Search Documents

By Peter J. Nicholson

Recognition of the liquefaction susceptibility of dam embankments has been heightened since the San Fernando Dam near failure incident in 1971. Both the downstream and upstream slopes of dams can be at risk for slope failure that can lead to breaching of the dam during or after a seismic event. Many dams have been remediated by various means such as the installation of stone columns or by excavation and replacement of the liquefaction susceptible material. Recent engineering and technology advances in equipment and materials has shown that construction of shear walls to the appropriate depths and at the right center to center spacing may be an economical alternative to the more traditional methods. Recently, the downstream embankments of at least 4 dams, from South Carolina to California, have been, or in the process of being remediated by the use of shear walls. The method of installation has been either multi-axis Cement Deep Soil Mixing walls or walls constructed by the use of trench excavation under self-hardening slurry. Four case histories of dam remediation are discussed, three by multi-axis paddle auger CDSM equipment one with the use of self hardening slurry trenches.

Jan 1, 2008

By Harald P. Ludwig, Matthew J. Niermann

The support of excavation (SOE) for the Capitol Crossing project in Washington, DC consisted of a combination of soldier piles, lagging, tiebacks, braces, underpinning, single auger soil mixed (SASM) walls, micropiles, and a tiedback slurry wall. Over 130,000 square feet of SOE was installed with more than 1,300 tiebacks providing lateral support for excavation depths of up to 72 feet. Several structures including the Holy Rosary Church, the Bell Tower, the Casa Italiana, and a modern office building were supported by a combination of conventional hand dug underpinning pits, bracket piles, and stiff SASM walls. This paper will focus on the design and performance of the SOE adjacent to the Holy Rosary Church and the Bell Tower. Deflection-based design was used to estimate the movements of and limit damage to these structures. An extensive monitoring program was used to provide real time movement data. The results of

By Dale Berner, Michael O’Sullivan

"This article focuses on lessons learned from innovative designs including in-the-wet construction methodology and modified foundation conditions, for two United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) megaprojects. Olmsted Dam FoundationThe over $2 billion Olmsted Dam on the Ohio River is currently under construction 16 mi (29.6 km) upstream from the confluence with the Mississippi River. The project is under the jurisdiction of the Louisville District of the USACE. It will consist of an 800 ft (244 m) long tainter gate section, a 1,400 ft (427 m) navigable pass, two boat abutment sections, a fixed weir section, and upstream and downstream scour protection. The Olmsted Dam and its two 1,200 ft (366 m) locks, which were built in 2002, will eventually replace both Locks and Dam #52 and #53, both built in 1929, and thereby bring significant benefits to the Ohio River navigation system.In 2002, the Jacobs/COWI JV completed the design of the dam; which was an engineering challenge for several reasons. A significant consideration was its proximity to the New Madrid Fault, which could impose an 8.4 Richter scale seismic event on the structure, which is located in an area of potentially liquefiable alluvium. The extensive seismic analysis performed by the designer included a response spectra analyses, lateral pushover analyses of pile foundations, hydrodynamic added masses, pile group effects, and the development of kinematic motions as a result of the soil-pilestructure interaction."

Jan 1, 2016

By A. Ghorbani

The analysis of Combined Pile Raft Foundation (CPRF) is very complex due to involved interactions among components of CPRF system. Many researchers made efforts to develop sufficient methods including three dimensional finite element methods to compute these interactions. Since there are some restrictions and complexity in previous methods, in present study a new approach based on three dimensional finite difference methods is implemented to overcome some of these restrictions. The total and differential settlements of a centrifuge case study are computed using different numerical methods to show the performance of present numerical approach.

