Search Documents

By Hee-suk Yun, Dae-jin Hwang, Jeong-woo Seok, Myoung-mo Kim

"In this paper, the accuracy of the data measured by a newly developed displacement measuring system, DPRMs (Digital Pile Penetration and Rebound Monitoring system) and its applicability as a quality control tool were verified by field measurements of pile penetration and rebound for pile driving performed at 3 construction sites and 1 test site. The DPRMs data were found to be much better than handwork data. A new dynamic formula for pile capacities is proposed uses the results of a pilot dynamic load test and the final pile penetration. The ratios of pile capacities obtained by the new formula to those by the dynamic load test were 94%±7.4% in the contrast with 123±28.3% by the 5S formula and 68±24.0% by Hiley's formula. This result shows the superiority of the new formula. The ratios of the maximum compressive stresses calculated by using DPRMs to those calculated by using PDA (Pile Driving Analyzer) were about 90-110±10%. This result confirms the applicability of DPRMs as an overdriving monitoring tool. Two sets of DPRMs were used to measure the 3-D displacement behavior of a pile head at the test site. The more the pile head moves laterally, the less the final set values were expected because of the loss of driving energy, but this trend was not obvious within the limited data obtained at the test site.INTRODUCTIONPile construction monitoring consists of two parts. In the first part, enough capacity of the pile is secured to stand the design load. In the other part, pile damage during driving is prevented. Although several methods can be applied to achieve the first part, PDA is nearly the only tool for measuring pile stress.Several methods such as a static load test, a dynamic load test, an Osterberg cell, and numerous driving equations can determine the pile capacity. Among them, the static load test and the dynamic load test are most widely used. The static load test is advantageous because it has the highest reliability. The disadvantages are as follows: it is costly and time-consuming. Also, the capacity of the pile under construction cannot be evaluated. The dynamic load test has lower reliability than the static load test, but it is cheaper than the static load test, is reliable enough to determine the pile capacity, can evaluate the capacity of a pile during construction, and can offer information about construction conditions such as the pile integrity and the pi le stress during driving. The dynamic load test takes a relatively short time and is low cost compared with the static load test. However, it is still costly, time-consuming, and unnecessary to apply to all piles in the field as a construction measurement tool. Therefore, driving resistance (blowcounts) is commonly measured to confirm the pile capacity at construction sites."

Jan 1, 2005

By Theodore von Rosenvinge

Large diameter (2.4 meter) drilled shaft foundations were installed to depths of over 62 meters through soil into Arkose bedrock for Connecticut?s Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (I-95 over New Haven Harbor). The project involved many ?firsts? including the first ?extradosed? cable-stayed bridge in the US, and for Connecticut, the deepest drilled shafts, the first use of a rotator to install shaft casing, and the first use of the Mini-Sid technology for rock socket bottom inspection. Design utilized both friction and end bearing for rock sockets. O-Cell testing was employed to maximize performance factors during design and to allow adjustments to socket lengths during construction. Favorable test results permitted a reduction in socket lengths and significant cost saving.

Jan 1, 2011

By Adel Hanna

Earth pressure acting on piles driven in sand is playing a major role in estimating pile capacity. In literature, researchers entertained simplifying assumptions in estimating the earth pressure acting on the pile's shaft, ignoring the effects of pile installation and pile size. Empirical formulae were introduced based on laboratory or field test results, where major discrepancies can be found among these formulae. In this paper, the theory of cavity expansion and the finite element technique will be used to establish the effects of pile installation technique and pile's diameter on the earth pressure acting on the pile's shaft and accordingly on the values of the existing coefficient of passive earth pressure and overconsolidated ratio. It is of interest to note that pile driven technique and pile's diameter have significant increase on the earth pressure acting on the pile's shaft and accordingly on the overconsolidation ratio in case of loose or medium sands, while they may cause crushing and dilation in case of dense sand. Keywords: Single pile, Cavity expansion, Cohesionless soil, Driven piles, Numerical modelling, Finite element technique, Earth pressure.

