Search Documents

By Yuji Yamashita, Kazuyoshi Kamimura, Tsuyoshi Takahashi, Naoya Matayoshi

"The CDM-LODIC method (cement deep mixing - low displacement and control) method enables ground displacement to be reduced by removing an amount of soil equivalent to that of injected cement slurry and the volume of the plunged mixing tool, which causes a certain degree of ground displacement. Since the CDM-LODIC method was developed in 1985, it has been applied to over 930 sites and the accumulated volume of stabilized soil has now reached 7.6 million cubic meters.In the CDM method, the number of blade rotations per unit depth in the ground when the mixing blades are withdrawn is considered a construction item. The blade rotation number depends on the degree of mixing between the cement slurry and the ground Some field tests were performed based on the degree of mixing between the cement slurry and the ground. In these tests, a new concept of evaluating the blade rotation number when the screw rod penetrates to a given depth without injecting cement slurry has contributed to the degree of mixing. Furthermore, a correlation exists between the coefficient of efficiency of soil removal and the cement slurry admixture rate. In this paper, we discus the data collected in those field tests and present some application examples.OUTLINE OF CDM-LODIC METHODThe injection of cement slurry may cause some ground displacement during Cement Deep Mixing (CDM). In recent years, due to an increased demand for ground improvement work in urban areas, there is increased concern that buildings near any CDM site may be adversely affected. The deep mixing method which reduces displacement due to mixing (CDM-LODIC method) enables ground displacement to be minimized by removing an amount of soil equivalent to the injected cement slurry and the volume of the mixing tool, which itself causes some ground displacement. When the construction site is near other structures, regardless of whether on or under the ground, the CDM-LODIC method can be used in order to minimize any ground displacement. There are considered to be two main causes of ground displacement as shown in Figure 1. Displacement A indicates ground displacement caused by the volume of the inserted mixing tool during the penetration stage and displacement B indicates ground displacement caused by the volume of the injected stabilizing agent. Thus, by removing soil equivalent to the volume of the inserted mixing tool and the injected stabilizing agent, ground displacement can theoretically be minimized. Figure 2 shows the amount of observed ground displacement in the cases of CDM and CDM-LODIC at an actual site. These case studies indicate that ground displacement can be reduced by removing the soil."

Jan 1, 2015

By Amr Sallam, David Thompson, Moataz Hassan

"The Little Lake Harris (LLH) Bridge was constructed in 1951 to replace the eastwest County Road 48 Bridge connecting the towns of Howey-in-the-Hills and Astatula in Lake County, Florida, United States. The 78-span bridge carries two lanes of traffic, is 3,130 feet long, and 36.1 feet wide. The concrete deck is supported by steel I-girders carried by one row of 18-inch square precast concrete driven pile. In the late 1980's, slight settlements were observed in several bents. In 1990, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) initiated annual survey of deck elevations during bridge inspections to monitor settlement. Due to the slow nature and magnitude of settlement, substructure instability was not a major concern to the department. However, public concern over the settlement and rough ride of the bridge continued to rise. FDOT contracted Kisinger Campo & Associates Corp. (KCA) to provide the needed design to correct the dips in the riding surface and minimize future settlement. KCA's initial design was based on the concept of ""helper bents"" at the settled bents in order to restore the bridge to original elevation. Estimated construction cost for seven helper bents was about $3.3M. FDOT requested evaluating other alternatives to reduce the cost of the bridge restoration. KCA involved the geotechnical consultant, Terracon Consultants, Inc. (Terracon), to perform a peer review and provide an economical alternative solution. Jacking and shimming the bridge was determined to be both technically viable and economical with a total cost of less than $300K. The design was completed in March 2010 and construction was completed in February 2011. This paper provides an overview of the LLH Bridge history, summarizes the evolution of the design methodology including the findings of the geotechnical study and presents lessons learned during the design and construction of the project.INTRODUCTIONThe Safety and Preservation of the State Highway System is the top priority of the FDOT. Therefore, FDOT initiated a bridge management program that starts with conducting biennial safety inspections performed by Certified Bridge Inspectors (CBI). The inspection reports together with the CBI’s recommendations are reviewed by a registered Professional Engineer (PE) and work orders are issued with priority ranking depending on the severity of the bridge deficiencies. If the scope of work is considered beyond the in-house crews’ capability, the work is then included in a contract for and bid. LLH Bridge was a little different. It was initiated in direct response to number of complaints the FDOT District 5 Structures Maintenance Office (D5SMO) received regarding settlement of the Little Lake Harris Bridge."

