Search Documents

By Harpal Parmar

This paper evaluates dynamic methods of pile capacity prediction by comparing their results to static load test results. Dynamic and static pile load test data were assembled from four southeastern states of the U.S. End-of-drive and restrike capacities were evaluated using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) and by wave equation (WEAP) analyses. These were compared to static (Davisson criterion) loads. The best comparison was obtained for restrike PDA results; restrike wave equation analyses values also compared well. The end-of-drive results for both methods-showed relatively poor comparisons. The PDA was recognized as an important tool to measure energy transferred to the pile; this transferred energy was recognized as an uncertainty when conducting wave equation analyses. A statistical analysis showed restrike capacity results to be associated with higher precision and accuracy as compared to end-of-drive methods. The authors believe that restrike dynamic testing is essential to establish long term static soil strength and that it will lead to accurate and cost-effective design of piles.

Jan 1, 1996

By Robert E. Schock, Eric J. Risberg

"Less than 20,000 years ago, the last of the glaciers retreated from the Chicago region. They left behind sheets of glacial clay till underlain by dense, over-consolidated till (“hardpan”) below which is the limestone bedrock, found about 100 ft (30.5 m) below street level. The most notable feature in this profile is the unusually soft clay till that has historically been called “Chicago Blue Clay.”But the founding fathers of Chicago really didn’t care about what was under the ground. They recognized the importance of the city’s location as a potential trade and transportation hub. With access to the East through the Great Lakes and access to the West through the Mississippi River system, the viability of the city was evident. Chicago’s population grew rapidly. The city continued to grow through the Civil War years, but was dealt a devastating blow in 1871 by the Great Chicago Fire, leaving the city in ruins. The Birth of the SkyscraperAfter the cleanup of the Great Fire came the first real building boom in Chicago’s history. During this era, buildings were generally founded on shallow footings bearing on sand or clay. Many multistory buildings were constructed between 1880 and 1890 on spread footings. The first tall buildings were constructed with load bearing masonry walls. These early tall buildings suffered significant settlement as the soft clay underwent consolidation.The Home Insurance Building, built in 1885, was 12-stories tall and is generally acknowledged to be the first “skyscraper” in the U.S. It was the first building constructed with an iron skeleton frame instead of load bearing masonry walls. Spread footings were used under the interior columns in an effort to better distribute the loads, but the building still experienced large settlements.Construction began for the Monadnock Building in 1891. The 17-story building was built using load bearing walls 7 ft (2.1 m) thick, supported on rail-grillage footing foundations. When completed in 1893, the Monadnock Building boasted the title “World’s Largest Office Building.” The total building settlement over the past 125 years has been measured at over 20 in (0.51 m). The engineering community in the late 19th century observed settlement, but did not yet understand the process of consolidation of the soft clay beneath the city. During this time, many of the new buildings required structural repairs during and after construction; the problem was especially acute in buildings where highrise towers joined lower podium structures."

Jan 1, 2016

By Charles M. Wilk

"Solidification/stabilization (S/S) treatment is used to treat hazardous wastes for disposal and in the remediation/site restoration of contaminated land . SIS is also an increasingly popular technology for Brownfield (industrial property) redevelopment, since treated wastes can often be left on-site and to improve the soil for subsequent construction. This paper discusses the applicability of the technology to various wastes, basic cement chemistry relating to SIS, tests used to design treatability studies and to verify treatment, basics on implementation of the technology in the field , and examples of SIS use at brownfield sites, including a former wood preserving site, former manufactured gas plant sites, a former electric generating station, and a shopping mall development.INTRODUCTIONSolidification/Stabilization (S/S) is a widely used treatment for the management/disposal of a broad range of contaminated media and wastes; particularly those contaminated with substances classified as hazardous in the United States. The treatment involves mixing a binding reagent into the contaminated media or waste. The treatment protects human health and the environment by immobilizing contaminants within the treated material. Immobilization within the treated material prevents migration of the contaminants to human, animal and plant receptors. SIS treatment has been used to treat radioactive wastes since the 1950s and hazardous waste since the 1970's (Conner 1990). SIS continues as a cornerstone treatment technology for the management of radioactive waste, hazardous waste, and site remediation and Brownfield redevelopment."

