Search Documents

By Xiaocen Lu, Guowei Li, Jiantao Wu, Thang N. Nguyen, Andrew C. Amenuvor

"This paper investigates the effect of driving a group of 52 open-ended Prestressed High Strength Concrete (PHC) piles on an existing highway embankment based on field measurements of excess pore pressure and lateral soil displacement. Excess pore pressure due to pile driving increased with depth and decreased with increasing distance from the pile, influencing a distance of 43 pile diameters. For pile groups, the rate of dissipation of excess pore pressure decreased with increasing depth and averaged 79% in 20 days, during which maximum ultimate bearing capacity was not yet attained. Lateral soil displacement continued to increase for a period of time after the end of pile driving and this could have resulted in significant inclination of piles if pile installation was too quick and pile spacing was too small. Lateral soil displacement due to pile group decreased with decreasing distance to the existing embankment as a result of high soil density produced by the embankment loading. The results also indicate that the effect of pile group installation on the existing embankment is negligible.INTRODUCTIONPile driving can cause excessive lateral displacement of soil and heaving of the ground surface, which may adversely affect nearby structures. In addition, lateral deformation and excess pore water pressure resulting from pile driving can exert lateral pressures and vertical forces on the piles, and impact negatively on the project and its surroundings. Therefore, it is important to evaluate the influence of pile driving on the nearby structures as well as the project itself when expansion works are carried out.Recent years have seen some development in the application of field tests for studying soil disturbance due to piles, and these tests usually involves pore water pressure and lateral soil displacement monitoring during pile driving. Results of field experiments performed by Reese and Seed (1957) in San Francisco Bay Mud with instrumented piles showed that pile installation generated large pore water pressures at the pile surface, with only slight increase at a distance of 15 pile diameters away. The measurements indicated that the increase in pore water pressures can exceed the initial total overburden pressure. Holtz and Lowitz (1965) reported a decrease in undrained shear strength immediately after pile installation, which was largely recovered after full pore pressure dissipation for field measurements within 1.5–2 pile diameters from the pile surface. Hwang et al. (2001) presented results of large scale pile driving tests where maximum excess pore water pressure generated decreased rapidly with increasing distance from pile. The excess pore water pressure became negligible at 15 pile diameters from the pile. Their results also showed that lateral displacement of the ground decreased with increasing distance from the pile. Pestana et al. (2002) carried out full-scale closed ended pile tests in the Young Bay Mud deposit. Higher excess pore pressures were observed for points closer to the pile, which decreased with increasing distance from the pile wall. Exponential decay of excess pore pressure with time was also noted. An 80% dissipation of excess pore pressure was achieved for soils more than one pile diameter away from the pile wall between 50 to 80 days. Lateral deformation generally decreased with increasing distance from pile wall, whilst varying erratically with depth. Bozozuk et al. (1978) reported on soil disturbance due to driving of 116 concrete piles in sensitive marine clays in a construction project. Maximum pore water pressures after pile driving within the group, and 6m (20 pile diameters) from the group were over 35-40% of the total overburden pressures, and the influence of pile driving on pore water pressure at 20m away from the group was very small. Cooke and Price (1973) studied a 168-mm-diameter instrumented pile jacked into over consolidated London clay. Outward lateral displacements ranging"

