Search Documents

By Karl A. Higgins, Michael D. Venezia

The South Capitol Street Corridor Project is one of the District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) largest projects, and is currently under construction. This case study will focus on the design of the foundation piles for the main spans of the iconic Frederick Douglass Memorial (FDM) Bridge, and will include a discussion of the foundation design evolution from an originally designed alternative foundation system (i.e. coffer dams and drilled shafts), to the current use of driven Large Diameter Open End Pipe (LDOEP) Piles. The paper will provide a discussion of the design methodology used during preliminary engineering and final design, and will highlight insight gained from the extensive load testing program completed to date. The load testing program consists of a combination of high strain dynamic testing (PDA), as well as Statnamic Load Testing on select sacrificial, pre-production test piles. Specifically, data gathered during the nearly-completed load testing program suggests the development of significant internal shaft frictional resistance within the tested LDOEP Piles. This paper will also discuss limitations of currently accepted industry design methods for predicting the capacity of LDOEP piles, a subject that is also currently being researched by FHWA. The data from this test pile program will help design assumptions for future projects. INTRODUCTION The Frederick Douglass Memorial (FDM) Bridge carries South Capitol Street across the Anacostia River in Southeast/Southwest, Washington, DC, and is owned and maintained by the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). The existing FDM Bridge is nearly 70 years old, serves as a major artery into the city, and has been classified as functionally obsolete. As a result of the condition, age and limitations of the existing bridge structure, DDOT deemed it necessary for complete replacement of the bridge. The replacement project consists of the construction of a new bridge traversing the Anacostia River, as well as the reconfiguration of the Suitland Parkway and I-295 interchanges located at the eastern terminus of the FDM Bridge. Final design and construction services for the replacement project were procured by DDOT through a Design-Build contract. This paper will focus on the driven Large Diameter Open End Pipe (LDOEP) Piles used for support of the main span of the new FDM Bridge which is currently under construction. Discussion regarding the LDOEP Pile design methodology has been included, along with commentary regarding currently available industry guidance related to design and construction of LDOEP Piles. Much insight has been gained during the mostly-completed and extensive load testing program which consists of a combination of high strain dynamic testing (PDA), as well as Statnamic Load Testing on select sacrificial, pre- production test piles. Specifically, data gathered during the mostly-completed load testing program suggests the development of significant internal shaft frictional resistance within the tested LDOEP Piles.

Jan 1, 2019

By Alexander Ciccone, John H. Gill

Jet grouting is a highly versatile ground modification technique that can offer significant commercial and technical advantages over traditional concrete pit underpinning applications. Despite these advantages, jet grouting remains an underutilized technique in the construction industry due to its perceived complexity, cost, and risk. When performed thoughtfully, underpinning by jet grouting offers significant safety and schedule advantages over traditional underpinning approaches. The New England construction market has seen a recent acceptance in the use of jet grout underpinning on congested project sites across a variety of subsurface conditions. The reduction of the cement batch plant footprint due to equipment advances has allowed the use of this technique in urban sites where its use would be previously infeasible. Furthermore, jet grout underpinning has been utilized for support of historic and sensitive structures with generally lower tolerance to settlement than is typically feasible with conventional pit underpinning. Robust, real-time geotechnical instrumentation monitoring systems have helped reduce the uncertainty and further expand the feasibility of jet grout underpinning applications. When properly designed and constructed by qualified and experienced jet grouting contractors, the flexibility of soilcrete for design and construction may be utilized to overcome the many inherent challenges which complicate underpinning and earth retention systems. INTRODUCTION The construction of buildings and infrastructure in our increasingly dense urban spaces often requires excavations below the elevation of existing structures immediately adjacent to the proposed work. Where a proposed excavation system encroaches into an existing structure’s zone of influence, additional measures, such as the construction of an underpinning or excavation support system, are required to safely excavate and minimize the impacts on the adjacent structures. Jet grouting is one method of underpinning that offers significant commercial and technical advantages over many other techniques. Though it was first used to the United States in the 1980s and has grown in popularity elsewhere, jet grout underpinning remains underutilized domestically due to its perceived cost and risk premium. Jet grouting has significant technical advantages over other underpinning methods due to its applicability in a wide range of soil types and its flexibility of design and installation. The jet grouting process is capable of limiting the movement of foundations during construction and excavation to lower thresholds than most traditional underpinning methods (Droof, Furth, & Scarborough, 1995). Its use for underpinning historic and sensitive structures with lower settlement criteria provides additional evidence to its technical utility. Through thoughtful design, adequate planning, and experienced installation, jet grouting can be an appropriate underpinning solution that can provide significant cost and schedule savings.

