Search Documents

By Jin-Wei Huang, Bradley J. Fleming, Sri Sritharan

"Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading.The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface.In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil,IntroductionPilings are the preferred foundation support for many civil engineering structures including highway bridges, railroad bridges, and port wharves. These structures and their foundations are subjected to forces created by earthquakes, wind, waves, water current, vessel impact, ice, and gravity. All loads applied to the superstructure must be transmitted to the foundation where they are resisted by the surrounding soil. With significant lateral loads, use of pile foundations may be the only solution to transmit large structural loads to competent soils. Piles supported by competent soils are relatively easy to design and costs are often attainable. However, thick layers of weak soils such as soft clays are widespread in high seismic areas (e.g., San Francisco, southern Nevada, Washington, Eastern Missouri, and Arkansas), exacerbating design challenges. Soft clays reduce the lateral resistance of the pile-soil system, making the pile foundation less cost effective. In this case, the current design practice is to use an increased number of larger diameter piles, which is a costly alternative (see SDC, Caltrans 2010). An innovative and more cost-efficient solution to this problem is to improve the soil within a short depth surrounding the foundation, thereby increasing its lateral stiffness. Some well-known methods for improving soil include deep soil mixing, stone columns, and simple soft soil replacement with select granular material."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alison Savage, Michael Terry

"For decades, the International Market Place (IMP) has been an icon in the heart of Waikiki in Honolulu, Hawaii. It was famous for Duke Kahanamoku’s restaurant where people flocked to hear Don Ho sing in the ’60s and ’70s. Later, it was a bustling, open-air hub of small vendors who peddled everything from Hawaiian souvenirs and jewelry to food court meals and farmer’s market produce. Small buildings and shacks that housed the businesses were located on a curved tract of land — just one block off the beach — that stretches from Kalakaua Avenue to Kuhio Avenue. The entrance to the complex is dominated by a huge, old (circa 1850) Banyan tree. This tract is owned by the Queen Emma Land Company. Queen Emma was a Hawaiian Queen from the 1800s. Revenue from the land has supported the Queen’s Medical Center in Honolulu for decades.The reimagined IMP is owned by Taubman Centers, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich., and CoastWood Capital Group of San Francisco, Calif. The IMP will offer a distinctive collection of upscale fashion and lifestyle retailers, including Hawaii’s only Saks Fifth Avenue store, as well as ten sit-down restaurants, including concepts by award-winning chefs Michael Mina and Roy Yamaguchi. The mall features two large open-air courts, the first of which has the huge Banyan tree as its entryway centerpiece. The second open-air court, called Queen’s Court, includes a stage and mature monkeypod trees and a few palm trees. Foundation SelectionAfter a geotechnical exploration that was directed by SME, Plymouth, Mich., and performed by Geolabs, Honolulu, it was discovered that the historical site had hidden and challenging foundation conditions. The subsurface conditions included a very deep but now in-filled ancient river valley containing more than 180 ft (54.9 m) of lagoonal deposits consisting of normally consolidated plastic clayey silts and silty clays with blow counts mainly varying in N-value from 1 to 6. The silt was underlain by several soft coralline layers, some overconsolidated clays and various basalt layers. The static groundwater level on the site was at a depth of about 5 ft (1.5 m), closely matching sea level.Although driven piles had previously been used as the preferred deep foundation support for adjacent structures, this area of town is now fully developed and local noise ordinances preclude their use. Augercast piles were initially considered, but when the general contractor dck/FWF, Pittsburgh, Pa., asked for bids for the augercast piles, several foundation contractors offered alternate systems. The practical installation depth of augercast piles was limited and due to the depth of the in-filled alluvial valley, this system could likely have left soft silt below the tips of the piles over much of the site."