Jan 1, 2015

By Glen Mann, H. G. Vestberg, Robert D. Holtz

"Underpinning of residential and commercial structures is often accomplished using a number of driven-in-place small diameter steel pipe piles. These piles, at least in the Seattle area, are typically described as pin-piles and are driven with an air compressor operated jack hammer to a refusal criterion developed from an empirical basis. Over the past twenty years or so, the materials have improved in quality and strength, and the driving equipment has improved in efficiency and capability. These improvements have resulted in damage to the pin-piles during driving as well as to the driving equipment. The primary objectives of this load testing study were to develop a relationship between the driving penetration resistance of 2-inch diameter pin-piles and the ultimate bearing capacity when piles were driven at different penetration rates and, based on the load test results, to develop an opinion regarding an increase in the allowable axial load capacity [ultimate load capacity divided by a factor of safety] of a 2-inch diameter pin-pile over the currently used permissible load capacity of 4 kips in the Seattle area. Also, if feasible, a reduction in the present driving penetration rate was to be recommended to help reduce the rate and magnitude of pile and equipment damage whilst maintaining the allowable load capacity. The recorded ultimate bearing capacities were also compared with the Tagnent-line and the Davisson analytical methods in an effort to determine if either of these provided a reasonable determination of the pile load capacity.IntroductionThis paper describes the results of a series of load tests performed on small diameter, 2-inch, driven-in-place steel pin (pipe) piles and based on these results, provides the support for a modification to the presently used allowable axial pin-pile capacities.The intent of the load testing program was to determine how much influence the penetration resistance might have on the individual piles' ability to support the allowable axial load without undergoing any significant vertical deformation. For the purposes of this paper the ""allowable load capacity"" is considered to be the ultimate pile load capacity divided by a minimum factor of safety, typically considered to be 2.0 in this area. A pin (pipe) pile comprises an open or closed ended, schedule 80 steel tube which is driven-in-place, usually with an air compressor operated 90 pound pneumatic jack hammer. These jack hammers typically operate at a rate of about 1,200 blows per minute, (Haggard, Holtz and Mann, 2001 )."

Jan 1, 2005

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect projectspecific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project.1. SCOPEThe work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, post-tensioning and testing helical anchors used to support tension loads, and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to accomplish the work. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows:• The Owner is the property owner.• The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to execute project tasks required for the successful design and construction of the overall project. Tasks could include construction management, design, oversight, etc.• The anchor designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical anchors.• Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical anchors, and possibly other tasks associated with the project.It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development.The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of anchor performance if required by the Owner or the anchor designer to confirm performance of the anchors subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional anchors if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2016

By P. Middendorp, Gerald E. H. Verbeek

"INTRODUCTIONStatic Load Testing (SLT) is generally considered the pile testing method that provides the de-facto answers regarding pile capacity and load-deflection behavior. However, as this testing method is time consuming and costly, alternative pile testing methods are applied, such as High-Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT), commonly referred to as Dynamic Load Testing (DLT), and Rapid Load Testing (RLT), which includes Statnamic Testing (STN) and the Fundex Pile Load Tester (PLT). Extensive descriptions of these pile testing methods as well as comparisons of the results from these two methods have been widely published, but little is written on the choice between HSDT and RLT. This article will address this issue for concrete piles by discussing five different aspects that should be considered when making a choice between HSDT and RLT for either cast-in-situ piles or precast driven piles. TIMINGThe timing of the pile load test is independent of the testing method. For cast-in-situ piles load testing is performed some time after the pile has been installed (to allow the pile to obtain the compressive strength required to withstand the test load), while for precast driven piles load testing is performed after a so-called set-up period following pile installation (to allow the soil to recover from driving induced disturbances and, at least in most cases,regain strength).In other words, the timing of the test does not affect the choice of the testing method.ACCURACY OF THE APPLIED LOADWhen a pile is tested by RLT the applied load is measured by a calibrated load cell placed on the pile head, just as it would be during SLT. This means that the error in the applied load value is less than 0.1% of the maximum range of the load cell.However, when a pile is tested by HSDT the load is calculated from the measured strains, which means that the outcome is dependent on the pile material properties. In this case the applied load (F) on the pile head is calculated by multiplying the measured strain (?) with either the calculated or estimated elastic modulus of concrete (E) and the pile cross section (A).The elastic modulus is generally back calculated from the (average) stress wave velocity (c), which in turn is derived from the reflection time (T) it takes for a stress wave to travel over the pile length (L) from the pile head to the pile toe and back to the pile head."