Jan 1, 2016

By Mahdi Soudkhah, Akhter Hossain

Vertical micropiles are generally considered to be low in lateral resistance. Therefore, battered micropiles are often used when additional lateral load carrying capacity is required. However, battering of micropiles can sometimes be restricted due to existing adjacent structures or utilities, especially in highly urbanized areas. For example, presented in this paper are lateral load test data from a 43-story building project in New York City where vertical micropiles were used due to proximity to adjacent structures. Three static lateral load tests were conducted on micropiles consisting of 13.375-in-outside diameter and 25- to 51-ft-long casings, and socketed 10 to 12.6 ft into the bedrock (gneissic schist). The subsurface profile above the bedrock consists of loose to very dense, mostly sandy and silty soils. The design load for the three test piles was 14,000 lb and the maximum load applied during the tests was 200% of the design load. Lateral load- displacement behavior of the free pile heads from the load tests are compared with the results of p-y analyses based on a widely used p-y method for sandy soils and using a lower and an upper bound estimates of soil index properties and strength parameters. Since the existing p-y curves were formulated for larger diameter driven piles at a specific geographic location, major differences are observed between the results of the load tests and the p-y analyses. In general, the lateral displacements estimated based on the p-y analyses using upper bound soil parameters are relatively closer to the results of the field load testing. Modified p-y curves specific to the sandy and silty soils representative of the general subsurface conditions of New York City matched with the lateral load tests are presented in this paper. INTRODUCTION Micropiles generally are limited in lateral load carrying capacities due to their relatively higher slenderness ratios (ratio of depth to diameter) compared to more conventional deep foundation alternatives, such as driven piles and drilled shafts. So, micropiles are not typically considered as deep foundation solutions when significantly high lateral loads are expected on the substructures. Various means to increase the lateral resistance of micropiles include battering and installing an oversized casing in the top portion of the piles (FHWA 2005; and Richard and Rothbauer 2004). However, it is often not possible to install micropiles in a battered position in highly urbanized areas due to existing adjacent structures or utilities. Installation of oversized casing is often restricted by limited space availability and concerns of losing lateral capacities due to closely spaced group of piles. Thus, estimation of lateral resistance of vertical micropiles can become highly important for geotechnical engineering projects in urban areas when a small to moderate amount of lateral resistances are expected from the substructures, often to withstand seismic and wind loads.

Jan 1, 2019

By Joseph A. Mann

"Soil mixing is a proven solution for the construction of ground improvement adjacent to sensitive structures due to the use of computer controlled and monitored equipment. The precision to which geometry is controlled can often be the deciding factor for selection of soil mixing versus other means of ground improvement. Protection of existing structures and utilities requires careful planning, investigation, and may demand supplemental control measures. During planning, it is imperative that the process be fully developed by the project team to ensure proper control measures are budgeted; otherwise, the success and safety of a project can be jeopardized.This paper discusses case histories of soil mixing performed in close proximity to large, sensitive, and critical utilities, including foundation support for an existing earthen dam impounding a water reservoir in upstate NY, a buffer zone for a tunnel drop shaft at an operating wastewater treatment plant in Washington DC, and a containment system to protect a major water line along an interstate widening project in Baltimore, MD. The function of soil mixing as ground improvement varied; however, the selection and application of the technique versus other means of ground improvement was specific due to the controlled manner of construction with soil mixing. Through the three case studies, small diameter (3- ft [0.9 m]), large diameter (8-ft [2.4 m]), and mass mixing applications will be discussed. Furthermore, the case studies offer insight into how the geotechnical community in the Mid-Atlantic utilizes soil mixing technology for widely varying applications. Additional topics of discussion will be the design and construction of the ground improvement systems, procedures and execution of the work to protect existing structures, and the QA/QC methods, procedures, and results from the projects.INTRODUCTIONWet soil mixing, also known as the Deep Mixing Method, is a ground improvement technique that improves the characteristics of weak soils by mechanically mixing them with cementitious binder slurry. To construct columns, a powerful drill advances a mixing tool with radial mixing paddles located near the bottom of the drill string. The binder slurry is pumped through the drill string to the tool as it advances and additional soil mixing is achieved as the tool is withdrawn.Wet soil mixing is applicable in a wide range of soils. Soil mixing has been performed at depths more than 100 lf (30 m). Soils vary widely in their ability to be mixed, depending on the soil type, strength, water content, plasticity, stratigraphy, and texture. Almost any soil type, including organics, can be treated with certain soil mixing technologies, although they may require high binder contents and/or pretreatment to achieve the required results. In cases when the target soil is very soft, including some very weak clays and peats, 100% of the soil may require treatment. This complete coverage of soil mixing is referred to as mass mixing."

