Search Documents

By David H. Sanders, Ramin Motamed, Fahim M. Bhuiyan, Raj V. Siddharthan

Large-diameter drilled shafts (DS) are a critical part of a seismic-resistant system, and therefore it is important to be able to accurately model lateral resistance. To undertake the lateral load analysis of largediameter DS, a finite-difference p-y analysis program, NVShaft, is being developed at the University of Nevada Reno. Validation of the new program involved numerous p-y analyses using commercially available programs. Subsequent comparisons suggested the program's ability to yield reasonable predictions for typical diameter DS. Based on the I-15/US 95 load test program carried out in Las Vegas, NV, this study presents the evaluation of NVShaft in Nevada’s subsurface condition. Lateral load analyses of a 2 ft and an 8 ft diameter DS were attempted using NVShaft. The location of the applied lateral loads and the presence of cemented soil-layers were incorporated in the modeling. A good agreement between NVShaft prediction and the measured response was found for the 2 ft diameter DS. For the 8 ft diameter DS, a stiffer response was predicted. The inspections of the moment-curvature characteristics at different load levels suggested cracked response of the concrete due to prior axial load testing may be one of the reasons behind the deviation.

By Bradley J. Fleming

Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading. The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface. In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil.

By Ground Improvement Committee

The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation.

Aug 1, 2013

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By Theodore von Rosenvinge

Large diameter (2.4 meter) drilled shaft foundations were installed to depths of over 62 meters through soil into Arkose bedrock for Connecticut?s Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (I-95 over New Haven Harbor). The project involved many ?firsts? including the first ?extradosed? cable-stayed bridge in the US, and for Connecticut, the deepest drilled shafts, the first use of a rotator to install shaft casing, and the first use of the Mini-Sid technology for rock socket bottom inspection. Design utilized both friction and end bearing for rock sockets. O-Cell testing was employed to maximize performance factors during design and to allow adjustments to socket lengths during construction. Favorable test results permitted a reduction in socket lengths and significant cost saving.

Jan 1, 2011

By George Filz, Morales, Carlos, Bertero, Filippo Maria, Alessandro, Leoni

"The Deep Mixing Method (DMM) represents a viable solution to improve adverse geotechnical properties of foundation soils for many practical applications. A pre-construction soil investigation campaign is necessary to assess soil properties and to retrieve samples of different soil layers for a laboratory Bench Scale Testing program (BST). The BST has to be designed using various binder types, binder contents, and water/cement ratios in each of the soil types. Following the laboratory program, a full scale Field Test (FT) is typically necessary to verify the results of the BST. This paper will highlight the differences and the importance of performing both pre-construction laboratory tests and field tests to ascertain the proper mixing parameters in the different soil layers. Comparative analyses and interpretations between the lab and field stages, along with accumulated information about soil properties and quality control (QC) results, allow fine-tuning the production parameters throughout a project. Three Deep Mixing Method projects, where both laboratory and field tests were executed, are illustrated: (1) The LPV 111 Project (New Orleans, LA, USA): DMM was used for ground improvement/foundation strengthening to stabilize and support the burden of a new levee raise; (2) 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; and (3) State Road 83 (US 331) over Choctawhatchee Bay project (Walton County, FL, USA): DMM was applied to stabilize the causeway sections of the bridge enhancement project. Data recorded during laboratory and field tests for these projects were analyzed and interpreted to select the most appropriate construction parameters to provide a final high-quality product.INTRODUCTIONThe Deep Mixing Method (DMM) represents a viable solution to improve adverse geotechnical properties of foundation soils in many situations. 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.Generally a pre-construction soil investigation campaign has to be performed to assess soil properties and to retrieve samples of different soil layers for the laboratory Bench Scale Testing programme (BST). The BST has to be designed using various binder types, binder contents (or cement factors - CF), and grout water/cement ratios (W/C) in each of the soil types; the selection of the different combinations and dosages for the BST is based on past extensive experiences on similar materials. Following the laboratory programme results, a full scale Field Test (FT) has to be designed and executed, installing several DMM elements to verify the results of the BST and fine tune the construction parameters, with the appropriate binder type and dosage and the most effective equipment and tool configuration."

