Search Documents

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 Dardis J. T. II, P. G. Reinhall

"Impact pile driving of steel piles in marine environments produces extremely high sound levels in the water. It has been shown that current pile driving noise attenuation techniques provide limited noise reduction because significant noise is transmitted through the sediment into the water. To solve this problem, we have developed a double walled pile to decrease the total noise transmitted into the water.The double walled pile consists of two concentric tubes connected by a special driving shoe, allowing for an air gap between the two tubes. The double walled pile is driven into the sediment using traditional equipment by striking the inner tube only. The air gap between the inner and outer tube prevents the radial deformation wave produced by the pile hammer from interacting with the water and the sediment. In one embodiment of the double pile design the inner tube can be removed and repeatedly reused.In this paper we report on the results from a recent full scale field test in Puget Sound, Washington. The use of these double walled piles reduces the peak sound pressure over 20 dB relative to single walled piles. We also show that only a 3 to 6 dB reduction is obtained when a bubble curtain is used on a single walled pile.INTRODUCTIONImpact pile driving of steel piles in marine environments produces extremely high sound levels in the water. It has been shown that current noise attenuation techniques provide limited noise reduction because the noise from pile driving is transmitted through the sediment into the water. In [1,2] we showed, using modeling and field data, that the primary source of underwater sound from an impact driven pile originates from radial expansion of the pile as the compression wave propagates down the pile after each strike. The radial expansion is coupled to the compression wave through the Poisson’s ratio of steel. As discussed in [1], the supersonic radial expansion wave (with respect to the water) produces an acoustic field in the shape of an axisymmetric cone, or Mach cone. We showed in [3] that the ability of any sound shield that surrounds the pile in the water only (such as a bubble curtain or a surrounding double wall engagement) to attenuate the sound in the water is limited by the fact that an upward moving sound Mach wave is produced in the sediment and is transmitted into the water. To improve the performance of bubble curtains and other noise shields in the water, it is necessary to attenuate the noise emanating from the sediment into the water. Figure 1 illustrates how sound from the seabed leaks out from the sediment, limiting the effect of the surrounding bubble curtain."

Jan 1, 2017

By Athul Prabhakaran, Ramin Motamed, Ahmed Elgamal, Milad Jahed Orang, Reza Boushehri

Documented case histories from past earthquakes have exhibited the devastating effects of the liquefaction phenomenon on the performance of buildings that are often presented in the form of excessive settlement of shallow foundations. Example earthquakes include the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan, and more recently the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence in New Zealand, and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan. All of the listed events comprised several examples of severe liquefaction-related damage to the buildings founded on shallow foundations. Although the liquefaction-induced building settlements have been experimentally studied extensively since 1964 using shake table tests and dynamic centrifuge experiments, studies focusing on cost-effective mitigation strategies are still limited. In this study, the performance of helical piles as a cost-effective countermeasure to minimize the damaging effects of liquefaction-induced ground settlements on buildings founded on shallow foundations is studied. Two large-scale shake table experiments were conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) to investigate the effectiveness of helical piles in liquefiable grounds. Results from these two experiments highlight a highly improved performance of a shallow foundation supported on helical piles. These largescale shaking table experiments demonstrate the efficiency of using helical piles as a cost-effective countermeasure to reduce the liquefaction-induced building settlement.

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 Pratter P., Boley C.

Polymers are well established in geotechnical applications, for example in ground improvement, where the polymers act as a binder that, when cured, holds the grains together by adhesive and cohesive forces. The subject of this research work is an innovative composite of polymers and gravel, which differs from conventional grouting materials due to its adjustable material properties. With these specific properties, the semi-rigid material can be optimally adapted to the local ground conditions and the individual framework conditions of a construction project. For the characterization of the composite material, stateof- the-art methods, such as image processing by segmentation, are presented. Segmentation is suitable for quality assurance and monitoring of laboratory samples and soil samples directly from ground improvement on the construction site. The load-bearing capacity of the innovative material can even be increased to the order of magnitude of concrete. For this reason, the soil mechanical laboratory tests in this research had to be modified and even expanded by rock mechanical laboratory tests. Based on the experimental investigations, the importance of this innovative material for practical application is demonstrated by a calculation example from construction practice, which shows that even difficult ground conditions can be handled with it.

