Search Documents

By Adam Gerondale, David Hemstreet, Lisheng Shao, Kenji Yamasaki

"Foundation soils of a proposed single-span bridge over a busy railroad in Anchorage, Alaska included a layer of sensitive, non-plastic to low-plasticity silt. Slope stability analyses showed that, without ground improvement, the proposed abutments would not be stable immediately following the design earthquake due to the liquefaction of the sensitive silt. Wet soil mixing was selected to mitigate the liquefiable soils and assure abutment stability because: (i) it is a non-vibratory method and can be used for areas adjacent to the railroad tracks and underground utilities, as well as in areas not sensitive to vibration; and (ii) preand post-ground improvement testing, such as SPT or CPT, is not required. Eliminating the liquefaction hazard at the site also allowed for the abutments to be economically supported on shallow spread footings. A total of 511 soil-cement columns were constructed at the two abutments, each with a diameter of 8 feet (2.4 m) and an average length of 20 feet (6.1 m), extending from about 30 to 10 feet (9.1 to 3.0 m) below finished ground elevation. The columns were laid out in a shear wall pattern (in the longitudinal direction of the bridge) to increase stability under the loading by approach embankments.INTRODUCTIONAlaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF) is currently constructing West Dowling Road Overcrossing in Anchorage Alaska. It will be a single-span, steel box girder bridge approximately 200 feet (61 m) long and 100 feet (30 m) wide. It will have approach embankments, about 40 feet (12 m) high, on both sides. It will carry the new extension of West Dowling Road over double tracks of Alaska Railroad and Arctic Blvd. Foundation soils of the abutments consist of surficial fill and peat layer underlain by soft silt which is likely to liquefy and lose strength under shaking by a design earthquake. Both deep and shallow foundations were considered to support the bridge abutments. The design team pursued the option of improving the foundation soils and using shallow footings. Several ground improvement methods were evaluated, out of which wet soil mixing was selected as the best option.In situ wet soil mixing (hereinafter simply soil mixing) is mechanical mixing of soil in its location with cement slurry and produces soil-cement (soilcrete) columns that are stronger, less permeable, and less compressible than the original soil. Soil mixing is used for various applications including reinforcement of soft soils, excavation support, liquefaction mitigation, cutoff walls, etc. This paper presents a case history of soil mixing successfully used to improve foundation soils of bridge abutments to allow the use of spread footings."

Jan 1, 2015

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016

By Maurice Guillaud

The most striking innovations on diaphragm-wall construction plant are those associated with continuous real-time trajectory monitoring of the excavating tool (either a grab or a hydro-cutter). The recent equipments are fitted with clinometers and gyrometers to control deflection, rotation or deviation from the vertical, thus allowing to install diaphragm-walls with a verticality accuracy of less than 0.3%. One of the greatest advantages of extensive use of on-board IT systems on the Hydrocutters and hydraulic grab machines is that it aids quality control by automatically producing complete real-time reports of all excavating data (verticality, depth, type of ground, rate of progress, stoppages, etc.). These reports are available to the Engineer, providing the total transparency required for Works Supervision and the Quality Assurance Plan. They also provide the Contractor with input data for databases used for optimising efficiency and progress criteria on future jobs.

Jan 1, 2002

By Garland Likins, Gray Mullins, George Piscsalko

"Quality control of drilled shafts is greatly dependent upon the practices of the site personnel. For drilled shafts cast under slurry, inspection of the hole prior to concreting is very difficult or impossible. There are numerous non-destructive test (NDT) methods currently available to assess the integrity of drilled shafts. This paper will discuss the theory and use of an emerging NDT technology known as Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP). The Thermal Integrity Profiling method measures the elevated concrete temperatures that occur during the hydration process. These temperature measurements are made along the length of the pile and can determine the integrity over 100% of the pile cross section, both inside and outside the reinforcing cage. With the known shaft volume information, TIP can evaluate the effective shaft radius at each measurement location. With the increased use of TIP on highway projects, there is a need to have standard criteria for shaft acceptance. Shaft acceptance criteria can be based upon thermal measurements and subsequent analysis of the data to determine the average shaft radius, local concrete cover, and cage alignment. With this additional information obtained via the thermal testing method, acceptance methods based upon concrete cover can be developed. In this paper the Thermal Integrity Profiling method will be described, results from a case history will be discussed, and an acceptance criteria based upon concrete cover will be proposed.INTRODUCTIONDrilled shafts are an attractive foundation element in many applications due to their large axial and lateral capacities. When drilled shafts are cast in a dry hole, it is possible to inspect the hole prior to casting, allowing for very basic level of quality control, although the shape of the completed element is still unknown without some form of post construction testing. When drilled shafts are installed where soil conditions are unstable, the shafts will often be cast under slurry to support the surrounding soils during the construction process. When casting a drilled shaft under slurry, it is very difficult to impossible to accurately and efficiently inspect the hole prior to casting concrete and it is equally difficult or impossible to inspect the shaft during the casting process"

