Search Documents

By Franz-Werner Gerressen

"New developments are required day by day. On the one hand site to improve the actual situation, on the other hand site to create the future and to ensure that future demands can be fulfilled. This requires for instance the development of technical support systems, which enable a more constant and quality ensured installation of special foundation products like piles. As part of the quality control, real time installation control of the production process, data transfer and reporting systems become more and more important ensuring the five dimensions of a jobsite. That means not only the three well known dimensions (width, height, depth) are cover, but also the dimension of time and money. Beside small, but important, details, also the demand of extending the use of methodologies in terms of getting deeper or allow their use in various soil conditions require the development of new tools and equipment. Therefore, the paper will describe some of these new approaches and activities required for these new developments. It will describe also the main equipment which will be needed to execute these works under the various conditionsINTRODUCTIONNew developments are required day by day. Either to improve the actual situation, or to create the future and to ensure that future demands can be fulfilled. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for the development of e.g. “Little Helpers”. “Little helpers” are for example technical support systems, which enable a more constant and quality ensured installation of special foundation products like piles, for example an assistance system like the later explained “drilling” assistant. As part of the quality control, real time installation control of the production process, data transfer and reporting systems become more and more important ensuring the five dimensions of a jobsite. In a second part the focus will be given to new approaches for soil mixing application. Adjustments of tools or equipment to extend the range of possible usage as well in terms of soil conditions as in treatment depth.“LITTLE HELPER”GeneralThe B-Tronic System enables you to efficiently operate, maintain, and administer individual machines as well as entire fleets. It helps you to securely monitor and precisely evaluate your projects and work processes. The system is an integrated system for controlling all operations and visualizing actual operating parameters in real-time on a large interactive touch-screen monitor."

Jan 1, 1900

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 Vijayakumar Viramuthu, Martin Heinrich

Tower of Lot L, L1 & M, Kuala Lumpur City Centre when completed would stand 700 m tall. This Mega tall Skyscraper would merely be less than 500 m away from the world tallest Twin Tower, the Petronas Twin Tower. From June 2018 to February 2020 BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. constructed 225 nos bored piles with diameters of 2.0 m and 2.5 m for this tower. To comply with the depth requirement of the initial design and the need to have the pile toe 2.0 m above competent bedrock, the drilling equipment was required to be able to achieve a maximum drilling depth of 150 m. Actual piles constructed on site were deeper than 120 m. These dimensions caused superlative challenges which included but were not limited to controlling the open borehole stability over time with polymer, installing 70 t heavy steel cages and pouring up to 550 m³ concrete continuously in conjunction with installation of 88 t heavy kingposts into workable fresh concrete. The piling works were executed with one BAUER BG 48 and one BG 72, the biggest drilling rig globally available.

