Search Documents

By Christian Hoyme, Jochen Maurer

Most of the current foundation projects are suffering from disconnected information silos. In the first silo there is the planning of the project with corresponding data, presented by paper or digital drawings. Here will Building Information Modeling (BIM) be one of the trends for the future. We will see more and more projects leaving the “old way” of 2D drawings and moving into 3D planning including metadata of the foundations. But even with a perfect BIM model of a jobsite, we are not at final end of digitalization. While execution of the project at the jobsite, a second data silo is evolving. Data collected directly from construction equipment and manual measurements is currently undervalued in most projects. Paper is passed to the equipment operator and major data from measurements on site are noted on paper and digitized afterwards. Automatically collected data is not be used to create site progress reports or similar report. So, the real “data” just flows around without connection to any other data already existing in projects. And then the third silo arises: The documentation of the project. Data collected on paper es reentered to create some basic documentation of the work handed over to the client. Spreadsheet software is still the “tool-to-be-used” to create at least some documentation. Finally, the documentation is not connected to the data created while planning and not connected to the automatically collected data from the jobsite. A connected jobsite in the foundation industry must link these information silos and have to create a full data-workflow from the design through the execution to the as-built documentation. INTRODUCTION Building information modelling (BIM) is currently the most popular term of construction business in Germany and probably all over the world. But as often there are many different definitions out there and everyone has his own definition or at least understanding what BIM is about. But for sure it is the most relevant for the construction industry in the near future. Most popular is the digital twin for the upper structure of a building. In most cases the BIM models just shows the building itself, but there is more to be implemented. For example: projects where a special foundation is needed, BIM should include also the foundation elements with meta data. There are several advantages. Not only the clash detection of anchors, but also the possibilities to check the interaction with neighbor constructions, power lines and so on are a use case. For sure most of the special foundation elements are not relevant for the whole lifecycle of a building. But during construction and later the demolition the information about the hidden elements is important and gives a benefit to all stakeholders. In the future there will be not the question: “What is already in the ground?”. The risk for following construction projects on the same ground will be minimized.

Jan 1, 2019

By Frank Rausche

Why testing What tests can be done Dynamic load testing Loading device Measurements Analysis Examples

Jan 1, 2001

By Michael Hughes, Selva Selvamohan, Ray Costa

"Cutoff walls are commonly used to mitigate underseepage problems for levee remediation projects. At abrupt changes in seepage cutoff wall depths there is a potential for water to flow around the back of the deeper cutoff wall leading to elevated seepage pressures on the landside that could result in exit gradients exceeding design criteria. This condition is referred to as end-around-effects and is a complex problem that requires detailed and time consuming 3-D numerical modeling to represent accurately. This paper presents a simple approach for assessing end-around-effects using the results of 2- D seepage analysis to determine if lateral extension of the deeper portion of the cutoff wall is required. This simplified approach provides a pragmatic solution to a complex 3-D problem. The presented procedure was used as part of the Feather River West Levee Project in Yuba City, California, to assess end-around-effects at 26 locations. The results showed that wall extensions of up to 100 feet were needed at only 2 locations.INTRODUCTIONAs the lead geotechnical consultant for the Feather River West Levee Project, AECOM were responsible for designing levee remediation works for approximately 35 miles of levee protecting the area around Yuba City, California, and communities to the north and south. Due to land use constraints, seepage cutoff walls were the main remediation alternative selected to address underseepage issues for the project.As part of the design review process, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) requested AECOM to look at 26 locations along the levee alignment where the depth of cutoff wall changed abruptly from shallow to deep, or vice versa. At these locations there was the potential for seepage pressures to pass behind the deeper section of cutoff wall and stress the blanket layer landward of the cutoff wall. A condition referred to as end-around-effects.End-around-effects involve complex 3-D ground conditions that have traditionally been addressed by laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based solely on engineering judgment. In discussions with DWR, AECOM developed a simple procedure to provide a more objective assessment of end-around-effects without the need for detailed and time consuming analysis. This procedure allows the engineer to make an informed decision of whether end-around-effects are a problem at the location of a cutoff wall transition rather than laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based on engineering judgment alone."

