Search Documents

By Seth K. Martin, Tony Nichlany, Alan R. Poeppel, Konstantinos Syngros

"This paper presents a case study on bored pile construction in challenging karst conditions below a supertall building in Kuala Lumpur. Innovative design and construction techniques helped keep the project moving through very difficult and unpredictable geological and drilling conditions. The development encompasses about 12,400 square meters and includes a 77-story tower, a 59-story tower, a five-story podium, and four contiguous basement levels. The site is underlain by a residual soil derived from a siltstone/claystone (the Kenny Hill formation), then limestone bedrock. Subsurface conditions are relatively uniform within the Kenny Hill and highly variable at the limestone surface. Extreme cases included 40-meter-tall underground caverns, 40-meter-tall pinnacles, and a 50-meter-tall underground rock ledge. Local piling practice in Kuala Lumpur involves deriving pile capacity entirely in the Kenny Hill formation to avoid the unpredictable limestone surface. However, the massive tower foundation loads and relatively shallow bedrock required the piles to be socketed in the limestone. The 77-story tower will be supported by 2.0- and 2.2-meter-diameter bored piles 50 to 100+ meters long, socketed in limestone, with working loads between 40 and 70 Meganewtons. Two Osterberg-cell load tests were used to develop a site-specific rock socket skin friction correlation with RQD. Exploratory rock probes were drilled at each pile location to design the rock socket length based on the rock quality and sloping rock conditions. The rock mass was pressure-grouted during each rock probe to improve the rock quality and fill voids in the rock.INTRODUCTIONThe Kuala Lumpur City Centre, home of the Petronas Towers and the world’s deepest foundations, will be the future home of a new supertall tower. The 77-story tower will be supported by a piled-raft foundation that relies on piles terminating in the highly erratic, karstic Kuala Lumpur limestone formation. The high building loads coupled with relatively shallow limestone across the majority of the tower footprint forced the piles to extend into the limestone."

Jan 1, 2016

By Rob van Dorp

"AbstractThe Monitoring & Instrumentation Committee (MIC) of DFI Europe has the objective to support DFI members in concern of risk management of geotechnical matters, where monitoring and instrumentation have added value.Work of the CommitteeA study by the committee showed that there are already several existing (national) guidelines. They all have their strengths and limitations and their focus may vary a little per country due to local regulations and typical local building activities, but the main question remains what added value another new guideline would have. More likely it would add to the confusion instead of providing overview.Companies with larger experience in geotechnical monitoring (often larger consultancy firm, contractors or clients) are already quite familiar with its benefits do not really need a new guideline in how to design and effectively apply sophisticated geotechnical monitoring systems for special projects.Therefore the aim of the MIC is to focus a little more towards smaller organizations - that are less familiar with monitoring and instrumentation - and the more ‘regular’ type of project that they are mainly involved in. The MIC wants to create a tool which helps them to create risk awareness, to understand the benefits of geotechnical monitoring and to provide them information about how and where to find the right partners and equipment to setup and apply appropriate monitoring systems for their projects.Monitoring and instrumentation benefits are for example:• Risk control during construction stage;• Costs reduction in design and construction (taken limitation of geotechnical aspects into account).• Prevent of unnecessary delays in construction work• Increasing general awareness of geotechnical risks and possibilities of monitoring.The cost of monitoring compared to the cost of failure and/or the savings that can be achieved play a role in the work of the committee. DFI members benefit from the shared knowledge by the MIC on monitoring and instrumentation within their process of risk management."

