Search Documents

By Bernard Hertlein, Chia K. Tan

"The move to LRFD methods for structural design by AASHTO, ACI, AISC , ASCE, and the FHWA has been a major change for the American construction industry. The deep foundations industry has arguably been placed most at risk by this situation, because of the need for, and the difficulty of providing, reliable quality assurance.LRFD is attractive for both the owner and the engineer because it promises cost reductions, but the assumption underlying LRFD is often overlooked - that the acceptable margin of safety can be rationally reduced, thus saving costs, provided that all the factors involved are closely controlled. This means that both the quality of the materials and the quality of the construction work must be closely monitored, and held to an acceptable standard.This paper describes the type of comprehensive quality management program that is needed in deep foundation construction projects based on LRFD. Case histories are used to illustrate the importance of both adequate inspection and reliable testing to a comprehensive quality management program.IntroductionOver the last thirty years, the major organizations that set standards and practice policies for the American construction industry, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Concrete Institute (ACI) , The American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have embraced Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) as an alternative to, and in some cases, a complete replacement for, Allowable Stress Design (ASD). AASHTO first published a new set of LRFD-based design guidelines for bridges in 1996, with several revisions in 1997, 1998, and 1999 (AASHTO, 1996). The 1996 AASHTO Bridge Design Code was the first in the United States that required foundations to be designed using LRFD procedures. LRFD has a clear advantage over conventional ASD where variability in material strength, bias in design methodology, and degree of construction quality can be rationally accounted for to achieve an acceptable level of risk."

Jan 1, 2005

By T. Jason Hardell

The Victory Bridge project was contracted by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The project included the construction of two 4000-ft precast segmental concrete bridges to replace the existing Victory Bridge that was built in the 1920's. The existing bridge was a swing span bridge that was in desperate need of replacement. The project was considered high priority due to the large maintenance costs to keep the swing span operating over the busy navigational channel. In March of 2003 construction began on the first bridge and by April of 2005 all of the segments were set for the second bridge. On September 5 of 2005 the second bridge was open to traffic. The total cost of the project was $110-million. The two new bridges required the construction of 24-eight foot and 32-six foot diameter-drilled shafts with rock sockets. All of the shafts were constructed in the tidal Raritan River working from barges. What will follow is a description of the construction techniques that were used to build these drilled shafts, the anticipated and unanticipated challenges that were encountered during the project, and the lessons learned.

Jan 1, 2005

By Klaus Pöllath

The Netherlands RandstadRail project makes use of a large range of sophisticated geotechnical techniques to allow a shield driven tunnel to approach the central station of Rotterdam. This paper describes the construction of three deep excavation pits constructed with 1.2 m and 1.5 m thick diaphragm walls. Besides the presentation of the actual diaphragm wall activities special consideration is given to the break-in and break-out situations of the TBM into the deep excavations pits using sealing blocks and partly glass fibre reinforcement in the diaphragm walls.

Jan 1, 2006

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

By Shawna Munn, Jakub Hudler

This paper outlines the use of tunneling headwall softeyes for transit construction projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) over the past decade. Due to spatial constraints, tunnel boring machines were used to construct the underground tunnels requiring the design of launch and exit shafts with headwall softeyes to facilitate tunneling operations. Variable ground conditions and shaft geometries lead to the development of innovative headwall and tunnel softeye design applications using fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) elements (beams, reinforcing bars, and tiebacks). This paper outlines the challenges and benefits associated with designing and constructing shafts using various systems. Lessons learned throughout design and construction of more than 20 structures over the past 10 years are outlined. The constructability challenges with using FRP and design performance are also discussed. For over a decade, the City of Toronto has been expanding its metropolitan transit network with a variety of new transit construction projects. Two recent projects in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) for underground infrastructure include the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension and the Eglinton Crosstown Light Rail Transit project. These add a total of 31 new stations and 18.6 km (11.5 miles) of underground transit (TTC 2017) (EllisDon 2016). Due to ground conditions and spatial constraints of existing surface infrastructure, these projects utilized tunnel boring machines (TBMs) to construct the underground tunnels requiring the design of various types of shafts and headwalls to facilitate underground tunneling operations. To allow for tunneling through the headwalls, these shafts were designed with “softeyes” - a section of the wall without metal reinforcement that allows the TBMs to tunnel through.