Jan 1, 2019

By Alex Ryberg, Matthew L. Becker

Several integrity testing methods exist which may be used to evaluate drilled shafts. Each test method has advantages and limitations. On occasion, the results from different test methods may lead to conflicting conclusions, making it difficult to conclusively know which results more accurately represent the quality and integrity of a drilled shaft. This case study focuses on the integrity testing evaluation for two drilled shafts which were constructed using permanent casings and installed through flowing river water. Integrity testing was performed using Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) and Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) on each shaft. During testing, the influence of flowing water and soil layering needed consideration in the collected TIP data. Similarly, concrete curing time influenced the CSL test results and required the CSL tests to be performed multiple times with additional wait times following concrete placement. To aid in the shaft integrity evaluations, Low Strain Integrity testing via the Pulse Echo Method (PEM) was performed on several shafts and concrete coring was also performed to help further assess the acceptance or rejection of the questionable shafts. This paper presents an overview of the testing methods that were applied, their basic methodology, as well as potential limitations that should be considered when evaluating their results.

Sep 8, 2021

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

"Limit states design (LSD), or load and resistance factor design (LRFD), is a method to account for the uncertainty in loads and resistance through a reliability calibration that requires all applicable limit states (strength, service and extreme) to be checked during foundation design. LRFD has been in use internationally for several decades; however it wasn’t until recently that engineers working on highway projects were required to use the method for the design of highway bridges and other appurtenances. Although the bridge community has been using a form of limit states design for structural components since the early 1970s, the design of foundations for bridges, walls and other geotechnical features had long been performed using allowable stress design (ASD), whereby all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is combined in a single factor of safety. While the move to LRFD was viewed as a more rational approach for the design of bridges and structures, the transition to its use for geotechnical engineering has been met by many with confusion and difficulties in application. This article will revisit the history of transition from ASD to LRFD for geotechnical engineering, summarize the status of the transition and issues with its use, and briefly discuss some emerging research opportunities for improving and advancing the design platform.Background and HistoryUntil about a decade ago, foundations and substructures for bridges were traditionally designed using ASD, while the superstructure was designed using load factor design (LFD), a precursor to LRFD that incorporated factored design loads but no risk assessment. This combination led to uncertain and incompatible safety margins in design for the various bridge components. In 1986, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) concluded that the standard bridge specifications in use at the time for U.S. transportation projects had significant inconsistencies and gaps, wasn’t up to date with emerging technology and that the development of new specifications was warranted. The proposed solution by the subcommittee was to transition to a more coherent method of design where applicable failure and serviceability conditions could be evaluated considering the uncertainties associated with loads and resistance."

Jan 1, 2015

By John D. Nelson

Foundation underpinning is a common component of remediation schemes for distressed foundations on expansive soils. For many applications in expansive soil, micropiles have distinct advantages over other techniques. This paper will concentrate on the design and construction of micropiles in expansive soil. It discusses the nature of building distress and the relationship between foundation movement and soil heave. It presents methods for determining the factors that are required for the design of micropiles. Such factors include calculation of expected free-field heave, depth of soil wetting, and prediction of pier movement. A finite element program developed by the authors and others to determine pier heave and internal forces is presented. The input parameters that are required for pier analysis are discussed, and the nature of the output and the sensitivity of the results to the output are described. A case example illustrates the advantages of micropiles over other methods.

Aug 1, 2013

By Thomas J. Kennedy, Michael D. Bennett

The study of geotechnical history is well-established. Most geotechnical practitioners, teachers, and graduate students have some grasp of the origins of the field. However, this understanding often consists of a jumble of names and anecdotes. This paper discusses how a deeper comprehension of geotechnical history can benefit academia and practice alike and describes how the authors have begun a wide-ranging study of the subject. The paper reviews the dual-track methodology the authors have generated for the study, which consists of written articles about different works in geotechnical history and a database tracking how often pieces have been cited in geotechnical literature. The first technique has shed light on aspects of geotechnical history such as the connection of the Darwin family to the origins of geotechnical engineering, the St. Francis Dam failure of 1928, and the rivalry between theoreticians and practitioners in the early days of the field. The second has helped quantify subjects such as the outstanding contributions of Karl Terzaghi, the disagreements between Terzaghi and Donald Taylor, and the specialization of the field over time. The paper concludes by discussing the authors’ planned future work on geotechnical history.

