Search Documents

By Srijit Bandyopadhyay, Aniruddha Sengupta, G. R. Reddy, Raj Banerjee

The objective of the present endeavor is to compare the performance of a pile raft system in foundation sand subjected to lateral loads. To study the behavior of pile raft system in sand a laboratory test was conducted on small scale model foundation system. The raft and pile was modeled by square concrete foundation of 250 mm x 250 mm x 15 mm in length, breadth and thickness and 25mm diameter and 250mm long circular pile located at the center of the raft. The system was tested under static lateral loads of 6.25N, 12.5N, 18.75N and 25 N respectively resting on dry Kasai River sand. A vertical surcharge pressure of 1.5kPa (10 kg) was applied on top of the model raft for each case. The results of the model tests have been simulated by a general purpose 3-D finite element software and the model has been validated with experimental results. The moments of the pile obtained from the model tests and those predicted by the numerical analyses for all the lateral loads matches reasonably well. For matching the trend of bending moments obtained from experiments, validation with theoretical results have been done with the help of Matlock and Reese (1960) approach for a single value of lateral loading. Moreover, a parametric study has been conducted with 5mX5mX0.3m raft size with 0.5m diameter and 5 meter long pile with increasing number of piles namely 2, 5 and 9 respectively to study the response in terms of moment and lateral deformation under available earthquake loadings, like Loma Prieta (1989) and Darfield Christchurch (2010). Bending moments of piles and load deformation curves for lateral loading have been studied for each case in which it is observed that the bending moments of pile significantly reduces (around 4 times) as the number of pile is increased to two, but it decreases to a nearly constant value (it saturates) as the number of pile is increased to five and nine. Moreover, the lateral deformation of piled raft system drastically reduces (around 2.4 times) for two pile system, and it saturates to a constant value with five and nine pile system. All these results indicate the constancy of stiffness irrespective of the number of piles in the piled raft.

Jan 1, 2015

Jan 1, 1995

By Fabio Santillan, Michael F. Zoccola

"Wolf Creek Dam and Lake Cum berland in Russell County Kentucky is operated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Nashville District It is a combination 3,940 ft long (1,200 m) non-zoned clay embankment, a maximum of 215 ft (65.5 m) above top of rock and 1,796 ft long (547 m) concrete gravity section. Built in the 1940s, the limestone beneath the embankment is characterized by an extensive interconnected network of solution feature; varying from fist size to largecaves.In 2005, studies conducted by the Nashville Distrect concluded that a new seepage cut-off wall was needed as the existing cut-off wall, installed in the 1970s, did not go deep enough and did not extend laterally far enough to intercept all major karst features The dam was classified as a ""Dam Safety Action Classification I (DSAC 1) – Urgent and Compelling,"" the highest risk under USAGE risk category rankings. Also in 2005, under a USAGE risk screening program of its entire dam portfolio, Wolf Creek was classified as a Dam Safety Action Classification 1-Urgent and Compelling, which put it in the highest category. In 2007, an Independent External Peer Review from outside USAGE, concluded there was compelling evidence that a piping failure mode had re-initiated and was in an ""advanced continuation"" stage of development.Impounding approximately 6 million acre-ft (7.4x102m3) of water at flood storage, Lake Cumberland is the largest reservoir east of the Mississippi River and ninth largest in the United States. Catastrophic failure would result in widespread flooding, Ices of life and economic losses in billions of dollars.In 2008, the Nashville District partnered with a joint venture between finns Treviicos and Soletanche (ISM through a ""Best Value"" contract to construct a new seepage barrier wall. This acquisition method was used in lieu of a low bid contract due to complexity of the work and dam safety concerns. It took advantage of the experience and innovation of contractors by soliciting technical proposals that were evaluated independent of cost. Those proposals deemed technically qualified and responsive then underwent a trade-off analysis between ccst and technical approach and a selection was made of the one deemed to give the best combination."