Jan 1, 2015

By Dewey W. Geary, Rachael V. Bisnett, R. Michael Bivens, Thomas G. Andrews

"The powerhouse for the Red Rock Hydroelectric Project is being constructed at the toe of the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Red Rock Dam immediately adjacent to the existing stilling basin retaining wall. The powerhouse excavation extends though overburden and 40 feet into rock. Prior to rock excavation, a grouting was performed around the excavation for the purpose of increasing the strength of zones of fractured rock. For the majority of the perimeter, the rock was fairly tight and grout takes were relatively low. However, for a 160 foot extent along the landside of the excavation, extensive grouting was required to treat a two to five foot thick zone characterized by artesian flows from grout holes on the order of 20 gallons per minute (gpm) or higher from a voided zone in rock that was partially filled with sand, clay, and rock fragments. This paper discusses the treatment measures used to fill and improve the strength of this zone, which ultimately entailed a combination of thick cement grout and polyurethane grout, holes spaced as close as 18 inches on-center, and two additional rows of grout holes.IntroductionThe Red Rock Hydroelectric Project (Project) is currently under construction at the existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Red Rock Dam on the Des Moines River near Pella, Iowa. At peak generation, the Project will generate up to 55 MW with an average annual energy output of 178 gigawatt-hours.The powerhouse for the Project will be located at the toe of the existing dam immediately adjacent to the existing stilling basin retaining wall. The powerhouse excavation extends up to a depth of 40 feet into rock through the St. Louis Limestone and terminates in the Warsaw Limestone. Prior to rock excavation, grouting was performed around the excavation for the purpose of improving the strength of zones of fractured rock. An auxiliary benefit of the grouting was reducing seepage into the excavation. Grouting began on July 20, 2015 and ultimately concluded on September 26, 2015.Drilling and grouting occurred as planned on the riverside (southwest) of the excavation along the cellular cofferdam and stilling basin wall (grout holes P-1 through S-13) and on the upstream (northwest) side of the excavation along the secant pile excavation support wall (grout holes P-14 through S-19) (refer to Fig. 1). The rock in these areas was generally tight with relatively low grout takes. However, on the landside (northeast) of the excavation (grout holes P-20 through P-28), partially infilled voids and artesian flows were encountered during drilling generally between depths of about 28 to 40 feet."

Jan 1, 2016

By Emre Biringen

"Results from a small-scale laboratory experimental program show the changes in the vertical stiffness and strength of a soft clayey soil adjacent to the shaft of an inserted pile (i.e. expansion of a cylindrical cavity). The experimental program provides a realistic axi-symmetric physical model of an element of a cylindrical pile and the surrounding soil. The study interprets the improvement and assesses its magnitude in vertical stress-strain-strength properties of a normally consolidated soft cohesive soil in response to preloading impact in the radial direction. The results verify that insertion of a cylindrical pile causes densification of surrounding soil in a radial direction due to change in stress state around the pile, and thus consolidating and stiffening of the soil.The test results indicate that most improvement in modulus and strength takes place within a distance of 4 times the radius of a pile, though significant improvement is realized to a distance of 8-10 times the radius, beyond where there is negligible effect. Settlement characteristics of the surrounding soil in a zone of 12 times the pile radius improve significantly after the formation of a cylindrical cavity. The miniature vane shear strength tests show a 1.5 times increase in a zone of 4 times the pile radius compared to the strength at 10 pile radii. The results also imply that the spacing of cylindrical piles should not be more than 4 to 10 times pile radius, so that the surrounding soil matrix may improve the vertical bearing capacity under any foundation or embankment loading.INTRODUCTIONThe engineering community is familiar with different techniques to improve the bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of weak cohesive and organic soils. Some of the in situ techniques to improve the properties of soft ground (e.g. soft clays) prior to placement of foundations are vertical preloading, deep cemenUlime mixing, stone columns, and grouting (Henn 1996; Moseley 1993). In addition to these methods, researchers have recently showed interest in achieving soft ground improvement by means of applying radial compression method for which different names exist including expanding pile (Kelleher et al. 2001 ), Preload™ Pier (Biringen and Edil 2003), and sand compaction pile (Lee et al. 2004). Handy (2001) has described how preloading can also be achieved by imposition of radial loading in soft ground with an expected improvement in stiffness. The idea behind the latter method is densification and consolidation of soft soil in the radial direction by controlled displacement for which the process can be viewed as a cavity expansion problem (Vesic 1972)."

