Search Documents

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 1994

Jan 1, 1995

By Donald Bruce

The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: ? Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. ? Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. ? Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications. Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

"The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: • Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. • Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. • Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications.Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.The owner, designer and contractor will together be responsible for the tasks associated with the design, installation, acceptance, and performance of the micropiles. The installation of micropiles requires specialized equipment, techniques, and appropriate workmanship. Not every detail of the work can be specified, and not every potential problem can be anticipated. Therefore, a contractor who has demonstrated experience in micropiles must be selected to execute the work required."

Jan 1, 2004

By H. Boghosian

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in a steeply sloping site in glacial till in Glasgow city centre. Existing foundations, adjacent structures and services, in tandem with asymmetric loading, presented particular challenges in the planning, execution and design of the project. The construction methods and temporary works, analysis by the Finite Element method and monitoring carried out are all described.

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 2003

By BRETTMANN TRACY

Jan 1, 2000

Jan 1, 1991

By Gustavo E. Armijo

This job was done in Morristown, NJ, with mono fluid system jet grouting for the construction of a new bank building. After the demolition of the existing two story structures, an excavation in loose sandy fill materials was necessary in order to reach the new structure basement level. Due to this jet grouting was selected as a medium to provide both excavation support and permanent underpinning, minimizing the adjacent building settlements. These two adjacent buildings were partially underpinned with a "gravity wall" made with 2 and 3 rows of secant vertical and inclined jet grout columns. Besides the classical jet grouting control methods, during the jet grouting execution, all the drilling and grouting parameters were recorded by a proprietary system called "Slogger". Additionally, after the jet grouting execution, an innovative result control technique was used by means of the application of the same parameter recording system. Some of the production columns were re-drilled and a comparison was made between the obtained drilling parameters and those obtained for the same age test columns. Under the referred existing conditions and in comparison with the conventional underpinning techniques, this project demonstrated that jet grouting, with proper execution and result control, can be faster than them and can maintain the building structural stability and act, at the same time, as a retention system minimizing the existing building settlements.

Jan 1, 2002

By Robert Thurner

The underground car park "Admonterhof in the historical centre of Graz is an example for the technical and economical success of a complicated structural design using a concept on the basis of the observational method. The intention to built a 20 m deep excavation beneath a protected monument was accompanied by some essential issues: the preservation of the existing state avoiding extensive displacements by means of a girder grid of reinforced concrete, its support on large bored piles and small steel-tube piles with possible active compensation of differential settlements, the excavation support in none built-up areas with secant bored piles, the underpinning of existing buildings with different structures by means of jet grouting. Furthermore the hydraulic gradient and the permeability of a rock formation in a part of the excavation had to be explored with the purpose to control the inflow of groundwater with a level difference of more than 10 m.

Jan 1, 2006

By Karl A. H iggins, James P. Racine

"Displacement Cast-in-Place (DCIP) piles are not a common deep foundation type in the Washington, DC Metro Area market. As a result, less regional data is available for these foundations compared to other alternate deep foundation types. Displacement cast-in-place piles (DCIP) differ from traditional Auger Cast-In-Place (ACIP) piles in that the pile annulus is formed by pushing a partially-flighted, auger bit to depth via a large mandrel. The auger bit includes a displacing body near the bottom of the tooling. Therefore, little to no spoils are generated during installation and the soil around the annulus is largely densified in-place due to the displacing body being slightly larger than the mandrel it is attached to.Due to this densification, one would expect that the theoretical DCIP capacities (compression or tension) would be greater than an ACIP pile (assuming a pile of similar length and diameter). After 20 static load tests and the installation of over 6,000+ piles on the MGM National Harbor Casino Project, the differences in pile support characteristics between DCIP and ACIP piles of same size and depth was small. The performance of both pile types depended on the density and type of soil within the bearing stratum. In some early cases of DCIP use, the performance exceeded expectations and appeared to be more in line (or better) than typical capacities obtained from driven displacement piles. Other times, the tip elevations could not be achieved or were so difficult to achieve that installation delays occurred and/or significant additional engineering effort was required to address piles short of their requirement embedment.This paper will discuss the limitations of DCIP pile installation in dense Coastal Plain soils and will present the lessons learned during this project. The paper will also compare the DCIP pile type to both conventional ACIP and driven displacement piles utilizing regional and site-specific load test and installation data."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1989

