Search Documents

By Robert Alperstein, Nidal AbiSaab, Joe Pastore

"This paper describes the design and construction aspects of the foundation support for a 57-story building currently under construction in lower Manhattan. The site is located near the East River with subsurface conditions consisting of about 40-ft [12.2-m] of unsuitable historic fill and soft plastic clay underlain by about 130-ft [39.6-m] of dense sand resting on bedrock. A mat foundation supported on unsuitable soils improved by jet grouting was selected for the project. Design concepts and selection of the engineering properties of the improved and natural foundation soils are discussed. The results of quality control testing and methods to verify design parameters during construction are presented.INTRODUCTIONNew York City (especially Manhattan) is known for its skyline of high rise structures. The geologic conditions in the New York Metropolitan Area influence the selection of foundations and feasibility of high rise construction as noted by Horvath (2013). These conditions include varying depth and quality of bedrock, multiple glacial events during the Pleistocene Epoch, and the effects of human modifications to the subsurface environment. Clusters of relatively taller buildings are generally located in Lower and Midtown Manhattan where sound crystalline bedrock is at relatively shallow depth beneath the ground surface and shallow foundations rest on the bedrock surface. In recent years the use of more costly high capacity driven piles or drilled caissons and deep basements has enabled the high skyline to spread to other areas."

Jan 1, 2016

By Rick Deschamps

A reoccurring problem with support of excavations in urban areas involves the placement of external support components like anchors or nails in right-a-ways, subway and utility setbacks, in areas occupied by adjacent structures, and within the property of non cooperative neighbors. Such a situation occurred for a project in Arlington, Virginia, which ultimately resulted in the preliminary design of a large footing supported cantilever retaining wall that was extremely costly and impractical to build. An innovative design alternate consisting of a series of vertical concrete elements (VCEs) supported by post tensioned tiedowns was proposed to the General Contractor and accepted by the owner. The VCEs were designed to serve as the main structural elements for both the temporary support of excavation system and the permanent wall. The VCE?s were constructed using single bite diaphragm wall panels oriented perpendicular to the excavation face including a rebar cage and tremie concrete. Threaded inserts were placed within the rebar cage to attach the cast in place exterior wall. Overall stability and lateral movement of the VCEs were controlled by high capacity vertical anchors embedded within the VCE. A detailed instrumentation program was installed to monitor the movements of the VCEs with relation to the excavation depth. The paper present the project case history by discussing the design concepts of the VCE, the construction approaches used to install them, the construction challenges encountered, and the performance of the unique system.

Jan 1, 2008

By Sara Anderson, Rachel Nicholls, Tim Chapman, Janice Windle

"In city center sites around the world, and in particular in London, foundation reuse is becoming increasingly widespread as the ground is filled with detritus from previous developments. This paper sets out a systematic framework to consider the need for and benefits of foundation reuse and key issues to be resolved for foundation reuse to be successfully adopted on redevelopment projects. Once foundation reuse has been identified as a potential foundation solution there are several key stages in the design and construction process where the decision to reuse foundations needs to be assessed. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of ensuring that the foundations being installed now can more easily be reused in the future.INTRODUCTIONThe concept of re-using foundations is not new, and has been adopted on an isolated project-byproject basis for many years. However, over the past decade, interest in the potential of reusing existing piles and caissons within Europe has increased significantly, with a growing interest in the United States of America and Japan. The need has been driven by necessity: on many urban sites the space available for new foundations diminishes with each new set of piles, and these problems can only grow in the future.Initiatives such as the European Union's RuFUS (Re-use of Foundations for Urban Sites) research project have resulted in identification of the key issues for technical viability and risk that have previously hampered potential foundation reuse projects.There is a need to define a systematic approach to the reuse of foundations so that the risks associated with reuse can be identified, managed and mitigated. This requires improvements in knowledge to provide confidence in the long term behaviour of the foundation support and address the risks involved in reusing existing foundations to overcome perceived obstacles in making foundation reuse a realistic option for many sites."