Jan 1, 2006

By Ahmed Elmekati, Frederick C. Rhyner, Steven R. Lowe

"The current phase of the Pacific Park development (formerly, Atlantic Yards) in Brooklyn involves constructing buildings on a platform over an existing LIRR rail yard. To preserve the maximum amount of space in the already congested yard and protect the yard which remains in service during construction, high capacity foundations are being designed well above previous capacities in the area. In addition to spread footings and small mats, various diameters of drilled piles are being used at design capacities ranging up to 600 tons. The piles are generally grouted at low pressure, up to about 50 psi. Load tests for various drilled elements, including piles, tiedowns and soil anchors, have confirmed allowable side resistance (bond) stresses in dense sand ranging from 20 to 30 psi. Testing with different rigs and operators has shown that down-the-hole hammers are feasible, but the installation techniques, types of equipment and size of the pile make a significant difference. The results show that more cost-effective foundations are possible when ample testing confirms expectations.I INTRODUCTIONThe Long Island Rail Road has operated a mainline on Atlantic Avenue since the 1800s, with a terminal at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. In the early 1900s, the mainline was reconstructed in a cut and cover tunnel section. The LIRR’s Atlantic Yard was constructed circa 1908 to service the terminal. It was depressed about 25 feet below street grade to coincide with the LIRR’s mainline tunnel under Atlantic Avenue. Record drawings indicate that the gravity retaining walls lining the perimeter of the yard and other ancillary structures had been designed for an allowable bearing pressure of five tons per square foot (tsf). Perhaps by coincidence, the mat foundation for the tower of the Williamsburg Savings Bank was also designed for five tsf in 1929.Figure 1 shows a typical geologic section through the site. The geology and subsurface conditions in this part of Brooklyn consist of fill generally five to 20 feet deep underlain by dense to very dense sand and gravel; in places, with numerous cobbles and boulders which make pile installation challenging. The sand strata that are on the order of 150 to 200 feet thick were laid down by glaciers during the last ice age and have been heavily precompressed. The sand strata are underlain in places by remnants of the Cretaceous-era Raritan Clay formation and Fordham Gneiss bedrock. Because of this, the sand strata generally provide excellent support for shallow foundations and the allowable bearing of five tons per square foot is usually easily justified."

Jan 1, 2016

By Matthew D. Marks

"The Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency initiated the Natomas Levee Improvement Program in 2006 which would bring the entire 42 mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with applicable Federal and State standards for levee protecting urban areas. The soil-bentonite slurry cutoff has been utilized as the primary construction method for addressing the under seepage deficiencies. To date, a combined total of over 4,500,000 square feet of slurry cutoff wall have been constructed utilizing excavation methods to a maximum depth of 75 feet and deep soil mixing methods to a depth of 90 feet. The construction of these cutoff walls has required the use of newly designed and custom built long boom and stick attachments for large hydraulic excavators and additional resource will be required to complete future phases. Key components of the NLIP program have included advancements in the development of soil-bentonite backfill mix designs, specified ranges on the soil backfill gradation to address concerns of long term consolidation of the backfill material, evaluation of the trench slurry filtrate loss with regard to cutoff wall acceptance, maintenance high slurry densities to provide greater trench stability, and continued development of backfill mixing procedures.IntroductionThe Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP) was initiated by the Sacramento Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) in 2006. The long term objective of the NLIP is to provide 200-year level flood protection to the basin. To date, approximately 21 of the 42 mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system has been completed, totaling over $100,000,000 in construction contracts, of which slurry cutoff walls make up approximately $25,000,000. Other construction elements include excavation and removal of unsuitable levee materials, raising or widening existing levees, construction of landside seepage berms, drainage canals, and miscellaneous structures.Although each construction phase of the NLIP includes various construction elements of levee restoration program, the slurry cutoff wall is the primary construction element for addressing the under seepage deficiencies. To date, approximately 4,500,000 square feet of slurry cutoff walls have been installed using excavation and deep soil mixing (DSM) methods. This includes approximately 2,000,000 square feet of slurry cutoff wall along 5 miles of the NCC South Levee and 2,500,000 square feet of slurry cutoff wall along 16 miles of the Sacramento River East Levee (SREL). The work has been completed under 8 separate contracts, through SAFCA, and performed between September 2007 and December 2012. A summary of the contract phases and associated cutoff wall square footage is provided in Table 1. Most of the work has been performed within the seasonal dry weather period in the Sacramento valley, which occurs between April and October. This has required much of the work to be performed on an aggressive construction schedule, year after year."