Jan 1, 2016

By Brian Wilson, John Scholte, Megan Atkinson

"In November 2004, the residents of the City of Nanaimo, B.C., Canada voted to approve a new conference centre as the centrepiece of a proposed revitalization project for the city’s historic downtown core. The proposal goal was to replace a cluster of derelict buildings with a dynamic and modern complex that would connect existing city facilities to a new conference facility, the Vancouver Island Conference Centre (VICC). The conference centre is expected to create 150 full-time jobs, attract visitors/ delegates from across North America and generate new economic opportunities for local businesses.However, the proposed site posed a number of geotechnical and geoenvironmental challenges. As is often the case with coastal cities, historic growth of the Nanaimo downtown and harbour area was achieved through reclamation of former waterfront areas and inlets. These areas were often infilled with random fills and even wastes, leaving a legacy of variable density heterogeneous fills contaminated with a variety of pollutants. Preliminary assessment of the site indicated a high likelihood of a requirement for deep foundations, a high risk of liquefaction in the event of an earthquake and the presence of both soil and groundwater contamination. Construction would be further complicated by the requirement for two levels of basement parking and the proximity of adjacent buildings and major roadways to the work area.With a limited budget (fixed by the referendum) and timeframe, the city needed a cost-effective solution to proceed with construction. A number of options were considered, but an innovative design using leading-edge Cutter Soil Mixer (CSM) technology best met the geotechnical and budgetary requirements of the site. The CSM approach also addressed the environmental concerns of contaminated soils and groundwater. Golder Associates Innovative Applications (GAIA) Inc., in association with the designers of their parent company Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), proposed the CSM technology — at the time the first North American application."

Jan 1, 2008

By Camilo A. Alvarez, Stephen K. Harris, Brian R. Zuckerman, Philip J. Meymand, Danielle M. Steinmetz

"The sleek new air traffic control tower at the San Francisco International Airport stands at 221 feet tall and is set to replace the existing air traffic control tower by 2016. This aluminum-clad, torch-like structure and three-story Integrated Facilities Building at the base are situated between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 adjacent to the tarmac. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. and Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. worked in conjunction with structural engineers from Walter P. Moore Engineers and Consultants, geotechnical engineers from URS Corporation, architects from Fentress Architects, and general contractors from Hensel Phelps Construction Company on the performance-based design of a foundation to support this critical facility, which is located in a high seismic zone and situated on the very soft soil of the San Francisco Bay margin. With the loading demands and performance criteria established and Young Bay Mud thicknesses ranging from 44 to 47 feet thick across the site, the design team employed a total of 214 24-inch diameter Auger Pressure Grouted piles, which were drilled into the underlying Franciscan Formation as deep as 148 feet below existing grade. Pile reinforcement included full-length confined cages.The piles were designed to resist Maximum Considered Earthquake axial demands as high as 1,400 kips in compression and 700 kips in tension. The performance-based pile design included verification of shear capacity under double-plastic-hinge flexural mechanisms, verification of pile ductility via non-linear moment-curvature analyses, and consideration of curvatures due to kinematic as well as inertial loading.The team implemented an extensive pile load test program including a full-scale static compressive load test on a sacrificial test pile and five non-destructive high-strain dynamic load tests, four of which were performed on indicator piles that were later used as part of the foundation system. These piles were monitored with extensive embedded instrumentation throughout their length, including strain gauges and accelerometers."