Jan 1, 2005

By Dardis J. T. II, P. G. Reinhall

"Impact pile driving of steel piles in marine environments produces extremely high sound levels in the water. It has been shown that current pile driving noise attenuation techniques provide limited noise reduction because significant noise is transmitted through the sediment into the water. To solve this problem, we have developed a double walled pile to decrease the total noise transmitted into the water.The double walled pile consists of two concentric tubes connected by a special driving shoe, allowing for an air gap between the two tubes. The double walled pile is driven into the sediment using traditional equipment by striking the inner tube only. The air gap between the inner and outer tube prevents the radial deformation wave produced by the pile hammer from interacting with the water and the sediment. In one embodiment of the double pile design the inner tube can be removed and repeatedly reused.In this paper we report on the results from a recent full scale field test in Puget Sound, Washington. The use of these double walled piles reduces the peak sound pressure over 20 dB relative to single walled piles. We also show that only a 3 to 6 dB reduction is obtained when a bubble curtain is used on a single walled pile.INTRODUCTIONImpact pile driving of steel piles in marine environments produces extremely high sound levels in the water. It has been shown that current noise attenuation techniques provide limited noise reduction because the noise from pile driving is transmitted through the sediment into the water. In [1,2] we showed, using modeling and field data, that the primary source of underwater sound from an impact driven pile originates from radial expansion of the pile as the compression wave propagates down the pile after each strike. The radial expansion is coupled to the compression wave through the Poisson’s ratio of steel. As discussed in [1], the supersonic radial expansion wave (with respect to the water) produces an acoustic field in the shape of an axisymmetric cone, or Mach cone. We showed in [3] that the ability of any sound shield that surrounds the pile in the water only (such as a bubble curtain or a surrounding double wall engagement) to attenuate the sound in the water is limited by the fact that an upward moving sound Mach wave is produced in the sediment and is transmitted into the water. To improve the performance of bubble curtains and other noise shields in the water, it is necessary to attenuate the noise emanating from the sediment into the water. Figure 1 illustrates how sound from the seabed leaks out from the sediment, limiting the effect of the surrounding bubble curtain."

Jan 1, 2017

By Renzo D. Verastegui, T. C. Michael Law, Sitotaw Y. Fantaye, Alfredas Daugiala

"When completed, 520 Park Avenue will amend the Manhattan skyline and be one of the most prestigious high rise towers in New York City. The 52-story condominium building is located on a 60 by 100 feet lot on East 60th Street between Park and Madison Avenues. The geographically complex site is bounded by two fragile 5-story masonry buildings on the east and west, a mid-rise building on the north, and a New York City subway tunnel on the south. To add to this complexity, the ambitious development required 70 to 80 feet of excavation, mostly below groundwater level in highly permeable rock, to accommodate four levels of cellars. The new building also cantilevers 24 feet over a five-story historic building on the east. The limited footprint of the building coupled with large compressive and tensile axial loads, considerable base shear and over-turning moments, and the required deep excavation, presented unique foundation challenges. This paper describes how the challenges were solved with an innovative combination of permanent secant pile walls and drilled shafts.INTRODUCTIONThe project site is located at 45 East 60th Street, on the block bounded by East 61st Street to the north, East 60th Street to the south, Park Avenue to the east, and Madison Avenue to the west. As shown in Fig. 1, the site is surrounded on three sides by buildings sensitive to differential settlement. In addition, a NYCT underground subway structure lies below East 60th Street approximately 13 feet south of the site. The base of the subway structure is approximately 42 feet below the street.The project consisted of constructing a 52-story tall building. A portion of the superstructure cantilevers 24 feet over an adjacent five-story historic building. The underground construction for the new building involved a four-level basement, extending about 60 feet below ground surface. The excavation subgrade is much deeper than both the subway structure and the adjacent shallowly-founded building foundations."

