Search Documents

By George K. Burke

Underpinning of a structure has been traditionally expensive, time consuming, and, in many cases, caused as much settlement to the existing structure as it was trying to prevent. As underpinning is normally one of the initial tasks and on the critical path on a construction project, there is immense pressure on the subcontractor to speed up his operation so the new structure can proceed; this can cause an adversarial relationship to develop between the owner, engineers, general contractor and subcontractor. Since its introduction to the North American market in the late 1980's, Jet Grouting has not solved all these problems, but where utilized, has shown economical benefits, a faster and safer installation, and a minimal movement of the structures being underpinned. A history of the development of jet grouting is presented; a comparison of this technique versus other grouting methods, a description of the jet grouting system with emphasis on the triple rod systems; case histories of jet grouting used for underpinning and conclusions and references are included to follow the program's themes of: - Recognizing Solutions to Today's Problems - Defining Tomorrows Challenges - Putting America on a Solid Foundation

Jan 1, 1991

By C. L. Liao

The chief experiences for constructing deep tubular columns foundation under deep water are as follows: 1. P.C. tubular columns were sunk inside the caisson. 2. P.O. tubular columns of 3.6 M. diameter were sunk thru thick soil layer to a depth of 47 M. by vibrators. 3. The double wall steel cofferdam was sunk thru soil layer to a depth 31.3 M.. 4. Bore the bedrock with rotary drill succesfully. According to the successful experiences mentioned above, the deep tubular columns foundation may be constructed beyond 100 meters.

Jan 1, 2010

By Kenneth Gavin

Design practice for piles installed in Irish glacial till has developed in an ad-hoc manner, based on the results of un-instrumented load tests. This had led to designers using similar design parameters for both CFA and displacement piles. To address the concerns of industry a series of instrumented pile tests were performed by two Irish Universities. These tests summarized herein, revealed that CFA piles develop higher shaft resistance than piles driven in glacial till. However, they exhibit low base stiffness and the end bearing resistance that can be mobilized at acceptable pile settlement is low. The use of simple non-linear elastic design approaches to predict the load-displacement response is considered. The methods are used to predict the capacity of two large diameter CFA piles installed in glacial till. While the predictions were reasonably accurate at predicting the initial load-displacement of the piles, significant creep settlement developed at higher load levels. The cause of the creep settlement was investigated through the use of plate load tests and the consequences for pile design are discussed.

Jan 1, 2009

By S. L. Karunakaran

Selection of an appropriate foundation system requires great skill and ingenuity on the part of the designer. Certain guidelines for choosing between a pile and raft foundation are presented. A number of methods are available for estimating the capacity of piles, giving a wide range of values for the theoretical load carrying capacity. A few aspects to be taken into account while arriving at an appropriate theoretical capacity are discussed. The effect of fluctuation of water table level on the pile capacity and method of accounting for this factor on the pile capacity obtained through initial load test are also discussed. A case study presents a comparison between the estimated values of capacity of piles and the values obtained through the initial load test.

Jan 1, 1996

By Padmavathi V. Sagi

In this paper, effect of cyclic loading on the behavior of a long, flexible, unrestrained vertical pile loaded laterally in soft clay is examined. For cyclic loading, the analysis is carried out using a new method for the construction of p-y curves and for static loading conditions, p-y curves proposed by Dewaikar and Poonam (2005) are used. An iterative analysis is employed with secant modulus approach using a matrix method known as moment area method developed by Sawant et al. (1994). For pile top deflection of 20% of pile diameter, the load values are computed for both static and cyclic conditions. The comparison of results with the field test results reported by Matlock (1970) shows a good agreement. A parametric study is further carried out to examine the effect of load eccentricity, pile embedment length, diameter and the number of cycles on the pile response. The results of this study are discussed in the paper.

Jan 1, 2006

By Timothy C. Siegel

A piled raft refers to a shallow foundation that is structurally connected to the piles, while composite ground refers to a soil-pile matrix where the piles are not structurally connected. The design objectives for both a piled raft and composite ground are (excluding special considerations such as expansive soil): (1) to provide a sufficient ultimate resistance and (2) to distribute the load into the soil-pile matrix so that the settlement experienced by the shallow foundation is within tolerable limits. A simplified model is proposed for a shallow foundation on composite ground where the foundation settlement is estimated as the sum of the downward movement of the piles plus the downward movement of the shallow foundation relative to the pile head. The proposed simplified model is applied using conventional geotechnical analyses for two hypothetical examples of shallow foundations undergoing compression settlement.

Jan 1, 2011

By Vasileios A. Drosos

The response of pile foundations to lateral loads is an important factor for the successful performance of several critical structures. A new numerical code for the analysis of single piles under lateral load is outlined. The code can simulate (through appropriately chosen parameter values) not only the non-linear behavior of soil, but also the inelastic structural response of the pile itself under lateral load. Emphasis is given on the calibration of model parameters and the verification of the code. For the calibration of the parameters, data is used (a) from the well documented in the literature p-y curves, and (b) from experiments conducted either in full scale or in the centrifuge. Results are compared to those of well known published codes for inelastic analysis of single piles under lateral load.