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1989

The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for inspectors of drilled shaft construction otherwise referred to as drilled piers, caissons or bored piles. It should also be helpful to train beginning geotechnical engineers with limited first hand experience or for geotechnical engineers who are training inspectors. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described here will be supplemented by local geotechnical engineers working in a particular region based on local practice and experience. Since drilled shaft construction procedures vary widely based on local geology and size of project, an all-inclusive manual is not considered practical. This manual focuses on traditional topside inspection for routine drilled shaft construction. Other inspection and evaluation methods that rely on electronic equipment are available, but these methods require extensive training and experience in the interpretation of results. These more sophisticated methods of drilled shaft inspection and evaluation are common in construction, but they are usually provided by specialty subconsultants. The subconsultant will typically submit a report for each shaft, which will be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Other manuals are available to describe the electronic methods of drilled shaft inspection.

Jan 1, 2004

By Sam Warren, Antonio Marinucci, Genesis Z. Figueroa, Anne Lemnitzer

Drilled Displacement Piles (DDP) provide an ideal deep foundation solution that combines the benefits of ground improvement with traditional advantages of piling systems. This paper consolidates data from 20 construction projects in which more than 30 DDPs were installed and tested axially. High quality site exploration data (e.g., Cone Penetration Test and Standard Penetration Test) were evaluated to derive geotechnical analysis parameters. The test sites consisted of mostly mixed soil types with strongly stratified layers of sand, silt, and clay. Pile diameters ranged between 40 cm and 61 cm. Test results were compared with predictive methods developed specifically for DDPs as well as methods used in general geotechnical practice. The accuracy of the empirical methods is presented in terms of total pile capacity, pile length/diameter, and soil type. The large majority of all examined methods underpredict the in-situ pile capacities. It was also found that the difference between the tested and predicted capacity is strongly related to the level of improvement in the surrounding soil due to the piles’ installation. A general comparison between predictive axial accuracy and the observed level of ground improvement upon installation is also discussed.

May 1, 2022

By George J. Tamara

The urban environment presents special challenges for the design and construction of earth retention systems. Complications arising from difficult subsurface conditions are compounded by the presence of urban infrastructure and existing and prior construction. The proximity of adjacent structures as well as intense prior use can cause special concerns including the potential for archeological artifacts or contaminated ground or ground water. Utilities and structures may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of ground movement, dewatering and vibrations. Difficulty of access, congestion and limited work areas may severely restrict means and methods of construction. Dewatering may be limited or prohibited because of concerns for disposal of clean or contaminated water, depletion of aquifers, drawing of contaminants to the site or dewatering induced settlements.

Jan 1, 2003

By Donald Bruce

The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: ? Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. ? Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. ? Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications. Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.

Jan 1, 2004

By Juan M. Pestana-Nascimento, Robert G. Bea, Hamed Hamedifar, Emery M. Roe

The current State-of-the-Practice is grounded heavily on deterministic characterization and assessment of the performance of civil engineering infrastructure. In particular, flood defense systems, such as levees, have been evaluated within the context of the Factor-of-Safety where the computed capacity of the system is compared with the code specified demand forces. Uncertainties associated with the capacity and demand forces render deterministic modeling incomplete. In particular, two structures with the same Factor of Safety can have vastly different probabilities of failure. While efforts have been made to assess levee vulnerability, results from traditional engineering approaches omit important factors because they do not account for uncertainties included in analytical modeling, and natural variabilities, or human and organization factors. This paper utilizes risk assessment methods to advance methods for quantifying the contribution of uncertainties to engineering analyses, and thereby provide additional information to help assess sustainability of geotechnically engineered systems. The probability of failure of a geotechnically engineered system is directly impacted by how well the system is understood, and how uncertainties are incorporated in development of understanding of the system. This paper presents methods to evaluate two types of uncertainties for three potential failure modes of flood protection levees: underseepage, slope (or levee) instability, and overtopping/erosion. These analyses account for two types of uncertainty: 1) Type I – inherent uncertainty, 2) Type II – analytical modeling uncertainty. Human and organizational task performance and information development and utilization uncertainties are not included in these analyses. This paper focuses on the behavior of the flood protection levee system for Sherman Island, a western island in California’s Delta. Sherman Island is of critical importance to California because of the very important infrastructure systems that pass under, on, over, and adjacent to Sherman Island, including: natural gas pipelines, regional and interregional electricity transmission lines and telecommunication facilities, two deepwater shipping channels; and State Highway 160, a link between major transportation expressways. The work evaluates current (year 2010) and future conditions (year 2100) and incorporates variations in capacity and demand arising from projected human response activities and global climate change.