Jan 1, 2016

By Rakam Lama Tamang, Michael J. Byle, Stephen Ernst

"For various reasons, dredging may become necessary in front of existing bulkhead walls, either for channel deepening or for environmental remediation of contaminated sediments. The removal of sediments at the base of bulkhead walls removes support for the toe of the wall that must be assessed. Evaluation of this impact can be problematic for aging bulkheads for which no design or construction records exist. This paper will address the steps that should be taken in investigation and analysis to assure proper assessment and means to address uncertainties and gaps in information. The steps include pre-investigation data review, field inspection, geotechnical and geophysical investigation tools, parametric analysis and design tools. Examples from several bulkhead assessment projects will be provided that include a variety of conditions and tools for application. The focus of the paper will be on the integration of technologies to assess bulkhead geometry, geotechnical properties and stability, structural safety and constructability issues with removal of support, and means of temporary and permanent stabilization for environmental applications.IntroductionBulkheads and quays have existed as long as there have been waterfront activities. Some of the earliest date back to 1200 B.C.E.(Raban, 1987), however in the United States few predate the eighteenth century. Most extant bulkhead structures, and all steel sheet pile bulkhead walls date from the early 20th century or later. These structures function to protect the shore from erosion, support landside activities, and serve as place to moor and offload vessels. Regardless of the age or usage of existing bulkheads, it is essential to assess and protect them if needed where removal of soils on the water side of the bulkheads is planned to dredging.Waterfront BulkheadsExisting bulkhead structures can be classified into two types: Cantilevered, and anchored. Cantilevered walls are completely supported by the soil on the water side, while anchored bulkheads are supported both by the soil on the water side and anchorage on the land side (Figure 1). Walls may be constructed of timber, steel, or concrete. Timber walls may be lagging with soldier piles, cribbing with soldier piles, or timber sheeted such as Wakefield walls (Figure 2). Steel bulkheads are most commonly constructed using sheet piling comprised of interlocking A or Z shapes, though some historic walls were constructed with flat sheets. Precast concrete sheet piling has also been used in construction of bulkhead walls. Anchorage may be provided by steel bars or tendons attached to deadmen, sheet piling, driven piles, or earth anchors."

Jan 1, 2017

By A. Rod Kern, Michael A. McNicholas, Yaser Taheri

Deep foundations were required for construction of an 18,000 ft2 (1,672 m2) 4-story office building and an adjacent 23,750 ft2 (2,206 m2) 5-story parking garage in Queens, New York due to an existing uncontrolled fill layer ranging from 15-20 ft (4.6 - 6.1 m) in thickness beneath the building footprint. The geotechnical engineers for the project initially selected auger cast-in-place (ACIP) piles over driven piles to limit the impact of noise and vibrations on the surrounding neighborhood. Ultimately, drilled displacement piles (DDP) were installed since this method offered a more economical solution that would generate the required pile capacity with shorter drill depths and would also mitigate spoils volume. During installation of test piles by the geotechnical contractor retained for the foundation work, multiple unanticipated soil conditions were encountered that would adversely affect the constructability of the piles. The existing fill contained significantly more natural and manmade obstructions than expected and the underlying glacial soil became too dense to penetrate at shallower depths than anticipated. This paper discusses how these issues were overcome through pre-drilling and the use of detailed instrumented test pile data coupled with in-house engineering capability to proactively re-evaluate minimum pile lengths at any given location and keep the project on track. INTRODUCTION Geotechnical work in the New York City market presents soil conditions that can be highly variable and challenging due to the presence of uncontrolled urban fill placed over the native soils. Construction in this area can therefore pose many unforeseen challenges, even with detailed geotechnical analysis being performed at project sites. A case in point is a construction site in Queens, New York. The proposed site development consisted of construction of a 4-story office building with a footprint of 18,000 ft2 (1672 m2) and a stand-alone 5-level parking garage with a footprint of 23,750 ft2 (2206 m2), together with associated new pavements and utilities. The site is bordered by a mix of commercial buildings and residential properties on all sides. Depth of the uncontrolled nature of the fill extended up to 20 ft (6.1 m) below street grade. Given the significant cost associated with removal and replacement, deep foundations were recommended to bypass the unsuitable soils and support the structures at depth where good bearing material existed.