Jan 1, 2017

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

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

Jan 1, 2017

By Nicolas Denies, Jeroen de Leeuw, Bart Lameire, Jan Maertens, André Vervoort, Flip Hoefsloot, Noël Huybrechts, Flor De Cock

"In recent years, the Deep Mixing Method has increasingly been applied for the construction of earth and water retaining structures. From practice, it has been experienced that there is a real need to develop execution and design rules adapted to the function of the soil mix wall (retaining wall, water barrier, foundation solution or a combination) including the temporary or permanent character of the application. Based on the results of the BBRI Soil Mix project (2009-2013), a design approach has been developed in collaboration with the SBRCURnet. The present paper briefly discusses the principles of this design approach which takes into account the function of the soil mix wall and the characteristics of the soil mix material. The interaction between the soil mix material and the steel reinforcement can be considered in the calculations depending on the function of the soil mix wall. Design and quality control requirements are given in function of the application and take the lifetime of the structure into account. Durability aspects of the soil mix material are therefore considered in the present design approach.INTRODUCTIONSince several decades, the deep mixing method is used for ground improvement works. A more recent application is the use of soil mix as structural elements such as in the case of the earth-water retaining soil mix walls. Since 2000, due to the economic and environmental advantages of the method, this particular application has shown an amazing growth in Belgium and in the Netherlands. A typical excavation (16 m depth), realized with CSM (Cutter Soil Mix) panels, is shown in Fig. 1. For temporary applications, the questions related to the mechanical characteristics of the material, its permeability and its adherence with steel have been investigated with success within the framework of the BBRI Soil Mix project (2009- 2013) (see Denies et al. 2012 for more details). The durability of the soil mix material remains a complex topic while permanent applications are more and more observed in practice. In order to define an obvious design approach, it was necessary to clarify the potential functions of soil mix walls and to establish the requirements related to their design and construction. The BBRI (in Belgium) and SBRCURnet (in the Netherlands) have therefore worked together to publish guidelines in the form of a handbook titled ‘Soil Mix Walls’ (publication foreseen in 2015). In this handbook, a methodology is proposed for the design of the soil mix walls for which the interaction between steel and soil mix can possibly be taken into account dependent upon the application. Each potential function of the soil mix wall is described (e.g. earth retaining wall, cut-off wall, etc.) and the temporary or permanent character of the application is always considered."