Jan 1, 2003

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Four drilled shafts, two on each side of the bridge (NJ and NY), were load tested using the bi-directional axial load method. Axial test results demonstrate that RQD, taken by itself, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of side or base resistance. High recovery with low RQD can be a function of horizontally bedded siltstone and shale where the individual pieces of core do not exceed four inches, but may still provide very high side and base resistance. Axial testing was followed by a lateral rapid-load test (Statnamic) on each of the same four shafts. In addition, one of the shafts was subjected to a static lateral load test to validate the rapid-load method as being representative of static loading conditions. Results of the axial load tests provide the basis of unit side and unit base resistances used in the LRFD design of the rock sockets for axial loading, while results of the static and Statnamic lateral load tests were used to calibrate p-y curve parameters used for design under lateral and moment loading. This paper describes implementation of the load testing program and its role in the design process.INTRODUCTIONDesign of drilled shaft foundations for the Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) required load testing in order to validate the parameters used for calculating geotechnical axial and lateral resistances. The bridge, including foundations, was designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, 6th Edition (2012). The bridge owner is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). One of the PANYNJ project requirements was stated as follows:“Perform a minimum of two (2) separate axial compression load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology to verify the design assumptions and construction procedures. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.Conduct a minimum of two (2) lateral load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.”"

Jan 1, 2016

By Federico Pagliacci

"Many existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or pervious rocks or karst. Remedial works are necessary in order to install new cut-off walls to stop the water flow. In some cases the cut-off walls have to be executed at depths never reached so far, and difficult to reach with traditional foundation techniques. In many cases the Hydromill technology proved to be the best system to overpass rocky layers and ensure the required verticality. The maximum depth reached by the industry was in the range of 120-150 meters. This article describes the test performed to excavate and cast in place a 3.2x1.5 m panel to a depth of 250 m. The article will also describe the stratigraphy of the site down to 250 meters, as well as the technique adopted to achieve the said depth with deviations from verticality of 30 cm along the longitudinal axis (0.12%) and 20 cm along the transverse axis (0.10%), measured at the bottom of the excavation. The concreting of the panel, for about 1,100 m³, with plastic concrete in the lower portion and conventional concrete in the upper portion will be illustrated. Finally, the tests performed during the excavation and after concrete casting will be also described, with special attention to the continuous directional core drilling that was performed along the whole length of the panel to verify the results of the deviation from verticality, through the onboard instruments, and to control the quality of concrete at a depth never reached before. IntroductionMany existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or caves and cavities or acid solutions in the bedrock formations.Conventional remedial works generally consist in the construction of an additional cut-off wall throughout the dam body and the subsoil, in most cases being deeper than the original one. Today, many examples of successful remedial cut-off walls allow the engineers to design the most suitable solution according to the dam and subsoil characteristics and nature.The real difficulty stems from the depth at which the new cut-off wall has to be socketed in competent rock or soil, so as to eliminate underwater seepage. The maximum depth ever achieved with a cut-off wall is 122.5 m for the remedial work of Mud Mountain Dam, Washington, USA, in 1988-1990. This 0.85-1.0 m thick cut-off wall was realized by means of a Hydromill, by excavating single 2.8 m-wide secant panels."

Jan 1, 2017

By James N. Mure

The paper describes the design development and construction of bored piles at Pindersfield Hospital, Wakefield, U.K. The piles were of monopile type. Monopile is the term used to describe piles which are constructed without pile caps so that the superstructure columns bear directly on the pile top. Pile geotechnical design was developed from the Site Investigation data and testing of two preliminary piles. Final design philosophy is described. Pile structural design was developed from the loadings applied by the superstructure, and the requirements, tolerances and limitations of monopile construction techniques. Construction was closely controlled in order to achieve a ?right first time? result. The conclusion gives a critique of the system and its value.