Jan 1, 2014

By Rick Deschamps

"Fountain Slide is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northeast of Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada, within the Coastal Mountain Range, and has been locally active since the 1970s. The project site is located near the base of the relic Tunnel Mountain landslide. The progressive movements have posed a significant challenge to British Columbia (BC) 99, the main north-south highway in the region. The slide began affecting the British Columbia Railway Company (BCR) tracks in the 1990s. In 2004, the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) acquired BCR and, during the next 11 years, undertook measures to stabilize the rail bed. Some of the measures undertaken include numerous track realignments, a shotcrete and soil nail wall, an anchored soldier pile-and-lagging wall, and adding a row of anchors to the wall. For many years, the measures had proved successful until mid-2014 when it was observed that the slide retrogressed uphill of the tracks. Since that time, the slide movements typically ranged between 5/32 and 0.4 in (4 and 10 mm) per day, leading to extreme distortion of the earth retention system and the need for frequent track realignment.In the spring of 2016, CN issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a designbuild solution with the expectations of: (1) a safety factor greater than 1.2, (2) considering only the currently identified retrogressive blocks that extend to about 200 ft (61 m) above the track; and (3) minimizing activities outside the current easement. It was also communicated that there was a possibility that a portion of the line may have to be abandoned if the proposed remediation was cost prohibitive.The fact that the existing slide was a small fraction of the relic slide was intimidating. The relic slide extended for approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) above the uppermost retrogressive block that was now affecting the rail line. Other areas of concern included:"

Jan 1, 2017

By Herbert F. ?Buck? Darling

A bridge replacement project in Rochester, NY, encountered difficulties when it was determined that rock below one pier was sloping downward toward the river at an angle of 42 degrees versus anticipated 12 degrees. Cofferdam design and construction became very difficult. The unanticipated subsurface conditions delayed the project by eighteen months and increased the cofferdam cost by almost $3.0 million ($US) when direct costs and associated delays were taken into account. The initial approach after discovery of the problem was to use the same type pier design and modify the cofferdam accordingly. This resulted in a cofferdam 12 meters (39.4 feet) deep on the shore side and 18 meters (59.0 feet) deep on the water side. The design used a master pile system to attain required wall strength and used rock anchors to prevent the cofferdam from moving toward the river. The pier foundation was then redesigned by the owner using revised seismic parameters. The original stepped footing carved into rock was replaced by caissons socketed into the rock beneath a large tremie concrete placement. The revised pier and cofferdam designs caused a shift from a mostly land based cofferdam, excavation, and rock removal project into an almost entirely water based cofferdam, caisson drilling, and tremie construction project. These design changes resulted in a reliable, safe, and unusual cofferdam and construction method. All of this was accomplished within a very narrow worksite with a railroad on one side, and the river with its public and commercial freighter traffic on the other. In addition, the existing two-leaf drawbridge was to be maintained in place which put further limitations on the water borne equipment. The engineering and construction considerations, problems, and solutions related to these cofferdams and pier foundations are presented.

Jan 1, 2013

By William M. Tanner, Daniel C. Brahana

"A drilled pier foundation was originally designed to support the proposed G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons on the campus of Georgia Tech in Atlanta, GA. Reflective of the site geology, the original drilled pier foundation was divided into a Northern and Southern portion with an allowable end bearing capacity of 60 ksf and 100 ksf, respectively. After initial pricing on the original design, several value engineering options were submitted that featured changes to the original design capacity and construction method. The project team selected the value engineering option that involved conducting an Osterberg Load Cell test to assess end bearing of the site bedrock and skin friction. Results of the Osterberg Load Cell test justified increasing the allowable end bearing capacity of the site bedrock to 100 ksf in the Northern portion and 125 ksf in the Southern portion. Considering the final foundation design and Osterberg Load Cell test program, a net savings of approximately $259,000, or approximately 34%, was obtained over the original design.Project BackgroundThe G. Wayne Clough Undergraduate Learning Commons (CULC) is a 5-story academic building on the Georgia Tech campus in Atlanta, Georgia. The CULC was completed in 2011 and consists of a concrete frame structure supported on a drilled pier foundation.After pricing of the original drilled pier foundation design, several value engineering (VE) analyses were performed by the foundation contractor in an effort to demonstrate the potential for a reduced foundation cost. The VE analyses focused on variations in design assumptions, as well as construction techniques. This paper presents a case study that demonstrates how the value engineering process can be used to reduce foundation costs.Site Investigation and Subsurface ConditionsThe CULC building site is located within the Southern Piedmont Physiographic Province, an area underlain by metamorphic and igneous rocks. McConnell and Abrams (1984) indicate that the site is located at the boundary between two distinct geologic formations. The Northern portion of the site is underlain by the Wahoo Creek Formation while the Southern portion of the site is underlain by the Stonewall Formation. The following paragraphs briefly describe the geotechnical investigations performed by the project geotechnical engineer (GE) for the CULC."