May 1, 2022

By Louay Owaidat

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Sacramento District awarded a $64 million construction contract in February 2020 to the Maloney Odin Joint Venture for 3 mi (4.8 km) of levee improvements along the Sacramento River East Levee (SREL). This project kicked off approximately $1.5 billion of work to upgrade levees along the American and Sacramento Rivers and widen the Sacramento Weir and Bypass. The project received the 2021 ASCE Region 9 Project of the Year Award. Contract 1 improved levees along five segments of the river, the longest segment being a 2 mi (3.2 km) reach from Garcia Bend Park to the Freeport Intake Facility in the Pocket neighborhood of Sacramento.

Oct 1, 2022

By Emre Biringen

Over the past decades, there has been an increasing recognition of the strategic use of pile-supported rafts in design of heavily-loaded structures to reduce total and differential settlements. However, such a hybrid foundation construction method has not been widely utilized in many countries, including the U.S., due to code limitations. In current practice, the foundation design is based on either (i) the bearing capacity of the raft supported by the subgrade soils, or (ii) solely the pile capacity. This paper addresses the potential use of such hybrid piled-raft systems, where the structural load is shared by both by the piles and the subgrade soils directly beneath the raft, in foundation design of power plant structures. The study assessed some of the characteristics of piled-raft behavior by undertaking three-dimensional finite element analyses of two raft sizes, and various pile layout patterns, including the rafts with piles distributed evenly and only in the central area of the raft. The computer software PLAXIS 3D with the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive soil model was used to facilitate the modeling of such cases. The results presented in this paper indicate how strategically locating the piles could reduce the differential and total settlements.

By Mark A. Rohrbach, Timothy R. Kovacs, PhD Saidin

"Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing is commonly used to verify the integrity, quality and ultimately the acceptability of the concrete in structural elements such as drilled shaft foundations, secant pile cutoff walls, and secant/tangent pile earth retention structures. Besides concrete quality, many factors can impact CSL test results (e.g. laitance, air temperature, access tube spacing, access tube debonding, etc.). Effective use of CSL testing requires fully informed qualified practitioners capable of distinguishing between abnormal readings unrelated to deficiencies in the drilled shaft concrete and similar readings indicating the presence or possible presence of drilled shaft defects. Based on data and experience gathered from CSL testing of thousands of drilled shafts across North America, this paper discusses such factors and other information useful when evaluating CSL test results, and provides practical recommendations intended to reduce the potential for incorrect test data interpretation. The CSL testing industry is lacking in a clear, universally accepted guideline for the interpretation of CSL data and acceptance criteria of these concrete elements. This paper proposes terminology and a streamlined process for use when atypical results are obtained. The proposed terminology and method are intended to simplify and expedite the submittal review and approval process. Because construction activities for these elements are often on the project’s critical path, the benefits obtained in terms of project savings and reducing costly delays areundoubtedly valuable.1. INTRODUCTIONCSL testing is used extensively throughout the world on many projects to verify the quality of concrete used for drilled shaft foundations, secant pile walls, diaphragm walls, etc. In this paper, these structural elements will be referred to as “drilled shafts,” as they are the most common subject of this test method. In the United States, CSL testing is frequently specified by state and regional transportation agencies, ports, design builders, and others. Although other methods are currently available such as Gamma-Gamma Logging and low-strain Impulse-Echo or Sonic-Echo testing, and new methods are under development such as the Thermal Integrity testing, CSL testing is likely to remain one of the most useful tools for evaluating the acceptability of constructed drilled shafts for quite some time. The popularity of CSL as a testing method can be attributed to two main factors: 1) there is no depth limitation to the method and 2) the apparent ease of interpreting the results. A third advantage of CSL testing is that, when correctly interpreted and with adequate test coverage, it is unlikely to misrepresent a defective profile resulting in acceptance of a defective or inadequate drilled shaft. In other words, CSL testing is very likely to underestimate concrete quality/drilled shaft acceptability within its area of coverage."

