Search Documents

By Tsunenobu Nozaki

"Basically, the “Press-in Piling Method” was invented to eliminate construction nuisances, such as noise and vibration which have been serious unsolved problems for advancing societies over a long time. In the construction industry, piling works have been a major cause of noise and vibration, because most piling methods utilize dynamic load to install piles into the ground. The secret of the Press-in Piling Method is to utilize static loading to install pre-formed piles rather than dynamic load. The piles are hydraulically gripped and jacked into the ground by the special piling rig known as the “Silent Piler”. Therefore, the piles can form a robust and firm foundation, which is another advantage of the Press-in Piling Method.The Press-in Piling Mechanism and Implant Foundations The basis of the Press-in Piling Method is simple. The Pres-in Piling Machine installs a preformed displacement pile into the ground by static jacking force. The reaction for the Press-in Force is generated by gripping previously installed piles, which are called “Reaction Piles”. Due to this, the Press-in Piling Machine can produce a powerful piling force whilst only requiring minimal machine size.With the Press-in Piling Method, as piles are pressed into the ground, they are incorporated with the surrounding soils, which provides a large bearing capacity and passive horizontal resistance. These embedded foundations which are firmly anchored into the ground are known as “Implant Foundations”. Being embedded into the ground, the foundations are resilient and maintain their serviceability even in the worst credible design conditions."

Jan 1, 2015

By Tony Amis, Marco Barla, Alice Di Donna

"Energy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular solution around the world for Developers looking to reduce CO2 and system running costs. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures that provide both the important role of structural stability while also acting as a heat exchanger with the ground, enabling the supported buildings and or infrastructure to be heated and cooled using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems. The main advantage of this innovative technology with respect to standard geothermal plant is the reduction of the initial installation costs and construction schedule benefits, compared to installing conventional geothermal solutions, largely due to the additional use of structures which would be constructed in any case. However, it is important with respect to energy geostructures that additional aspects need careful consideration. For this very reason, several research studies have been carried out over the last decade on this subject and a number of real case studies have been monitored and analysed. The key difference with respect to conventional shallow geothermal systems are mainly related to the geometry, which is imposed by the geotechnical project, and the need to ensure that the primary structural role is always guaranteed. Special boundary conditions, the reduced depth, the influence of atmospheric external temperature can also play an important role for energy geostructures. They can affect, both energy efficiency and, the geotechnical behaviour because of the possible thermal induced mechanical effects. This paper presents a picture of the current situation regarding energy geostructures and their peculiar features, and collects available data to provide a reference framework. Data has been collected from literature and personal communications and then processed to provide easy-to-read charts useful for practical consultation at a glance. This paper provides, an indication of the distribution of such systems worldwide, their spread in time, and a global view of their actual efficiency from the structural, energy, economic and environmental point of view.1. IntroductionEnergy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular consideration around the world. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures with a dual role of providing structural stability and the ability to exchange heat with the ground, to provide low carbon heat and coolth to supporting and or adjacent buildings and infrastructure, using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems (Barla and Di Donna, 2016; Laloui and Di Donna, 2013). A closed circuit of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes is embedded in the concrete, and a heat carrier fluid circulates through them exchanging heat with the ground. The HDPE pipework circuit inside the geostructure is linked to one of the above buildings or infrastructure through a heat pump, which adapts the temperature of the circulating fluid to the heating (winter mode) and cooling (summer mode) needs. In this way, heat can be injected into the ground during summer and extracted from it during winter. In principle, all structures in contact with the ground can be used as energy geostructures. The first examples of energy geostructures date back to the eighties in Austria and were mainly piles and shallow foundations. A decade later, Henderson et al. (1999) reported on what would appear to be the first successful use of geothermal energy piles in the US, with loops incorporated into the foundation for a hotel in Geneva, New York. As was their use in this New York case history, the typical geothermal energy pile application is used in conjunction with additional closed loop boreholes to provide the required energy capacity for a structure. Interestingly the report concludes that the geothermal energy piles had a better heat transfer performance than the borehole field. The first energy walls appeared slightly later, while still today only a few experimental cas"

Jan 1, 2017

By Gary T. Brill

In the presentation, the development and new applications of the jet grouting technique in the North America are briefly introduced at first and followed by the outline and advantages of Jet Grouting. Several recent projects for jet grouting are presented in which the applications to underpinning and excavation support, foundation, groundwater barrier and seismic stabilization are briefly discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Frank Rausche