By Brian FitzPatrick, Michael J. Weaver

Everyone has a role in site safety, even consultants. This paper presents a summary of how a geotechnical and environmental consulting firm, with field staff on construction and subsurface explorations sites, engaged their staff and leveraged relationships with contractors to assess the construction related risks to which its staff members are exposed. These findings were then integrated into their technical training materials for both new staff and those needing a refresher, so that safety is discussed at the same time as the technical work and not treated as a separate topic. The paper outlines the process of identifying and evaluating the construction related risks that staff members face and presents examples of how the consultant can engage contractors in the process. By doing this, knowledge can be shared and there is a better mutual understanding of the risks associated with common construction and exploration related field tasks. The work resulted in an increase in staff engagement in safety, a better understanding of the true risks that staff face in the field, better relationships with contractors, and lower safety metrics. HISTORY At Haley & Aldrich, Inc., we renewed our safety journey in May 2012. Like many others, we had concerns over injuries our staff experienced in the three previous years, and a potentially significant utility strike we experienced while excavating a trench. In 2009, 2010 and 2011 we experienced an increase in recordable injuries, including two significant injuries, which caused our Experience Modification Rate (EMR) (see note below), Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), and Days Away-Restricted, and Transferred Rate (DART) to rise significantly. See Fig. 1 for details. This caused us to step back and review our approach to safety, and our “safety culture”. The rise in reportable incidents and injuries also corresponded to the beginning of a growth period for the company.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1994

Jan 1, 1993

Jan 1, 1987

By P. V. Chandramohan

"In ports, piled berths are designed and constructed for berthing of ships with a finite draught. Piles in a bridge foundation also have a large free stand above scoured level. The piles of these structures have to withstand large horizontal forces imparted by the impact of the approaching vessels or due to longitudinal and transverse action in a bridge. It is also imperative that these piles have to project out of the dredged / scoured bed. These piles are normally designed as slender compression members subjected to bending also. They are subjected to vertical load tests for assessing the soil resistance. Lateral load tests, as a rule, are also stipulated. IS and IRC codes stipulate a deflection criteria for lateral load test to arrive at the capacity. These tests are usually conducted on a working pile by jacking out two piles. At the time of the test, pile will be free headed. But in service, piles are fixed head. There is a large difference in deflections between a fixed head and a free headed pile. Besides, a free headed pile will be subjected to a much higher bending moment than the fixed head one. This will put the working test pile under risk of breaking during the test. The problem is analyzed with case studies. INTRODUCTION Vertical capacity of piles is assessed by static formulae. This formula is based on the soil properties obtained from random soil exploration and laboratory and in-situ testing. Since soil is not a homogeneous medium, properties can vary. The design parameters taken for computations may be different from the ones at the interface of the pile with the soil. The best way is to find out is by a load test. The code IRC:78-2014 has rightly stated that initial load test is part of the design process. This is true with the vertical load test. But there are certain problems with the purpose and inference of the lateral load test. In both the tests the criteria for acceptance is the quantum of movement of the point of application of the load. In the former, the movement is vertical and depends more on the compression of the soil than the compressive strain in concrete. But in the latter, this movement is partly on account of the flexural rigidity of the pile and partly due to the horizontal compressibility of the soil. The role of rigidity of the pile is more when compressibility of the soil is higher. Lateral load test is done by jacking one pile against another because it is difficult to get an independent horizontal reaction. Please see Fig.1 Photo."

Jan 1, 2015

Jan 1, 2002