Jan 1, 2013

By M. D. Riegel, P. B. Pizzimenti, E. M. Zamiskie, Britain A. Materek

"The Skanska/Kiewit/ECCO III team (SKE) in association with HNTB was awarded the design-build contract for Phase I of the Kosciuszko Bridge Replacement Project. As lead designer for the SKE team, HNTB was responsible for the design of the Brooklyn Connector which includes construction of approximately 2000 feet of new staged earth-filled embankments utilizing prefabricated modular retaining walls (T-Walls®). The proposed embankments will be constructed adjacent to and beneath the existing Brooklyn Queens Expressway (BQE) viaduct while the existing viaduct remains in service. Critical aspects of the settlement assessment relating to the soils supporting the existing BQE will be addressed, as their behavior drives the deformation of the viaduct. Furthermore, a construction monitoring program was used to enable the designer to assess settlement predictions and allow SKE to mitigate potential impacts to the existing BQE during construction. Additionally, the methodology for installation of the embankments in a limited access area underneath an active viaduct supported on settlement sensitive shallow foundations will be presented.INTRODUCTIONSkanska-Kiewit-ECCO III Joint Venture, in association with HNTB was contracted by the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) to design and construct the Phase 1 replacement of the Kosciuszko Bridge Design-Build Project. Phase 1 of the project involves the design and construction of the new eastbound structures of Interstate 278 over Newtown Creek from Brooklyn to Queens. The project runs between Morgan Avenue in Brooklyn and the Long Island Expressway Interchange in Queens (approx. 1.1 miles) and includes the staged demolition of the existing structures."

Jan 1, 2016

By Leykam Chris J., Jacobs Scott. A.

"Construction of the New NY Bridge over the Hudson River 25 miles north of New York City is one of the largest civil infrastructure projects presently underway in the United States (formerly Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing). The $3.14 billion Design-Build contract is also the largest ever awarded by the state of New York using an Alternative Project Delivery method, and the first major public project to use Design-Build. The new 3.1 mile long bridge will replace the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge with a modern twin crossing featuring: Iconic side by side cable stay main spans; significant deck widths accommodating eight lanes of regular traffic, wide shoulders, and a shared use pedestrian and bike path; foundation with excess capacity to fully support a future rail bridge; more than 1,000 large diameter pipe piles driven in deep glacial deposits; drilled shafts installed through steep blast-rock slopes on the east shore landings. Geotechnical challenges included varied bedrock and glacial till surfaces with steep slopes and depths in excess of 750 ft.The purpose of this paper is to highlight major features of the New NY Bridge project with specific focus on the design and construction of the foundations supporting the approach and main span structures from abutment to abutment, provide background on alternative project delivery in NY, as well as provide an overview of the design-build process as it was applied to foundation delivery.The 3.1 mile Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge was constructed across the Hudson River connecting Nyack and Tarrytown (Rockland and Westchester Counties). Construction started in March 1952 and was completed in 1955 for a cost of $81 million. The seven lane crossing first opened to traffic on December 15, 1955 and coincided with the opening of a 28 mile segment of highway I-87 / I-287 between Suffern NY and Yonkers NY. The bridge is part of the extensive 574 mile New York State Thruway road system owned and operated by the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA)."

Jan 1, 2016

By A. C. Galvis-Castro, R. Salgado, M. Prezzi, E. Ganju, R. D. Tovar-Valencia

It is generally accepted that the unit shaft resistance of piles in sands is lower for tensile loading than for compressive loading. So far, very little attention has been paid to the influence of the installation method on the tensile-to-compressive unit shaft resistance ratio. The objective of this paper is to analyze the effect of installation method on the ratio of unit shaft resistance in tension to that in compression for a model pile installed in a dense silica sand. To study installation effects, load tests on model piles were carried out in a half-cylindrical calibration chamber with digital image correlation (DIC) capability. The model piles were either jacked in one stroke using a constant rate of advance, or pre-installed into the dense sand samples. Digital images of the model pile and sand were taken during the load test and processed using DIC to obtain the displacement field in the sand. It was found that unit shaft resistance was essentially the same in tension and compression for the pre-installed pile, however for the jacked pile, the unit shaft resistance in tension was approximately half of that in compression. DIC analysis revealed that: (1) during the load test, more displacement occurs in the soil domain for the pre-installed pile compared to the jacked pile, (2) for the jacked pile, the magnitude of displacement in the soil domain is greater in tension than in compression and (3) for the pre-installed pile, the magnitudes of displacement in tension and compression are similar. INTRODUCTION Pile foundations can be categorized into two main types depending on the method of installation: displacement piles (e.g., jacked or driven piles) and non-displacement piles (e.g., bored piles or drilled shafts) (Basu et al. 2010; Salgado 2008). The response of these piles to loading can be studied in the laboratory by means of calibration chamber experiments on model piles that are either jacked into the samples, representing displacement piles (Jardine et al. 2005; Lee et al. 2011; Tovar-Valencia et al. 2018), or pre-installed in the sand sample, representing non-displacement piles(Galvis-Castro et al. 2019a; Le Kouby et al. 2013; Tehrani et al. 2016)

Jan 1, 2019

By Lynn Crayne

We used Glyoxal as the hardener, at a final concentration of 10% by volume and therefore 20% by volume in the A-Component. They worked pretty well what we did was we shaved the joints on each of the pipes when we assembled them so they wouldn't rip the packers and then we greased the packers very well going in. We had to replace some but we have any getting stuck or didn't lose any pipes.

