Search Documents

By K. Rainer Massarsch, Bengt H. Fellenius

"Abstract Vibration limits for buildings with respect to ground vibrations from pile driving published in international standards are reviewed. At first, relevant vibration parameters are defined and the evaluation of vibration records is described. The sensitivity of structures to different vibration parameters (displacement, velocity and acceleration) is discussed. Most vibration standards relate to blasting activities, the dynamic characteristics of which can be significantly different to those from construction activities and in particular, pile driving. Several vibration standards are reviewed. The Swedish vibration standard is described in detail, as it is the only one accounting for several important factors, such as ground conditions, building material, and type of building foundation. Many standards limit the guidance to values based on the dominant vibration frequency and a wide scatter of frequency-dependent vibration limits exists. It is difficult to compare limiting values of ground vibrations proposed in different standards.1. INTRODUCTIONFor poor ground conditions, placing structures on piles is the most common foundation solution, while sheet piles are widely used to support deep excavations. Piles and sheet piles must often be installed in the close vicinity to buildings, structures or installations in the ground, which can be affected by ground movements and vibrations, (Massarsch and Fellenius, 2014). In many areas, environmental concerns with respect to noise and ground vibrations can restrict or even prohibit driving of piles or sheet piles or reduce the efficiency of installation. The design engineer must prescribe – often at an early stage of a project — the permissible levels of ground vibrations in order to minimize the potential risk of building damage. When seeking guidance from the literature, little or practically no applicable information can be found on how to assess permissible levels of ground vibrations."

Jan 1, 2014

By Kirk A. Mcintosh

Augered, cast-in-place (ACIP) piles have been utilized in the United States for a wide range of projects since the 1950's. Due to the cast-in-place nature of the installation method (and lack of a driving criteria); however, ACIP piles have not been readily accepted by some practicing geotechnical and structural engineers. Since ACIP piles were initially developed, the installation equipment and techniques have been improved and refined and the number of experienced contractors has significantly increased. Over the past 10 to 15 years, the pile type has experienced significant growth in the United States (particularly in Florida) because engineers have become more knowledgeable and comfortable with its use. The Miami area, in particular, has experienced considerable growth in the utilization of ACIP piles primarily due to their usage on the $1 billion Miami Metrorail System project in the early 1980s. The economic advantages over other deep foundation types, coupled with some unique installation advantages, have shown that ACIP piles can be a viable foundation alternative on many projects. Even though ACIP piles have gained respect in the private sector, the pile type has generally not been readily accepted by government transportation agencies. The reluctance to readily accept this foundation type stems primarily from the quality assurance aspect of cast-in-place pile construction. Additionally, there has not been much research activity on this foundation type, technical papers, formal associations (other than the DFI), or a concerted effort to standardize the industry. This paper serves to discuss the state of practice for ACIP pile installation in the state of Florida.

Jan 1, 1997

By John P. Turner

The behavior of tieback retaining walls depends on many factors, including soil properties, groundwater conditions, construction sequence, spacing and stiffness of tiebacks and soldier piles, tieback loads, and others. The primary design considerations for tieback walls are 1) adequate stability and 2) limiting wall movements. Traditional design methods rely on apparent earth pressure diagrams and experience to predict the forces which must be supported by the tiebacks to provide adequate stability. The required soil properties depend upon whether the soil is sand, soft clay, or stiff clay. Design to limit wall movements is more difficult and the usual approach is to design the wall with an adequate factor of safety for stability and then evaluate wall movements during construction through the use of load tests on individual tiebacks and monitoring of wall movements by optical surveying, slope indicators, and extensometers. If excessive movements are likely to occur, it is often not known until construction is well underway. This approach is reflected in the fact that few tieback walls fail due to a lack of adequate stability, while most litigation involving tieback wall performance is related to excessive movements. Much progress has been made in recent years in methods for predicting the movement of all types of insitu retaining walls (Clough et al. 1989, Clough and O'Rourke 1990). These methods are based upon both experience and analytical methods. This paper reviews the methods currently available for evaluating both the stability and movements of tieback retaining walls. Case histories involving excavations constructed in the downtown Seattle area are used to evaluate the applicability of the available methods to Seattle conditions and to illustrate the importance of soil behavior in tieback wall performance.

