Search Documents

By Brian Wilson, John Scholte, Megan Atkinson

"In November 2004, the residents of the City of Nanaimo, B.C., Canada voted to approve a new conference centre as the centrepiece of a proposed revitalization project for the city’s historic downtown core. The proposal goal was to replace a cluster of derelict buildings with a dynamic and modern complex that would connect existing city facilities to a new conference facility, the Vancouver Island Conference Centre (VICC). The conference centre is expected to create 150 full-time jobs, attract visitors/ delegates from across North America and generate new economic opportunities for local businesses.However, the proposed site posed a number of geotechnical and geoenvironmental challenges. As is often the case with coastal cities, historic growth of the Nanaimo downtown and harbour area was achieved through reclamation of former waterfront areas and inlets. These areas were often infilled with random fills and even wastes, leaving a legacy of variable density heterogeneous fills contaminated with a variety of pollutants. Preliminary assessment of the site indicated a high likelihood of a requirement for deep foundations, a high risk of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and the presence of both soil and groundwater contamination. Construction would be further complicated by the requirement for two levels of basement parking and the proximity of adjacent buildings and major roadways to the work area.With a limited budget (fixed by the referendum) and timeframe, the city needed a cost-effective solution to proceed with construction. A number of options were considered, but an innovative design using leading-edge Cutter Soil Mixer (CSM) technology best met the geotechnical and budgetary requirements of the site. The CSM approach also addressed the environmental concerns of contaminated soils and groundwater. Golder Associates Innovative Applications (GAIA) Inc., in association with the designers of their parent company Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), proposed the CSM technology — at the time the first North American application."

Jan 1, 2008

By William G. Ryan, David S. Graham, Dan A. Brown, Rich A. Lamb, Paul J. Axtell

"The St. Croix River Crossing project on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border has been in the process of planning and public debate for two decades, with several changes in alignment. During the course of the earlier planning process in 1995, a drilled shaft load test was performed to obtain preliminary design information. There were some difficulties in maintaining stability within the weak sandstone bearing formation, and the measured axial resistance was relatively low. Subsequent experience by the Minnesota Department of Transportation with similar weak sandstones on the I-35W project suggests that improved construction techniques using modern drilling fluids may offer opportunities for improved performance. During final design in 2012 a second load test program was performed of a full scale test shaft constructed using polymer drilling fluids. The stability of the socket excavation in the weak sandstone appeared to be greatly improved and the measured axial resistance significantly higher.This case history illustrates the excellent performance that drilled shafts can provide in even relatively weak sandstone bedrock as well as the profound influence on axial resistance associated with the construction techniques used. The improved resistance values obtained by the new load test with more recent construction technology allowed the foundation scheme to be substantially optimized with respect to the number and size of required drilled shafts, reducing the size, cost, and risk of the coffercells and footings.IntroductionThe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has awarded the first phase of a bridge construction project that will cross the St. Croix River between Oak Park Heights, MN and St Joseph, WI. The first phase construction contract involves building the river pier substructures including groups of drilled shafts beneath each tower leg. A general location of the bridge project is provided in Figure 1.Prior to award of the construction contract, two separate design-phase axial load tests were performed on non-production drilled shafts with rock sockets. Both tests were static, bottom-up tests using the Osterberg Cell (O-cell). The first test was performed in 1995 when final design and construction was thought to be imminent. After years of public debate and literally, an act of Congress, design of the project was finally restarted and a second load test performed in 2012. The 1995 test was conducted on the Minnesota bank approximately 900 ft southwest of the St. Croix River bank. The 2012 test was conducted in the river about 2,100 ft northeast of the1995 test location. A plan-view of the project indicating the test program locations relative to the bridge alignment is provided in Figure 2."