Jan 1, 2015

The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for inspectors of drilled shaft construction otherwise referred to as drilled piers, caissons or bored piles. It should also be helpful to train beginning geotechnical engineers with limited first hand experience or for geotechnical engineers who are training inspectors. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described here will be supplemented by local geotechnical engineers working in a particular region based on local practice and experience. Since drilled shaft construction procedures vary widely based on local geology and size of project, an all-inclusive manual is not considered practical. This manual focuses on traditional topside inspection for routine drilled shaft construction. Other inspection and evaluation methods that rely on electronic equipment are available, but these methods require extensive training and experience in the interpretation of results. These more sophisticated methods of drilled shaft inspection and evaluation are common in construction, but they are usually provided by specialty subconsultants. The subconsultant will typically submit a report for each shaft, which will be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. Other manuals are available to describe the electronic methods of drilled shaft inspection.

Jan 1, 2004

By B. Philip Shull, Allen W. Cadden, Johanna M. Simon, Michael S. Senior

A 670 linear meter (2,200 linear foot) large-diameter sanitary sewer interceptor installation at depths ranging from 3 to 10 m (10 to 30 ft) below existing grade in an area with a high water table requires careful attention to design and performance of the system during construction. Highly variable soil and rock conditions at the site necessitated the design and construction of various excavation support systems along the alignment. In addition to the subsurface condition challenges faced at this site, the proposed sewer pipe was to be installed between an existing active combined sewer main and a high pressure gas main feeding the nearby city. What better way is there to monitor performance of the system than to require a detailed instrumentation system? Instrumentation system specifications and designs are becoming more commonplace in the industry, but it is always important to sit back and take a look at the whole picture. What are you looking to gain from your monitoring? What pieces of information are useful? What interpretations can you derive from the instrumentation you have selected? This paper will address the instrumentation system used to monitor the 670 m (2,200 ft) excavation from the specification requirements to the implementation and interpretation. This case history will delve into the challenges faced and methods used to overcome those challenges on this particular support of excavation (SOE) project. A combination of soldier pile, lagging and sheeting, and shoring systems was used to achieve the necessary excavation support. In designing the systems, attention was given to the configuration of the bracing system to allow the sections of largediameter pipe to feasibly be installed in the excavation while maintaining the SOE system.

By Eric Brandner

Expansive soil formations can be found throughout the United States. When subjected to wetting, many of these formations have the potential to swell and exert large uplift forces which can significantly damage lightly-loaded structures. Designing an economical foundation that can resist uplift forces is critical to prevent damage to these structures. The current solutions to control uplift due to swelling soils, such as over-excavation and replacement of the expansive material, or drilled shafts, can be costly and problematic. Piles made from recycled polymer materials may provide a solution. Due to a lower coefficient of friction along the interface than piles made from traditional materials, solid recycled plastic piles can allow expansive soils to move nearly independently from the pile when wetted. This results in a much smaller magnitude of uplift force being transferred to the structure which minimizes the risk of significant structural damage. This paper presents the preliminary results of research conducted on the use of recycled plastic piles in an expansive shale environment. The preliminary phase of the project involved the installation of six 13 in. (330 mm) diameter recycled plastic piles at a test site on the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology campus. The piles varied in length from 15 ft. to 25 ft. (4.6m to 7.6 m). Two of the piles were subjected to a full-scale compression load test in order to determine ultimate capacity, while the additional four piles are being subjected to long-term monitoring of uplift movement. A cast-in-place concrete pile, with a diameter of 6 in. (152 mm) and length of 15 ft. (4.6 m), was also installed at the test site for monitoring. The preliminary results indicate that the use of solid recycled plastic piles is a viable alternative for support of lightly-loaded structures in expansive soil environments.