Jan 1, 1990

By Tony Mazzo

It has often been said by consulting engineers that foundation contractors are in the business of taking risks. One would agree that the mere fact a foundation project can be budgeted, planned, engineered and executed solely on the reliability of eight test borings made at a proposed site having an area of approximately 19,000 square feet, is a risky proposition, in and of itself. Now imagine that this site is actually one half of a city block located in an urban setting in an old, congested, historical neighborhood, surrounded by narrow city streets and historic landmark buildings. And suppose that the required depth of excavation for the construction of the new building on this site is approximately 35 feet and the natural groundwater table is at a depth below existing grade of only 25 feet. Given the difficult site conditions outlined above, one could certainly add the words "challenging" and "complicated" to the inherent word "risky" when describing the construction techniques involved to undertake a foundation project of this magnitude. This case study will discuss in detail how the excavation, sheeting, dewatering and underpinning work was accomplished as well as the problems overcome along the way.

Jan 1, 2003

By Dennis W. Boehm

The building boom of the late 1970's and early 1980's has all but used up most of the better sites across the more populated metropolitan areas of the United States. This means that current buildings and other types of structures are being founded on more marginal sites. The use of marginal sites has placed ever-increasing quality control on the installation of the deep foundation systems utilized for these sites. Several remedial techniques are available for the repair of the deep foundation systems. These include minipiles, compaction grouting and jet grouting. Eight case histories are cited where these methods have been utilized to repair deep foundations.

Jan 1, 1999

By K. Englehardt

J BERESFORD introduced the subject of the paper which is the use of polymeric slurries to support the sides of diaphragm wall and bored pile excavations during construction. In the opinion of the authors the use of a suitable polymeric fluid offers financial and technical advantages compared with traditional bentonite based slurries. Under quiescent conditions a support slurry must have the following properties. - sufficient viscosity to support the sides of the excavation, to prevent infiltration into soils and to hold loose soil particles in suspension. - when agitated it should thin quickly to assist pumping transfer and cleaning and allow free passage of the grab or drill. - viscosity should be low enough during concreting to facilitate placement but high enough to prevent contamination of the concrete.

Jan 1, 1991

By Peter White

A bridge reconstruction project involved driving pipe piles for the new foundations. Disturbances within soil layers at depth caused sinkholes to open up within the construction site. After a near fatal accident, the pile driving installations were suspended. The solution involved ground im­provement through cement grouting with sleeve pipes and special grout additives to minimize migration of cement grout.

Jan 1, 1997

By Timothy L. Roberts

For many years practicing geotechnical and structural engineers in Texas and Louisiana were reluctant to include augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles as a viable deep foundation alternate. Three primary concerns were the lack of a final driving resistance to confirm adequate capacity, the inability to inspect ACIP piles prior to installation, and the fact that pile integrity is highly dependent on the skill of the ACIP pile contractor's field personnel. The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) Committee on Augered Cast-In-Place Piles has responded to these quality control concerns by establishing standards of practice for ACIP pile installation and ACIP pile inspection. Regional areas of the country have different subsurface soil and rock conditions and many times this will influence local installation and inspection requirements. The best way structural and geotechnical engineers can address quality control concerns is to be familiar with the DFI standards of practice, to know the special requirements for a particular project site, and to incorporate them into a well-written ACIP pile specification. The purposes of this paper are to: 1) review the main fundamentals of a successful quality control program, 2) describe how these fundamentals can be applied to the installation of ACIP piles, and 3) add personal experiences from ACIP pile projects in Texas and Louisiana. Nondestructive test methods are frequently used as a quality control tool to evaluate questionable piles. An additional brief discussion of two nondestructive test methods is presented to complete the paper.

