Search Documents

By Anthony T. C. Goh

"For deep excavations in soft clay, it is common to use jet grouting piles (JGP) prior to excavation to minimize wall deflections and ground settlement, and to prevent basal heave instability. In this paper, finite element analyses were carried out to assess the basal heave factor of safety for excavations in soft clay supported by JGP. Comparison of the factor of safety from the finite element analyses with limit equilibrium methods was then performed. Subsequently, to account for the uncertainties in the soil and JGP properties, a simplified reliability analysis procedure is proposed to estimate the probability of basal heave failure for deep excavations supported by JGP.INTRODUCTIONJet grout piles (JGP) are often used to prevent basal heave instability and to minimize excessive wall and ground movements associated with deep excavations in soft clay deposits (Shirlaw 2003; Wen 2005; Ou 2006). The jet grouting process which is carried out prior to any excavation works produces a series of short overlapping grout columns resulting in a “continuous” base slab (commonly termed as jet grout pile or JGP) below the final excavation level that spans across the entire excavation (Gaba 1990; Hsieh et al. 2003; Ho and Hu 2006). Typically, the JGP thickness ranges from 2 m to 4 m.The focus of this paper is on the assessment of basal heave instability for deep excavations in clay stabilized with JGP. Finite element analyses were first conducted to determine the basal heave factor of safety for deep excavations in clay with JGP. Comparisons were then carried out with factors of safety based on conventional limit equilibrium methods. Since the conventional factor of safety approach does not explicitly reflect the uncertainties of the soil and JGP properties, it is demonstrated in this paper that a simple reliability based approach (Hasofer and Lind 1974) can be used to assess the probability of basal heave failure.LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHODFor excavations is clay, the Terzaghi (1943), Bjerrum and Eide (1956) and Eide et al. (1972) methods which are based on bearing capacity theory, are commonly used to determine the basal heave factor of safety. Another commonly adopted method in Japan and Taiwan is the slip circle method which involves taking moments about the lowest strut level (JSA 1988; Hsieh et al. 2008; Luo et al. 2012). The slip circle method has also been applied for excavations with a JGP at the base by incorporating the undrained shear strength of the JGP. In the slip circle method, the basal heave factor of safety FSslip is assessed by taking moments about the lowest strut level (Fig. 1)"

Jan 1, 1900

By Pratik Goel, Sumanta Haldar

High-speed rail is an emerging area of interest in India. The Government of India is implementing prestigious bullet train projects in various parts of the country. High-speed rail (HSR) will be operating in India at about 320 kmph at an elevated track on a viaduct for most of the ongoing and upcoming corridors. High-speed projects in India necessitate an indigenous solution for design applications for viaduct design. Pile groups are extensively used in viaducts for high-speed trains, as they can be a settlement reducer and increase the bearing capacity. Post-construction settlement of pile foundation for high-speed railway viaduct is a concern of engineers. Limited attention has been paid to estimating the post-construction settlement. This paper aims to propose a prediction of the cumulative settlement of pile groups due to cyclic train loading. A three-dimensional finite element model (3D-FEM) of the pile group is established in Abaqus CAE. A suitable plastic model is used to simulate the subsoil. The pile group is modelled as an isotropic-elastic element. The study examines the influence of cyclic loading time and train speed on the settlement of the pile group. The analysis is carried out considering various single pile and pile group parameters like S/D, Ep/Es, L/D, Pile cap thickness, etc. and finally, an optimum configuration is suggested.

