Search Documents

"Standing 92 stories high and just over 1,362 ft tall, Chicago’s Trump International Hotel and Tower is perfectly positioned at the center of one of the world’s most impressive skylines.The Tower serves as a link between its famous predecessors, Willis Tower (formerly, the Sears Tower) to the south and the John Hancock Building to the north. Originally planned to be the world’s tallest building, the project was scaled back when the developers started questioning the need for super-tall buildings after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In its River North neighborhood, Trump Tower dominates the skyline as a symbol of Chicago’s last great building boom, standing triumphantly over other high-profile projects that have been postponed due to current economic realities.It is often said that the three most important factors in real estate are location, location and location. This maxim was not forgotten by The Trump Organization when the site was selected for the International Hotel and Tower. Located two blocks west of Michigan Avenue and Chicago’s famed Magnificent Mile, the site is bound by the historic Wrigley Building to the east, Wabash Avenue to the north and west, and the Chicago River to the south. The building’s position along a bend in the Chicago River allows visitors and residents unobstructed views to the mouth of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. Site ChallengesUnderneath the site there are approximately 10 to 20 ft of sand and urban fill underlain by soft Chicago blue clay. At 75 ft in depth, the soft clay transitions into Chicago hardpan, a very hard till that was consolidated by the glaciers over 10,000 years ago. Below the hardpan, the till turns granular with cobbles, boulders and water under pressure. Bedrock is about 100 ft below existing grade and has a weathered surface with fractures and clay seams. Unweathered limestone bedrock is sound and hard with unconfined compressive strengths of 10,000 to 20,000 psi."

Jan 1, 2009

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Seth Robertson, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

The Top-Loaded Bi-Directional Test (―TLBT‖) and the conventional Bi-Directional Load Test (―BDLT‖) are full-scale static load test methods. In both methods, the test loads are applied bi-directionally to the deep foundation. The advantages of the conventional BDLT have been well established for cost efficient static load testing of deep foundations, particularly for large diameter, high-capacity drilled foundations. A conventional BDLT applies the bi-directional test loads using an embedded jack and bearing plates. The TLBT method also applies the bi-directional test load to embedded bearing plates but does so using reusable high-strength threaded bars attached to an above-grade hydraulic jack and load transfer assembly. The new TLBT method is well suited for load testing shafts of a moderate diameter, length, and nominal resistance or ultimate load. TLBT advantages include economic considerations resulting from the method’s reusable load application components and constructability considerations as it readily accommodates a center concrete tremie pipe or pump line location. This paper presents comparison results from full-scale load tests performed using both bi-directional load testing methods. Adjacent 3-foot diameter by 30-foot long BDLT and TLBT shafts were tested. Details regarding subsurface conditions and test shaft construction are included for the comparison of the TLBT and BDLT results. Corresponding test data and analyses for both test shafts are presented and discussed in detail. The BDLT shaft had a maximum uni-directional load of 240 kips at upper and lower bearing plate displacements of 0.5 and -3.8 inches, respectively. The TLBT had a maximum uni-directional load of 300 kips at upper and lower bearing plate displacements of 1.0 and -5.9 inches, respectively. These results as well as the load-transfer behavior and equivalent top loading curve results from the adjacent BDLT and TLBT drilled shafts are discussed. The paper also discusses the strain gage instrumentation on the TLBT load application bars and on the embedded bearing plates.