Although Quality Control (QC) during construction is preferable for deep foundations, there are many instances when it is necessary to resort to Quality Assurance (QA) methods if, for various reasons, QC is not possible. Non Destructive Testing (NDT) methods for deep foundations are indirect approaches, i.e. in complex situations they do not provide complete information and need to be augmented by additional testing and/or analyses. While the challenges are varied for the different deep foundation types and the different test methods they are the same in many different countries. Experience of the tester is often mentioned as being most important for a successful quality assurance. In addition, reliable testing equipment for the best possible measurements and complete construction documentation for a meaningful data interpretation are minimum requirements for a successful test outcome. Another problem is the widely varying cost of the QA tests. For that reason the specifying engineer or authority has to be aware of what can reasonably be expected so that technically feasible specifications can be written for optimal cost and minimal construction delays. This paper discusses the most common NDT methods with a view on how these methods are applied world wide. It summarizes features of specifications, recommendations for test procedures and advanced analysis methods which can help to overcome uncertainty in the quality assessment of the foundation. Finally, the authors propose a decision tree for various QA methods, deep foundation types and soil properties.

Jan 1, 2008

By George W. Little, John Councilman

"The selection, evaluation, and modification of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers, completed by the slurry trench excavation method, can be one of the most critical and challenging tasks to ensure the cutoff wall meets the design performance criteria. Contractor mix designs should incorporate all available geotechnical data, including subsurface soil characteristics, groundwater information, and potential site contaminates. However, the pre-construction mix design can have limitations if subsurface data is limited or shows variability from initial investigations. Placement of the seepage barrier material needs to be evaluated during construction to identify in-situ performance. In one particular case study, the self-hardening cutoff wall mix design was evaluated over a one year period followed by a year and a half installation period, in which, a number of adjustments were made to the laboratory mix design during construction due to performance in the field. Installation for the selected mix was monitored on a real-time basis, using quality control data, as well as early strength and permeability results to determine if adjustments to the self-hardening mix were necessary. Evaluation of early results and relationships between strength and permeability were used to make adjustments prior to achieving the final test results for 28-day strength and permeability. Test results of the installed mix illustrated a direct correlation between strength and permeability. Achieving a minimum unconfined compressive strength was necessary to meet the minimum permeability of the seepage barrier. Other determinations conclude that the thorough development of a pre-construction mix design can have limitations even when all geotechnical data and site conditions are taken into account. Understanding early indicators and key strength and permeability relationships are necessary to determine seepage barrier performance and limitations.IntroductionThe evaluation of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers was reviewed for one particular case study where a mix was developed using available geotechnical background information, including considerations for impacted groundwater. Following development of the laboratory mix design, the seepage barrier wall was installed over a one and a half year period, where the contractor mix design was evaluated and modified to accommodate field conditions affecting performance. The objective of the project was to cutoff and collect impacted groundwater and prevent the migration of contaminants to the creek running adjacent to the project. The self-hardening seepage barrier wall was installed using the slurry trench excavation method along 4700 ft of alignment and extended to depths ranging from 20 to 85 ft below ground surface, where it tied in with a low permeability stratum or competent bedrock."

Jan 1, 2016

By Charles G. Crans, Naresh Gurpersaud

"Toronto’s Union Station, a National Historic Site occupying an entire city block, is the busiest commuter rail transportation hub in Canada. An extensive project is being undertaken to revitalize Union Station while maintaining the historical significance of the building and minimizing disruption to commuters. A significant stage of the revitalization involves excavation indoors, to a depth of up to 5.5 m below the existing floor level to create space for a new transit concourse and a new lower-level pedestrian retail concourse. A hybrid excavation support system utilizing micropiles as soldier piles was constructed over an 18 month period between 2010 and 2011.Development and testing of connections between the micropiles, shotcrete facing, lagging, walers, and tiebacks presented significant challenges. The existing viaduct structure was constructed in the 1920’s on land reclaimed from Toronto Harbour, so there was significant (and ongoing) uncertainty with respect to buried obstructions including relic timber wharfs and abandoned steel and timber piles. Collectively all these conditions precluded the use of conventional methodology; new techniques, installed using modified equipment, and for the first time in the Greater Toronto Area, were required.Details of the existing site conditions, installation challenges, design, construction and performance of the hybrid excavation support system inside this historic structure are presented.INTRODUCTIONUnion Station in Toronto, Ontario is the busiest passenger rail facility in Canada, with 65 million passengers annually and an average of 200,000 passengers each day. Construction of the station was completed in 1920. It has been designated a National Historic Site of Canada and inducted into the North America Railway Hall of Fame in the Facility and Structure category.The Union Station Revitalization Project (USRP) was tendered in 2010 and awarded as a 6-year, $450M construction management / trade contract package. Included was a large scale grade reduction, referred to as “The Dig Down”, to create two basement levels and this required extensive excavation support constructed entirely indoors within the active station setting."

