Search Documents

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 2003

By BRETTMANN TRACY

Jan 1, 2000

By Brian FitzPatrick, Michael J. Weaver

Everyone has a role in site safety, even consultants. This paper presents a summary of how a geotechnical and environmental consulting firm, with field staff on construction and subsurface explorations sites, engaged their staff and leveraged relationships with contractors to assess the construction related risks to which its staff members are exposed. These findings were then integrated into their technical training materials for both new staff and those needing a refresher, so that safety is discussed at the same time as the technical work and not treated as a separate topic. The paper outlines the process of identifying and evaluating the construction related risks that staff members face and presents examples of how the consultant can engage contractors in the process. By doing this, knowledge can be shared and there is a better mutual understanding of the risks associated with common construction and exploration related field tasks. The work resulted in an increase in staff engagement in safety, a better understanding of the true risks that staff face in the field, better relationships with contractors, and lower safety metrics. HISTORY At Haley & Aldrich, Inc., we renewed our safety journey in May 2012. Like many others, we had concerns over injuries our staff experienced in the three previous years, and a potentially significant utility strike we experienced while excavating a trench. In 2009, 2010 and 2011 we experienced an increase in recordable injuries, including two significant injuries, which caused our Experience Modification Rate (EMR) (see note below), Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), and Days Away-Restricted, and Transferred Rate (DART) to rise significantly. See Fig. 1 for details. This caused us to step back and review our approach to safety, and our “safety culture”. The rise in reportable incidents and injuries also corresponded to the beginning of a growth period for the company.

Jan 1, 2019

By H. Boghosian

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in a steeply sloping site in glacial till in Glasgow city centre. Existing foundations, adjacent structures and services, in tandem with asymmetric loading, presented particular challenges in the planning, execution and design of the project. The construction methods and temporary works, analysis by the Finite Element method and monitoring carried out are all described.

Jan 1, 2006

By Helen D. Robinson

Traditional practice to resist large lateral loads on foundations is the use of large diameter caissons, battered driven piles, or battered micropiles. Dense urban construction environments, however, limit the usefulness of these systems due to the close proximity of below- and above-grade obstructions. This paper presents two micropile construction projects in the United States where a complex scheme of battered micropiles and grade beams was developed to counteract large lateral loads at the foundation level. The paper also presents a procedure used to design vertical micropiles for large lateral loads, which can greatly simplify the design of foundations subject to significant lateral loads in urban environments. A design example shows a case where vertical micropiles were used to support allowable design lateral loads greater than 80 kip per micropile.

Jan 1, 2010

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

By Robert Thurner

The underground car park "Admonterhof in the historical centre of Graz is an example for the technical and economical success of a complicated structural design using a concept on the basis of the observational method. The intention to built a 20 m deep excavation beneath a protected monument was accompanied by some essential issues: the preservation of the existing state avoiding extensive displacements by means of a girder grid of reinforced concrete, its support on large bored piles and small steel-tube piles with possible active compensation of differential settlements, the excavation support in none built-up areas with secant bored piles, the underpinning of existing buildings with different structures by means of jet grouting. Furthermore the hydraulic gradient and the permeability of a rock formation in a part of the excavation had to be explored with the purpose to control the inflow of groundwater with a level difference of more than 10 m.

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 2005

By Nien-Yin Chang

The contemporary seismic response analysis of structures using a finite element analysis code requires six elastic spring constants to address the six degrees of freedom ground/foundation contribution to the response of a structure to earthquake shaking. However, the ground response is nothing but linear. Thus, it is critical to address the effect of the nonlinear ground response to the performance of structures under strong earthquakes. This study specifically addresses the effect of pile foundation on building vibration using finite element analyses. The effect of single pile was first investigated and the load was applied at the pile head using the single-degree-of-freedom load at a time, including three translational loads in the x, y and z directions and three moment loads about the three respective axes. In this study, the coupling effects between two or more different loads were not investigated. A load is increased monotonically to investigate the nonlinear behavior of pile under various loads. The Mohr-Coulomb model was used to represent concrete. To explore the effect of soil models on the nonlinear spring functions, the following constitutive models of soils were used: linear elastic, Mohr-Coulomb model, Cap model, modified Cam-Clay model, and Duncan-Chang hyperbolic model.

Jan 1, 2007

[ENGLISH active earth pressure adapter additive adhesion admixture, addition adsorbed water aggregate air air entrainment air hose allowable bearing value allowable pile bearing load]