Jan 1, 2017

By W. G. K. Fleming

Mr P. Bermingham introduced paper 9.1, describing the development and trials of a new pile load-testing technique that the Authors had termed "Statnamic". The system involved launching a test weight mounted on the head of the pile by igniting chemical fuel in a pressure combustion chamber between the pile head and the test weight. The expansion products from the burning fuel generated large pressures which were used to launch the weight upwards at high velocity. The reaction from this force generates an equal and opposite force at the pile head. This force is typically of much longer duration compared with, for instance, dynamic load testing by drop hammer. In addition the pile experiences a much lower acceleration - typically of less than one g. Because of the long duration blow, the pile is loaded at below its natural frequency and is therefore under a uniform high stress over its full length throughout the duration of the test. The pile behaviour is not dominated by the complex action of an impulsive stress-wave as with standard dynamic testing. The test technique is thus essentially quasi-static. It was anticipated that a ram test weight of 16 tonne would be sufficient to provide the test reaction for a 600 tonne load test. It was pointed out that the device was still at the research stage, but had yielded encouraging results to date. Testing would proceed from model testing and computer simulation to full scale field testing.

Jan 1, 1991

By Bengt H. Fellenius

It is a truism that in the design of pile foundations one must consider both capacity and settlement. As to capacity, most basic text books contain simple methods of design of capacity of single pile. More sophisticated methods are the subject of many journal papers. However, methods for design considering settlement of pile foundations are scarce. (Most confuse settlement with the movement due to load-transfer?the transfer of load from the pile to the soil). Furthermore, for both capacity and settlement, most methods include several simplifying assumptions regarding soil layering and neglect the effect of the frequently occurring fill and excavations, as well as changes of the groundwater table and pore pressure distribution. Therefore, the methods may provide qualitative results, but not quantitative. Because of this situation, pile design often appears as somewhat of a guessing game and a very subjective?and risky?occupation. This need not be. Pile foundation design is controlled by three factors: capacity, strength, and settlement requirements and these have been combined in a method called "the unified design of piles and pile groups considering capacity, settlement, and negative skin friction" (Fellenius, 1984; 1989), which method is summarized in this guide.

Jan 1, 1991

By David A. Hart, Barry P. Osborn, Richard J. Totty, Ana T. Carvalho, Max B. Elliott

This paper addresses the experience designing and installing bored piles for the King’s Cross area. This includes continuous flight auger and rotary bored piles, with a range of diameters between 600 mm and 1200 mm, reaching a maximum depth of 56 m below ground level. Existing Network Rail Thameslink twin bored running tunnels are located directly beneath the subject plots. These tunnels have an external diameter of 6.6 m and the crowns of the tunnels are very shallow, in some cases just 10 m below the existing ground level. Some plots needed piles to be installed in close proximity to the tunnels, which required additional control measures and contingency plans. Pile verticality was monitored as the tip of each pile advanced and in-tunnel monitoring readings were verified and are presented. Lessons learned from designing, installing and testing the piles and monitoring the tunnels are addressed in this paper.

May 1, 2022

By Mohamad H. Hussein

A minipile system was employed in underpinning a historical structure in Florida. The existing structure is founded on shallow foundations. Subsurface conditions at the project site consist of deep organic deposits interbedded with loose sand and silty sand. A minipile foundation system was deemed the most appropriate underpinning corrective measure for the already badly cracked structure. A total of 68 minipiles, 3.5 inch OD and 0.25 inch wall thickness closed-ended concrete-filled steel pipes, were installed to depths varying from 55 to 175 feet. Installation was accomplished with a pile driving hammer having a rated energy of 1 kip-ft. Highest required pile design load was 15 kips. Conventional static and wave equation analyses were performed to establish preliminary pile lengths, to assess pile drivability and establish driving resistance criteria. Dynamic pile testing using the Pile Driving Analyzer was conducted on six of the production piles. This paper describes geotechnical design considerations, installation procedures, and dynamic field monitoring. This case represents unique applications of pile dynamic testing and such slender, very long minipiles in compressible soils.

Jan 1, 1993

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

By Musbah A. Hasan, Ahmed M. Nasr, Fauzi Jarushi

Many transmission towers, high-rise buildings and bridges are supported by piles. These structures may be subjected to large lateral loads. Therefore, experimental investigations on model piles under lateral loads were conducted in uniform dry sand. Small-scale model tests were carried out considering the influence of pile length, pile diameter, sand density, roughness of pile surface and vertical load on the lateral resistance of a pile. Furthermore, the effect of pile load eccentricity (e/L) on the ultimate lateral resistance was studied. Investigations, of the influence of various parameters on the magnitude of the coefficient of subgrade reaction (nh), were also performed. It was found that the lateral load capacity of piles increases with increase in pile length, pile diameter, pile surface roughness and increase in the sand density. The results also showed that the coefficient of horizontal modulus of subgrade reaction, (nh), decreases with deflection increase. From the results, the coefficient of subgrade reaction for a smooth pile embedded in medium dense sand would decrease by (134%) when the lateral pile head deflection (yg) changes from (2% to 5%) of pile diameter.