Sep 1, 2022

By Kirk Ellison, Sherif Elfass, Ramin Motamed, Kevin V. Stanton

"The determination of accurate load transfer curves are essential for estimating deep foundation loadsettlement response using t-z style analyses. While recently developed semi-empirical methods from Ashour et al. (2010) and Ashour & Helal (2012) have shown promise in preliminary studies, they have not yet been thoroughly benchmarked against a more widely accepted approach. To address this issue, these recent procedures are implemented in the computer program CGI-DFSAP to predict the results of four Osterberg-cell (O-Cell) load tests. These predictions are compared to outcomes obtained following the recommendations from Reese & O’Neill (1988) for t-z analyses of drilled shafts in sand and clay which are carried out with the program TZ-PILE. Overall, the results suggest that the new approach offers improved accuracy regarding predictions of drilled shaft response to axial loading.INTRODUCTIONThe behavior of axially loaded deep foundations is often analyzed using a technique known as the t-z method. In this method, deep foundation elements are broken into multiple segments which are supported by discrete nonlinear springs to capture the contribution of both side-friction (t-z springs) and end-bearing (Q-z springs). Hence, the t-z and Q-z relationships dictate the predicted load-settlement response. A number of different approaches have been developed to estimate load-transfer curves with some relying solely on empirical data from laboratory and field experiments (i.e. Coyle & Reese, 1966; Vijayvergiya, 1977) and others based mainly on analytical frameworks (i.e. Kraft et al., 1981; Randolph, 1994). Reese & O’Neill (1988) provide recommendations which are widely used for developing t-z and Q-z curves for analyzing drilled shafts. This method is hereafter referred to as Method 1 (M1). It should be noted that these empirically derived relationships are only applicable for problems associated with drilled shafts and are therefore not appropriate for developing load-transfer curves for other types of deep foundations (i.e. driven piles). This is because of the difference in the frictional resistance which can be developed between a circular concrete-soil interface as opposed to that of other materials (i.e. steel) and/or different cross sectional geometries.The M1 load-transfer curves form the basis for the t-z analysis of drilled shafts implemented in the computer program TZ-PILE (Ensoft, 2014). In light of this, TZ-PILE is employed herein as a reference to compare against the capabilities of another method of implementing t-z style analyses. This method is based on a semi-empirical framework for soil behavior developed by Norris (1986) and is implemented using the program CGI-DFSAP (Computers & GeoEngineering Inc., 2011). More information concerning this approach, hereafter referred to as Method 2 (M2), is given in subsequent sections."

Jan 1, 2017

By Tsuyoshi Honda, Kazuhiro Kaneda, Masayuki Imai, Kazuo Konishi, Kunio Higashinaka

"In recent years, the demand for measures to control liquefaction of existing airport runways and harbor structures has increased. However, from the perspectives of constructability and cost, application of grid-form deep mixing walls to these types of structures requires the formation of wider grid spacing as compared with conventional designs. In this research, we focused on the extent of liquefaction and ground surface settling when grid spacing is made wider than conventional designs. We conducted centrifuge model tests, and confirmed the liquefaction suppression effect when grid-form modifications involving wide grid spacing are adopted under asphalt pavement. The tests were conducted under conditions that included changing the grid spacing and groundwater level. When the groundwater level was high, an increase in water pressure was observed, even within the grid. However, when the groundwater level was low, the increase in water pressure inside the grid was suppressed. We also found that if the generation of water pressure can be suppressed, the amount of settling due to liquefaction can also be controlled.INTRODUCTIONOne construction technique used as a countermeasure to liquefaction is grid-form deep mixing walls. Grid-form deep mixing walls are a construction technique for which improved grid-shaped wall bodies are built into the ground below the surface using a deep mixing method. This construction technique minimizes shear deformation by surrounding liquefied ground with improved wall bodies, thereby preventing liquefaction (Fig.1). With conventional designs, grid-form deep mixing walls determine the grid spacing that can deter liquefaction based on a ratio of the grid spacing L to the improved depth H (ratio = L/H). Ordinarily, designs are implemented with an L/H ratio of 0.8 or less (PWRI, 1999).In recent years, a demand for measures to control liquefaction of existing airport pavement and harbor structures has increased. However, when liquefaction countermeasures are implemented at these types of facilities and structures, the construction work must be implemented while the facilities and structures remain in service. Therefore, temporal and spatial constraints must be considered. In addition, unlike conventional liquefaction countermeasures, performance requirements are such that, even if some degree of liquefaction is allowed, the performance is acceptable as long as the amount of settlement is within a predetermined value. Therefore, if grid-form deep mixing walls are applied to these structures, grid spacing that is wider than conventional standards is desired."