Jan 1, 2015

By Richard T. Stain

"In 2001, a pile trial site was established at Limelette in Belgium consisting of 25 displacement screw piles and 5 driven pre-cast piles. Interested parties were invited to participate in a pile prediction event, whereby they would submit predicted static load test behaviour in the form of load settlement plots. These predictions could be based on soil investigation results supplied by the organizers, or dynamic load test measurements.Following the submission deadline, the organisers released the results of static load tests for comparison.Of all the six participants, including Statnamic, the SIMBAT method was independently accredited with achieving the best predictions.This paper examines at the differences between SIMBAT and other systems, and presents the correlations from the Limelette trial.INTRODUCTIONThe Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) initiated an ambitious research programme involving the construction and testing of some 60 trial piles spread between two sites, a clay site at Sint Kateline Waver and a sandy site at the BBRI headquarters at Limelette. The project was financed largely by the Belgian Ministry of Economic affairs. (ref 1.) This paper refers only to the second site.At Limelette, six different types of displacement pile were installed: one driven pre-cast and five cast in place screw piles - Atlas, DeWaal, Fundex, Olivier and Omega. A detailed site investigation was carried out including in-situ and laboratory tests.An international pile capacity prediction event was publicised, participants being invited to predict static pile behaviour. Predictions could be based on:"

Jan 1, 2005

By Burt G. Look, David W. Lacey

"Certification of foundation capacity during the construction phase is often assessed by strength or weathering state descriptors based on visual observations. This case study used the Point Load Index (PLI) test as a quantitative tool in the construction certification of a pile’s design capacity. Construction phase tests were completed on irregular sized rock samples whilst comparable design phase testing was completed on intact rock core samples. Statistical comparisons were made to assess the repeatability between the PLI tests, with best-fit Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) determined for both datasets. Pronounced differences were observed based on the PDF adopted to characterize the PLI dataset, the consequence of which would be a significant change to the pile’s design capacity. The adoption of the lower quartile value is shown to satisfy both design conservatism and construction simplicity requirements. The commonly held belief that rock samples produced during socket excavation may be biased towards the higher strength portion of the rock mass, is shown to be invalid for this site. As the central bridge piers were certified using Plate Load Tests (PLTs), the resultant load-settlement relationships were compared with the PLI strength assessments made for similar materials recovered from the adjacent abutment piles.INTRODUCTIONThe upgrade of the Foxwell Road Overpass across the Pacific Motorway in South East Queensland required the duplication of an existing four span bridge structure. The foundations of the new bridge included the installation of 1.2m diameter cast in place (bored) piles at the bridge abutments and 900mm diameter cast in place (bored) piles below a retaining wall to be constructed adjacent to the existing abutment.The site geology was dominated by the Palaeozoic Neranleigh–Fernvale Beds, predominantly comprised of argillite, sandstone and greywacke. Limited soil materials existed at the site, with Extremely Weathered (EW) rock typically encountered within metres of the existing ground surface. The exception to the existence of shallow rock were locations where existing filling of the site had occurred – i.e. approach embankments to existing bridge structure.Capacity of pile sockets is typically assessed onsite by descriptive rock strength or weathering assessment. Such descriptors encompass a wide range of values and lack precision. Due to the subjectivity of such assessment techniques – a factor of 3 is often observed in terms of strength assessment based on one’s interpretation of rock strength descriptors alone – uncertainty on site often occurs regardless of whether a lower bound, average or other characteristic design parameter applies."