Jan 1, 2015

By Dharmil Patel, Michael J. Chow

"Construction progress is nearing completion at a Brownfield Site for a 100,000sf mixed-use 10 story building plus cellar for Silver Star Motors including a two-floor pre-owned Mercedes Benz showroom; high-end residential rental studios, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments; and penthouses on the upper two floors. Excavation through impacted soil extended to 15ft depth. Project is approximately 7 ft north of a NYCT subway station, portions of the SOE are within inches of a 6ft diameter NYCDEP Sewer, and cellar extends below the depth of adjacent structures, requiring over 200 lf of underpinning.A complex series of earth retention systems was utilized consisting of underpinning, drilled-in soldier piles (micro-piles), timber/concrete lagging, soil anchors and inclined rakers supported by a partially constructed foundation mat. Foundation mat subgrade was approximately 4 ft below the groundwater level creating more challenges during underpinning and achieving suitable foundation subgrades. All construction was undertaken on a non-union basis.This paper describes the design, construction, and lessons learned for the multiple earth retention systems, Brownfield Remediation requirements, instrumentation, and monitoring used to manage complications of building adjacent to an active subway station, in close proximity to existing utilities, with underpinning and mat foundation installation below the water table.Results of the instrumentation program are summarized which utilized an AMTS, monitoring prisms on adjacent structures, automated seismographs, and manual NYCT surveys."

Jan 1, 2016

By Hyun. I. Park

Although numerous investigations have been performed over the years to predict the behavior and bearing capacity of piles, the mechanisms of these behavior and bearing capacity of piles have yet to be entirely understood. Bearing capacity is difficult to predict, because it is affected by many parameters, which have complex relationship with each other. The present paper describes the application of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in dynamic load tests to predict the resistance of driven piles. The tip, shaft, and total pile resistances can be predicted only for piles with available corresponding measurements of these values. The design methodology composed of ANN and genetic algorithm (GA) is applied to find the optimal neural network model to predict pile resistance. The results of this study indicate that the neural network model serves as a reliable and simple tool for predicting the capacity of driven piles.

Jan 1, 2006

By Filippo Leoni, Wesley Schmutzler

"The LPV-111 East Back Levee Improvement Project lies along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in Orleans Parish of New Orleans, La., and is an essential component of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System. The Hurricane Protection Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) attributed failure of the New Orleans East levees system to overtopping, erosion and subsequent breaching of LPV-111 along the GIWW, as well as other sections of flood protection during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The existing levee suffered extensive damages from Hurricane Katrina, such that the USACE elected to provide earth stabilization and to rebuild the levee sections. Due to the adverse geotechnical properties of the foundation soils, the Corps deemed ground improvement necessary to stabilize the new levee and to limit its footprint. Wet Deep Mixing Method (DMM) was selected as the most suitable technology for this task.ChallengesDesign: This reach specifically protects East New Orleans and the Bayou Savage National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban wildlife refuge in the U.S. and home to several threatened or endangered species of birds as well as many reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. The Corps chose DMM due to the sensitivity of the protected marshlands and because the method limits the footprint of the raised levees. The increase in the load bearing capacity of the treated soil significantly decreases the footprint necessary to attain the required height increase. This limitation required the new levee to have steep slopes, drastically increasing the surcharge on foundation soils characterized by overall poor geotechnical properties (soft clays and peats). The design also considered the increased horizontal stresses on the levees due to the extreme storm surges during a hurricane.The design of the 1.6 m diameter (5.25 ft) DMM elements called for overlapping them to form a double auger element that formed buttresses perpendicular to the levee alignment. The contractor installed the buttresses at a maximum on center spacing of 4.7 m (15.5 ft). One additional double auger DMM element was midway between consecutive buttresses at the centerline of the levee to further help prevent settlement (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2013

By Georgette Hlepas

How often phrases like these have been made by project managers and project teams trying to explain why there has been cost growth, project delays and differing site conditions claims. But does it really take x-ray vision? Do we really approach geotechnical construction projects unprepared for the subsurface that may be encountered because we can't get the answer? Too often our industry seems to think the answer is, "yes." However, this is not because we can't understand the subsurface. All too frequently it is because a choice is made to save money or time by foregoing or shortchanging upfront subsurface investigations. This is accepting a risk at the beginning of the process and realizing it during construction. Case histories have proven time and time again that upfront investment in site exploration and constructing a ground model mitigates risk in design and construction. But how much do we prepare? What level of investigation (or investment) is appropriate? The answer of course, is it depends; how much risk are you willing to take for your project and what are the potential consequences?