Oct 1, 2022

By W. Morgan NeSmith

"The DFI ACIP Pile Committee, in conjunction with the Florida DOT, completed an ACIP Pile installation monitoring and performance test program in late 2016 to advance the inclusion of ACIP piles in future specifications for bridges by state agencies. Piles of different diameters were installed for compression, tension and lateral testing, and one pile was extracted for visual inspection. This paper presents the pile installation, non-destructive testing and load test results of the program.INTRODUCTION The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Committee performed a ACIP pile installation and test program in the fall of 2016 to demonstrate a fully monitored installation of 18-in and 24-in diameter ACIP piles. The program included automated and manual installation monitoring, Thermal Integrity Profiling, compression, tension and lateral load testing (including monitoring of strain gages embedded along the compression pile shaft), and post-testing extraction of an installed pile for visual inspection.PROJECT DETAILS AND FIELD EXPLORATION A general program location map along with an aerial view of the property in Okahumpka FL is shown in Figure 1. Two Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) were performed at initial reaction pile locations R-6 and R-8 (Figures 2 and 3) The results from CPT R-6 indicated very loose soil conditions at depths below 55-ft, indicating potential relic sinkhole conditions. The test layout was subsequently rotated and moved south of CPT R-8.TEST PILE INSTALLATION DETAILS Seven piles were installed to either 40-ft or 60-ft below grade. Thermal Integrity Profile (TIP) wires were installed in all piles but varied to include one wire each attached to a steel center bar or one wire attached to the steel center bar AND four additional wires (each) attached the steel reinforcing cage installed in these piles. Additionally, the 24-in lateral and compression piles had four steel or PVC casings installed next to the TIP wires for testing by thermal probe and/or wire inserted into the casing."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alice Arana, David M. Cacoilo, Joel L. Volterra

"To make space for the new South Ferry Station in lower Manhattan, engineers and contractors carved out a new tunnel beneath three operating subway tunnels and tangentially to yet another tunnel. Creating the space required the design and construction of complex temporary excavation support and underpinning systems and the design and installation of real-time monitoring systems. Construction for the new station and tunnel was mainly cut-and cover in a mixed-face area of soil and rock approximately 2,000 linear ft long, 60 ft wide and up to 70 ft deep. Close coordination between the design/build team and the project owner, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), was critical.With the construction of this $400 million project, the MTA and New York City Transit (NYCT) are correcting the numerous physical and operational deficiencies of the existing station and improving the lives of millions of commuters. Built in 1905, the original South Ferry Station is on the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line of the New York City Subway and is the southern terminal of the #1 subway service, which forms a loop to return uptown. The station has a sharply curved single platform on the outside of the outer track of a two track loop. This platform is short and does not allow the rear five cars of a normal 10-car subway train to load or unload. In addition, once the train stops at the station, commuters wait while retractable floor grates bridge the gap created between the platform and the subway car doors, and then they have only one exit from the station. Spray nozzles keep the tracks lubricated to reduce the train wheels’ friction caused by the tight curve. The sharp curvature of the loop and the inability to use half of the subway car doors slow train operation. With the new ADA-accessible station, 10-car trains will be able to open all doors, and additional entrances, escalators and elevators will greatly reduce travel times."

Jan 1, 2008

By Renzo D. Verastegui, T. C. Michael Law, Sitotaw Y. Fantaye, Alfredas Daugiala

"When completed, 520 Park Avenue will amend the Manhattan skyline and be one of the most prestigious high rise towers in New York City. The 52-story condominium building is located on a 60 by 100 feet lot on East 60th Street between Park and Madison Avenues. The geographically complex site is bounded by two fragile 5-story masonry buildings on the east and west, a mid-rise building on the north, and a New York City subway tunnel on the south. To add to this complexity, the ambitious development required 70 to 80 feet of excavation, mostly below groundwater level in highly permeable rock, to accommodate four levels of cellars. The new building also cantilevers 24 feet over a five-story historic building on the east. The limited footprint of the building coupled with large compressive and tensile axial loads, considerable base shear and over-turning moments, and the required deep excavation, presented unique foundation challenges. This paper describes how the challenges were solved with an innovative combination of permanent secant pile walls and drilled shafts.INTRODUCTIONThe project site is located at 45 East 60th Street, on the block bounded by East 61st Street to the north, East 60th Street to the south, Park Avenue to the east, and Madison Avenue to the west. As shown in Fig. 1, the site is surrounded on three sides by buildings sensitive to differential settlement. In addition, a NYCT underground subway structure lies below East 60th Street approximately 13 feet south of the site. The base of the subway structure is approximately 42 feet below the street.The project consisted of constructing a 52-story tall building. A portion of the superstructure cantilevers 24 feet over an adjacent five-story historic building. The underground construction for the new building involved a four-level basement, extending about 60 feet below ground surface. The excavation subgrade is much deeper than both the subway structure and the adjacent shallowly-founded building foundations."