Jan 1, 2017

By Miguel E. Ruiz, America L. Fernandez, Miguel A. Pandon

"Post-grouted drilled shafts (PGS) are a deep foundation system in which grout is injected at high pressure throughout the tip after the drilled shaft has been installed. Pressure grouting of drilled shaft tips can significantly increase the ultimate capacity and stiffness of drilled shafts. Conventionally constructed drilled shafts usually require higher axial deformation to develop the available side friction and the tip resistance simultaneously. They also tend to have higher tip compressibility and reduced end bearing capacity due to disturbance at the bottom of excavation during drilled shaft construction. PGS foundations have been found to be a cost-effective solution to compensate for this capacity reduction and/or compressibility increase. PGS construction procedure counterbalances tip compressibility and end-bearing capacity reduction. The tip grouting also has a pre-stressing effect over the shaft side friction since the drilled shaft tends to move upwards during the pressure grouting of the tip. After grouting, a bulb tends to form at the pile tip pre-compressing any disturbed material and, in certain cases, increasing the tip area, thus increasing shaft tip capacity.PGS load-settlement predictions using a load transfer approach are presented in this paper and compared with corresponding load test data. The paper also presents the main findings of load transfer analyses that were carried out to investigate the potential different factors that may be contributing to the observed improved performance of PGS over conventional drilled shafts. Results show that the two main factors, that may have a significant contribution on the overall performance of the foundation by increasing its ultimate capacity at any given level of settlement, are the stress-reversal of the skin friction and the formation of a grout bulb at the tip. The grout bulb tip contributes primarily through the increased tip area and to a lesser extent through increased stiffness and strength of the soil in the vicinity of the pile tip."

Jan 1, 2005

"Every year during the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting in Washington D.C., the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Geotechnical Team (NGT) takes time to talk about what we are doing in research, training development and policy support. At times, I have jokingly referred to it as the State of the Program Address, but we do see it as an important opportunity to update our transportation partners on priorities and needs for the program.This update is really a snapshot of the program during the previous year, with a look at projects that are currently active. Activities undertaken by the NGT are funded from multiyear roadmaps maintained by the FHWA program and research offices, and reflect trends and opportunities affecting and influencing transportation geotechnics now and in the future. The roadmaps identify activities in research, development, guidance, technology transfer and training that will be accomplished by the NGT through and beyond FY 2020 in eight broadly-defined focus areas: • Extreme events, geohazards and sustainable geotechnics• Performance management• Reliability-based design and construction• Advanced geotechnical modeling• Alternative delivery methods• Design and construction optimization• Site characterization• Quality assuranceThe process to identify focus areas and to develop activities that will be addressed by the NGT is guided and informed through input from the FHWA NGT members, and considers feedback and input from State Departments of Transportation (DOTs), FHWA Division offices, industry and academia. This process is revisited annually to review not only the activities that are currently funded, or will be funded, but also to review the relevance of the focus areas with respect to the future needs of the FHWA, State DOTs and the transportation community.In 2016, the NGT was successful in delivering several products that will advance the state of the practice and that better support policy. Products developed included research reports, design and construction guidance, and training courses. In 2017, the research and program offices will continue to work on projects that fit within our prioritized plan and that positively impact the geotechnical community as a whole. A listing of recently completed and currently active projects is provided below."

Jan 1, 2017

By Robert B. Bittner

The new gated dam on the Monongahela River at Braddock, Pennsylvania, was built for the US Army Corps of Engineers using an innovative ?In-the-Wet? technology. A key feature of this technology involves construction of the foundations through the water and later mating the completed structure or a shell of the structure to the pre-installed foundation. This paper presents a description of the structure, its foundation, construction sequence and design details required to successfully implement this technology.