Jan 1, 2017

By Garland Likins

The Texas Department of Transportation, now considering using Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Piles (also known as Continuous-Flight-Auger or CFA Piles) in their foundations, awarded a research project to Professor Mike O'Neill at the University of Houston (UH) to study the advantages and potential difficulties with ACIP/CFA piles. ACIP/CFA piles were installed on three sites for UH; they had extra instrumentation and additional measurements by UH staff during installation which are beyond the scope of this paper. Independent visual logging of the pile was done by an experienced inspection firm. The main advantages of ACIP/CFA piles are their speed of installation and their economy. Potential savings are substantial. Disadvantages include an unknown structural condition of the shaft. Inspection is critical, but many simultaneous observations make accurate inspection difficult. Because of resulting uncertainty, many engineers have avoided ACIP/CFA piles in the past.

Jan 1, 1998

By Andrew Budek

Reinforced concrete piles are used to carry foundation loads through considerable depths of soil to provide superstructure stability under gravity loads and lateral forces. The creation of cast-in-place (or cast-in-drilled-hole, i.e., CIDH) piles begins with the auger-drilling of a hole of the appropriate depth, into which a cage of reinforcing steel is placed (the cage length is generally equal to the depth of the hole, a construction joint being used to connect the in-ground pile with the superstructure). The pile is then finished by casting with concrete, and the superstructure then appended. The superstructure may either be a column (denoting the structure a pile-column), a column and cap beam, or a footing. Typical pile-column configurations are shown in Fig. 1 (a CIDH pile used in a footing would be similar in overall configuration to Fig. 1(b), with H=0). CIDH piles are well-suited for alluvial soil profiles with a deep water table; such conditions generally allow the auguring of a clean and regular hole.

Jan 1, 2007

By Ross Cutts

As a public servant geotechnical engineer, I observed how costly and valuable geotechnical field explorations are to the success of every project. Often however, the field exploration is a long and complex process that is made less efficient by the difficulty of retrieving and utilizing nearby internal or external historic geotechnical datasets. As an employee of a public agency, we would often start our investigations for every project from scratch, given the difficulty of locating and utilizing historic geotechnical data. This is an ethical and technical failing of our profession. When we start subsurface explorations from scratch, not only do we often duplicate investigations, we are also likely defaulting to reapplying tradi- tional test methods that yield con- servative geotechnical parameters, resulting in overly conservative and potentially costly construction. To address this issue while working as a public servant, I started a research program with Yunfeng Zhang, Ph.D., of the University of Maryland, to build a tool that could compile internal historic geotechnical data and extract additional value from it, using machine learning. This tool was able to provide, upon request, nearby historic geotechnical data, estimated soil parameters and recommendations for geotechnical test methods best suited for a given project site. This prevented common field ex- ploration problems such as, requesting duplicate data, requesting test methods that were not applicable for the project geology, not realizing presence of karsts, missing permits for wetlands, private property and others. This tool allowed for more efficient field investigations with regards to time and money saved. There was one problem with this tool: it could only be used by internal employees of a single state's depart- ment of transportation (DOT) for which this data was compiled. I realized at that point that it would be of tremendous value to make this concept universally accessible to the geotechnical engi- neering profession. I left public service to devote time to building a platform that would host historic geotechnical data from publicly funded sources throughout the country. The tool I helped build as a public servant was the foundation of Geosetta, a nonprofit company dedicated to serving the geotechnical profession. The nonprofit structure was adopted to prevent acquisition by a for-profit company and to ensure that Geosetta remains an independent steward of our profession's valuable data. Geosetta provides a GIS (geographic information system) platform that enables users to view historic geo- technical data and extract value from it with machine learning-based predictions and visualization tools. This data is provided in an open and interchangeable format called DIGGS, which stands for Data Interchange for Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Specialists, making it easy for users to integrate it into their workflows. Geosetta is collaborating with the American Society of Civil Engineers' Geo-Institute and other sponsors to extract public data at no cost to the agency and provide the profession with free access to the existing data and access to advanced tools through a subscription to support the nonprofit mission.