Jan 1, 1900

By Eric P. Bregman

As part of an on-going effort to improve water quality and reduce discharge into Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) East Boston Branch Sewer Relief Project was designed under a Federal mandate from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to upgrade the aging sewer system, increase system storage and greatly reduce the volume of combined sewer overflows into the Harbor. The project scope of work includes the installation of over 2 miles (11,800 linear feet) of 36-inch and 66-inch diameter sewer relief piping, twenty (20) temporary shafts and an approximate 100 foot open cut section, located within the densely populated neighborhood of East Boston, Massachusetts. This area is a former marshland backfilled in the early to mid 1800?s where busy commercial streets co-mingle with thickly settled residential houses. The subsurface conditions present within Boston?s complex geology include the presence of subsurface contamination as well as complex networks of underground utilities. Additional site limitations included low headroom, noise, and traffic restrictions. Together these limitations required the design of individual earth support systems, tailored for each shaft location. Moreover, challenging subsurface conditions identified during construction required design modifications to minimize cost and schedule impacts related to construction dewatering, treatment of contaminated groundwater, internal bracing, and utility relocations. This paper provides a case history of the Geo-structural design and performance of various earth support techniques utilized to construct jacking and receiving shafts designed to launch and receive two (2) micro-tunnel boring machines (MTBM) and to support the construction of new deep shaft structures in an urban coastal area.

By Eric P. Bregman, Franklin M. Grynkewicz, John E. Regan

"As part of an on-going effort to improve water quality and reduce discharge into Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) East Boston Branch Sewer Relief Project was designed under a Federal mandate from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to upgrade the aging sewer system, increase system storage and greatly reduce the volume of combined sewer overflows into the Harbor. The project scope of work includes the installation of over 2 miles (11,800 linear feet) of 36-inch and 66-inch diameter sewer relief piping, twenty (20) temporary shafts and an approximate 100 foot open cut section, located within the densely populated neighborhood of East Boston, Massachusetts. This area is a former marshland backfilled in the early to mid 1800’s where busy commercial streets co-mingle with thickly settled residential houses.The subsurface conditions present within Boston’s complex geology include the presence of subsurface contamination as well as complex networks of underground utilities. Additional site limitations included low headroom, noise, and traffic restrictions. Together these limitations required the design of individual earth support systems, tailored for each shaft location. Moreover, challenging subsurface conditions identified during construction required design modifications to minimize cost and schedule impacts related to construction dewatering, treatment of contaminated groundwater, internal bracing, and utility relocations.This paper provides a case history of the Geo-structural design and performance of various earth support techniques utilized to construct jacking and receiving shafts designed to launch and receive two (2) micro-tunnel boring machines (MTBM) and to support the construction of new deep shaft structures in an urban coastal area."

Jan 1, 2017

By Camilo A. Alvarez, Stephen K. Harris, Brian R. Zuckerman, Philip J. Meymand, Danielle M. Steinmetz

"The sleek new air traffic control tower at the San Francisco International Airport stands at 221 feet tall and is set to replace the existing air traffic control tower by 2016. This aluminum-clad, torch-like structure and three-story Integrated Facilities Building at the base are situated between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 adjacent to the tarmac. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. and Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. worked in conjunction with structural engineers from Walter P. Moore Engineers and Consultants, geotechnical engineers from URS Corporation, architects from Fentress Architects, and general contractors from Hensel Phelps Construction Company on the performance-based design of a foundation to support this critical facility, which is located in a high seismic zone and situated on the very soft soil of the San Francisco Bay margin. With the loading demands and performance criteria established and Young Bay Mud thicknesses ranging from 44 to 47 feet thick across the site, the design team employed a total of 214 24-inch diameter Auger Pressure Grouted piles, which were drilled into the underlying Franciscan Formation as deep as 148 feet below existing grade. Pile reinforcement included full-length confined cages.The piles were designed to resist Maximum Considered Earthquake axial demands as high as 1,400 kips in compression and 700 kips in tension. The performance-based pile design included verification of shear capacity under double-plastic-hinge flexural mechanisms, verification of pile ductility via non-linear moment-curvature analyses, and consideration of curvatures due to kinematic as well as inertial loading.The team implemented an extensive pile load test program including a full-scale static compressive load test on a sacrificial test pile and five non-destructive high-strain dynamic load tests, four of which were performed on indicator piles that were later used as part of the foundation system. These piles were monitored with extensive embedded instrumentation throughout their length, including strain gauges and accelerometers."