Jan 1, 1998

By Colin Curtis

In recent years, Manchester Airport has undergone expansion including the construction of a second runway, a new terminal building (Terminal 3) and extensions to the existing Terminal 1. Manchester is Britains third largest airport and ranked 20th in the world for international traffic. Arup (Manchester) was engaged as consulting engineer in a multi-disciplinary role for the terminal works. Part of this was a geotechnical commission including site investigation and pile design followed by supervision. This paper reviews the piling for the old, new and terminal extensions. In total, five pile types have been utilised over the years. The original 1950's Terminal 1 was founded on driven cast in situ piles, with a later 1970's extension utilising rotary augured piles. The recent piling comprised continuous flight auger piles (CFA), driven steel tube and tripod bored; the latter in areas of restricted access or low headroom. The ground conditions are Made Ground over thin Alluvial and Glacial drift, in turn, over a generally weak to moderately weak gypsiferous mudstone. All the piles were socketed into the mudstone. In terms of the new CFA piles, quality control using the instrumentation monitoring was problematical, but a substantial static load and integrity test programme resolved pile performance. Part of the work is matching new pile performance with previously installed piles and the continued use of older piles with new loads. Research provided some data on the older piles, including some static load test data, which enabled back analyses of their design and likely behaviour. Differences in design methods, installation techniques and pile behaviour based on load tests will be discussed.

Jan 1, 2001

By D. E. Sherwood

Mr. Tamaro introduced his paper which concerned the construction of foundations for the buildings and related infrastructure of the World Financial Center on a reclaimed shoreline site at the Southern tip of Manhattan Island. This large project presented difficult design and construction problems, both geotechnical and structural. All structures were supported by foundations carried to rock. Two of the buildings were supported by conventional pier (pad) foundations constructed within diaphragm wall cofferdams. The remaining structures were supported by either piles to rock or caisson (large diameter) piles with socket depths drilled through the rock of up to 7.6 metres. Underground services, railway and proposed road tunnels all affected the installation of foundations. The proposed road tunnels for the new six lane 'Westway' would involve an excavation 12 metres deep adjacent to and under three buildings. This problem was solved by an agreement that tower windloads would be taken by the tower foundations and not distributed through the basement walls. This was achieved by a system of battered caissons founded on the rock and arranged so that adjacent caissons were founded in different rock masses. Diaphragm walls were restrained using tie backs. Ground testing indicated an exposure to D.C. stray current corrosion of all underground construction. As a result all of the foundations were isolated from the ground by non-conductive materials. In the case of piles and caissons the reinforcing for the caisson was fully protected by concrete and all outside steel used for the installation of piling was considered sacrificial and not used in the computation of long term load carrying capacity.

Jan 1, 1991

By Stan Merjan

Composite piles with precast concrete tapered pile tips (TPT Composite Piles - U.S. and foreign patents) are a new and important addition to the piling types available to the construction industry. TPT Piles were invented by Stanley Merjan, Vice President of Underpinning & Foundation Constructors, Inc.. U. F. C. installs these piles in the Northeast United States and licenses piling contractors in other parts of the country. TPT Piles have been developed for use in sandy subsoils at depths to 70 feet or greater. The TPT system (see Figure 1) is simple. A pile stem of conventional material (shell, pipe, steel, wood, precast concrete) is connected to a socket formed in a precast concrete tapered pile tip (TPT). This composite assembly is then driven as a unit by ordinary pile driving methods until adequate driving resistance (established by formula or load tests) is met in a suitable soil strata. This driving resistance develops from the displacement and densification produced by the TPT. Many combinations of tip shapes and stems are available to suit particular job requirements with respect to subsoil conditions and pile capacities. TPT Piles should be considered for use on a wide variety of jobs. The advantages offered by a TPT installation include: ? High capacity piles in marginal soils ? Minimal lengths required to produce these capacities ? The use of conventional pile driving equipment and procedures ? Pile inspection techniques that are the same as for ordinary pile driving Furthermore, TPT piles are economical due to a combination of a low cost per ton of pile capacity and high productivity, both of which lead to significant savings in foundation costs and time required to complete foundation work.