Jan 1, 2009

By Donald Bruce

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

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

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

Jan 1, 2004

By Michael Kynett, Francke Walberg, Richard Millet, Khaled Chowdhury, Mary Perlea

"Cutoff walls are the most common seepage improvement measure for levee flood control projects throughout California’s Central Valley. Cutoff walls are widely used because they can be implemented within an existing right of way in either heavily urbanized areas with limited access, or in high-value crop agricultural areas. The most commonly used seepage cutoff wall types are soil-bentonite (SB), soilcement- bentonite (SCB), and cement-bentonite (CB). Contract values for cutoff wall rehabilitation projects in the Central Valley range from several millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars, and play a significant role in the reduction of flood risk in urban and rural areas. However, recentlycompleted construction of several levee improvement projects has shown limitations and inconsistencies among the commonly used technical specifications for construction of seepage cutoff walls. These limitations were evaluated by practicing engineers involved in different stages of cutoff wall design and construction. This paper describes the specification areas that typically generate design and construction issues. Recommended improvements to specifications are suggested to address these issues. The paper’s topics include: the applicability of the different types of cutoff wall materials and construction methods, quality control testing requirements, backfill gradation requirements, mixing procedures, and settlement criteria for backfill.INTRODUCTIONFlood control projects on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the Central Valley region of Northern California consist of a large system of reservoirs, bypasses, and levees. The thousands of miles of levees within the system were largely constructed and raised by local entities as need arose; this construction occurred prior to the development of modern design and construction techniques. The majority of these levees were initially constructed to protect land for agricultural development; however, a significant portion of these areas have become or will soon be urbanized. This urbanization has historically occurred in locations right up to the levee footprint. This expedient form of historical levee construction, when combined with adverse riverine geomorphology, urban development, and productive agricultural regions, has led to a levee systems with severe seepage performance issues in a real-estate-constrained setting."

Jan 1, 2015

By Takefumi Takuma, Hiroyuki Nishimura, Shigeru Kambe

"In order to achieve tubular pile driving with low noise and low vibration, the Press-in Piling Method has been adopted on many projects. The method utilizes reaction force derived primarily from previously driven piles to push in the next pile into ground. With attachments, the Press-in piling equipment can deal with hard soil as well as difficult site conditions. At West Toronto Diamond Rail Grade Separation Project in Toronto, Canada, the Press-in piling equipment drove more than 500 of 914 mm (36 inches) diameter tube piles in length of 12 to 25 meters (39 to 82 feet) to construct earth-retaining walls for railway grade separation. Myoshoji River Restoration Project in Tokyo, Japan drove some 600 of 1,000mm (39.4 inches) diameter tube pipe sections in length of 11 to 22 meters (36 to 72 feet) by the rotary Press-in piling equipment to increase the flood drainage capacity of an existing river in highly populated area of the city. Both projects exemplify the advantages of the method in urban settings.1. BACKGROUNDThe Press-in Piling Method was invented some forty years ago in Japan, where a very large number of construction projects were causing widespread construction pollution, especially by pile driving work in densely populated areas. The method has been providing solutions for piling projects which could not have been built otherwise due to the noise and vibration impact to the surrounding communities. The method can be used with various types of piles including sheet piles, tubular piles, concrete sheet piles and so on. With high pressure water jet and continuous flight auger attachments, the Press-in piling equipment can deal with dense sand, stiff clay, gravels, boulders and even soft rock without employing a different set of equipment."

Jan 1, 2015

By Eric Lindquist, John Compagnone, Gabriel Carvajal

"Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. (CJA) with the assistance of design consultant, Brierley Associates, designed and installed a water tight shoring system utilizing several ground improvement techniques jointly. Prior to the installation of the shoring system, a test program consisting of the installation and testing of 7 jet grout columns; 1 soil mix panel; 7 soil anchors and 3 tie downs was performed to verify design assumptions. State-of-the-art quality control measures were employed throughout the project.The shoring system consisted of:•,Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) wall utilizing triple axis tooling to install overlapping columns along the perimeter of the proposed excavation to a treatment depth of 54 feet.•,Installation of steel piles in DSM to provide rigidity to the wall.•,Installation of a jet grout bottom seal, installed from surface to a depth of 58 feet below existing grade.•,Installation of 153 soil anchors, 1-1/4” diameter and 47’-6” length, to tie the jet grout bottom seal to the native soil below to resist hydrostatic uplift, installed from existing grade to a depth of 91 feet.•,Installation of walers and pipe struts for internal bracing•,Installation and stressing of 117 tie downs, 1” diameter and 16 ft length, to tie the pump station mat slab to the jet grout bottom seal, installed from inside the excavated pit.Subsurface conditions at the site consist of uncontrolled fill materials to a depth of 20 feet comprised of sandy silt and clayey sand. The native soils underlying the fill generally consist of soft and compressible lean clay and silt with varying amounts of sands to a depth ranging from approximately 44 to 54 feet below ground surface, which in turn are underlain by dense to very dense silty sand. The groundwater elevation at the site is approximately 8 feet below ground surface.This paper covers the design aspects, construction, and quality control measures undertaken by the geotechnical contractor, with supporting figures.INTRODUCTIONThe owner, County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County, designed upgrades to their existing Long Beach Main Pumping Plant Facility. The upgrades consist of a new pump station that includes a reinforced concrete below-grade wet well and dry well, a two-story operations building, two 78-inch diameter pipe inlets, two 42-inch diameter discharge pipelines connecting the existing manifold, two pipe junction structures, two insert-type junction structures, and electrical transformers. This paper focuses on the excavation shoring for the new pump station. The original shoring design concept for the pump station excavation illustrated on the contract plans consisted of pressed in sheet piles, a jet grouted bottom seal with soil anchors, 2 levels of internal bracing, and tie-down anchors to resist hydraulic uplift forces on the buried pump station."

