Search Documents

By Armin W. Stuedlein, Youssef Bougataya

Early stage design of driven piles primarily relies on static analysis based on one or a combination of total and effective stress approaches, the latter known as the method to estimate axial capacity. A database of 85 piles driven in the Puget Sound Lowland region and monitored at End of Driving (EOD) and Beginning of Restrike (BOR) was compiled along with capacities estimated using the CAPWAP procedure. Established soil profiles based on borings with standard penetration tests (SPT), cone penetration tests, and geologic maps were matched with their corresponding unit shaft resistance profiles from the CAPWAP procedure and resulted in more than 1,200 observations. In this study, eight new models were developed to predict the coefficients at EOD and BOR, based on the corresponding USCS categorization. Each coefficient model is formulated using a three-parameter exponential function, calibrated to capture the profile of coefficients with depth. These models could benefit the designer by providing them with a simple, empirical model that accounts for soil type and setup in a smooth, continuous function with depth. A parallel analysis was performed to assess the accuracy and variability of the formulated prediction models to facilitate implementation in load and resistance factor design (LRFD). INTRODUCTION The design of the axial capacity of driven piles during the planning stages of a project is typically based on a static analysis approach. The goals of this approach are to predict the components of capacity, consisting of the shaft and toe bearing resistances, and to assess project concept feasibility and preliminary lengths. In most cases, this analysis is based on empirically-developed methods, such as the total stress method, also known as the method (Tomlinson 1987) or the effective stress method known as the method (Esrig and Kirby 1979; Fellenius 1991). Many other methods, such as those based on in-situ test results exist and rely on correlations of blow counts from the standard penetration test (SPT), and cone tip and sleeve friction resistance from the cone penetration test (CPT), to shaft and toe pile resistances (Schmertmann 1978; Meyerhof 1976; Nottingham and Schmertmann 1975; Nordlund 1963; Eslami and Fellenius, 1997; De Ruiter and Beringen 1979). Although these methods were generally developed using data from specific geological regions, they are often recommended in national design manuals (e.g., FHWA, Hannigan et al. 2006).

Jan 1, 2018

By Za-Chieh Moh

This paper presents a summary of the current pile foundation practice in Taiwan. Constructions of driven piles, drilled shafts, and barrette foundations are reviewed. This paper also briefly summarizes the pile works of four major construction projects in Taiwan, namely, Hsin-Ta Power Plant, Taichung Power Plant, Taipei Transit Systems, and Taiwan High Speed Rail.

Jan 1, 1996

By M. Dondelinger

This paper presents a comprehensive review of steel sheet piling including internationally manufactured hot rolled sections, their history, applications, installation and driving techniques. The discussion will cover both temporary and permanent installations; temporary piling used in construction of cofferdams with various bracing systems, deep foundation installations for buildings, bridges and tunnels, etc., and permanent piling used for highway, railroad and bridge construction as well as for riverbanks, piers, wharfs and docks, normally required for port facilities. In addition, cofferdams, as self-supporting gravity structures where interlock strength is of prime importance, will be discussed. The design and application of light, intermediate and heavy sections will be presented including heavy combined walls and information on Z-shaped, U-shaped and HZ sections and their corresponding interlocks. Emphasis is placed on new developments for design applications for deep foundations and waterfront structures within the "state of the art".

Jan 1, 2010

By Martin van Staveren

In today's rapid changing construction world, the business pressures on piling and deep foundations reach sky-high levels. Ever increasing complexity of construction projects do severely contribute to these business pressures. Projects are often constructed in densely populated areas and located close to vulnerable buildings and infrastructure. The inherent uncertainty of ground conditions plays a dominating role in these foundation projects. Effective risk management is a key success factor for profitable and sustainable operations of piling and deep foundations. It starts with a fundamental requirement to be aware of risks. Next the different risk perspectives of all stakeholders in any foundation project have to be acknowledged. A simple and structured risk management approach is introduced, to demonstrate that effective risk management is not necessarily that complicated. A major element is the contractual allocation of risks, as a result from differing ground conditions. It is based on the so-called Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR). The main objective of the GBR is to provide a clear contractual arrangement for the allocation of risks, arising from differing site conditions. The benefits of explicit risk management in general and contractual risk allocation in particular are illustrated with an example and experiences. The presented structured risk management approach, including contractual risk allocation, is still rather new. It proves to be promising for cost-effective risk control of piling and deep foundation projects, anywhere in the world.