Jan 1, 2015

By Steven R. Ahlfield, Ali Ghandeharioon

A wastewater treatment plant commissioned in 1978 is undergoing a major expansion. Planning various phases of the 8-hectare expansion at this site requires an understanding of the site response during and after construction, and the potential impact on adjacent properties and infrastructure. The expansion project requires nominally 5 m of site grading fill for flood protection. The site is underlain by loose to compact fine sand over firm to very stiff clay stratum that extends to great depths. Ground improvement is required to mitigate the liquefaction hazard in the fine sand stratum, and preloading is proposed to reduce post- construction settlements in the deep clay. Site development and foundation systems for the plant expansion project were evaluated by conducting settlement analyses which accounted for the historic and future site loading and 3-D modeling of soil layers with interpolation between borehole and cone penetration test (CPT) locations. The numerical model was calibrated to match short-term and long-term settlements measured at the plant site. The analyses were carried out to assess the effects of past loading, proposed preload and surcharge heights, lateral extents and durations as well as vibro-replacement ground improvement on post-construction settlements. Two design options were considered for the preload footprint across the site and foundation system for proposed facilities. It is shown that limiting the preload extent and founding some of the proposed structures on deep friction piles reduce the predicted settlements of adjacent infrastructure and result in reasonable performance for the proposed facilities. INTRODUCTION A wastewater treatment plant commissioned in 1978 will be replaced with a new plant on an undeveloped portion of the site to provide wastewater treatment for an expanded service area. The existing facilities must remain in operation until completion of the new plant. The site grade will be raised nominally 5 m for flood protection. The large areal extent of the site grading fill and plant structures will cause stress changes extending to great depths in the underlying soils and result in settlement of the existing and new structures. Historic settlement of the existing facilities has been tolerable for plant operations, but no settlement performance data was recorded during site development and post-construction from 1978 to 2007. Development of the 8-hectare expansion at this site is planned in three phases to reduce the overall construction schedule. Planning for each phase requires evaluating the effects of various site development activities from start to completion of expansion and during the design life (i.e. post-construction period), and the potential impact on existing wastewater treatment facilities and adjacent properties and infrastructure including an adjacent viaduct structure. Figure 1 presents the site plan and three distinct site development phases considered for the plant expansion.

Jan 1, 2019

By Bengt H. Fellenius

.1.1 Prior to commencement of pile installation operation, submit to [Engineer] for [approval] [review], details of equipment for installation of piles. SPEC NOTE: The information requested in 3.1 .1.2 is necessary as input to a detailed wave equation analysis of the pile driving. .1.2 For impact hammers, give manufacturer's name, type, maximum rated energy and rated energy per blow at normal working rate during easy and at termination driving, mass of striking parts of hammer, mass of driving cap, and type and elastic properties of hammer cushion. .1.3 For non-impact methods of installation, such as drilling, jacking, jetting, use of vibratory hammers, or other means, give full details of characteristics necessary to evaluate performance. .2 Impact Hammer SPEC NOTE: Do not exclude a hammer type unless for very specific reason. .2.1 [Drop hammers will not be permitted.] [Diesel hammers will not be permitted.] For final driving of [TYPE] piles, provide a hammer capable of delivering to the pile a non-erratic impact stress not smaller than [VALUE] Pascal and transferring a non-erratic energy not smaller than [VALUE] Joules per blow to the pile head at normal working rate.

