Search Documents

By Alex Grenoble, Alex Reeb, George Filz, Farzad Abedzadeh

"This paper summarizes available information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soilcement produced by the wet method. The topics covered in this paper include: unit weight, unconfined compressive strength, strength variability for field mixed materials, influence of curing time, influence of consolidation pressure, Young’s modulus, differences in strength and stiffness between small and large samples, creep deformations, Poisson’s ratio, and tensile strength. In addition, this paper discusses the development of design considerations and recommended property values for a project that uses soilcement to protect an existing dam penstock from loads applied by an overlying stability berm. Some of the key recommendations for the deep-mixed soil-cement to be used in this project are that (1) a curved strength envelope that includes tensile strength can be used in the analysis, (2) the stress-strain and strength properties can be characterized using Duncan and Chang's (1970) hyperbolic model, and (3) a specification based on the median unconfined compressive strength value is appropriate.INTRODUCTIONFor many projects, including foundation and embankment support, deep mixing can be designed based on simplified procedures and following standardized guidelines (e.g., FHWA 2013). However for unusually complex or critical projects, it is often necessary to perform numerical analyses, and in order to perform these numerical analyses well, a thorough understanding of the material properties is needed.This paper summarizes information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soil-cement produced by the wet method, and it discusses the development of design considerations and recommended property values for a specific project, herein referred to as the penstock project, that requires numerical analyses. For the penstock project, a horseshoe-shaped enclosure of soil-cement is being considered beside and above an existing dam penstock to protect it from loads applied by an overlying stability berm that will be constructed for seismic remediation. The concept is to use soilcement created by the deep mixing method along the sides of the penstock and to use compacted soilcement above the deep mixing to create the crown of the protective soil-cement zone around the penstock. For this application, the soil-cement stiffness, rather than its strength, is the controlling design parameter. To achieve the necessary soil-cement stiffness, the strength will be high enough that the factor-of-safety values against instability along potential failure surfaces passing through the soil-cement are high. Following conventional practice, the soil-cement acceptance criteria will be based on the unconfined compressive strength, and the specified strength will be selected to produce the desired modulus value."

Jan 1, 2015

"The development of non-destructive testing (NDT) methods for deep foundations occurred in several parts of the world, gradually coming together into the present state of the art. The compilation of this brief NDT history is the best effort of several knowledgeable members of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) Drilled Shaft Committee, coupled with the recollections of several historically important contributors to the science. It is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather concentrates on the origins of the methods in common use and on which this manual focuses.Modern NDT methods, and the spread of knowledge about them, have expanded through application to real foundations projects by the original researchers, sometimes inspired by their own curiosity, sometimes to respond to the cost and time limitations imposed by static testing, and sometimes to address the questions raised on research projects funded by large government agencies such as the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in the USA, and various European transportation agencies. Initial attempts were primitive by today’s standards, and equipment limitations often restricted successful application to relatively simple cases. As electronics improved and confidence in them increased, the early researchers began commercial promotion of their methods, published their findings in professional journals, and shared experiences at conferences held by such groups as the DFI, the International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), the International Conferences on the Application of Stress-Wave Theory to Piles and other venues such as ASCE and Transportation Research Board (TRB) conferences.NDT methods were developed to fill a need to assess the quality assurance of deep foundation elements. New pile types and higher design loads prompted engineers to verify the safety of their foundations via additional testing during construction. Static load testing was the traditional method to assess performance, and this method has been used for centuries and perhaps even millennia.Relatively recent alternatives to static load testing for determining the capacity of drilled shafts include the bottom load test method. This method uses a jack embedded in the lower portion of the pile (bottom load test) and was first reported to be used from Canada in the early 1970’s (Gibson& Devenny 1973). The concept immediately caught on in Israel, where it was used as a quality control measure for small-diameter piles drilled in rock (then a new technology). The method was later patented in the US by Jorj Osterberg, and offered as a commercially available service in thelate 1980s (Osterberg, 1989)"