May 1, 2022

By Michael Gebman, Jack Gerwick

"With the opening of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span, the former bridge and its caisson foundations are being demolished. Caisson foundations are in the path of a future shipping channel and therefore need removal down to the mudline 50 ft below water (MLLW). For the first caisson to be removed (E3) a mechanical demolition was performed above the waterline and an implosion was done for the remaining caisson down to mudline. Mechanical demolition consisted of excavators operating from either on top of the caisson, from work platforms or from barges. The demolition was implemented on a trial basis with a successful implosion on November 14, 2015. The work was conducted in an environmentally sensitive area, with measures taken to protect fish, marine mammals and birds. This demolition technique was cost effective, faster to execute, and had a better environmental impact then an alternative option. The demolition, measures implemented to protect the environment, outcome, and lessons learned are presented.INTRODUCTIONThe California Department of Transportation needed a cost effective and environmentally friendly solution for removal of the remaining San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (former East Span) caisson foundations, starting with caisson E3. This was necessary to clear a future shipping channel. One option was to construct a steel cofferdam around the caisson to allow demolition in the dry down to the mudline. This option would take years to complete, be cost prohibitive, and its noise would disrupt aquatic life and birds throughout the cofferdam construction and demolition. An alternative option was implemented on a trial basis to conduct a mechanical demolition of the caisson above waterline along with an implosion of the remaining caisson down to mudline. This had the clear advantage as a cofferdam was not needed, and the demolition project duration would be approximately 6 months, instead of several years for the cofferdam option. The potential impact on aquatic life and birds from the implosion was a concern, as the location is environmentally sensitive; however, measures were implemented to minimize these impacts. As presented in this paper, this demolition option was implemented on a trial basis for Caisson E3. The technique succeeded and will now be used on the remaining caissons.BACKGROUND INFO ON CAISSON E3The reinforced concrete Caisson E3 is the largest caisson which supported the former East Span of the Bay Bridge. It was constructed in 1934, with the Bay Bridge opening in 1936. Figure 1 shows the project location. The caisson had a cell arrangement of 7 x 2 above the mudline. Below mudline, the caisson had a cell arrangement of 9 x 4. A structural transition was made between the 7 x 2 and 9 x 4 cell arrangements with buttress walls. All cells were flooded, as underwater openings were included in the original caisson walls to equalize the hydrostatic pressure. Figure 2 shows the caisson layout with limits for mechanical demolition and for the implosion."

Jan 1, 2016

By George Burke

Of the three projects, particularly the extensive Nimitz II (downtown) project, a single system, which was part of the operation, was used to control the spoil. Spoil control was continuous with the work since a vacuum truck and crew was used to suck up the spoils as they came out of the borehole. So, the whole job was kept clean both during operations and at the end of the shifts. On the Sand Island project, a double system was used. Larger spoil quantities were contained within the shaft limits during the work and the cleanup or disposal of the spoils was performed during excavation.

Feb 10, 2003

By Padmavathi V, M. Najamuddin, M. R. Madhav

Granular piles are one of the leading ground improvement techniques, adopted for the betterment of bearing capacity and reduction in settlements of the foundations and also to accelerate consolidation of the surrounding soil. In the recent past, there has been extensive research on the settlement analysis and behavior of granular piles under varied soil conditions. The application of these theoretical solutions to practical problems requires a knowledge of representative values of the deformation parameters of the ground and the granular piles. However, very little information is available on these parameters. The paper presents a new method for the estimation of the modular ratio of granular piles and modulus of deformation of the surrounding in-situ soil from the compression load tests. The load - settlement response obtained from the compression test results are used in the back analysis for estimating the modulus of deformation of the ground. The presence of granular bed, under the rigid plate for load testing, has been given due consideration in quantifying the proportion of load transferred on to the stone column. Based on these considerations a new method is developed to estimate the modulus of deformation of the ground and the modular ratio of the granular pile.

Sep 1, 2022

By Emilie Lapointe, Fernando Famania

"A reliable determination of the in-placed cement factor, as defined by mass of cement over volume of final element of treated soil, allows the optimization of cement usage to achieve treated soil requirements. Cement determination tests were performed on soil-cement samples, both fresh (as per ASTM D5982) and hardened (as per ASTM C1084). This paper reviews the calibration work required for the D5982 determination of cement content by the heat of hydration method used on soil-cement samples obtained by wet-grabbing. Using the correlation curves in the field provides a rapid assessment of cement content hence optimizing the cement injection rate to match laboratory tests previously conducted. Cement determination tests on hardened soil-cement specimens from wet-grabs and cores were performed using the oxides method. Samples, both cored and wet-grabbed, were tested in a given cement-treated element, and in different soils to inform on the expected variation in cement content from field installation. Results indicate that both cement determination methods are valid for forensically determining cement contents and that they provide better assessment than the conventional field reporting methods. The methods can be used to optimise the cement usage as well as for Quality Assurance, especially when coring quality is poor.INTRODUCTIONThe degree of improvement, and inherent strength, which is attained in a deep-mixed soil is a function of many factors. The binder type, the existing soil, the mixing conditions and the curing conditions are the categories of factors influencing the strength of a given cement-treated soil as agreed by the deep mixing community and as summarized by the Coastal Development of Technology [CDIT] (2012). Given a site with existing soils and conditions requiring soil improvement using a given binder, the designer and/or contractor can control the mixing conditions. Mixing conditions are inclusive of the degree of mixing, mixing duration and the quantity of binder. Once a deep mixing method has been chosen to mix optimally the in-situ soil, the quantity of binder is the only remaining factor to be optimized. The quantity of binder, in the construction industry is commonly referred to as the field binder factor [ar] and defined by the mass of binder over the volume of soil treated with kg/m3 as unit. In research, the quantity of binder is referred to as the binder content [Cc] and expressed as a ratio of the mass of binder over the mass of dry soil mixed."