Jan 1, 2007

By Timothy C. Siegel, Paul J. Axtell

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) recently replaced the Hurricane Deck Bridge that carries Highway 5 traffic across the Osage Arm of the Lake of the Ozarks in Camden County, Missouri. The former bridge was constructed in the 1920's and was supported on pneumatic caissons bearing on dolostone bedrock. The replacement structure is founded on drilled shafts socketed into the bedrock. During the design phase of this bid-build project, a baseline design was developed and Alternative Technical Concepts (ATC's) were allowed from approved contractors. Those ATC's were confidential and not shared between teams. Either the baseline design or the approved ATC design could be bid by the respective contractors. The baseline design included re-use of the 90-year old caisson foundations. Accordingly, an extensive evaluation of the caissons and underlying bedrock were conducted by coring, laboratory testing, acoustic tele-viewer (ATV), and cross-hole sonic logging (CSL) methods. The results of the investigation indicated the caissons were in excellent condition and suitable for re-use. However, a more cost-effective ATC was submitted, awarded, and constructed that did not re-use the existing caisson foundations but rather reduced the span lengths, increased the number of piers in the water, and supported those piers on drilled shafts. Interestingly, the difference in low bid price between the awarded ATC and the baseline design was less than one percent of the construction cost. This paper describes the multiple foundation designs that were necessary for this interesting project. The various foundation evaluations include the existing pneumatic caissons, large-diameter open-ended pipe piles to support the baseline design, and the design of rock-socketed drilled shafts that were successfully constructed in 2012.

Jan 1, 2017

By Sherif Elfass, Gary Norris

Bi-directional load testing of drilled shafts has been widely adopted as a means to evaluate their load carrying capacity. However, in order to reach failure, most of these tests are carried out on sacrificial shafts using expensive sacrificial elements such as hydraulic jacks. A proposed low-cost bi-directional testing technique is discussed. It mechanically loads the end bearing soil below a drilled shaft, against its side shear resistance. The technique was originally established as an alternative to post-grouting to reliably account for the forfeited end bearing resistance. However, since it loads the shaft in a manner similar to conventional bi-directional tests, it can be used to not only load test sacrificial shafts, but production shafts as well. Furthermore, unlike conventional bi-directional load tests, the load is applied through surface jacks. These jacks, along with other load test components, are movable and can be reused to load test all the shafts of the project thus presenting an economic benefit. The concept of this technique has received favorable feedback from a few consulted departments of transportation, and while promising, has not been field tested to date. A U.S. patent was issued for the tip loading module and the loading technique described.

Sep 8, 2021

By Andrew Higgins, Jamey Rosen

This presentation will demonstrate some recent advancements in the applications of Project Information Systems (PIMS) technology to seepage barrier walls in the context of evolving Owner Specifications. The use of geospatial technology in particular is used to track, visualize, and analyze data from a variety of sources and serve those data to contractors and owners via dashboards and as-built drawings. Data describing the geometry of construction elements (including diaphragm panels, secant piles, and jet grout columns) is of particular importance on these projects, and this presentation will include case studies in the United States of how these data are used to determine if a barrier wall is constructed as designed and if it meets the owner specifications with respect to tolerance (i.e., if each element is sufficiently close to vertical) and overlap (i.e., do adjacent elements overlap sufficiently to prevent leakage).

May 1, 2022

By Charles R. Conlon, Matthew J. Niermann

This paper presents the underpinning and excavation support systems used for construction at 2100 L Street in Washington, DC. The excavation for the proposed building extended below bedrock, which presented significant challenges for underpinning the historic Stevens School, constructed in the late 1800’s. The Stevens School was underpinned using several techniques consisting of soil mixing below an unreinforced foundation, traditional hand-dug pits to rock, micropiles below rock, and bracket piles. The excavation support system for the remainder of the project consisted of soldier piles and lagging supported laterally by tiebacks and braces. Shotcrete and rock bolts supported the exposed bedrock. This paper will discuss the design, construction and monitoring results.

By Jamey Rosen

A Project Information Management System (PIMS) was developed to manage and analyze QC data at the Herbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation Dam Modification Cutoff Wall (owned by the Jacksonville District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers). A special feature of this PIMS was its geospatial component. Data collected from Bauer drill rigs were automatically “geoprocessed” into threedimensional features representing the predrill, jet grout, and Cutter Soil Mixing panel elements, as well as calculated verticality and overlap metrics. These features were visualized in interactive planimetric, profile, and 3D views that facilitated several quality control activities during the project.