Jan 1, 2019

By Bernard Hertlein, Chia K. Tan

"The move to LRFD methods for structural design by AASHTO, ACI, AISC , ASCE, and the FHWA has been a major change for the American construction industry. The deep foundations industry has arguably been placed most at risk by this situation, because of the need for, and the difficulty of providing, reliable quality assurance.LRFD is attractive for both the owner and the engineer because it promises cost reductions, but the assumption underlying LRFD is often overlooked - that the acceptable margin of safety can be rationally reduced, thus saving costs, provided that all the factors involved are closely controlled. This means that both the quality of the materials and the quality of the construction work must be closely monitored, and held to an acceptable standard.This paper describes the type of comprehensive quality management program that is needed in deep foundation construction projects based on LRFD. Case histories are used to illustrate the importance of both adequate inspection and reliable testing to a comprehensive quality management program.IntroductionOver the last thirty years, the major organizations that set standards and practice policies for the American construction industry, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Concrete Institute (ACI) , The American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have embraced Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) as an alternative to, and in some cases, a complete replacement for, Allowable Stress Design (ASD). AASHTO first published a new set of LRFD-based design guidelines for bridges in 1996, with several revisions in 1997, 1998, and 1999 (AASHTO, 1996). The 1996 AASHTO Bridge Design Code was the first in the United States that required foundations to be designed using LRFD procedures. LRFD has a clear advantage over conventional ASD where variability in material strength, bias in design methodology, and degree of construction quality can be rationally accounted for to achieve an acceptable level of risk."

Jan 1, 2005

By Piotr Kozlowski, Stanley L. Worst, Matthew J. Niermann

Circular secant pile shafts were installed along the tunnel alignments for both the Ohio Canal Interceptor Tunnel project in Akron, Ohio and the Ohio River Tunnel project in Louisville, Kentucky. The diameters ranged from 34 to 51 feet and the depths ranged from 49 to 107 feet. Verticality and concrete volumes were measured on all piles to verify compliance with the design, which for some shafts consisted of a finite element model with multiple openings using unreinforced concrete secant piles. All secant piles were drilled into rock to seal off the groundwater. This paper will discuss the design, construction and quality control of the secant piles for these projects. INTRODUCTION Many Midwest and Northeast cities have Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) systems which discharge pollutants into waterways during wet weather events. One way to remedy this issue is to provide a temporary overflow tunnel. A temporary overflow tunnel connects to the combined sewer system and collects the overflow during wet weather events, storing the wastewater until the event has subsided. After the storm event, the stored wastewater can be pumped to the treatment facilities and processed as normal. Project Background – Akron, OH The Ohio Canal Interceptor Tunnel (OCIT) project was performed as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Consent Decree with the City of Akron, Ohio. This Consent Decree required modification of the existing Combined Sewer Overflow system. The resulting project consisted of a 27- foot diameter tunnel with multiple points of entry to capture the sewer overflow and prevent it from entering waterways. The tunnel is over 6,000 feet long and is as deep as 150 feet below the ground surface; see Figure 1 below.

Jan 1, 2019

By Michael Kynett, Francke Walberg, Richard Millet, Khaled Chowdhury, Mary Perlea

"Cutoff walls are the most common seepage improvement measure for levee flood control projects throughout California’s Central Valley. Cutoff walls are widely used because they can be implemented within an existing right of way in either heavily urbanized areas with limited access, or in high-value crop agricultural areas. The most commonly used seepage cutoff wall types are soil-bentonite (SB), soilcement- bentonite (SCB), and cement-bentonite (CB). Contract values for cutoff wall rehabilitation projects in the Central Valley range from several millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars, and play a significant role in the reduction of flood risk in urban and rural areas. However, recentlycompleted construction of several levee improvement projects has shown limitations and inconsistencies among the commonly used technical specifications for construction of seepage cutoff walls. These limitations were evaluated by practicing engineers involved in different stages of cutoff wall design and construction. This paper describes the specification areas that typically generate design and construction issues. Recommended improvements to specifications are suggested to address these issues. The paper’s topics include: the applicability of the different types of cutoff wall materials and construction methods, quality control testing requirements, backfill gradation requirements, mixing procedures, and settlement criteria for backfill.INTRODUCTIONFlood control projects on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the Central Valley region of Northern California consist of a large system of reservoirs, bypasses, and levees. The thousands of miles of levees within the system were largely constructed and raised by local entities as need arose; this construction occurred prior to the development of modern design and construction techniques. The majority of these levees were initially constructed to protect land for agricultural development; however, a significant portion of these areas have become or will soon be urbanized. This urbanization has historically occurred in locations right up to the levee footprint. This expedient form of historical levee construction, when combined with adverse riverine geomorphology, urban development, and productive agricultural regions, has led to a levee systems with severe seepage performance issues in a real-estate-constrained setting."