Jan 1, 2018

By Nicolas Denies, Gust Van Lysebetten, Bart Lameire, Jan Maertens, André Vervoort, Noël Huybrechts, Flor De Cock

"Abstract Originally developed for ground improvement works, the deep mixing method (DMM) has increasingly been applied in recent years for the realization of soil and water retaining structures and as alternative to traditional foundation solutions. From practice, there is a real need for practical guidelines dealing with the execution, the design and the control of such applications. With the aim of developing such guidelines, the BBRI ‘Soil Mix’ project was initiated in 2009. Within this research project, deep soil mix (DSM) material from 38 Belgian construction sites has been tested. In spite of the large advances in the mechanical characterization of the DSM material, one major issue remains the representativeness of the typical core samples in comparison with the real scale behavior of the soil mix elements. There is among others the question of the influence of the unmixed soft soil inclusions on this behavior and the issue of the scale effect which must be considered in the design. In order to investigate these questions, 8 large scale UCS tests and 17 large scale bending tests have been performed on excavated soil mix elements. The present paper discusses results of this experimental campaign, presents some research perspectives and highlights different aspects related to the design of soil mix elements for the realization of retaining wall or foundation solution.INTRODUCTIONSince several decennia, the deep mixing method (DMM) has been used to improve the strength and deformation characteristics of weak soils. In recent years, deep mixing has increasingly been applied – in Belgium and in other countries – for the realization of soil and water retaining structures and alternative foundation concepts. With regard to the execution of the DMM, one can refer to the European standard EN 14679 on deep mixing (2005) that was elaborated under the umbrella of CEN TC 288 “Execution of special geotechnical works”. However, from practice, it has been experienced that this execution standard does not provide enough pragmatic information and guidelines, in particular for the more recent applications of the deep mixing method (with retaining and bearing functions). The same need by the sector for guidance rules linked to design aspects in the context of Eurocode 7 was experienced as well. With the aim of developing such guidelines and in order to provide feedback to the European standardization platforms, the Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) has initiated the BBRI ‘Soil Mix’ project (2009-2013) in collaboration with the KU Leuven and the Belgian Association of Foundation Contractors (ABEF), the Belgian branch of the EFFC. Within this research project, deep soil mix (DSM) material from 38 Belgian construction sites, with various soil conditions and for different execution processes (CVR C-mix®, TSM and CSM), has been tested (Denies et al., 2012)."

Jan 1, 2014

By James Pegues, Ron Johnson

A solar facility in the western United States was sited within the footprint of a dry lakebed, or playa, with construction completed in 2016. Conventional geotechnical studies were performed prior to design and no unusual conditions or features were noted. The facility has unexpectedly experienced several episodes of ground fissure development after moderate to heavy rainfall events, the first somewhat isolated event occurring shortly after the facility was placed into service. Subsequent fissures developed in 2017 and 2022, with severity of the fissures and their impacts increasing each time, with the final episode resulting in fissure depths on the order of 30 feet. Initial fissure events primarily impacted site access. The 2022 event impacted site access, infrastructure, and solar array pile foundations. Various remedial measures were implemented to address the fissures, including CLSM backfill (2016) and the injection of epoxy-based urethane foam (2017). Prior to developing repairs for the 2022 event, additional studies were performed to evaluate the fissure formation including geophysical exploration, review of historical topography and aerial photographs, hydrologic modeling, and research. Mitigation of the 2022 feature included backfilling with granular backfill and sand-cement slurry and constructing surface water conveyance features to direct surface runoff away from the fissure.

Oct 7, 2024

By Matthias Pulsfort, Markus Herten, Rolf Breitenbücher, Claudia Fierenkothen

"Secant bored pile walls are frequently used as retaining walls in watertight excavations to cut off ground water aquifers and are subsequently exposed to ground water pressure loading in addition to earth pressure loads. To avoid extra loading from ground water pressure in soils with limited permeability, it can be useful to arrange drainage windows within secant bored pile walls by means of single primary piles filled with porous concrete without reinforcement cages, which usually have to be placed within casings in submerged conditions. This concrete may serve as a horizontal arch between the reinforced secondary piles, but it must however enable vertical draining between load carrying construction beams and the bottom of the excavated pit. In the present submission, the results of several material tests with different mix designs of porous concrete with certain admixtures are presented together with first and important experiences with a wellsuited placement technique for porous concrete casings in small- and large-scale laboratory tests. It can be shown that the usual placement technique of employing a tremie pipe is not suited for this type of unsaturated concrete. Instead, pouring with a particular kind of cone and an open conductor pipe has proven successful.Additionally, special testing methods are currently developed for judging the suitability of the desired concrete mix design in preparation for an upcoming real-scale experimental pile installation in Germany.1. INTRODUCTIONRetaining walls are often built as secant bored pile walls in order to cut off aquifers saturated with groundwater against deep building pits. In soil types with relatively low permeability, however, seepage flow may be permitted, because the quantity of groundwater to be pumped is limited, and the range of influence due to dewatering is not reaching far. Thus, the hydrostatic water pressure on the retaining wall can be considerably reduced, leading to a more economic design (see Fig. 1).In unsaturated soils, the dewatering effect can be achieved by means of porous pervious concrete with a uniform grainsize distribution of aggregates typically placed in a borehole under dry conditions. With regard to the use of porous concrete to be placed at the ground surface in road pavement applications, experience is sufficiently available as shown, for instance, by Neithalath et el. (2010). However placing the porous concrete in a bored pile using a tremie pipe under submerged conditions is a challenge and a completely new approach, because there is a considerable risk of segregation of the fresh concrete, separating the cement lime paste from the aggregates when in contact with water and leaving only neat gravel on the one hand as well as a tight cemented area at the bottom of the pile on the other hand. If this concrete placement is successful, additional dewatering by means of extra wells behind the retaining wall can be avoided. Of course the seepage flow in the adjacent soil needs to be regarded seriously."

