapered piles only at Cluster T-8, shown in Figure 1.Clemente and Lewis (2013) provide details of the compression load testing program, the interpretation of instrumentation measurement results, and pile selection criteria. This manuscript focuses on the uplift (tension) and lateral load testing program. A brief summary of the site geology and existing subsurface and groundwater conditions in the vicinity of the test pile clusters is presented, with emphasis on T-2 and T-8. Probe pile driving results at T-2 and T-8 are also presented. Descriptions of the static uplift and lateral load test program at T-2 and T-8 are given along with a comparative evaluation of the load test results."

Jan 1, 2014

By Paul J. Sabatini, Yazen A. Khasawneh

"A Demag CC1800 crawler crane was partially erected on crane mats adjacent to a seawall when settlements near a corner of the crane mat area were observed to be slightly larger than previously assessed. A ground improvement program including installation of dry soil cement mix (DSM) piers was implemented to improve soil bearing capacity. Due to near-surface obstructions, only 75 percent of the DSM piers were installed to the design depth. Because of the partial installation of the DSM piers, an evaluation of the crane pad stability and the effect of the crane loading on the stability of an adjacent 10-ft high concrete seawall, which was believed to have limited (if any) reserve capacity, was required. A two-dimensional finite element model was developed to evaluate the responses of the partially improved ground and the sea wall to the loads imposed by the crane. Geotechnical site investigation and laboratory testing programs were performed to better define the subsurface conditions near the area where settlements occurred and to provide the required mechanical parameters for the soil constitutive model. Analysis results indicate that total and differential settlements of the crane pad and the increase in load on the seawall were tolerable provided limited excavation and replacement of weak dredged soils outside the DSM area would be implemented.INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDA Demag CC1800 was erected on 8 ft × 16 ft crane lattice mats at about 12 ft from an existing seawall. Approximately 3.5 in. of subsidence was observed at one corner of the crane mats, while the crane was partially erected and stationary. The approximate location of the crane mats with respect to the existing seawall when the subsidence occurred is shown on Fig. 1.The seawall consists of a reinforced concrete wall connected by reinforced concrete bents to a composite section of sheet pile wall; the total depth of the seawall is about 29 ft. The bents are spaced at about 20’4” and supported by five piles at each bent location. The composite sheet pile consists of concrete and a sheet pile section with a reinforced concrete wale section. The retaining wall is about 10 ft in height and is supported at three levels. The first support level comprises a 2-½” diameter steel rod near the top of the wall spaced at 40’8” the second and third level supports comprise 1-½” diameter steel rods spaced at about 5’6”. The second level support is inclined at about 10 degrees below horizontal and the third level support is oriented horizontally through the wall footing. A schematic of the seawall section is shown on Fig. 2.A geotechnical site investigation was implemented soon after the subsidence was observed. The program included advancing four borings to a depth ranging from 16 ft below ground surface (bgs) to about 30 ft bgs. In general, the investigation showed sandy material (likely fill that was used behind the retaining wall) from the ground surface in two borings located immediately behind the retaining wall. The other two borings furthest from the retaining wall showed very soft to soft clay (possibly dredged material) from the ground surface to a depth of about 10 ft bgs. Based on this information, the ultimate bearing capacity of the subsoils was estimated to range from 1,200 to 2,000 pounds per square feet (psf). From the anticipated crane loading (weight of the crane and loading lifts), a minimum allowable bearing capacity of about 1,500 psf would be required for safe operation. To achieve the required bearing capacity a ground improvement program was selected and implemented."

