Search Documents

By Anburaj C., Srinivas A.

Deep excavation with support system is required to construct various part of underground structures like shafts, stations and entry structures etc. These structures have to be constructed using permanent or temporary embedded retaining walls with support system. The selection of a suitable type of retaining wall will depend upon the geological condition present in the particular location, time, cost and available equipment etc. In Bangalore Metro Rail Project, secant pile wall is adopted as the temporary earth retaining system and depth of excavation is about 20 m. It is designed initially based on bottom up construction methodology with 3 level of struts and 3 level of anchors but at later stage due to time and other construction related issues, it is decided to change the configuration to 6 levels of strut. Generally, in deep excavations, all the underground structures should be designed and checked for the critical forces from both permanent stage and construction stages. Since, secant piles are used as temporary retaining wall, only construction stage analysis is carried out to get the governing forces and deformation. In construction stage analysis, soil layers are defined with boundary conditions and the surcharge during construction and surcharge from actual building near the secant pile are considered. This paper discusses the effect of change in the support system from anchors to struts and how these changes in the support system affect the behavior of secant pile and subsequently adjacent buildings present in the influence zone of the excavation. As a result, in changing from anchors to struts, the wall displacement, strut forces and ground movement on the adjacent ground and buildings increases. The increase in deflection, ground movements and strut forces occurs during backfilling sequence of the underground station excavation. During backfilling, struts has to be removed and this imparts higher magnitude in deflection, strut forces and ground movements.

Nov 1, 2022

By Max Gwynn, Tony Suckling

"The new Wembley Stadium is the most spectacular soccer stadium in the world, built to the highest specifications, using the latest technology and offering visitors an unrivalled match-day experience. Wembley Stadium is the home of English soccer, dating back to 1918 when the British Government began planning a British Empire Exhibition with a stadium as its centrepiece. The Empire Stadium, as it was originally known, was completed in 1924 in just 300 days and cost £750,000 ($1.4m). It was finally closed in 2000.The new Wembley Stadium, which opened in 2006, features fully covered seats for 90,000 fans and a striking arch that sits above the northern half of the stadium. With a span of 315 m (1040 ft), the 133-m (440-ft) tall arch is the longest single-span roof structure in the world. It supports the entire weight of the northern roof and 60% of the weight of the southern retractable roof. This means there is no need for columns within the stadium and ensures unobstructed views.Multiplex Constructions (UK) Ltd. employed Stent Foundations Limited to construct the £10m ($19m) foundations package for the new stadium. The scope of works for the foundation package included the design and construction of all foundations, including all main works piling, temporary works piles for the arch and roof, and tower crane piles. The scope also included trial piling and pile testing, setting out and removal of spoil.Piles were constructed by using bored cast-in-place techniques with both hydraulic and traditional crane-mounted rigs. Stent also installed sheet-piled walls at three locations to the site’s northern boundary. In addition to the main contract works, Stent constructed a £2m ($3.8m) contiguous bored-pile retaining wall within the demolition and earthworks package (Figure 1). This work was carried out as a subcontractor to Griffith McGee."

Jan 1, 2008

By Sushant Upadhyaya, Deniz Karadeniz, Ahmed Mohamed

Soil setup analysis provides opportunities for efficiencies in pile foundation design and installation. Soil setup gain with time was evaluated as part of the foundation design and installation for twelve bridges along the Interstate 64 corridor between York County and Newport News in Virginia. The substructure elements of the bridges consist of driven precast prestressed concrete piles or H-piles. This case study describes lessons learned to understand the soil setup phenomenon during the installation of the piles in coastal plain. We were able to make expedited decisions during construction by analyzing previously performed pile dynamic analyzer (PDA) test results within the project alignment. Data evaluation included analyses of PDA data obtained from initial driving and restrike after a few hours to 5 weeks. The test data showed pile resistance increase up to twice in most cases and as high as four times in some cases. Foundation design and acceptance based on soil setup can provide opportunities for cost savings and advanced scheduling during construction.