Jan 1, 2015

By Kalyani Devabhaktuni, Mike Minton, Mark T. Howe, Yan Zhang

During the procurement phase of a Design-Build (DB) project, design-build contractors must often commit to a fixed price based on limited or incomplete geotechnical information. This lack of information can result in an inaccurate assessment and allocation of project risk to either the contracting authority or the DB contractor. This paper presents a case study of an elevated water tank supported by mixed ground improvement techniques, including Vibro-Compaction (VC), Aggregate Piers (AP) and Compaction Grouting (CG) in East St. Louis, Illinois. An adaptive design and contracting approach provided the best value solution for a complicated set of geotechnical problems, including static bearing capacity and settlement concerns as well as liquefaction induced settlement. Close cooperation between the owner, the tank contractor, the geotechnical engineer and the ground improvement contractor was essential to produce an effective solution. Ground Improvement techniques resolved the geotechnical challenges at the site through adaptive design methods, utilizing progressive rounds of verification and real time data acquisition to achieve performance objectives. This paper details the evaluation of geotechnical criteria, the selection of ground improvement techniques, the adaptive design and implementation of ground improvements, as well as contracting methodologies used to ensure that the best value was provided. PROJECT INFORMATION In November, 2016, CB&I Storage Tank Solutions (McDermott) submitted a design/build proposal for an elevated water tank for Illinois American Water Company (IAW) in East St. Louis, Illinois. The purpose of this tank was to have backup water capacity for power generation. In the RFP, IAW requested two alternate styles of tank: Option 1, a 1250 Million Gallon (MG) Composite Elevated Tank or Option 2, a 1250 MG Waterspheroid tank. Option 1 consisted of a steel tank supported on a concrete tower. Option 2 consisted of a steel tank supported on a steel shaft. The height (determined by IAW) was 140 feet to the top capacity line measured from top of floor slab.

Jan 1, 2019

By Thai Nguyen Ph. D

Dynamic Load Test (DLT) on driven piles has been performed routinely all over the world. In several recent projects, even 100% testing has become a norm where every single pile is dynamically load tested. In these cases, most piles are of uniform sections, making the field analysis (CASE method) straight forward. The CASE method, which has been used for the last 50 years, however, is only applicable to uniform piles to monitor pile driving stresses as well as pile capacities. Signal matching analysis can handle different configurations. However, the analysis used to require user inputs (i.e., non-automatic). Manual signal matching analysis, which can solve non-uniform solutions, traditionally takes hour(s) to complete for one blow. As such, the real-time pile driving stresses and resistances had traditionally been relying upon the CASE method, using typical range of CASE damping (JC). Until 2021, due to the lack of a rigorous instant signal matching analysis for non-uniform piles, no tool was available to help engineers evaluate non-uniform piles in real-time. An inexperienced field engineer may overlook this shortcoming when evaluating peak driving stresses. Furthermore, ultimate bearing resistances for non-uniform piles may require further evaluation to account for the non-uniformity of piles if relying on the CASE method. This paper highlights recent advances in instant Signal Matching Analysis on non-uniform piles, allowing field engineers to monitor stresses and resistances of non-uniform piles during driving.

Oct 1, 2022

By Frank Rausche

Introduction and Background Testing -Pile Preparation -Data Processing -Data Interpretation/Case Studies Case Studies - Existing Piles Stories from around the world

Jan 1, 2001

By Michael E. Ameel

The vibrated beam method of installing a vertical barrier wall is one of the least applied techniques, yet given certain site conditions and constraints, it is a cost-effective and proven method of controlling lateral groundwater flows. A recent full-scale application of this technique demonstrated its usefulness at an active manufacturing facility located in Northern Wisconsin. At this site, a 3,233 foot long cutoff wall was keyed into an underlying bedrock, which was located an average of 40 feet below the ground surface. Using a slag cement-clay based slurry, a 1E-7 cm/sec or less, nominal 4-inch wide cut-off wall was constructed using the vibrated beam method. Challenges included working around an active manufacturing facility with minimal access to the work area; installing the wall through a very dense glacial till; minimizing soil excavation volumes of potentially impacted soil; and, working around and adjacent to numerous active utility lines without impacting the facility operations. At utility locations, the vibrated beam wall was supplemented with a jet grout panel wall, without the need to bypass or otherwise interrupt any of the plant?s utilities. Quality control consisted of the monitoring and measuring of slurry parameters, survey control, and real-time monitoring and documentation of all critical barrier wall installation parameters. A vibration monitoring plan was also implemented to measure vibrations at utilities and adjacent facility structures. Proper equipment selection, significant up-front planning and close coordination with the facility resulted in a safe and successful project. The work was completed ahead of schedule during the 2009 construction season.

