Search Documents

By Andrew Moran, William H. Walton, Matthew D. Emrick, Mary C. Nodine

"A rapidly growing company in the northern US needed a large auditorium built into a dolomite bedrock hillside. The structure required an 80-foot-deep earth retention system independent of the auditorium foundation and superstructure. Allowable wall movements were limited to less than two inches. A 60-foot-tall permanent shotcreted soil and rock nail wall was designed for excavation support. The soil and rock nail wall utilized both active (post-tensioned) and passive nails, with capacities and installation angles optimized to address varying soil and rock conditions and to support heavy surcharges. The wall was configured with three two-foot-wide benches to facilitate controlled blasting and removal of more than two million cubic yards of soil, limestone and dolomite bedrock, and featured a permanent cast-in-place concrete face and a robust waterproofing and drainage system. A 20-foot-high reinforced concrete retaining wall was required at the top of the soil and rock nail wall to raise grades, resulting in a large surcharge.Design of the soil and rock nail wall was initiated less than three months before the start of construction, requiring expedited geotechnical explorations, analyses, design, and construction that would occur simultaneously. Design changes were made to address the discovery of a weak clay residuum seam at depth running along the base of the excavation, as well as significant changes to the building footprint made after the start of construction. Extensive performance monitoring was conducted during construction to measure vibrations and movements.Introduction and Project BackgroundA fast-growing company in the northern United States had a need for 600,000 square foot, 11,000 seat auditorium as part of its campus expansion. The auditorium was built underground, into a hillside to preserve the views of rolling terrain and farmland beyond. It featured a green roof and rockwork facing that mimicked regional geologic formations. The sixstory building required up to 80 feet of earth retention, including 60 feet of excavation beneath existing grades.As concepts for the project evolved, it became apparent that due to the geologic conditions, space limitations on site and the depth of cut required, a standard counterfort wall system would not be feasible. With groundbreaking for the building three months away, Thornton Tomasetti (structural engineer) engaged GEI Consultants, Inc. (wall design engineer) to design a 1,600-foot-long permanent soil and rock nail wall to support the excavation. The wall design engineer implemented a geotechnical exploration program immediately and began the design process, coordinating closely with Nicholson Construction (specialty"

Jan 1, 2017

By Glen Mann, H. G. Vestberg, Robert D. Holtz

"Underpinning of residential and commercial structures is often accomplished using a number of driven-in-place small diameter steel pipe piles. These piles, at least in the Seattle area, are typically described as pin-piles and are driven with an air compressor operated jack hammer to a refusal criterion developed from an empirical basis. Over the past twenty years or so, the materials have improved in quality and strength, and the driving equipment has improved in efficiency and capability. These improvements have resulted in damage to the pin-piles during driving as well as to the driving equipment. The primary objectives of this load testing study were to develop a relationship between the driving penetration resistance of 2-inch diameter pin-piles and the ultimate bearing capacity when piles were driven at different penetration rates and, based on the load test results, to develop an opinion regarding an increase in the allowable axial load capacity [ultimate load capacity divided by a factor of safety] of a 2-inch diameter pin-pile over the currently used permissible load capacity of 4 kips in the Seattle area. Also, if feasible, a reduction in the present driving penetration rate was to be recommended to help reduce the rate and magnitude of pile and equipment damage whilst maintaining the allowable load capacity. The recorded ultimate bearing capacities were also compared with the Tagnent-line and the Davisson analytical methods in an effort to determine if either of these provided a reasonable determination of the pile load capacity.IntroductionThis paper describes the results of a series of load tests performed on small diameter, 2-inch, driven-in-place steel pin (pipe) piles and based on these results, provides the support for a modification to the presently used allowable axial pin-pile capacities.The intent of the load testing program was to determine how much influence the penetration resistance might have on the individual piles' ability to support the allowable axial load without undergoing any significant vertical deformation. For the purposes of this paper the ""allowable load capacity"" is considered to be the ultimate pile load capacity divided by a minimum factor of safety, typically considered to be 2.0 in this area. A pin (pipe) pile comprises an open or closed ended, schedule 80 steel tube which is driven-in-place, usually with an air compressor operated 90 pound pneumatic jack hammer. These jack hammers typically operate at a rate of about 1,200 blows per minute, (Haggard, Holtz and Mann, 2001 )."