Jan 1, 2017

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

By Alok Bhowmick

The most uncertain and challenging part of a bridge design and construction is the ‘Choice of foundation’. During the planning and conceptual design stage, it is extremely important to choose the right type of foundation. Wrong choice can lead to disaster for the project. This paper will present three interesting case studies of past bridge projects, to demonstrate how correct choice of foundation can help to meet the project commitments while the wrong choice of foundations can led to huge delay in project completion, leading to time and cost overrun.

Nov 1, 2022

By James Coull, Brian Wilson, David Siddle

"In 2012, Golder Construction Inc. was awarded a Design-Build contract for the design and construction of an extensive, deep ground improvement scheme to support up to 20 metres (66 ft) high Mechanically Stabilized Earth walls and bulk earthworks required for the development of the proposed Kitimat Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility at Bish Cove, British Columbia (BC). Utilizing Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) to construct barrettes consisting of overlapping rectangular panels of in-situ cement-treated soils, a deep mixing scheme, covering an area of approximately 12,900 m2 (15,430 yd2) and comprising some 1645 CSM panels to depths of up to 30.7 m (101 ft), was developed to provide the required static and seismic stability for the LNG structures, and meet the project-specific performance criteria.CSM panels were constructed through varying thicknesses and discontinuous layers of fine-grained, very soft to soft marine deposits, and loose to compact sands, with occasional interbeds of dense sands and gravels. Panel completion criteria was based on soil response factors, as measured by the CSM equipment, with the design requiring a typical embedment of about 2 m (7 ft) into dense silty sand to sand and gravel to provide the required bearing. A total volume of approximately 73,900 m3 (96,660 yd3) of soil was treated with cement to consistently yield average unconfined compressive strengths exceeding 2.5 MPa (363 psi).This paper outlines the challenges associated with the construction and quality control of this large deep mixing scheme in highly variable geotechnical conditions at a remote location with barge-only access, and limited communication facilities. Specifically the paper will discuss the logistical challenges faced and solutions adopted for the project; equipment redundancy requirements for a 24/7 operation; the impacts of wear and tear, as well as variability in subsurface conditions on productivity; quality control processes adopted for the project, including the value of provision of an on-site laboratory; and materials handling issues, and their impacts on mix design and quality control."

Jan 1, 2017

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule. SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule.SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Heinrich Majewski, Rob Jameson