Jan 1, 2015

By Jeff Hopple

"Bluestone Dam in Hinton, W.Va., along the New River, is owned and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Completed in 1949, the dam is 165 ft (50 m) tall, 2,048 ft (624 m) wide, and encompasses a water shed that is 4,600 sq mi (11,914 sq km). The Bluestone Dam Safety Assurance (DSA) Program began in 2001, and is a multiple-phase construction project to upgrade the capacity and stability of the structure to meet the probable maximum flood event. Installing 216 high capacity rock anchors was a major feature of the work.The USACE selected Brayman Construction Corporation to perform Phase 2B of the construction modifications to the Bluestone Dam. Brayman was responsible for installing the high capacity rock anchors, which range in size from 3 to 61 strands and have a design load up to 2,145 kips (9,541 kN). Drill holes range in size from 6.5 to 15 in (16.5 to 38 cm), and required full length corrosion protection. Of the 216 anchors, 57 were installed on top of the dam to resist overturning and the remaining 159 were installed on the face of the dam at a 45-degree angle to resist sliding.To gain access to the face of the dam anchor locations, the project required dirt benches, excavations with temporary shoring, and steel platforms. To access anchors on the east and west abutment faces, the team excavated over 10,000 cu yds (7,645 cu m) of material. Support of these excavations included the design and installation of three soil nail walls with over 145 nails and 3,500 sq ft (325 sq m) of shotcrete. The project also called for a 780 ft (237 m) long steel platform to gain access to the spillway anchors. The Stratus Group designed the platform to support two 85 ton (80 tonne) crawler cranes and as many as five drill rigs that were the equivalent to a design load of 3.5 ton per sq ft (335 kN per sq m). Once the final platform design was approved, fabrication of roughly 3 million lbs (1,360 tonnes) of structural steel began. Brayman’s in-house fabrication shop, in conjunction with Dura-Bond Industries and Advantage Steel, collaborated to fabricate and install the platform in less than five months. Flexibility in the platform design allowed for sections of the platform to be lowered as much as 16 ft (4.9 m) to provide access to anchors at lower elevations along the spillway face. In addition to the main spillway platform, Stratus Group, Brayman, Dura-Bond and Advantage designed, fabricated and installed six other unique platforms to facilitate anchor construction on various areas of the dam."

Jan 1, 2014

By Takashi Enomoto

"The cement deep mixing (CDM) method has a wide range of applications, both on land and at sea. This paper describes the features of the equipment on CDM vessels engaged in maritime construction in Japan: the DCM No. 3 barge, the DCM No. 6 barge, and the DCM No. 8 barge. The DCM No. 3 barge is a large vessel with a mixing area of 5.7 m2. The design of the elevator of the deep mixing unit on the DCM No.3 barge enables us to conduct deep underground/ sea operations. This enables us to conduct mixing at depths of up to 52.6 m below the seabed and up to 70.5 m from the water surface. Additionally, since the tower is installed on the center of the barge, it has excellent stability. The DCM No. 6 barge and DCM No. 8 barge are mid-sized vessels with a mixing area of 4.6 m2. The DCM No. 6 barge was fitted in 2013 with energy conservation equipment and upgraded to an environment-friendly CDM barge. The energy saving upgrade used electric power, instead of hydraulic power, by inverter controlled alternating current motor for both mixing unit and main hoisting winch. This enables the using on effective use of regenerative power when the deep mixing unit is lowered. A feature of the DCM No. 8 barge is that it has an inclinable tower located at the bow section for elevating the deep cement mixing unit. Since the tower can be greatly inclined, the hull has a lower center of gravity and greater stability when the vessel turns. This also allows the vessel to pass below bridges and simplifies cruise preparations, outfitting and dismantling work.INTRODUCTIONThe cement deep mixing method (CDM method) involves mixing and stirring a cement-based solidifier into soft ground to rapidly bring the ground to the desired firmness. This method is used to suppress ground shear deformation, increase strength, increase slip resistance, and mitigate liquefaction and subsidence. It has been recently used in Japan in the construction of revetments at controlled waste disposal sites, both to boost the strength of the seabed and to prevent the seepage of waste matter and other pollutants. Undertaking CDM construction work at sea requires specially constructed marine construction CDM vessels. Since CDM construction at sea entails many more restrictions on working conditions than construction on land, the vessels themselves sometimes need to be modified. This paper will describe 1) the remodeling of the turrets and mixing machinery for mixing to great depths in deep water (DCM No. 3 barge with eight axes); 2) the upgraded of equipment on board CDM vessels after accounting for environmental considerations (DCM No. 6 barge with four axes); and 3) the use of a inclinable tower (DCM No. 8 barge with four axes)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Charles M. Wilk