Jan 1, 2010

By Dan Brown

Improvements in construction equipment and techniques in recent years have made possible the use of drilled shaft foundations in diameters and lengths not previously considered practical or feasible. Many highway bridge and other structures are now routinely founded on drilled shafts which -are 8 to 12 feet in diameter and extending over 200 feet in depth below grade. There are unique challenges associated with constructing such large and deep cast-In-place foundations and engineers should be aware of the special needs associated with site investigation, construction specifications, material requirements, and quality assurance. This paper outlines a number of special considerations for these foundations, along with strategies that may be employed to improve the reliability and quality of large drilled shaft foundations.

May 11, 2007

By M. Kitazume, H. Imai

The deep mixing method was developed in Japan and put into practice in the middle of 1970s. Since then, the wet and dry type methods have been applied for various improvement purposes in Japan. One stork of mixing tool produces a column shape of stabilized soil in a ground. By the series of productions, arbitrary shape of improved ground can be constructed by overlapping each columns. It is specified to complete the overlapping within 24 hours in order to ensure the tight connection of the columns. However, it can not be completed within the specific time in some cases due to bad weather or machine trouble, which causes a cold joint in the improved ground. In this study, the influence of the cold joint to the behavior of the block type improved ground is examined by a series of centrifuging model tests and FEM analyses. It is found that the ground behavior is influenced by the position of the cold joint, where the cold joint at the sea side shows a little influence to the behavior but one at the port side causes large decrease in the stability of the improved ground.

Sep 8, 2021

By Don W. Dotson

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

Aug 1, 2013

By Clarissa Aguiar, Seok hyeon Chai, Thamer Yacoub, Sina Javankhoshdel

Sheet piles are used as an excavation support for soil retention. They are interlocked systems to form a wall for earth support along with anchors to provide an extra lateral support in excavations. The earth pressure against a sheet pile structure is not unique for each soil, but rather a function of soil-structure system. Movements of the structure with respect to the soil are primary factor in developing the pressure and thus the problem becomes indeterminate. In order to model a sheet pile wall for the analysis, structural element/interface can be used for the sheet pile. However, the use of the structural element with soil model alone is insufficient to simulate this soil-structure system as it fails to capture the slip condition between the sheet pile and the retained soil. In order to capture this slip condition, an interactive element can be used between sheet pile and soil to allow slip to occur. There have been many case studies where this method was used to analyze the response of the retained soil. Numerical studies have shown a good agreement with experimental results, but this stiffness is often not a well-known parameter, due to its complexity in nature of interactive behavior between soil and sheet pile walls. Also, many case studies are carried out with twodimensional analysis of the foundation, where three-dimensional analysis may be more suitable in some practical applications. In this paper, the interactive behavior of the element between sheet pile and soil is investigated with case studies for staged excavation using sheet piles and anchors. Then, investigation of a three-dimensional model is carried out by comparing with two-dimensional analysis.

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

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

Jan 1, 2015

By Armin W. Stuedlein, Steven R. Saye

The differences between calculated axial pile capacity and the capacity realized during and following installation has long presented a significant concern for foundation engineers and contractors. Such differences have increased in prevalence with the increased use of larger diameter steel pipe piles and the significant increase in design-build contracting. The writers present concepts to close the gap between calculated axial pile capacity and the capacity realized during and following installation of driven pile foundations, including: (1) pile set-up in plastic soils, (2) limitation of re-driving of piles after setup which serves to reduce pile capacity, (3) the use of a vibratory hammer to install piles in cohesive soils disturbs the supporting soils and reduces the pile side resistance capacity significantly, and (4) long pile installation times for open-ended piles can damage the pile side resistance. Examples are presented from practice to illustrate these concepts and to guide pile installation planning to recognize the installation impacts and either consider alternate installation approaches or to properly consider the installation impacts during design.