Jan 1, 2016

By Donald R. Clark

"Drilled shafts are being used as foundation support for parabolic solar troughs at the Genesis Solar Project being constructed near Blythe, California. Three types of drilled shaft foundations are required for the project. At project build-out, there will be a total of 23,008 drilled shafts installed at the site. Preliminary designs for the axial and lateral capacity of the drilled piers were based on conventional geotechnical engineering methodologies and soil-structure interaction. The drilled shafts and subsurface conditions were modeled through the use of the computer program LPILE v6.0.Conducting lateral load testing of drilled shafts was considered appropriate to confirm or modify the geotechnical parameters used in the preliminary design. The lateral load testing program was conducted to provide site-specific test data that would allow the design engineers (both geotechnical and structural) to predict the actual performance and adequacy of the proposed drilled shaft foundations and improve the efficiency and hopefully reduce project costs.The lateral load testing was conducted within two solar fields at the site. Three pairs of drilled shaft foundations were installed in each field, instrumented, and laterally loaded to determine load-deflection response. A value-engineered option, proposed by one of the drilled shaft contractors, was also load tested. The results of the load-deflection data obtained in the field was used to modify the soil modeling used in the original L-PILE analyses and adjust the production drilled shaft lengths.Based on the results of the lateral load testing, the in-situ moduli of the subsurface soils were significantly increased over that assumed in the preliminary analyses. Based on the final soil-structure interaction analyses, the preliminary drilled shaft lengths were reduced by 2 to 2-1/2 feet. This resulted in an overall reduction of 55,654 feet of drilled shaft construction on the entire project, a savings of approximately 16.5% over the preliminary"

Jan 1, 2017

By Donald R. Clark

Drilled shafts are being used as foundation support for parabolic solar troughs at the Genesis Solar Project being constructed near Blythe, California. Three types of drilled shaft foundations are required for the project. At project build-out, there will be a total of 23,008 drilled shafts installed at the site. Preliminary designs for the axial and lateral capacity of the drilled piers were based on conventional geotechnical engineering methodologies and soil-structure interaction. The drilled shafts and subsurface conditions were modeled through the use of the computer program LPILE v6.0. Conducting lateral load testing of drilled shafts was considered appropriate to confirm or modify the geotechnical parameters used in the preliminary design. The lateral load testing program was conducted to provide site-specific test data that would allow the design engineers (both geotechnical and structural) to predict the actual performance and adequacy of the proposed drilled shaft foundations and improve the efficiency and hopefully reduce project costs. The lateral load testing was conducted within two solar fields at the site. Three pairs of drilled shaft foundations were installed in each field, instrumented, and laterally loaded to determine load-deflection response. A value-engineered option, proposed by one of the drilled shaft contractors, was also load tested. The results of the load-deflection data obtained in the field was used to modify the soil modeling used in the original L-PILE analyses and adjust the production drilled shaft lengths. Based on the results of the lateral load testing, the in-situ moduli of the subsurface soils were significantly increased over that assumed in the preliminary analyses. Based on the final soil-structure interaction analyses, the preliminary drilled shaft lengths were reduced by 2 to 2-1/2 feet. This resulted in an overall reduction of 55,654 feet of drilled shaft construction on the entire project, a savings of approximately 16.5% over the preliminary design.

By Rimas Veitas, James Panton, Erich Steinlechner

"Ductile Iron Piles (DIPs) are a proven, viable alternative to conventional piles, and for the past five years have been successfully used throughout New England. The installation process of DIPs lends itself to both large and small projects. Because of their installation efficiency they provide a substantial cost savings over drilled micro piles. Several New England projects (both end bearing and friction) will be evaluated, focusing on the installation and design procedures.BackgroundThe driven ductile cast iron pile (DIP) is a simple, fast and highly effective pile system. Over the last 30 years over 10 million feet of this pile system has been installed worldwide predominantly in Europe. DIPs are a prefabricated driven pile system utilizing high strength ductile iron pipes which are manufactured using a spun-cast process having outside diameters of 4 5/8” and 6 5/8 inches. The standard pile lengths are 16.4 feet long. The pipes are manufactured with a tapered socket with an internal shoulder for full engagement at the top and a tapered spigot at the bottom. The individual pile sections can be connected with this Plug and Drive® connection to drive a pile of any length.(see figure 1)The DIP system’s inherent advantage is the simplicity of the installation process. The piles are driven to refusal or to a required penetration depth with the use of a high-impact highfrequency hydraulic hammer (ie. Breaker hammer). In most applications the hydraulic hammer is mounted on an appropriately sized excavator (see Photo 2). At the completion of driving the pile, the pile is cut off (see photo 5) and the remaining section of pile is fitted with the appropriate driving shoe and serves as the lead section for the next pile. Being able to reuse the cut off section, yields minimal if any pile shaft waste. The pile is then fitted with an appropriate pile cap plate to receive the load from the superstructure."