Oct 1, 2022

By Martin D. Larisch

The construction of diaphragm walls and most large-diameter bored piles (piers) is often carried out under drilling support fluids to temporarily stabilise the excavation prior to concrete placement. In most cases such fluids are either mineral-based slurries (bentonite) or polymer support fluids. The working mechanisms of these two fluid types are fundamentally different. Designers need to consider possible fluid-related impacts on the permanent design performance of the project-specific deep foundations as well as for the temporary excavation stage during construction. Robust design methods for bentonite slurry-supported excavations have been developed in the last few decades and the working principles and associated risks of such mineral-based slurries are understood reasonably well. However, such meth-ods have not been developed in detail for polymer-based drilling fluids. This document provides a brief overview of the main characteristics of bentonite- and polymer-based drilling fluids as a guide for construction practitioners and design engineers alike. The paper also high-lights some common construction risks related to casing installation and the selection of suitable fluid systems for different ground conditions. Typical defects caused by the incorrect application of drilling support fluids, and their pro-active mitigation, are discussed, too. In addition, the basic concepts of sta-bility calculations for bentonite fluid-supported deep excavations are briefly introduced and their ap-plicability for other fluid types such as polymer-based support fluids or water are reviewed.

Nov 1, 2022

"What can we do in ground engineering to reduce damage to the environment, to repair historic pollution, to reduce our demand on basic resources and to reduce the carbon footprint of our industry? Some developments in geotechnical engineering are already heading in the right direction. These include reductions of ground pollution from grouting, improved dewatering procedures and advances in mix-in-place processes, ground improvement and jet grouting.There is increased interest in certain promising technologies (for example, drilled partial or full displacement piles), but this approach remains for the moment somewhat avant-garde. These piles require substantially greater power to install, and the overall sustainability balance for general application has yet to be shown to be in their favour. They are particularly suited to polluted sites where the problem of dealing with spoil would be costly and where, in the past, driven cast in-situ piles would have been employed. Drilled displacement piles offer some environmental benefit over driven piles in that they cause far less drawdown of potentially contaminated near-surface ground into sensitive, underlying aquifers.There is also great interest in various means of increasing the frictional capacity of bored piles, both conventional auger and continuous flight auger (CFA) piles, by threading or ribbing the soil/pile interface. The increase in adhesion capacity allows reduction in the pile dimensions necessary for a specific load. This obviously leads to less construction waste, but also to less permanent material consumption in the piles and also in the pile caps.The role of ground improvement remains significant for brown land sites and lower capacity foundations. Information technology (IT) has improved the quality assurance of stone column construction, for example. From the sustainability point of view, this is a good news method; here is no cement, no pollution and little obstruction to future redevelopment. We now need to introduce recycled crushed materials instead of natural aggregate as general practice and the technique’s green credentials will be really compelling."

Jan 1, 2009

By Sung-Ryul Kim, Woong-Jong Park, Juhyung Lee, Si-Hoon Lee

"A bucket foundation has been considered to be a potential foundation technology for offshore wind turbines. In this study, a series of 1-g model tests were performed to analyze the accumulated rotation of suction bucket foundations under long-term cyclic horizontal loads. The model suction buckets were made to have the embedment ratios of 0.5 and 1. The dry model ground was prepared to have two different soil densities by air-pluviation method. A horizontal cyclic load over 104 cycles was applied varying the loading amplitude. Test results showed that the accumulated rotation of the bucket foundation increased with the increase in the number of cycles and load magnitudes. Based on the model test results, a new equation was proposed to evaluate the accumulated rotation of the bucket foundations in sandy ground under long-term cyclic horizontal loads.INTRODUCTIONRecently, a bucket foundation has been considered to be a potential foundation technology for offshore wind turbines. In terms of economy, a bucket foundation has been considered to be an economical foundation type at sea beds where ground condition is clay or medium dense sand.A bucket foundation resembling a bucket is a kind of suction-installed foundation units. It is a skirted steel foundation which is open at the lower end and closed at the upper end by a lid. The embedment depth ratio (L/D) of a bucket foundation is usually less than one. Figure 1 shows an example of a bucket foundation. Offshore wind turbines are subjected to long-term cyclic loading by wind or currents. A bucket foundation is installed in soil grounds, so the long-term cyclic loading may induce the accumulation of soil deformation.In this study, the accumulated rotations of the bucket foundations in sandy ground were investigated under long term cyclic horizontal load. The number of cycles up to 104 cycles was applied varying load magnitude. The accumulated rotations of the bucket foundations in sandy ground were analyzed based on the test results."