Jan 1, 2015

By Patrick T, David K. Miller

Driven piles are an effective and cost-efficient deep foundation method; however, when piles are driven near existing buildings and improvements, vibrations must be controlled to non-damaging levels. Monitoring of adjacent structures is important for loss prevention, specification compliance, and public relations. The fundamentals of ground vibrations, including particle velocity, acceleration, displacement and frequency will be discussed. Types of pile driving and the ground vibrations that result will be summarized. Industry standards for safe vibration levels for various structures (residential, commercial, industrial, historic, utilities) will be reviewed. The paper/presentation will include a discussion of soil settlement from pile driving vibrations and case histories of observed settlements. Methods for calculating vibration amplitudes and frequencies will be presented. Best practices for monitoring and controlling ground vibrations, including available state-of-the art equipment, will be outlined. The paper/presentation will conclude with steps for designing and implementing a monitoring and control program.

By Filippo Leoni, Wesley Schmutzler

"The LPV-111 East Back Levee Improvement Project lies along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in Orleans Parish of New Orleans, La., and is an essential component of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System. The Hurricane Protection Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) attributed failure of the New Orleans East levees system to overtopping, erosion and subsequent breaching of LPV-111 along the GIWW, as well as other sections of flood protection during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The existing levee suffered extensive damages from Hurricane Katrina, such that the USACE elected to provide earth stabilization and to rebuild the levee sections. Due to the adverse geotechnical properties of the foundation soils, the Corps deemed ground improvement necessary to stabilize the new levee and to limit its footprint. Wet Deep Mixing Method (DMM) was selected as the most suitable technology for this task.ChallengesDesign: This reach specifically protects East New Orleans and the Bayou Savage National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban wildlife refuge in the U.S. and home to several threatened or endangered species of birds as well as many reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. The Corps chose DMM due to the sensitivity of the protected marshlands and because the method limits the footprint of the raised levees. The increase in the load bearing capacity of the treated soil significantly decreases the footprint necessary to attain the required height increase. This limitation required the new levee to have steep slopes, drastically increasing the surcharge on foundation soils characterized by overall poor geotechnical properties (soft clays and peats). The design also considered the increased horizontal stresses on the levees due to the extreme storm surges during a hurricane.The design of the 1.6 m diameter (5.25 ft) DMM elements called for overlapping them to form a double auger element that formed buttresses perpendicular to the levee alignment. The contractor installed the buttresses at a maximum on center spacing of 4.7 m (15.5 ft). One additional double auger DMM element was midway between consecutive buttresses at the centerline of the levee to further help prevent settlement (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2013