By Avi Shonberg

With the advancement of offshore wind farm projects towards deeper waters and larger wind turbine generators, founda- tion solutions other than the monopile have received increasing attention over the past 5 years. Monopiles are the most commonly used foundation solution for offshore wind turbines, with 82% in European waters founded on monopile foundations (EWEA, 2019). However, 2018 saw a record number of suction bucket jacket (SBJ) structures, which consist of a three-legged jacket sup- ported by a suction bucket at each leg (Figure 1), installed for offshore wind. applications. SBJs have now been installed successfully at the Borkum Riffgrund 1, Borkum Riffgrund 2 and Aberdeen Bay offshore windfarms. Suction-installed foundations, referred to in this paper as suction buckets, suction caissons, suction piles or suction anchors, have been widely used in the offshore industry since the early 1980s for a range of offshore applications predominantly as anchors for floating offshore structures - where they are "the most widely used anchor types for deep-water mooring applications" (McCarron, 2011). Suction buckets, installed using pumps that generate suction forces by creating a pressure difference between the inside and outside of the bucket, allow for the installation to be undertaken with minimal noise and without the use of mechanical force. Therefore, a key difference between suction-installed foundations and other foundation types is that the installation design, which must consider the soil type, soil strength and installation specific risks (for example, soil stratification with significant differences in permeability) may have a direct influence on the dimensions of the foundation. While the number of SBJS installed for offshore wind applications has increased significantly in recent years, the installation process for SBJ struc- tures is yet to become standard practice and is considerably more complicated than the installation process for mon- opiles. This paper provides a brief

Jul 1, 2022

By George M. Filz

Restrained basement walls and unrestrained but massive concrete walls on rock foundations experience very small movements in response to lateral earth pressures. Such walls are often designed using at-rest earth pressures without consideration of either compaction-induced lateral pressures or vertical shear forces resulting from compression of the backfill in response to self-weight. Compaction-induced lateral earth pressures can be detrimental to the integrity and stability of retaining walls. For example, the lock walls at Eisenhower and Snell Locks on the Saint Lawrence Seaway near Massena, New York, were damaged by compaction-induced lateral earth pressures, and an extensive rehabilitation program was necessary to ensure safety of the locks. Vertical shear forces, on the other hand, can be beneficial to stability because the downwards-directed vertical force tends to counteract the overturning moment from lateral earth pressures. The contribution of vertical shear forces is not included in most modern analyses of non-moving walls, but Terzaghi used this effect in his design of a high concrete retaining wall at Fifteen Mile Falls Dam. The lock walls at Eibach Lock on the Main-Donau Canal in Germany were instrumented for both lateral and vertical stresses applied by the backfill to the wall, and the resulting measurements show that vertical shear forces from the backfill were significant and persistent over the multi-year period that the wall was monitored. Other data from pilot-scale retaining walls confirm the existence of both compaction-induced lateral earth pressures and vertical shear forces. These forces should be considered in design of non-moving walls.

Jan 1, 2003

By Lance A. Roberts

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has mandated the use of the AASHTO Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) specifications for all new federally-funded transportation infrastructure projects beginning in October 2007. This includes the design of all geotechnical-related elements, such as deep foundations, which have historically been excluded from the LRFD requirements. The basis of the LRFD specifications is the application of a probabilistically computed parameter called a resistance factor to the foundation capacity in lieu of the traditional, and often arbitrary, factor of safety. Therefore, the process of computing resistance factors for use in the design of deep foundations is extremely critical to ensure a safe, efficient, and consistent design methodology. In this paper, various methods to calibrate resistance factors for use in the design of deep foundations are examined. The methods that are currently utilized to calibrate the resistance factors reported in the AASHTO LRFD specifications may be classified as the allowable stress design (ASD) method and the reliability theory calibration method using static capacity prediction techniques. These methods are compared to a ?t-z? model design methodology. The current methods focus exclusively on the strength limit state design of deep foundations. The advantage of the ?t-z? model methodology is that it can be utilized for both strength and service limit state design. In addition, the results show that resistance factors vary based on geological setting, construction method, failure criteria and deep foundation type. This variability in the resistance factors should therefore be integrated in the design to ensure that the objectives of the LRFD approach are satisfied.