Jan 1, 2017

By Ali Nasirian Ph. D., Gabriel Carvajal

To facilitate the safer and more secure transportation of inmates from San Diego Central Jail to the new San Diego Courthouse, the County of San Diego committed to building a new transfer facility as part of the downtown developments. The transfer facility includes a three-story underground structure adjacent and connected to the Central Jail and a 60-ft deep, 23-ft diameter, 320-ft long tunnel. The tunnel starts at County Jail, passes underneath Western Regional Detention Facility (Old Jail) and, ultimately, connects to the State Courthouse. Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. (CJA) was selected to install the temporary shoring shaft for the underground structure as well as three arrays of canopy pipes to support the tunnel’s Sequential Excavation Method (SEM) construction. CJA installed the rectangular 56-ft deep access shaft shoring with three levels of bracing, and a combination of secant piles, soldier piles, and timber lagging. The shoring also included a sliding bridge at top to provide access for trucks to enter and exit from county jail during the duration of construction. Following shoring and shaft excavation, CJA installed and grouted 7-5/8” dia. canopy pipes in 3 reaches, parallel to the longitudinal design line of tunnel with a slight lookout angle. CJA installed 24 each canopy pipes, 99-ft from face of shaft at reach 1, 21 each, 80-ft length canopy pipes at reach 2, and 21 each, 75-ft length pipes at reach 3. CJA confirmed canopy pipe alignment via Inertial Sensing Gyro. To mitigate the possibility of settlements caused by the tunneling operation underneath Old Jail strip footing and grade beams, CJA also performed void fill grouting. Sleeve port grout pipes (SPGP’s) were installed inside the Old Jail basement and grouted with the use of packers as the tunneling operation passed underneath the Old Jail. In detailing various aspects of the construction, this paper aims to magnify the innovative solutions for shoring, canopy pipe installation and void fill grouting challenges as well as the state of the art quality control measures undertaken by CJA.

Oct 1, 2022

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 Kevin Cunningham

"Litigation resulting from neighboring structures with settlement and/or lateral movement or improper pile design and faulty soils engineering analysis, are a multi-faceted opportunity for law firms. These types of claim scenarios are an attorney’s dream, and can obliterate a Deep Foundation Contractors profit and more importantly, can be avoided with a progressive approach to risk management in design and project management.The following (4) case studies will be examined and dissected to discern certain lessons learned for risk management solutions to avoid these deep foundation related challenges in the future.1) Pipe Flotation – Soil Conditions Not Anticipated in Specifications or Contract2) Easement Encroachment – Easement Dimensions Not Recognized Until Completion of Project3) Subjacent Lateral Support – Neighboring Structure Wooden Pile Unprotected Causing Structure to Settle4) Improper Pile Placement - Construction & Design Caused Retail Store to SettleSpecific Deep Foundation project challenges involving: buoyancy calculations regarding subsurface soil characteristics, design factors taking existing subsurface sewer line easements into account, structural instability as result of excavation causing exposure/heavy rainfall to existing wooden piles supporting adjoining building and improper pile location resulting from faulty pile design will be described with risk management recommendations to avoid these challenges in the future.From the very start of construction on any project deep foundation and excavating work poses numerous engineering and technical challenges for developers, contractors and engineers. Dealing with changing or hidden conditions is one of the most difficult challenges facing any contractor or engineer on a project. Relying on incomplete or inaccurate engineering reports is another common problem. Other challenges include dealing with technical errors or oversights that are deeply embedded in the project specifications or bid process.No matter what is the origin of the problem or how it manifests, deep foundation contractors, design professionals and engineers should be ever-mindful of good risk management practices that can prevent serious disputes that can result in costly litigation."