Jan 1, 2016

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

By Mohamed A. Sakr

An experimental study on the behavior of pile group's arrangement under lateral load was carried out in the level ground and at crest of sand slope 3H: 2V. Tests were conducted on single pile and pile groups with center-to-center pile spacing of 3D. The model piles were founded in sand with relative density 25%. Several configurations of pile groups were used to study the effect of piles arrangement in the group (series or parallel) with respect to slope crest. The behavior of the pile groups in the level ground was compared with the behavior of pile groups at different configurations at the slope crest. Based on the test results, the behavior of laterally loaded pile groups adjacent to a slope crest depends largely on piles arrangement in the group with respect to direction of the lateral load. Pile groups in the level ground have more resistance to lateral loads when they are arranged in a parallel configuration than in a series, whereas the reverse is true in cases of pile groups constructed near to the edge of a slope. It is advisable to use the pile group in series arrangement for groups constructed at slope crest to minimize the effect of the ground slope on lateral capacity of piles and the occurred deflection and maximum bending moment of the lead row in the group.

Jan 1, 2010

By Brian W. Wilson

A case study is presented that describes the design and implementation of a combined blast densification and deep dynamic compaction program which was undertaken to improve the foundation soils for a proposed tailings dam raise in Ontario, Canada. Based on the results of the geotechnical investigation it was determined that the foundation of the dam would be situated on tailings of both variable thickness and density, much of which would be susceptible to liquefaction under the design earthquake for the region and type of facility. Blast densification trials were completed by the owner and the results of these made available to prospective tenderers in response to a call for a fixed price contract for the design and implementation of a densification program for approximately 800,000 m3 of foundation tailings. The variation in tailings gradation and the impacts of such on the ground improvement program are discussed, as are details of both the additional blast densification field trials completed by the contractor, and the selected blast pattern and explosive charging used for production blasting. The applicability of the various ground improvement techniques to the actual conditions encountered, and the results obtained are also discussed.

Jan 1, 2010

By Abid Adekunte

Traditionally, designers and contractors provide additional external supports to retaining walls through the use of tie-back anchors or braces. Both approaches are known to have their shortcomings; braces limit working space within excavation areas, while tie-backs are seldom used in built-up areas where intrusion into adjacent property of non-cooperative owners has to be avoided or in situations where sensitive structures exist behind the wall. This paper focuses on the design, construction and monitoring of deep excavation support systems on two separate projects located in different ground conditions in the Republic of Ireland. On both projects, conventional ground anchorage and propping were inapplicable. This led to the development and application of two different novel solutions on both projects. Methods of wall performance monitoring on both sites also differ. Wall monitoring results show these innovative methods to be safe and effective. Advantages of the novel solutions over traditional approaches are highlighted.

Jan 1, 2010

By Ross T. McGillivray, David S. Graham, Dan A. Brown, Steven D. Dapp

"The Selmon Expressway includes an elevated structure extending across several miles of weathered karstic limestone geology, and represents a challenge for design because of the high variability of the material and the difficulty in characterizing the strength. The nature of the epikarst in this region of Tampa is such that variability can be extreme within distances of only a few feet. The weathered rock includes extremely soft soil infill within solution features on and within the formation. The limestone is so weathered that coring typically does not yield useful samples for strength testing, and in-situ Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) tests often encounter refusal blow counts. Thus the challenge for foundation design includes two components of reliability risks: the uncertainty associated with the ground conditions at a given foundation location plus the uncertainty associated with the foundation performance at a given location even when the stratigraphy is determined.This paper describes the design approach that has been implemented successfully for two projects at the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway (LRS) in Tampa, Florida: the assessment and remediation of the reversible elevated lane (REL) foundations constructed in 2004, and the elevated expressways widening project constructed in 2012. Included in this design approach is a method developed for computing axial resistance in this local geology. Design for axial loading relies primarily on the development of side resistance, which was considered less subject to performance risks than base resistance. The calculation method incorporates a statistical analysis of SPT data, tempered by engineering judgment, to characterize stratigraphy at a given location into either soil, intermediate geomaterial (IGM) or rock.IntroductionThe subsurface stratigraphy of sites underlain by weathered limestone formations can be highly variable with respect to material layer thicknesses and strengths, even over short horizontal distances. This is the case for much of Florida, and particularly the Tampa area. These conditions present a challenging environment for the design of drilled foundations because of the need for a reliable determination of subsurface conditions at each foundation location, as they relate to the expected axial performance. Contributing factors include:"