Jan 1, 2008

By Vivek Samu, Murthy Guddati

A new method called Effective Dispersion Analysis of Reflections (EDAR) was recently developed to effectively analyze the dispersive waves generated from lateral impact to piles. This paper presents the results of nondestructive length estimation of existing piles through EDAR. EDAR provides a new visualization method for analyzing wave reflections by transforming the response into the frequency domain thus eliminating the need to perform difficult peak picking in the time domain. In addition to being able to analyze dispersive waves, EDAR also incorporates the effects of radiation damping due to the surrounding soil leading to more accurate length estimates. Concrete filled steel tubes of different embedment depths were tested both in laboratory and field conditions. Length estimates obtained were within 10% error margins after careful analysis accounting for the presence of soil effects and effects from pile top reflection.

By Paolo Cavalcoli, Federico Pagliacci

"As opposed to the static functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles). Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago. These are real challenges for those carrying out these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the rhetorical figure of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In reference to the case studies in this article: the permanent retaining walls for the Copenhagen Metro, and the structural repairs to the Arapuni Dam in New Zealand and the Wolf Creek Dam in the U.S., we will describe the foundations constructed in presence of rock using combined small-diameter direction drilling solutions, associated with their enlargement up to the project’s size, at depths exceeding 300 feet. Finally, a case study will be presented on the implementation of a large cross-section of an excavation in the rock, at depths greater than 800 feet.IntroductionAs opposed to the functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles).Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago.These are real challenges for those building these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the biblical figures of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In the engineering field, the force is summarized in the use of ever-larger drilling equipment in terms of installed power, weight in working conditions, winch and rotary capacity."

Jan 1, 2015

Abouleid,A.F.327 Ajdic, I.451 Albert, L.F. 221,307 Alem, A. 525 Asama, T. 431 Avgherinos, P. J. 373 Baker Jr, C.N. 331 Balossi Restelli, A. 171 Beckwith,G.H.33 Bellini, A. 469 Bermingham, P. 481 Bertero,M. 171,535 Beyer, M. 503 Bottiau, M.41 Botto, G. 205 Bruskeland, O. 337 Budhu, M. 349 Bullivant, R.A. 181 Bustamante, M.G. 185, 475, 535

Jan 1, 1994

By Yu Chuang, Zai Jinmin, Liu Songyu

"The piled raft foundation is a geotechnical composite construction method, consisting of three elements, piles, raft and soils, which is applied for the foundation in an increasing number. Differential settlements have numerous negative effects on a superstructure in piled raft foundations. Through the analysis of the production mechanism of differential settlements and differential settlements control measures, a method of adjusting pile configurations is presented to control differential settlements. By comparing the measured data and finite element method analysis of one oil storage piled raft foundation, the new method is verified that the differential settlements can be reduced effectively and the inner forces of foundations are more reasonable with varying length pile configurations. The differential settlements can be minimized or even reduced to zero with right pile length.INTRODUCTIONPiled raft foundations are widely adopted for the prominent advantage of limited settlements and adequate bearing capacities. However, there always exits differential settlements in conventional piled raft foundations. The differential settlement is the main cause that produces additional stresses in the structure. Differential settlements have numerous negative effects on a superstructure as well as on a foundation, and should be restricted to allowable limits. How to control the differential settlement is the key interest.An increasing number of structures are founded on piled rafts. For this reason, design strategies that enable an optimized design have a major importance for safety and economy. An optimized design may be defined as a design achieving maximum economy of the solution, that is minimum cost for the installation of the foundation."