By Zaw Zaw Aye, Sereyroath Chea, Nutthapon Thasnanipan, Thayanan Boonyarak

"As there are only limited numbers of bored pile constructed in sandstone and siltstone in Thailand, load transfer and settlement behavior of a pile in these rocks are still not fully understood. Major factors which influence the performance of the pile in the sedimentary rock should be systematically investigated. The objective of this paper is to analyze load distribution and load-settlement behavior of bored pile in sedimentary rock. Interpreted data was obtained from instrumented load testing results of large-diameter bored piles. These piles were drilled in aeolian soil and socketed in sandstone or siltstone, having socketed length varying from 1 to 3 times the pile diameter. Factors that influenced pile settlement behavior, consisting of rock type at the pile base, socket length, at-rest earth pressure and rock conditions, were analyzed. For interpretation of results, analytical solutions were used to estimate load bearing capacity and calculate settlement of each pile. According to test results of mobilized unit skin friction in siltstone, relationship of 0.1 – 0.3 square root of the unconfined compressive strength of rock appears to reasonably capture the measured shaft friction. Note that shaft movement in siltstone layer was not fully mobilized as maximum pile head settlement was still less that 1% of the pile diameter.INTRODUCTIONExtensive research of bored pile construction in soft soil in Thailand and Myanmar (Boonyarak et al., 2016; Aye et al., 2015) has been carried out. However, behavior of bored pile in weak rocks such as sandstone and siltstone is still not fully understood. Unit skin friction and unit end bearing of piles in these weak rock were reported by Horvath et al. (1983) and Pells and Turner (1980), respectively. Further research is still required to minimize variation in data presented in their study.This paper presents interpretation of load testing results of instrumented piles. These piles were excavated in aeolian deposit in the Northeast Thailand. Some piles were socketed in sandstone or siltstone. Analysis results of load-settlement, shaft shortening, pile settlement estimation, factor for calculating shaft friction and end bearing are reported. Discussion and explanation of pile behavior in sandstone and siltstone is provided.BRIEF INFORMATION OF THE PROJECTProject locationsThe construction sites are located in Khon Kaen and Nakhorn Ratchasima Provinces in the Northeast Thailand. Bored piles in this project were designed for supporting elevated structures for railways, overpasses and U-turn bridges for vehicles. These overpasses and U-turn bridges are distributed along the existing railways with the distance of about 180 km."

Jan 1, 1900

By Michael A. McNicholas

"Deep foundations utilize the varying soil conditions to provide the most cost-effective or practical scope for a given jobsite. Once the scope has been determined and the engineering applied, the element can be installed and tested to determine if it is suitable. QA/QC programs are vital for the assurance that the element designed by the engineer has not only been properly constructed but that the design assumptions are confirmed. The two deep foundation elements referenced are drilled displacement piles (DDP) and micropiles. Each of these elements allows for large loads to be distributed deep into the subsurface geology. Having the technology and ability to monitor the tests in real-time can be beneficial to a contractor in determining if the design is adequate or if adjustments need to be made on future piles. The proper QA/QC guidelines for installation and monitoring need to be in place to ensure that an accurate interpretation can be made on the pile. This paper discusses the typical testing and the positive results that the author has encountered using the latest advances in strain analysis.KEY TERMSDrilled Displacement Piles:A deep foundation system that has the ability to shed load into the geology through shaft resistance as well as tip resistance, similar to drilled shafts. This pile element is unique in that it has a consistent pile section and thus a consistent modulus of elasticity.Micropile:A deep foundation system used in applications where the foundation lies over material not suitable for a spread footing and the ideal soil stratum is deep below the foundation. Micropiles will have two different cross-sections consisting of a cased section and an uncased section. For this reason, this pile type requires additional analysis when computing stress-strain relationships.Geokon Strain Gauges:Instrumentation such as Models 4911A-4911 Vibrating Wire Strain Gauges ( known as Sister Bars) are designed to be embedded in grout and calculate loads based on the change on grout strain over a period of time.Stress:A pile element is under a compression (axial loading) load when a force acts along its axis and is normal to the plane of the section. The corresponding stress the pile is experiencing is described as a normal stress. The stress is obtained by dividing the magnitude of the load distributed over the cross-section by the area of the pile cross-section, as shown in Eq. 1."