Jan 1, 2008

By Paul Summers, Kevin Richardson, Willem (Billy) Villet, Paul J. Sabatini, Attasit Korchaiyapruk, Edward C. Clukey

"A deep mixing method (DMM) foundation was selected by the Project Team for a very large LNG facility in West Africa. As described in a companion paper, this foundation consists of a large number of columns installed by mixing cement with in-situ soils. The foundations are arrayed as a variety of honeycombed type configurations which, if installed to desired specifications, can provide a robust foundation alternative. The foundation is capable of distributing loads and limiting settlements even if some of the soil in the columns is not fully mixed during installation. An important part of the overall quality assessment program, therefore, involved developing a testing program to verify the methodology. In addition the impact of potential defects in columns on the overall foundation integrity had to be assessed. This paper describes some of the preliminary work done to establish the requirements for the quality assurance program. A key component of this program involved the sampling frequency used to assess potential defects in the columns. To verify the column integrity 104- mm samples were taken continuously at a selected frequency through the 23 m long columns. The preliminary work described in this paper demonstrated that the appropriate sampling frequency depends on both the desired reliability level as well as the number of defective columns encountered during testing.Initial finite element analyses were performed to assess the extent that defects could occur in columns within the honeycombed structure without adversely affecting the overall foundation integrity. The results from this work demonstrated that the spatial location of the defects was critical to properly assessing the foundation integrity.In addition to column sampling a load test was performed as part of the foundation verification process. The methods used to apply appropriate loads so that loads at the bottom of the columns approached design values are discussed in the paper.The results obtained from this preliminary study were then used to help develop a more comprehensive assessment program, described in a companion paper, to determine the robustness of the DMM foundations for both the LNG processing facilities and a condensate tank.IntroductionFoundations constructed with the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) can be an attractive and cost efficient alternate to other deep foundation options. This foundation is constructed by mixing soil and cement with an auger type drill. The foundation is usually constructed with a dual auger system that simultaneously creates two contiguous columns called foundation elements. Many elements are then arranged in a honeycombed configuration to create the overall foundation (Figure 1). A desired column strength can be obtained by varying the volume of cement added to the columns, the mixing rate of the soil and stroking sequence."

Jan 1, 2017

By David R. Black

Foundation problems due to collapsible and expansive soils are well known throughout the arid western United States. Millions of dollars are spent annually to counteract the effects of such soils for both new foundations and existing foundations suffering from settlement or heave. Over the last 20 years helical screw piles have come into wide-spread use as a permanent deep foundation element for these problem soils, especially in the arid western United States where, in some areas, they are a standard of practice. Independent research resulting in recognition by every national building code in the United States has legitimized helical screw pile technology. Once thought of in terms of light structural underpinning, helical screw piles of today are designed to take heavy structural loads, vertical and lateral, tension or compression, including seismic loads. With proper pile grouping, design capacities for column loads over 4,500 kN (1,000 kips) are attainable. This paper discusses design considerations specifically dealing with collapsible and expansive soils: soil investigation parameters, predicted settlement and long-term creep, heave in expansive soils, downdrag in collapsible soils, shaft slenderness buckling, maintaining shaft alignment during installation, refusal condition, water migration along the shaft, lateral loading, cyclical loading for seismic loads and machine foundations, corrosion, helix durability during installation, the installation torque vs. capacity equation, and design methodology. The paper concludes with several case histories where helical screw piles were used for new structural foundations and to underpin existing failed foundations in St. George, Utah, Cedar City, Utah, and Denver, Colorado, USA, sites of some of the most expansive clay and collapsible soil in North America. Soil descriptions and performance histories are presented.