Jan 1, 2005

By Ke Yang

"Drilled shafts are typically used to support structures subjected to large moments at the shaft head. The large moment can produce push and pull forces on the two sides of a drilled shaft. Consequently, the applied moment is partially resisted by the push-pull moment resistance induced from the vertical side shears. This type of push-pull resistance has not been fully recognized in most design and analysis methods. In this paper, a 30 finite element model for a drilled shaft subjected to lateral load and moment is presented and is validated against two field lateral load tests. Based on the 30 finite element model, a parametric study is carried out. It shows that the push-pull moment can resist 18-35% of the applied moment. The parametric study also shows that the push-pull resistance varies linearly with loading eccentricity when the eccentricity is less than the shaft embedment length. A method to estimate the push-pull resistance is proposed based on the results of the parametric study. Then, a new method for lateral capacity prediction is proposed to account for the push-pull resistance. The base shear resistance is significant for short drilled shafts; therefore it is also included in the proposed method. A case study on four lateral load field tests illustrates that the new method could improve the accuracy of lateral capacity prediction when compared with the traditional Broms method.INTRODUCTIONDrilled shafts are typically used to support a variety of structures subjected to large moments. Sound walls, highway signs, traffic signals, high-rise buildings, electrical transmission towers, and bridge piers are examples of cases where lateral loads with large eccentricity would result in high overturning moments on foundations.Current analysis methods for capacity predictions (Broms, 1964a and 1964b; Brinch Hansen, 1961) or deflection predictions (Reese, et al. 197 4) of laterally loaded drilled shafts are based on the lateral resistance of soils and rocks. However, O'Neill pointed out that moments can be partially resisted through the push-pull resistance provided by the vertical side shears due to the rotation of the pile (Reese, 1997)."

Jan 1, 2005

By Charles M. Wilk

"Solidification/stabilization (S/S) treatment is used to treat hazardous wastes for disposal and in the remediation/site restoration of contaminated land . SIS is also an increasingly popular technology for Brownfield (industrial property) redevelopment, since treated wastes can often be left on-site and to improve the soil for subsequent construction. This paper discusses the applicability of the technology to various wastes, basic cement chemistry relating to SIS, tests used to design treatability studies and to verify treatment, basics on implementation of the technology in the field , and examples of SIS use at brownfield sites, including a former wood preserving site, former manufactured gas plant sites, a former electric generating station, and a shopping mall development.INTRODUCTIONSolidification/Stabilization (S/S) is a widely used treatment for the management/disposal of a broad range of contaminated media and wastes; particularly those contaminated with substances classified as hazardous in the United States. The treatment involves mixing a binding reagent into the contaminated media or waste. The treatment protects human health and the environment by immobilizing contaminants within the treated material. Immobilization within the treated material prevents migration of the contaminants to human, animal and plant receptors. SIS treatment has been used to treat radioactive wastes since the 1950s and hazardous waste since the 1970's (Conner 1990). SIS continues as a cornerstone treatment technology for the management of radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and site remediation and Brownfield redevelopment."

Jan 1, 2005

By Terrence M. Carroll, Chu E. Ho

"A pile installation and load testing program on driven tapered piles was undertaken at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for the extension of the existing Terminal 4. As part of the program, dynamic testing by means of the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) was performed on several preliminary test piles as well as production piles. The results of the dynamic tests and subsequent static load tests were reviewed to develop an understanding of the pile-soil response of a tapered pile during driving and after setup. Pile setup occurred as a result of increase in shaft resistance with virtually no increase in toe resistance. More than 150 tons of additional capacity was gained after the setup time.The capacities measured during driving from the PDA are typically used as the basis for determining the pile driving set criteria, with the required initial driving capacities determined largely by the contractor’s experience. An improved appreciation of the setup phenomenon is required to better refine the driving criteria at the end of initial driving such that the required ultimate capacities can be obtained, with reasonable confidence, after a period of setup.This paper presents interpretation of pile-soil behavior from Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) analyses and discusses the mechanism of increased capacity as a result of setup effects. Time-dependent capacity gain as a result of setup effects should be based on the extrapolation of the shaft resistance component rather than the total pile capacity as is commonly practiced. Prediction of pile performance using this approach was in good agreement with observed static and dynamic load test results.IntroductionTapered piles have been adopted for various projects at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFKIA) since the late 1940’s. Initially timber piles were used exclusively, with steel Monotube piles being used from at least the 1980’s (Horvath and Trochalides, 2004). The steel Tapertube pile was developed in the mid-1990’s and has commonly been used in recent construction (Brusey and Yin, 2008). The Tapertube piles used for this project consisted of a 25 foot long tapered section that was 8 inches in diameter at the tip and 18 inches in diameter at the top. An 18 inch diameter straight pipe was welded above the tapered section."