"Mass stabilization involves mixing binding agents into marginal or contaminated soil to improve the subject material’s physical and/or chemical properties. This paper concentrates on the principles of soil mixing and benefits and application to new and existing rail right-of-way. Successfully applied in Scandinavia and other European countries, the soil mixing is now being applied in right of way in the northern latitudes of the U.S. and Canada. These regions have significant areas of “peaty” soils that can complicate construction and maintenance of rail and structure foundations. Mass stabilization can be used to improve the bearing strength of these soft soils for subsequent construction of railroads, pipelines, roads, and buildings. In civil engineering, the technology is often used to improve the construction properties such as bearing strength, of a marginal soil. In environmental engineering, stabilization is remediation treatment technology that protects human health and the environment by immobilizing hazardous constituents within the treated material. . The treatment is conducted while the subject material remains in-place (insitu). Mass Stabilization is often used to accomplish both civil and environmental purposes on the same project effectively addressing marginal soil while eliminating the expense of soil removal and replacement.This paper presents the principles of mass stabilization technology, implementation in the field and recent completed railway projects.The example rail projects will present the various benefits that soil mixing provides to railway construction and maintenance. Bench-scale studies and full scale implementation as well as soil construction properties before and after mass stabilization will be discussed. The paper and presentation will include information on the advantages of mixing methods and binding agent delivery systems.INTRODUCTIONNew or existing railroad right-of-ways may cross ground with low bearing capacity. Right of way subgrade undergo deflection (strain) as loads (stress) are applied (1). The amount of strain or deflection of the subgrade caused by loading of a train is proportional to the stiffness of the subgrade materials. Some soils, such as tamped ballast, are very stiff and resist loads well. Other soils such as soft clay, peat, or loose sand have low stiffness and undergo substantial movement under loads. It is very desirable to have the stiffest possible material in a track subgrade. Stiff subgrade material limits deflection under load, reducing track roughness and occurrence of track defects. Mass stabilization is a geotechnical method that can be used to improve the bearing capacity or stiffness of soil in these right-of-way. Mass stabilization involves mixing binding agents into soil subject to treatment while the soil remains in-place or insitu. Variations in the design or areas subject to treatment can be used to address transmission of vibration to adjacent structures."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ronald D. Boyer

"Early in the design stage of Meadowlands Xanadu, the client’s project director informed me that “after construction, nobody is going to come to Xanadu to see the foundations.” My response was, “Well, that’s good, because the only reason someone would come to see the foundations is if there is a problem with them.” The client’s real message was clear: the money for the project would be better spent on architectural design components and interior finishes that would attract high-end tenants and entertainment seekers. The foundations, however, were challenging. The sheer size of the Xanadu development, the varying depths to rock, the loading conditions associated with the different structures, and the construction sequencing required the use of multiple deep foundation types and specialty foundation contractors. Xanadu, when completed, will consist of over 2.5 million sq ft of entertainment venues, restaurants and retail stores; America’s first i n d o o r s n o w dome; North America’s tallest (287 ft high) Ferris wheel; and four parking decks. Finished grades for Xanadu were essentially within about 1 to 2 ft of existing grades at the site, except for a 5 acre wetlands area, which received about 8 ft of new fill. Before the current construction, the approximate 75-acre Xanadu site was occupied by the Continental Airlines (now Izod) Arena, on-grade parking lots and the wetlands area. The Arena property is part of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority (NJSEA) Meadowlands Sports Complex, which also includes Giants Stadium and the Racetrack, and is located in East Rutherford, N. J. Subsurface ConditionsThe site subsurface conditions include fill materials underlain by organic silt and peat (former marsh deposits or “meadowmat”), varved clay, glacial till and shale bedrock. The Xanadu site had been a marsh until the Sports Complex was created by filling in the early 1970s. The fill consists of dredged materials from Lower New York Harbor imported by hydraulic pipeline from the Hudson River. The fill also includes “historic fill,” defined as nonindigenous material deposited to raise the topographic elevation of a site, such as construction debris and other nonhazardous solid waste, and was generally encountered in thicknesses ranging from 8 ft to 18 ft. Within the previously developed portion of the site, a layer of marsh deposits consisting of peat and organic silt was encountered beneath the fill in thicknesses ranging from two ft to seven ft. Within the existing wetlands area, the marsh deposits were up to 10 ft below existing grade. The varved clay stratum was six ft to 36 ft thick. The depth to shale rock increases from approximately 15 ft near the west side of the site to approximately 80 ft near the south side. Groundwater was tidally influenced and varied from about 6 to 12 feet below both existing and proposed grade."