Jan 1, 2005

By H. Shiri

Iran's largest natural gas field is South Pars, geologically an extension of Qatar's 900-Tcf North Field. South Pars was first identified in 1988 and originally appraised at 128 Tcf in the early 1990s. This Field contains 38.6 % of the gas resources of Iran and is regarded as the largest offshore gas field in the world. Offshore geotechnical site investigations are one of the key activities of upstream fields operators to supply the EPC contractors with the required results for designing approaches of offshore complexes. In the mean time a lot of marine site investigations have been carried into execution within the phases of South Pars development. The authors are currently trying to create the fundamentals of investigating the small- and large-scale spatial variability of the South Pars Gas Field in Persian Gulf/ IRAN. Part of this investigation is the providing of an extensive data base of the offshore geotechnical properties of South Pars. Such a data base, will enable a model to be developed of the large-scale variability of these properties. In addition, this data set will provide a data whereby general trends to be established, as well as, providing relationships between geotechnical parameters and spatial parameters utilizing probabilistic and data mining methods like ANN (Artificial Neural Network) in Geotechnical Engineering.

Jan 1, 2006

By Scott Webster

Dynamic pile Monitoring Services (DMS) have been used for testing of offshore piles for several decades. However, most of this testing was to measure hammer performance and pile stresses rather than pile capacity or soil resistance. As the need for more economical solutions for foundation support increases, the use of DMS has provided a better means of evaluating in-place pile capacity for offshore structures, and therefore a method of determining pile acceptance. The authors have been involved in several offshore projects where DMS has been the primary source of data for acceptance of the driven pile foundations. The use of DMS for evaluation of offshore foundations requires considerations quite different from land applications and these considerations are often necessary for the careful and thorough analysis of the collected data in nearly real time for determination of pile acceptance. Case Method capacity estimates are often of little use due to the non-uniform cross sections of the foundation piles and their deep penetrations. Therefore, capacity assessments should be made using CAPWAP which is a signal matching program whose utility and reliability has been proven on thousands of projects every year, both on land and offshore. Depending upon the soil conditions at a given location, capacity assessment after soil setup effects may be necessary. In addition, tension capacity is often critical when pile refusal occurs significantly before the design pile penetration depth. Evaluation of uplift capacity can be accomplished by a CAPWAP analysis, which results in a total capacity prediction and its shaft resistance component. The use of hydraulic hammers for driving of these piles also adds the requirement of controlling hammer energy such that over-stressing of the pile is avoided. The calculation of non-axial stresses such as bending or eccentric stresses may also be involved in order to prevent pile damage.

Jan 1, 2010

By Nagarajkumar BV

Pavai-and TeampT JV started working on the project T49A, Sumbar J & K State as part of slope and earth stabilization for ongoing Banihal - Katra Railway Connection Project. This project has several tunnels and bridges with slopes that are protected with various types of protection system such rock bolting, rock anchors, and micro piles. For the main two bridges Bring number 2 and 3 at T49 A location Pavai - TeampT JV has to design and execute the circular group of micro piles (Fig.1) for deep excavation of earth for the purpose of construction of well foundations (CAISSON FOUNDATIONS) for both bridge 2 and 3 piers. In this paper we discuss about the purpose, basic design, detailed design approaches and actual work implementation of micro pile with composite rock bolt applications and permanent rock anchors for slope stabilization works in this project.