By David S. Graham, Benjamin Turner, Paul J. Axtell

Seismic challenges were at the forefront of design for two parallel replacement bridge structures over the Arkansas River as part of the I-30 Crossing Project in Little Rock, Arkansas. Although not an area of the country typically associated with high seismicity, proximity to the New Madrid Fault Zone resulted in design ground motions sufficient to trigger liquefaction in alluvial channel and point bar deposits. A detailed post-award subsurface investigation program utilized CPT with complimentary borings to obtain samples for laboratory testing to assess the continuity of potentially liquefiable layers, from which we concluded that continuous zones of liquefaction across the extent of the north approach could lead to lateral spreading towards the river. An overview of the foundation and superstructure design to resist lateral spreading forces in accordance with the latest published design guidelines and research is presented. Other seismic aspects of the design are covered including timber pile ground improvement to mitigate liquefaction at the north approach embankment and foundation input motions that differ from code-based ground surface motions due to foundation stiffness, strength, and geometry. The project showcases an example of successful collaboration between geotechnical and structural designers with contractor input to address seismic challenges in the South Central US. Furthermore, the importance of considering kinematic demands on columns and other superstructure components – not just foundations – is highlighted.

Sep 8, 2021

By Maurizio Siepi, Bruno Vingiani, Claudio Asioli

"The article describes an emergency rehabilitation intervention executed at Buyo Dam, in Ivory Coast, to intercept a significant water seepage occurring through the foundation of this zoned earthfill retaining structure constructed in the late Seventies. To solve the problem, a 800 mm thick, 400 m long impervious cut-off wall (COW) was constructed on the right side of the embankment, operating from the dam crest and with the reservoir almost at its maximum level. The use of an innovative pre-mixed self-hardening grout, with a target hydraulic conductivity coefficient (k) lower than 10-9 m/s, was considered the only way to match the tight working schedule and the strict requirements for the filling material of the COW.Presentation of the Hydroelectric Scheme of BuyoThe hydroelectric scheme of Buyo, located at 6°14’28” N 7°20’45 W on the Sassandra River, in Ivory Coast (Figure 1), was built in the late Seventies for agriculture and power generation. With a reservoir of 8.3 billion m3 and an installed power capacity of 165 MW, enough to supply electricity to 111,000 homes, it represents an installation of great significance for this West African country."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tim Chapman

This general report considers what promoters of deep basement projects want from their teams and whether they get it often enough. Most large projects are based on complex financial models where the funding is related to a future income stream. Project delays and cost over-runs can critically affect the financial model. Too often, delays and cost over-runs originate in the substructure and foundations. We must take positive steps to improve our industry's reputation for reliability.

Jan 1, 2006

By John P. Turner, Benjamin J. Turner

"Non-destructive testing and evaluation (NDT/NDE) methods have become standard tools as part of the post-construction quality assurance of drilled shaft foundations. In responding to anomalies, foundation designers, owners, and contractors face a number of choices, including: (i) acceptance of a shaft with known anomalies, (ii) further investigations of integrity (e.g., concrete coring), (iii) repair schemes, and (iv) reject and replace. To assist in selecting the best option, analyses are often performed that involve assessing the structural performance of reinforced concrete shafts that may include defective concrete or voids. Currently, the analytical tools for predicting the flexural strength and stiffness of drilled shafts with defective concrete located in discrete regions of the cross section are limited. This paper presents a robust moment-curvature analysis tool for drilled shafts based on the fiber-element discretization method. The tool allows for consideration of anomalous or defective concrete regions in the shape and location that they are believed to exist in the shaft while considering explicitly the nonlinear material behavior of the intact regions based on expected material properties. A case study is used to illustrate the practical application of the analysis to drilled shaft projects.INTRODUCTIONImperfections such as defective concrete or accidental eccentricity of reinforcing cages are an inherent part of the drilled shaft construction process that will occur occasionally even when construction best-practices are followed. Petek et al. (2002), O’Neill and Sarhan (2004), Poulos (2005), and others have described the effects that construction defects can have on the axial and lateral performance of drilled shafts. Our industry has seen rapid progress in recent years in the development and improvement of tools for detecting drilled shaft anomalies, such as gamma-gamma and crosshole-sonic logging, sonic-echo testing, thermal integrity profiling, and even visual inspection with invasive video cameras. Nonetheless, in most cases the wealth of data from these tests is used by foundation engineers to make a fairly “black or white” decision—should the defects be repaired, or should the shaft be rejected? A third option that is not typically considered is to directly analyze the section, including anomalies, and compare the reduced strength and/or ductility to the actual project demands. This option takes full advantage of the data collected during integrity testing, and may provide a justifiable means for avoiding further construction costs and delays, whether for repair or replacement."