Jan 1, 1994

By Willie M. NeSmith, W. Morgan NeSmith, Alan Roach

"In 2013, Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles are a mature foundation technology throughout the United States. General guidelines for the design and construction of ACIP piles are available along with numerous references for design in specific North American geologies. In fact, the current generation of contractors and geotechnical practitioners might view ACIP piles as just another deep foundation option to be considered, along with driven piles, drilled shafts and others. This acceptance has developed, however, over a 60-plus year period.The term, Augered Pressure-Grouted (APG) pile is often used when referring to ACIP piles because the piles emerged out of construction processes at the Intrusion-Prepakt firm in the late 1940s. The company’s specialty was pressure grouting and preplaced aggregate concrete. The grouting was typically accomplished by driving a pipe to a target level and then injecting grout under pressure. In some soil conditions, it was necessary to use an auger to reach the desired grouting depth. In these circumstances, the grout pipe was driven beside the auger and grout was pumped as the auger was withdrawn. The grout pipe was then withdrawn as well. This was the genesis of the APG, or ACIP pile, and many piles were installed using this technique. The patent application, “Method for Forming Piles” was filed by Raymond Patterson of Intrusion-Prepakt in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1956. The process was eventually modified when a suitable hollow-stem auger was developed. Licenses were granted to the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. in the late 1950s. Each of the three companies Patent, LicensesThe patent application, “Method for Forming Piles” was filed by Raymond Patterson of Intrusion-Prepakt in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1956. The process was eventually modified when a suitable hollow-stem auger was developed. Licenses were granted to the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. in the late 1950s. Each of the three companies coined their own terms for the piling process: “Pakt-In-Place” for Intrusion-Prepakt, “Auger Pressure-Grouted” for Berkel and “Augercast” for Turzillo. Over time, “Augercast” was frequently used as a generic term for the system. The installation of these piles was, and still is, a highly nuanced process; “contractor dependent” is a term often seen today. Intrusion-Prepakt, Berkel and Turzillo all had personnel who were part of the original group that developed the system and who appreciated the craftsmanship involved in forming sound piles."

Jan 1, 2013

Jan 1, 1991

By Donald Bruce

The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: ? Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. ? Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. ? Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications. Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

"The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: • Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. • Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. • Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications.Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.The owner, designer and contractor will together be responsible for the tasks associated with the design, installation, acceptance, and performance of the micropiles. The installation of micropiles requires specialized equipment, techniques, and appropriate workmanship. Not every detail of the work can be specified, and not every potential problem can be anticipated. Therefore, a contractor who has demonstrated experience in micropiles must be selected to execute the work required."

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1993

By Paikowsky, Samuel G.

"Due to the way drilled deep foundations are being constructed, their structural integrity and geotechnical capacity are highly variable. Drop weight systems are increasingly being used to dynamically test the capacity and integrity of drilled deep foundations. Conventional pile driving hammers are often either inadequate or not economical to test these foundations and drop weight systems have therefore been developed to allow for dynamic testing.The advantages of the tests include high mobility, short testing time, low cost relative to static load tests (allowing multiple tests at a single site), and integrity/construction quality evaluation concurrent with capacity determination. The dynamic testing method for drilled deep foundations encounter several difficulties including: the need for a pre-testing analysis for matching pile, soil and testing system, adequate mass and drop height to reflect the mobilized capacity without structural damage, test interpretations for irregularly shaped and/or non-uniform piles, need for reliable dynamic measurements depending on the impact and the distance between the impact and the measuring point, and limited knowledge about the accuracy of the predictions.The principles of the tests are presented using simplified models and demonstrated via a case history. Drop weight systems are reviewed. Dynamic measurement principles are explained and the construction and testing quality effects are outlined and demonstrated via numerical modeling and case histories. A comparison of dynamic and static tests is presented via a database, case histories and finally a short review of relevant codes is provided.1 IntroductionTraditional static axial load test is performed by a slow application of a force produced against independent reaction, imitating structural loading. It is the most reliable method to determine the pile’s performance as commonly required under typical service conditions. The major limitations of this testing are: (i) high cost associated with set-up, test duration, interpretation and construction delays, and (ii) inability to obtain information about the pile-soil interaction along the pile without additional testing means (e.g. tell tales, strain gauges, etc.). These limitations are acute when high capacity foundations are involved."

Jan 1, 2015

By Charbel Khoury, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah, Kofi B. Acheampong

"Following heavy rains in spring of 2014, Prince George’s County officials issued a mandatory evacuation for homes in the Piscataway Hills subdivision of Fort Washington, Maryland where a landslide along a 1700-foot hillside destabilized homes, collapsed the single access road, and resulted in water and sewer mains break. Forensic investigations, including geologic assessments, test borings and in-situ Cone Penetrometer and Dilatometer soundings, were performed to evaluate subsurface conditions and provide stabilization options for the roadway and slopes. Post-failure ground movements were monitored using inclinometers. Critical failure planes were identified within the underlying 30-foot thick Marlboro Clay formation, a known geologic hazard with historic occurrences of landslides and slope failures.This paper discusses the remedial design for stabilizing the landslide and 60-foot hillside slope failure, and protecting the roadway. Amongst several feasible options, driven piles were selected in consultation with the County and retained contractor based on cost, environmental impacts and site constraints. Constraints included private ownership of hillside slope, upslope buildings safety; deep-seated failure, relocation of underground water and sewer mains, and accelerated construction schedule.Pile design included global slope stability analyses and lateral pile analyses using several loading configurations to optimize pile geometry and spacing, and determine a value-engineered design satisfying both serviceability and strength limit states to achieve long-term stability with factor of safety of 1.3. Soils within the active landslide plane were assumed to provide no resistance, while soils below the failure plane provided lateral resistance. This stabilization scheme, which extended along the 1700-foot roadway section and toe of hillside slope area, consisted of 410 steel HP16x141 piles in two to three rows driven to depths between 60 and 70 feet below the Marlboro Clay stratum at 5 to 7-foot spacing."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1996