Jan 1, 2004

By Caciola Jr. Joseph J., Nidal M. AbiSaab

"Thanks in great part to the geology of the New York City Metropolitan area, mini-caissons are a popular choice for deep foundations. These drilled elements are readily available, easy to install with minimal impact on adjacent structures, and can be designed with large compressive and tensile capacities. Despite the frequency with which they are employed, the engineering design community is divided over several of the underlying principles governing the design of mini-caissons. This paper seeks to draw attention to several of these issues in an effort to encourage further research and discussion, namely: (1) how the allowable stresses have changed for the NYC Building Code over time, (2) the inconsistent load transfer mechanisms considered for geotechnical capacity, and (3) the role of the permanent steel casing towards structural capacities of mini-caissons.INTRODUCTIONIn the local construction nomenclature, mini-caissons are drilled deep foundation elements which derive their capacity from a socket in rock. A permanent steel casing (commonly between 7- and 24-inches in diameter) aides the drilling through overburden soils to the top of bedrock. Afterwards, an uncased rock socket is drilled into the bedrock and the inside of the casing and rock socket is inspected by means of portable video equipment. After inspection, the interior of the socket and casing is filled with steel reinforcement and concrete or grout. The casing-soil interface is generally ignored for axial design purposes and the full geotechnical compressive or tensile capacity is assumed to be generated in the rock socket. Figure 1 shows a typical mini-caisson cross section.Mini-caissons have been used for decades in the New York City area for a number of reasons. They have historically been proven to develop high axial capacities in the city’s metamorphic rock (Tamaro et. al. 2000), often exceeding 300- to 500-tons. Additionally, their method of installation (drilling) is generally able to bypass layers of dense Glacial Till, boulders, and manmade fill which would interfere with the installation of other pile types (e.g. driven piles, auger cast piles). Further they are able to extend to depths exceeding 50-ft to reach bedrock underlying a site, making them a useful tool in areas where rock is relatively deep or varied in elevation. Drilled casing installation also results in fewer vibrations and disturbances to adjacent structures and can occur in areas of restricted access (a constant concern for any project in a dense urban environment such as NYC)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Thomas Billups, Brendan FitzPatrick, Doug LeDo, David Carchedi

"Working in urban environments presents unique logistical challenges beyond those typically associated with traditional geotechnical analysis and design. These challenges often include working on sites with limited access and laydown area, vibration concerns for adjacent structures and the need to work from variable elevations or within excavations. This paper describes the use of the modular Ductile Iron Pile system, a low-vibration driven micropile, on two urban projects on the Johnson & Wales University campus in Providence, Rhode Island. The paper describes the successful implementation of Ductile Iron Piles installed to develop capacity in end-bearing on one site and friction on the second site. Design, installation and quality control operations are all presented as well as the results of full-scale load testing performed on non-production test piles. This paper is of importance to the industry because it describes a versatile option for project teams as an alternative to traditional micropiles, helical piles or other deep foundation systems for urban sites.INTRODUCTIONWorking in urban environments presents unique logistical challenges beyond those typically associated with traditional geotechnical analysis and design. These challenges often include working on sites with limited access and laydown area, vibration concerns for adjacent structures and the need to work from variable elevations or within excavations. Two recent projects in downtown Providence, Rhode Island faced a combination of problematic soil conditions and urban construction challenges including vibration concerns. Both projects were a part of the Johnson and Wales University campus development. Figure 1 illustrates the urban locations of the sites."

Jan 1, 2016

By Scott Webster

Dynamic pile Monitoring Services (DMS) have been used for testing of offshore piles for several decades. However, most of this testing was to measure hammer performance and pile stresses rather than pile capacity or soil resistance. As the need for more economical solutions for foundation support increases, the use of DMS has provided a better means of evaluating in-place pile capacity for offshore structures, and therefore a method of determining pile acceptance. The authors have been involved in several offshore projects where DMS has been the primary source of data for acceptance of the driven pile foundations. The use of DMS for evaluation of offshore foundations requires considerations quite different from land applications and these considerations are often necessary for the careful and thorough analysis of the collected data in nearly real time for determination of pile acceptance. Case Method capacity estimates are often of little use due to the non-uniform cross sections of the foundation piles and their deep penetrations. Therefore, capacity assessments should be made using CAPWAP which is a signal matching program whose utility and reliability has been proven on thousands of projects every year, both on land and offshore. Depending upon the soil conditions at a given location, capacity assessment after soil setup effects may be necessary. In addition, tension capacity is often critical when pile refusal occurs significantly before the design pile penetration depth. Evaluation of uplift capacity can be accomplished by a CAPWAP analysis, which results in a total capacity prediction and its shaft resistance component. The use of hydraulic hammers for driving of these piles also adds the requirement of controlling hammer energy such that over-stressing of the pile is avoided. The calculation of non-axial stresses such as bending or eccentric stresses may also be involved in order to prevent pile damage.