Feb 10, 2003

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY consists of a dual-span 1,982.5-ft long cable-stayed bridge with approach spans of 2,545 ft on the NJ side and 2,788 ft on the NY side. The bridge is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Drilled shaft resistances for design were based on load tests as described in a companion paper (Dapp et al. 2016). This paper presents the main foundation design considerations and challenges. The approach to construction of the rock sockets, with a focus on quality in order to support the use of high nominal values of side and base resistance, is described. Lessons learned from this project and their application to future similar projects are presented.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) project is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) that represents a major milestone for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) in its distinguished history of bridge building in the greater New York City metropolitan area. The new bridge will replace the existing Goethals Bridge, named after Major General George W. Goethals, Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal and the first consulting engineer for the Port Authority. The existing Goethals Bridge along with the Outerbridge Crossing and the Bayonne Bridge comprise the three Port Authority bridges connecting Staten Island with New Jersey. The existing Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing are cantilever truss structures and both opened on the same day in 1928. They were designed by J.A.L. Waddell under the supervision of the eminent engineer Othmar H. Ammann (1879-1965), who was the designer of many other iconic bridges in the NY City area including the Bayonne Bridge (1931), the George Washington Bridge (1931), and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge (1964). The designer of record for the replacement Goethals Bridge is Parsons Corporation, which is the successor firm of Robinson & Steinman, whose principal David B. Steinman was also a notable NY area bridge designer and a contemporary and rival of O.H. Ammann.The replacement Goethals Bridge is supported on over 200 rock-socketed drilled shaft foundations. Each main pylon tower is supported on a group of six 9-ft diameter drilled shafts and each anchor pier is supported by two 10-ft diameter shafts. Each approach pier consists of a two-column bent with each column supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft. A rendering of the Main Bridge crossing the Arthur Kill is shown in Fig. 1."

Jan 1, 2016

4.5.1 General The provisions of the article shall apply to the design of axially and laterally loaded driven piles in soil or extending through soil to rock. 4.5.1.1 APPLICATION (Revised Article 4.3.1.1) Piling may be considered when footings cannot be founded on rock, or on granular or stiff cohesive soils within a reasonable depth. At loca-tions where soil conditions would normally permit the use of spread footings but the potential for scour exists, piles may be used as a protection against scour. Piles may also be used where an unacceptable amount of settlement of spread footings may occur. 4.5.1.2 MATERIALS Piles may be structural steel sections, steel pipe, precast concrete, cast-in-place concrete, prestressed concrete, timber, or a combination of materials. In every case, materials shall be supplied in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Jan 1, 1989

By Dominic Parmantier, Karen Dawson, Suthan Pooranampillai, Seungcheol Shin

"This paper presents a case study of the use of single axis cement deep soil mixing (CDSM) to deal with static settlement and seismic stability of the foundation soils under a reinforced soil slope (RSS) embankment up to 50 feet high. As part of the widening of Interstate 5 (I-5) to allow High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in Tacoma, Washington, a new approach and span over the Puyallup River will be constructed. During the soils investigation and design phase of the project, low plasticity silts (ML) inter-bedded with silty sand layers and organic silt where identified as being potentially liquefiable. CDSM was selected to address the embankment foundation concerns and allow for future trenchless installation of utility lines beneath the embankment. The presence of a confined, artesian aquifer within the design depth of the CDSM led to the installation of a depressurization system to avoid an upward gradient through the wet soil-cement. In addition to addressing the design approach, the paper discusses the challenges associated with quality assurance of CDSM within the time constraints of an ongoing project. The limited recovery rate of conventional triple tube coring in the soil-cement and double tube wet sampling led to the use of sonic coring to provide a near continuous core of the soil-cement.IntroductionCement deep soil mixing (CDSM) was used as a replacement for stone column ground improvement in a corridor which the owner, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) wanted to reserve for future trenchless crossings beneath reinforced soil embankments within a freeway interchange. The work was part of HOV improvements to I-5 in Tacoma, Washington. The CDSM construction occurred in late 2010 and early 2011.Approximately 14,500 cubic yards of soil cement columns were placed by CDSM. The soil cement improved ground supports permanent geosynthetic reinforced slopes up to 50 feet high. The ground improvement was designed primarily to provide global stability of the reinforced slopes during seismic loading, but it was also utilized to reduce the time and total amount of settlement following construction of the embankments.This paper presents a discussion of the design approach and challenges associated with quality assurance of a relatively small volume of CDSM within the time constraints of an ongoing project. The challenges associated with attempts at collecting cores of the cured soil-cement mix cured by triple tube coring and pushing a double tube into the wet mix and allowing it to cure insitu are discussed, along with the eventual adoption of sonic coring combined with reliance on laboratory testing of wet mix samples collected daily."