Jan 1, 2016

By Dipl. -Ing. (FH) Thomas Schmitt, Dr. Melvin England

Foundations in Geneva are difficult and expensive due a large overlayer of clay and silt above competent bearing material in the moraine. Common foundation schemes use deep barrettes or bored piles, first passing large, weak layers of soil before finally reaching acceptable, solid moraine with reasonable values of skin friction and end bearing resistance, thus requiring further deep penetration for the necessary length for load transfer in the moraine. Depths of more than 60 m (200 ft) in Geneva are common in this region. At the Onyx-Project Geneva Implenia Foundation Company also encountered these circumstances. Despite usual solutions Implenia referred to an old and well known, but still intelligent and in today’s words smart, efficient and economical solution. Using small shafts, passing the large layers of clay and silt, ending with the pile toe in the underlaying moraine with a belled or underreamed base was the technic adopted to save drilling time, reduce spoil and concrete, so finally reducing the CO2 footprint. Piles with enlarged base (“belled” or “underreamed”) are reported at the beginning of the 20th century, for example at Chicago, which has a quite similar geotechnical structure as Geneva with the need of deep foundations. The first pile base enlargements were built in hand-dug caissons with wood lagging and steel ring bracing. In the 50s and 60s piling works were more and more mechanized, driven by the development of more powerful cranes and specialized drill rigs. Additionally the first tools for mechanized base enlargement were invented around that period. This report describes the project situation at Geneva, the drilling and enlargement technique of the pile base, the verification of the design values with an in-situ bi-directional load test and the smart execution by reduction of CO2 and costs.

May 1, 2022

By Sam Warren, Antonio Marinucci, Genesis Z. Figueroa, Anne Lemnitzer

Drilled Displacement Piles (DDP) provide an ideal deep foundation solution that combines the benefits of ground improvement with traditional advantages of piling systems. This paper consolidates data from 20 construction projects in which more than 30 DDPs were installed and tested axially. High quality site exploration data (e.g., Cone Penetration Test and Standard Penetration Test) were evaluated to derive geotechnical analysis parameters. The test sites consisted of mostly mixed soil types with strongly stratified layers of sand, silt, and clay. Pile diameters ranged between 40 cm and 61 cm. Test results were compared with predictive methods developed specifically for DDPs as well as methods used in general geotechnical practice. The accuracy of the empirical methods is presented in terms of total pile capacity, pile length/diameter, and soil type. The large majority of all examined methods underpredict the in-situ pile capacities. It was also found that the difference between the tested and predicted capacity is strongly related to the level of improvement in the surrounding soil due to the piles’ installation. A general comparison between predictive axial accuracy and the observed level of ground improvement upon installation is also discussed.