May 1, 2022

By Arash Saeidi-Rashk-Olia, Dunja Peric

Energy piles are gaining increased popularity due to a growing demand for clean energy. To further advance the understanding of soil-structure interaction in energy piles, recently-derived analytical solutions have been implemented to investigate the impact of stratigraphy on the soil-structure interaction. This was accomplished by comparing the measured and predicted head displacements, axial strains and stresses in an energy pile embedded in the actual homogeneous and layered soil profiles, as well as into synthetic homogeneous soil profiles. The analytical solutions for homogeneous soil profile captured the smooth experimentally observed response versus depth very well. In the case of a layered soil profile, the corresponding analytical model was capable of capturing nuances in trends of axial stress and strain versus depth at the interface of different layers. The analytical predictions for the layered profile appear to be slightly less accurate than for the homogenous profile. The experimental data obtained from the layered profile appear to be a bit more scattered than those from the homogeneous profile. In the former case, the interplay of the individual soil layers with the pile occurs while maintaining the continuity of the pile stress and displacement at the interface of different layers. The response throughout each layer of the layered profile is quantitatively different than the corresponding homogeneous response. Nevertheless, qualitatively the response throughout each layer of the layered profile is similar to the response of the pile embedded in the corresponding homogeneous layer.

Sep 8, 2021

By Theodore von Rosenvinge

Large diameter (2.4 meter) drilled shaft foundations were installed to depths of over 62 meters through soil into Arkose bedrock for Connecticut?s Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (I-95 over New Haven Harbor). The project involved many ?firsts? including the first ?extradosed? cable-stayed bridge in the US, and for Connecticut, the deepest drilled shafts, the first use of a rotator to install shaft casing, and the first use of the Mini-Sid technology for rock socket bottom inspection. Design utilized both friction and end bearing for rock sockets. O-Cell testing was employed to maximize performance factors during design and to allow adjustments to socket lengths during construction. Favorable test results permitted a reduction in socket lengths and significant cost saving.

Jan 1, 2011

By Jun Ohbayashi, Yoshiyuki Yagiura, Hiroaki Miyatake, Masuo Kondoh, Naotoshi Shinkawa

"Reducing the improvement ratio of ground improvement is an extremely efficient way to reduce the construction cost and construction period of mitigation measures for soft ground. The Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column (ALiCC Method) is one method for this, and it is being increasingly applied to sites. This method enables us to rationally evaluate the embankment loads that are acting on cement improved soil columns and unimproved ground, by considering the arch action generated in the embankments and from there thusly allocate improved soil columns in spans of a greater distance than those needed for conventional methods. As a result, it serves to reduce construction costs and the construction period, while also minimizing the settling of the embankment and differential settlement, by placing numerous improved soil columns in the ground immediately beneath the embankment at equidistant intervals. In this report, we give a basic overview of the ALiCC Method, report typical construction results from real life cases that have been carried out, and make comparisons with other construction methods in order to report on the effectiveness of this design method.OVERVIEW OF ARCH ACTION LOW IMPROVEMENT RATIO CEMENT COLUMN (ALiCC) METHODIn the area of mitigation measures for soft ground, a significant role is played by ground improvements using improved materials such as cement. For this reason, a reduction in construction costs and construction period required for ground improvements has become of greater importance. The Public Works Research Institute carried out joint research with Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co. Ltd., Kitac Co. Ltd., and Fudo Tetra Co. Ltd. over a period from 1998 through 2002, and, from that, developed the ""Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column Method"" (hereinafter referred to as the ""ALiCC Method"") that enables ground improvement with a lower improvement ratio (the improved area ratio is approx. 10% to 30%) than is required for conventional methods, while also ensuring stabilization and minimizing the settling of embankments.In the area of mitigation methods for soft ground by deep mixing, the dominant method until now has been that (50% or more of improvement ratio) shown in Fig. 1. This method comprehensively improves the area under the face of the slopes of both sides of the embankment. This is based on the calculated stability against rotational slip, which states, ""the most effective way to ensure the stabilization of the embankment environment is to carry out improvements of the area under the face of the slope."" Therefore, for the area under the face of the slope, ground improvement by deep mixing was done, and for the soft ground in the area under the middle part of the embankment, accelerated consolidation methods (hereinafter referred to as ""conventional method"") such as sand draining method and paper draining method were used. Mitigation measures that combine these improvement methods have also been mainstream for a long period of time and are used to prevent side deformation around the embankment. However, there have been some problems that have occurred, such as a situation where consolidation settling occurs in the center area under the embankment where no improvement had been carried out. This phenomenon leads to a situation in which the improved soil columns in the area under the face the of slope are pushed to the outside, which results in side deformation occurring around the area of the embankment, and additionally the occurrence of a step due to a situation of differential settlement between the improved ground and the consolidation advancing part, which results in cracks in the embankment."