Jan 1, 2006

This Workshop was held at the Doubletree Inn, Seattle, Washington from September 26 to 28, 1997. Run under the auspices of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI), it was co-funded by the newly formed Japanese Association of Micropiles (JAMP), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Workshop was jointly organized and facilitated by Fujita Research Corporation and ECO Geosystems, Inc., with close support by Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc. DFI kindly consented to publish these Proceedings. As is clear from the list of attendees, 42 specially invited engineers from all aspects of micropile technology were present, representing Japanese, European and American practice. This proved to be a most friendly and interactive group of people, who freely exchanged ideas, views and close comradeship, not only during the technical sessions, but (and especially!) during the numerous social events. Perhaps the best illustration of this came in Day 2 when the attendees were divided into five competing teams, each comprising representatives from the different geographic groupings. These teams had to quickly devise solutions to two technical problems (using standard data previously provided. A team of "referees" (who also acted as "coaches") later determined the most apposite response, based on constructability design concept, cost, schedule and so on. Not only were the winning team very liberal in distributing the prize (vintage California champagne) among themselves, but the whole Workshop soon benefited from their generous division of the spoils of victory.

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 1997

By J. Brian Anderson

Jointed micropiles were investigated to support bridge foundations where shallow rock was present. In this application, micropiles would have some amount of unsupported length, and would be subject to nominal lateral loads. Five lateral load tests were conducted on micropiles to demonstrate the impact of casing joints and rock socket embedment on lateral behavior. Load tests were simulated with FB-Multipier, a hybrid-finite element program for analysis of deep foundations, for proper design of the loading apparatus and instrumentation. The micropile sections were 2 m (6.56 ft) long, 273 mm (10.75 in) in diameter, 13 mm (0.5 in) thick walled, with a 50-mm (2-in) long threaded joint. Micropiles were made of one to three casing sections and were embedded 0.3, 0.6, 1.5, or 3.0 m (1, 2, 5, or 10 ft) into rock. In each test, two identical micropiles were pulled together using a simple frame until the weaker pile failed. All micropiles were instrumented with inclinometer casings while two contained strain gages at 0.76 m (2.5 ft) intervals. Load and displacement were measured at the pile heads. Tests showed the embedment of 0.6 m, 1.5 m, and 3.0 m (2 ft, 5 ft and 10 ft) sufficiently carried lateral loads over 180 kN (20 tons). The piles embedded 0.3 m (1 ft) were not able to maintain lateral load. In general, all micropiles tested to failure exhibited a brittle failure mode where there is small lateral deflection followed by a sudden failure at the casing joint. This was demonstrated in three of the load tests. In most cases, the micropiles were stiffer and stronger in the load tests than originally predicted numerically. The final test, where piles were not loaded to failure, verified that embedding vibrating wire rebar strain meters in the grout captured the bending moment profile of the micropile. The results showed the maximum moment in this case being carried directly across the threaded joint as predicted by the preliminary models. The results of these tests were used to calibrate the FB-Multipier numerical model. Using a load test that included bending strain measurements for a match, the soil properties were adjusted to produce reasonable matches for all of the load tests.

Jan 1, 2011

Jan 1, 1989

By John L. White

Vibratory driver/extractors do more than drive and extract sheet piles. I would say more than sixty percent (60%) of the time, vibratory pile driver/extractors are engaged in work that has nothing to do with sheet piles. This is the main reason I refer to this tool as a "driver/extractor", and omit the word "pile". I have spent the last twenty years applying the technology of the vibratory driver/ extractor to all areas of foundation construction. As you will see, the only limits are humankind's ingenuity.

Jan 1, 1997

By H. Meseck

The new building of the Central Bank of Iraq in Baghdad was footed in difficult underground conditions on more than 600 reinforced concrete driven piles, with cross-sectional diameters of 45 x 45 cm and pile lengths of 12.0 to 18.0 m. The necessary embedded depth and the bearing capacity thus reached were established on all 600 drives piles by means of dynamic pile tests. For the calibration of the dynamic pile tests, 6 static pile load tests were carried out. The execution of the construction and the results of the extensive tests on the building site are shown.

Jan 1, 1989

By Rick Deschamps, Brian Barkauskas, Aled Hughes, Abigail Stein

In central Washington, six miles south of the small town of Vantage, the flow of the Columbia River is harnessed by the Wanapum Dam which is part of the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project owned and operated by Grant County Public Utility District (GCPUD). Extending more than 8,300-feet from bank to bank, the dam includes left and right earth embankments, left and right concrete gravity sections and a 10-unit powerhouse. Adjacent to the right embankment is a concrete gravity spillway featuring radial gates measuring 50-feet-wide and nearly 70-feet-high. In the early 1960’s when Wanapum Dam was built, these seven-story spillway gates were the highest in the world. In late February 2014, 50-years into its service life, during a routine maintenance inspection, observant workers noticed a slight misalignment in the roadway deck curbs and handrails located on top of the spillway. Further survey and inspection efforts uncovered a 65-foot-long by two- inch-wide crack that spanned the full length of Monolith 4. On discovering the extent of the damage, GCPUD initiated immediate drawdown of the reservoir to relieve pressure on the spillway monoliths. Wanapum Reservoir and the areas directly downstream of the dam were immediately closed, boat ramps and inlets were left completely dry, campsites were closed and boating activity was banned on the lake until further investigations and remedial procedures were in place and completed. An extensive root cause analysis ultimately led to the conclusion that errors in the initial design calculations and late changes to the final spillway design led to a condition that generated tensile stresses in the concrete at the upstream face, which over a period of 50-years resulted in the formation of a crack along a horizontal lift joint located about 85-feet below normal pool elevation. Further analysis showed that, although visible distress was found at Monolith 4, there was nothing preventing this issue from happening at other locations along the dam spillway. Although no visible cracking was found in the other monoliths, repair procedures for Monolith 4 would have to be replicated at the remaining monoliths.