May 1, 2022

By Joel L. Volterra

Since 1910, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) has regularly provided professional engineering services including inspection of pile load tests. Historically, such services included on-site inspection of the driving of test piles and subsequent static load tests by qualified Geotechnical Engineers. Load testing procedures are specified by local or State Building Codes, locally the 1968 Building Code of the City of New York (1968 BCCNY). Between 1968 and 2008, the 1968 BCCNY required a minimum 48-hour hold period for standard loads per pile type, an extended 96-hour hold period for higher capacity piles, and a settlement criterion that the pile maintain a test load equal to two times the design load with less than 0.012 inches of settlement over the last 48 hours of the hold period. Effective July 2008, the new 2008 BCCNY shortened the hold period and relaxed the settlement criteria to that which is more similar to other governing codes and standards such as the International Building Code (IBC 2006) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). MRCE implemented an automated load test monitoring system to reduce costs and to alleviate or minimize overnight and off-hour staffing for load test readings. Initially, a series of linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) and data loggers were included in the Contractor?s load test setup to electronically record pile head settlement and where applicable, settlement of telltales installed to varying depths in the pile. A pressure gage was subsequently added in the hydraulic line, then a load cell, strain gages, and remote access using modems. The ease of the setup and modular adaptive nature of this system have proven it to be a useful tool and improved our ability to better serve our clients and manage our pile load testing services.

Jan 1, 2008

By Eric P. Bregman

As part of an on-going effort to improve water quality and reduce discharge into Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) East Boston Branch Sewer Relief Project was designed under a Federal mandate from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to upgrade the aging sewer system, increase system storage and greatly reduce the volume of combined sewer overflows into the Harbor. The project scope of work includes the installation of over 2 miles (11,800 linear feet) of 36-inch and 66-inch diameter sewer relief piping, twenty (20) temporary shafts and an approximate 100 foot open cut section, located within the densely populated neighborhood of East Boston, Massachusetts. This area is a former marshland backfilled in the early to mid 1800?s where busy commercial streets co-mingle with thickly settled residential houses. The subsurface conditions present within Boston?s complex geology include the presence of subsurface contamination as well as complex networks of underground utilities. Additional site limitations included low headroom, noise, and traffic restrictions. Together these limitations required the design of individual earth support systems, tailored for each shaft location. Moreover, challenging subsurface conditions identified during construction required design modifications to minimize cost and schedule impacts related to construction dewatering, treatment of contaminated groundwater, internal bracing, and utility relocations. This paper provides a case history of the Geo-structural design and performance of various earth support techniques utilized to construct jacking and receiving shafts designed to launch and receive two (2) micro-tunnel boring machines (MTBM) and to support the construction of new deep shaft structures in an urban coastal area.

By Eric P. Bregman, Franklin M. Grynkewicz, John E. Regan

"As part of an on-going effort to improve water quality and reduce discharge into Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) East Boston Branch Sewer Relief Project was designed under a Federal mandate from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to upgrade the aging sewer system, increase system storage and greatly reduce the volume of combined sewer overflows into the Harbor. The project scope of work includes the installation of over 2 miles (11,800 linear feet) of 36-inch and 66-inch diameter sewer relief piping, twenty (20) temporary shafts and an approximate 100 foot open cut section, located within the densely populated neighborhood of East Boston, Massachusetts. This area is a former marshland backfilled in the early to mid 1800’s where busy commercial streets co-mingle with thickly settled residential houses.The subsurface conditions present within Boston’s complex geology include the presence of subsurface contamination as well as complex networks of underground utilities. Additional site limitations included low headroom, noise, and traffic restrictions. Together these limitations required the design of individual earth support systems, tailored for each shaft location. Moreover, challenging subsurface conditions identified during construction required design modifications to minimize cost and schedule impacts related to construction dewatering, treatment of contaminated groundwater, internal bracing, and utility relocations.This paper provides a case history of the Geo-structural design and performance of various earth support techniques utilized to construct jacking and receiving shafts designed to launch and receive two (2) micro-tunnel boring machines (MTBM) and to support the construction of new deep shaft structures in an urban coastal area."

