Search Documents

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule. SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule.SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Richard T. Stain

"In 2001, a pile trial site was established at Limelette in Belgium consisting of 25 displacement screw piles and 5 driven pre-cast piles. Interested parties were invited to participate in a pile prediction event, whereby they would submit predicted static load test behaviour in the form of load settlement plots. These predictions could be based on soil investigation results supplied by the organizers, or dynamic load test measurements.Following the submission deadline, the organisers released the results of static load tests for comparison.Of all the six participants, including Statnamic, the SIMBAT method was independently accredited with achieving the best predictions.This paper examines at the differences between SIMBAT and other systems, and presents the correlations from the Limelette trial.INTRODUCTIONThe Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) initiated an ambitious research programme involving the construction and testing of some 60 trial piles spread between two sites, a clay site at Sint Kateline Waver and a sandy site at the BBRI headquarters at Limelette. The project was financed largely by the Belgian Ministry of Economic affairs. (ref 1.) This paper refers only to the second site.At Limelette, six different types of displacement pile were installed: one driven pre-cast and five cast in place screw piles - Atlas, DeWaal, Fundex, Olivier and Omega. A detailed site investigation was carried out including in-situ and laboratory tests.An international pile capacity prediction event was publicised, participants being invited to predict static pile behaviour. Predictions could be based on:"

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 1995

By Chetan D. Savani, Mike K. Muchard

The necessity to evaluate undocumented foundation lengths is essential in assessing the useable life, need for scour protection, retrofitting, or full reuse of existing bridge foundations. For this purpose, Parallel Seismic Testing (PST) has the best accuracy and is applicable to the widest range of foundation configurations used in bridge construction of any test method. Although not limited to bridges, PST case studies are presented involving two bridges. To preface the case study discussions, an overview of the PST method is given along with its results and analysis thereof. In one of the cases, we were afforded the rare opportunity to see the existing piles being extracted long after the PST testing program was completed. The resulting Class A prediction reaffirms the accuracy of the method. Versatility of the PST method is also exemplified in the two cases presented, where unique situations from complex foundation systems were overcome by analysis to provide successful results.

By William F. Starke

"The Ontario College of Art & Design (OCAD) located in Toronto, Ontario, found itself in dire need of space due to increased enrollment, leading them to embark on a major expansion and redevelopment on campus. The expansion entailed an additional 115,000 sq.ft. (10,700 m2) and a new major structure was required, as well as extensive redevelopment of existing buildings. The new Sharp Centre for Design was designed by acclaimed British Architect Will Alsop, of Alsop Architects, in a joint venture with Toronto-based Robbie/Young + Wright Architects. The OCAD campus is cramped for space and the design selected was a structure built over top of existing structures. The building has been described as resembling a “shoebox in the sky”, supported on raked columns transmitting high lateral forces as well as compression load to the foundations. There are 12 such supports, each supported by an individual caisson. In addition, the project entailed installation of other caissons in the courtyard area with the construction work accomplished under very confined conditions among the existing structures. The remarkable design for the new Ontario College of Arts will surely make it another of Toronto’s architectural landmarks. Several things make this project stand out as a unique deep foundations project.First is the architectural design. Words cannot do it justice: the picture is the only effective way to start to describe it. This is a big two-story box, built over the top of a fragile existing building. The underside of the box is 86 ft (26m) above street level. Students remained still inside the old building while construction was going on around and above them. There were serious concerns about vibration – not only its effects on the academic life; but more significantly, upon the stability and safety of the old building, which rests somewhat shakily on shallow spread footings.Steel stilts that look like toothpicks when scaled against the new and existing structures support the box. The stilts are much sturdier than they appear from the pictures, but it is easy to visualize the complexity of the loads they transfer to the foundations below."

Jan 1, 2004

By Jogeshwar P. Singh, Mohamed Ashour

The Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction (SFSI) problem involves Kinematic Soil- Foundation Interaction occurring during large (cyclic and permanent) ground deformations as well as Inertial Foundation-Structure Interaction occurring during shaking all of which take place while the soil and possibly structural properties degrade with time. The design of the deep foundations for liquefaction induced lateral spread loads include estimation of passive pressure applied by the liquefied material as well as the amount of anticipated displacement. Coupled analyses for SFSI problems that account for liquefaction induced lateral spread and their interaction with the deep foundation system can be performed using sophisticated numerical modeling techniques based on finite element and/or finite difference methods using computer programs such as FLAC or OPENSEES. Such complete SFSI analyses are very tedious and expensive and not feasible for most projects. In 2011, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) released guidelines for foundation loading and deformation due to liquefaction induced lateral spreading. This simpler prescriptive approach combines empirical and analytical methods through decoupled analyses using computer programs such as LPILE and SLOPE-W together with liquefaction induced lateral spread estimates based on published empirical equations. Pile group effects and pile caps are accounted for using a concept of super-pile. In this paper, we discuss the solution of the same lateral spreading related SFSI problem using computer program CGI-DFSAP (CGI-Deep Foundation System Analysis Program) based on the strain wedge theory that can account for liquefaction, lateral spreading, pile groups, pile caps and nonlinear behavior of piles in a more coupled manner to analyze the foundation system under the lateral spread loadings. CGI-DFSAP can be used to analyze piles in sloping ground conditions as well as piles beneath the abutments near a free-face slope. We have included Strain Wedge Model (SWM) solutions using CGI-DFSAP of several field and laboratory case studies of lateral spreading related to pile foundations. Finally, we have also included the SWM solution of one of the Caltrans (2011) example problems.