Jan 1, 2018

By J. Matos e Silva

"Abstract Although one can think that it is very low the probability of a seism occurrence during the execution of an excavation in an urban lot protected by a diaphragm wall curtain, reality shows that whenever a seism occurs in an urban area several diaphragm walls will be affected by it. So it is advisable to consider the seismic action when designing a diaphragm wall curtain. The paper refers the main information about the seismic design of diaphragm walls according to the Eurocodes 7 and 8 and to the Portuguese Norms related to them (respectively NP EN 1997-1 2010 and NP EN 1998-5 2010), as the Eurocodes consider the possibility of each European country to adopt their own seismic parameters as the seismic risk is different in each country. Thus the so-called National Document of Application (in our case the Portuguese Norms) prescribes the seismic local parameters.1 - EUROCODES AND PORTUGUESE NORMS PRESCRIPTIONSAccording to Eurocode 8 - Part 5 and to the related Portuguese Norm NP EN 1998-5 2010, seismic actions on soils should be quantified adopting the Mononobe-Okabe method that gives goodapproaches when compared with reality.From paragraph 7.3.2.2 of the referred Norm, the horizontal seismic coefficient kh will be:"

Jan 1, 2014

By Matteo Montesi

Deep foundation elements are often used as discrete elements in externally supported earth retaining structures such as soldier piles and lagging walls, secant/tangent pile walls, anchored walls, etc. These structures can be designed using different approaches such as conventional limit equilibrium methods, finite element/difference analyses, and soil spring (p-y) analyses which are contained in various commercially available computer programs used by engineers worldwide. Although these programs usually undergo various degree of verification and validation, users must be aware of each program’s limitations and conditions in which each design approach should or should not be used. These programs may incur difficulties when non-continuous deep foundation elements are used as part of the retaining system and in cases of non-uniform geometry where closed-form solutions are not available. Design input parameters such as passive arching width, wall-to-soil friction, and p-multipliers (pm) are not always given enough attention which may result in potential design deficiencies. This paper presents the main features of various earth retaining structure design approaches and discusses their advantages/disadvantages. The paper addresses some of the limitations and difficulties that may be faced with when utilizing non-continuous discrete deep foundation elements and identifies key elements that are sources of potential deficiencies and errors. An example comparing the design outcomes using different design approaches is presented. INTRODUCTION Earth retaining structures are used to retain soil and create or maintain a difference in ground elevation between grades in front and behind the retaining structure. Deep foundation elements have been used for decades to support earth retaining structures. Earth retaining structures that are supported by deep foundation elements are typically referred to as externally stabilized system (O’Rourke and Jones, 1990). An externally stabilized system uses an external structural element, in contrast to internally stabilized systems which rely on reinforcements installed within and extending beyond the potential failure mass. The design of externally supported retaining structures can be accomplished using different approaches, which can be challenging under certain conditions. Each approach has been discussed extensively in available literature, and is well summarized in the and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The objective of this paper is to present the most widely used design approaches and discuss their limitations and difficulties in one concise and brief document, giving the reader a good source for comprehensive understanding of the various design approaches, supported by a technical example. This paper is not intended to be a comprehensive review of all available design methods and formulations available in the literature.