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1997

By Bin Zhang

Drilled shafts are a popular type of foundation for transportation applications. They feature the advantages of providing high bearing capacity and generating low construction noise. Advancements in construction technology make it possible to construct drilled shaft with large diameters. In some transportation projects, the full structural loads are carried by a single large diameter drilled shaft; therefore accurately determining the bearing capacity of drilled shafts has important practical and safety implications. The increase of drilled shaft diameter combined with the structure properties of the surrounding soil play in an important role in their bearing capacity. The conventional methods for bearing capacity determination, which mostly come from experience with small diameter drilled shafts, may not work satisfactorily. This paper studies the influence of diameter on the bearing capacity of laterally loaded drilled shafts. Numerical simulations are conducted to investigate the effects of pile diameter on the lateral bearing capacity, especially the influence of shaft diameter and its structural contributions.

Jan 1, 2007

1.1 The parties agree to submit all claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to, the interpretation, application or enforcement of this agreement, including dispute resolution procedures, to sequential mandatory discussion, mediation and arbitration for resolution of all disputes before, and as a condition precedent, to self-help, arbitration, judicial action or other remedies. This mandatory procedure will resolve each dispute within one-hundred (100) calendar days. Any deadline falling on a federal holiday or weekend will be the next working day. Breach of this disputes process shall constitute a material breach of contract for which the aggrieved party may recover all costs, including attorneys fees, interest and other expenses necessary to resolve the dispute through litigation. The obligation to discuss and then mediate and arbitrate covers all disputes arising from every aspect of the Project to be built by the owner, including, but not limited to, design, engineering, bonding, indemnification, labor, material and services, and the acts or omissions of any related party for whom a party to this agreement may stand responsible.

Jan 1, 1994

By M. R. Madhav

The ultimate pullout capacity of single batter piles has been presented in literature in three contradictory trends. These trends are: the pullout capacity of a single batter pile increases, remain almost constant, or decrease with increasing the inclination angle of the pile. The present paper presents a theoretical study which explained these trends in terms of existing initial stress condition and the earth pressure coefficient at rest. The paper also presents a form of guideline for predicting the pullout capacity of inclined piles based on simple field and/or laboratory tests.

Jan 1, 2010

By Sushant Upadhyaya, Deniz Karadeniz

As part of the widening of I-64 in Williamsburg, Virginia, an extensive subsurface exploration program consisting of Standard Penetration Tests (SPT), Cone Penetration Tests (CPT), Dilatometer Tests (DMT), and Vane Shear Test was performed. In addition to these in-situ tests, an extensive laboratory testing program was completed including Consolidated-Undrained Triaxial, Unconsolidated-Undrained Triaxial, Direct Shear, and consolidation tests. The strength and the compressibility properties are deemed conservative for Yorktown and St. Mary’s Formations when evaluated based on the current topography, the existing overburden pressure and SPT values. SPT exhibited low blow counts especially within Yorktown Formation due to the increased excess pore water pressures resulting in a localized liquefaction at the tip of the split spoon sampler corresponding to remolded or fully softened strength of the soil. Therefore, the applicability of the SPT correlated soil parameters somewhat leads to conservative designs with deeper piles to achieve a desired structural load demand. Generally, the in-situ estimated soil design parameters are found to be comparable with the laboratory test results corresponding to long-term resistance gain with time. It is of practical importance to employ realistic soil design parameters for design applications such as pile foundations to provide cost and schedule savings. This paper presents a discussion on the soil strength estimates and variability from in-situ and laboratory tests for realistic strength characterization of Coastal Plain deposits.

By Brian Langdon

The DRIVEN GROUT PILE was developed in 1989 by DeWitt Construction, Incorporated. This piling essentially consists of a cost-in-place concrete piling that reacts on a steel boot that is driven to bearing. This report will describe the driven grout pile, its background and its installation. The advantages and disadvantages of this system are also discussed. Finally, the results of actual field installations are presented and discussed. BACKGROUND The DRIVEN GROUT PILE was developed out of a need for a low-cost high capacity piling (100 ton) that could be installed with ordinary pile driving equipment. This search was motivated by attempting to incorporate the material economy of an auger-cast piling with the "empirical load test" of a driven pile. Typically, the least cost material for piling in the 100 ton range is concrete (grout). A grout shaft with minimal reinforcement can withstand a compressive load of 100 tons for a material cost in the range of $6.00 to $8.00 per lineal foot. A pipe piling with a capacity of 100 tons has a unit material cost ranging to $13.00 per lineal foot. The marriage of these two advantages resulted in the DRIVEN GROUT PILE. A pile that utilizes the economy of a reinforced grout shaft and has the loading confidence of a driven pile.

Jan 1, 1990

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 Masanoub R. Fujioka

A brief discussion of the methodologies involved in dewatering practices, particularly as used in Hawaii in coralline formations. A description of early dewatering practices includes a number of case histories; later dewatering practices also are detailed with case histories. There were disasters and some successes. Grouting generally was not successful. Deep wells are technically feasible and generally the economical solution to deep basement construction.