Jan 1, 2015

By Cory McElprang, Enamul Hoque, Aaron Thomas, Scott A. Jacobs

Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) only evaluates concrete on the inside of reinforcing cages leaving the outside unevaluated unless other types of testing are performed such as Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL). While there have been some reports of PSL testing having accurately identified anomalies (e.g. Samtani et al 2005), experience by Case Foundation Company has indicated otherwise where false positives were determined with subsequent coring. Numerous cases of PSL false positives are presented as well as a study where a shaft was installed with both inside and outside tubes, and CSL and PSL data were compared. To date, there is very limited data published on perimeter sonic logging, or Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL) with tubes on the exterior of drilled shafts. Several cases will be presented where false positives were experienced where PSL testing was performed. In addition, a direct comparison will also be presented where a shaft was installed with both tubes on the inside and outside where CSL and PSL data is compared. BRIEF HISTORY – CSL TESTING AND TUBES ON INSIDE The general procedure of Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing includes attaching tubes to the reinforcing cage to be able to send a transmitter in one tube and a receiver in another tube with which a sonic pulse is emitted from the transmitter and received in another tube. The time taken for the sonic pulse to travel between the tubes is measured and compared to expected values for the known distance between the tubes. Any increase in time from expected values indicates the sonic pulse traveled through a media other than homogeneous concrete such as objects in the path (spacer wheels, steel bracing, etc.), tube spacing, or soil inclusions. However, variations in arrival time can also result from differences in concrete density. The tubes have traditionally been placed on the interior of the reinforcing cage which protects them during hoisting and placement of the cage and reduces wave refraction caused by modulus of elasticity differences between steel and concrete. This allows the concrete within the interior of the reinforcing cage to be evaluated, but the concrete outside of the cage is excluded from traditional CSL testing. As a result, alternative integrity testing has been developed to not only provide different ways to evaluate the integrity of drilled shafts but to also address the issue of evaluating the concrete outside of the reinforcing cage. These alternative testing methods include Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL), Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP testing) and Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL) which is similar to CSL testing but instead of the tubes placed inside the reinforcing cage, the tubes are placed on the outside of the reinforcing cage as shown in Fig. 1.