Jan 1, 2015

By Evangelia Ieronymaki

Civil engineering education relies on traditional methods of teaching, comprising mostly of deductive instruction by presenting the theory, followed by applications. This paper presents an alternative way for teaching foundation design to senior students, introducing a more inductive approach. The students are presented with a project/game adapted to a real-world problem at the beginning of the course. They are asked to identify the correct steps and methods throughout the lectures, for reaching an appropriate solution that they document and present at the end of the course. To make the project more enjoyable, the project has the format of a game where the students compete with each other on completing the task faster and more efficiently. The goal of this teaching approach is to enhance the ability of the students for problem solving and the engineering way of thinking, while playing a game. In the end, the students were requested to respond to a survey regarding the efficiency of this project/game on their learning. The results showed that students prefer more inductive methods for a design course, feeling that this project made them think more like engineers, while the ‘game’ twist of it made the whole course more fun. INTRODUCTION Most civil engineering courses are taught in 2019 the same way they used to be taught 40 years ago in the 80s. Classic methods are mostly deductive, where the instructor presents the theory first and then applications of that theory follow. Little or no attention is given initially to why the theory was developed or what are the problems it solves. The applications of the theory, and thus the purpose it serves, come only in the end and after methodologies have been presented, leading the students to show low interest in the material. As Albanese and Mitchell (1993) have reported, people are mostly motivated to learn things when they clearly see the need to know them. This explains the students’ little motivation that, if any, comes mainly from the fact that the material may be useful either in other courses or in their future careers. On the other hand, there are alternative inductive methods of teaching, where the role of the students is more active. A lot of researchers have highlighted the benefits of inductive methods in teaching engineering courses. Based on Prince and Fedler (2006), inductive methods include; a) inquiry-learning, b) discovery learning, c) problem and project-based learning (PBL), d) case-based teaching, and e) just-in-time learning. Inquiry-learning is maybe the most traditional method of inductive teaching/learning methods, where the instructor asks questions or poses problems and the students need to apply the theory they have learnt in order to find the solution (Bateman 1990; Prince 2004; Lee 2012). Similar to inquire-learning is the discovery learning, where students have to find the solution to a problem or answer to a question, while the instructor simply provides feedback to the students without guiding their efforts (Leonard 1988; Westbrook and Rogers 1994).

Jan 1, 2019

By Paul J. Sabatini, Robert C. Bachus, Terence P. Holman, Panos Andonyadis

A recent landslide comprising approximately 12 acres (4.86 hectare) and a displaced volume of more than 500,000 cy (382,000 m3) caused the shutdown of a four-lane state highway and two high-capacity freight railway lines. After completion of immediate landslide stabilization activities, various long-term slope stabilization measures were implemented that focused primarily on gradual slope unloading in areas near and upslope from the scarp of the landslide. Near the completion of the upslope excavation, an anchored soldier beam and lagging wall was constructed to allow for the temporary unloading of the toe of the main landslide area to facilitate installation of a permanent underdrain. The design of the anchored wall utilized information collected during the rehabilitation construction and included inclinometer data, site survey results, piezometer data, and field construction observations. Using the history of site-specific movements, results of back-analysis calculations from the landslide, and geometry/performance of the post-construction slope configurations, the fully softened and residual shear strengths along two potentially critical sliding surfaces were calculated. Owing to the high confidence in the values of shear strength as afforded by this information, the confidence in local groundwater conditions, and control of the loads, the designers selected a relatively low, calculated short-term factor of safety (FS) (i.e., FS ˜ 1.1 to 1.2) for the most critical unloading step. Long term calculated FS values on the order of 1.2 to 1.3 were anticipated. This paper describes the detailed evaluation of the landslide slope movement data associated with the shallow and deep potentially critical failure surfaces and selection of the associated values of design shear strength for these potentially critical surfaces. A description is presented of the analyses and design of the anchored wall, measures implemented during construction to minimize slope movements, and post-construction monitoring results during the unloading and subsequent installation of the underdrain.