Nov 1, 2022

By Greg Plutko

Laboratory testing has shown that the Marsh Funnel test can be significantly impacted by long-chain polymer entanglement. In general, shorter hydration time leads to more chain entanglement which in-turn, leads to higher marsh funnel values that values seen for longer mixing. This trend makes it very difficult to predict funnel-viscosity on successive days. Data is presented which helps to explain this chain interaction effect on Marsh Funnel data and how it differs from traditional Fann viscosity. The data suggest that this long-chain polymer entanglement occurs more in samples with less hydration time and decreases as hydration time increases. There is also suggestion that higher polymer concentrations have a greater drop-off in marsh funnel viscosity for a given aging length than do lower solids slurries. Fann rheology was shown to be much less impacted by the hydration time of the PHPA polymers than was Marsh Funnel viscosity. This suggests that the Marsh Funnel viscosity is impacted by some aspect of the slurry that does not affect Fann rheology as strongly. It is known from literature that longer-chained polymers have more potential to entangle and our data support the theory that the Marsh funnel viscosity is greatly impacted by this polymer-chain ‘roping’ entanglement.

By Kyle Kershaw

Micropiles are routinely used in the United States for foundation support and stabilization of slopes. In recent years, several retaining walls have been constructed using micropiles in an A-frame type configuration to support temporary and permanent excavations at sites with limited access and limited right-of-way. Typical A-frame micropile walls consist of a row of vertical micropiles at the face of the wall and a row of battered micropiles extending into the soil or rock to be retained. The two rows are then tied together with a pile cap such that the front pile acts primarily in bending and the back pile acts primarily in tension. Because of tight right-of-way constraints at a residential site in Aspen, Colorado, it was not possible to construct the wall using conventional shoring systems or micropiles in the typical A-frame configuration. Rather, the wall was designed such that the row of battered piles was installed at the wall face and the row of vertical piles was installed adjacent to the property line behind the wall. As a result of the reverse configuration of the A-frame wall, FLAC, a two-dimensional, finite difference software program, was used to model the soil-structure interaction. The final wall design consisted of both temporary and permanent retaining wall sections with maximum heights of 26 feet. Inclinometers were installed in several piles to monitor the behavior of the retaining walls during and after excavation. This paper presents an overview of the design method, a discussion of construction techniques, and a comparison between the FLAC model and the measured behavior of the wall in the field.

Jan 1, 2007

By Jim Rix, Ken Been, Nihal Bohra, Anthony Rice, Juan Lopez

"A temporary bridge, supported on steel pipe piles, was built to expedite the construction of a breakwater structure off the western coast of Peru. The bridge provided access for dump trucks to the breakwater across a 342 m (1122 ft.) wide navigation channel from a liquefied natural gas (LNG) loading facility, at the end of a 1.3 km (0.82 miles) long permanent trestle, in 15 m (50 ft.) water depth. After the completion of the breakwater, the temporary bridge was removed, and the piles were extracted approximately one year after the initial driving. The bridge deck was typically supported on pairs of 914.4 mm (3 ft.) diameter, 18 mm (0.708 inch) wall steel pipe piles spaced at 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) across the bridge width and 18 m (60 ft.) along the bridge length. In an attempt to reduce the driven pile embedment, an inner closure plate was installed at 2.7 to 7 m (9 to 23 ft.) from the pile toe to force closed-end behavior. The piles were designed to carry 3400 kN (383 tons) axial compression load, and a minimum of 8 m (26 ft.) embedment was specified to provide sufficient resistance to the lateral loads.The subsurface conditions consisted of cemented conglomerate of sand, gravel, pebbles and some boulders, locally known as the Cañete Formation. The driven pile embedment varied widely, between 8 to 24 m (26 to 79 ft.). A significant portion of each pile was above the seabed, passing through seawater and up to the bridge deck, and was therefore unsupported. The extraction of the piles was challenging due to the subsurface conditions, presence of significant water column, pile weight, and the inner closure plate. Several different approaches were attempted before the piles could be successfully extracted. This paper summarizes the difficulties encountered and observations made during the driving and extraction of these piles."