Jan 1, 2010

By William H. Walton, Joel Dellaria, Jeffrey R. Hill

The City of Chicago has a world-renowned skyline and is known for its provocative architecture. The subsurface conditions in the city have allowed for construction of these significant structures. The skyline is supported on caissons as they are called in Chicago or drilled shafts in other locations. Despite the significant strides the industry has made in advancing the drilled shaft, the use of other specialty geotechnical construction techniques like micropiles has not been overlooked in Chicago and the surrounding areas. Micropiles have been utilized to underpin famous existing historic structures like Orchestra Hall any many others. Engineers have used 200 to 600 kip micropiles to underpin compromised, inadequate, or damaged caissons. The paper will discuss the use of drilled shafts, micropiles, and ground improvement over the last 30 years in Chicago using a curated collection of case histories. It will also examine advancing the industry beyond its current technical limitations using these techniques. INTRODUCTION 20,000 years ago, glaciers from the Chicago region left behind sheets of glacial clay till underlain by dense, over consolidated glacial till below: limestone bedrock, found about 100 ft below street level. An unusual feature in this profile is the soft Chicago Blue Clay. Chicago has been called the birthplace of the Skyscraper and drilled shaft foundation, both of which came about in the 19th century. After the Great Fire of 1871, tall new structures were built rapidly and designing a successful foundation was trial and error. The first deep driven wood pile and caisson foundations bypassed the problem layer and found solid support on hardpan till or bedrock below (Schock and Risberg 2013). Once the drilled shaft foundation became acceptable to the Chicago engineering and construction community, building heights and complexity grew dramatically. As the city grew, building foundations were being repurposed. There was also the need to underpin structures for additional loads and shallow foundations for adjacent construction. Hand-dug drilled shafts were an option for some of these restricted access and low headroom sites but a new technique, micropiles, would prove to be the future of retrofit and hard to construct foundations. Micropiles were introduced on a limited basis to the United States market in the 1970s and 80s. In the early 1990s, the Chicago market began to latch onto micropiles and their use has grown significantly as a solution to the most complex foundation problems a maturing skyline has to offer.

Jan 1, 2019

By Brian M. Fraley

"Portions of the Catholic Total Abstinence Fountain in Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, Pa., were in “imminent danger,” according to a restoration services request for proposals (RFP) issued by the City of Philadelphia in August 2014. Open voids in the subsurface beneath the foundation were causing ongoing settlement of the fountain.The fountain was unveiled in 1876 as an ornamental drinking fountain for the Centennial International Exhibition, which celebrated the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Its creation was commissioned by the Catholic Total Abstinence Union of America, an Irish temperance organization that advocated for total abstinence from alcohol. Ironically, the fountain ran dry decades ago.The now-defunct fountain features a 100 ft (30.5 m) wide granite base with three steps in the shape of a Maltese cross. The centerpiece — enclosed by a 40 ft (12.2 m) diameter basin — is a 15 ft (4.6 m) tall statue of Moses perched atop an iglooshaped marble mound. Four subsidiary statues rise from granite pedestals at the tips of each arm of the cross, including Archbishop John Carroll, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Father Theobald Mathew and Commodore John Barry.Natural and Man-Made DamageThe City of Philadelphia’s RFP called attention to three “high priority structural areas.” It was noted that Moses, Father Mathew and the steps surrounding the fountain had been documented as public hazards. The long-term effects of water infiltration had set in, eroding mortar joints and causing some stones to jut out. Furthermore, the stone base supporting the 16 ton (14.5 tonne) statue of Moses was in danger of collapsing. The statue of Father Mathew had been struck by lightning in 1910 and was repaired with an iron and metal pin anchor system, which had succumbed to corrosion. The city considered the statue of Father Mathew as the most threatened of the statues. Mike Miluski, P.E., vice president of Compaction Grouting Services (CGS), recalled “the fountain was in pretty bad shape” as he walked onto the site in August 2016 and immediately recognized the challenges ahead."