Jan 1, 2017

By Colin Curtis

In recent years, Manchester Airport has undergone expansion including the construction of a second runway, a new terminal building (Terminal 3) and extensions to the existing Terminal 1. Manchester is Britains third largest airport and ranked 20th in the world for international traffic. Arup (Manchester) was engaged as consulting engineer in a multi-disciplinary role for the terminal works. Part of this was a geotechnical commission including site investigation and pile design followed by supervision. This paper reviews the piling for the old, new and terminal extensions. In total, five pile types have been utilised over the years. The original 1950's Terminal 1 was founded on driven cast in situ piles, with a later 1970's extension utilising rotary augured piles. The recent piling comprised continuous flight auger piles (CFA), driven steel tube and tripod bored; the latter in areas of restricted access or low headroom. The ground conditions are Made Ground over thin Alluvial and Glacial drift, in turn, over a generally weak to moderately weak gypsiferous mudstone. All the piles were socketed into the mudstone. In terms of the new CFA piles, quality control using the instrumentation monitoring was problematical, but a substantial static load and integrity test programme resolved pile performance. Part of the work is matching new pile performance with previously installed piles and the continued use of older piles with new loads. Research provided some data on the older piles, including some static load test data, which enabled back analyses of their design and likely behaviour. Differences in design methods, installation techniques and pile behaviour based on load tests will be discussed.

Jan 1, 2001

By Allen Cadden

The type of soil we had was a silty fine sand. It had been placed by hydraulic methods in 1904 so it was quite clean I would say less than 10% silt the rest of it was very loose sand. That I'm not certain, I've only done it on sandy soils but it would stand to reason that some sort of a number should apply because you are measuring the amount of work that you are doing to it so if the soil is fairly consistent over the site it should be able to generalize from there but I don't know for a fact that it works. Well, verifying to ourselves that this method actually worked because we weren't certain at first when we were doing it so then we would develop the numbers and then check the results.

Feb 10, 2003

By Paul J. Axtell

The results of in-situ geophysical cross-hole tests on improved soil by soil mixing (SM) and jet grouting (JG) are described. This testing was conducted on soil improved by SM and JG columns constructed in the downstream free-field of Tuttle Creek Dam near Manhattan, Kansas as part of the seismic retrofit. Results of similar geophysical testing performed on untreated soil in the vicinity of the Downstream Test Program (DTP) area, as well as beneath the embankment at several locations, are also described and used for comparison purposes. In-situ shear moduli are also compared with those determined in laboratory resonant column tests. The increase in stress wave velocities and associated shear moduli by SM and JG treatment are presented for use in liquefaction potential and seismic deformation analyses of SM or JG treated soil. This data is required to determine the decrease in liquefaction potential and earthquake-induced permanent deformations due to SM or JG with respect to that of untreated soil.

Jan 1, 2008

By Jeff Starchuck, Harald Kullmann

"In 2005, an inspection showed that the Deception Bay Wharf in the Canadian Arctic was at the end of its service life. Although Deception Bay is closed with landfast ice up to 5 ft thick, shipping operations continue year-round, with additional voyages in the summer open-water season to supplement mine supplies. The rehabilitation scheme that allowed minimal interruptions to shipping involved concrete caissons cast on barges and an ingenious placing system.WorleyParsons Westmar of Vancouver, B.C., performed the inspection under contract to the owner, Xstrata Nickel, Montreal, Quebec. The wharf, on the coast of the Nunavik region of Quebec, was originally constructed in 1971 for an asbestos mine, and is now used to support Xstrata’s Raglan nickel mine, importing fuel for p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n a n d general mine supplies, and exporting nickel concentrate to smelters in the south. Emergency repairs were essential to allow operations to continue at the site, while the parties considered permanent rehabilitation options and secured funding. The repairs were done in the openwater seasons, and included reinforcing the failed interlocks above water level with steel patch plates and injection grouting of the cell fill below the port crane in 2005. In 2006, workers installed a circumferential belting system below water level.Westmar held critical planning sessions with the mine operation personnel to find ways to stretch the limits of the mine supplies and nickel storage facilities. In the end, the parties agreed to shut down construction activities four times during the ice-free season to allow access to the dock site.Westmar developed a plan that allowed mine operations to continue during construction, and Xstrata approved the plan and budget in September 2006, for execution in 2007. Rapid construction was essential. To accommodate the short construction season and maintain minimum levels of service for the mine, the work was radically different from conventional Arctic deep-sea port construction. Like the original Deception Bay Wharf, construction practice was to use steel sheet pile circular cells with the consequential heavy support services for the labour force. Construction duration was typically two seasons. The plan for Deception Bay was executable in one season based on a concrete caisson structure. Only a modest amount of schedule float was needed."