Jan 1, 1991

By Dena Morgan, Emre Biringen

"Abstract This paper discusses the execution of pile installation and design issues at two environmentally challenging industrial sites in North America. Environmental regulations set constraints on the design and require versatility in choice of technology.For a proposed bridge, due to protected fish habitat, performing soil borings within 30 m of the creek embankment was prohibited. The limited subsurface profile indicated a thick upper layer of granular material, thus driving H-piles was considered. However, to limit generation of vibration and noise in the protected area, drilled piles had to be used. During execution, the subsurface profile differed from that in the borings 30 m away. Very soft, saturated silt was encountered at the bottom of the caisson and the length had to be redesigned very quickly while the contractor waited for instruction. For a new structure in uncontrolled fill area, performing soil borings was not allowed. It was known that a layer of peat was present in the area, but no information regarding the thickness and extent. The subsurface profile generally consisted of granular material overlying a thick compressible silt layer. Somewhere within the granular layer peat would likely be encountered. Franki piles were chosen to penetrate the peat and bear in the underlying granular material. During environmental sampling in the area, methane gas was encountered and Franki piles were no longer a viable option due to safety concerns. The foundation system was changed to steel H-piles driven to bedrock, which was more than 50 m below the ground surface and sloping. Rock shoes that would work to significant slopes had to be used in order to increase the likelihood of good embedment within the bedrock. Also, due to obstruction of an approximately 3 m thick debris field that was encountered in the upper granular soils, some of the piles had to be relocated and extra piling needed to compensate for such differences. The results of PDA testing to estimate compressive capacity and a series of lateral load tests are presented.INTRODUCTIONThe design issues that are encountered during construction can be quite problematic and have a significant impact on schedule. In order to avoid such impact on the project, a thorough subsurface investigation should be considered prior to design and construction. Better understanding of environmental regulations also prevents costly changes to the foundation design. This paper discusses the execution of pile installation and the design issues at two environmentally challenging sites in North America.BRIDGEDuring the subsurface investigation for a proposed industrial building complex, several boreholes were drilled within the footprint or in close proximity of various structures, with Standard Penetration (SPT) sampling of the upper coarse-grained soils (sand/gravel) and undisturbed sampling of the lower fine-grained soils (silt/clay). The SPT blow counts (N60) were corrected by a factor of 1.35 in order to incorporate the SPT automatic energy transfer ratio. When Modified California Sampler was used, a correction factor of 0.44 to 0.64 was also applied. N60 values were further corrected for gravel to avoid artificially high blow counts during the analyses due to spoon samples contact with gravel and cobbles, and the corrected values of (NG)60 (limited to a maximum value of 50 blows/300 mm) were used for design. The information from the SPT boreholes was then used to assess the subsurface conditions beneath the structures, as well as for a nearby bridge that was designed to cross over a creek. Since performing soil borings within 30 m of the creek embankment was prohibited due to the protected fish habitat, the investigation with regard to the bridge abutments was limited to two deep boreholes (B10-33 and B10-34) at the bridge location and two additional boreholes (B10-35 and B10- 36) located approximately 200 m upstream. The bridge location and two sets of boreholes are"

Jan 1, 2014

By Babu K. V., Samyukta P.

The energy demand in India is expected to show increasing growth in the next few decades. The oil companies in India are revamping the existing oil refineries as well as constructing new refineries across the country to meet the energy demands. Most of the refineries in India are located along the coastal region because of the ease of transporting crude materials. Considering the criticality of the structures as well as soil conditions in the coastal region, pile foundations are used in refinery plants. In India, non-displacement piles in the form of bored cast-in-situ piles are used to support structures. In a few circumstances, displacement piles in the form of driven cast-in-situ piles are also being used to support critical structures. This study presents the performance of non-displacement and displacement piles for similar ground conditions at the same project location. The pile load test results have shown that the settlement observed for displacement piles is lower than compared to non- displacement piles for a given loading and soil conditions. This shows that the performance of displacement piles is slightly better in comparison with that of non-displacement piles.