Jan 1, 2017

By James G. Ulinski, Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero, Vishal B. Patel

"Recently modified design equations used in the transportation industry to calculate side friction and end bearing capacity for drilled shafts are now providing more realistic estimations of capacities than did previous methods. Using multiple case studies and test results from various projects, a more realistic design approach was formulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which resulted in greater values of ultimate capacity for side friction and end bearing and in a more efficient design overall.In 2010, the FHWA published GEC-10 – Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, which illustrates a different method of calculating side friction and end bearing resistance and results in greater values for design. In 2014, the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) adopted the method put forth by FHWA, which was included in its LRFD Bridge Design th Specifications, 7 Edition. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) recently adopted and incorporated the similar methodology as AASHTO for calculating side friction and end bearing for drilled shafts in rock, and these changes are reflected in the 2015 edition of the PennDOT Design Manual, Part 4 (DM-4). This article discusses the past and current design methodology along with a project case study with results from Osterberg Cell (O-cell) load testing, which presents a comparison between the design resistances of ultimate side friction and end bearing and the measured capacities at failure.The Old and the NewEditions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual from 2012 and earlier estimated ultimate side resistance, qs, in rock using the following equation (modified from Horvath and Kenney, 1979):qs=0.65aEpa(qu/pa)0.5 < 7.8pa(f ’c/pa)0.5 where: qu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock in ksf; pa is the atmospheric pressure in ksf; aE is the reduction factor to account for jointing in rock; and f ’c is the compressive strength of the concrete in ksi. For intact rock, previous versions of the AASHTO manual required that the ultimate end bearing resistance, qp, was calculated using the following equation: qp=2.5qu."

Jan 1, 2017

By Rick Deschamps

A reoccurring problem with support of excavations in urban areas involves the placement of external support components like anchors or nails in right-a-ways, subway and utility setbacks, in areas occupied by adjacent structures, and within the property of non cooperative neighbors. Such a situation occurred for a project in Arlington, Virginia, which ultimately resulted in the preliminary design of a large footing supported cantilever retaining wall that was extremely costly and impractical to build. An innovative design alternate consisting of a series of vertical concrete elements (VCEs) supported by post tensioned tiedowns was proposed to the General Contractor and accepted by the owner. The VCEs were designed to serve as the main structural elements for both the temporary support of excavation system and the permanent wall. The VCE?s were constructed using single bite diaphragm wall panels oriented perpendicular to the excavation face including a rebar cage and tremie concrete. Threaded inserts were placed within the rebar cage to attach the cast in place exterior wall. Overall stability and lateral movement of the VCEs were controlled by high capacity vertical anchors embedded within the VCE. A detailed instrumentation program was installed to monitor the movements of the VCEs with relation to the excavation depth. The paper present the project case history by discussing the design concepts of the VCE, the construction approaches used to install them, the construction challenges encountered, and the performance of the unique system.