Jan 1, 2017

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 Stuart Coutts

"This paper presents an overview of the author’s experience related to the assessment of the base capacity of straight shafted and enlarged-base bored piles in sand. A design approach based on CPT qc is described which has been calibrated using a database of load tests. The importance of correct installation techniques with instrumentation are illustrated and a discussion is presented on the current use of high strain dynamic testing to validate compliance with design. An example of a recent project with high quality instrumented load test data illustrates the close match to the proposed best practice approach and also highlights the importance for consideration of the effects of stress relief for deep foundations installed in deep excavations.1 INTRODUCTIONContinuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles are the bored foundation pile of choice for sand deposits across Australia. The evolution of the determination of the base resistance of CFA piles has been shaped by available investigative techniques, calculation methods, and calibration of designs with laboratory and field testing. The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) has been widely used in Western Australia (WA) where the test has been commercially available via multiple contractors for more than 25 years. On the East coast, the adoption of CPT testing has been slower with a transition from traditional Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) still occurring. Dynamic pile load tests are often used to derive parameters. The influence of pile installation on performance is commonly misunderstood and is an important element on any discussion of pile capacity for CFA pile types. The interface between the base of the constructed pile and the in-situ soil has an influence on capacity such that a poorly constructed pile base will have limited (if any) contribution to pile performance within the normal working range, generally within a 10 mm movement. The research presented in this paper pertains to CFA piles (no drilling fluids) and enlarged base piles constructed using CFA techniques under drilling fluids such that clean pile/base interface is targeted. Developments in modern piling equipment and instrumentation allow the pressure and volume of delivered concrete/grout to piles to be accurately monitored at various stages of installation such that repeatable ‘best practice’ can be achieved. The changes in soil conditions that occur due to the disturbance of the install technique are also important.Although the results of this research are likely applicable to bored piles, the interface between the pile and in-situ soil (shaft and base) need to be considered for various installation techniques. The effects of stress relaxation (due to removal of soil above pile base and adjacent shaft), time to concreting, and the zone of disturbed soil around the pile shaft are paramount.2 INSTALLATION CONSIDERATIONS The pile mix (concrete/grout) and interface with the in-situ soil are also an important consideration. For example, coarse grained, poorly graded, dry, clean sand will be partially permeated by most pile mixes; such that the influenced soil will be enhanced and in instances the overall effective pile dimensions increased. Permeation of the disturbed zone of a pile or anchor shaft along with scale effects (Lehane 2009) can have significant effect on shaft capacity and shaft frictions significantly exceeding expected are not uncommon based on ‘theoretical’ dimensions. Advancements in mix technology and mix techniques also have a large influence on the pile/soil interface. The ability of the piling rig and augers to excavate a plumb and gauge hole can also have a large influence on the zone of soil disturbed adjacent the constructed pile with a resulting influence on capacity."