Jan 1, 2017

By Patrick van der Schaaf

"During 2016, foundation piling works were completed to allow for the construction of a production and storage/handling terminal in Rotterdam. It is there that steel foundations will be produced for offshore wind farms and the oil and gas industry. Several Dutch contracting companies were involved in constructing: foundations for an assembly hall, a barge quay and a deep-sea quay wall. For the hall foundations, cast in situ concrete vibro piles were created. Open ended steel casing piles were also installed due to very high cone resistances which made it impossible to perform cast in situ piles in certain areas. The quay wall was constructed with open ended steel casing piles in combination with sheet piles. A deep-sea quay wall was also constructed to provide enough storage area for the offshore mono piles. This project was unique and challenging due to the use of different foundation technologies in challenging circumstances and soil conditions. This paper will give an insight into the Dutch use of varying foundation piling techniques for deep-sea quay wall constructions. It can be concluded that even experienced local contractors can be surprised by variations in soil conditions. It will also show how the contractors adapted to the difficult circumstances.PROJECT OUTLINEThe project consisted of a barge quay near the assembly hall with a length of 500 metres, width of 42 metres and a height of 35 metres, and a deep-sea quay wall 480 metres in length. This paper concentrates on the foundation works for the construction of the deep-sea quay wall. The construction of the deep-sea quay wall consisted of a combination of open ended steel casing piles with a diameter of Ø 1420 mm and a wall thickness varying between 21 and 23 mm. The lengths of the steel casing piles varied between 32 and 37 metres. Between the steel casing piles triple PU 28 sheet piles were installed with lengths varying between 26 and 29 metres. In the Netherlands, a combination of open ended steel piles and sheet piles is known as a “combi wall”. For the deep-sea quay wall a steel combi wall was shored with steel H- section profiles that were driven in a raked position whilst being injected with grout, so called MV-piles. The MV piles for this project consisted of steel HEB 600 sections with lengths from 52 up to 59 metres and were installed with angles varying between 42.5 and 47.5 degrees. For a detailed overview regarding the project specifications reference is made to table 1 which is presented below."

Jan 1, 1900

By James S. Graham

Research at the University of Colorado on southern pine and Douglas-fir piling has determined that the existing building code design stress values of 1200 psi and 1250 psi, as determined by ASTM D-2899, are substantiated; but testing procedures should be revised. All full size piling tests should be standardized at 1/d ratios of 2:1, or confined tests performed. Also, it has been determined that theoretical design values for timber piling should not be based on the lumber criteria of D-245 and D-2555, but instead should follow the pattern set by engineers in the utility industry for timber poles, in accordance with ANSI 05.1.

Jan 1, 1986

By H G. Poulos

"This paper sets out a simplified approach by which the practical foundation designer can undertake the relevant calculations to satisfy the requirements for deep foundation design in seismic areas. The following matters are dealt with:a. Design issues that should be addressed;b. Pile design for axial loading, including the possible effects of liquefaction;c. Pile design for lateral loading where liquefaction does not occur;d. Pile design for lateral loading where liquefaction does occur;e. Measures to mitigate against liquefaction effects.The paper is a modified version of a paper presented in 2013 to the 19th NZGS GeotechnicalSymposium, Queenstown, New Zealand.1. INTRODUCTIONConsideration of the effects of earthquakes and seismic loadings is an increasingly important aspect of modern foundation design, and most contemporary standards have a mandatory requirement for such consideration. For example, the Australian Piling Code, AS 2159-2009, states that “a pile shall be designed for adequate strength, stiffness and ductility under load combinations including earthquake design actions”. However, the methods by which such considerations can be undertaken are generally not set out in the standards, and many approaches have been utilized, ranging from very simplistic methods to extremely complex computer analyses. Accordingly, there appears to be scope for an approach that is soundly based but which is neither too simplistic nor too complex.Poulos (1989) has suggested that there are three categories of analysis and design, as follows:1. Category 1: empirical methods.2. Category 2: simplified but soundly-based methods.3. Category 3: more comprehensive methods that are soundly-based, and site-specific.The objective of this paper is to set out a systematic but simplified approach which falls into Category 2 above, and by which the foundation designer can undertake the relevant analyses to satisfy the foundation design requirements for seismic regions. Emphasis is placed on methods that do not require “black box” software or which employ complex soil models in which the physical meaning of the parameters is unclear."