"Careful review of site conditions and constraints is essential to select the appropriate shoring system for each project. Key evaluation criteria include the geotechnical profile, groundwater and environmental conditions, adjacent buildings and utilities, schedule and any project specific access or other constraints. Typical earth retention schemes range from rock or soil nail walls, through conventional anchored pile and lagging walls to deep internally braced cut-off systems. The Owner’s design team will often develop the conceptual approach under their design studies, and this is refined with Contractor input through Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build procurement. In downtown San Francisco, underground construction must accommodate a unique combination of variable fill, soil, rock and groundwater conditions, potential for severe seismic loadings, and constrained sites within a dense urban environment. The quarter square mile of San Francisco’s Transbay and Rincon Hill districts has seen repeated cycles of development, destruction and re-building through earthquakes and the economy, and has been intensely redeveloped over the last decade. Over 50 acres of this land has been reclaimed from the Bay since the Gold Rush and within 3 city blocks the bedrock slopes from over 250 FT depth below the fills up to outcrops over 100 FT above sea level. A series of project examples from within this small area illustrate how varied shoring systems have accommodated the highly variable subsurface conditions while offering best value in terms of cost, schedule and appropriate protection of adjacent facilities.INTRODUCTIONA walk of 3 blocks from Rincon Hill on San Francisco’s Harrison Street, north through the Transbay area to Mission Street will traverse an urban zone which has been reinvented twice within its 150 year history in response to major seismic events. This small area highlights the range of subsurface conditions and urban environments which are encountered and accommodated in shoring schemes throughout the city. This route down the north side of Rincon Hill overlies a steep bedrock slope, outcropping over 100 FT above sea level at its south end and dropping to over 250 FT below sea level at Mission Street. A complex overburden soil profile, shaped by seismic activity and changing sea-levels has created layered soils ranging from soft estuary muds, dense sandy strata and deep clay layers, in turn topped with urban fill, frequently contaminated with debris from the Great 1906 earthquake. This route runs parallel to, and 350 yards inland of, the San Francisco shoreline resulting in groundwater elevation close to sea level with almost limitless recharge within granular layers. On the higher slopes of Rincon Hill, groundwater is typically observed flowing on top of and periodically within the fractured bedrock formation. The Transbay and Rincon areas were developed early in the Gold Rush era of San Francisco. After destruction in the 1906 earthquake and fire, they became a transit gateway into the city throughout the 20th Century. Demolition of the Embarcadero Freeway in response to earthquake damage and social pressure has opened this large area to redevelopment within the last 20 years, creating a new commercial and residential hub for the city. In its latest wave of building, planners are developing taller structures with deeper basements, in turn creating new construction challenges. Selection of shoring systems appropriate for these developments requires detailed evaluation. The process must address both the rapid spatial changes in subsurface conditions and the constraints surrounding, and specific to, each site in order to define shoring performance requirements. This paper presents an overview of the subsurface conditions and land use development of the Transbay and Rincon Hill areas, with examples of the shoring systems selected to meet site-specific conditions and requirements. The projects cited range from soil nail wall"

Jan 1, 2017

By Arunsiva R., Sivaranan S., Venugopal B., Kumaran M.

Being a rapidly developing country, India is undergoing a massive infrastructure phase change remarkably. The construction industry is already set to boom, but the time and space constraints necessitate the employment of heavy plants and machinery to take the foundations deeper than ever. Operating such machinery on soft or poor ground conditions without a good working platform leads to uncertainties with massive loss of men and machinery. Plenty of such cases can be observed on construction sites across the globe. Unfortunately, forming a temporary working platform is given least to no importance in the construction industry, particularly ground engineering. This glitch can only be addressed through standard guidelines or codal recommendations on designing and implementing temporary working platforms issued by regulatory bodies. The present paper highlights the importance of providing the working platform, existing design method for working platforms such as TWf 2019:02 of Temporary Works forum, Building Research Establishment BR470 and a brief discussion on the design and construction of the geosynthetic reinforced working platform with a case study is also included. A pitch has been made on the importance of Indian codes/guidelines for the design and construction of temporary working platforms. These guidelines will ensure the safety of the men and heavy machinery and, in addition, increase the productivity of foundation construction irrespective of weather conditions and also become part of the regular construction scope.

Sep 1, 2022

By Haoran Zhang, Chu Ho

A recent design-build project in New York involved various degrees of additions and improvements to four existing transit stations. Reuse of the existing foundations was considered a more sustainable alternative than constructing new foundations for the project. This approach mitigated the extent of demolition work and limited the amount of downtime for track operations. A key challenge for reusing the existing foundations was the lack of as-built drawings. In order to obtain some measure of confidence for the proposed foundation reuse, non-destructive investigation technology was adopted to evaluate the structural integrity of the piers and foundations. A total of 47 piers for the existing passenger platform were investigated for possible reuse. Several test pits, excavated to verify the foundation type and configuration, indicated the piers were founded on a combination of shallow footings and drilled shafts. Pile integrity tests were performed to verify the length of the drilled shafts. Geotechnical capacity of drilled shafts was evaluated for side friction and end bearing resistance, and confirmed using a proof load test conducted from the existing platform structure. This paper presents the investigation methodology and discusses the approach adopted for geotechnical design of the existing foundations for reuse.

