Search Documents

Jan 1, 1996

By W. G. K. Fleming

The general history of piling is traced up to the present time with regard to the evolution of methods and materials. The processes have been strongly influenced by developments in basic equipment and industrial change. It is noticeable that in the twentieth century more progress has taken place than in the many previous centuries. It has been strongly influenced by the general development of Soil Mechanics. Test loading is probably the most effective way to assess the success of designs and many empirical relationships have been challenged through it. As we approach a new century it appears that it will be an age of rapid equipment development, with much enhancement of understanding of what has been done. Processes of automatic construction and testing will becoming commonplace. These changes will narrow the limits of conventional scatter that have come to be accepted and to a large extent will be driven by political efforts to curtail energy consumption, to raise standards of quality and reliability, and to conserve the environment. 1. Ancient history. Piling is an ancient art. Its first mention in history is from Herodotus, the first person to commit an account of his times to the written word in the years 557 to 479 BC. He evidently had a strong interest in engineering matters because he wrote of building, brick making, reinforced brickwork, river training, canal building, bridge construction, tunnelling and its acoustic detection and piling. The piling reference comes from Book 5 at paragraph 16.

Jan 1, 1999

By Brian D. Barkauskas, Terence P. Holman

A major combined nuclear and coal-fired power plant, located in on the western coast of Florida has undergone multiple upgrades in recent years to increase power output and enhance environmental controls. Construction of new elements within the existing plant structure required working in highly congested conditions and heavy crane lifts with large picking radii. The largest crane pick involved the use of an 1800 metric tonne capacity Mammoet PTC ring crane for a single long-radius, high altitude lift of a precipitator unit. Original bid tender documents had called for drilled shaft foundation support, but the presence of many critical utilities and unfavorable access for cost effective construction led specialty contractor Moretrench American Corporation to propose an alternate micropile foundation on the basis that high capacities could be achieved in the weak limestone geology and that the smaller size of micropiles would allow for more surgical installation in the utility-congested areas. This case history describes the design and construction of seventy three (73) high capacity micropiles for the value engineering alternative and the crane foundation for this critical lift. Each micropile was founded in a competent dolomitic fossiliferous limestone unit at typical depths of 23 m below existing ground surface. Strain gauge instrumented load testing was used to validate the geotechnical design parameters in the weak limestone bedrock and resulted in the finding that the entire test load was being carried in the upper half of the bond zone. Construction of the production micropiles required numerous relocations due to utility conflicts and local reanalysis and redesign of the 1.2 m thick reinforced concrete ring beam cap. Crane foundation performance was satisfactory and the effective life of this temporary foundation was only 6 months before decommissioning and demolition.

Jan 1, 2017

By Martin Walker, Joseph Ang, Jongwon Lee, Alvin Bayudanto, Lilian Lorincz, Morteza Khorshidi, Wenyong Rong

This paper presents a case history of liquefaction susceptibility evaluation study for a major infrastructure project in the San José area. The subsurface material of the study area consists of Holocene alluvial deposits composed of interbedded and crosscut clays and silts, sands and gravels. The simplified approach for liquefaction triggering evaluation was carried out using both CPT data and SPT data representing site’s seismic capacity and the peak ground acceleration associated with a return period of 975 years at ground surface representing seismic demands. Site-specific cyclic stress ratio (CSR) profiles as seismic demand are also estimated from one-dimensional site response analysis. The simplified approach uses empirical depth stress reduction factors (rd) based on generic shear wave velocity profiles to account for the non-rigid response of the soil profile in estimating CSR. The CSR profiles of the simplified procedure were examined by completing site response analyses using site-specific soil profiles to represent site-specific seismic demands in the liquefaction triggering evaluation. The paper concludes with a comparison and discussion of the liquefaction evaluation examining results from CPT versus SPT data, and the comparison of CSR profiles from the simplified procedure versus site-specific response analysis.