Jan 1, 2015

By Lee R. Buhagiar

As a result of the increased seismic risk and the highly variable geology of Christchurch, finding costeffective foundation solutions has been a challenge for the Canterbury rebuild. The soil profile in Christchurch comprises both terrestrial (Springston Formation) and marine (Christchurch Formation) alluvial deposits with a high groundwater table. The result is a highly variable and interbedded soil profile which is prone to liquefaction and static settlement. Vibro-replacement stone columns are very effective in mitigating liquefaction in clean sand. However, the author’s experience has shown that vibro-replacement stone columns are also effective for treating silty and soft soil layers. Vibroreplacement stone columns can be used to treat these soft soils by increasing the composite soil stiffness and providing a load transfer path to the underlying dense soils. Another challenge encountered in the Canterbury rebuild is the cost of redevelopment of brownfield sites with contaminated fill. The costs of disposing this fill often make projects too expensive. Vibro-replacement stone columns have been used successfully to treat contaminated fill, providing a treated soil profile with uniform performance and reducing the cost of disposing of contaminated fill. This paper looks at several case studies in Christchurch, with highly variable soil profiles, where vibro-replacement stone columns have been used successfully to treat multiple soil layers, from contaminated fill to silty soils and soft and non-liquefiable silt.

Nov 1, 2022

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 2004

By Frank Rausche

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

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1998

By Mary Ellen Large

This publication of Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) is intended to provide project owners, design engineers and construction professionals with guidelines for selecting cutoff wall and barrier systems and a general introduction to their methods of construction. Three categories of cutoff wall and barrier construction technology (excavated cutoff systems, in situ techniques, and driven cutoff systems) are presented and parameters for evaluating their design and construction are discussed. The information presented was compiled from the opinions of practicing engineers and construction specialists from the DFI Slurry Wall Committee.

Jan 1, 2021

Jan 1, 1993

By Alan D. Fisher

Amtrak made a decision to replace an aging bascule bridge with a vertical lift bridge for their crossing of the Thames River in New London, Connecticut. The new lift bridge occupies the same alignment and shares the same foundations as the bascule span. During construction the deep foundation caisson supporting the bascule span settled and tilted. Investigation into possible reasons revealed interesting historical facts, both of the construction of the innovative open well caisson foundations and of the state-of-the-art in tremie concrete placing methods in use at the turn of the century. This paper describes both of these topics.

Jan 1, 2013

By Brian Isherwood, Tara Brown, Paul Kreycir, Jenny Earle

"The Shangri-La hotel and luxury condominium tower, recently opened on University Avenue in downtown Toronto, required eight levels of underground structure, four extending into the shale bedrock.Isherwood Geostructural Engineers was retained in 2007 by Anchor Shoring Limited to provide an alternative design-build solution to better address serious foundation risks. The site, bounded on three sides by City streets, abuts an existing 1957 14-storey building with five underground levels to the north. Sitting on the rock surface along the east perimeter under University Avenue runs the existing Toronto Transit Commission’s University Subway Line built by cut-and-cover in the 1950’s and which was believed to lie very near the property boundary at the southeast corner of the site.The bedrock under Toronto is known to contain very high locked-in horizontal stresses, much higher than can be resisted by shoring techniques, which result in inevitable wall movement when excavating deep into the rock. The strategy adopted to control the risk to the Subway, adjacent building, and major utilities is described in the paper, along with the comprehensive monitoring of movements, and their comparison to predictions.The ProjectThe 66-storey Shangri-La hotel and luxury condominium tower, recently constructed on University Avenue in downtown Toronto, houses 222 hotel rooms in floors 1-17; 287 residences on floors 18-49; and private estates including two 2-storey penthouses on floors 50-66. These comprise 873,000 square feet of development. Eight levels of underground basement are required to provide parking and other amenities, the lower four extending into the shale bedrock."