Jan 1, 2013

By Brian T. Nereson, Michael C. Penney

"This technical paper was prepared to describe the general process by which the authors designed a column-supported load transfer platform (LTP) for support of asphalt-paved runway and taxiway embankment areas over soft organic soils, the major tasks and observations made during construction of the system, and the outcome of the system design and construction. The LTP system was designed using the method described in the BSI Standards Publication Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills, BS 8006-1:2010 (BS8006), to achieve performance objectives for the project. The design also used other criteria based upon the authors’ engineering experience and understanding of the expected interaction between soils, structures and geotextiles. The design and construction process described herein resulted in a successful project. The authors identified that full-time engineering oversight during construction was of high importance and provided a high degree of value to the project. The authors’ intimate knowledge of the potentially adverse effects of variations in construction practices promoted timely identification of construction deficiencies that could have affected the reliability of the system. This resulted in corrections and modifications being made, while materials were still accessible, to protect the intended performance of the finished system.INTRODUCTIONThe site is located in Marshfield, Massachusetts. The surrounding area is flat and contains significant wetlands with a water table at or near the ground surface. Prior to the improvements described herein, the site was already developed as an existing municipal airport with an approximately 3,000 linear-feet asphalt-paved runway oriented in a northeast/southwest direction (northeast end referred to as Runway 24 and southwest end referred to as Runway 6; Fig. 1). The site is located approximately 0.5 to 1 mile (Runway 24 and Runway 6, respectively) from the Atlantic Ocean.The improvement project included total extension of approximately 550 linear feet of asphalt-paved runways and taxiways over existing wetlands that consisted of soft, organic soils with varying but significant depths (Fig. 2). An initial geotechnical assessment performed for the project identified that the subsurface conditions were not suitable to support the proposed runways and taxiways in their existing state."

Jan 1, 2016

By Donald Deardorff

Helical piles often rely on the final installation torque for ultimate capacity verification. When helical piles are designed using traditional bearing capacity equations for deep foundations and field monitored for a specified final installation torque, a factor of safety equal to 2 is often allowed for the design. One of the more common methods of determining torque during helical pile installation is by correlating the differential pressure across a hydraulic gear motor to a torque. Most drive head manufacturers provide multipliers to convert differential pressure to torque for different drive head models. These multipliers are based on theoretical torque equations and vary with the planetary gear ratio, hydraulic gear motor displacement and drive head efficiency. Drive head manufacturers show a linear fit between the differential pressure and output torque with no scaling effect. Previous drive head testing performed by the author has confirmed that the drive head differential pressure to torque relationship is generally linear however there is a scaling adjustment needed. This results in a variation of multipliers across the differential pressure range for a given drive head. Eight hydraulic drive heads from three manufacturers were field tested by Foundation Supportworks, Inc. to compare the torque versus differential pressure curves with varying installation equipment, hydraulic line sizes and hydraulic flow rates. Differential pressure was monitored using three methods including pressure gages, PT-Tracker and an Ashcroft AT-100. Flow and temperature was measured using a Webtech system analyzer. Torque was measured using a Pro-Dig in-line torque transducer, a TruTorque indicator and a Chance Mechanical Dial in-line torque indicator. The current testing indicates that a change in installation equipment and/or a change in hydraulic flow rate may affect the torque versus differential pressure curve of a given drive head. The results of this testing also show that some of the methods for determining torque during helical pile installations may be unconservative, thereby resulting in safety factors less than required.

By Donald Deardorff

"Helical piles often rely on the final installation torque for ultimate capacity verification. When helical piles are designed using traditional bearing capacity equations for deep foundations and field monitored for a specified final installation torque, a factor of safety equal to 2 is often allowed for the design. One of the more common methods of determining torque during helical pile installation is by correlating the differential pressure across a hydraulic gear motor to a torque. Most drive head manufacturers provide multipliers to convert differential pressure to torque for different drive head models. These multipliers are based on theoretical torque equations and vary with the planetary gear ratio, hydraulic gear motor displacement and drive head efficiency. Drive head manufacturers show a linear fit between the differential pressure and output torque with no scaling effect. Previous drive head testing performed by the author has confirmed that the drive head differential pressure to torque relationship is generally linear however there is a scaling adjustment needed. This results in a variation of multipliers across the differential pressure range for a given drive head.Eight hydraulic drive heads from three manufacturers were field tested by Foundation Supportworks, Inc. to compare the torque versus differential pressure curves with varying installation equipment, hydraulic line sizes and hydraulic flow rates. Differential pressure was monitored using three methods including pressure gages, PT-Tracker and an Ashcroft AT-100. Flow and temperature was measured using a Webtech system analyzer. Torque was measured using a Pro-Dig in-line torque transducer, a TruTorque indicator and a Chance Mechanical Dial in-line torque indicator. The current testing indicates that a change in installation equipment and/or a change in hydraulic flow rate may affect the torque versus differential pressure curve of a given drive head. The results of this testing also show that some of the methods for determining torque during helical pile installations may be unconservative, thereby resulting in safety factors less than required."