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 Mark R. Svinkin

"Construction equipment and operations usually produce soil and structural vibrations which may harmfully affect various structures and also the content of buildings and houses. The level of structural vibrations depends on a number of factors such as characterized sources of vibrations, soil conditions, and susceptibility of structures. There are certain knowledge and experience for managing the effects of construction vibrations which require implementation of condition survey of structures, information on construction dynamic sources and soil conditions at a site, evaluation of possible vibration effects on structure, calculation of ground vibrations before construction, use mitigation measures to decrease vibrations, and a choice of appropriate vibration limits. The paper presents the application of known concepts for assessment of vibration effects on structures from bridge constructions.INTRODUCTIONVibrations producing by construction activities such as pile driving, dynamic compaction of loose soils, demolition work, heavy construction equipment and trucks can affect adjacent and remote structures. Vibration effects on structures, sensitive devices and processes may create significant practical problems. Legal actions are often required for solutions of vibration consequences. The level of construction vibrations depends on dynamic sources, soil conditions at a site in particularly availability of soils with settlement potential, distances from the sources, parameters of waves propagating at a site and susceptibility rating of adjacent and remote structures. It is likely that intolerable structural vibrations from direct vibration effects of impact pile driving and resonant floor vibrations from vibratory pile driving may be induced in adjacent structures to construction sites.Foundation settlements resulting from soil vibrations in loose soils usually occur in the proximity of dynamic sources, but it is important that dynamic settlement may happen at various distances from the source. There are such examples. First, Kaminetzky (1991) mentioned a case history of building settlements developed at a distance of about 305 m (1000 ft) away from a pile driving site. Foundations of the buildings were underpinned on piles down to the tip elevation of the new driven piles to prevent building settlements. Second, Lacy and Gould (1985) shows that the peak particle velocity (PPV) of 2.5 mm/s (0.1 in/s) of ground vibrations could trigger dynamic settlements at distances up to 30.5 m (100 ft) from driven piles."

Jan 1, 2016

By Monica R. Garcia, Antonio Alberto S. Correia, Paulo J. Venda Oliveira

"The aim of this paper is to analyze the creep behavior of a Portuguese soft soil stabilized with binders in one-dimensional conditions, based on oedometer creep tests. The study focuses on the analysis of the effect of the binder content and binder type on the creep behavior of a stabilized soil. The results show that the best binder type for this soil, in terms of creep behavior, is composed of Portland cement and fly ash with a dry weight proportion of 75/25, as this promotes the development of secondary pozzolanic reactions. The results also show the decrease in the secondary compression index with the increment of the binder content, since it promotes an increase in the cementation bonds between soil particles. The general analysis of the results shows a clear dependence on C??and qu, until values of qu of 1500 kPa; after that this relationship is negligible.INTRODUCTIONThe geotechnical structures (such as embankments, dams and buildings) built on organic soils exhibit notable creep deformations, which increase the maintenance and exploitation costs and can even compromise their functioning. To attenuate the creep effects of the soft ground, some improvement techniques are frequently used, such as preloading or reinforcing the soil foundations with vertical rigid inclusions, like concrete piles, stone columns or deep mixing columns (DMCs). However, the installation of DMCs in the soft ground induces (via the arching effect) a transfer of stresses from the soft soil to the DMCs, which causes an increase in the creep settlement on the DMCs (Venda Oliveira et al. 2011).Notwithstanding the fact that the creep behavior of clays has been the object of several studies (Leroueil et al. 1985; Mesri and Castro 1987; among others), the study of the creep behavior of soil-binder admixtures has been practically ignored by the scientific community. The few studies on this theme have revealed that a stabilized soil’s creep behavior is dependent on: the type of binder (Venda Oliveira et al. 2013), the binder content (Correia 2011; Bobet et al. 2011; and Venda Oliveira et al. 2013), the stress level applied during the creep phase (Venda Oliveira et al. 2013), the organic matter content of the natural soil (Venda Oliveira et al. 2012; 2014), and the curing conditions (humidity, vertical stress applied during curing, and curing time) (Correia 2011; Venda Oliveira et al. 2012).The aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of the creep behavior of a soil-binder admixture, by examining the results of oedometer creep tests. The study focuses on the analysis of the effect of the binder content and binder type on the creep behavior of a stabilized soil. Additionally, the creep behavior is correlated with the effective vertical yield stress and the unconfined compressive strength (UCS)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Akhila Manne, Prasad P. V S R

Storage tanks are heavily loaded thin-shelled structures that exert large loads on and require large foundations to support them. They are generally very sensitive to foundation settlements as it may hinder the performance of tanks resulting in significant commercial or social impacts. Selection of their foundation is dependent on availability of suitable ground and limitations imposed by design specifications. Design of the tank foundations is generally based on theoretical methods and validation by representative field tests. This paper reviews settlement criteria for storage tanks as per national and international standards, case studies of large to medium diameter tanks supported on deep foundation i.e., bored cast-in-situ piles and shallow foundations on improved ground and their performance during load tests & hydro-tests is discussed. Paper concludes that storage tanks can also be supported on shallow foundations resting on improved ground reducing the settlement, time and cost significantly depending on the sub-soil.

Nov 1, 2022