Jan 1, 2015

By I. D. Dayal, Anil Kumar Jain

"Cutoff walls are frequently used to slow down or prevent seepage of water through and/or around dams. Cutoff wall is a type of seepage barrier structure designed to reduce the flow of water underneath temporary or main dam. There are number of techniques for the construction of cutoff walls including concrete, Jet grouting and permeation grouting. NHPC LTD, a premier Govt. of India undertaking has been instrumental in the hydropower development within the country & in nearby countries like Nepal & Bhutan since last four decades. NHPC LTD has completed more than 20 hydro-electric projects with total installed capacity of 6587MW (including capacity addition by JV- NHDC). In all these projects, different types of dams and spillways were constructed in not so benign to extreme challenging geological set up. There has always been challenge associated with the temporary diversion works. The project sites sometimes incur huge river bed excavations in case of concrete gravity dam founded on rock foundation at large depth. The challenges for minimizing the seepage have been well taken care by constructing the dedicated seepage barriers. The construction of cut-off walls have progressed from “conventional continuous trench backfilled with conventional concrete or plastic concrete” to “grout curtain”, to “jet grouting” to the “concrete cut-off wall” , the last being the most sophisticated & credible seepage barrier.The efficiency of the cut-off walls are monitored by the seepage quantity observed (reduction of the seepage flow), uplift pressures or exit gradients after construction of cut-off walls. For construction of the main concrete dam, required space is created by the river bed excavation for placing the dam foundation on sound rock. Sometimes there is deep river bed excavation from 30 to 40 m depth or even more as per the available rock profile. Temporary coffer dams are constructed for diverting the river flow through diversion tunnels / channels etc. In deep river bed excavation; there are high chances of the significant seepage through the coffer dam foundation / river bed material due to high hydraulic gradients. Seepage and piping are the main causes of the failure / damage of the temporary coffer dams. If the seepage quantity is too high, then it becomes difficult to handle it by dewatering in the dam pit. Dam concrete is required to be placed unhindered to have a monolithic construction of dam blocks & to have faster construction in the working season. Cut-off walls increase the seepage path considerably thus reducing the exit gradient and further reduction of the seepage thus helping in maintaining the seepage free area for working."

Jan 1, 2016

By Joel Moskowitz, Jan Cermak

"New York City has unique geologic conditions which must be considered when designing pile foundations. Where shallow foundations are not feasible, the City's subsurface conditions require a variety of deep foundation systems, ranging from high capacity rock socketed piles, to piles end-bearing on bedrock, to friction piles bearing in alluvial or glacial deposits. Pile load testing is essential in confirming pile capacities as pile analyses include assumptions on soil and soil-pile response, and pile driving equipment. Load test results must be interpreted to estimate the long-term pile behavior. Except for lightly loaded driven piles, the New York City Building Code (the Code) requires that pile capacities be confirmed by static load testing. The Code provides the number of static load tests required, test procedures, and acceptance criteria. In the last few decades, methods other than static load testing have been developed including dynamic and rapid (pseudo-static) load tests. Recently, those methods have also been employed on several projects in New York City. The traditional approach to pile load testing in New York City is discussed herein including engineering involved in the analyses of test data with examples. In addition, several projects which included non-static load testing are discussed INTRODUCTIONPile load testing complements the subsurface information and pile design by providing further data on pile-soil interaction for the selected pile type and installation method. Traditional approaches to pile load testing in New York City involve static load tests to verify the design capacity of the piles for a given minimum factor of safety.In the late 1950's, Dr. Phillip C. Rutledge summarized his views on the philosophy of pile foundations in an unpublished, in-house document. He viewed pile foundations as good illustrations of pertinent and impertinent aspects of geotechnical engineering. In the analyses of piles he divided engineering into four general types:(a) Theoretical engineering in which decisions are made based on theoretical analyses. This represents ideal engineering, in which all factors affecting the pile design are well established or, at least, few simplifying assumptions with known effects on the analyses are made."