Jan 1, 2017

By Aly M. Mohammad

Croton Point Avenue Bridge carries Croton Avenue over Metro-North main tracks at Harmon Rail Yard in Westchester County, New York. The new bridge is 1100 foot long and 36 foot wide nine span structure with three spans continuous units. The spans are steel multi-stringers, composite with concrete deck. The piers are solid wall piers and the foundations are spread footings. During the design of the bridge foundations it was determined that the relatively loose to medium dense sand layer is susceptible to liquefaction under a design earthquake with a seismic coefficient of 0.15g. Several foundation options were considered for the new bridge including both shallow and deep foundations. It was determined that the most cost effective alternative is to use spread footing foundations supported on densified soils. Vibratory probes were utilized to densify the loose to medium dense sand layer and reduce the risk of liquefaction. Densification test sections were performed to determine the optimum spacing for the vibro probes. The test sections included performing piezocone tests before and after the densification to compare the increase in relative density of the sand. In addition, ground surface settlement due to the vibro probes was measured and correlated to the increase of soil relative density. The paper will present the results of the ground improvement method utilized and correlate the spacing of the vibro probes and the increase in relative density and the results of the piezocone tests performed before and after the densification. It was found that the vibro probes are not as effective as thought at shallow depth below the ground surface. It is believed that the results and finding presented in this paper will benefit both the design and construction industries by providing a relatively cost effective means to improve the soils

Jan 1, 2007

By Franz-Werner Gerressen

New developments are required each day as our industry becomes more competitive. To improve performance, continue and to ensure future demands can be met. This requires the development of technical support systems that enable a more constant delivery and quality of installation of pile foundations and other applications. For example: assistance systems capable of relieving the machine operator of automating monotonous or repetitive operations. Real time installation control of the production process to manage quality control, or data transfer and reporting systems capable of keeping pace with the digital future. This paper will describe these new approaches and considerations required for these new developments. The paper also describes the equipment which is needed to execute the work under the various conditions and provides references herein. INTRODUCTION The success of a construction site is influenced by a number of factors. Selecting the most efficient and economic methods during the planning phase to defining the right direction. This means having multifunctional equipment available. To ease the usage of this equipment by the operator, uniform operation and control systems are essential. Systems like this can provide uniform handling procedure for more than 20 different installation techniques. Experienced operators are not always available. Therefore, to ease the start for beginners and to support training, numerous assistance systems were developed. This ranges from simple information for controls shown on the monitor avoiding misuse to systems which can partly automate the construction process. Regardless, the best equipment is not enough when the construction is not running smooth. The control system not only helps to organize and coordinate service of the equipment; moreover, it allows the operator to control the quality during the installation process reacting if needed. It allows process optimization as well as documentation which might be required for later negotiations.

Jan 1, 2019

By Francis B. Gularte

The Dalles Dam is located 192 miles upstream from the Columbia River?s mouth. As part of an effort to increase survival rates for young salmon migrating downstream to the Pacific Ocean, a river spillwall was constructed to guide the young salmon into the thalway and out of the reach of predators. The spillwall consisted of 43 large precast concrete cells constructed onsite. The 120-ton cells are positioned on the bedrock riverbed to form the 830-foot-long spillwall. Large capacity post-tensioned strand anchors extend through ducts in the precast units, anchoring the wall to the basalt. One hundred seventy-eight tie-down anchors consisting of 30, 32, or 40 strands were installed and post-tensioned to secure the cells. The logistic and technical challenges presented by positioning, installing, and stressing the precast cells in the tailrace of a large dam required a high level of cooperation and planning between the owner, general contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers in order to finish the project within the allotted in-water work windows to minimize impacts on seasonal salmon migration.