Jan 1, 2015

By Prasanta Paul, Aminul Islam

"Nhava Sheva (India) Gateway Terminal Private Limited proposed to construct a container terminal yard, comprising a back-up area at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Terminal (JNPT), Uran, Maharashtra. The proposed container terminal yard is located on a recent reclamation on the Thane Creek, which was developed by land-based reclamation method. The underneath soft marine clay was treated, using vertical band drains and placement of surcharge upon.Settlement of the reclamation during its construction was monitored using settlement plate installed at +4.8m CD elevation which was above the highest high water level.This paper examines the settlement behaviour of the reclamation during the ground improvement works. The geotechnical parameters are back-analyzed by the authors from the field settlement results and the concerned preloading details. The back analyzed coefficients of consolidation due to horizontal flow (Ch) are compared with laboratory determined parameters and the estimated value, using Asaoka Method (1978). The authors also studied field compression ratio [CR= Cc/(1+e0)] vs. the compression ratio determined by laboratory test using back-analysis method.1. INTRODUCTIONNhava Sheva (India) Gateway Terminal Private Limited proposed to construct a container terminal yard, comprising a back-up area of approximately 27 hectares, complete with associated buildings and services on a part brownfield/ greenfield site. The back-up area shall include a heavy duty block paved pavement with band beams for electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry Crane (eRTGC) alongwith surface water drainage system and other services including area lighting, provision of fire-fighting facilities , sources for potable water and power.Based on the Employer’s Requirement and the available geotechnical investigation report, ground improvement scheme is designed by the construction contractor. Ground improvement works included the installation of prefabricated vertical drains and subsequent placement of surcharge for accelerating the consolidation of the underlying soft marine clay."

Jan 1, 2015

By Paolo Cavalcoli, Federico Pagliacci

"As opposed to the static functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles). Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago. These are real challenges for those carrying out these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the rhetorical figure of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In reference to the case studies in this article: the permanent retaining walls for the Copenhagen Metro, and the structural repairs to the Arapuni Dam in New Zealand and the Wolf Creek Dam in the U.S., we will describe the foundations constructed in presence of rock using combined small-diameter direction drilling solutions, associated with their enlargement up to the project’s size, at depths exceeding 300 feet. Finally, a case study will be presented on the implementation of a large cross-section of an excavation in the rock, at depths greater than 800 feet.IntroductionAs opposed to the functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles).Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago.These are real challenges for those building these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the biblical figures of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In the engineering field, the force is summarized in the use of ever-larger drilling equipment in terms of installed power, weight in working conditions, winch and rotary capacity."