Jan 1, 2002

By Adel M. Hanna, Ibrahim M. Mashhour

"Collapsible soil is known as one of the difficult soils, which possesses considerable strength when it is dry and significantly reduced when inundated. In practice, in case of a thick layer, pile foundations are often used to penetrate the collapsible soil to firm soil/rock strata. Inundation of collapsible soil is accompanied by a large and sudden settlement, which may significantly increase the negative skin friction and accordingly the drag loads on the pile’s shaft. Inundation may take place from the running surface-water or raising the groundwater. In case of surface water, the amount of settlement varies, depending on the extent of the wetted zone and the degree of saturation in the soil, while rising groundwater will produce full saturation in the ground and accordingly larger settlement.In the literature, there is lack of reports dealing with the prediction of the drag load on piles in collapsible soils subjected to inundation. This is due to the complexity of modeling collapsible soil analytically. Alternatively; the results of a sophisticated experimental investigation may guide the researcher to develop a model to predict the drag load on these piles.This paper presents the results of a small-scale experimental investigation tailored to measure the soil collapse during inundation and the associated drag load on an endbearing pile’s shaft. Based on the results of the present investigation, the effect of the soil collapse potential and the pressure acting on the soil during inundation on negative skin friction is presented.INTRODUCTIONCollapsible soil is a metastable material, traditionally defined as unsaturated soils that experiences a radical rearrangement of particles and significant reduction of volume upon wetting with or without loading (Bara 1976; Houston et al., 1988). A wide range of soils fall into the category of collapsible soil, including naturally existing types of soils such as: Alluvial flood plains, mud flows, residual soils, colluvial deposits, fans, aeolian or wind-blow deposits sands and silts (loess), volcanic tuffs, gypsum, dispersive clays, loose cemented sands , sodium rich montmorillonite clays (Clemence and Finbarr 1981).Soil wetting and soil saturation may take place as a result of urbanization or natural causes, such as: groundwater level rise, landscape irrigation, broken water pipelines or sewer lines, poor surface drainage, groundwater recharge, cut/fill construction, and moisture increase due to capillary rise. The severity of the outcome depends heavily on the so called collapse potential of the soil, which depends mainly on; soil type, compaction effort, initial water content and stress level at soaking (Houston and Houston, 1997; Ayadat and Hanna, 2007)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Mamdouh Hamza

The construction of 1200 m length new quay wall located 1,300 m East of the existing Suez Canal bypass and about 1,000 m south of the Mediterranean shoreline is one of the main projects currently under development in Egypt. Due to very weak foundation soil, mainly soft clay, a particular effort, both in terms of design approach and construction feasibility, has been required. The execution of "barrettes" and T-shaped" diaphragm wall panels down to a depth of 65 m and under extremely severe soil condition has been required in order to pass through the upper soft soil and to reach a competent base layer. Very critical and variable hydrological conditions have been also encountered due to the contemporary nearby channel dredging activity, thus increasing the difficulty for maintaining the stability of the slurry trenches opened in soft material. This paper gives a general overview of the project with some emphasis to the most significant design aspects and to the construction of the deep foundation elements.

Jan 1, 2002

By Donald Deardorff

Helical piles often rely on the final installation torque for ultimate capacity verification. When helical piles are designed using traditional bearing capacity equations for deep foundations and field monitored for a specified final installation torque, a factor of safety equal to 2 is often allowed for the design. One of the more common methods of determining torque during helical pile installation is by correlating the differential pressure across a hydraulic gear motor to a torque. Most drive head manufacturers provide multipliers to convert differential pressure to torque for different drive head models. These multipliers are based on theoretical torque equations and vary with the planetary gear ratio, hydraulic gear motor displacement and drive head efficiency. Drive head manufacturers show a linear fit between the differential pressure and output torque with no scaling effect. Previous drive head testing performed by the author has confirmed that the drive head differential pressure to torque relationship is generally linear however there is a scaling adjustment needed. This results in a variation of multipliers across the differential pressure range for a given drive head. Eight hydraulic drive heads from three manufacturers were field tested by Foundation Supportworks, Inc. to compare the torque versus differential pressure curves with varying installation equipment, hydraulic line sizes and hydraulic flow rates. Differential pressure was monitored using three methods including pressure gages, PT-Tracker and an Ashcroft AT-100. Flow and temperature was measured using a Webtech system analyzer. Torque was measured using a Pro-Dig in-line torque transducer, a TruTorque indicator and a Chance Mechanical Dial in-line torque indicator. The current testing indicates that a change in installation equipment and/or a change in hydraulic flow rate may affect the torque versus differential pressure curve of a given drive head. The results of this testing also show that some of the methods for determining torque during helical pile installations may be unconservative, thereby resulting in safety factors less than required.