Jan 1, 2009

By Rafael A. Rivera

"Since the dawn of construction, there has been a need for excavations, which sometimes need to occur below the groundwater table. Excavations in themselves are difficult enough, with the myriad of requirements, such as engineered support of excavations, considerations for stability and numerous other concerns. Excavations executed in rural landscapes can be accomplished easily without significant consideration to accessibility, adjacent properties or structures, and construction limits and deformations. However, all of these factors can have an impact on excavation considerations in an urban landscape. When digging below the groundwater table, these conditions, along with concerns associated with groundwater drawdown requirements, discharge limitations, groundwater contamination, property limits, adjacent buildings and subsidence concerns, can lead an experienced dewatering contractor to consider diverse installation methodology and equipment to allow construction to occur below the groundwater table.534 W. 29th St. New York, N.Y.There are many things that must be considered when constructing a new high-rise building within a small property footprint measuring 25 ft (7.6 m) wide by 80 ft (24.4 m) in length. When you take into account that the foundation needs to go several feet below the groundwater table and that there are two existing multistory buildings with shallower foundations on either side of the proposed structure, this task now becomes much more difficult. Consideration of geology, groundwater levels, depths of excavation and shoring for the excavation becomes critical to the success of the project. On a regular basis, dewatering contractors confront similar situations in congested cities where available real estate is limited.To minimize the negative impacts of construction dewatering, it is important to mitigate the potential effects of construction dewatering to the surrounding buildings, sidewalks, underground structures, tunnels, subways and other existing infrastructure. Such an instance occurred at the project located at 534 W. 29 St. in New York City. On this particular project, the required drawdown was greater than the typical 15 ft (4.6 m) of suction lift, so a vacuumed can pump system was utilized. The tubing was connected to a vacuumed perimeter dewatering well-point system, which is a predrainage system that is installed prior to the start of excavation for the underpinning of the adjacent structures and for the overall foundation. Each well-point, which was composed of a PVC pipe that was 1.5 in (38 mm) in diameter by 25 ft (7.6 m) long, was drilled to a depth of about 23 ft (7 m) using a hollow stem auger and was installed around the perimeter at a centerto- center spacing of about 7.67 ft (2.3 m). In lieu of a traditional perimeter collection header, and to allow for greater flexibility for the contractor, the well-points were interconnected to a modified vacuum can pump system utilizing ¾ in (19 mm) drop tubes that were “spaghetti” around the perimeter."

Jan 1, 2017

By Gianfranco Di Cicco

Seepage problems were recorded for more then 40 years at the Walter F. George lock and dam. In 2001 the Mobile district of The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers turned to the installation of a 200 feet deep cut-off in a final attempt to remedy the situation. The advertised design-built contract requested the installation of the cutoff wall in front of the concrete structure of the dam starting from 90 feet of water, cutting through a concrete lock structure, a submerged retaining wall and extending on both sides on the earthen embankments. This paper summarize the history of the project and the installation of the first recorded cut-off wall constructed under deep water, upstream to an existing dam structures and under an existing concrete lock. The technology used combined with the project's results may be considered a milestone in the marine foundation and the marine cut-off wall construction technology.

Jan 1, 2013

By Frederick C. Rhyner

The United States government sponsored the construction of a new vehicular bridge over the Diyala River in Bubriz, Iraq. This paper describes the geotechnical engineering for design and construction of drilled shaft foundations for this bridge. An Iraqi geotechnical engineering firm made borings and laboratory tests while analysis and design recommendations were provided in the United States. Despite the severe challenges of engineering in a war zone, excellent cooperation was the key to a successful effort. Three drilled shafts designs were necessary to accommodate the different subsurface conditions: a) medium-compact to compact sands, b) stiff to hard clays and c) mixed soil profile. The alpha and beta methods were used to estimate capacities for a conservative design, recognizing that quality control during construction might be less than what is normally provided in the United States. Iraq has a high seismic risk and LPILE was used to estimate the drilled shaft response during earthquake loading conditions. Settlement estimates were made using FHWA methods. Construction was carried out entirely by local Iraqi firms, despite the challenges of working in an active conflict area.