Jan 1, 2005

By Rakam Lama Tamang, Michael J. Byle, Stephen Ernst

"For various reasons, dredging may become necessary in front of existing bulkhead walls, either for channel deepening or for environmental remediation of contaminated sediments. The removal of sediments at the base of bulkhead walls removes support for the toe of the wall that must be assessed. Evaluation of this impact can be problematic for aging bulkheads for which no design or construction records exist. This paper will address the steps that should be taken in investigation and analysis to assure proper assessment and means to address uncertainties and gaps in information. The steps include pre-investigation data review, field inspection, geotechnical and geophysical investigation tools, parametric analysis and design tools. Examples from several bulkhead assessment projects will be provided that include a variety of conditions and tools for application. The focus of the paper will be on the integration of technologies to assess bulkhead geometry, geotechnical properties and stability, structural safety and constructability issues with removal of support, and means of temporary and permanent stabilization for environmental applications.IntroductionBulkheads and quays have existed as long as there have been waterfront activities. Some of the earliest date back to 1200 B.C.E.(Raban, 1987), however in the United States few predate the eighteenth century. Most extant bulkhead structures, and all steel sheet pile bulkhead walls date from the early 20th century or later. These structures function to protect the shore from erosion, support landside activities, and serve as place to moor and offload vessels. Regardless of the age or usage of existing bulkheads, it is essential to assess and protect them if needed where removal of soils on the water side of the bulkheads is planned to dredging.Waterfront BulkheadsExisting bulkhead structures can be classified into two types: Cantilevered, and anchored. Cantilevered walls are completely supported by the soil on the water side, while anchored bulkheads are supported both by the soil on the water side and anchorage on the land side (Figure 1). Walls may be constructed of timber, steel, or concrete. Timber walls may be lagging with soldier piles, cribbing with soldier piles, or timber sheeted such as Wakefield walls (Figure 2). Steel bulkheads are most commonly constructed using sheet piling comprised of interlocking A or Z shapes, though some historic walls were constructed with flat sheets. Precast concrete sheet piling has also been used in construction of bulkhead walls. Anchorage may be provided by steel bars or tendons attached to deadmen, sheet piling, driven piles, or earth anchors."

Jan 1, 2017

By P. Middendorp, Gerald E. H. Verbeek

"INTRODUCTIONStatic Load Testing (SLT) is generally considered the pile testing method that provides the de-facto answers regarding pile capacity and load-deflection behavior. However, as this testing method is time consuming and costly, alternative pile testing methods are applied, such as High-Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT), commonly referred to as Dynamic Load Testing (DLT), and Rapid Load Testing (RLT), which includes Statnamic Testing (STN) and the Fundex Pile Load Tester (PLT). Extensive descriptions of these pile testing methods as well as comparisons of the results from these two methods have been widely published, but little is written on the choice between HSDT and RLT. This article will address this issue for concrete piles by discussing five different aspects that should be considered when making a choice between HSDT and RLT for either cast-in-situ piles or precast driven piles. TIMINGThe timing of the pile load test is independent of the testing method. For cast-in-situ piles load testing is performed some time after the pile has been installed (to allow the pile to obtain the compressive strength required to withstand the test load), while for precast driven piles load testing is performed after a so-called set-up period following pile installation (to allow the soil to recover from driving induced disturbances and, at least in most cases,regain strength).In other words, the timing of the test does not affect the choice of the testing method.ACCURACY OF THE APPLIED LOADWhen a pile is tested by RLT the applied load is measured by a calibrated load cell placed on the pile head, just as it would be during SLT. This means that the error in the applied load value is less than 0.1% of the maximum range of the load cell.However, when a pile is tested by HSDT the load is calculated from the measured strains, which means that the outcome is dependent on the pile material properties. In this case the applied load (F) on the pile head is calculated by multiplying the measured strain (?) with either the calculated or estimated elastic modulus of concrete (E) and the pile cross section (A).The elastic modulus is generally back calculated from the (average) stress wave velocity (c), which in turn is derived from the reflection time (T) it takes for a stress wave to travel over the pile length (L) from the pile head to the pile toe and back to the pile head."