Jan 1, 2017

By Timothy C. Siegel

Given that piles are composed of different materials and installed using a variety of methods, ASTM D 1143/D 1143M-07 Standard Test Methods for Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Compression is justifiably general so that it has as many applications as reasonably possible. There are aspects of the test setup, the test procedures, and data interpretation for instrumented piles (some of which are specific to augered cast-in-place piles) that are either not discussed in detail in this ASTM standard or are not addressed at all. Specifically, the use of variable time hold times can obscure the shape of the conventional load-deflection curve, as well as, influence the interpretation of the ultimate pile capacity. Unload-reload cycles induce additional non-uniform internal axial loads within the pile which complicate interpretation of the strain gage data and increase the potential for errors. Attempts to maintain a constant top load during the hold period can lead to operational difficulties in taking measurements and are technically unnecessary. Residual load has been shown to develop in cast-in-place piles and can significantly influence the axial load distribution as interpreted from strain gage data. The stiffness of cast-in-place piles has been observed to vary with the measured strain, and a constant modulus, as provided by correlation with the unconfined compressive strength of the grout, may lead to a significantly different interpretation of the axial load distribution.

Jan 1, 2010

By Rob van Dorp

"AbstractThe Monitoring & Instrumentation Committee (MIC) of DFI Europe has the objective to support DFI members in concern of risk management of geotechnical matters, where monitoring and instrumentation have added value.Work of the CommitteeA study by the committee showed that there are already several existing (national) guidelines. They all have their strengths and limitations and their focus may vary a little per country due to local regulations and typical local building activities, but the main question remains what added value another new guideline would have. More likely it would add to the confusion instead of providing overview.Companies with larger experience in geotechnical monitoring (often larger consultancy firm, contractors or clients) are already quite familiar with its benefits do not really need a new guideline in how to design and effectively apply sophisticated geotechnical monitoring systems for special projects.Therefore the aim of the MIC is to focus a little more towards smaller organizations - that are less familiar with monitoring and instrumentation - and the more ‘regular’ type of project that they are mainly involved in. The MIC wants to create a tool which helps them to create risk awareness, to understand the benefits of geotechnical monitoring and to provide them information about how and where to find the right partners and equipment to setup and apply appropriate monitoring systems for their projects.Monitoring and instrumentation benefits are for example:• Risk control during construction stage;• Costs reduction in design and construction (taken limitation of geotechnical aspects into account).• Prevent of unnecessary delays in construction work• Increasing general awareness of geotechnical risks and possibilities of monitoring.The cost of monitoring compared to the cost of failure and/or the savings that can be achieved play a role in the work of the committee. DFI members benefit from the shared knowledge by the MIC on monitoring and instrumentation within their process of risk management."

Jan 1, 2014

By Gust Van Lysebetten, Monika de Vos

The objectives of monitoring geotechnical structures can be very diverse, including optimisation of the design, quality control, long term performance assessment, and approval of innovative execution techniques. In this context, new measurement techniques, based on optical fibres, offer the possibility of accurate strain and temperature monitoring with very small sensors and limited numbers of cables. This paper briefly presents optical fibre sensing techniques and illustrates their application to geotechnical structures by means of some projects, carried out by the Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI).

May 1, 2022

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 Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

Cone penetration testing (CPT) is a popular and cost effective tool for geotechnical site characterization. CPT consists of pushing at a constant rate an electronic penetrometer into penetrable soils and recording cone bearing (qm), sleeve friction (fs) and dynamic pore pressure (u) with depth. The measured qm, fs and u values are utilized to estimate soil type and associated properties based predominantly on empirical correlations. The cone bearing measurements are highly susceptible to additive measurement noise for sandy, silty and gravelly soils. This measurement noise results in high peaks due to interbedded gravels and stones and low peaks due to softer materials or local pore pressure build-up. To date there has been little progress in filtering this additive noise aside from ad hoc techniques, which include discarding qm measurements and smoothing/averaging qm measurements. This paper outlines a qm filtering technique which attempts to put structure into the estimation problem. In this case, the dynamics of the cone bearing measurements are modelled within a state-space mathematical formulation and a Kalman filter (KF) is then utilized to obtain optimal estimates of qm. The mathematical details of the qm KF algorithm are outlined in this paper along with the results from a challenging test bed simulation.