Jan 1, 2009

By Dave Paul

Dam rehabilitation involves a range of design, construction, and operation risks, some of which are not encountered in new dam construction. These risks can have significant impact on project schedule and project budget. Owners, engineers, and contractors need to understand these risks. Existing dams typically were designed in an era of design and construction standards that have been upgraded and changed. Modern standards will impact the construction approach taken and involve understanding the earlier standards. Knowledge of historical standards/practices as well as current design standards and construction methods is valuable for developing and designing rehabilitation components. Construction records and as-built drawings are valuable when they are available. Rehabilitation projects often consist of older projects where as-built documents or construction records are not available. Where these records exist, many (most) times, they do not fully reflect the current conditions within the dam and appurtenant works. leading experienced practitioners to “expect surprises” both during investigation of the existing facility, as well as during construction. “Surprises” should be expected even when historical records of investigations, design and construction are available. Unknowns, be they known unknowns or unknown unknowns, can be planned for by developing an approach for the design and construction process to identify potential issues/problems, or at least alert the designer and contractor of potential issues. A Risk-Based approach applied for the entire life of the rehabilitation project can be used to alert the parties of potential “surprises” and provide direction for mitigating issues as they arise. This type of approach is particularly effective when the process includes senior practitioners with decades of design and construction experience in all aspects of dams. Minimizing impacts created by “surprises”, particularly during construction, can result in an improved project meeting budget and schedule goals and design standards. This paper identifies and categorizes risk types salient to dam construction, reviews the process of risk identification and analysis, discusses guidelines for risk allocation, reviews strategies to mitigate risks, presents several case studies where risk mitigation strategies were employed successfully (or unsuccessfully), and presents lessons learned. The paper concludes with a summary and recommendations for best practices for Project Risk Management and mitigation that can be used by: Owners; Design Engineers; and Construction Managers, in planning, design, pre-construction and construction phases of dam related projects.

By Dan Brown

This paper provides an overview of the advantages and limitations of continuous flight auger (CFA) and drilled displacement (DD) systems compared to other deep foundation systems, along with a summary of important considerations for selection and design. Geotechnical and project considerations are described which favor the use of CFA and DD piling, and also which may be problematic for this type of construction or which may limit the practicality and competitive advantages. A brief summary of design methods for axial and lateral loading is included.

Jan 1, 2005

By David Miller

"The biggest concern about using soil mixing is the inability to observe physically the final product, which has led to a lack of confidence about what is in the ground. After all, you can’t see it and you can’t taste it and you can’t smell it, so are you sure it’s soil mixing? In addition, there are variations in techniques, tools and monitoring that have led to additional skepticism and the desire to “elevate” the product. This skepticism is why the industry is so scrutinized even when there are other technologies being used that do not experience nearly the same level of scrutiny. With other techniques, even with a slurry wall, you can see the backfill before it goes into the ground, and drilled piers have careful evaluation of the concrete mix even before placement into and verification of the open hole. Essentially, you get control over the final material. There is less control in soil mixing, and it’s very dependent on in-situ conditions. These factors make it difficult to rely solely upon installation parameters, quality control (QC) and verification tests. At some point, you may need to apply some engineering judgment.Start at the BeginningThe availability of sufficient and accurate geotechnical data (soil type, heterogeneity, shear strength parameters, variability, etc.) is important in establishing the material that will be drilled. This data will also help in determining the proper mix design to achieve the desired soil cement properties. Many factors must be considered when designing the mix and the mixing program, including any debris in the ground, different soil properties and varying moisture contents.Each of the various factors affect the final properties of the soil cement, so it really takes careful planning and evaluation of the mix design through iterations by looking at the soil types and adjusting the mixes. Clay is going to behave very differently than sand in both mixing efficiency and final properties. That is, the presence of clays results in more difficulty in achieving higher strengths and to physically mix the soil and the binder, whereas the presence of sands results in more difficulty controlling the final permeability."

Jan 1, 2017

By Silas C. Nichols

FHWA Interest is due to: ? An increase in successful projects in the U.S. private sector and in other countries ? Cost effective and more efficient in many circumstances ? Agency Priorities - FHWA "Vital Few" AASHTO TIG

Jan 1, 2005