Jan 1, 2010

By Barry C. Roth

A Real Time Automated Remote Reading Electrolytic Tilt Monitoring System was effectively deployed for monitoring an existing five story brick building during underpinning, shoring and excavation operations for a directly adjacent thirty-foot deep excavation. The monitoring system was comprised of four sets of uniaxial electrolytic tilt meters connected to a Campbell datalogger with multiplexer, cellular modem and solar power. The excavation was for the foundation and underground parking as part of a new 55 story tower complex. Challenges to the contractors and to our monitoring personnel which were addressed included a tight urban site contemplating property line to property line new construction with directly adjacent old existing buildings, buried concrete foundations from former site use, cohesionless pervious sandy soils and high groundwater. Highly variable and diurnal ambient temperature regimes due to adjacent building shadows required careful corroboration and application of temperature corrections to the raw data. Earth tides were suspected on a very small scale and investigated by correlation between the data and the local sinusoidal tidal ephemera. Incidental inadvertent contractor interference with the instruments during underpinning due to site constraints was readily detected.

Jan 1, 2007

By Jorj O. Osterberg

The practice of using side shear resistance in the design of drilled shafts socketed in rock is discussed. In the absence of field test data for the particular rock involved, the designer often neglects the side shear altogether or uses an extremely conservative value. The uncertainty of using strength data from compression tests on rock cores is discussed. Examples of full scale load tests are given which illustrate that even in the weakest of rocks, considerable side shear resistances are obtained, enabeling reductions in the depths of the sockets and consequent savings. Existing Practice. The existing design practice in using side friction/bond between a drilled shaft in rock or hard soil varies very considerably in different areas of the U.S., in different areas of the world, among different Geotechnical Engineers, and in the requirements of different building codes. In fact, the variation is so great that it is inconsistent and contradictory. For example, in Florida where fairly weak coral limestone and sandstone is prevalent, the general practice is to use side friction only and to allow no end bearing. In Chicago, Detroit, Boston and other areas where soft clay overlies stiffer clays, hardpan and limestone or other hard rock, the common practice is to allow for no friction and to use end bearing only, even though the lower portion of a shaft frequently penetrates stiff to hard clays and hardpan (glacial till) before bearing on hardpan or rock. In Hong Kong, if the hole is stabilized with drilling mud, no end bearing is allowed. In Boston (Thompson, Erikson, and Smith, 1989), two tests at two sites on 18 inch pipe piles penetrating 100 feet of soft clay and driven only inches into an argillite, tested 140 and 210 tons in ultimate side shear resistance. Certainly, with long drilled shafts, no matter how soft or weak the soil or rock is, some if not considerable side friction occurs, and where drilling mud is used, there must be considerable end bearing.

Jan 1, 1991

By Lawrence F. Johnsen, Marc J. Gallagher

"Micropiles are small diameter, bored, grouted-in-place piles incorporating steel casing and/or reinforcements. The omission of micropiles from most United States building codes has resulted in the application of varying standards for design and installation. The ADSC/DFI Micropile Committee has developed a proposed section for the 2006 edition of the International Building Code (IBC 2006) covering micropiles. The proposed IBC 2006 micropile code section is presented, along with comparisons to existing micropile codes and guidelines. A discussion section is provided to clarify sections of the proposed code. IntroductionMicropiles, defined as small diameter (typically less than 12 inches outer diameter), bored, grouted-in-place piles incorporating steel casing and/or reinforcements, are becoming common foundation elements for new construction, retrofits, and emergency repairs. Developed in Europe in the 1950's and used in United States practice since the late 1970's, micropiles are typically not addressed in building codes, particularly in the United States. As a result, micropiles are often reviewed by building officials to a variety of standards, including drilled shafts, caissons, cast-in-place bored piles, and concrete filled pipe piles. None of these adequately address the unique design and construction aspects of micropiles. Therefore, it became apparent to the foundation design and construction community that a micropile-specific code section was required.To that end, the International Association of Foundation Drilling and the Deep Foundations Institute (ADSC/DFI) Micropile Committee appointed a subcommittee in October 2003 to develop and submit a proposed micropile code section for the 2006 IBC. The subcommittee members included the two co-authors, as well as Tom Richards (Nicholson Construction Company), Tom Armour (DBM Contractors, Inc.), John Wolosick (Hayward Baker, Inc.), Allen Cadden (Schnabel Engineering) and Matt Niermann (Schnabel Foundation Company). At the time of the writing of this paper, the proposed code section has been presented at the IBC public hearing during which it was modified slightly. Final adoption (or rejection) will be determined by the IBC at the final action hearing in September 2005. The attached code section is the revised version following the public review hearings."

Jan 1, 2005