Jan 1, 2015

By Wayne S. Smith, Erik James, Jose R. Gomez

"Soil mixed seepage cutoff walls are increasingly being used in levee and dam modification projects nationwide. An important aspect of their overall quality depends greatly on the language included in the specifications. Depending on the method (e.g. vertical axis auger mixing, cutter soil mixing, or trench mixing techniques) the specifications are a blend of prescriptive and performance based contract language with differences in element construction, element connections, quality control/quality assurance, and work area restrictions. Many of the existing specifications were initially developed by contractors in whole or in part, and can contain restrictive provisions favoring the authoring contractor. In response to these challenges, basic soil mixing fundamentals were revisited and recent lessons learned incorporated, resulting in the development of a new specification for soil mixed seepage cutoff walls that provides adaptability for the various construction methods. The new specification addresses quality control, quality assurance, equipment independence (elimination of restrictive contract language), rig instrumentation.INTRODUCTIONSoil mixing has been used in the construction of seepage barriers for over 30 years. Most soil mixed project primarily use the wet-rotary-shaft, wet-rotary-end or wet-vertical panel methods (reference FHWA Deem Mixing Manual Figure 137). One of the first major soil mixing seepage barriers was constructed in the Jackson Dam in Wyoming. Since then the use of soil mixing for seepage barriers has increased significantly and this specialized domain of construction which was solely procured by RFP methods, is now increasingly being specified in projects issued for bid. The Bid documents require more careful specification writing than RFP methods because the RFP methods allowed detailed proposals by the contractor. Therefore the development of soil mixing specifications began with contractors preparing the specifications. This paper addressed some of these issues, and proposes methods to address these resulting concerns. The resolution of these issues considers several aspects: 1) Assessment of binder injection, 2) Evaluation of mixing index, and 3) Verification testing."

Jan 1, 2016

By Gerald Verbeek

There are certain concepts that seem to invite responses from some, including some in the foundation industry and even some within DFI, that are at best surprising. Business owners and their employees share the desire that their company does well and continues to operate. Maybe company growth is not always realistic but maintaining the current level of activity is in the least what they hope for. In other words, they hope that their company is sustainable, and they are fully behind that notion. But when the concept of sustainability is raised, there is, at least with some, suddenly doubt that that is a good thing. And yet, that concept only aims to achieve at a grander scale what the owners and employees desire for their company. There are many definitions of the term sustainability, but probably the most commonly used description is that framed by the United Nations in 1987. It states that sustainability is the concept of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Arguably that definition is too abstract and does not provide the type of specific goals and targets we are used to. To help with that, to some extent, in 2015 the United Nations formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to provide "a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future." And undoubtedly those SDGs are fodder for those that question the concept of sustainability in the foundation industry. How can our industry, they wonder, ensure that there is no poverty or hunger (SDG 1 and 2), and the climate action goal (SDG 13) immediately leads to the hot button topic of global warming. And maybe this is where advocates lose (some of) the sceptics of the sustainability concept, but hopefully they will continue to read this article that lays out why sustainability simply makes sense, also for the foundation industry and especially for DFI.