Jan 1, 1987

By George Goble

I hope that after the long evening and all the exercise that some of you took you won't be completely exhausted to listen to a little bit about pile testing. The topic that 1 have been given is pile testing. It seems to me useful to break this topic into some smaller pieces so that we can try and organize our thought a bit. As I understand the terms "pile testing", I believe we are really referring always to capacity, one way or another, so I am suggesting that we organize the things we are doing in terms of measurement of soil capacity and pile capacity. There are obviously two failure modes and we frequently speak of pile integrity rather than structural pile capacity, but it's really capacity that we are concerned about. Further within these breakdowns I am suggesting that we might look at the topic of soil capacity in terms of static methods and dynamic methods and, finally, within each one of these, measurements of axial capacity and measurement of lateral capacity. Also here some of these subdivisions might be there for the purpose of symmetry and finally the same sorts of breakdown in Pile Capacity area.

Jan 1, 1994

By John S. Pack

The last 25 years have seen rapid expansion in the use of helical screw pile foundations and tiebacks for new and retrofit construction of buildings and earth retention structures. An estimated $100 million was spent in 2002 on helical foundations and tiebacks in the United States alone. While design information is available in the literature, information regarding quality control, inspection and performance monitoring is lacking. Recognition of at least one manufacturer's helical foundation material by the Uniform Building Code, Standard Building Code, and BOCA (all three codes now combined into the ICC International Building Code) has given added urgency to the dissemination of reliable and practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures. This paper describes a set of such procedures that have been followed for 17 years by engineers experienced in the industry who have directly installed or been involved in the installation of over 140,000 helical foundations and tiebacks in divers soil conditions for various types of structures, including earth retention structures. Topics covered include design responsibility, building code listings and requirements, manufacturer ISO certification, manufacturing process, material and installation specifications, installation contractor certification, field placement, installation procedures, field inspection, building code inspection and performance monitoring. The paper concludes with a step by step example of practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures on a typical helical foundation project.

Jan 1, 2003

By Osama Safaqah

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

Jan 1, 2005

By Onur Kacar

A numerical approach has been implemented to assess the settlements of pile groups bearing in clay. A three-dimensional finite element program has been utilized to model a vertically loaded spread footing, a single pile and a pile group. The soil-pile interaction was modeled with elastoplastic soil and interface elements. The model has been calibrated using a full scale load test results of the spread footing. The load transfer between the pile cap and the piles was assessed and compared with the measured load transfer. The predicted settlements for the pile group were compared with the settlements measured in the load test. Two analytical methods were adopted to predict the pile group settlements and they were compared with the measured values. The group effect determined from the analysis and load tests was compared with the interaction factor approach. It was shown that three-dimensional finite element approach can be successfully utilized to assess the soil-structure interaction and hence the load transfer between the piles and pile cap. Also, it was shown that the interaction factors method and equivalent footing method work well in the working stress range, however they underpredict the settlements at larger loads. INTRODUCTION The settlement and stress distribution of pile groups have been traditionally estimated based on load test results of single piles and accounting for the group effect using various approaches. The most widely used approaches are group interaction factor method, equivalent footing method and equivalent pier method. These approximate solutions are used very commonly in practice as full-scale load tests on pile groups are very expensive and time consuming. These approximate solutions are also adopted in design guidelines such as AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Guidelines (2014) and FHWA Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations (2016). In this paper, a full-scale foundation load tests performed by Nagai et al. (1961) and reported by Koizumi and Ito (1967) is modelled using a three-dimensional numerical method. The settlements and the stress distribution on foundations were then compared with the traditional equivalent footing method and interaction factor methods.

Jan 1, 2018

By Steven L. Anderson

A cut-off wall has been designed and is currently under construction along the Back Dam of the existing tailings impoundment at Red Dog Mine, Alaska. The cut-off wall, which will be in the order of 5,000 ft long and up to 150 ft deep, when complete, is being excavated using a 40 metric ton Bauer trench cutter head mounted on a Liebherr crawler crane, in combination with a closed loop slurry pumping and de-sanding system. The tailings impoundment is situated in an area of warm permafrost and high potential seismic activity. Design incorporated an assessment of rock jointing to define the final depth of the wall along the alignment requiring the use of plastic concrete backfill to address the concerns associated with potential cracking of the wall due to settlement and during seismic activity. The results of the geotechnical investigation program, particularly with respect to variation in rock hardness along the wall alignment are discussed, as are the design criteria for the plastic concrete backfill, the challenges faced during construction, including scheduling of the work with the on-going dam raise activities of the mine, and the lessons learned with respect to potential productivities and selection of cutter wheels and teeth. Also described are the requirements for and advantages of utilizing a slurry boosting system to meet pumping requirements, re-design of the plastic concrete mix to consider workability and optimization of cutter teeth configurations to reduce wear through highly varied rock hardness.