Sep 1, 2022

By Ben M. Lewis, Yogesh Prashar

"The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is a major water utility service providing water to over 1.3 million people in the eastern San Francisco Bay Area. EBMUD manages 28 dams at 5 terminal and 23 open-cut reservoirs within a 331-square-mile customer service area. As part of a 2012 update on EBMUD’s Infrastructure Rehabilitation Plan for Distribution Reservoirs, EBMUD has decided to replace Central Reservoir, a 152.8 milliongallon open cut reservoir, with optimally sized tanks. This paper presents the results of an analytical comparison of various foundation reinforcement solutions for the proposed tanks including: Cement Deep Soil Mixed (CDSM) columns, vibro stone columns, rammed aggregate piers, and lightweight cellular concrete fill. The computational program GeoMat (www.ensoftinc.com) was used to perform simplified soil structure interaction analyses. Settlement estimates were developed for each alternative with the proposed loading and compared to an allowable differential settlement criterion established at 0.3-inches over a 50 foot length. The authors wish to present the importance of considering mat and soil interaction along with various settlement mitigation methods considered for this challenging project.INTRODUCTIONProject BackgroundCentral Reservoir is an operational open-cut reservoir located north of the intersection of 25th Avenue and East 29th Street in Oakland, California. The reservoir is bound by 23rd Avenue to the west, Sheffield Avenue to the east and Interstate Highway 580 to the north. Originally, the Central Reservoir site was a drainage swale incising into weathered bedrock formed from Pleistocene alluvial deposits. The reservoir was first constructed in 1910 by excavating a basin below grade and constructing an embankment dam on the south and cutting/filling the bedrock and alluvial deposits from the drainage swale. The main dam at the Central Reservoir site is also a DSOD (Department of Safety of Dams) jurisdictional dam and as such is regularly monitored by the EBMUD Materials Engineering Section and the California DSOD.In a 2012 update to EBMUD’s Infrastructure Rehabilitation Plan for Distribution Reservoirs, Central Reservoir was identified as a critical facility that has reached the end of its useful life and must be replaced due to: a failing panel craft lining which contains polychlorinated biphenyls in the interior coating, a roof that does not meet the current seismic code, and reduced operating levels due to potential leakage in the upper portions of the panel craft lining. Furthermore, Central Reservoir is about three times larger than required and is located at a lower elevation than other regional reservoirs in the pressure zone resulting in increased labor-intensive operational challenges and water quality operations.This project presents some challenging geotechnical demands – the site is founded on weakly consolidated Holocene Alluvium overlying weathered bedrock, the proposed structural loads are large, and the new Central Reservoir is to be placed on a pad at an elevation of 182 feet, required placement of up to 30 feet of fill over the current basin. Additionally, the project aims for a long-term foundation solution that will outlive the new replacement tanks and accommodate future site upgrades. In order to meet this goal, the differential settlement criterion for the tanks was ¼ inch over 50 feet length. Lastly, the project also aims to address EBMUD’s increasing trench spoil stockpiles by recycling discarded trench spoils as fill for the proposed tank pad."

Jan 1, 2016

By I. D. McPherson, Dominic P. Mahoney

The Metro Sports Facility is currently under development in Christchurch, New Zealand and is a key Anchor Project in the city’s post-earth quake recovery. When completed it will be largest indoor sports and swimming pool complex in New Zealand, with a building footprint in the order of 22,000m2. The site is underlain by poor performing soils comprising interbedded layers of soft compressible silts and loose liquefiable sands to over 20m depth. The site is typical for Christchurch with a shallow groundwater table and artesian conditions. The site performed poorly during the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence with extensive liquefaction, and associated ground damage. To provide a resilient and economical foundation system for this key development project, deep ground improvement comprising of a uniform grid of some 7,200 stone columns in conjunction with robust shallow foundations has been adopted. This paper discusses the geotechnical site constraints, and ground performance under earthquake loading and describes the various options considered for the development. The foundation option selected, the design considerations of the adopted stone column ground improvement, and foundation solution are described in detail, as well as, construction observations. The paper aims to provide insight into an urban large-scale ground improvement project for the engineering practitioner.

Nov 1, 2022

By Jeffrey C. Evans, Daniel G. Ruffing, Hejintao Huang

Soil-bentonite slurry trench cutoff walls are the most common type of vertical cutoff wall used in the US for seepage control and for passive control of contaminant migration at environmental sites. Design considerations are often limited to constructability considerations and a target hydraulic conductivity. With design-build contracts common, the backfill design is often left to the contractor. As a barrier soil, the hydraulic conductivity of bentonite slurry wall backfill is typically required to be equal to or below 1x10-7cm/s. The importance of stress state upon the hydraulic conductivity as well as the expected stresses are both established in the literature. Grain size distribution of the base soil and bentonite content both affect compressibility and hydraulic conductivity. This paper describes the results of studies undertaken to evaluate the interrelationships between compressibility, hydraulic conductivity, grain size distribution, and bentonite content. Three base soils were used representing a range of soils found on typical construction projects. Using these base soils, mixtures containing a range of dry bentonite contents from 0% to 5% were prepared to a slump consistent with field practice. The compressibility and hydraulic conductivity were measured in consolidometers adapted for falling head permeability tests at the end of each load increment. These experiments yielded the relationship between effective stress and hydraulic conductivity as well as consolidation characteristics including time rate of consolidation and coefficients of compressibility. The experimental results are then used to indirectly evaluate stress development and to assess the time needed for consolidation. The findings show a substantial decrease in hydraulic conductivity as effective stress increases, regardless of base soil type and dry bentonite content, a relative insensitivity of stress development to backfill compressibility, and a wide range of values for coefficient of consolidation depending upon backfill mixture and stress level.

