Search Documents

Jan 1, 1991

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

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

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 1993

Jan 1, 1994

By BRETTMANN TRACY

Jan 1, 2000

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 2003

By Helen D. Robinson

Traditional practice to resist large lateral loads on foundations is the use of large diameter caissons, battered driven piles, or battered micropiles. Dense urban construction environments, however, limit the usefulness of these systems due to the close proximity of below- and above-grade obstructions. This paper presents two micropile construction projects in the United States where a complex scheme of battered micropiles and grade beams was developed to counteract large lateral loads at the foundation level. The paper also presents a procedure used to design vertical micropiles for large lateral loads, which can greatly simplify the design of foundations subject to significant lateral loads in urban environments. A design example shows a case where vertical micropiles were used to support allowable design lateral loads greater than 80 kip per micropile.

Jan 1, 2010

By D. T. Bergado

The uppermost subsoil profiles of the Bangkok plain can be divided into four layers, namely: weathered clay, soft clay, stiff clay, and dense sand layers. The soft Bangkok clay is a normally consolidated marine clay with built-up preconsolidation effects and overlain by a weathered crust. Up to the present, a large number of full-scale tests on excavations and pile foundations has been made by numerous investigators. Based on these results, the available data are reviewed and evaluated. The results show that for test excavations, the excess pore pressures were overpredicted by the existing theories. The vertical and lateral movements in the excavations can be predicted by the bilinear and non-linear finite elements using appropriate modulus values. Relationships among probability of failure, safety factor, and safety margin of the excavation were also obtained. In the case of pile foundations, good agreement between the measured and predicted ultimate pile capacities were obtained for long piles. The adhesion factors ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 while the average skin friction factor was found to be 0.33. The ultimate capacity of the pile was also predicted successfully by using the Dutch cone data. For lateral deflection of piles, Davisson and Gill's theory predicted well in the low deflection zone while Poulos' theory agreed well in the high deflection zone. From the probabilistic analysis of ultimate pile capacity, the probability of failure was related to the central factor of safety. The piles usually used in Bangkok area are mainly precast concrete piles

Jan 1, 2010

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, 1988

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, 1991

Jan 1, 2002

Jan 1, 1992

Jan 1, 1996

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By Timothy C. Siegel

This report presents the results of a synthesis on the design and analysis of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. The synthesis included an industry survey concerning the practice of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. Participation in the survey was solicited by advertisements in several trade magazines and by e-mail for the DFI membership. The survey participants numbered 150. Their professional roles include consulting engineers, specialty contractors, design engineers, government engineers, and academicians. They represent a variety of geographical areas including North/Central/South America, United Kingdom, Middle East, Caribbean, Hawaii, Japan, India, Egypt, France, Australia and New Zealand. Upon completion of the survey, several professionals in the field of liquefaction and ground improvement were interviewed for them to elaborate on the survey results. The interviews are included in the Appendix of this report. Financial support for the project was provided by DFI and Dan Brown and Associates PC. The concept of the liquefaction mitigation synthesis was developed by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee in recognition that: (a) The results of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have challenged previously longheld beliefs about liquefaction and associated mitigation techniques, and; (b) The DFI membership and the engineering/construction industry are interested to know if and how engineers and designers are subsequently adjusting their practice in consideration of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance. For more detailed information on recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance, presentations are available from the State-of-the-Art Forum: Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation that was held in St. Louis in 2012. A commentary of the state-of-practice in ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation (prepared by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) is included in this issue of the DFI Journal. The author would like to thank the participants of the survey and especially Mr. Mike Jeffries, Dr. Les Youd, and Dr. Ikuo Towhata for their willingness to share their expertise in interviews. The author also acknowledges Mary Ellen Bruce of DFI, Billy Camp of S&ME, Inc., and Marty Taube of DGI Menard (and Chair of DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) for their signifi cant contributions.

Aug 1, 2013