Jan 1, 2016

By Krishnendu Mandal

"For a multi-story building project in Kolkata, a pile load testing program was conducted to minimize pile performance uncertainty resulting from variable subsurface conditions and to verify the pile load vs. settlement response. The program consisted of performing five (5) instrumented load tests on augured cast-in-place (ACIP) pre-production test piles. Vibrating-wire strain gages and extensometers were installed in the test piles at strategic locations to enable measurements of the load vs. deformation behavior of the test piles. This paper presents a description of site subsurface conditions, test pile installation, instrumentation setup for a maintained load test (MLT), static compression pile load test results, and pile instrumentation result interpretation. Average mobilized unit shaft resistance values are calculated.2.0 INTRODUCTIONThe project site is located in Kolkata, near river Ganges, and the proposed development plans consist of constructing six (6)25-story (G+25) towers; see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 below for approximate site location and proposed development layout, respectively. The buildings were designed to be supported on ACIP piles. A field load test program was implemented to verify sub-surface conditions and pile design. The test program consisted of installing Five (5) instrumented test piles numbered LP1A and B through LP6A and B, and performing static compression load tests on these piles. The piles were instrumented with vibrating-wire strain gauges and extensometers, so that the pile shaft resistance distribution along pile length and the pile toe resistance could be interpreted using direct instrumentation measurements."

Jan 1, 2015

By Takefumi Takuma, Hiroyuki Nishimura, Shigeru Kambe

"In order to achieve tubular pile driving with low noise and low vibration, the Press-in Piling Method has been adopted on many projects. The method utilizes reaction force derived primarily from previously driven piles to push in the next pile into ground. With attachments, the Press-in piling equipment can deal with hard soil as well as difficult site conditions. At West Toronto Diamond Rail Grade Separation Project in Toronto, Canada, the Press-in piling equipment drove more than 500 of 914 mm (36 inches) diameter tube piles in length of 12 to 25 meters (39 to 82 feet) to construct earth-retaining walls for railway grade separation. Myoshoji River Restoration Project in Tokyo, Japan drove some 600 of 1,000mm (39.4 inches) diameter tube pipe sections in length of 11 to 22 meters (36 to 72 feet) by the rotary Press-in piling equipment to increase the flood drainage capacity of an existing river in highly populated area of the city. Both projects exemplify the advantages of the method in urban settings.1. BACKGROUNDThe Press-in Piling Method was invented some forty years ago in Japan, where a very large number of construction projects were causing widespread construction pollution, especially by pile driving work in densely populated areas. The method has been providing solutions for piling projects which could not have been built otherwise due to the noise and vibration impact to the surrounding communities. The method can be used with various types of piles including sheet piles, tubular piles, concrete sheet piles and so on. With high pressure water jet and continuous flight auger attachments, the Press-in piling equipment can deal with dense sand, stiff clay, gravels, boulders and even soft rock without employing a different set of equipment."

Jan 1, 2015

4.5.1 General The provisions of the article shall apply to the design of axially and laterally loaded driven piles in soil or extending through soil to rock. 4.5.1.1 APPLICATION (Revised Article 4.3.1.1) Piling may be considered when footings cannot be founded on rock, or on granular or stiff cohesive soils within a reasonable depth. At loca-tions where soil conditions would normally permit the use of spread footings but the potential for scour exists, piles may be used as a protection against scour. Piles may also be used where an unacceptable amount of settlement of spread footings may occur. 4.5.1.2 MATERIALS Piles may be structural steel sections, steel pipe, precast concrete, cast-in-place concrete, prestressed concrete, timber, or a combination of materials. In every case, materials shall be supplied in accordance with the provisions of this Article.