Nov 1, 2022

By Donald Bruce, Mark Harris, Wesley Schmutzler, James Sanders

"This paper evaluates the history, construction and most importantly the performance of two remedial seepage cutoff walls installed in two major dams in the United States. Beaver Dam, on the White River in northwest Arkansas, was completed in 1966 and seepage through the karstic limestone under the embankment was apparent almost immediately upon filling of the reservoir. Several attempts to stop the seepage by grouting were unsuccessful. In 1994 a cutoff wall consisting of secant piles drilled with 32"" diameter down-the-hole hammers to a maximum depth of 185'?was completed and the seepage was reduced to a negligible amount. It has been over 20 years since the completion of the cutoff wall, and all indications are that the cutoff wall is performing as expected. Walter F. George Lock and Dam on the Chattahoochee River near Fort Gaines, Georgia, was completed in 1963 and suffered the same problem as Beaver Dam due to the limestone on which the dam was founded. Cutoff walls were installed in both embankments (1980s) and solved the problem in these areas, but under-seepage at the concrete lock, dam and spillway structures increased to the point that remediation was essential. The cutoff wall had to be installed through 110'?of water and another 100'?into rock upstream of an active dam that continued to generate electricity during the construction of the cutoff wall. A secant pile wall, in combination with a diaphragm wall, was completed in front of these structures in 2004. It has been over 10 years since the completion this cutoff wall and, again, the cutoff wall is performing as expected. The paper describes the construction of these cutoffs, but focuses on the long-term performance in terms of controlling seepage and piezometric levels.BEAVER DAMBeaver Dam is located on the White River, 609 miles above its mouth, in Carroll County, Northwest Arkansas. The construction of the dam and Beaver Reservoir was authorized on September 1954 by the Congressional Flood Control Act for purposes of water supply, flood control and hydroelectric power generation. The dam site was selected in 1957: construction began in November 1960 and was completed in June 1966. (FIG. 1)"

Jan 1, 2017

By Larsson Lars-Erik, Rani Isa, Martin Jönsson, Håkan Bredenberg, Mats Larsson

"IntroductionSteel Core Piles are used extensively in Scandinavian countries, where hard rock is found within reasonable depths. A steel core is cast into a drilled steel tube casing and a rock hole is extended below the casing. This pile type is considered a very reliable type of pile, and for urban environment it has several advantages compared to other types of piles. One critical phase of the installation is the drilling of the casing. Usually a DTH (Down The Hole) hammer is used. Drilling in fine grained soils, e g silt, below the ground water level, may give rise to an excessive volume of soil material flushed up from the point of the casing, resulting in unacceptable settlements around the pile installation area.Using a new method for drilling of the casings, the ELEMEX-method has proven to significantly reduce the risk for such problems. In the paper a case record from a ground improvement project in central Stockholm is described. Ground settlements around the drilling area were carefully monitored over a longer period. Both the new drilling method and the conventional DTH casing drilling method where used, so that the corresponding ground settlements could be compared. Settlement records and comments are included in the paper.The paper also gives a description of the project. The installation of new piles and foundation constructions cover a whole city block in Stockholm downtown. The reason for the replacement of the old, damaged wooden piles were due to their destruction caused by a long time lowering of the ground water table. The paper gives a description of the new drilling method as well as an overview of usual urban foundation issues and their solution in Sweden, Finland and Norway.Drilled Foundation MethodDrilled Foundation, using drilling methods originally developed for drilling of large diameter rock holes, is today a standard method for the installation of piles, tiebacks, drilled pile walls and other foundation components, especially in urban built up areas where other techniques as drop hammers, augers, vibratory hammers and other equipment fail to meet the requirement, se ref(1). Drilled foundation is for example used for"

Jan 1, 2014

By António A. Henriques, António Gomes Correia, Ana Teixeira

"Abstract Pile foundations are often used for important structures, and thus, reliability evaluation is an important aspect of the design. Reliability methods have become increasingly important as decision support tools in different areas. The main benefit of reliability analysis is that it provides quantitative information about the parameters (uncertainties) that most significantly influence the behaviour under study. In particular, the design of pile foundations still involves many limitations and uncertainties, particularly when there is not enough investment in soil characterisation and/or pile load tests. In addition to the uncertainties associated with soil characterisation, physical, statistical, spatial and human uncertainties exist. In this subject, the primary purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the application of reliability methods to geotechnical pile design (axial load). It also presents a simple and practical approach to performing it using Monte Carlo Simulations, intending to provide knowledge for code harmonisation and encouraging the development of such methodologies in geotechnical practice. Sensitivity analyses are shown to understand the influence of each uncertainty type coming from different sources. An application example indicates, corroborating other studies, that the model error is the most influent uncertainty. As such, when using the different models (SPT-, CPT- and PMT-based) for bearing capacity, the results emphasise the need for a well-defined and wellcharacterised resistance model, also these results allow the engineer to understand how important the load tests can be to achieve reliable results and economic designs.1 IntroductionUnlike the approach to reliability evaluation used in structural engineering, the traditional procedure used in geotechnical designs addresses uncertainties through high global or partial safety factors (SF), mostly based on past experience. However, this approach to addressing uncertainties does not provide a rational basis for understanding their influence on design.Furthermore, the new regulation codes and social concerns, such as the sustainability or the economy, are imposing geotechnical engineers to increase their ability to deal with uncertainty in a direct and more rational way. Designs should be economic, sustainable and reliable at the same time. Concerning the reliability part of design, different approaches can be done, but the most important thing to keep in mind is the simplicity and efficiency of the tools and applied methods."

