Search Documents

By Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Md Habibur Rahman

The properties of all natural soil deposits are highly variable, and they are rarely homogeneous. Cone penetration tests (CPT) were used to assess the site variability, which was then incorporated into the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) of pile foundations. Data from six project sites with multiple CPT tests conducted at various locations were collected for this research. The semi-variogram was used to assess the spatial variability of CPT data (corrected tip resistance, qt) for each location. For each location, the coefficient of variation due to spatial variability (COVR,spatial) was calculated. From COVR,spatial and COVR,method, the total coefficient of variation (COVR,total) for each site was calculated, which was then used to calibrate the resistance factors (ϕspatial, ϕtotal) for use in LRFD pile foundation design. The findings of this study demonstrated the importance of using site variability in LRFD pile design. For sites with lower site variability than the design method (i.e., COVR, spatial < COVR, method), the value of the COVR, total will be decreased, and hence the resistance factors (ϕspatial or ϕtotal) will be increased (credit), and vice versa.

Sep 8, 2021

By Franz-Werner Gerressen

As alternative energy industries pick up speed internationally, and as government regulation and restriction limit the use of impact hammers due to environmental limitation from construction induced noise during pile driving operations, unconventional solutions for more complex offshore foundation installations have become a necessity. Manufacturers and equipment suppliers race to develop alternative techniques to accommodate for offshore foundation construction in various soil conditions and at greater water depth. The FLYDRILL, and the Seabed-Drill BSD are two innovative systems for the installation of offshore monopiles with reduced environmental impact

By Leonhard Weixler, Jean Wehbe, Gordian Ulrich, Franz-Werner Gerressen

"As alternative energy industries pick up speed internationally, and as government regulation and restriction limit the use of impact hammers due to environmental limitation from construction induced noise during pile driving operations, unconventional solutions for more complex offshore foundation installations have become a necessity. Manufacturers and equipment suppliers race to develop alternative techniques to accommodate for offshore foundation construction in various soil conditions and at greater water depth. The FLYDRILL, and the Seabed-Drill BSD are two innovative systems for the installation of offshore monopiles with reduced environmental impact.INTRODUCTIONThe FLYDRILL and the Seabed-Drill were born from techniques in the design and construction experiences gained from land based foundation drilling systems over the past 25 years. As the alternative energy industry ventures into uncharted territory of deeper water for offshore wind farms, fast current regions for tidal energy, and increasingly challenging soil conditions and project complexity, the advancement and development of new innovative equipment system and drilling techniques have become a necessity.The systems described herein show the development of the so called “FLY-Drill” system, and the all new “Seabed-Drilling” equipment applied at the first ever made job using a seabed drilling rig.FLY DRILLThe FLY DRILL method is a completely new concept for bored piling. The drilling unit with rotary head, Kelly bar, and drilling tool is suspended by the hoist rope of the base carrier crane. The hydraulic power for the drill unit is provided from the base crane.The drill head is fixed on the casing with a hydraulically operated clamping system during the drilling operation. When emptying the drilling tool, the clamp cylinders are opened and the complete unit is swung sideways."

Jan 1, 2017

By Peter Deming

"PART 1 OF 2INTRODUCTIONSlurry trenches are the least cost hydraulic barrier available, if the excavated spoils can be recycled into backfill. As such, slurry trenches are constructed where possible, sometimes at high risk. Slurry trenches are also used to install biopolymer drainage trenches, which have a low safety factor because the biopolymer slurry weight is marginally greater than the weight of water. In marginal ground the construction risk falls to both the Owner who designs and asks for the construction, and the Contractor who manages the work and promises to complete the project successfully. This paper discusses design and construction of slurry trench barriers in marginally stable ground and where groundwater chemistry invokes the need for slurry management details to obtain proper backfill placement.As a designer, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers works for both Owners and Contractors. We are usually able to convince Owners of their responsibility for design detailing in order to obtain a working final product and to obtain reasonable bids from Contractors by disclosing construction needs and designing to reduce the contractor’s exposure. We often work for Contractors to produce designs which result in successful construction in projects where the Owner’s engineer places the responsibility of design and construction on the Contractor.This paper is intended to inform both Owner and Contractor audiences of resources which are available to reduce the risks of trench collapse in difficult ground conditions. We hope it serves this purpose.DESIGNSubsurface InvestigationsSubsurface conditions should be defined by borings focused on definition of the soil profile and soil design parameters. After general subsurface conditions are defined, barrier borings should be drilled along the final alignment.Definition of Soil Strength and CompactnessCompactness of sand and gravel strata should be defined with Standard Penetration Test N-values. The shear strength of cohesive materials should be defined by laboratory testing. Silt and fine sand strata with little cohesion should be investigated using mud rotary techniques to prevent disturbance. General strength characterization by soil layer should be used for analysis of trench wall stability."