Jan 1, 2017

By Nihal Bohra

A temporary bridge, supported on steel pipe piles, was built to expedite the construction of a breakwater structure off the western coast of Peru. The bridge provided access for dump trucks to the breakwater across a 342 m (1122 ft.) wide navigation channel from a liquefied natural gas (LNG) loading facility, at the end of a 1.3 km (0.82 miles) long permanent trestle, in 15 m (50 ft.) water depth. After the completion of the breakwater, the temporary bridge was removed, and the piles were extracted approximately one year after the initial driving. The bridge deck was typically supported on pairs of 914.4 mm (3 ft.) diameter, 18 mm (0.708 inch) wall steel pipe piles spaced at 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) across the bridge width and 18 m (60 ft.) along the bridge length. In an attempt to reduce the driven pile embedment, an inner closure plate was installed at 2.7 to 7 m (9 to 23 ft.) from the pile toe to force closed-end behavior. The piles were designed to carry 3400 kN (383 tons) axial compression load, and a minimum of 8 m (26 ft.) embedment was specified to provide sufficient resistance to the lateral loads. The subsurface conditions consisted of cemented conglomerate of sand, gravel, pebbles and some boulders, locally known as the Cañete Formation. The driven pile embedment varied widely, between 8 to 24 m (26 to 79 ft.). A significant portion of each pile was above the seabed, passing through seawater and up to the bridge deck, and was therefore unsupported. The extraction of the piles was challenging due to the subsurface conditions, presence of significant water column, pile weight, and the inner closure plate. Several different approaches were attempted before the piles could be successfully extracted. This paper summarizes the difficulties encountered and observations made during the driving and extraction of these piles.

By Peter J. Nicholson

"IntroductionDuring my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I’m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of “tie-backs” as they were called in the United States, or “ground anchors” as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970’s. Subsequently in the 1980’s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into “Pin Piles” now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12” or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into “Cement Deep Soil Mixing” earlier on, known simply as “soil mixing”. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the “Big Dig” we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I’ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes."

Jan 1, 2017

By Peter J. Nicholson

During my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I?m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of ?tie-backs? as they were called in the United States, or ?ground anchors? as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970?s. Subsequently in the 1980?s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into ?Pin Piles? now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12? or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into ?Cement Deep Soil Mixing? earlier on, known simply as ?soil mixing?. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the ?Big Dig? we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I?ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes.

By Riad Diab

In 2018 the Caisse de Dépôt et Placement du Québec (CDPQ) awarded a $6.3 billion (U.S. dollars) design-build contract to the Joint Venture (JV) team NouvLR for the design and construction of one of the largest automated transportation systems in the world, called the Réseau express métropolitain (REM). The REM project is a 67 km (41.6 mi) light rail system with 26 stations linking downtown, the airport and the greater Montreal area in Canada. Out of the 67 km (41.6 mi) network, over 25 km (15.5 mi) is being constructed on a 650- span elevated structure founded on single drilled shafts socketed into rock. Optimizing the design of the drilled shafts was one of the main objectives of the geotechnical team, as it would likely result in shorter shafts that help significantly reduce the project costs. As part of the optimization process, three static axial load tests and two fully instrumented lateral load tests were performed, during the preliminary design phase, on sacrificial shafts to simulate the ultimate load level and validate construction procedures.

May 1, 2022

By Ground Improvement Committee

The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation.