Sep 8, 2021

By Karen J. Dawson, Francisco Johnson

"Pressure-grouted high strength helical displacement piles are a recently developed pile type that can be useful in conditions where noise or vibrations must be low or where access or clearance is limited. However, there is no information in the literature that can be used to estimate the soil resistance of these piles or production rates. To fill this information need, this paper presents a New Jersey installation case history and the results of static axial and lateral load tests on both pressure-grouted and ungrouted high strength helical piles at the case history site and trial installation locations in New Jersey and Washington State. Piles between 25 and 50 feet long comprised of steel shaft diameters of 4.5, 5.5, and 7 inches with equivalent grout column diameters ranging from 12 to 22 inches were tested. Lateral loads of up to 100 kips and axial compression loads of up to 700 kips were applied. The results of the load tests are compared to predictions of lateral deformation and axial resistance.INTRODUCTIONHelical piles have long been recognized as a useful foundation type in situations where noise and vibrations must be limited, or where there are access or clearance restrictions. Relatively well-documented design methods and torque to capacity correlations have been developed for the most commonly used helical piles, which are relatively small (typically shafts of 6 inches or less) with corresponding low load carrying resistance.With the increased need to construct in congested urban environments, there is incentive to develop helical piles with higher axial resistance. Seismic and other loading conditions also require lateral resistance, which is low for the typically small helical pile shafts. One method of increasing the soil resistance, both axially and laterally and at relatively low cost, is to place grout around the shaft. Injecting the grout under pressure through the hollow helical pipe section and out a grout port or ports located near the toe of the pile has the potential to increase the pile resistance significantly above that which can be achieve by gravity grouting. Not only does the pressurized grout push out against the surrounding soil, but the rotating helix helps to distribute the grout laterally. Unfortunately, little information is available in the literature to help designers estimate the resistance of grouted helical piles in general and none is available regarding pressuregrouted helical piles."

Jan 1, 2016

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 2003

By C. Michael Morgano

Static tests are costly and time consuming, so they are not always the best answer [ ]

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 2002

By Marco D. Boscardin, Benjamin H. MacKinney, Kenneth R. Allard, Kenneth A. Pidgeon, Adriane G. Boscardin

This paper presents a case history for a unique application of a system of vertical micropiles with horizontal soil nail bracing and shotcrete facing for underpinning. The system was used to support and protect an existing 2-story hospital building during demolition and renovation. The goal was to limit building movements and have the building remain in use during construction of an abutting addition. Soils at the site consisted of clean, loose to dense, sand and gravel. The original underpinning design was revised after the initial excavation revealed unsuitable soil conditions for traditional underpinning pits. An alternative system consisting of vertical micropiles (hollow bars) through the footing, combined with shotcrete and soil nails was proposed, accepted by the owner, and successfully constructed. Excavation depths were up to 15 feet (4.6 m) below the existing footings. Wall movements were monitored at regular, horizontal and vertical intervals along the hospital wall, and less than 0.6 inches (15 mm) of settlement and 0.1 inches (3 mm) of horizontal displacement throughout underpinning and construction were reported. The challenges with the original proposed support of excavation design and other alternative approaches considered will also be discussed.

Oct 1, 2022

By Chris L. Powell, Russell J. Denny

"The remotely located Cockatoo Island iron ore mine off the Kimberley coast in the northwest of Western Australia has been in operation since 1951. The mine was recently expanded up to about 50 m (165 ft) below sea level using staged construction to create a rockfill seawall around the open cut mining operation. Late in 2013, to allow expansion of subsea iron ore mining operations, Wagstaff Piling was engaged to install a seepage barrier through the rockfill seawall and into the underlying seabed sediments.Earlier stages of seawall construction had used a variety of different construction techniques with varied success, and the history of subsea mining on the island had been plagued with failures, including failures in the slope of the seawall itself, hanging wall failure underneath and inside the seawall, and footwall failures as the ore was mined leaving the rock face inclined at 55 degrees, parallel to the bedding. The current expansion, known as the Stage 4 expansion, was more tightly constrained by the pit geometry and available materials than previous seawall expansions that adopted clay core and sheet pile seepage barrier solutions. In Stage 4, an innovative seepage barrier solution using a grout curtain was selected to provide the necessary cutoff to allow access to highgrade ore, while protecting the mine from inundation by the sea.Seawall ConceptThe open cut subsea mining operation consisted of a 3 km (1.9 mi) long narrow pit along the south side of Cockatoo Island that extended to depths of about 50 m (165 ft) below sea level, and were exposed to the open sea on the south side of the pit. Massive tidal variations of more than 10.5 m (34.5 ft) required a seawall founded on the seabed, extending upwards to RL+13, to safely protect the pit from the high tide level rising to above RL+10."

Jan 1, 2017

By Chris L. Powell, Russell J. Denny

"The remotely located Cockatoo Island iron ore mine off the Kimberley coast in the northwest of Western Australia has been in operation since 1951. The mine was recently expanded up to about 50 m (165 ft) below sea level using staged construction to create a rockfill seawall around the open cut mining operation. Late in 2013, to allow expansion of subsea iron ore mining operations, Wagstaff Piling was engaged to install a seepage barrier through the rockfill seawall and into the underlying seabed sediments.Earlier stages of seawall construction had used a variety of different construction techniques with varied success, and the history of subsea mining on the island had been plagued with failures, including failures in the slope of the seawall itself, hanging wall failure underneath and inside the seawall, and footwall failures as the ore was mined leaving the rock face inclined at 55 degrees, parallel to the bedding. The current expansion, known as the Stage 4 expansion, was more tightly constrained by the pit geometry and available materials than previous seawall expansions that adopted clay core and sheet pile seepage barrier solutions. In Stage 4, an innovative seepage barrier solution using a grout curtain was selected to provide the necessary cutoff to allow access to high-grade ore, while protecting the mine from inundation by the sea.Seawall ConceptThe open cut subsea mining operation consisted of a 3 km (1.9 mi) long narrow pit along the south side of Cockatoo Island that extended to depths of about 50 m (165 ft) below sea level, and were exposed to the open sea on the south side of the pit. Massive tidal variations of more than 10.5 m (34.5 ft) required a seawall founded on the seabed, extending upwards to RL+13, to safely protect the pit from the high tide level rising to above RL+10."