Jan 1, 2015

By Vijaya Bhushan Rao, Jason Redgers

The typical Vibrocompaction projects undertaken in the UAE are on reclaimed Sands. These Sands which are predominantly the crushable, calcareous, carbonate sands found locally as opposed to the more common quartz or silica sands that are featured in most design literature. The famous reclamations such as the iconic Palm Jumeirah in Dubai, often have specification for mitigation of liquefaction induced settlements, bearing capacity increases and total and differential settlement requirements. Often these performance targets are achieved by the means of achieving a particular relative density that are generally measured by a defined Cone Penetration Test, CPT targeting values of cone resistance (Qc), MPa at respective depth zones. In this paper some case studies are presented, where soil suitability for deep compaction by vibratory methods was firstly assessed for suitability using the Massarsch, 1991 compactability chart prior to the application of vibrocompaction and its subsequent evaluation. One such project named the Island Development required 17 to 23m depth of penetration only to treat the lower 5 to 6m of sand above rockhead as eventually the top 15m of sand will be further excavated to allow for the construction of basement. The paper will present pre and post CPT results, the results of initial site calibration trials and evaluation of the completed works.

Oct 1, 2022

By Robert S. Thomas, Bernard M. Tarralle, Nasser Massoudi

"The Commonwealth of Virginia is restoring and expanding its Capitol of great historic significance. Designed by Thomas Jefferson in 1785, it is the second oldest Capitol building in the United States. The building expansion required excavations immediately adjacent to its South Portico. The building, which rests on shallow brick footings, is very sensitive to any disturbance caused by construction and excavation. A comprehensive and secure plan of operations was devised by the design team to ensure that this national monument remains unharmed by the new construction. Various construction techniques were implemented to satisfy the strict movement goal of 0.25 inch and distortion of U2000. They consisted of jet grout columns to stabilize the upper soils, compensation grouting for future foundation leveling, a tied-back reinforced concrete diaphragm wall for excavation retention and foundations, and realtime instrumentation for monitoring. This paper describes the design approach for the retention system, providing information on the various construction phases and techn iques, and reports on the movements recorded by the real-time monitoring system during the course of the project. At the time of this manuscript preparation, and the deep excavation complete to final grade, the results indicate that the extremely restrictive building movement criteria have been met. The success can be credited to detailed design, close cooperation among the project team, prudent construction methods, and real-time monitoring. INTRODUCTIONThe Commonwealth of Virginia is undertaking a comprehensive renovation and expansion of the Virginia Capitol building located in Richmond, Virginia. The Capitol building was designed by Thomas Jefferson in 1785, with construction of the original building starting the same year. The Capitol building was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1960 and was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1966.A part of the comprehensive renovation and expansion of the Capitol is a 25,000-square foot, two-level subterranean extension on the south side of the Capitol building, which will serve as a new Visitor Center and public entrance for the Capitol. Deep excavations were required for the construction of the new Visitor Center. The excavation required a permanent retention system to accommodate an approximately 40- foot deep excavation."

Jan 1, 2005

By A. Paviani

The subject of this session is "Equipment Installa­tion, Recent Developments". This is a subject which is not usually addressed at conferences of Foundation Engineering. It is rare to find sessions dealing with the technological side of deep foundations, a subject which only recently seems to have aroused sufficient interest at national and international conferences. It is therefore natural for the subject of "Equipment", or the tools used to implement the various "technologies", to be over­looked or mentioned only occasionally during the discussion of other issues. At conferences, most of the attention is attached to research and to the theoretical interpretation of the performance and behaviour of deep foundations, as well as to establishing the most suitable calculation algorithms and approaches for the study, design and control of foundation structures. It is almost as if the subject of equipment is felt to be less important or, perhaps, that it is considered to belong more strictly to mechanical engineering than to civil engineering.