Aug 1, 2013

By Dario Libano

"The Line 5 Extension, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, is currently the most important investment in public transportation by Sao Paulo’s state government. It will connect the south part of the city to the city center, crossing through four other major Metro lines and stations; all currently in operation. The total extension of the line is 11 km (6.8 mi), and includes a new parking yard for the trains and 11 new stations. The Brooklin Station, one of the new stations due to be open and operating in 2016, has a unique geometry of five secant shafts.The original design included constructing five secant shafts stabilized by two plastic slurry walls using conventional grab technology. One slurry wall, along the Santo Amaro Avenue, was to contain the contamination plumes, and another was for temporary support to enable the excavation of the shafts. The final retaining wall design was changed to a concrete structural diaphragm wall that reduced the construction time of the shafts by half, allowing the contractor to meet the construction schedule. This solution also avoided dewatering effects in a geological region characterized by Quaternary sediments and environmental contamination plumes. It was the first time that a hydromill was used in such a situation in Brazil. The hydromill, by overcutting the panels, increased the quality of the joints, and decreased the probability of having seepage into the shafts. The hydromill also created a seepage barrier and avoided movement of the contaminated plumes.The GeologyLocal geology is composed of a superficial Quaternary soil, basically soft organic clays and sands and gravels. From the depth of 8 m (26 ft) until 18 m (59 ft), geology is composed by tertiary medium compact sand with thin silt-clay layers. From 18 m (59 ft) down, there are alternations between compact silt-sands layers with very hard clays layers. Each is approximately 5 to 10 m (16.4 ft to 33 ft) thick.The Initial Basic DesignThe original basic design of the Brooklin Station was to be constructed from five 40 m (131 ft) diameter intersecting circular shafts, all in a line along the axis of the Metro tunnel, in 555 days. In the excavation sequence, the odd shafts were first excavated, waterproofed and had part of their inside cast-in-place structure built before the even shafts were excavated. During the excavation of the even shafts, part of the odd shaft’s support was demolished and connected with the even support. A 0.8 m (2.6 ft) thick plastic slurry wall, acting together with the wire mesh reinforced shotcrete support, ensured the excavation stability around the five shafts."

Jan 1, 2014

"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

By Dan Yang

Pile foundation designs are performed routinely based on geotechnical information available at the time of design, often with due consideration of large uncertainties inherent to soils and site conditions. These uncertainties frequently are the causes of piles being installed not the same as those designed, especially by factors beyond quality assurance and quality control. With a variety of both satisfactory and unsatisfactory pile test results from these nonconforming piles, the design engineers are required to examine the foundation performance as a whole against the project design requirements before signing off on them or calling for potentially costly remediation. Over the years, as-built analysis has been a consistent way of dealing with pile non-conformity and damage in our practice, avoiding many construction delays and it is an integral part of our pile foundation design. In this paper, the key elements of an as-built analysis along with several major bridge projects are presented.

Jan 1, 2010

By Sastry Putcha, Santosh Mummaneni, Swamy Avasarala, Vamshi Vemula

"This paper presents the results from a case study on the comparison of two strain acquisition instrumentation technologies, Geokon rebar strainmeters and Embedded Data Collectors (EDC) for the DC Water Main Pump Station project, in Washington D.C. These two instrumentation systems were installed by AVER in a single 18-inch (0.45 m) diameter augercast pile (with one-1.25 inch (3.175 cm) dywidag bar) at critical locations to determine the load transfer mechanism and establish a comparison between strain/load measured with these two systems along the pile. A quick static load test was performed on the test pile as per ASTM D1143 standard.Prior to the installation of the pile, a 24-inch (0.6 m) diameter outer casing was installed to the proposed cutoff elevation of -22.5 feet (-6.85 m) to discount the frictional resitance within the upper overburden zone. The pile was then drilled through the outer casing to the tip elevation of -65.02 feet (-19.8 m) with inner casing within the overburden zone. Strainmeters along with EDC were installed on dywidag bar at various locations and then wet set into the concrete following auger retrieval. The loads measured with EDC and Geokon sensors were within 15% percent of each other.PROJECT BACKGROUNDProject Background & Requirements:Like any other foundation piles, augercast piles are extensively used in the public and private sector structures in the United States for many years. It is a common practice to perform static compression (ASTM D1143), tension (ASTM D3689), and lateral load tests (ASTM D3966) depending on the project requirements. In recent years, embedded strain sensors, manufactured by Smart Structures, USA has gained prominence for its use to collect both static and dynamic measurements for driven piles. In addition, AVER has successfully used EDC for collecting long term static measurements for an abutment drilled shafts for I-95 Hotlanes project in Virginia, USA.Geokon sisterbar strain gages are widely used in the foundation industry to monitor the load transfer mechanism within pile foundations throughout the world. As the Geokon strainmeters are vibrating wire and are welded to a sister bar, there is often a debate within the engineering community with regards to what modulus to use when converting measured strains to loads. EDC sensors, unlike Geokon strain gages are embedded directly into the concrete and therefore do not have the same concern."

Jan 1, 1900