By Paul C. Schmall, Kevin Clarke, Paul J. Lewis, John M. Stanbury

"The $200M rehabilitation of the more than 100-year-old Gowanus Flushing Tunnel and pumping station located on the Gowanus Canal in Brooklyn, NY required deep excavations in an extremely congested urban environment. The environment posed significant challenges, including: support of excavation for protection of existing structures, excavation through man-made fill while eliminating groundwater inflow due to potentially contaminated groundwater chemistry; discharge and disposal impacts; and potential settlement of surrounding structures. This paper will present the design and construction challenges associated with the construction of a new combined sewer overflow (CSO) chamberwhich included a jet grout bottom seal, to mitigate groundwater inflow during excavation. The foundation for the finished structure also included a unique system incorporating the jet grout bottom seal elements with deep jet grout columns (piles) acting as the foundation system for the final structure. Design and construction challenges included highly variable soil conditions such as man-made fill, obstructions from previous construction, presence of an organic stratum, and conflicts with existing timber foundation piles. The jet grout bottom seal was constructed in loose sands with the deeper jet grout foundation elements extending to bear on a dense sand stratum. Challenges associated with the bottom seal included grid spacing and construction sequencing. Wet in wet sequencing was used to mitigate potential windows in the bottom seal further complicated by shadowing from existing timber foundation piles.Introduction And BackgroundModernization of the Gowanus Tunnel Pumping System required deep excavations in the extremely congested urban environment of Brooklyn, NY. The project location is shown on Fig. 1 and 2. The focus of this paper is to present the design and construction challenges associated with the support of excavation, control of groundwater, and ultimate foundation support for the combined sewer overflow (CSO) bypass chamber extension. The project site was tightly constrained by adjacent, active roadways and underground utilities, as well as residential and industrial structures. Therefore, excavation support was required to limit ground movement and maintain the integrity of the surrounding facilities. Excavation depths to as much as 16 ft below ground level, 8 ft below groundwater, required that seepage and groundwater be controlled so as to minimize pumping and disposal of groundwater and maintain the surrounding groundwater levels to avoid potential settlement of adjacent roadways, utilities, and structures. In addition, the subsurface conditions required that the proposed CSO bypass chamber extension be supported on a deep foundation to avoid differential and total settlements that may be detrimental to the existing and expanded structure. A plan view of the existing CSO bypass chamber and the proposed extension is shown on Fig. 3."

Jan 1, 2016

By Liiban A. Affi

The most difficult task of designing multilevel tieback walls for deep excavation support is the determination of lateral stresses. These lateral stresses act not only on the shored height, but also on the embedded portion of the soldier pile, all the way down to the pile tip. Examples of lateral stresses include uniform surcharge load (soil spoils or equipment), strip load surcharge from Cooper E80 (train loads), line load surcharge (exterior footing or retaining walls), and point loads (cell tower). In this paper we will discuss the various surcharges, do step by step example calculations and show how to take the total lateral stress output and present the design pressures for direct use by the substructural designer. Included is a case study from a project Anaheim Hills, California, USA.

Jan 1, 2010

By Evangelia Ieronymaki

Civil engineering education relies on traditional methods of teaching, comprising mostly of deductive instruction by presenting the theory, followed by applications. This paper presents an alternative way for teaching foundation design to senior students, introducing a more inductive approach. The students are presented with a project/game adapted to a real-world problem at the beginning of the course. They are asked to identify the correct steps and methods throughout the lectures, for reaching an appropriate solution that they document and present at the end of the course. To make the project more enjoyable, the project has the format of a game where the students compete with each other on completing the task faster and more efficiently. The goal of this teaching approach is to enhance the ability of the students for problem solving and the engineering way of thinking, while playing a game. In the end, the students were requested to respond to a survey regarding the efficiency of this project/game on their learning. The results showed that students prefer more inductive methods for a design course, feeling that this project made them think more like engineers, while the ‘game’ twist of it made the whole course more fun. INTRODUCTION Most civil engineering courses are taught in 2019 the same way they used to be taught 40 years ago in the 80s. Classic methods are mostly deductive, where the instructor presents the theory first and then applications of that theory follow. Little or no attention is given initially to why the theory was developed or what are the problems it solves. The applications of the theory, and thus the purpose it serves, come only in the end and after methodologies have been presented, leading the students to show low interest in the material. As Albanese and Mitchell (1993) have reported, people are mostly motivated to learn things when they clearly see the need to know them. This explains the students’ little motivation that, if any, comes mainly from the fact that the material may be useful either in other courses or in their future careers. On the other hand, there are alternative inductive methods of teaching, where the role of the students is more active. A lot of researchers have highlighted the benefits of inductive methods in teaching engineering courses. Based on Prince and Fedler (2006), inductive methods include; a) inquiry-learning, b) discovery learning, c) problem and project-based learning (PBL), d) case-based teaching, and e) just-in-time learning. Inquiry-learning is maybe the most traditional method of inductive teaching/learning methods, where the instructor asks questions or poses problems and the students need to apply the theory they have learnt in order to find the solution (Bateman 1990; Prince 2004; Lee 2012). Similar to inquire-learning is the discovery learning, where students have to find the solution to a problem or answer to a question, while the instructor simply provides feedback to the students without guiding their efforts (Leonard 1988; Westbrook and Rogers 1994).