Jan 1, 2016

By Leena Korkiala-Tanttu, Noora Lindroos, Juha Forsman

"Construction works at the Helsinki city sea shoreline requires dredging and handling of contaminated sediments. Most of these soft dredged sediments are regarded as too poor quality material for earth construction purposes. Mass stabilization technology has been applied to improve the technical and environmental properties of the dredged sediment in order to utilize the material in construction. The treatment site presented in this article is placed in the West Harbor where the dredged sediments are disposed in basins, mixed with binders by mass stabilization and transported to utilization sites. The volume of these basins is about 90 000 m3. So far these basins have been used three times during the years 2011-2014. The most applied binder has been cement. Its high price and carbon footprint have encouraged use alternative binders. Other used binder materials include fly ash and end product of desulphurization from coal combustion, and fly ash from combustion of Estonian oil shale. The technical and environmental properties of stabilized sediments have been studies in the laboratory and in situ thoroughly. Some properties of the stabilized sediments which have been studied are: compression strength, modulus, hydraulic conductivity, leaching of contaminants, etc. The leaching test results show that heavy metal leaching is very low with all binder materials tested.1. INTRODUCTIONContaminated marine sedimentsMarine sediments in the coastal areas are often contaminated as a consequence of industrial and port activities, as well as the influence of cities located there. Construction activities and reclamation of shore line require dredging and handling of contaminated sediments since the level of contamination inhibit dumping of dredged sediments into the sea. Based on their technical properties, most of these dredged soft and watery sediments (clay, gyttja, etc.) are regarded as too poor quality material for earth construction purposes. Economic, sustainable and environmentally safe management of contaminated, dredged sediments is a key issue in many construction sites.In the City of Helsinki, mass stabilization technology has been applied to improve the technical properties of the dredged sediments in order to utilize the material in construction. Owing to stabilization / deep mixing / solidification, also the contamination is encapsulated in a monolithic solid of a high structural integrity. Thus, contaminants migration is restricted by the decreased surface area exposed to leaching.The treatment site presented in this article is placed in the West Harbor (a place of Helsinki called Jätkäsaari) where dredged sediments are disposed into stabilization basins, mixed with binders by mass stabilization and then transported to final utilization sites. The location and principle of these basins is presented in Figures 1-4. The overall volume of these four stabilization basins is about 90 000 m3."

Jan 1, 2015

By Andrew Middleton, Mick Stadter, Chris Crowe, David Chong

"The Level Crossing Removal Project – Package 1 is part of the Victorian Governments commitment to remove 50 of the most dangerous and congested level crossings across Melbourne. This involved removing three crossings on the Frankston Line in the south east suburbs of Melbourne. The works involved replacing approximately 2.5km of at grade track with three rail cuttings up to 8 m deep at each of the bridges that replace the level crossings. The cuttings are retained by piled retaining walls and during the main construction occupation approximately 250,000 cubic metres of soil was removed. The project has presented significant geotechnical challenges due to the location in residential suburbs and tight rail corridor and rail occupation timeframe. These challenges included temporary and permanent wall stability, foundations, earthworks and dewatering. As a result, careful design and innovative construction techniques have been necessary to limit impacts on the community and meet the project timeline.INTRODUCTIONThe Level Crossing Removal Project – Package 1 is part of the Victorian Governments commitment to remove 50 of the most dangerous and congested level crossings across Melbourne. This involved removing three crossings on the Frankston Line where it crosses North Road in Ormond, McKinnon Road in McKinnon and Centre Road in Bentleigh.The project involved replacing approximately 2.5km of at grade track with three rail cuttings up to 8 m deep at each of the bridges that replace the level crossings. The cuttings will accommodate three lines of rail tracks with the cuttings up to 25 m wide. The cuttings are retained by piled retaining walls and during the main construction occupation approximately 250,000 cubic metres of soil has been removed.The project presented significant challenges due to the location in residential suburbs and tight rail corridor and rail occupation timeframe. As a result, careful design and innovative construction techniques have been necessary to limit impacts on the community. The geotechnical challenges generally fell into one of three areas, earthworks, structures and groundwater. The primary earthworks challenge for the project was moving the 250,000 cubic metres of soil in a 10 day window, however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, obtaining a stable subgrade on which to operate the necessary construction plant in a short time frame with constrained site access and time to import materials was the key. Whilst closely watching the performance of the dewatering system, a range of contingency plans were developed to cope with any difficulties."