Jan 1, 1989

By P. V. Chandramohan

"The paper deals with the arrangement of structural members for a retaining structure used as a berth in the port of Krishnapatnam. The height of retention is 24.3m. A T-shaped diaphragm wall acts as the retaining surface. A relieving platform has been provided at the top to ease lateral earth pressure on the wall. The diaphragm wall is tied back to a combination of vertical and raker pile. Later, this arrangement was altered to replace the relieving platform with just lowering of ground level below the berth. The tie back was changed to a classical A-frame anchorage. At certain reaches, installation of piles pointing towards the rear was obstructed by a conveyor structure. The anchorage was then changed to include a vertical pile and a pile that points towards the front of the berth. Change in position of inclined pile alters the force in the pile from compression to tension.GeneralPort is a major link in the multimodal transport chain. Berth is the heart of the Port infrastructure. It is here the ocean freight changes to land transport. The change-over, warrants special type of heavy duty handling equipment. The equipment and the process necessitate deep seated foundations. On one side of the berth, deep drafted ships would be berthed. But adjacent to this heavy duty cranes would be operating at the deck level. Berths are of various types. Some are founded on piles and may project into water. Some operators prefer a retaining structure. At the port of Krishnapatnam, a retaining structure was preferred. Dredged level at the berth was to be -20. Deck of the berth was at +4.3. This meant that the height of retention of soil was 24.3m. Ports are generally located near the coast. Subsoil in the port area generally consists of cohesive material of low shearing strength. The berth has to cater to imposed vertical and horizontal loads.Structural functionFor bulk cargo and containers, berth has to support the two crane tracks. These tracks will carry heavy wheel loads of the crane. Besides, the space between the tracks would be used for stacking of cargo or hatch covers. In short, the deck will be subjected to heavy surcharge. This vertical load will manifest as additional lateral force on the retaining wall. Since the height of soil to be retained is high, it is a practice to relieve the lateral earth pressure due to the heavy surcharge of the wall. This is done by providing a relieving platform. The surcharge of superimposed load on the deck and the self-weight of the soil up to a few metres below would be relieved by a suitable platform. This vertical load would be transferred directly to deeper levels through piles. Mooring pull is a horizontal force exerted by the vessel on the bollards towards water side. Berthing force is exerted by the vessel during berthing, through fenders and acts towards land side.Diaphragm walls are usually employed as the retaining face. If the height of retention is less, these walls can cantilever out but in the case of large retention, they have to be tied back. The ties are to be anchored on to suitable arrangements like a dead-man or an A-frame. Berthing structure in the early stages at Krishnapatnam port is shown in fig 1."

Jan 1, 2015

By Don W. Dotson

In 1962, Kondner prepared several papers dealing with hyperbolic stress-strain response of cohesive soils. The following year, Brinch Hansen proposed 80% and 90% failure criteria for stress-strain behavior of cohesive soils. Fellenius was instrumental in popularizing these failure criteria for pile load tests and offered a direct solution equation for the failure load according to the 80% failure criterion. Since the 90% Criterion has been incorporated into the International Building Code, equations for the direct solution of the failure load at the 90% Criterion would be useful to practicing engineers. This Technical Note supplies the derivation methodology for the 80% Criterion and provides expressions to determine the load and deflection at failure for the 90% Criterion.