Jan 1, 2015

By David Sherwood

The paper has been prepared as the basis for the 2008 John Mitchell Memorial Lecture. It reviews major developments in ground engineering over the last 20 years, not from the point of view of technical processes, but from the drivers that have driven these developments and the needs that they have met. It concludes with a glimpse into the future and suggests to where current trends will probably lead us. By its nature such a review is closely aligned with personal experience and it relies heavily on case histories largely from within the writer?s own experience over that period.

Jan 1, 2008

By Osama A. Safaqah

Driven plate anchors can be used to hold in place large bridge caissons during floating construction. Their small size and simple method of installation make them a very cost effective alternative to other direct-embedment, gravity, and drag anchors. The geotechnical design of plate anchors involves the anchor geometry, embedment, drivability, and proof testing. This paper describes the experience gained with plate anchors used during construction of the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge. For this project, the anchors had to be driven in dense to very dense sands, and had to resist large forces from 7-9 knot currents.

Jan 1, 2013

By Randy R. Williams, Roberto R. Olivera, Brian W. Wilson, Marina S. W. Li

"An extensive, deep mixing (DM) ground improvement program using the Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) technique was designed and constructed in 2013 to support up to 20 m (66 ft) high Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls and bulk earthworks for the development of the Kitimat Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility at Bish Cove, British Columbia. The deep mixing program consisted of overlapping rectangular panels of in situ cement treated soils, constructed using the CSM technique, to form barrettes covering an area of approximately 12,900 m2 (15,428 yd2) and providing suitable static and seismic stability of foundation soils for support of the proposed MSE walls, which would in turn support LNG facilities. The deep mixing program comprised of 1645 CSM panels that were constructed through varying thicknesses and discontinuous layers of very soft fine-grained marine deposits and/or loose sandy silt to silty sand deposits, embedding typically 2 m ( 6.6 ft) into dense silty sand to sand and gravel. CSM panel depths ranged from 5 m (16 ft) to 30 m (98 ft) and were constructed by treating approximately 73,900 m3 (96,658 yd3) of soil yielding average unconfined compressive strengths exceeding 2.5MPa (363 psi).This paper outlines the approach adopted for the design of the CSM ground improvement program in the highly variable subsurface conditions present at the site. A phased sitespecific investigation consisting of boreholes, test pits, Cone Penetration Tests, piston tube sampling, advanced laboratory testing and groundwater monitoring was implemented. In addition, soil-cement bench scale testing was completed, followed by installation of 8 CSM panels for field trial purposes. Extensive geotechnical static and seismic analyses including Limit Equilibrium stability analyses, liquefaction assessments, and advanced numerical modeling were undertaken to optimize the design and meet the project-specific design performance criteria. The Design-Build team worked closely to develop and implement Quality Assurance and Quality Control plans and managed significant construction challenges while achieving suitable panel termination depths."

Jan 1, 2017

By Timothy C. Siegel, Derrick Dasenbrock, Rich Lamb, Paul J. Axtell

"The axial resistance provided by deep foundations may be divided into two components: side resistance and tip resistance. The direction that the side resistance acts depends on the relative movement between the deep foundation and the adjacent soil. That is, when the foundation moves downward relative to the soil, then the side resistance is positive and acts upward. Conversely, when the soil moves downward relative to the foundation the side resistance is negative and acts downward. Research supports that both positive side resistance and negative skin friction develop in essentially all deep foundations. The side resistance distribution is a function of the soil strength and stiffness, the applied top loads, and whether the top load is sustained, transient, or a combination of sustained and transient loads. Consideration of drag load and downdrag has become more convoluted with implementation of geotechnical aspects into the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and its use of load and resistance factors. This paper examines the current AASHTO Specifications and presents an alternative design approach for drag load and downdrag using the LRFD framework. The alternative design approach is illustrated by two examples involving drag load and downdrag.IntroductionThe axial resistance provided by deep foundations may be divided into two components: side resistance and tip resistance. The direction that the side resistance acts depends on the relative movement between the deep foundation and the adjacent soil. That is, when the foundation moves downward relative to the soil, then the side resistance is positive and acts upward. Conversely, when the soil moves downward relative to the foundation the side resistance is negative and acts downward. Research supports that both positive side resistance and negative skin friction develop in essentially all deep foundations. The side resistance distribution is a function of the soil strength and stiffness, the applied top load, and whether the top load is sustained, transient, or a combination of sustained and transient.Consideration of drag load and downdrag has become more convoluted with implementation of geotechnical aspects into the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and its use of load and resistance factors. This paper examines current LRFD design specifications and presents an alternative design approach for drag load and alternative design approach is applied to several examples where drag load and/or downdrag may control design."

Jan 1, 2015