Jan 1, 2006

By Jochen Maurer, Dr. Christian Hoyme, Dr. Hans Regler

Currently, it is very difficult to obtain qualitative and quantitative information about the status and production process of a construction site. As a rule, companies depend on reports from on-site experts. There is no end-to-end digitalization due to the mobility of equipment and ever-changing locations. Equipment from different manufacturers, especially in special foundation engineering, is highly specialized. Any data collected by this equipment is recorded in proprietary formats and made available on the manufacturers' platforms. This exacerbates the situation, making simple analysis of performance indicators impossible. Most functions such as construction diaries, equipment utilization analyses, etc. are implemented only as standalone solutions. This does not allow for prompt visualization and intervention in critical process sequences because the construction site process is usually managed using a cost-based method. Furthermore, special foundation engineering requires a high level of expertise in an extremely wide range of construction processes. In this article, the results from a set of non-proprietary performance analysis tools are presented using numerous practical examples. Once a construction element is completed, the equipment data is immediately transferred to the platform using the latest cloud technology. Because the data is normalized, construction progress can be documented immediately, even for mixed equipment fleets. Bottlenecks can be immediately detected by visualizing the current performance of the production process, which is broken down into individual steps. Modern analyses of this equipment data improve quality, thereby providing better information about current performance. These sets of tools are essential for changing from the current monetary or cost-based method of process management to time- and bottleneck-oriented management. This makes it much easier to identify the critical path during projects. The article shows that processes can be documented and managed.

By Racquel Nottingham, Marc Mastrantuono

Micropiles often provide a favourable solution for many deep foundation problems especially when significant site constraints such as confined construction sites or vibration limitations have been identified. Often the durability of buried steel elements are heavily scrutinized in order to effectively determine the rates of corrosion and methods to reduce this while still maintaining the structural integrity of the engineered solution. Practices such as sacrificial corrosion loss and the introduction of plastic sheaths have become the go-to methods of corrosion protection. Since the introduction of the micropile, other solutions have been developed, namely protection with an adequate grout encapsulation. This paper will explore corrosion protection of micropiles and the guidelines provided in the published codes and norms. Since few codes define the exact way to verify the durability of these micropiled structures, the existing data is presented and the analysis of grout encapsulation as an effective corrosion protection method is evaluated.

Oct 1, 2022

By Gerald Verbeek, David Tara

"When selecting an impact hammer to drive a particular pile, the decision is often based on local experience. In those cases, the contractor falls back on previous experience or draws on the experience of the hammer manufacturer to select the hammer that will be able to do the job. Obviously, a more scientific approach would be to perform a pile driving simulation using one of several commercially available software packages (e.g., GRLWEAP, AllWavePDP or PDPWave).However, this type of analysis requires quite a bit more effort. First, an accurate model of the pile driving process has to be developed, which includes a model of the soil profile at the job site and input into the analysis program. Then, the model must be analyzed to assess whether the combination of hammer, pile and soil model work.Over the years, numerous individuals and organizations have tried to develop something that would fit nicely in between these approaches: something more advanced than a gut feeling yet something that could be done on the back of an envelope; in other words, a “Goldilocks” approach — not too simple, not too complex, but just right.Screening Tool CriteriaThe goals of the approach are twofold: (1) select the appropriate impact hammer to drive an open toe steel pipe or H-pile, and (2) then use the model for the subsequent high strain dynamic testing (HSDT). The Goldilocks approach centers around five different criteria.1. Maximum Driving StressTo minimize the risk of damage, the maximum driving stresses are generally limited to 80 to 90% of the yield stress (fy) of the steel section. This approach does not consider issues such as hammer alignment, initial imperfections, denting and/or elastic buckling, and pile material fatigue history. However, even when these issues are not applicable, limiting average stresses to 0.9fy or even 0.8fy does not necessarily mitigate the risk of pile damage (Mostafa, 2011)."