Jan 1, 2017

By Douglas W. Christie

Deep foundations in Washington, DC have played a role in the city?s development since the 19th century. Designers of government and commercial buildings sought deep foundations initially to minimize settlement of structures. As the western portion of the National Mall was made by filling in portions of the Potomac River, numerous memorials and monuments on the Mall required deep foundations. In recent years deep foundations have been used to allow underground construction for various reasons. Commercial developers have sought to maximize the use of sites by developing below-grade space for parking to meet code requirements and offset the limits on building heights. Underground museum and gallery space has been constructed to expand public space while preserving open space above grade. Access and security concerns have prompted the design of underground visitor centers rather than above-grade structures.

Jan 1, 2006

By H. Mori

The session chairman, Dr. H. Mori, welcomed the delegates to Discussion Session 8. AUTHORS PRESENTATIONS 1 . G. Price, Building Research Establishment. UK Mr. Price expanded on the content of his paper and presented elements of various case histories of bored piles instrumented by the Building Research Establishment. In particular, the interpretation of data from instrumented piles is critically related to: (i) the construction process (ii) concrete stiffness and variability (iii) the effects on the pile due to installing instruments The main role of the instrumentation in the examples presented was to establish pile performance under service loading conditions. Of particular interest is the mobilisation of skin friction and soil shear modulus.

Jan 1, 1991

By Upendra L. Karna

The pile capacity gain with time evaluated and implemented for the construction of the Route 21 Viaduct in Newark, NJ, U.S.A is discussed in this paper. The project consisted of the replacement of more than 3.2 km of viaduct and ramps. The project site consists of thick residual materials deposited by the Wisconsin Glacier over sedimentary rocks. The upper portion is glacial-lacustrine deposit underlain by marginal morainic till and stratified drift. Subsurface investigations identified significant variations in layer thickness and grain size consistency. The site was characterized into 4 Soil types, based on subsurface soil behavior. Closed end 600 mm and 450 mm diameter driven pipe piles were used for the foundation. Loading tests conducted during an advanced construction contract, established that a significant soil set-up could be expected. For the first construction contract, a pilot loading test program consisting of 112 dynamic loading tests and 77 re-strikes (at 2 to 4 weeks) using the PDA (Pile Driving Analyzer) with CAPWAP (Case Pile Wave Analyses Program) was conducted to establish the soil set-up behavior. Nine (9) quick static loading tests were conducted to substantiate the long-term pile capacity. Based on the loading test results, average set-up factors were established and utilized for developing production pile driving criteria. Bearing resistance with depth was analyzed and reviewed. The set-up factors varied significantly, ranging from 1.05 to 1.89, and averaged about 1.30. Conclusions are derived. Set-up factors behavior for each soil type plotted by linear regression are presented and discussed. An appropriate set-up with time relationship for a glacial soil is suggested.

Jan 1, 2006

By Morgan L. Race, Matthew R. Glisson

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

Jan 1, 2017

By Osama Safaqah

The new Cooper River Bridge will replace two existing bridges along U.S. Highway 17. The cable-stayed bridge will be one of the largest in the U.S and will connect the City of Charleston and the town of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. The 1,546-foot long main span over Cooper River is supported by two diamond-shaped towers and will allow for 1000-foot wide navigation channel. The Charleston high-level approach is approximately 4351-foot long and will provide 250-foot wide navigation channel over Town Creek, while the Mount Pleasant high-level approach is 2090-foot long. Due to the high seismicity in the region, potential vessel impact, and hurricanes, large lateral loads are expected. Among various types of foundations, 10-foot diameter drilled shafts were selected for their high capacity against lateral loading. The shafts are founded on a stiff to very stiff lightly cemented calcareous sandy clay or sandy silt layer, called Cooper Marl, which underlies coastal sediments of interbedded clays and sands. The main towers will be supported on a group of 11 shafts and protected from ship collision by a rock island. The High Level Approach piers will be supported on a pair of 2 shafts. The shaft tip elevation is up to 230 feet below water line. An elaborate geotechnical investigation has been conducted on the site including a load test program on full-scale shafts under axial and lateral loads. The results of the tests were used to calibrate the lateral and axial soil resistance. The objective of this paper is to present the different aspects of the bridge foundation design.