Jan 1, 1900

By Mario A. Terceros Herrera, Mario Terceros Arce, Antonio Marinucci

This paper describes the general principles of the expander body with post-grouting (EBI) system, and how it is similar in nature to a large-scale pressuremeter device. The results from the installation of an EBI can be used to provide information about the stress-strain characteristics of the soil adjacent to the device and to compute estimates of nominal axial resistance. As the EBI expands during grouting, pressure is applied to the in-situ soil surrounding the device thereby compacting/densifying the soil. The nominal axial resistance for small diameter piles/ground anchors can be increased due to the greater soil stiffness and shear strength around the device, larger surface and end area, and improved soil-to-EBI interaction in side resistance. The shape of the response curves depends on the geotechnical conditions of the soil (e.g., in-situ stress state, strength, and stiffness) and the installation method of the piling/ground anchor. This technique has been used successfully with different pile types and ground anchors in a wide range of conditions from very loose sands/silts to very dense sands and medium-dense gravels as well as in soft to stiff clays. This paper also describes a mini case history in which 80 piles were installed to support an office building, and the results of the static axial compression load tests performed on a production FDP+EBI pile is also included.

By Ashirbad Satapathy, Sanket Rawat, Ramanand Shukla, Ravi Kant Mittal

Bearing capacity factor (Nq) and Adhesion factor (α) are the key parameters for analyzing the load carrying capacity of pile foundations embedded in cohesionless and cohesive soils respectively. Numerous models are available in the form of charts or equations for the computation of these parameters and hence, have been adopted by most of the International and National standards. Indian Standard for the Design and Construction of Concrete Pile Foundations, IS 2911–Part 1 (2010), also makes use of charts detailed in its Annexure B. However, the sources of these charts have not been specified clearly, making it difficult to back-refer to the actual models to assess their basis for resolving any critical scenarios encountered during design. The present study aims at acquiring a distinct understanding of the development of these charts in order to bring more clarity to the design process of pile foundations. The given charts have been compared with various models specified in existing literature and international standards for the calculation of Nq and α for both driven and bored piles and hence, the basis of Indian Standard charts has been identified. Moreover, it is evident that the use of these charts complicates the process of automation of analysis and design of pile foundations as well as the associated optimization studies. Additionally, the manual entry of data especially, from the logarithmic graph of Nq, escalates the chances of error thus, making it a critical concern for design offices. Therefore, this paper also presents a non-linear regression model for Nq and α, developed using NCSS software for both driven and bored piles. Through multiple iterations, the value of coefficient of determination for Nq and α has been found to reach greater than 0.995. The developed equations can be simplistically used for both manual and automated analysis of pile foundations.

Nov 1, 2022

By Randy R. Williams, Roberto R. Olivera, Brian W. Wilson, Marina S. W. Li

"An extensive, deep mixing (DM) ground improvement program using the Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) technique was designed and constructed in 2013 to support up to 20 m (66 ft) high Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls and bulk earthworks for the development of the Kitimat Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility at Bish Cove, British Columbia. The deep mixing program consisted of overlapping rectangular panels of in situ cement treated soils, constructed using the CSM technique, to form barrettes covering an area of approximately 12,900 m2 (15,428 yd2) and providing suitable static and seismic stability of foundation soils for support of the proposed MSE walls, which would in turn support LNG facilities. The deep mixing program comprised of 1645 CSM panels that were constructed through varying thicknesses and discontinuous layers of very soft fine-grained marine deposits and/or loose sandy silt to silty sand deposits, embedding typically 2 m ( 6.6 ft) into dense silty sand to sand and gravel. CSM panel depths ranged from 5 m (16 ft) to 30 m (98 ft) and were constructed by treating approximately 73,900 m3 (96,658 yd3) of soil yielding average unconfined compressive strengths exceeding 2.5MPa (363 psi).This paper outlines the approach adopted for the design of the CSM ground improvement program in the highly variable subsurface conditions present at the site. A phased sitespecific investigation consisting of boreholes, test pits, Cone Penetration Tests, piston tube sampling, advanced laboratory testing and groundwater monitoring was implemented. In addition, soil-cement bench scale testing was completed, followed by installation of 8 CSM panels for field trial purposes. Extensive geotechnical static and seismic analyses including Limit Equilibrium stability analyses, liquefaction assessments, and advanced numerical modeling were undertaken to optimize the design and meet the project-specific design performance criteria. The Design-Build team worked closely to develop and implement Quality Assurance and Quality Control plans and managed significant construction challenges while achieving suitable panel termination depths."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ali Azizian, Brian Hall