Nov 1, 2023

By D. J. Ketkar

It is a frequent experience to find that the Sub-surface Investigation (S.I.) data is either inadequate or misleading. However, such cases are rarely reported. Nonetheless, the projects suffer on-account of delays, cost-over-runs, disputes and/or compromise of the safety norms. Many times S.I. is considered unnecessary or is carried out as a ritual, mainly due to (i) non-availability of good S.I. agencies, or (ii) absence of Geotechnical consultant, or (iii) shortage of time. Importance of S.I. cannot be over emphasised. Yet the profession is in a state of confusion - mainly because of lack of competent professional agencies and of well-defined roles/responsibilities of the concerned parties. In this paper, some suggestions are made to get better returns from the S.I. activity.

Jan 1, 1996

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 Kanagarajah Ravishankar

Drilled shaft (caisson) foundations are extensively used in the past. In the central part of New Jersey, the soils consist of silt and clayey silt overlying Triassic age shale bedrock. The shale is friable and generally severely weathered and highly fractured. The shale crumbles readily into small fragments. In general, the shale is encountered in shallow depth. Subsurface investigations indicated that the upper part of the shale is very soft, highly weathered, and able to advance through soil exploration methods. The underlain formation is relatively hard and required rock coring techniques for sapling. Individual core recoveries ranged from 10 to 100 percent and Rock Quality Designations (RQD) vary from 0 to 90 percent. Although several methods available to estimate the axial capacity of drilled shafts, it is a difficult task for the designer choose the suitable method due to self disintegrate nature of the shale. In the recent years several bridge foundations have been constructed using drilled shafts founded on shale rock in the vicinity of the central New Jersey. Based on load tests carried out on drilled shafts during construction, subsurface exploration, and laboratory tests, suitable methods for determining axial capacity of drilled shafts is analyzed. This paper presents the findings of the field tests and suitable methods to determine the axial capacity of drilled shaft founded on soft shale. Key words: Drilled shaft, axial capacity, Osterberg load test, shale.

Jan 1, 2006

By Dale E. Berner

A new navigation dam at Olmsted on the Ohio River will be built "in-the-wet" using a lift-in construction method by the Washington Group/Alberici Joint Venture for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Louisville District. Up to 4,000-ton precast concrete dam shell segments will be prefabricated on the Illinois riverbank and lowered into the river on a marine skidway and cradle. A 4,500-ton capacity catamaran crane barge will lift the precast concrete shells and lifting frames from the cradle, and transport them partially submerged to a piled foundation pre-installed underwater. Tremie concrete will be used to compositely connect the shells, piles and sheet pile cut-off walls. This paper focuses on the pipe-pile foundations for this half-mile long navigation dam, and for the temporary precast yard and marine skidway. The dam foundations are designed to resist large ground motions from the New Madrid Fault Zone, and selected production piles are designed to serve as landing piles to support the shells during the construction process. Specific foundation issues addressed in the paper include: pile load tests; production field testing requirements; controlled fixity 24-inch diameter pipe-pile design including seismic considerations; cut-off wall design; sheet pile cellular fixed weir design; isolation jOint design; and temporary works foundation designs for both the precast yard and the marine skidway, including testing of 42-in diameter pipe piles.

May 11, 2007

By Norm Kirk, Robert Bittner

"The addition of a new powerhouse at the existing Tulloch Hydroelectric site on the Stanislaus River in the western foothills of the Sierras Nevada Mountains of central California required a deep excavation in rock on the downstream face of the dam. A cofferdam (water exclusion device) was necessary to isolate the powerhouse construction site excavation from the existing Goodwin Reservoir and the turbulent discharge from the existing powerhouse. The cofferdam was positioned on a steeply sloping fractured rock surface exceeding 50 degrees.This paper describes the challenges encountered during design and construction of the cofferdam and describes the unique design features used to address these challenges including:•,The use of flat-sheet-piles to form cellular walls on the steeply sloping rock surface.•,The use of 5-ft deep tremie concrete plugs in the bottom of the sheet pocket cells to create the bottom seal of the cellular cofferdam walls against the sloping rock surface.•,The use of vertical post-tensioned rock anchors to provide shear resistance at the contact point between the base of the cellular-wall and the sloping rocksurface.INTRODUCTIONModification or expansion of existing hydroelectric power plants often require downstream cofferdams or water exclusion devices to temporarily separate new construction from turbulent downstream discharge of the existing dam. Most dams are positioned on solid rock in the narrowest and therefore the steepest section of the river. This combination of steeply slopingrock and the need for an exclusion barrier creates a challenge for the design engineer trying to maintain a safe dewatered construction site. Typical cofferdam solutions for hydroelectric dams usually use large granular filled circular sheet pile cells that perform as gravity structures. However, this type of structures is not well suited to steeply-sloping highly irregular rock surfaces in a confined area."