Jan 1, 2005

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Alex Ryberg, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

Driven piles are widely used for foundation support. In the vast majority of cases, an increase in pile capacity occurs with time which is referred to as “set-up.” However, in a very limited number of cases, a decrease in capacity with time can occur. This phenomenon is referred to as “relaxation.” This paper will provide a brief review of the relaxation phenomenon, as well as pile driving information and dynamic test data on cases where relaxation has occurred. The pile types in the presented relaxation cases include H-piles, open-end and closed-end pipe piles, prestressed concrete piles, and prestressed concrete piles with H-pile stingers. The soil conditions where relaxation occurred includes dense to very dense fine sands, heavily over consolidated clays, and weak laminated rocks. Relaxation information from 36 piles at 26 sites is assessed. The collected data will assist foundation designers by identifying the subsurface conditions where relaxation has occurred, as well as by documenting the corresponding relaxation magnitude. One method of addressing relaxation when it is encountered is to drive the foundation piles to a greater end of initial driving capacity than required long-term. Hence, the identification and quantification of the relaxation magnitude will be beneficial to foundation designers installing similar pile types in similar subsurface conditions. The paper will also present pertinent observations and recommendations on mitigating relaxation when encountered. INTRODUCTION One of the earliest observations of a decrease in redriving resistance following initial driving was reported by Miller (1937). He reported that piles driven into a saturated, coarse grained soil could lose 40 to 50% of their resistance when redriven 24 hours after initial driving. Yang (1956) similarly reported that after a break in driving, a decrease in driving resistance could be encountered for piles driven in dense fine sand, inorganic silt, or stiff fissured clay. Parsons (1966) in his paper that described piling difficulties in the New York City metropolitan area termed this phenomenon “relaxation”. In this time period, pile capacity was most often evaluated from a pile driving formula frequently checked by a static load test. Hence, the true magnitude of the capacity decrease on a given pile was often poorly quantified. Furthermore, dynamic measurements that could determine what influence driving system performance variation had on the observed redriving resistance were not yet readily available.

Jan 1, 2019

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

Jan 1, 2005

By Peter Faust, Jeremy Zorne, Timothy Siegel, Diane Fiorelli

Professional sport venue construction follows a very simple rule. Once the decision has been made to move the team to a new place, construction shall begin immediately, so that not more than one or two seasons pass by stuck in the old home. Such tight construction schedules require a different approach than traditional design-bid-build contracts. Design is mostly done on the fly, the construction schedule becomes a main risk factor and an early contractor involvement is desired. As specialty contractors become more and more sophisticated, owners, their construction managers or the general contractor have realized the value of ideas and modern technology they can bring to the table for a successful and fast project completion. Local knowledge and experience in a variety of solutions play a key role in the specialty contractor’s ability to provide added value to the project. This is also true for the specialty foundation contractor, who needs to understand the complexity of such modern structures from its integrate foundation, over the delicate concrete structure to a potentially fancy movable stadium roof. Not to mention all the modern high tech equipment which shall make such a place a great customer experience. His expertise shall enable him to propose the most suitable foundation element for the given ground condition and application. Rather to build what others have designed, his strength is to propose alternate concepts which will be faster and (hopefully) more cost effective. This paper highlights different value engineering (VE) input a specialty foundation contractor had on 3 major sports arena projects in California. Together with the entire team from owner to GC, including the Geotechnical (GEOR) and the Structural Engineer of Record (SEOR), the most efficient and best performing foundation solution can be found every time. But such an approach also requires the open mind of the owner to entertain last minute changes when the permit drawing set has already been submitted for approval.

Jan 1, 2018

By Andreas Brandner

"At the beginning of 2007 the Austrian contractor PORR was awarded with remediation works for a 48-km long part of the railway line from Campina to Predeal – part of the Trans European main Corridors TEN-T priority line 22 Bucurest – Brasov, connecting the southeast European countries with the heart of Europe.Due to partly new realignment and change of regular sections as well as protection against rockfall and slope slide a huge bunch of slope stabilization works became necessary, which were awarded to the contractor PORR and their designer IB-Brandner.Following the studies of the tender documents for the planned protection measures responsible managers of PORR decided to propose an alternative protection design by IB- Brandner. Changing the original design a more flexible and environmentally compatible solution consisting of high performance net, soil nailing and rockfall protection systems (fences) was elaborated and adapted to local needs. During design process, several critical areas were identified and additionally taken into account.In the paper examples of the design and erection process show how difficulties in implementation starting with the presentation of the idea continuing to the realization on site were managed and a technically more sophisticated and commercially competitive solution could be delivered to the customer Romanian Railway – case study.The European Commission awarded – following an election process in which all citizens of the EU could join - the remediation project Railway line Campina – Predeal in Romania as the environmentally best EU co-financed infrastructure project. GENERAL PROJECT EVALUATIONDue to original design slope stabilization should be done by concrete slabs fixed with prestressed anchors and shotcrete cover.The area to be secured was limited to a 12-meter strip left and right from the railway track without reference to nature and local needs. Discussions with the client and his designer and rising awareness for the hazards to address took several months. Site visits in Austria to provide insight in the problems of dealing with natural hazards helped to convince the client of the needs and our alternative design."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1998