Jan 1, 1994

By William B. Conway

This paper will describe the large caisson pier foundations for four of the bridges crossing the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area; and will discuss some of the unusual problems encountered during their sinking. Certain settlement phenomena experienced during their service life will also be related: The four bridges in order of their construction: The Huey P. Long Bridge, River Mile 106.1, completed in 1935 The Greater New Orleans Bridge No.1, River Mile 96.0, completed in 1958 The Hale Boggs Bridge, River Mile 121.6, completed in 1983 The Greater New Orleans Bridge No.2, River Mile 96.1, completed in 1988 Each of these bridges employed large open-dredged concrete caissons as foundations for one or more of the river piers, with the smallest being the 65ft by 102ft caissons for Piers I and II of the Huey P. Long Bridge and the largest being the 99ft by 214ft caisson for Pier II of the Greater New Orleans Bridge No.2. The Huey P. Long caissons are founded in a dense fine sand at -170 while all of the other bridge caissons are founded in hard preconsolidated clay at elevations varying from -150 to -185. The Huey P. Long Bridge is currently being widened without increasing the caisson foundations under any of the river piers; and the design reasoning that led to this decision is presented.

May 11, 2007

By Ronnie X. Gu, Xing Zheng, Gem-Yeu Ma

Due to implementation of the rotator construction method from which a smooth shaft was anticipated, a full-scale pile load test (Osterberg Method) was performed at Pier 14 Pile 9 of the main span of the New Benicia-Martinez Bridge to confirm the design parameters of the rock sockets. Two levels of load cells were fabricated in the reinforced cage of the rock socket. Each level consisted of three 670-mm Osterberg load cells with a total testing capacity of more than 50 MN in both directions. In an attempt to separate side friction and end beari ng, a 75 mm thick compressible Styrofoam material was placed at the bottom of the cage. The pile load test was carried out in four stages. The multi-level multi stage pile load test data was interpreted for casing friction, side friction for two rock strata, end bearing, and residual side shear values under repeated loading in opposite directions. The side friction from the casing in soils at Stage 2 is approximately 9 MN. The end bearing at the tip of the rock socket at Stage 3 was calculated to be approximately 17 MN at a displacement of about 75 mm. The residual side shear resistance for the 10 m 50% RQD rock strata was calculated to be 9 MN or approximately 50% of initial values, after being pushed 0.3 mm upward in Stage 1, 71 mm downward in Stage 2, then 55.5 mm upward again in Stage 3, and finally 105.3 mm downward in Stage 4. The test results surprising ly indicate that the side shear resistances from both low RQD intensely weathered rock and higher RQD slightly weathered competent rock are about the same at approximately 19 MN. This pile load test provides very critical information for confirming deep shaft design and analyses.

Jan 1, 2005

By Ke Yang

"Drilled shafts are typically used to support structures subjected to large moments at the shaft head. The large moment can produce push and pull forces on the two sides of a drilled shaft. Consequently, the applied moment is partially resisted by the push-pull moment resistance induced from the vertical side shears. This type of push-pull resistance has not been fully recognized in most design and analysis methods. In this paper, a 30 finite element model for a drilled shaft subjected to lateral load and moment is presented and is validated against two field lateral load tests. Based on the 30 finite element model, a parametric study is carried out. It shows that the push-pull moment can resist 18-35% of the applied moment. The parametric study also shows that the push-pull resistance varies linearly with loading eccentricity when the eccentricity is less than the shaft embedment length. A method to estimate the push-pull resistance is proposed based on the results of the parametric study. Then, a new method for lateral capacity prediction is proposed to account for the push-pull resistance. The base shear resistance is significant for short drilled shafts; therefore it is also included in the proposed method. A case study on four lateral load field tests illustrates that the new method could improve the accuracy of lateral capacity prediction when compared with the traditional Broms method.INTRODUCTIONDrilled shafts are typically used to support a variety of structures subjected to large moments. Sound walls, highway signs, traffic signals, high-rise buildings, electrical transmission towers, and bridge piers are examples of cases where lateral loads with large eccentricity would result in high overturning moments on foundations.Current analysis methods for capacity predictions (Broms, 1964a and 1964b; Brinch Hansen, 1961) or deflection predictions (Reese, et al. 197 4) of laterally loaded drilled shafts are based on the lateral resistance of soils and rocks. However, O'Neill pointed out that moments can be partially resisted through the push-pull resistance provided by the vertical side shears due to the rotation of the pile (Reese, 1997)."