Aug 1, 2013

By Ryan P. Sullivan, G. Alan Klevens, Jian Huang

"BACKGROUNDLake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR was created in 1932 when the Arkansas Power and Light Co. completed Carpenter Dam on the Ouachita River to generate electricity. Today, the 7,200-acre (2,914 hectares) impoundment is one of Arkansas’s most popular recreational and residential lakes.U.S. 70 crosses Lake Hamilton by means of a seven-span bridge featuring nine steel girders per span. Constructed between 1982 and 1984, the 1,410-foot long (430m) bridge carries four lanes of traffi c across the lake. The bridge is supported by six intermediate reinforced concrete piers composed of hammer heads, stems, footings and seals, which sit on the underlying rock. (See Figure 1). The bridge rises to a maximum of 33 feet (10m) above the surface of the lake and the footings and seals extend a maximum of 29.5 feet (9m) below the surface of the lake. The seals are situated on hard, fractured sandstone and shale.Routine underwater inspections in 1993 revealed large cracks in the lean seal concrete and refl ective cracks in the reinforced concrete footings. Infrastructure Engineers, Inc., The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department’s (AHTD) design consultant, then conducted an in-depth underwater inspection of the pier foundations. The investigation included cross-hole sonic logging, singlehole sonic logging, visual examination and strength testing of core samples, and petrographic analysis.The investigation revealed extensive cracking and low-strength concrete within the seals of all intermediate pier foundations. Many voids within the seal concrete had become fi lled with silt. There was evidence of continued seal deterioration between underwater inspections.AHTD and its engineers considered three rehabilitation solutions in the preliminary engineering stage: micropiles, a cofferdam supported concrete jacket, or a pile supported concrete jacket. The three alternatives were estimated to cost $1,250,000; $4,320,000; and $3,030,000 respectively. All three options would transfer the loads from the pier footing directly to the rock below, bypassing the seal concrete."

Jan 1, 2007

By Ryan P. Sullivan, G. Alan Klevens, Jian Huang

"BACKGROUNDLake Hamilton in Hot Springs, AR was created in 1932 when the Arkansas Power and Light Co. completed Carpenter Dam on the Ouachita River to generate electricity. Today, the 7,200-acre (2,914 hectares) impoundment is one of Arkansas’s most popular recreational and residential lakes.U.S. 70 crosses Lake Hamilton by means of a seven-span bridge featuring nine steel girders per span. Constructed between 1982 and 1984, the 1,410-foot long (430m) bridge carries four lanes of traffi c across the lake. The bridge is supported by six intermediate reinforced concrete piers composed of hammer heads, stems, footings and seals, which sit on the underlying rock. (See Figure 1). The bridge rises to a maximum of 33 feet (10m) above the surface of the lake and the footings and seals extend a maximum of 29.5 feet (9m) below the surface of the lake. The seals are situated on hard, fractured sandstone and shale. Routine underwater inspections in 1993 revealed large cracks in the lean seal concrete and reflective cracks in the reinforced concrete footings. Infrastructure Engineers, Inc., The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department’s (AHTD) design consultant, then conducted an in-depth underwater inspection of the pier foundations. The investigation included cross-hole sonic logging, singlehole sonic logging, visual examination and strength testing of core samples, and petrographic analysis.The investigation revealed extensive cracking and low-strength concrete within the seals of all intermediate pier foundations. Many voids within the seal concrete had become filled with silt. There was evidence of continued seal deterioration between underwater inspections.AHTD and its engineers considered three rehabilitation solutions in the preliminary engineering stage: micropiles, a cofferdam supported concrete jacket, or a pile supported concrete jacket. The three alternatives were estimated to cost $1,250,000; $4,320,000; and $3,030,000 respectively. All three options would transfer the loads from the pier footing directly to the rock below, bypassing the seal concrete."

Jan 1, 2007

By Chandramohan P. V

A unique tension pile where the pull is at a point a certain distance below the top of the pile. The pull is transferred by a cable consisting of high tensile strands. The HDPE duct of the cable prevents bond between the strands and pile concrete in upper portion. While soil friction on the pile will act downwards on the whole length, there is tension in the bottom portion of pile, there will be compression at the top portion.