Jan 1, 2018

Jan 1, 2001

By David E. Albus, Ahmadreza Mortezaie, Bidjan Ghahreman

The structural evaluation of seismic performance of an existing hospital in Long Beach, California, required spring constants of foundation elements. The structure included support by deep foundation elements comprised of belled (underreamed) caissons. The available relationships in the governing building code (ASCE41-13) to compute axial stiffness is not applicable due to the belled configuration of the caissons. The large diameter of the bells required consideration of the foundation medium to the axial stiffness; a detail not clearly described in ASCE 41-13. Furthermore, prescriptive equations in ASCE 41- 13 used to estimate lateral stiffness only consider pile groups with the assumption that the only source of lateral stiffness is the axial reaction of individual piles. These assumptions were invalid for the project at hand where all caissons are configured as single foundation elements, not a pile group. In the present work, the approach taken to estimate seismic stiffness of single-belled caissons is described which accounts for the elastic behavior of the foundation medium below the bell base and lateral behavior of single-pile shafts. Results of the work provide a more satisfactory derivation of the spring constants consistent with current modeling methods. INTRODUCTION Seismic evaluation of an existing hospital in Long Beach, California, required geotechnical investigation followed by site-specific ground motion analysis. This evaluation was required by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) in order to meet the requirements of the Structural Performance Category 4D (SPC-4D) published as a part of the 2016 California Building Code, CBC (Section 3412A). SPC-4D utilizes ASCE41-13, as modified by OSHPD, and involves two seismic performance objectives: BSE-1E (20% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and BSE-2E (5% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Spring constants and capacities of foundation elements were needed for evaluation of the structural performance of the building subjected to these two performance objectives. Our review of the as-built foundation plans indicated that both shallow footings and caissons were used for support of the structure. The plans demonstrated that all caissons are belled (under-reamed) and are individual, i.e. not part of pile groups. In this paper, the subject site condition and foundation elements are described first. This is followed by details of assessing spring constants and vertical capacities for belled caissons. The new requirements of the 2016 CBC concerning the evaluation of critical facilities will likely entail evaluation of other structures with belled caissons due to the more extensive use of these foundations in the past. This paper proposes a method to address the conditions of individual belled caissons not explicitly considered in the current code provisions.

Jan 1, 2018

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 2005

By David L. Borusiewicz, M. Suri Surendra

"Abstract Helical piles have been used as anchors and for supporting lightly loaded structures as a method of underpinning, etc in the past. Recently, helical piles are being used to support new structures because of their simple installation process using relatively light and mobile equipment. This paper presents the results of evaluation and design performed for the temporary support of existing piers during a bridge rehabilitation project.INTRODUCTIONThe helical screw foundation was invented and patented by Alexander Mitchell in England in 1833. He installed screw piles to support lighthouses in the tidal basins of England. Many applications in the earlier years in the USA were in North Carolina and in Florida to support lighthouses (in coastal plain deposits). A lighthouse of similar foundation design is still in use at Key Biscayne, Florida.In the USA, the helical piles were reintroduced as foundation elements for electrical transmission towers. Helical piles were also used for anchoring guys of self supported towers and as tie-backs for excavation support systems. Typically, helical piles are being used for supporting lightly loaded buildings and for underpinning buildings undergoing distress as a means of remediation. The helical piles are not commonly used in the transportation industry.HELICAL PILESHelical pile is a segmented deep foundation system with helical bearing plates welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates. Central steel shafts are available in either a square shaft (Type SS) or a round shaft (Type RS). The Type SS series are available in 38 mm to 57 mm square sizes. The Type RS series are available in 73 mm to 114 mm diameter sizes. Type SS-RS combinations are also available for compression applications in soil conditions where dense/hard soils must be penetrated with softer/loose soils above the bearing strata.The leading segment consists of a shaft with one or more helical plates that are welded to the shaft. The plates vary in diameter from 203 mm to 355.5 mm and have a thickness of 9.5 mm or 13.7 mm. Typically the plate diameter increases from the bottom of the shaft upward. A helical bearing plate or helix is one pitch of a screw thread. All helices, regardless of their diameter, have a standard 76 mm pitch. Being a true helical shape, the helices do not auger into the soil but rather screw into it with minimal soil disturbance. Helical plates are generally spaced a distance of two to three times the diameter of the plate directly below in order for them to function independently as individual bearing elements. A typical detail of helical pile is shown on Figure 1."

Jan 1, 2014

Jan 1, 1998

By Mario Aiezza

This paper outlines the results of a relationship developed during the design and construction of the foundations for the Gallery Towers project in Melbourne. Both the builder and the piling contractor were determined to arrive at a satisfactory foundation solution to the problems encountered at the site. The scope of piling work was to provide load-bearing piles under the building columns, some of which were located within a retention system that also required a piling solution. Geological conditions were variable and challenging. The site area was small and located adjacent to the National Arts Centre in the developed Southbank area, a high density office area. This presented logistical problems in limiting construction traffic on site and also demanding minimal noise and vibration emanating from piling activities. The piling contractor, Vibro-Pile, and the builder, Walter Construction Group, faced the challenges presented with a refreshing cooperative attitude that was beneficial to both companies. Commercial issues rising from design and construction problems were first put apart in order to allow the respective technical department of each company to work with minimum constraints to achieve the most cost effective solution. In the process usual adversarial attitudes resulting in loss of time and money was avoided. A number of issues were addressed successfully at minimum cost and time during this contract. Despite the difficulties encountered, the job was completed on time and with negligible claims for extras, resulting in the development of a strong mutual respect between both companies.

Jan 1, 2002