It is my great pleasure as mayor of the city of Amsterdam to welcome you today to Amsterdam, and to the 10th International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations. The history of Amsterdam has been connected intimately with your professions of geo-engineering and geotechnology, since its very first days. It is good to be aware that you are part of a very old tradition. The knowledge that we need today to build and renew the city has been gathered over a century long process so that we fortunately can stand on the shoulders of the giants before us. During the centuries people living in this part of the Netherlands have always struggled against the water. The same waters that brought the opportunity for a seafaring country to discover the world and to build an empire in the 17th century were a threat to the low lying Netherlands.

Jan 1, 2006

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By Karsten Beckhaus

"Abstract Tremie concrete for special geotechnical works needs special properties, especially during the casting process. Today’s execution standards for bored piles and diaphragm walls, EN 1536 and EN 1538, as well as the draft version of concrete standard EN 206, all comprise regulations for deep foundation concrete which have not been changed for decades. Considering the recent development in concrete technology at the same time and its actual state-of-the-art, it is essential to develop new normative specifications and specification requirements.GeneralTo allow the required integrity and quality after placing and hardening, concrete for structural elements like bored piles or diaphragm walls, used as foundations of high-rise buildings or as retaining structures for large and deep building pits, must have adequate workability and stability.In addition to requirements on mechanical properties and on durability, both of which have increased within the last decades, concrete must be suitable for being cast in deep or extremely deep excavations, see figure 1. Today’s specialist foundation engineering machinery makes it possible to drill or cut down to in excess of100 m depth. Concrete technology has developed and allows the use of high performance concrete for deep foundations. But is this capability represented by actual regulations?It has become very common for the industry to supply or use concrete with low water cement ratios, nevertheless highly flowable and set-retarded for several hours if needed. Very low water cement ratios allow design strength of 60 MPa or higher (Larisch, 2011), and a very low porosity which is required for a long service life in aggressive conditions, e.g. by chlorides.To achieve best performance, it is obvious that the concrete must completely fill the excavation and fully embed the reinforcement. As vibration of deep foundation concrete is (usually) not allowed and was anyway inefficient, deep foundation concrete must be designed to self-compact under hydrostatic pressure. Generally, it must be considered that after placement the concrete’s quality cannot be influenced anymore. Therefore, both the pouring procedure and the concrete quality must be adequate."

Jan 1, 2014

By Bengt H. Fellenius

It is a truism that in the design of pile foundations one must consider both capacity and settlement. As to capacity, most basic text books contain simple methods of design of capacity of single pile. More sophisticated methods are the subject of many journal papers. However, methods for design considering settlement of pile foundations are scarce. (Most confuse settlement with the movement due to load-transfer?the transfer of load from the pile to the soil). Furthermore, for both capacity and settlement, most methods include several simplifying assumptions regarding soil layering and neglect the effect of the frequently occurring fill and excavations, as well as changes of the groundwater table and pore pressure distribution. Therefore, the methods may provide qualitative results, but not quantitative. Because of this situation, pile design often appears as somewhat of a guessing game and a very subjective?and risky?occupation. This need not be. Pile foundation design is controlled by three factors: capacity, strength, and settlement requirements and these have been combined in a method called "the unified design of piles and pile groups considering capacity, settlement, and negative skin friction" (Fellenius, 1984; 1989), which method is summarized in this guide.

Jan 1, 1991

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016