Jan 1, 2005

By Rudolph P. Frizzi

Quality control is essential for augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles (also known as continuous flight auger (CFA) piles outside the United States) and augered displacement (AD) piles since the pile is constructed below the ground surface out of the direct sight of the personnel constructing and inspecting the pile. ACIP piles are being successfully constructed to support high-rise structures, arenas and stadiums, mass transit systems, and power and industrial facilities. The use of AD pile technology is also gaining ground in the United States, typically utilizing proprietary systems such as Omega (currently utilzed by Richard Goettle Inc., and LG Barcus and Sons, Inc.), Berkel, and DeWal (currently utilized by Morris-Shea). Different types of ACIP/AD pile installation equipment are shown in Figures 1 and 2. ACIP piles are installed into granular and cohesive soils, and soft rock to lengths currently approaching 130 ft (39.5 m), with diameters up to 24 to 36 inches (610 to 915 mm), and sustaining design loads approaching 900 kips (4000 kN). Current AD pile installation equipment in the United States is capable of installing up to 79-ft-long (24 m) piles with diameters ranging from 12 to 18 inches (305 mm to 460 mm).

Jan 1, 2002

By Yu Zhenquan

At the construction site of Bao Shan Iron &. Steel Mill in Shanghai, lots of RC driven piles with length of 50 to 60m were applied. The most unfavourable distribution of stress along the pile shaft was known by measuring the compressive and tensive stresses. With analysing the test results a phenomenon of impact fatigue of RC pile was discovered, the range of impact fatigue and its critical zone can be distinguished. Finally some countermeasures are presented to avoid the impact fatigue of RC long pile.

Jan 1, 1991

By James A. Schneider

Selection of resistance factors within Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) requires accurate assessment of uncertainty and bias in load and resistance. To date, many studies have focused predominantly on the assessment of uncertainty, while the potential for bias appears to be the dominant factor in design for consistent levels of reliability under a variety of situations. Bias comes from factors which have been ignored in design method development but significantly influence resistance when extrapolating from conditions typical of databases to those at a given site. Uncertainty and bias can be quantified as the coefficient of variation and mean (or median) of a data set, respectively, for statistical assessment of load and resistance factors. This paper first presents an overview of statistical assessment of resistance factors, and then discusses factors that influence uncertainty and bias when extrapolating to situations outside of conventional databases of driven pile axial capacity.

Jan 1, 2009

By Yvone Franco Crosato

The dense population of Hong Kong requires the construction of tall buildings in reclaimed areas or perched on the slopes of the many hills. The large loads to be supported are carried by deep foundations. Many of those are bored piles, to rock, of diameters up to the 3.0 m. of today.

Jan 1, 2000

By Christian Divis

[ ]

Jan 1, 2002

By William S. Heckman

a. When to use: high surcharges, vertical capacity required, limit noise and eliminate vibrations, low headroom, eliminate vibration induced settlements. b. Advantages: eliminates impact noise and vibrations, high section modulus if required, vertical load bearing capacity; corrosion resistant, easy to apply facing for use as a permanent wall, adapts to complex wall layouts, would allow top- down construction, very high uplift resistance. c. Disadvantages: spoil disposal, not water tight, cannot penetrate rock and most obstructions, soil can erode between the piles if surface water and ground water are not controlled, hard to install reinforcing beams over 409 long; subject to high negative skin friction loads, high grout takes in rubble and organic soils. e. Relative cost to other systems: 30% to 50% more expensive than driven soldier piles and lagging except when surcharge loads are involved, or the pile cannot be driven due to noise and vibrations. About the same cost as a sheet pile system. Very competitive if high vertical load must be supported by the wall.

Jan 1, 1997

By Alan B. Wagner

Data from seven instrumented pile load tests in Milwaukee, Wisconsin and two other instrumented load tests reported in the literature, one in Evanston, Illinois and one in Houston, Texas were reviewed. The data were for pipe piles having diameters from 9-5/8 inches to 18 inches, driven to depths between 36 and 96 feet. These data were used to develop a relationship between effective vertical stress and unit side friction and unit end bearing. These relationships were based on readily measured soil parameters, undrained shear strength, Cu, and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) values. This Beta (ß) and Nt approach and four other methods were then used to calculate the bearing capacity of the nine cases analyzed. The results from each of the methods are compared with the measured results.

Jan 1, 1991