Jan 1, 2017

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY consists of a dual-span 1,982.5-ft long cable-stayed bridge with approach spans of 2,545 ft on the NJ side and 2,788 ft on the NY side. The bridge is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Drilled shaft resistances for design were based on load tests as described in a companion paper (Dapp et al. 2016). This paper presents the main foundation design considerations and challenges. The approach to construction of the rock sockets, with a focus on quality in order to support the use of high nominal values of side and base resistance, is described. Lessons learned from this project and their application to future similar projects are presented.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) project is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) that represents a major milestone for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) in its distinguished history of bridge building in the greater New York City metropolitan area. The new bridge will replace the existing Goethals Bridge, named after Major General George W. Goethals, Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal and the first consulting engineer for the Port Authority. The existing Goethals Bridge along with the Outerbridge Crossing and the Bayonne Bridge comprise the three Port Authority bridges connecting Staten Island with New Jersey. The existing Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing are cantilever truss structures and both opened on the same day in 1928. They were designed by J.A.L. Waddell under the supervision of the eminent engineer Othmar H. Ammann (1879-1965), who was the designer of many other iconic bridges in the NY City area including the Bayonne Bridge (1931), the George Washington Bridge (1931), and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge (1964). The designer of record for the replacement Goethals Bridge is Parsons Corporation, which is the successor firm of Robinson & Steinman, whose principal David B. Steinman was also a notable NY area bridge designer and a contemporary and rival of O.H. Ammann.The replacement Goethals Bridge is supported on over 200 rock-socketed drilled shaft foundations. Each main pylon tower is supported on a group of six 9-ft diameter drilled shafts and each anchor pier is supported by two 10-ft diameter shafts. Each approach pier consists of a two-column bent with each column supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft. A rendering of the Main Bridge crossing the Arthur Kill is shown in Fig. 1."

Jan 1, 2016

By Paul M. C. B. M. Cools, Martin Th. van Staveren

In 2010, the 5-years joint industry programme Geo-Impuls started in the Netherlands. The ambitious goal of this programme is to reduce geotechnical failures in our civil engineering projects by half in 2015. In the Geo-Impuls programme over 40 client organizations, engineering firms, contractors, research institutes, and universities are involved. In a risk-driven way, and based on top risks and dilemmas, the participants defined three central development themes. These themes are (1) contracts, for dealing with legal issues, (2) geo-engineering, for dealing with technical issues, and (3) communication, for paying attention to differences in risk perception by the human factor. In total 12 Working Groups contribute to these themes by producing one or more specific tools. These provide practical solutions for how to deal with contractual, geotechnical, and communication issues. The tools include working processes, guidelines, best practices, as well as some instruments. The development of these tools, as well as the available results, will be presented in this paper. From the start, Geo-Impuls embraced geotechnical risk management (GeoRM) as the risk-driven way of working for geotechnical engineering and construction. Over the past years, GeoRM and its supporting tools were already successfully applied in several projects. Therefore, the paper also describes also the GeoRM implementation process, including the quality assurance and control. Finally, the effectiveness of GeoRM will be discussed, by summarizing an analysis of all published geotechnical failures and accidents in construction projects in the Netherlands, which decreased substantially over the past 4 years.

Jan 1, 2017