Jan 1, 2010

By Gordon King

The site of the First Quality Tissue plant is located on a previous paper production facility in Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. The new development, which included the construction of a tissue machine building, baled building, converting building, various storage buildings and an electrical switchgear building, required the use of deep foundation systems to transfer loads below compressible fill and alluvial soils. Loading details provided by Jacobs Engineering, the project structural engineer, detailed braced steel frame buildings with typical column loads ranging from 75 to 150 kips and slab live loads of 250 to 300 psf. As an exception to this, however, the tissue machine and stock preparation building, which had a roof height ranging up to 85 feet, had column loads ranging up to 800 kips in addition to high dynamic loads. The First Tissue plant is located in a river valley in the hills of Western Pennsylvania. To evaluate the proposed site conditions and to formulate recommendations for the structure foundations, a geotechnical study was performed by the owner. Approximately 30 borings were advanced to bedrock, with wire-line coring performed in the tissue machine building. The borings disclosed a soil profile comprising of the following:

Jan 1, 2004

By Robert B. Bittner

Large diameter piles (2 to 3 m diameter, both driven and drilled) are being used more frequently by designers of bridge foundations. The use of these large piles allows the pile cap to be positioned off the bottom but usually still below water. Conventional cofferdams as shown in Figure 1 below are not suited to this type of pile cap. However, float-in cofferdams offer a viable alternative. This paper describes the float-in cofferdam system, its initial development for use on the Bath-Woolwich Bridge in Maine and its most recent application on the new Carquinez Bridge in California.

Jan 1, 2013

By Zia Zafir

Design of the deep foundations for the loads imposed by lateral spread include the estimate of the pressure applied by the liquefied material as well as amount of anticipated displacement. In the absence of a non-liquefiable cover over a liquefiable layer, it is possible to design the foundation system just for the additional pressure applied by the flow slides. On the other hand, if a non-liquefiable layer exists above the liquefied zone, the foundation should be designed for anticipated movements. To completely account for liquefaction and/or lateral spread and their interaction with the deep foundation system, a coupled soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis should be performed. However, a complete SSI analysis may not be feasible for most of the projects. This paper will present recent advances in analysis techniques and simplified methods to design deep foundations for liquefaction and lateral spreading. In addition, a case history of the Rancho California Bridge in southern California located within 1 km of the active Elsinore fault will be presented. One of the bridge abutments is underlain by potentially liquefiable layers. The pressure applied by the liquefiable layer was estimated to be greater than the shear capacity of the 36-inch CIDH piles designed for the abutment. However, with limited ground improvement and more careful analyses incorporating structural effects of CIDH piles, resulting design and construction resulted in a factor of safety greater than 1 against slope failure. The recommended approach was generally consistent with the recently published, and AASHTO sponsored, NCHRP 12-49 project regarding seismic design guidelines for new bridges and the effects of seismic displacements against bridge foundations.

Jan 1, 2006

By Sun Shao Xian

The Port of Shekou is situated at Shenzhen Bay on the east side of the Pearl River estuary. Geological condition of the site is quite complicated. On top of the sea bed, there is a layer of soft silt 8 - 14 m thick. Under the soft silt, there are intercalated layers of sand, silt and clay. Average surface elevation of the underlying undulatory weathered bed rock is about - 20 m, with a variation of about 10 m. In certain locations, the weathered bed rock is covered with a layer of silt 3 - 4 m thick. This paper gives brief account of three types of wharf structures which are of particular interest, constructed in the last few years: (A) Platform type wharf structure with frontal sheet piling and steel raking pile in the rear; (B) Relieving Platform type structure with steel sheet piling and inclined anchoring HP pile ; (C) Steel pipe pile row supported apron added to a marginal quay. Average construction time of a deepwater berth is about six months.

Jan 1, 1991