Sep 8, 2021

By Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

Cone penetration testing (CPT) is a popular and cost effective tool for geotechnical site characterization. CPT consists of pushing at a constant rate an electronic penetrometer into penetrable soils and recording cone bearing (qm), sleeve friction (fs) and dynamic pore pressure (u) with depth. The measured qm, fs and u values are utilized to estimate soil type and associated properties based predominantly on empirical correlations. The cone bearing measurements are highly susceptible to additive measurement noise for sandy, silty and gravelly soils. This measurement noise results in high peaks due to interbedded gravels and stones and low peaks due to softer materials or local pore pressure build-up. To date there has been little progress in filtering this additive noise aside from ad hoc techniques, which include discarding qm measurements and smoothing/averaging qm measurements. This paper outlines a qm filtering technique which attempts to put structure into the estimation problem. In this case, the dynamics of the cone bearing measurements are modelled within a state-space mathematical formulation and a Kalman filter (KF) is then utilized to obtain optimal estimates of qm. The mathematical details of the qm KF algorithm are outlined in this paper along with the results from a challenging test bed simulation.

Oct 1, 2021

By Christian B. Woods, Joe C. Drumheller

"Kenneth A. Huber, P.E., Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, New York, New York, USAThe dream to bring New Jersey Devils hockey to the largest city in New Jersey became a reality in the summer of 2005, when construction began for the Prudential Center in downtown Newark. The Prudential Center site encompasses an entire city block that had a varied history of uses ranging from a cemetery in the late 18th century, to a rail yard and train station for the now-defunct Central Jersey Rail Road in the 19th and early 20th centuries, to commercial development in the latter half of the 20th century. Each of these prior uses presented challenges to the design and construction of the Prudential Center that required innovative engineering solutions, including: archaeological investigation and exhumation of the former cemetery occupants, protection of historic buildings surrounding the site, and extensive demolition to remove old train bridge foundations.The design team was required to develop potential foundation systems for the arena. Several foundation concepts were evaluated for cost and constructability, including: driven piles, drilled shafts, and shallow foundations on improved subgrade. Following a detailed cost analysis and value engineering exercise, the decision was made to support the arena on spread footings following the completion of a multi-phased ground improvement program consisting of a combination of dynamic compaction and removal and replacement. To evaluate achievable allowable bearing pressure as part of the design, a dynamic compaction test section was performed within the building footprint prior to the start of production work; this resulted in an increase of the allowable design bearing pressure from 2 tons per square foot (tsf) to 3 tsf. This reduced the expected foundation costs by 30% and gained sufficient time in the schedule to allow for the completion of the arena in time for the New Jersey Devils 2007- 2008 hockey season.BACKGROUNDThe dream to bring New Jersey Devils hockey to the largest city in New Jersey became a reality in the summer of 2005, when construction began for the Prudential Center in downtown Newark. After several years of negotiating between the City of Newark, local landowners, area developers, and the Devils themselves, a deal was finally struck to erect Newark Arena, now known as the Prudential Center, right next to City Hall. This is not to say, however, that once the site location was finalized, that no further challenges were encountered in the construction of Newark’s new crown jewel."

Jan 1, 2015

By William B. Conway

This paper will describe the large caisson pier foundations for four of the bridges crossing the Mississippi River in the New Orleans area; and will discuss some of the unusual problems encountered during their sinking. Certain settlement phenomena experienced during their service life will also be related: The four bridges in order of their construction: The Huey P. Long Bridge, River Mile 106.1, completed in 1935 The Greater New Orleans Bridge No.1, River Mile 96.0, completed in 1958 The Hale Boggs Bridge, River Mile 121.6, completed in 1983 The Greater New Orleans Bridge No.2, River Mile 96.1, completed in 1988 Each of these bridges employed large open-dredged concrete caissons as foundations for one or more of the river piers, with the smallest being the 65ft by 102ft caissons for Piers I and II of the Huey P. Long Bridge and the largest being the 99ft by 214ft caisson for Pier II of the Greater New Orleans Bridge No.2. The Huey P. Long caissons are founded in a dense fine sand at -170 while all of the other bridge caissons are founded in hard preconsolidated clay at elevations varying from -150 to -185. The Huey P. Long Bridge is currently being widened without increasing the caisson foundations under any of the river piers; and the design reasoning that led to this decision is presented.

May 11, 2007