Jan 1, 2019

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Four drilled shafts, two on each side of the bridge (NJ and NY), were load tested using the bi-directional axial load method. Axial test results demonstrate that RQD, taken by itself, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of side or base resistance. High recovery with low RQD can be a function of horizontally bedded siltstone and shale where the individual pieces of core do not exceed four inches, but may still provide very high side and base resistance. Axial testing was followed by a lateral rapid-load test (Statnamic) on each of the same four shafts. In addition, one of the shafts was subjected to a static lateral load test to validate the rapid-load method as being representative of static loading conditions. Results of the axial load tests provide the basis of unit side and unit base resistances used in the LRFD design of the rock sockets for axial loading, while results of the static and Statnamic lateral load tests were used to calibrate p-y curve parameters used for design under lateral and moment loading. This paper describes implementation of the load testing program and its role in the design process.INTRODUCTIONDesign of drilled shaft foundations for the Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) required load testing in order to validate the parameters used for calculating geotechnical axial and lateral resistances. The bridge, including foundations, was designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, 6th Edition (2012). The bridge owner is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). One of the PANYNJ project requirements was stated as follows:“Perform a minimum of two (2) separate axial compression load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology to verify the design assumptions and construction procedures. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.Conduct a minimum of two (2) lateral load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.”"

Jan 1, 2016

By Jun Ohbayashi, Yoshiyuki Yagiura, Hiroaki Miyatake, Masuo Kondoh, Naotoshi Shinkawa

"Reducing the improvement ratio of ground improvement is an extremely efficient way to reduce the construction cost and construction period of mitigation measures for soft ground. The Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column (ALiCC Method) is one method for this, and it is being increasingly applied to sites. This method enables us to rationally evaluate the embankment loads that are acting on cement improved soil columns and unimproved ground, by considering the arch action generated in the embankments and from there thusly allocate improved soil columns in spans of a greater distance than those needed for conventional methods. As a result, it serves to reduce construction costs and the construction period, while also minimizing the settling of the embankment and differential settlement, by placing numerous improved soil columns in the ground immediately beneath the embankment at equidistant intervals. In this report, we give a basic overview of the ALiCC Method, report typical construction results from real life cases that have been carried out, and make comparisons with other construction methods in order to report on the effectiveness of this design method.OVERVIEW OF ARCH ACTION LOW IMPROVEMENT RATIO CEMENT COLUMN (ALiCC) METHODIn the area of mitigation measures for soft ground, a significant role is played by ground improvements using improved materials such as cement. For this reason, a reduction in construction costs and construction period required for ground improvements has become of greater importance. The Public Works Research Institute carried out joint research with Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co. Ltd., Kitac Co. Ltd., and Fudo Tetra Co. Ltd. over a period from 1998 through 2002, and, from that, developed the ""Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column Method"" (hereinafter referred to as the ""ALiCC Method"") that enables ground improvement with a lower improvement ratio (the improved area ratio is approx. 10% to 30%) than is required for conventional methods, while also ensuring stabilization and minimizing the settling of embankments.In the area of mitigation methods for soft ground by deep mixing, the dominant method until now has been that (50% or more of improvement ratio) shown in Fig. 1. This method comprehensively improves the area under the face of the slopes of both sides of the embankment. This is based on the calculated stability against rotational slip, which states, ""the most effective way to ensure the stabilization of the embankment environment is to carry out improvements of the area under the face of the slope."" Therefore, for the area under the face of the slope, ground improvement by deep mixing was done, and for the soft ground in the area under the middle part of the embankment, accelerated consolidation methods (hereinafter referred to as ""conventional method"") such as sand draining method and paper draining method were used. Mitigation measures that combine these improvement methods have also been mainstream for a long period of time and are used to prevent side deformation around the embankment. However, there have been some problems that have occurred, such as a situation where consolidation settling occurs in the center area under the embankment where no improvement had been carried out. This phenomenon leads to a situation in which the improved soil columns in the area under the face the of slope are pushed to the outside, which results in side deformation occurring around the area of the embankment, and additionally the occurrence of a step due to a situation of differential settlement between the improved ground and the consolidation advancing part, which results in cracks in the embankment."