Jan 1, 1900

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 Donald A. Bruce

"The Deep Mixing Methods (DMM), in their current forms, have been employed in the United States since 1986, although an earlier version had seen service from 1954. The earlier developments were strongly influenced by practices in the Nordic countries and Japan, while by the late 1980’s several DMM systems had been developed in the U.S. itself. Since then, DMM has continued its evolution, principally via the challenges of a series of large, landmark projects, but also via distinct, significant technological advances. This paper highlights the key points in the history of DMM in the U.S., and provides an overview of the different methods currently in use.IN THE BEGINNINGIt is a common misconception that the history of applications of the Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) in the United States dates from 1986 when SMW Seiko Inc. — a subsidiary of Japan’s Seiko Kogyo Company — was established in the Bay Area. However, the author believes that Intrusion Prepakt Co.’s patented MIP (Mixed in Place) system had been used, albeit sporadically (about 30 projects are recorded), since 1954 (FHWA 2000, 2001). Ironically, by 1961 this single auger method had been extensively used under license in Japan for excavation support and groundwater control — by the Seiko Kogyo Company. By 1972, the original MIP technique had been succeeded by more advanced Japanese methods, involving multiple augers. Intrusion Prepakt have long since become defunct.The first systematic studies of contemporary Deep Mixing Methods in Japan began in 1967 when the Port and Harbor Research Institute of the Ministry of Transportation began laboratory testing using granular and powdered lime for treating soft marine soils. Fundamental studies continued through the early 1970’s, by which time the development of industrial scale equipment was well advanced, having its first application on a marine trial near Haneda Airport. Coincidentally, laboratory and field research also began in 1967 in Sweden (“Swedish Lime Column Method”) for treating soft clays using unslaked lime. Reportedly the progenitor was a Norwegian, Kjeld Paus, who had made observations on fluid lime columns in the U.S. It would seem that developments in Japan and the Nordic countries proceeded independently until 1975 when the technology leaders from each group (Broms and Boman; and Okumura and Terashi, respectively) presented their — very similar — findings at a conference in Bangalore, India. Limited technical exchanges ensued thereafter.Whereas the Nordic developments continued to focus on the use of dry reagents (cement and lime) and relatively light equipment compatible with operating on and in very soft clays and organics, the Japanese progressed into the use of fluid reagents (cement-based grouts) and heavier equipment for both marine and land-based projects. Thus, by 1986, there were a large number of proprietary (wet and dry) DMM systems in Japan, and a rapidly growing market already by then accounting for over 12,000,000 m3 of ground treatment."

Jan 1, 2015

By Alessandro Bertero, Stefano Valagussa, Filippo Maria, Wesley Schmutzler, Leoni

"Abstract The Deep Mixing Method (DMM) represents a viable solution to improve the adverse geotechnical properties of foundation soils. Differences and the importance of performing pre-construction laboratory and field tests will be highlighted. Comparative analyses and interpretations between the various lab and field stages, along with accumulated information about soil properties and QC results, allowed fine-tuning of the production parameters throughout almost the entire project.Two projects where the US Army Corps of Engineers selected the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) for the required stabilizations, and a third project completed in Italy, will be illustrated:•,?the LPV 111 Project (New Orleans - LA – USA); DMM was used for groundimprovement/foundation strengthening and consequently stabilize and support the burden of the new levee.•,the Rio Puerto Nuevo Project (San Juan - PR - USA); DMM was applied to improve the soils adjacent to a 90” forced sewer main relocation and to improve the soils for the base of a new drainage channel•,the new Italian high speed railway project (Florence Italy); DMM technology was applied to realize a a TBM break in/break out, foreseen originally by jet-grouting.IntroductionThe Deep Mixing Method (DMM) represents a viable solution to improve the adverse geotechnical properties of foundation soils. The effectiveness of working parameters depends largely on the physical and mechanical properties of the soil to be treated. Therefore, well designed laboratory and field test programs, aimed to disclose the interaction between the site-specific soils and the mixing parameters, are essential to achieve the desired end product."

Jan 1, 2014

By David Sherwood

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

Jan 1, 2008

By Frederic A. Verheyde

The CPT pile design method of the ‘Laboratoire des Ponts et Chaussées’ (LPC) uses the cone resistance (qc) for the design of axially loaded piles. It was originally proposed in 1982 and was revised in 1993 and 2012. It has been widely used in France for several decades and is included in the current French pile design code. The objective of this paper is to summarise the two first versions (1982 and 1993) of the method and to detail the most recent one as described in the current French pile design code (AFNOR 2012).

Nov 1, 2022

By Kyle Kershaw

Micropiles are routinely used in the United States for foundation support and stabilization of slopes. In recent years, several retaining walls have been constructed using micropiles in an A-frame type configuration to support temporary and permanent excavations at sites with limited access and limited right-of-way. Typical A-frame micropile walls consist of a row of vertical micropiles at the face of the wall and a row of battered micropiles extending into the soil or rock to be retained. The two rows are then tied together with a pile cap such that the front pile acts primarily in bending and the back pile acts primarily in tension. Because of tight right-of-way constraints at a residential site in Aspen, Colorado, it was not possible to construct the wall using conventional shoring systems or micropiles in the typical A-frame configuration. Rather, the wall was designed such that the row of battered piles was installed at the wall face and the row of vertical piles was installed adjacent to the property line behind the wall. As a result of the reverse configuration of the A-frame wall, FLAC, a two-dimensional, finite difference software program, was used to model the soil-structure interaction. The final wall design consisted of both temporary and permanent retaining wall sections with maximum heights of 26 feet. Inclinometers were installed in several piles to monitor the behavior of the retaining walls during and after excavation. This paper presents an overview of the design method, a discussion of construction techniques, and a comparison between the FLAC model and the measured behavior of the wall in the field.