By Sherrill Gardner

Vibratory drivers have been used since the 1930s to drive and extract piles. Vibratory pile drivers have the capability of significantly decreasing pile installation time, especially in granular type soils. However, they have not been widely accepted because of the uncertainty in estimating the bearing capacity of the driven pile. When driving bearing piles, the industry standard method for obtaining load carrying capacity of a pile installed with a vibratory driver is to redrive with an impact hammer. The advantage of improved productivity is lost with the redrive procedure. Currently, there is no other method to predict the capacity of these bearing piles installed with a vibratory driver. The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) is making progress towards being able to estimate the bearing capacity of these piles. This paper describes field testing and corresponding analytical modeling of the vibratory driver-pile-soil system. The following sections describe the development of the numerical model and techniques for collecting field data. A discussion of the prediction of the pile driving process based on field test data is followed by suggestions as to the additional work that should be done to further verify the model to a point where it can be used with confidence.

Jan 1, 1987

By Glenn J. Rix, Eduardo Tavera, Raphael Siebenmann, Zhongjie Zhang, Robert C. Bachus, Jongwon Jung

"The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD) uses a variation of the FHWA-modified Gates equation to verify the nominal pile bearing resistance, typically on smaller projects where static load tests and dynamic monitoring are not practical. An inconsistency in the resistance factors for load and resistance factor design (LRFD) penalizes the target pile capacity needed during field observation if the LADOTD dynamic formula equation is used, which is unreasonable, and has created confusion among designers, consultants, district personnel, and inspectors in Louisiana. The objectives of this project are to recalibrate the FHWA-modified Gates equation and update the associated LRFD resistance factor for pile types and local soil conditions encountered in Louisiana. Improved consistency relative to the current design approaches will be achieved if the updated resistance factor matches or exceeds the worst-case resistance factor used by LADOTD, which will reduce confusion among users. Updating the resistance factor will also serve to increase confidence in the FHWA modified Gates equation, optimize the efficiency of the piles, and reduce project costs.IntroductionThe original 1957 Gates pile driving formula (Gates, 1957) is an empirically derived dynamic formula that is used to predict pile capacity in the field during pile installation. The original Gates formula tends to over-predict pile capacity for low driving resistances and under-predict pile capacity for high driving resistances (Hannigan et al., 1998). Thus, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposed a modified version of the Gates formula that addressed this limitation. The FHWA–modified Gates equation is:"

Jan 1, 2017

By Franz-Werner Gerressen, Manfred Schoepf

"Diaphragm walls are known as underground structural elements commonly used as retention systems for excavation pits and shafts and permanent foundation walls or elements. It can be anticipated that, with the increasing trend of utilizing more and more underground space to accommodate environmental considerations and urban/suburban development, there will be an increasing requirement for diaphragm walling in even more complex conditions. Complex and/or challenging conditions in terms of ground conditions have a major impact in regards of choosing the right tools for excavation purpose. Complex conditions in terms of space limitations, especially for inner city job sites, require specifically adapted solutions for slurry, spoil, reinforcement and concrete handling and the related logistic to ensure smooth production. Furthermore, one focus will be given to the QA/QC topics of the production process. Real time installation control, data transfer and reporting systems become more and more important ensuring the five dimensions of a jobsite. Therefore, the paper will describe the construction method and the sequence of activities required for the construction of diaphragm wall systems with the focus on the cutter technology. It will describe also the main equipment which will be needed to execute these works under the various conditions INTRODUCTION Diaphragm walls are known as underground structural elements commonly used as retention systems for excavation pits and shafts and permanent foundation walls or elements. It can be anticipated that, with the increasing trend of utilizing more and more underground space to accommodate environmental considerations and urban/suburban development, there will be an increasing requirement for diaphragm wall usage in even more difficult conditions. Of course diaphragm wall can also be used as deep groundwater barriers (Cut-Off-Walls). This market has shown that the demand for these types of walls is reaching more and more difficult soil conditions or required depths which are surpassing the current standard. The trench cutter is the most important tool for performing this work. The trench cutter itself is a reverse circulation excavation tool. It consists of a heavy steel frame with two drive gears attached to its bottom end, which rotates in opposite direction around horizontal axis. Cutter wheels are mounted onto the drive gears. As they rotate, the soil beneath the cutter is continuously being broken up, removed, mixed with the bentonite slurry in the trench and moved towards the opening of the pump suction box. The slurry loaded with soil and rock particles is pumped by a centrifugal pump which is located right above the cutter wheels, up through a hose system up to a desanding plant where the slurry is cleaned and returned into the trench."

Jan 1, 2015