Jan 1, 2017

By James P. Hambleton, Anastasia Nally

This work focuses on the numerical simulation of multi-plate anchor systems (e.g., helical anchors) in sand subjected to vertical loading. In assessing the stiffness and capacity of these multi-plate anchor systems, full awareness of the abilities and limitations of the various analysis methods must be understood. This work first summarizes studies completed by others and then goes on to assess the failure mechanisms of multi-plate anchors in sand and the influence of (1) plate width-to-depth ratio, (2) number of plates, and (3) relative positioning of plates. The analysis makes use of (1) conventional limit analysis, (2) so-called modified limit analysis that employs reduced strength parameters to account for the influence of soil dilatancy, and (3) the displacement-based finite element method, which considers elastic as well as plastic deformation leading to failure. The work critically reflects on limitations in the current analysis methods for helical ground anchors. INTRODUCTION Helical anchors are a relatively low cost foundation type, typically consisting of a steel rod and single or multiple plate attachments. In recent decades, they have seen rapid growth, and as outlined by Merifield and Sloan (2006) and Hambleton et al. (2014). Design techniques for helical anchors have previously been predominately empirical, as much of the past research in this field is experimentally based. It is common practice for helical anchors to be modeled as horizontally oriented plate anchors in both numerical and experimental analysis. This work focuses on analysis based on the finite element method, including so-called finite element limit analysis and the conventional displacement-based finite element method, with some comparisons made to experimental studies. Numerical simulation of anchor pull-out capacity in cohesionless soils is stunted by the many difficulties faced when using numerical analysis with cohesionless soils. Additional variations can be seen when comparing the serviceability based load capacities to the ultimate load. In this work, both the force-displacement response (stiffness) and the ultimate anchor capacity are assessed, with more focus on the latter. This work focuses only on analysis techniques for multi-plate anchors with vertical loading in cohesionless soils. Many studies have been completed in this area, some of which assume a rectangular plate in a plain strain model (Rowe & Davis, 1982; Merifield & Sloan, 2006; Cerfontaine et al., 2019). Whereas others use axisymmetric conditions (Baker and Kondner, 1966; Saeedy, 1987; Murray & Geddes, 1987; Ghaly & Hanna, 1994; Sakai & Tanaka, 1998; Merifield et al., 2006;) and minimal studies considered both axisymmetric and plane strain in the one study (Vesic, 1971; Tagaya et al., 1988; Murray & Geddes, 1987; Sarac, 1989).

Jan 1, 2019

By George Piscsalko

Quality control of drilled shafts and ACIP piles is greatly dependent upon the practices of the site personnel. In many applications it is difficult to properly inspect the shaft prior to concreting, such as when the shaft is drilled under slurry. In other cases, such as ACIP piles, it is impossible to inspect the shaft in any manner prior to concreting. There are numerous methods currently available to assess the integrity of drilled shafts and ACIP piles. Each method has its advantages and limitations. This paper will compare the various available methods as well as introduce a new method for assessing integrity in drilled shafts and ACIP piles. This new method, known as Thermal Integrity Profiling, determines the integrity over 100% of the shaft both inside and outside the reinforcing cage by measuring the hydration temperature of the concrete along the length of the shaft. These temperature measurements can be made by either passing a thermal probe through a standard Cross Hole access tube typically 12 to 48 hours after concrete placement, or from embedding thermal wires within the shaft prior to concrete placement and monitoring them with unattended data collectors for 12 to 48 hours after concrete placement. This Thermal Integrity Profile method will be described in detail and several case histories will be presented. Additional testing methods which will be compared include low strain Pile Integrity Testing, and Cross Hole Sonic Logging. Advantages and limitations for each method will be discussed.