Jan 1, 2017

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

"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 A. R. Dover

The Richmond San Rafael Bridge (Figure 1) is a 4.3 mile long major toll bridge span across northern San Francisco Bay. Tutor-Saliba/Koch/Tidewater (TSKT) conducted a comprehensive seismic retrofit, which was at the time Caltrans? largest-ever construction contract at $484 million. The robust foundation retrofit design of 11 bridge piers included the installation of 26 new, large diameter (126 to 162 inch OD, wall thickness 1.5 to 2.25 inches) CIDH and CISS piles, with steel pipe piles installed to tip elevations of Elev. ?140 to -220 ft, in water depths up to 70 feet. The open-ended steel pipe piles had initial sections ranging from 71 to 172 feet long, with full lengths that extended to the bay bottom and then through 100 to 130 feet of marine sediments to top of bedrock. The marine soils of most interest consisted mainly of soft to firm Young Bay Mud (YBM), a silty, moderately-sensitive clay common to SF Bay. A key constructability issue was the prediction of pipe piles ?running? under self weight (198 to 625 kips in air) and pile driving hammer weight (IHC S-500 with total assembly weight of 322 kips). The term "pile running" is used to describe the penetration of the pile into the soil due to the self-weight of the pile only. This issue was critical because 1) there was limited head room under the bridge deck, and 2) if piles run too deep, the pile splicing on several piles would be problematic (the lowest desirable pile top elevation after running was +10 ft). While running measurements are sometimes made during marine/nearshore construction, there is little published data on predicted vs. actual running. This paper discusses the running prediction under self weight for 26 piles, and the methodology used in developing the predictions, which ranged from 15 to 94 ft of penetration below mudline. Pile running was recorded and compared with predicted values. The prediction methodology was quite good, and no significant constructability problems were encountered. The authors ?tweaked? the model to provide a slightly improved prediction method. The paper presents the model, predictions, observations, and discusses important lessons learned.

Jan 1, 2006

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 Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

Jan 1, 1988

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Alex Ryberg, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

Driven piles are widely used for foundation support. In the vast majority of cases, an increase in pile capacity occurs with time which is referred to as “set-up.” However, in a very limited number of cases, a decrease in capacity with time can occur. This phenomenon is referred to as “relaxation.” This paper will provide a brief review of the relaxation phenomenon, as well as pile driving information and dynamic test data on cases where relaxation has occurred. The pile types in the presented relaxation cases include H-piles, open-end and closed-end pipe piles, prestressed concrete piles, and prestressed concrete piles with H-pile stingers. The soil conditions where relaxation occurred includes dense to very dense fine sands, heavily over consolidated clays, and weak laminated rocks. Relaxation information from 36 piles at 26 sites is assessed. The collected data will assist foundation designers by identifying the subsurface conditions where relaxation has occurred, as well as by documenting the corresponding relaxation magnitude. One method of addressing relaxation when it is encountered is to drive the foundation piles to a greater end of initial driving capacity than required long-term. Hence, the identification and quantification of the relaxation magnitude will be beneficial to foundation designers installing similar pile types in similar subsurface conditions. The paper will also present pertinent observations and recommendations on mitigating relaxation when encountered. INTRODUCTION One of the earliest observations of a decrease in redriving resistance following initial driving was reported by Miller (1937). He reported that piles driven into a saturated, coarse grained soil could lose 40 to 50% of their resistance when redriven 24 hours after initial driving. Yang (1956) similarly reported that after a break in driving, a decrease in driving resistance could be encountered for piles driven in dense fine sand, inorganic silt, or stiff fissured clay. Parsons (1966) in his paper that described piling difficulties in the New York City metropolitan area termed this phenomenon “relaxation”. In this time period, pile capacity was most often evaluated from a pile driving formula frequently checked by a static load test. Hence, the true magnitude of the capacity decrease on a given pile was often poorly quantified. Furthermore, dynamic measurements that could determine what influence driving system performance variation had on the observed redriving resistance were not yet readily available.

Jan 1, 2019