Jan 1, 2017

By Victor Li, Joley Lam

"INTRODUCTIONJacked piles are piles that are pressed into the ground, usually by hydraulic jacks. For this reason, jacked piles are also known as pressed in piles. Jacked piles are mainly used for the following applications.• Underpinning worksJacked piles have been commonly used for strengthening the foundation of existing structures. In pressing the pile into the ground, the hydraulic jacks will jack against existing pile caps or ground beams that support the structure or against a steel frame connected to the floor slabs or structural walls of the structure. The self weight of the structure provides the reaction force for pile jacking. Jacked piles used for underpinning works usually have lower design ultimate capacities, typically less than 2000 kN (225 tons).• New foundationsJacked piles can be used to support new structures. A heavy pile jacking machine is employed to provide the reaction force for jacking the piles into the ground.• Retaining structuresJacked piles can be installed at close spacings to form a retaining wall. For relatively large and easily accessible sites, the piles can be installed using a conventional pile jacking machine. For sites that are smaller and are more difficult to access, a more compact patented equipment called the Silent-Piler developed by Giken Seisakusho Co. Ltd. in Japan can be used.Jacked piles have several distinct advantages. The vibration and noise induced during pile jacking are minimal. Jacked piles are 100 percent proof-tested to a load level equal to the maximum applied jacking force. The pile jacking machine can also be treated as mobile kentledge for static loading test. In this article, discussion will focus on jacked piles used for supporting new structures.HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTThe People’s Republic of China (PRC) is perhaps one of the earliest countries in which jacked piles were used as new foundations. Jacked piles had been installed in the PRC since the 1960s. The capacities of jacked piling machines used in the country are usually in the range of 3000 to 6000kN (337 to 675 tons). High capacity jacking machines with a capacity of 9000 kN (1000 tons), presently used by the construction industry in Hong Kong, were also manufactured in the PRC. There are also plans to produce machines with a capacity exceeding 10000 kN (1125 tons). It was projected by Wang (1999) that jacked prestressed spun concrete piles would become one of the most popular pile types in the PRC in the 21st century."

Jan 1, 2004

By Jin-Wei Huang, Bradley J. Fleming, Sri Sritharan

"Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading.The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface.In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil,IntroductionPilings are the preferred foundation support for many civil engineering structures including highway bridges, railroad bridges, and port wharves. These structures and their foundations are subjected to forces created by earthquakes, wind, waves, water current, vessel impact, ice, and gravity. All loads applied to the superstructure must be transmitted to the foundation where they are resisted by the surrounding soil. With significant lateral loads, use of pile foundations may be the only solution to transmit large structural loads to competent soils. Piles supported by competent soils are relatively easy to design and costs are often attainable. However, thick layers of weak soils such as soft clays are widespread in high seismic areas (e.g., San Francisco, southern Nevada, Washington, Eastern Missouri, and Arkansas), exacerbating design challenges. Soft clays reduce the lateral resistance of the pile-soil system, making the pile foundation less cost effective. In this case, the current design practice is to use an increased number of larger diameter piles, which is a costly alternative (see SDC, Caltrans 2010). An innovative and more cost-efficient solution to this problem is to improve the soil within a short depth surrounding the foundation, thereby increasing its lateral stiffness. Some well-known methods for improving soil include deep soil mixing, stone columns, and simple soft soil replacement with select granular material."