Jan 1, 2017

By Miguel E. Ruiz, America L. Fernandez, Miguel A. Pandon

"Post-grouted drilled shafts (PGS) are a deep foundation system in which grout is injected at high pressure throughout the tip after the drilled shaft has been installed. Pressure grouting of drilled shaft tips can significantly increase the ultimate capacity and stiffness of drilled shafts. Conventionally constructed drilled shafts usually require higher axial deformation to develop the available side friction and the tip resistance simultaneously. They also tend to have higher tip compressibility and reduced end bearing capacity due to disturbance at the bottom of excavation during drilled shaft construction. PGS foundations have been found to be a cost-effective solution to compensate for this capacity reduction and/or compressibility increase. PGS construction procedure counterbalances tip compressibility and end-bearing capacity reduction. The tip grouting also has a pre-stressing effect over the shaft side friction since the drilled shaft tends to move upwards during the pressure grouting of the tip. After grouting, a bulb tends to form at the pile tip pre-compressing any disturbed material and, in certain cases, increasing the tip area, thus increasing shaft tip capacity.PGS load-settlement predictions using a load transfer approach are presented in this paper and compared with corresponding load test data. The paper also presents the main findings of load transfer analyses that were carried out to investigate the potential different factors that may be contributing to the observed improved performance of PGS over conventional drilled shafts. Results show that the two main factors, that may have a significant contribution on the overall performance of the foundation by increasing its ultimate capacity at any given level of settlement, are the stress-reversal of the skin friction and the formation of a grout bulb at the tip. The grout bulb tip contributes primarily through the increased tip area and to a lesser extent through increased stiffness and strength of the soil in the vicinity of the pile tip."

Jan 1, 2005

By Steffen Schweizer, Tadeusz Brzozowski, Alfred Koller, Michał Topolnicki, Jürgen Wäger, Grzegorz Sołtys

A full scale test has been conducted to determine ground bearing pressure under rig tracks. The track loads were recorded in real time using Liebherr's Ground Pressure Visualisation system, and the vertical stress induced in the ground was measured with pressure cells embedded in the ground. It has been found that the recommendation of EN 16228 regarding determination of the track length is oversimplified. The contact length should dependent on the susceptibility of the working platform. It has been also demonstrated that the corrected pressure distributions under the tracks influence the dimensioning of the working platforms. As a result, the designed working platform may actually be less secure than is shown by conventional calculations.

May 1, 2022

Jan 1, 1996

By Bengt H. Fellenius

The design of pile foundations is much more commonly verified by means of a full-scale test, than is the design of other foundation units. The reason is not that our knowledge of pile behavior is more uncertain than our knowledge of other foundation types making the verification necessary, but more that the loads in a structure are more concentrated to single foundations in a structure founded on piles as opposed to structures on footings or mats. Therefore, should a pile cap fail or move, the adverse consequence of this is often drastic, as the piled structure has little freedom to transfer its need for support to other foundation units. Consequently, it becomes important to assure the design of piled foundations. In many, maybe in most instances, the static pile loading test is routine and geared toward determining an at least capacity, only. However, in these times there is an ever increasing liability of the professional, demands for increased economy of the foundation, and frequent lack of the involvement in the test of the experienced old-timer exercising good judgment. Furthermore, modern pile design is leaving the single, simple concept of capacity and requires more information from the test to assist in determining aspects of long-term behavior and settlement. Therefore, even the straight forward, routine static loading test requires improved planning, execution, and analysis.

Jan 1, 1990

By Joint Micropiles Committee

"The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: • Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. • Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. • Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications.Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.The owner, designer and contractor will together be responsible for the tasks associated with the design, installation, acceptance, and performance of the micropiles. The installation of micropiles requires specialized equipment, techniques, and appropriate workmanship. Not every detail of the work can be specified, and not every potential problem can be anticipated. Therefore, a contractor who has demonstrated experience in micropiles must be selected to execute the work required."