Jan 1, 2017

By Gerry Houlahan

The east span of the 3.5 km long SF-Oakland Bay Bridge is supported by different types of foundations along its span. Starting from the west, its first 460 m section comprising twin concrete box-girders is supported by sands and rock on Yerba Buena Island. A 620 m long steel suspension span then bridges a 25 m deep channel that is formed in sediments overlying rock. Twin concrete box girder structures, each 2.4 km long, complete the stretch over the remainder of San Francisco Bay to the engineered earth fill landing at its east end. For most of its length, the Skyway bridges water 3 to 10 m deep over soft surficial Young Bay Mud. The foundation types include spread footings with hold-downs, steel and concrete piles that are set in drilled rock sockets up to 3 m in diameter and 2.5 m diameter steel tubular piles driven to penetrations of up to 100 m. The design and construction-related considerations are presented. The different foundation types, influences of the site geology and earthquake demands on the substructures are discussed. The seismic motions of the bridge superstructures and substructures, as well as the depth-varying soil motions, influenced the foundation design. Together with performance-based design criteria, including post-earthquake footing displacement limits, these seismic demands influenced various aspects of the foundation design, including the use of battered and vertical piles.

Jan 1, 2013

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 Karen Dawson

This paper presents a case study of the deformation-based design, construction, and performance of stone column ground improvement (GI) beneath a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) wall and bridge abutment with heights up to 50 feet. As part of the widening of Interstate 5 (I-5) to allow High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes in Tacoma, Washington, a new approach and span over the Puyallup River will be constructed. During the soils investigation and design phase of the project, low plasticity silts (ML) inter- bedded with silty sand layers and organic silt where identified as being potentially liquefiable. Stone column ground improvement was designed using a deformation-based approach to address static settlement and seismic stability of the proposed MSE embankments. The deformation-based design of the stone columns resulted in significant savings over a limit equilibrium-based approach. This paper presents the results of sonic coring taken from the initial stone columns installed and compares these results to the real-time data acquisition reports from the stone column installations. Vibration monitoring results during stone column installation are included. Settlement monitoring at the face of the MSE wall and buried vibrating wire settlement monitoring elements are presented and compared to the original settlement predictions.

By Tomohiro Yamasaki

"At the pre-construction foundations of the controlled waste disposal site built at the Port of Kinuura, the clayey soil account for the most, and with lesser amounts of sand compaction piles and sand mat. The cement deep mixing method (CDM) was used to improve ground impermeability and to reinforce the foundations on the seawall. Laboratory mixing and testing was performed to determine the appropriate quantities of cement additive for clayey soil, SCP sand, and sand mat. The test results indicated that maintaining the design strength of qu = 1,550 kN/m2 would require C = 100 kg/m3 of cement additive for all three soil types (clayey soil, SCP sand, sand mat). The permeability performance needed to improve ground impermeability assumes a permeability coefficient of K = 1.0×10-6cm/s. And the clayey soil satisfied the performance requirements at C = 100 kg/m3. However, to improve grand impermeability of the SCP sand and sand mat required more than 5% of particles having diameters of less than 75 µm. Thus, in the latter two cases, the required cement adding quantity was C = 250 kg/m3. The test specimens at one to two weeks after the created with a permeability coefficient of K = 10-6cm/s became permeability coefficient of K = 10-7cm/s six week later due to the effects of cement solidification. So the permeability coefficient declined about one order. The permeability coefficient three months later tends to decline continued with a somewhat lower.INTRODUCTIONBetween 2008 and 2011, the Aichi Seaside Environment Center constructed the Kinuura No. 3 offshore controlled waste final disposal site at Taketoyo in Aichi prefecture. (see Figure 1). The disposal site offers a landfill capacity of 5.21 million m3 and measures 472,000 m2 in area, of which some 344,000 m2 is a managed controlled sector enclosed within an impermeable seawall."