Jan 1, 2008

By Monica Prezzi

"Auger cast-in-place (ACIP} piles and drilled displacement piles are being increasingly used as foundation elements for structures, particularly in projects requiring accelerated construction or involving the rehabilitation of foundations of existing, overstressed structures. Auger cast-in-place piles (also referred to as continuous-flight-auger piles) are widely used to construct the foundations of all types of structures. There are many different types of drilled displacement piles, with the installation methods varying according to the equipment used. Depending on the specific rotary piling technology used, responses ranging from those associated with non-displacement to those associated with full-displacement piles are obtained. Conventional pile design methods do not account for how the various construction techniques involved in auger piling change the soil state around the pile during installation and, hence, cannot accurately estimate the pile resistance in a consistent way. Research on this subject, identifying the different variables that must be accounted for in design and linking these variables to installation methods, is lacking. This paper describes the different piling methods available for auger cast-in-place and drilled displacement piles, the equipment used to install them and the quality control processes typically used. It also reviews some of the design methods currently used.IntroductionDeep foundations are extensively used in geotechnical engineering practice. The wide spectrum of piling methods results in a variety of pile types. Each type behaves differently, depending on the installation or construction methods. On one end of the spectrum are non-displacement piles, the classicql examples of which are bored piles or drilled · shafts. These piles are constructed by removing a cylinder of soil from the ground and replacing it with concrete and reinforcement. On the other end are full-displacement piles, such as closed-ended pipe piles or precast reinforced concrete piles, which are typically driven into the ground. Driven piles preload the materials below the toe of the pile and displace the soil surrounding the pile shaft laterally during the installation process. Therefore, displacement piles are, in general, more likely to have a stiffer response than non-displacement piles. This is true particularly in the case of sandy soils where displacement causes densification."

Jan 1, 2005

By Kevin Kuhl

With the destruction of the US-90 Bridge spanning St. Louis Bay by Hurricane Katrina, the State of Mississippi awarded its first major design-build contract in order to have a completed four-lane bridge in a period of less than two years. The structure consists of 76 pre-cast concrete beam spans with a total bridge length from Bent 1 to Bent 77 of 11,124 ft (2.1 miles). All 77 bents are founded on pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete piles and consist of two foundation types: pile bents and water line footings. A total of 53 pile bents were utilized where the deck is less than 52 ft above the water. Further divided, 10 pile bents, supported by 24 in. square, solid piles, are located on land. The remainder of the pile bents are located within St. Louis Bay and supported by 36 in. square, voided piles. All the waterline footings are supported by 30 in. square, voided piles. In total, 138 -24 in., 437 -30 in., and 463 -36 in. piles support the structure. Production pile design was based upon information gathered from the subsurface investigation, design soil profile and 23 out-of-position test piles. Verification of the design was established by monitoring the first production pile driven at each bent using the Pile Driving Analyzer. Particular challenges included highly variable coastal deposits, loads in excess of 1600 kips per pile and a compressed construction schedule. Initial drive capacity of a portion of the production test piles was less than expected resulting in a minimum 14 day setup. Following the setup period, restrikes were necessary to verify capacity. Project production piles ranging from 50 ft in length to in excess of 160 ft in length were used to achieve the required resistance. This paper includes a brief overview of the foundation design and indicator test pile program. The main objective is to provide a summary of the quality control procedures including establishing the driving criteria for each bent and to present issues that arose during production pile driving and the solutions that followed.

May 11, 2007

"The Morris Island Lighthouse (MIL) is located between the jetties leading to the Charleston Harbor and Folly Beach, S.C. The present structure is the third lighthouse to occupy this location. The first navigational aid was erected in 1673, and consisted of a raised pan filled with pitch, which was set afire at night to guide early ships. The next structure was built in 1767, and constituted the first real lighthouse, standing 42 ft (12.8 m) in height. In 1838, a second lighthouse was built on the site, and it measured 102 ft (31 m) in height and featured a revolving light. This structure lasted until 1862 when Confederate troops, during the Civil War, destroyed it to deny its use to Union troops.Navigators steered these waters without a lighthouse for nearly a decade until 1876, when the current structure was built under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 1886, the Charleston area suffered a M7.6 earthquake. Significant damage was caused throughout much of the area, including a slight “list” of the lighthouse to the northeast. As a result, the cast of the beacon was reduced from 18 mi (29 km) to about 6 mi (9.7 km), causing much distress to navigators until the beacon platform was releveled and remains at this list to the present day.Conditions for ConcernThe current lighthouse was originally constructed about 1,200 ft (366 m) from the shoreline. Over the years, USACE has undertaken several programs to meet the increased shipping and navigation demands in the Charleston Harbor. Around the turn of the last century, two jetties were constructed, which drastically changed the approach direction for ships entering the harbor. In subsequent years, the harbor began to experience accelerated siltation."

Jan 1, 2017