Jan 1, 2014

By Seiji Mizutani, Hirofumi Taguchi, Makoto Yoshida, Hidenori Takahashi, Naotoshi Shinkawa, Kazuo Konishi, Yoshiyuki Morikawa, Masaya Kawata

"The lattice-shaped cement treatment method has been used to improve the seismic performance of liquefied sandy soil in Japan. The efficacy of the method has been confirmed by the huge earthquake in Japan. In the present study, a new method to improve sandy ground by using the lattice-shaped cement treatment method is proposed as a liquefaction countermeasure. It is the floating-type and lattice-shaped cement treatment method, where cement treated soil is not fixed to an un-liquefiable stratum. In this method, a fixed-type structure such as treated soil should be formed at the side of the floating-type treated soil to reduce its lateral displacement. In the study, one-dimensional dynamic response analyses were firstly conducted to confirm the mechanism of the new method. Secondly, a series of centrifuge model tests were performed to demonstrate the effect in a proto-type scale's stress condition. The analyses and model tests confirmed the effect of liquefaction countermeasure of the new method.INTRODUCTIONLiquefaction induced by an earthquake generates sand boiling and ground settlement. Other problems have also been reported, including a decrease in bearing capacity and an increase in the horizontal earth pressure against retaining walls. To prevent these problems caused by liquefaction of the ground, various countermeasures have been proposed, such as cement deep mixing and high-pressure jet mixing methods. These methods have the big advantage of being applicable to ground that contains soil with a fine-grain fraction. Furthermore, the unnecessary displacement caused by the construction can be reduced. In Japan, a lattice-shaped cement-treatment method has frequently been used at many construction sites to prevent liquefaction, where cement-treated piles are intersected to form a lattice, as shown in Fig. 1. The lattice-shaped walls can reduce the shear stress generated by an earthquake, restricting the liquefaction at that location. However, the construction cost of the cement treatment is relatively high compared to other methods such as the sand compaction pile (SCP) method, and needs to be reduced. Therefore, decreasing the total volume of the cement treatment is necessary to reduce the construction cost."

Jan 1, 2015

By M. Hesham El Naggar, Tony Sangiuliano, Alper Turan

"Bridge abutments supported on pile foundations are often constructed over weak and compressible soils. The consolidation settlements induced by the embankment loads are known to result in downdrag and lateral forces on the piles supporting the bridge abutments. The performance of a pile group including inclined piles embedded in consolidating soils was investigated numerically considering surcharge loads from approach embankment construction. A two-dimensional numerical model was constructed using commercial finite element software PLAXIS and calibrated against field measurements of the abutment movements observed on Brookdale Avenue Underpass Structure located on the Macdonald-Cartier Freeway in Ontario between Cornwall and the Quebec border. The soft soil model (SSM) was used to simulate the constitutive behavior of the compressible soil deposit. The SSM model parameters were determined based on the laboratory tests. Subsequently, time dependant development of downdrag effects was comparatively evaluated for vertical and inclined single piles as well as a pile group that included both vertical and inclined piles.Results showed that drag loads increased with the consolidation time. However, majority of accumulation of drag loads took place within first 120 days after installation of piles. The results also indicated that the shear forces and bending moments are controlled by the lateral spreading of foundation soil and their accumulation is proportional to consolidation time. The large axial strains caused by large downdrag forces are considered to have yielded the piles and this is a possible reason for unusual abutment movements. The results presented in this study are considered to be of interest to researchers and practitioners.1. IntroductionDeep foundation units are widely used for supporting bridge piers and abutments, where weaker surficial soils preclude shallow foundations. Particularly in Ontario, semi-integral and integral abutment bridges are typically supported on end-bearing steel driven piles. The construction of approach embankments over weaker, compressible soils results in significant vertical and lateral soil movements, which induce additional loads on piles supporting the abutments. In order to minimize such effects, preloading and surcharging are commonly employed approaches to avoid unanticipated settlements prior to the installation of piles. Other alternatives such as aggregate pier supported approach embankment are also being studied as the schedule restrictions imposed by preloading and surcharging becomes cost prohibitive (Turan et al. 2012)."