Jan 1, 2015

By Greg Canivan, Bernie Hertlein, Les Chernauskas, Joram Amir, Garland Likins, E. Anna Sellountou, Tim Kovacs, Peter Kandaris

Nondestructive testing of drilled shaft foundations via Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) is often performed as part of the quality assurance process to assess the soundness of concrete. The intent of CSL testing is to identify irregularities such as soil intrusion, necking, soft bottom, segregation, voids and other defects that could result in poor structural performance of the foundation. Over time, CSL rating criteria based on first arrival time and relative energy have incorrectly evolved to often be the sole means of determining the acceptability of a shaft. Some of these criteria have found their way into regulatory agency specifications, with acceptance values often differing from agency to agency.The purpose of this document is to review the state of the practice (including experience gained over the past 20 years), propose improved CSL rating criteria and make recommendations for additional assessment, as well as educate the industry on the proper interpretation of CSL test. CSL test results alone should not be the sole means of rejecting or accepting a shaft. A task force of industry exerts was formed to review the existing CSL rating criteria and propose improvements where appropriate. The recommendations presented herein are the consensus of the task force, which believes that they should be incorporated into future criteria, codes and specifications. This paper was produced as a joint effort between the Codes and Standards Committee, the Drilled Shafts Committee and Testing and Evaluation Committee. A task force was authorized under Testing and Evaluation Committee. The task force contributed their expertise in web-based discussions often every two weeks over a period of three years. Interested participants were invited to participate at any time. The document had two rounds of broad industry review, two rounds of DFI Technical Advisory Committee reviews, and a Public Comments process. All comments were considered in producing the final document.

Jan 1, 2019

By Masaru Sakakibara, Ngo Tuan Anh, Mitsuo Nozu

"In the southern region of Vietnam and the southern United States, numbers of Deep Mixing (DM) columns have been installed to increase the stability of slopes and mitigate ground settlement. However, in some cases, there were some quality problems for in-situ cement mixing such as inclusion of unmixed lumps. According to the investigations by the X-ray diffraction analyses, electrical conductivity (EC) test, and careful observations of in-situ mixing quality, it has been observed that the existence of expansive soil and its high EC value cause the insufficient in-situ mixing. The countermeasures to address these problems have been taken.INTRODUCTIONIn South Vietnam, under the guidance of numbers of references and standards (Miki, 1998, JGS, 2000, Kitazume et.al., 2001, BS 2005), Deep Mixing (DM) has been used in recent years for soft clay improvement to increase the stability of slopes and to reduce consolidation settlement (Nozu 2005, Tung et.al., 2009, S. T. G. Peng et.al, 2009). However, at the initial phase of the DM operation, the authors have encountered some unusual phenomena such as (1) lower strength and inclusion of unmixed lumps (Figure 1), (2) less amount of up-heaved soil, and (3) sticking of large lumps of clay to the mixing blades. In regard to the above (3), Photo 1 shows one of the countermeasures against the sticking. By means of the placement of additional plates, the stuck clay has been reduced significantly.Subsequently, we have noticed that the quality of DM columns has not been so good, which meant that there have been some unmixed lumps in the column despite high cement dosage such as more than 300kg/m3. The authors also have encountered the similar incidents in Vietnam and United States during the deep soil mixing work. For example, Photo 2 is the core samples taken from the DM test column in northern Vietnam adopting cement injection during penetration (CIDP) procedure. To solve this problem, various tests and investigations have been performed so far (Nozu 2010, 2012)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule. SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule.SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Brain E. Ladd

A load test program was performed on two auger cast piles constructed in the Inner Coastal Plain geology of North Carolina. Both test piles were installed through Coastal Plain deposits and into underlying Piedmont residual soils; one test pile was embedded into partially weathered rock (PWR). The recommended 100-ton design load was confirmed by a test program that included instrumenting the piles with strain gages. The two piles performed differently during the load tests due to the effect of embedment into PWR. Loading Test Pile No. 1, which was not embedded into PWR, to failure at about 230% of the design compressive load allowed for evaluation of the mobilization of the ultimate shaft and end bearing resistances. Mobilization pile resistance was evaluated by comparing shaft and end bearing resistances to top of pile deflection (?) normalized by the pile diameter (D). For Test Pile No. 1, the ultimate average shaft resistance was achieved at ?/D of about 7.5% and ultimate end bearing resistance at ?/D of about 9.5%. Test Pile No. 2, embedded into PWR, achieved a ?/D of only about 4% at 200% of the design load and was not loaded to failure. Shaft resistance was mobilized at a different rate within each individual geologic layer, i.e. ultimate shaft resistance did not occur simultaneously for all geologic layers. As the available total shaft resistance was exceeded and end bearing mobilized, the unit shaft resistances reduced from the peak values. A modified Davisson offset using ?/D of about 6.5% appears applicable for evaluating the ultimate capacity of auger cast piles in the Inner Coastal Plain.

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