Nov 1, 2022

By T. Wulleman, M. Ansriou

Integrity testing is a primary quality control check on a product that is for the most part not accessible to visual examination. Their cost can be expensive when using direct methods of inspection (like coring a pile) or more economical when using indirect methods (e.g. acoustic testing). All indirect methods operate by “inference” which means that they do not directly measure the defect of integrity. Indirect methods measure the variation of physical values (temperature, impedance, speed, ect.) correlated to the integrity of the pile allowing the detection of integrity defects, although these methods do not allow for the characterization of the defect. 1. INTRODUCTION Cast-in-place piles are particularly prone to integrity defects. The reasons for this are multiple, including lack of high quality of contractor workmanship, experience and supervision necessary in construction, variable soil and groundwater conditions on site, etc. Furthermore, visual inspection of the finalized pile is usually impossible. Therefore, special care has to be taken both during the execution process and during the subsequent quality control campaign to detect any defects of executed piles. Today, a lot of methods do exist to assess pile integrity. It is thus essential to understand the mechanism governing those devices to both make an engineering choice of the pile integrity testing method and to interpret correctly the provided results. 2. QUALITY IN PILE FOUNDATIONS 2.1 Pile anomalies A pile having an anomaly is a pile which has a different behavior from what is normally expected. The presence of a pile anomaly does not necessarily imply that a pile cannot be used for its intended purpose (Gordon & Chapman 2004). An anomaly can be considered as a defect, or a “performance” depending on the ability of the pile to fulfil the following three criteria (3C): C1 - Meet the Service Limit State (SLS) requirement and support the proposed working load without settling more than admissible by the superstructure ; C2 - Meet the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) requirement and carry a specified load with an adequate factor of safety against failure ; C3 - Remain durable throughout the design life of the structure such that the pile is not affected by time dependent activities (chemical attack, corrosion of steel reinforcement, ect.), which would jeopardize its ability to maintain its compliance with the first two criteria.

Jan 1, 2019

By Andrew Middleton, Mark Wyatt

"The Brickworks Marketplace Project is a significant shopping centre development in inner north west Adelaide constructed by Badge Constructions in 2014 and 2015. The site was a former brickworks with a deep pit containing various extents of uncontrolled fill which was to remain on site, and with a remaining void up to 6 m in depth. The existing uncontrolled fill was improved using the High Energy Impact Compaction system, and the pit backfilled using a quarry crusher byproduct selected by trial and a recycled crushed concrete and bricks and compacted in deep lifts. This approach resulted in significant savings in compaction time, cost and building foundations. The settlements of various parts of the completed works have been monitored since February 2015 and this monitoring has demonstrated small settlements which meet the user’s constraints.INTRODUCTIONThe Torrensville Brickwork Markets project involved the transformation of a former brickworks and clay pit site into a regional 17,000m2 shopping centre, opening in June 2015.The site was a former brickworks with adjoining clay borrow pit. The clay pit had been partially backfilled over many years with ‘uncontrolled’ fill comprising ‘clean’ soil, bricks and kiln dust typically of the following thicknesses:??of the order of up to 7 m to 10 m but locally up to 15 m in the western part of the site??2 m to 5 m in the south-eastern part of the site; and??less than 0.5 m in the north-eastern part of the siteAnecdotal reports suggested compaction of some of the fill may have been undertaken, although this not able to be confirmed nor records obtained.Initially it was proposed to take up the existing uncontrolled fill, sort and recompact or remove to landfill, followed by backfilling in conventional means over 500,000 cubic metres of imported filling to a thickness of up to approximately 6m to backfill the former pit. This work represented a significant cost and was not economically viable.During early negotiations, the contractor proposed an alternative to retain and ground improve the existing filling on site, and to backfill the pit with fill placed and compacted in deep lifts, thereby significantly improving the economics, environmental and community impacts of the proposed works.The developer agreed to the proposal with the following performance criteria:??a settlement of =10 mm after 10 passes by the Impact Compactor (on existing subgrade areas);??a bearing capacity of 250 kPa for high level footings;??a maximum long term differential settlement of 40 mm (measured over 16 m), ie. 1 in 400; and??a minimum modulus of 40MPa."

Jan 1, 1900

By Andreu J. Ferrero

Polyurethane and acrylate resins are routinely injected into soils to gain strength and control water flow. However, most published data regarding strength gain is derived from laboratory samples created under ideal conditions. This study endeavored to inject resins into full scale mock-ups that could then be excavated and tested to yield results comparable to actual field conditions. To achieve this goal, a large container was filled with a silty SAND (SM), as defined by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The soil was moisture treated and compacted in lifts of 0.3m. PVC pipes installed in a diamond grid into the soil were used to inject polyurethane and acrylate resins. Dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) tests were conducted on the polyurethane treated soils, the acrylate treated soils, and the baseline untreated soils in the container. Testing results will be correlated to SPTn and CBR values to evaluate increases in the soil strength parameters in the treated soils. Cored samples of polyurethane and acrylate treated soils will be tested in compression, shear, and triaxial. These laboratory test results will focus on material property gains for the treated soils, in comparison to standard values for similar soil types. Complete documentation of the soil type, compaction methods, injection methods, and testing performed have been documented and will be presented in the final paper.