Jan 1, 2019

By Christopher J. Ramsey, Don W. Dotson

"An existing four lane section of US 27 was widened to eight lanes. The project lies in the rugged Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian mountains starting at the Tennessee River in Chattanooga, Tennessee and extending 2.6 km north to Signal Mountain Boulevard. This terrain presented many challenges to accommodate the road widening in the narrow, rugged topography. Multiple tiered wall systems consisting of large tieback walls, post-tensioned reaction blocks, and gravity MSE walls for a total of approximately 30 retaining walls were required. The retaining walls served to stabilize the thrust faulted geology while also minimizing right-of-way acquisitions. The cut walls consist mainly of a tiered system of tied-back soldier piles walls with cast-in-place concrete facing. Cast-in-place pile shear walls were required along the toe of existing MSE walls to maintain stability during construction. This paper discusses the design methodology, which includes a hybrid (rather than traditional) earth pressure diagram intended to reduce life-cycle maintenance and long-term performance. Further this paper addresses wall construction, slope stability analysis, landslide mitigation alternatives, soldier pile wall design features, site challenges, monitoring and performance (to date) of the wall systems.INTRODUCTIONThis project involves the proposed widening of US Highway 27 (State Route 29) from the north end of the Tennessee River Bridge at Manufacturer’s Road to State Route 8 (Signal Mountain Road), approximately 2.64 km of roadway (Fig. 1). The project site is located adjacent to the Tennessee River on the north side of downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee in Hamilton County. The existing, limited access highway is to be widened from four lanes (two northbound and two southbound) to a minimum of eight lanes. Some portions of the alignment will expand to as much as ten lanes where northbound and southbound ramp acceleration/deceleration lanes coincide.In addition to the number and heights of cuts and fills involved, a major factor in determining an economical design for the alignment is the complicated geologic conditions along the roadway alignment. The existing roadway is situated between several steep cut slopes, some of which are only marginally stable or currently exhibit signs of instability. Due to the proximity of the project to the downtown area, the steep slopes along the alignment, and the relatively dense population near the alignment, widening the pavement and constructing cut and fill slopes to a stable configuration would result in major land acquisition for slope right-of-way."

Jan 1, 2015

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

By Marc Raithel, Sven Schröer, Lilma Schimmel, Dimiter Alexiew

"The Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC) deep foundation system for embankments and dikes on soft soils was introduced some 20 years ago and is now considered State-of-the-art in Germany, Europe and, step by step, worldwide. The GECs consist of compacted non-cohesive granular fill similar e.g. to common gravel columns with one decisive difference: they are confined in a high-strength, high-modulus, flexible geotextile “cylinder” (encasement). This engineered element with parameters being adaptable in a wide range provides a decisive tool to control and optimize the behavior of the GEC foundation system. Consequently, the GECs work properly even in extremely soft soils, and a wide range of fills inclusive of sands can be used. In the meantime vast design and technological experience is available and codified design methods exist. Initially the paper briefly describes the general idea, the basics and specifics of design, construction technology, materials, restrictions and optimal application areas. Then it focuses on three informative case studies. They are briefly presented focusing for brevity only on the most important facts and experience inclusive of the most meaningful data of short- and long-term measurement programs.INTRODUCTIONWhen considering embankments on soft soils, generally two groups of solutions exist:Unsupported embankments; there are four main options:a) build up embankment extremely slowly waiting for sufficient consolidation after every stage;b) replace the soft soil partially or totally;c) install a high-strength basal reinforcement providing overall and local stability and allowing much faster embankment construction;d) combine c) with strip drains to accelerate consolidation and thus the construction process additionally (Fig. 1, left).Today, practically only option ""d"" is of practical relevance. Despite all the pros and cons, the common attribute of all non-supported options is that local and overall stability (Ultimate Limit State-ULS) can be achieved and controlled, but not the short- and long-term settlements (Serviceability Limit State-SLS). The latter can be significant, e.g. up to 30% of the nominal planned embankment height. Supported embankments (Fig. 1, right): the main common idea is to over-bridge the soft soil layers by supporting vertical elements of different types: rigid piles, trench walls etc. or by ""softer"" solutions of different column types (compacted, cemented, mixed-in-place etc.). Herein the borderlines between “piles”, ""pile-similar elements"" and ""soil improvement” are fluent and depend on country, traditions, codes etc. The common attribute of the “supported” schemes is a minimized settlement. Twenty years ago a new specific solution was launched: the Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC), which is discussed in more detail below."

Jan 1, 2017

By Nozomu Kotake, Rakshya Shrestha, Ralph Griffin, Stefanos Papadopulos, Jeff Fippin, Sushil Kafle