Jan 1, 1900

By Sven Schröer, Lilma Schimmel, Dimiter Alexiew

"The Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC) deep foundation system for embankments on soft soils was introduced some 20 years ago and is now considered State-of-the-art worldwide.The GECs consist of compacted granular fill, similar to common gravel columns, with one decisive difference: they are confined in a high-strength low-strain flexible geotextile “cylinder” (encasement). This engineered element provides a very efficient tool to control and optimize the behavior of the system. GECs perform very well even in extremely soft soils ensuring bearing capacity (stability) and reducing settlements. Due to the encasement, they a lso provide high lateral ductility. A wide range of fills including sands can be used.The remarkable reduction of vertical stresses in the soft soil surrounding the GECs results in a decrease of lateral pressure as well. Such reduction combined with the lateral ductility allow GECs to be also used for lateral pressure-relief adjacent to sensitive foundations, e.g. rigid piles. The application of GECs as lateral pressure relief was recently used in Brazil and Germany where bridge abutments were built on concrete reinforced-piles. The GECs below the bridge approaches and adjacent to the piles decreased the lateral pressure to acceptable values.This paper presents two case studies for which the most relevant parameters, the geotechnical conditions, specific problems, engineering philosophy, final solution and lessons learned are discussed. Furthermore, instrumentation programs were applied in both projects. The most important results in terms of displacements and stresses are shown, evaluated, summarized and commented upon, focusing on the lateral stress-relief, followed by conclusions and recommendations."

Jan 1, 2016

By Chu E. Ho, Paul Napoli

A new waterfront park was developed on Long Island in close proximity to the East River and Newtown Creek. The existing ground consisted of fill over soft organic clay, medium dense silty sand, glacial till and schist bedrock. The ground was initially raised to preload the underlying soft soils to stabilize the ground in preparation for site development. The ground was subsequently cut down to temporary grades for installation of foundation piles for the overlook structures and construction of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls forming pathways located adjacent to the water bodies. The retaining walls were located in two rows at different elevations along the sides of a steep embankment. Where the pathways converge, some of the walls were too close to each other, and were redesigned as a combined U-wall with a common base slab. The individual retaining walls were designed for adequate bearing, sliding and overturning resistance. Ground anchors were installed to enhance global stability of the retaining walls. This paper presents the design considerations for the retaining walls for various loading conditions, and evaluation of the trial and proof tests for the anchors. INTRODUCTION The New York City Master Plan included the transformation of an approximately 30-acre parcel of land in Long Island City, Queens, New York from a former manufacturing zone into a residential, commercial and recreational zone for middle-income community. The site was located at Hunters Point South along the eastern shoreline of the East River and Newtown Creek (Figure 1). The development included low to high- rise residential buildings, a public school, and retail structures. Open spaces were provided along the East River and Newtown Creek waterfronts in the form of a continuous park providing for recreational and community-related activities. Waterfront structures included small park buildings, walkways and viewing platforms. The shoreline was surrounded by revetments as part of the flood mitigation strategy. The project involved extensive site re-grading and several retaining walls were constructed. The earthwork volume amounted to approximately 47,000 cubic yard of imported fill and 93,000 cubic yard of cut. The exposed height of the retaining walls ranged from 3 to 15 feet. This paper focuses on the design and construction of the retaining walls for the project.

Jan 1, 2019

By Peter J. Nicholson

"IntroductionDuring my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I’m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of “tie-backs” as they were called in the United States, or “ground anchors” as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970’s. Subsequently in the 1980’s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into “Pin Piles” now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12” or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into “Cement Deep Soil Mixing” earlier on, known simply as “soil mixing”. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the “Big Dig” we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I’ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes."