Jan 1, 2007

By Parameswaran V. S, Anshuman Singh

This is a case study on ground improvement using Stone columns at Kokrajhar in Assam which comes under seismic Zone V as per IS: 1893. The strata at site comprised of mostly fine sands with low SPTN values, fine content less than 10% and ground water table (GWT) at shallow depth. As ground water table subjected to seasonal variation, water table is considered at ground level for designing purpose. The geotechnical profile of the boreholes was analysed on the guidelines of IS 1893 (Part 1) -2016 and it was observed that the liquefaction potential of the soil layers is prominent and ground improvement is inevitable up to a depth of 9.5 m below existing ground level. In order to mitigate the liquefaction of soil layer, Stone columns were proposed. The in-situ soil is densified using wet top feed vibroreplacement method with an area replacement ratio of 16%, so that the relative density of the soil can be enhanced to prevent liquefaction risk. Correlation between relative density, fines content and increment of SPT N –value given by Tokimatsu and Yoshimi (1983) was used for designing purpose. Field tests such as SPTs were carried out at site to validate the extent of SPT (N) improvement. Detail comparison of pre and post density, SPT N values and CRR values were discussed in this paper.

Nov 1, 2022

Abouleid,A.F.327 Ajdic, I.451 Albert, L.F. 221,307 Alem, A. 525 Asama, T. 431 Avgherinos, P. J. 373 Baker Jr, C.N. 331 Balossi Restelli, A. 171 Beckwith,G.H.33 Bellini, A. 469 Bermingham, P. 481 Bertero,M. 171,535 Beyer, M. 503 Bottiau, M.41 Botto, G. 205 Bruskeland, O. 337 Budhu, M. 349 Bullivant, R.A. 181 Bustamante, M.G. 185, 475, 535

Jan 1, 1994

By Peter J. Nicholson

"IntroductionDuring my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I’m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of “tie-backs” as they were called in the United States, or “ground anchors” as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970’s. Subsequently in the 1980’s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into “Pin Piles” now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12” or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into “Cement Deep Soil Mixing” earlier on, known simply as “soil mixing”. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the “Big Dig” we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I’ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes."

Jan 1, 2017

By Peter J. Nicholson

During my more than 40 years in the practice of underground construction and engineering, the industry has seen progress from the dig down to rock or hardpan or alternatively drive concrete or steel into the ground and count the blows; then you can be sure of you have a solid foundation; to the modern day, I?m willing to try anything to save money. Of course these are both exaggerations, but not gross ones. After getting bored being supervision on jobs counting blows, I struck out into the new field of ?tie-backs? as they were called in the United States, or ?ground anchors? as they were then termed in the United Kingdom. After installing some of the first permanent ground anchors for the Corps of Engineers on Lake Michigan as well as the highest loaded rock anchors of the time at two dams on the Ohio River, we were at the top of our game in the 1970?s. Subsequently in the 1980?s when my view of the future of ground anchors saw their installation becoming a commodity item, we branched out into ?Pin Piles? now known as Micro Piles, high capacity, steel tube encased, small diameter (5-12? or so), high capacity (100-500 tons) piling. Next came soil nailing, both temporary and permanent retaining walls, as at Cumberland Gap Kentucky. My next morph was into ?Cement Deep Soil Mixing? earlier on, known simply as ?soil mixing?. For this education I traveled to Japan several times and established a long-term, Joint Venture, relationship with one of the better known Japanese specialty ground modification companies. In Boston at the ?Big Dig? we established the then record size soil mixing project, 500,000 or so cubic meters of CDSM concluding in the year 2000. Since then I?ve been involved as a consultant mainly for dams and levees. Below is the story of how I came to be at this place in the road to innovation in Geotechnical processes.