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 Adrian Mercer, Ashkan Ameri

Due to general degradation, increased traffic levels, and historical ground movement, this road and rail bridge which provides an essential link between the interior of the country and the Port of Abidjan, required significant repair and reinforcement. This included strengthening the pre-stressed concrete box girders and replacement of the existing bored pile foundations. Replacement piles had to be adjacent to, and no longer than, the existing piles, in order to not compromise the stability of the operational bridge during the works. The underlying geology, however, meant that the pile loads had to be predominantly transferred into the ground through end bearing. Rather than installing a greater number of piles or larger diameter piles, innovative thinking changed the usual mind-set of designing the piles to the prevailing ground conditions, to designing the ground conditions to suit the piles. Jet grouted columns were installed beneath the toes of the new piles to increase the bearing capacity of the ground. This significantly contributed to the sustainability of the project and reduced carbon emissions through saving concrete, steel, plus transportation and disposal of spoil.

Sep 8, 2021

By G. L. Sivakumar Babu, P. Chaithra

"Raft foundations which are used against differential settlements and for carrying heavy loads can still be subjected to excessive settlements even if it is safe against bearing capacity consideration. Providing additional piles under the raft can reduce such settlements to acceptable values. In addition to settlements, the piles also relieve the raft a part of the total load and thus the bearing capacity of the Combined piled raft foundation (CPRF) is improved. Parametric study of response of piled raft foundation has been conducted and the results have been presented. The study is conducted using finite element based software, PLAXIS 2D. The main objective of the paper is to evaluate the parameters that affect the performance of piled raft for an economical and effective design. It has been shown that piled rafts are an economical solution in foundation design compared to raft foundation, for the soil conditions considered in the paper.1. INTRODUCTIONThe aim during the design and construction process of high-rise building foundations in urban areas is to ensure the lifelong safety and serviceability of the new and existing buildings in the neighborhood. In order to realize this aim in a cost-optimized manner, the combined pile raft foundation (CPRF) was developed (Katzenbach et al., 2005). For the foundation of high rise buildings with good subsoil, the simplest structure considered is a raft. But when the subsoil near the ground surface has low load-bearing capacity, high-rise structures are often rested on piled foundations.A piled raft and pile group serves similar purposes, but there are essential differences between them. A pile group is a set of piles that have a pile cap. The piles would be designed to share the pile load at ultimate state. The pile cap would be designed to link the piles together but the contribution of the pile cap to bearing capacity will not be included in the design. On the other hand, a piled raft is a foundation, wherein piles are provided along with the raft so that the total load acting is shared partly by the raft and partly by piles, rather than being dominated by the piles (as in a pile group). Piled raft foundations utilize pile support for control of settlements with piles providing most of the stiffness at serviceability loads, and the raft element providing additional capacity at ultimate loading (Poulos, et al., 2011). Therefore, piles are included in a foundation for two main design purposes: to provide adequate bearing capacity and to bring down the settlements to an acceptable level."

Jan 1, 2015

By Nicholas P. Gura

This paper presents the analysis, design, and load test program results for drilled shafts to support a 70-story hotel tower and associated 10 story podium structures located in Las Vegas, Nevada. A mat foundation for the structure, although feasible, would have produced undesirable differential settlements within the high rise tower footprint and at the interface with adjacent lower level podium structures. The resulting foundation system solution for the 70-story, approximately 800-foot long hotel tower was four-foot diameter drilled shafts, extending 100 below shaft cutoff. The design compression capacity for the four foot diameter drilled shaft was 5,000 kips. The load test program proved that the unique Las Vegas valley geology lends itself to efficient installation, precluding the need for engineered slurry or casing. The load testing program included the installation of two four-foot diameter test shafts to 100 feet below theoretical cutoff and the performance of two highly instrumented independent Osterberg load cell tests with maximum sustained test loads of 12,000 kips. Sonic caliper testing was also performed to document actual in-place shaft diameters and verticality. The load test program also provided information necessary for the foundation design of the podium structures. In addition to the tower?s drilled shaft load test program data, continuous flight auger (CFA) pile evaluation and testing was also performed. The CFA testing consisted of traditional ?top down? loading techniques and was performed as an alternative to the recommended shallow drilled shafts for the lower level podium structures. The results of the CFA test program provided supplemental, insightful soil friction data which was used in conjunction with the drilled shaft test program data in evaluating the most appropriate support for the lower level structures.

Jan 1, 2007