Jan 1, 2017

By Peter J. Nicholson

During my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I?m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of ?tie-backs? as they were called in the United States, or ?ground anchors? as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970?s. Subsequently in the 1980?s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into ?Pin Piles? now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12? or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into ?Cement Deep Soil Mixing? earlier on, known simply as ?soil mixing?. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the ?Big Dig? we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I?ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes.

By Vijay Kumar, Serhat Baycan, Karsten Beckhans

For the deep foundation of podium and tower of the Kuala Lumpur City Centre, BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. constructed 225 bored piles with diameter range of 2.0 to 2.5 m. In order to comply with the depth requirement of the design, for planning purposes and preparation for site, the drilling equipment was required to achieve a maximum drilling depth of 150 m. Actual piles constructed on site were deeper than 120 m. These dimensions caused superlative challenges which included but were not limited to; controlling the open hole stability over time with polymer, installing 70-ton heavy steel cages, pouring up to 550 m³ concrete continuously, in conjunction with installation of kingposts into workable, fresh concrete. The piling works were executed with a BG 72, the biggest drilling rig globally available, and the stringent verticality of the pile bore holes which required approval prior to cage installation. For verification of verticality, Bauer’s patented Drilling Inclination System was successfully used.

Nov 1, 2022

By Amanda R. Parry, Chris R. Pray

Predicting and modeling the soil structure interaction of laterally loaded piles with significant unbraced lengths is one of the challenges faced in designing many waterfront structures. Designers often rely on pile specific design software to calculate forces in an embedded pile and then couple that with either a structural design software to capture the behavior of the rest of the structure or use potentially overly conservative assumptions to omit modelling the piles entirely. Given that some projects have hundreds of piles coupled with hundreds of loading conditions, the shuttling of results from the structural analysis software into the pile analysis software can become cumbersome, difficult to track and manage, and prone to user input errors. An alternative approach recently used on two large marine infrastructure projects consisted of calibrating a structural analysis software to replicate the resultant outputs from a software developed specifically for pile analysis. This calibration was done using thoughtfully placed springs along a pile modeled in the structural analysis software to replicate the soil-structure interaction of the piles. The focus of this paper will be on the methodology used to calibrate the two software programs and an evaluation of the results which showed close agreement. Based on the two case studies, calibrating a generic finite element analysis software via this method should be considered as a reasonable and time saving design approach for pile-supported structures.

Sep 8, 2021

By Soorkty Elarabi

The aim of this paper is to discuss the impact of end bearing plate on the capacity of micropile. Preliminary studies have been made in Sudan in specific area of cohesive soil. Experimental works were carried on a number of micropiles with and without end bearing plate. Same diameters, lengths and techniques of placing cement grout are considered, there after the axial load test applied to find out the capacities of micropiles in both cases. Deduced results in each case show that the end bearing plate has no positive impact on micropile capacity.

Oct 1, 2022

By Bengt H. Fetlenius

The "Pile Prediction Event" at the ASCE GeoInstitute's Deep Foundation Conference in February 2002 involved prediction of drivability and capacity of three 14m long, 324mm diameter, closed-toe pipe piles driven into loose to compact fine sand to slightly silty sand. Predictors were provided the results of two soil borings and three cone penetrometer tests, as well as type and model of hammer to be used for the pile driving. A total of 33 persons submitted predictions. As to penetration resistance distribution, many predictions were far below actually observed values. As to capacity in compression, the predicted values ranged from 270KN through 2,340KN with a mean of 1,070KN. As to capacity in tension, the predicted values ranged from 100KN through 1,650KN. The maximum load applied to the compression pile in the static loading test was 1,25OKN, at which no more reaction load was available. The reaction system for the tension test failed early in the test. CAPWAP analysis on End-of-Driving blows showed capacities at the end of the driving for the push and pull piles of 670KN, and 710KN, respectively. No restrike tests were made. Additional CPT soundings indicate that the pile driving had densified the soil. Static analysis and calculations from the CPT indicated that capacities ranged from 1,000KN through 2,000KN. The paper presents the data and discusses the various methods of determining pile capacity and addresses influence of set-up Lessons useful for future similar events are indicated.

Jan 1, 2004