Jan 1, 2017

By R. B. King

This document was prepared by the DFI International Grouting Committee with the intent to provide a summary of main Standards and Guidelines available for the North America and Europe grouting industry. This document highlights the different approaches, methods and tools used internationally. The DFI International Grouting Committee comprises all parties involved on a grouting project: Owners, regulators, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers (equipment and materials). This document is not intended to cover every conceivable application or requirement of grouting. However, it does provide standard practice requirements for qualifications, materials, equipment, testing, and production procedures for the professional engineer to incorporate into their project specific requirements.

Jan 1, 2021

By Gustav Jahner, Michael Baltrusch, Norbert Hoffmann

Near the port city of Whitby in the north-east of England, Anglo American (AA) is setting up the deepest mine in the UK, which will have a depth of 1,500m. The purpose of the project is to extract and transport polyhalite, both underground, and to market it globally. As part of the construction works, BAUER Technologies Ltd, the UK subsidiary of BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH, constructed three different shafts using the diaphragm wall technique, with depths of up to 120m. In order to ensure the specified vertical tolerance of maximum 200mm, several measurement methods were applied, and the results were documented in a 3D model. Complex de-sanding plant technology and specially developed polymer products were adopted to regenerate the trench supporting bentonite-slurry.

Sep 1, 2022

By Patrick Granitzki, Alicia Plinio, Janitha Batagoda, Peter Howell

The City of Newark is making a comeback with new mixed-use multi-storied Residential Development projects. The majority of developers tend to use driven H-pile deep foundation systems to support their super-structures. A different approach was recommended for one particular new development near the Passaic River. The surficial geology included glacial deposits consisting of loose to dense sand overlaying relatively soft silt and clay and a lower stratum of medium-dense sand. During a preliminary site investigation for the project, bedrock was encountered at depths ranging between approximately 168 feet to 182 feet below the ground surface. Design capacity required a single pile of 200 tons. Two different pile foundation systems were evaluated in conjunction to the typical driven H-pile system in order to review potential costs and construction schedule impacts. The two alternative pile systems evaluated were tapered tube piles and drilled displacement piles. Theoretical calculations were followed by in-situ load testing. The field testing results indicated the use of drilled displacement piles as the best option for a portion of the proposed building. This paper discusses the different piles systems considered, installation and using drilled displacement piles to minimize cost and optimize construction.

Sep 8, 2021

By Bernard Hertlein, Chia K. Tan

"The move to LRFD methods for structural design by AASHTO, ACI, AISC , ASCE, and the FHWA has been a major change for the American construction industry. The deep foundations industry has arguably been placed most at risk by this situation, because of the need for, and the difficulty of providing, reliable quality assurance.LRFD is attractive for both the owner and the engineer because it promises cost reductions, but the assumption underlying LRFD is often overlooked - that the acceptable margin of safety can be rationally reduced, thus saving costs, provided that all the factors involved are closely controlled. This means that both the quality of the materials and the quality of the construction work must be closely monitored, and held to an acceptable standard.This paper describes the type of comprehensive quality management program that is needed in deep foundation construction projects based on LRFD. Case histories are used to illustrate the importance of both adequate inspection and reliable testing to a comprehensive quality management program.IntroductionOver the last thirty years, the major organizations that set standards and practice policies for the American construction industry, such as the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials (AASHTO), the American Concrete Institute (ACI) , The American Institute for Steel Construction (AISC), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), have embraced Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) as an alternative to, and in some cases, a complete replacement for, Allowable Stress Design (ASD). AASHTO first published a new set of LRFD-based design guidelines for bridges in 1996, with several revisions in 1997, 1998, and 1999 (AASHTO, 1996). The 1996 AASHTO Bridge Design Code was the first in the United States that required foundations to be designed using LRFD procedures. LRFD has a clear advantage over conventional ASD where variability in material strength, bias in design methodology, and degree of construction quality can be rationally accounted for to achieve an acceptable level of risk."

Jan 1, 2005