Jan 1, 2015

By A. C. Galvis-Castro, R. Salgado, M. Prezzi, E. Ganju, R. D. Tovar-Valencia

It is generally accepted that the unit shaft resistance of piles in sands is lower for tensile loading than for compressive loading. So far, very little attention has been paid to the influence of the installation method on the tensile-to-compressive unit shaft resistance ratio. The objective of this paper is to analyze the effect of installation method on the ratio of unit shaft resistance in tension to that in compression for a model pile installed in a dense silica sand. To study installation effects, load tests on model piles were carried out in a half-cylindrical calibration chamber with digital image correlation (DIC) capability. The model piles were either jacked in one stroke using a constant rate of advance, or pre-installed into the dense sand samples. Digital images of the model pile and sand were taken during the load test and processed using DIC to obtain the displacement field in the sand. It was found that unit shaft resistance was essentially the same in tension and compression for the pre-installed pile, however for the jacked pile, the unit shaft resistance in tension was approximately half of that in compression. DIC analysis revealed that: (1) during the load test, more displacement occurs in the soil domain for the pre-installed pile compared to the jacked pile, (2) for the jacked pile, the magnitude of displacement in the soil domain is greater in tension than in compression and (3) for the pre-installed pile, the magnitudes of displacement in tension and compression are similar. INTRODUCTION Pile foundations can be categorized into two main types depending on the method of installation: displacement piles (e.g., jacked or driven piles) and non-displacement piles (e.g., bored piles or drilled shafts) (Basu et al. 2010; Salgado 2008). The response of these piles to loading can be studied in the laboratory by means of calibration chamber experiments on model piles that are either jacked into the samples, representing displacement piles (Jardine et al. 2005; Lee et al. 2011; Tovar-Valencia et al. 2018), or pre-installed in the sand sample, representing non-displacement piles(Galvis-Castro et al. 2019a; Le Kouby et al. 2013; Tehrani et al. 2016)

Jan 1, 2019

By David S. Graham, Joseph D. Bailey, Paul J. Axtell, Michael K. Muchard

"Two instrumented test piles were simultaneously subjected to a static lateral load test by jacking the piles apart. One of the piles was loaded in axial compression via kentledge during the lateral load test. Both piles were constructed in an identical manner. These piles were constructed and tested as part of a construction-phase load test program for a floodwall improvement project along the Missouri River in Kansas City, Kansas. Details of the subsurface conditions, drilled pile construction, instrumentation, and load testing procedures are described. Data collected during testing of the piles are presented and compared. Potential effects of the axial compressive load related to observed differences in pile lateral response are discussed.INTRODUCTIONTwo instrumented test piles were simultaneously subjected to a static lateral load with one of the piles also subject to a combined axial load during testing. The load test program was part of a floodwall improvement project in Kansas City, Kansas. Known as the BPU floodwall, the floodwall runs along the south bank of the Missouri River at a Kansas City Board of Public Utilities power generation and water treatment facility. The project location is shown in Fig. 1.Drilled, 2-ft (610-mm) diameter piles were designated by the designer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), as the foundation type for supporting extended floodwall footings. The drilled piles are fully cased, cast-in-place concrete, reinforced with a steel 12x74 (310x110) H-pile. In order to test soil lateral response and pile structural response under combined loading, the COE required that both a lateral test and combined lateral and axial test pile be constructed and tested. In order to most efficiently test both piles and to allow for simpler comparison, the two piles were simultaneously laterally loaded by jacking the piles apart, applying a maximum lateral load of 195 kips (867 kN). A constant axial load was applied to the combined test pile by kentledge prior to lateral loading and was maintained for the duration of the lateral load test. The total weight of the kentledge was 61.5 kips (274 kN). Fig. 2 shows the test setup."

Jan 1, 2017