Jan 1, 2009

By Kevin Kuhl

With the destruction of the US-90 Bridge spanning St. Louis Bay by Hurricane Katrina, the State of Mississippi awarded its first major design-build contract in order to have a completed four-lane bridge in a period of less than two years. The structure consists of 76 pre-cast concrete beam spans with a total bridge length from Bent 1 to Bent 77 of 11,124 ft (2.1 miles). All 77 bents are founded on pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete piles and consist of two foundation types: pile bents and water line footings. A total of 53 pile bents were utilized where the deck is less than 52 ft above the water. Further divided, 10 pile bents, supported by 24 in. square, solid piles, are located on land. The remainder of the pile bents are located within St. Louis Bay and supported by 36 in. square, voided piles. All the waterline footings are supported by 30 in. square, voided piles. In total, 138 -24 in., 437 -30 in., and 463 -36 in. piles support the structure. Production pile design was based upon information gathered from the subsurface investigation, design soil profile and 23 out-of-position test piles. Verification of the design was established by monitoring the first production pile driven at each bent using the Pile Driving Analyzer. Particular challenges included highly variable coastal deposits, loads in excess of 1600 kips per pile and a compressed construction schedule. Initial drive capacity of a portion of the production test piles was less than expected resulting in a minimum 14 day setup. Following the setup period, restrikes were necessary to verify capacity. Project production piles ranging from 50 ft in length to in excess of 160 ft in length were used to achieve the required resistance. This paper includes a brief overview of the foundation design and indicator test pile program. The main objective is to provide a summary of the quality control procedures including establishing the driving criteria for each bent and to present issues that arose during production pile driving and the solutions that followed.

May 11, 2007

By Roy H. Borde

The design of foundations to support overhead signs is primarily based on providing adequate resistance against horizontal wind loads. The typically used subgrade reaction model for the load-deflection analysis of laterally loaded piles and shafts has been found to underpredict the capacity of shafts with length to diameter ratios less than five. The general applicability of an improved model incorporating the influence of shear and moment resistance at the shaft base is demonstrated. The detrimental effect of ground surface slope angle on the ultimate capacity is discussed, and a design chart for estimating the magnitude of the reduction in capacity is presented. A comparison between the predicted and measured responses of nine full-scale load tests performed within this study and sixteen external tests is presented. The models described are implemented in the computer program "LTBASE".

Jan 1, 1988

By Clyde Baker

Drilled shafts for many situations offer an economical alternative to driven piles. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has spent considerable time and money in research and developing design and construction guidelines for drilled shafts. However, the full potential of the technology may not be realized because of the uncertainty of the effects of construction on the actual service behavior and the lack of either reliable quality control tests to check for or evaluate defects, or inexpensive load test procedures. Static load testing is very expensive and it is not feasible to load test each shaft on a project. Therefore, other means are necessary to confirm or evaluate the integrity of the completed drilled shaft or to determine the capacity of the completed shaft.

Jan 1, 1989

By Philip Bonanno

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

Jan 1, 1994

By Raymond Henn

Yes we have also used some however, again because of the nature of the maintenance window where we have that two hour (at best) window every night and due to the numerous other crews that are wanting to get in to do the other types of maintenance activities, we don't know if we are going to be getting into that same area from one night to the next. So even with the dormancy additives that one can add to cementitious grouts (that are good up to 72 hours) we don't know if we are going to get back in to the same locations from one week to the next. That's why I use the term "the forgiving nature of the acrylamide". It allows us to ream out the hole allowing us to use the exact same hole without having to re-drill a new hole. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. Up to the end of 2001 we were just over 1.7 million liters of between AV100 and AV118 grout. Of that, approximately just under 200,000 was AV100 and the remaining balance was AV118.