Jan 1, 2005

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 is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Four drilled shafts, two on each side of the bridge (NJ and NY), were load tested using the bi-directional axial load method. Axial test results demonstrate that RQD, taken by itself, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of side or base resistance. High recovery with low RQD can be a function of horizontally bedded siltstone and shale where the individual pieces of core do not exceed four inches, but may still provide very high side and base resistance. Axial testing was followed by a lateral rapid-load test (Statnamic) on each of the same four shafts. In addition, one of the shafts was subjected to a static lateral load test to validate the rapid-load method as being representative of static loading conditions. Results of the axial load tests provide the basis of unit side and unit base resistances used in the LRFD design of the rock sockets for axial loading, while results of the static and Statnamic lateral load tests were used to calibrate p-y curve parameters used for design under lateral and moment loading. This paper describes implementation of the load testing program and its role in the design process.INTRODUCTIONDesign of drilled shaft foundations for the Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) required load testing in order to validate the parameters used for calculating geotechnical axial and lateral resistances. The bridge, including foundations, was designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, 6th Edition (2012). The bridge owner is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). One of the PANYNJ project requirements was stated as follows:“Perform a minimum of two (2) separate axial compression load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology to verify the design assumptions and construction procedures. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.Conduct a minimum of two (2) lateral load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.”"

Jan 1, 2016

By Evangelia Ieronymaki

Civil engineering education relies on traditional methods of teaching, comprising mostly of deductive instruction by presenting the theory, followed by applications. This paper presents an alternative way for teaching foundation design to senior students, introducing a more inductive approach. The students are presented with a project/game adapted to a real-world problem at the beginning of the course. They are asked to identify the correct steps and methods throughout the lectures, for reaching an appropriate solution that they document and present at the end of the course. To make the project more enjoyable, the project has the format of a game where the students compete with each other on completing the task faster and more efficiently. The goal of this teaching approach is to enhance the ability of the students for problem solving and the engineering way of thinking, while playing a game. In the end, the students were requested to respond to a survey regarding the efficiency of this project/game on their learning. The results showed that students prefer more inductive methods for a design course, feeling that this project made them think more like engineers, while the ‘game’ twist of it made the whole course more fun. INTRODUCTION Most civil engineering courses are taught in 2019 the same way they used to be taught 40 years ago in the 80s. Classic methods are mostly deductive, where the instructor presents the theory first and then applications of that theory follow. Little or no attention is given initially to why the theory was developed or what are the problems it solves. The applications of the theory, and thus the purpose it serves, come only in the end and after methodologies have been presented, leading the students to show low interest in the material. As Albanese and Mitchell (1993) have reported, people are mostly motivated to learn things when they clearly see the need to know them. This explains the students’ little motivation that, if any, comes mainly from the fact that the material may be useful either in other courses or in their future careers. On the other hand, there are alternative inductive methods of teaching, where the role of the students is more active. A lot of researchers have highlighted the benefits of inductive methods in teaching engineering courses. Based on Prince and Fedler (2006), inductive methods include; a) inquiry-learning, b) discovery learning, c) problem and project-based learning (PBL), d) case-based teaching, and e) just-in-time learning. Inquiry-learning is maybe the most traditional method of inductive teaching/learning methods, where the instructor asks questions or poses problems and the students need to apply the theory they have learnt in order to find the solution (Bateman 1990; Prince 2004; Lee 2012). Similar to inquire-learning is the discovery learning, where students have to find the solution to a problem or answer to a question, while the instructor simply provides feedback to the students without guiding their efforts (Leonard 1988; Westbrook and Rogers 1994).

Jan 1, 2019

By Lois G. Schwarz

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

Feb 10, 2003