"Driven piles were selected to support the Fraser Heights Bridge bents. Piles were a key component of the top-down construction approach, which was adopted for minimizing potential impacts on an environmentally sensitive wetland. Project requirements mandated verification of pile capacities using dynamic methods. More than 40 Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) tests were performed. The subsurface conditions were highly variable. On the east side, piles extended through loose sands, soft silts/clays, and two peat layers and were founded in glacial till-like soils at about 45 m depth. However, on the west side, till-like materials were so shallow that it was difficult to drive the piles sufficiently deep to obtain the necessary lateral support. This paper provides an overview of the geotechnical considerations of the bridge design and top-down construction approach, and expands on the presentation of PDA results and how they compared to pile capacity estimation methods and parameters recommended in the applicable design codes.INTRODUCTIONThe Fraser Heights Bridge (FHB) was a component of the Fraser Heights Connector (FHC), a 2 km section of the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), constructed as part of the Port Mann/Highway 1 (PMH1) Improvement Project. The FHC is located in northeast Surrey BC (Fig. 1).Two major design and construction determinants were: 1) a mandated tight schedule to provide a non-tolled alternative to a new toll bridge; and, 2) an obligation that construction had to occur with minimal impact on the environmentally sensitive wetland the FHB crossed, including limiting the footprint of the permanent and temporary works to less than 45 m2, and prohibiting construction access onto the wetland. Construction equipment was only allowed on the wetland on temporary trestles or on the finished structure. This latter requirement resulted in the bridge being constructed span by span, using a top-down approach."

Jan 1, 2016

By Karen J. Dawson, Francisco Johnson

"Pressure-grouted high strength helical displacement piles are a recently developed pile type that can be useful in conditions where noise or vibrations must be low or where access or clearance is limited. However, there is no information in the literature that can be used to estimate the soil resistance of these piles or production rates. To fill this information need, this paper presents a New Jersey installation case history and the results of static axial and lateral load tests on both pressure-grouted and ungrouted high strength helical piles at the case history site and trial installation locations in New Jersey and Washington State. Piles between 25 and 50 feet long comprised of steel shaft diameters of 4.5, 5.5, and 7 inches with equivalent grout column diameters ranging from 12 to 22 inches were tested. Lateral loads of up to 100 kips and axial compression loads of up to 700 kips were applied. The results of the load tests are compared to predictions of lateral deformation and axial resistance.INTRODUCTIONHelical piles have long been recognized as a useful foundation type in situations where noise and vibrations must be limited, or where there are access or clearance restrictions. Relatively well-documented design methods and torque to capacity correlations have been developed for the most commonly used helical piles, which are relatively small (typically shafts of 6 inches or less) with corresponding low load carrying resistance.With the increased need to construct in congested urban environments, there is incentive to develop helical piles with higher axial resistance. Seismic and other loading conditions also require lateral resistance, which is low for the typically small helical pile shafts. One method of increasing the soil resistance, both axially and laterally and at relatively low cost, is to place grout around the shaft. Injecting the grout under pressure through the hollow helical pipe section and out a grout port or ports located near the toe of the pile has the potential to increase the pile resistance significantly above that which can be achieve by gravity grouting. Not only does the pressurized grout push out against the surrounding soil, but the rotating helix helps to distribute the grout laterally. Unfortunately, little information is available in the literature to help designers estimate the resistance of grouted helical piles in general and none is available regarding pressuregrouted helical piles."

Jan 1, 2016