Feb 10, 2003

By Douglas Brittsan

This paper presents pile tension and compression load test results for the Southern Freeway Viaduct (North) pile load test site. The testing program represents a collaboration between California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), and a group of pile manufacturers and construction firms. The participating manufacturers included Fundex, Halliburton, Monotube, and Nicholson, with each firm supplying proprietary pile systems. The field test program measured and will allow the direct comparison of the tensile and compressive capacity of nine common and proprietary pile systems installed in nearly identical soil conditions. Data reported here-in details pile compression and tensile load-deformation measured at the pile head. Cursory data regarding pile installation details are included to aid in data interpretation.

Jan 1, 1993

By Eric C. Halpin

"1. Introduction and Backgrounda. In its fundamental form, risk is simply the likelihood of an adverse impact. Expanding on this theme, the Corps of Engineers has broadly defined risk associated with infrastructure as a factor of three distinct elements: a probabilistic assessment of a hazard such as a flood or earthquake; a probabilistic assessment of how the infrastructure performs in the face of this hazard; and a measure of the likely consequences – loss of life, economic damage, environmental impacts – associated with the resulting inundation scenarios.b. The lessons and observations described herein relate to the Corps of Engineers experiences in implementing risk concepts for infrastructure management during the period 2005 through 2013. The Corps of Engineers is a large, decentrally operated and centrally led federal agency that plans, designs, constructs, operates, maintains, and/or manages a portfolio of over 3,000 built dam and levee systems within the United States. The infrastructure in this portfolio is 55 years old on average, and although much of the structures provide for flood risk management benefits, many of the dams deliver multi-purpose benefits. Scale matters – where scale and uncertainty are large, risk concepts provide great opportunity and arrangement for application.c. The amount of organizational change that is demanded for the implementation of risk concepts is considerable and should not be under estimated, but need not be feared if the path others have taken is considered. This paper is, in many ways, an opportunity to step back from the last seven years of implementing risk informed management, check our own azimuth and maturation, and share the purpose and energy behind our own continuing actions. Hopefully, this azimuth check is also beneficial to those that are either considering the use of risk or are in the process of implementing risk concepts.d. Success at managing the massive change related to incorporation of risk concepts will directly affect success of the infrastructure program. The three key organizational elements to consider –human systems such as governance and competencies; policies that outline the who, when, and why of decisions and management; and the processes and technology that outline how work is to be performed - are changed fundamentally. From senior leaders to project team members and all of the people in between, there is a need to discuss, confront, and vet the change and the role people and organizations have in the process. For the Corps of Engineers, with a history of over two centuries, deeply embedded beliefs about infrastructure aren’t transformed over night - the change process is decadal in scope. Given our self imposed “project execution” mantra and corporate objective, risk seemed threatening at first to the cost and schedule of delivering infrastructure projects. In reality, risk concepts have been responsible for savings and cost avoidance of nearly $6 billion over the last three years alone while at the same time justifying increased investment by several fold for the highest risk needs."

Jan 1, 2014

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By Jogeshwar P. Singh, Aser I. Abbas, Mohamed Ashour

The presented methodology predicts the pile head response (i.e. pile head load - displacement curve) and develops the load transfer (t-z) curve of piles in sandy soils under tension forces based on soil/pile properties and soil-pile interaction. The proposed approach improves the prediction of the t-z curve in sandy soils compared to current practice. The method employs a nonlinear soil constitutive model to calculate the mobilized shear stress/strain in soil at the soil-pile interface induced by pile upward displacement. The approach accounts for the influence of the pile slenderness ratio on the predicted t-z curve and is validated through comparisons with measured pile head response and t-z curves from full-scale pile load tests. INTRODUCTION Piles may be subjected to axial uplift forces due to either static loading or cyclic loading. The majority of methods are only concerned with the pile ultimate tensile capacity. However, the mobilized pile stiffness (i.e., pile-head load-displacement relationship) is essential to determine the interaction between the foundation and the superstructure and consequently the performance of the whole structure. Methods that assess the pile ultimate tensile capacity usually assume the failure surface at the soil-pile interface and estimate the local side shear resistance using a lateral earth pressure approach. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC 1986) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1991) employed Eq. 1 to assess the ultimate shear stress (τ) developed at the soil-pile interface.

Jan 1, 2018