Direct Power Compaction (DPC) is a deep Vibro-compaction method used for liquefaction mitigation. In DPC, H-beams are used as vibrating rods penetrating deep into the ground, and a vibrating force is applied directly to the tip of these H-beams to densify the loose ground. A characteristic feature of DPC is the use of a flapping plate installed at the base of the H-beam to enhance the compaction efficiency during penetration. In addition, 2-rod and 4-rod type equipment have been developed to improve productivity and enable rapid construction. DPC was selected as the most suitable and cost-effective technique to mitigate liquefaction hazards in two projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, one on Alameda Island and another on Treasure Island. Both sites were capped with hydraulically placed sand fills. Liquefaction analyses indicated excessive liquefaction-induced settlements and large lateral spread without ground improvement. Densification using DPC was performed up to depths of 42 ft to reduce the liquefaction potential of the sand fill to acceptable levels and to allow planned improvements. Cone penetration tests were conducted before and after DPC to evaluate its performance. This paper describes the equipment and process involved in DPC and discusses its application in terms of subsurface conditions and geotechnical design considerations.

Sep 8, 2021

By Mark D. Fuhriman, Parham Khoshkbari, Robert Fosse

Drilled displacement piles are becoming an increasingly common deep foundation choice for their relatively simple installation methods, applicability to a wide range of subsurface conditions, and versatility. The installation method includes drilling and displacement of the soil followed by delivery of fluid cement grout under pressure, and placement of steel reinforcing to complete the pile. Because the installation method uses blind processes that do not permit direct observation of the pile, it is desirable to employ redundant testing tools to complement good construction techniques and inspection practices to ensure integrity of the piles. This paper examines the use of a range of integrity testing tools used for pile installations at a major office campus development. Because the integrity of a drilled displacement pile and its performance depend to a large extent on the skill and experience of the installation crew, the paper explores how use of multiple practical tools, including automated monitoring tools on the pile installation equipment, thermal integrity profiling, and high-strain dynamic testing, ensure structural integrity of the completed piles and how redundant integrity testing methods complement good construction and inspection practices add confidence in the quality of the foundation system.

Sep 8, 2021

By Gang Guo, Zhong Liu

"In response to an increasing demand of anchored structures for underground space and transportation infrastructure in China, an innovative underreamed ground anchorage system was created. The novel anchorage system has provided more efficient functions with higher capacity at lower cost, because of the enlarged cylindrical body (known as ECB) sealed in capsule at bottom of anchorage. This paper presents the detailed structure of innovative anchorage system and its special features. To investigate the bearing mechanism of new anchorage, we evaluate its performance and failure mode based on the experimental results, and also indicate its strain-hardening load-displacement relationship. Unlike the shaft anchorages, it is identified no overall failure to be found in soil surrounding the underreamed anchorage. More importantly, the anchorage capacity is governed by the base resistance, which takes more than 80% of total pullout capacity resulting from the contribution of ECB. Finally a case history of anti-floating project introduces the new combined construction approach and procedure, which has provided the contribution to the quality control and cost efficiency.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe construction boom over two decades in China has resulted in an increasing demand for underground space and slope stability. The infrastructures market requires the more efficient anchorage systems for retaining structures, resisting uplift forces and slope protection. The major concern focuses on gaining higher capacity and lower cost resulted from perfecting anchorage systems. There are three main anchorage systems designed to achieve the above objectives: ? single bore multiple anchorage system (Barley 1997), ? regroutable anchorage system (Smoltczyk 1991), ? underreamed anchorage systems (Xanthakos 1991). Generally, the concept ? comparing with the other two, can be more competitive due to its distinct advantages. To improve the performance and durability of ground anchorages under the complex geological conditions and diversified engineering requirements, a number of different underreamed anchorage technologies had been used, which included cone - shape anchorage described by Liao, Wu and Shu (1997) in Taiwan, Soilex anchorage developed in Sweden (Massarsch et al. 1997), Soletanche anchorage proposed in France, blasting anchorage used in Czechoslovakia (Hobst and Zajic 1986), jet-grouting anchorage innovated in Europe (Anon 1988), as well as deep mixing anchorage created in Japan (Cheng et al. 2000).The underreamed anchorage systems have the remarkable advantages compared to the shaft anchorage system. However, there are also some weaknesses inherent in the underreamed systems. For instance, the mechanical underreamed anchorage is unsuitable in sand or waterbearing ground, because the enlarged hole is easy to collapse, and it is hard to ensure the quality of anchorages. On the other hand, relying on the blasting in deep hole, the geometrical space and dimension of enlarged hole is uncontrollable, meanwhile, the continuous blasting operations may easily cause the serious ground deformation and the negative effects to the completed anchorages."