Jan 1, 2004

By Steve Davidow, Ashely E. Evans, Peter M. Kandaris

"Annually thousands of deep foundations are constructed across North America supporting high voltage transmission line structures. However, a recent state of the practice survey by the Deep Foundation Institutes’ Electric Power Systems Foundation Working Group discovered that the electric power utility industry lacks consistent foundation design guidelines. The survey identified a wide variability in design assumptions, a minimal understanding of risk based analysis, and a need to standardize design methodologies. This paper summarizes the state of practice in electric system foundation design and proposes a framework for risk-based foundation design by accounting for uncertainty from both loads and resistances. Loads derived from electric system codes do not necessarily provide a compatible level of reliability for the design of foundations, as they are a mixture of probabilistic and deterministic values. Load uncertainty is derived from variability in weather conditions, structural models and material properties, typically accounted for by code derived overload factors. Resistance uncertainty arises from variability in natural soil properties, resistance models, subsurface construction techniques, material sampling methods, and limited observations. A consistent methodology is offered relating nominal resistance capacity (strength) to structure loads and service state criteria. Discussion also includes the need for risk-based assessments to account for non-structure load influences (fluvial loads, scour ground loss, liquefaction, etc.).INTRODUCTIONNearly 40 years ago the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) embarked on a major research effort to optimize reliability and economics of transmission line foundation design. Strategies focused on improvements in design models, site characterization, exploration strategies and testing to reduce uncertainty and variance in analysis. Transmission line engineers realized that safety and reliability advancements in design based on probabilistic approaches, with a focus on the unique nature of transmission line, could better control risk and cost.Some transmission line professionals took full advantage of these advancements, particularly where research led to improved software and models. Yet, even after two decades of extensive research, by 1995 the industry still had made little progress in changing design habits. The majority of designers were still characterizing sites via deterministic methods, using loads that may or may not relate to a consistent probability of occurrence, and applying a traditional global factor of safety approach (Phoon, et al. 1995). The following two decades have seen even greater developments in software and reliability-based analysis methods, but old habits seem to die hard as recent surveys show less than half of design professional quantitatively assess risk in their design process."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1984

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

By George J. Tamaro

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

Jan 1, 2000

By Franz-Werner Gerressen

New developments are required each day as our industry becomes more competitive. To improve performance, continue and to ensure future demands can be met. This requires the development of technical support systems that enable a more constant delivery and quality of installation of pile foundations and other applications. For example: assistance systems capable of relieving the machine operator of automating monotonous or repetitive operations. Real time installation control of the production process to manage quality control, or data transfer and reporting systems capable of keeping pace with the digital future. This paper will describe these new approaches and considerations required for these new developments. The paper also describes the equipment which is needed to execute the work under the various conditions and provides references herein. INTRODUCTION The success of a construction site is influenced by a number of factors. Selecting the most efficient and economic methods during the planning phase to defining the right direction. This means having multifunctional equipment available. To ease the usage of this equipment by the operator, uniform operation and control systems are essential. Systems like this can provide uniform handling procedure for more than 20 different installation techniques. Experienced operators are not always available. Therefore, to ease the start for beginners and to support training, numerous assistance systems were developed. This ranges from simple information for controls shown on the monitor avoiding misuse to systems which can partly automate the construction process. Regardless, the best equipment is not enough when the construction is not running smooth. The control system not only helps to organize and coordinate service of the equipment; moreover, it allows the operator to control the quality during the installation process reacting if needed. It allows process optimization as well as documentation which might be required for later negotiations.

Jan 1, 2019

By Raymond Henn

Yes we have also used some however, again because of the nature of the maintenance window where we have that two hour (at best) window every night and due to the numerous other crews that are wanting to get in to do the other types of maintenance activities, we don't know if we are going to be getting into that same area from one night to the next. So even with the dormancy additives that one can add to cementitious grouts (that are good up to 72 hours) we don't know if we are going to get back in to the same locations from one week to the next. That's why I use the term "the forgiving nature of the acrylamide". It allows us to ream out the hole allowing us to use the exact same hole without having to re-drill a new hole. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. The program started in 1997 and we have a budget between labor/materials and equipment of 4.5 million dollars on a year to year basis. For the next few years that is going to come down drastically because the program is going to be more of an ongoing maintenance program. Up to the end of 2001 we were just over 1.7 million liters of between AV100 and AV118 grout. Of that, approximately just under 200,000 was AV100 and the remaining balance was AV118.

Feb 10, 2003