Jan 1, 1986

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 Andrew Malinak, William Perkins

Seattle’s Elliott Bay Seawall protects the 1½ miles of downtown waterfront between South Washington and Broad streets. The seawall supports the urban waterfront and infrastructure, including the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Alaskan Way, access to historic waterfront piers, and numerous essential buried utilities. Most of the original seawall was constructed between 1916 and 1936 over soft/loose non-engineered fill, estuary, and beach deposits. The majority of the original seawall was a pile-supported timber relieving platform that extended up to 60 feet behind the face of the wall (Figure 1). With maximum spacing between the timber piles of 3 to 5 feet, a virtual forest of timber piles were driven for the original wall.

Jan 1, 2018

By Patrick J. Lydon, Gregory A. Terri

"The recently opened Mansueto Library at the University of Chicago campus was a 2012 OPA runner-up. The dramatic elliptical shaped dome of this structure tells only part of this structure’s story. The underground automated storage and book retrieval system below ground required excavations as deep as 55 ft (17 m). The system that allows the University to store many of its publications well below grade also required an approximately 50 ft (15 m) clear span for the perimeter walls between the lower level and street level slabs. The latter requirement allows the conveyors to operate freely to retrieve and transport publications up to the lobby level. The design-assist-build team worked together to develop the most cost-effective solution for below-grade work in this challenging urban and geologic environment.The perimeter of the new oval-shaped library is over 620 ft (189 m) long and sits in a central location on campus—adjacent to the Regenstein Library and two city streets and the Henry Moore sculpture, which commemorates the location of the first self-sustaining controlled nuclear reaction. The new library construction not only had to meet challenging structural and geotechnical requirements, but also had to be sensitive to its active and historic surroundings. The soils at the site consist of about 25 ft (7.6 m) of sand, followed by lean clay, generally increasing in stiffness to the top of the dolomitic limestone. Five to 10 ft (1.5 to 3 m) pockets of saturated sand also lie on the north side of the site at about 45 ft (13.7 m) below grade. The top of weathered rock varies in elevation from 59 ft (18 m) below grade in the south to 69 ft (21 m) in the north. There is 1 to 2 ft (30 to 60 cm) of weathered rock. Groundwater at the site is about 7 ft (2 m) below grade.The new structure would extend 55 ft (17 m) below grade through saturated sand strata and into weathered rock for part of the structure’s footprint, so it was critical that the new permanent retention system minimize groundwater seepage laterally through the structure’s wall as well as piping through the weathered rock below the structure. The perimeter walls had to be very stiff to minimize ground movement around the structure’s perimeter due to the significant clear span between slabs."

Jan 1, 2013

By Trevor L. L. Orr

"AbstractThe background to the harmonization of geotechnical standards that has taken place in recent years in Europe has been the move to more economic and political integration following World War II that has led to the formation of the European Union. Prior to 2010 the standards used in the European countries for geotechnical design, investigation and testing and for the carrying out geotechnical work, such as the installation of piles, were the different national standards, which were not harmonized. The harmonization of geotechnical standards in Europe started in 1981 with work on a model Eurocode 7 for geotechnical design that led eventually to publication by CEN, the European Committee for Standardization, of the European Standard version of Eurocode 7 in 2004. In parallel with the work on Eurocode 7, a large number of associated harmonized standards have been, and are being, prepared by CEN and by the International Standards Organization (ISO) for geotechnical investigation and testing and for the execution of geotechnical works. Standards published by CEN must be adopted by the CEN member countries and all conflicting standards withdrawn. Hence all the CEN countries have adopted the same the harmonized text of Eurocode 7, but with National Annexes that allow national choice with regard to Design Approach and partial factor values. The adoption of Eurocode 7 and its associated geotechnical standards has removed the barriers to geotechnical activity in Europe due to the presence of different national standards. It has also enhanced the ability of EU firms to compete in the global market.Background to harmonization of geotechnical standards in EuropeThe initial moves towards the harmonization of geotechnical standards in Europe can be related to the economic and political developments that took place in the period immediately following World War II to revive the economies of Western Europe. Europe at that time was divided by a political and, in many places, a physical barrier, known as the Iron Curtain, into two very different and separate zones: communist in the east and non-communist in the west. In 1952 the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was formed, linking 6 countries: Belgium, West Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, and establishing a common market in coal and steel. The ECSC was the first international organization to be established on the basis of supranational principles whereby negotiated power is delegated to an authority by the governments of the member states. In 1957 the ECSC became the European Economic Community (EEC), also known as the Common Market in the English-speaking world, with the aim to bring about economic integration. With the addition of Denmark, Ireland and the UK in 1973 and Greece in 1981, followed by Portugal and Spain in 1986, this led to the formation of the European Union (EU) in 1993. East and West Germany were reunified in 1990, following the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989. In 1995, Austria, Finland and Sweden joined the EU, and since then the numbers of countries in the EU has increased to 28, many of which are countries that were formerly behind the Iron Curtain."

Jan 1, 2014