Jan 1, 1900

By P. Kiruthika, A. Murali Krishna

Soil liquefaction is a dangerous phenomenon that involves huge damages during strong earthquake ground motion event. Stone columns (SCs) are widely used as liquefaction mitigation element which is expected to perform the improvements against liquefaction hazard by densifying, increasing the stiffness and rapid dissipation of excess pore water pressure in the surrounding soil. Although in the recent times few studies on the behaviour of stone columns in the seismic zone has evolved, the performance of SCs in the multi-layered soils is not extensively examined. This paper presents the numerical investigations on the performance of SCs installed in the multi-layered soils as a liquefaction mitigation measure against the seismic loading. The acceleration time histories, Excess Porewater Pressure (EPP), vertical displacement and stress ratio evaluated along different depths using PLAXIS 2D. With the installation of stone column there is a considerable reduction in the acceleration amplitude, which in turn reduces the EPP and vertical displacement at different locations and the amplitude of reduction depends on the soil stiffness levels at the depth.

Sep 1, 2022

Jan 1, 2003

By Brian J. Olson, Kevin Haiar

Originally constructed between 1939 and 1941 as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the Bonneville to Hood River 115 kV Transmission Line required an infrastructure upgrade to remain reliable and in-service. The line traverses the rugged landscape of the Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon- Washington border, featuring steep, talus slopes; uneven, rocky terrain; and a variety of environmental sensitivities. This paper details the design and construction of 27 micropile foundations for new, fire- hardening steel poles through a particularly challenging stretch of the alignment. The difficult access and environmental constraints at these sites designated them as helicopter-accessible and precluded the collection of detailed geotechnical information prior to construction. Micropiles provided a viable foundation alternative due to their portability and flexibility during construction. Detail will be provided on the extensive preliminary desktop study performed, as well as the process of developing engineering designs to successfully accommodate for variability and unknowns in complex geological conditions. With an increasing number of electric power projects traversing challenging terrain and facing similar obstacles, this project stands to provide valuable lessons learned to the industry.

Sep 8, 2021

By Dharmil S. Patel, Zoyav S. Benyaminov, Cassandra A. Wetzel

Rehabilitation of the Henry Hudson Bridge is nearing completion, connecting Spuyten Duyvil in the Bronx to Inwood Hill in Manhattan, New York. Constructed in 1936, the Henry Hudson Bridge spans 840 feet over the Hudson River. Challenging geotechnical aspects of this Project required a team of innovators to overcome. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge involved the replacement of sixteen bent pedestal substructures, two abutment pilasters and installation of new deep foundations at the skewbacks. However, the Bridge, roadways, adjacent Metro-North Railroad (MNR) structures and New York City (NYC) Parks land were to remain open to the public for use, with minimal disturbance. In addition to physical constraints, geologic site conditions varied widely across both sides of the River, with varying bedrock quality and depth, greatly impacting the proposed design and construction. Extensive analysis of bedrock conditions was conducted to locate areas of potential wedge failure. The implementation of anchors was used to reinforce rock stability where pedestals and pilasters were replaced. This paper describes several challenging technical and natural aspects overcome in the rehabilitation of the Henry Hudson bridge foundations, including varying geologic site conditions, access restrictions, construction limitations, project specifications and design requirements.