Jan 1, 2015

By Achyut Kumar Allady, Praveen Arumughan

NCHRP Synthesis 418 (2011) entitled, “Developing Production Pile Driving Criteria from Test Pile Data” details the occurrence of dichotomy between pile Skin resistance and pile Tip resistance mobilizations at different times for different hammer blows during pile driving operations. With increasing usage of High Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT) the engineering community started paying more attention to this occurrence of dichotomy resulting in overdriving, pile damage, increased claims, and loss of time. To overcome the dichotomy limitations of HSDT, NCHRP recommends, “the use of superposition to combine the back-calculated tip resistance from a blow on initial drive or from redrive with the back-calculated skin resistance from the early blows at the beginning of restrike”. However, the current practice of external mounted gauges and signal matching for a single blow are unable to evaluate independently the Skin resistance and Tip resistance to achieve the goal of determining the optimum Total Pile Capacity using the superposition. This paper discusses advancements of science and technology with sensors embedded at the pile top and pile tip, the data collected is analyzed by the state-of-the-art FDOT Method to determine Skin and Tip resistances independently for every blow. Independent Tip and Skin resistances each with a Resistance Factor can be summed up to obtain optimum Total Pile Capacity. Additional benefits of determining independent Skin and Tip resistances include obtaining lost skin capacity due to scour, due to pre-drilling/preforming and uplift tension capacity. Furthermore, the benefits of embedded sensors include increased quality control/quality assurance through 100% testing, accelerated construction, life cycle monitoring and asset management.

May 1, 2022

By Frank Haehnig, Kurt Kogler

"With a height of 200 m, a crown width of 626 m and a concrete volume of 1.6 million m³, the Kölnbrein Dam in the upper Malta valley in Carinthia / Austria is the largest concrete dam in Austria. Boasting a storage capacity of 200 million m³ with a received water load of 54 MN, this is one of the strongest arch dams in the world.During its construction from 1974 to 1977, the dam was equipped with a comprehensive monitoring system capable of comparing developing deformations and stresses with the design values.With a planned reservoir level of 1,900 m a.s.l. the dam saw the reservoir level of 1,860 m a.s.l. breached in the year 1978. This led to extremely high seepage losses of up to 200 ltr/sec and a rise in the foundation water pressure up to 100% of the dam’s height. These observations were caused by the development of horizontal cracks in the area of the middle dam blocks, between the lowest inspection walkway and the waterside.As a consequence, power plant operations had to significantly be reduced and a number of additional measures were carried out – though these did not lead to the desired sealings.The developer subsequently decided that the dam should undergo a general rehabilitation from 1998 to 1994 in accordance with a concept developed by Professor Lombardi. This concept involved erecting a 50 m high support structure with a concrete volume of 500,000 m³ on the airside of the dam, along with the addition of neoprene bearings to transfer 1.2 million tons of the horizontal load. These measures were able to reduce the deformations in the dam enough so that mostly load-bearing injections into the cracks in the dam’s concrete could successfully be carried out by way of targeted grouting measures using injection resin (RODUR) specifically developed for this purpose.In the years 1998 - 1994, a total of 130,000 m of grouting, monitoring and control drillings were executed, and around 200,000 kg of synthetic resin was injected into the cracks in the dam’s concrete.These measures have ensured the dam‘s uninterrupted operation since 1994. A number of small re- injections were again carried out on the contact surface in the years 2011 and 2012."

Jan 1, 2016

By Chandramohan P. V

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

Nov 1, 2022