Sep 8, 2021

By EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group

Concrete technology continues to advance rapidly and modern mixes with five components – cement, additions, aggregates, (chemical) admixtures and water – often have characteristics which differ significantly from the older three component mixes – cement, aggregates and water. Recent trends have favoured higher strength classes and lower water/cement ratios, resulting in greater dependence on admixtures to compensate for reduced workability and to meet the (often competing) demands for workability in the fresh state and setting time. The application of testing methods which reflect the true rheological properties of the concrete has not developed at the same rate as the mixes themselves and it is still not uncommon for the slump or flow table test to be used as the only acceptance test for fresh concrete.A joint review of problems in bored piles (drilled shafts) and diaphragm walls cast using tremie methods by both the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and the Deep Foundations Institute in the United States (DFI) identified a common issue. The review determined that many of the problems were caused by (or in part due to) the use of inadequate concrete mixes with inadequate workability, or insufficient stability or robustness of the mixes. It further identified the primary causes as inadequate concrete specifications and inadequate testing procedures. The consequences of these problems are often significant and it has been recognised that spending more time and money on getting the concrete right is the most cost effective approach.A joint Concrete Task Group was set up by EFFC and DFI in 2014 to look at this issue and this guide is the output from that Task Group. A research and development project, funded by the Sponsors of this guide, is being carried out by the Technical University of Munich in conjunction with the Missouri University of Science and Technology. This project includes desk studies, laboratory testing, and onsite testing at worksites in Europe and the US. The research work will be completed during 2016.

Jan 1, 2016

By Joseph A. Mann

"Soil mixing is a proven solution for the construction of ground improvement adjacent to sensitive structures due to the use of computer controlled and monitored equipment. The precision to which geometry is controlled can often be the deciding factor for selection of soil mixing versus other means of ground improvement. Protection of existing structures and utilities requires careful planning, investigation, and may demand supplemental control measures. During planning, it is imperative that the process be fully developed by the project team to ensure proper control measures are budgeted; otherwise, the success and safety of a project can be jeopardized.This paper discusses case histories of soil mixing performed in close proximity to large, sensitive, and critical utilities, including foundation support for an existing earthen dam impounding a water reservoir in upstate NY, a buffer zone for a tunnel drop shaft at an operating wastewater treatment plant in Washington DC, and a containment system to protect a major water line along an interstate widening project in Baltimore, MD. The function of soil mixing as ground improvement varied; however, the selection and application of the technique versus other means of ground improvement was specific due to the controlled manner of construction with soil mixing. Through the three case studies, small diameter (3- ft [0.9 m]), large diameter (8-ft [2.4 m]), and mass mixing applications will be discussed. Furthermore, the case studies offer insight into how the geotechnical community in the Mid-Atlantic utilizes soil mixing technology for widely varying applications. Additional topics of discussion will be the design and construction of the ground improvement systems, procedures and execution of the work to protect existing structures, and the QA/QC methods, procedures, and results from the projects.INTRODUCTIONWet soil mixing, also known as the Deep Mixing Method, is a ground improvement technique that improves the characteristics of weak soils by mechanically mixing them with cementitious binder slurry. To construct columns, a powerful drill advances a mixing tool with radial mixing paddles located near the bottom of the drill string. The binder slurry is pumped through the drill string to the tool as it advances and additional soil mixing is achieved as the tool is withdrawn.Wet soil mixing is applicable in a wide range of soils. Soil mixing has been performed at depths more than 100 lf (30 m). Soils vary widely in their ability to be mixed, depending on the soil type, strength, water content, plasticity, stratigraphy, and texture. Almost any soil type, including organics, can be treated with certain soil mixing technologies, although they may require high binder contents and/or pretreatment to achieve the required results. In cases when the target soil is very soft, including some very weak clays and peats, 100% of the soil may require treatment. This complete coverage of soil mixing is referred to as mass mixing."

Jan 1, 2015