Sep 8, 2021

By Michal Topolnicki

"Discussed is the use of wet Deep Soil Mixing, generally executed with single mixing tools 0.8 to 1.6m in diameter, employed in the foundation of viaduct supports. The applications involve economical patterns of ground improvement, covering in average about 40% of the foundation area or less, which contribute to the competitiveness of DSM solutions when compared to traditional piling. The focus is on selected aspects of the geotechnical design, applicable for geo-composite systems in which the interaction between the stabilised and the native soil should also be considered. Evaluation of settlement can be carried out with simplified methods, accounting for punching effects, or with more advanced FE models in case foundation tilt or differential settlements become important. Potential bending of DSM columns should be considered when evaluating column stresses, especially when dealing with deep deposits of soft soil and/or foundations loaded with overturning moments and/or high horizontal forces. Statistical evaluation of UCS data using lognormal distribution is recommended, and a new classification system for DSM application is proposed. Field investigations and monitoring data from completed projects are also presented.INTRODUCTIONThe first applications of wet Deep Soil Mixing in foundation of road viaducts constructed across and along the newly built A2-highway in Poland took place in 2002. Following detailed analyses, it was concluded that 39 viaducts, originally designed to rest upon large diameter piles in order to reduce excessive settlement of individual supports, could also be founded directly on the ground improved with DSM columns, fulfilling all relevant requirements of serviceability and ultimate limit states (SLS and ULS, respectively). It was also noticed that shorter construction times and lower costs of ground improvement with DSM contributed to substantial economical savings as compared to classical piling. Since then, more than 250 road and railway viaducts have been successfully founded on DSM treated ground in Poland, and wet soil mixing is now seen as a reliable and widely accepted technology for this purpose. These applications, together with a parallel use of wet DSM for foundation of buildings, industrial halls and wind turbines, have drawn international attention to the state of practice of wet DSM in Poland for foundation of engineering objects. What follows is an attempt to summarise experience gained during planning and execution of DSM works for foundation of the majority of road and railway viaducts constructed in the last 13 years, with emphasis on selected design aspects and evaluation of collected data and observed performance.The design process of DSM treatment is iterative, as described e.g. in Annex B of EN 14679, and typically involves two main steps, i.e., the selection of the design strength of cemented soil, called soil-mix design, and the adoption of suitable column pattern, referred to as geotechnical design. Soil-mix design was initially based on purposely arranged simple laboratory tests, involving mixing of soil specimen with different cement types and dosages and subsequent strength testing. However, with a growing number of completed projects the accumulated field strength data of different stabilised soils have been more and more frequently used, reducing the need for preceding laboratory testing of soil-mix to special projects only. Information on cement factors utilised in Poland and the range of recommended compressive strengths for different stabilised soils, as well as on mixing tools and characteristics of the wet method applied, can be found in Topolnicki (2008). Consequently, soil-mix design is not further discussed herein. Selected aspects of the geotechnical design are the main focus."

Jan 1, 2015

By R. Lee Wooten, David R. Shields, Darren D. Clark

"Borehole permeability tests that measure flow or head changes in boreholes located within seepage barrier walls are commonly used to estimate the in situ permeabilities of those walls for quality control and assurance. The current state of practice for estimating permeabilities from these barrier wall borehole tests is to use equations published by M. J. Hvorslev in 1951. Hvorslev’s borehole test equations model an infinite stratum of uniform permeability, which is not the actual condition for a test performed in a low permeability barrier wall located within a high permeability stratum. We examine and develop alternative equations based on line source analytical models, which more closely match barrier wall test conditions. We describe how these alternate equations can be used to estimate barrier wall permeabilities from borehole tests and compare the results to those obtained from the Hvorslev models. We also provide recommendations that consider differing upstream and downstream water levels.Barrier Wall Permeability Tests - State Of PracticeThe installation of seepage barrier walls has become more common in a variety of applications ranging from dams and levees to contaminated sites requiring retardation of groundwater flow. The types of seepage barrier walls and installation methods include soil-bentonite, soil-cement-bentonite, concrete, self-hardening slurry, geomembranes, and sheet piles, installed with various soil mixing, slurry-supported trench, and driving methods.Owners and contractors have used a variety of methods to evaluate the permeability of these seepage barriers. The following table lists commonly used quality control/assurance tests for evaluating the permeability of a seepage barrier."

Jan 1, 2016