Jan 1, 2006

By Ahmed Elmekati, Frederick C. Rhyner, Steven R. Lowe

"The current phase of the Pacific Park development (formerly, Atlantic Yards) in Brooklyn involves constructing buildings on a platform over an existing LIRR rail yard. To preserve the maximum amount of space in the already congested yard and protect the yard which remains in service during construction, high capacity foundations are being designed well above previous capacities in the area. In addition to spread footings and small mats, various diameters of drilled piles are being used at design capacities ranging up to 600 tons. The piles are generally grouted at low pressure, up to about 50 psi. Load tests for various drilled elements, including piles, tiedowns and soil anchors, have confirmed allowable side resistance (bond) stresses in dense sand ranging from 20 to 30 psi. Testing with different rigs and operators has shown that down-the-hole hammers are feasible, but the installation techniques, types of equipment and size of the pile make a significant difference. The results show that more cost-effective foundations are possible when ample testing confirms expectations.I INTRODUCTIONThe Long Island Rail Road has operated a mainline on Atlantic Avenue since the 1800s, with a terminal at the intersection of Atlantic and Flatbush Avenues. In the early 1900s, the mainline was reconstructed in a cut and cover tunnel section. The LIRR’s Atlantic Yard was constructed circa 1908 to service the terminal. It was depressed about 25 feet below street grade to coincide with the LIRR’s mainline tunnel under Atlantic Avenue. Record drawings indicate that the gravity retaining walls lining the perimeter of the yard and other ancillary structures had been designed for an allowable bearing pressure of five tons per square foot (tsf). Perhaps by coincidence, the mat foundation for the tower of the Williamsburg Savings Bank was also designed for five tsf in 1929.Figure 1 shows a typical geologic section through the site. The geology and subsurface conditions in this part of Brooklyn consist of fill generally five to 20 feet deep underlain by dense to very dense sand and gravel; in places, with numerous cobbles and boulders which make pile installation challenging. The sand strata that are on the order of 150 to 200 feet thick were laid down by glaciers during the last ice age and have been heavily precompressed. The sand strata are underlain in places by remnants of the Cretaceous-era Raritan Clay formation and Fordham Gneiss bedrock. Because of this, the sand strata generally provide excellent support for shallow foundations and the allowable bearing of five tons per square foot is usually easily justified."

Jan 1, 2016

By Jørn Thomsen, Christoffer Brodbaek

"As governments increasingly accord high priority to sustainable energy, policymakers are finding that wind energy has a long track record as a proven alternative to conventional energy supply.Over the past two decades, wind turbine projects have been constructed offshore because of more stable offshore wind conditions and because there is more available space for large wind farms out in the open sea. Vindeby Wind Farm in southern Denmark was constructed in 1991. As the world’s first offshore wind farm, it provided valuable information and experience for researchers and designers that have led to new technologies and design improvements, a trend that will continue as more offshore wind farms are constructed. Today, the world’s capacity of the installed offshore wind turbines exceeds 1,000 MW. Most of these are installed in Northern Europe where there was early political support and favorable conditions, such as strong winds and relatively shallow waters. Offshore wind projects are now under development around the globe, including continental Europe, the U.K. and North America. ‘The largest offshore wind farm today is Denmark’s Nysted Offshore Wind Farm, which has a total capacity of approximately 480,000 MWh, equivalent to the yearly consumption of 120,000 households. It is five to six miles offshore in the Baltic Sea in the southern part of Denmark.The owner is a joint venture between DONG Energy of Denmark and E.ON Sweden. Bonus Energy (now Siemens) supplied the wind turbines, and P. Aarsleff A/S and subcontractors supplied the foundations. The contractor’s consultant, COWI A/S of Denmark, developed and designed the turbine foundations. With a total capacity of 165.6 MW, the project consists of 72 Bonus 2.3 MW turbines in water depths up to 33 ft. The turbines have a hub height of 226 ft, and the turbine blade diameter is 270 ft. The rotor and nacelle (the structure that houses the generator, gearbox and other equipment) weigh approximately 150 tons, and the weight of the steel tower is approximately 130 tons. The wind farm site is located in a relatively protected area of the Baltic Sea, but during the winter months, the water often freezes and the foundations needed to be constructed to resist ice forces. The founding soils at the site are overconsolidated clay tills with boulders and with a thin layer of softer surface sediments. Pockets of up to 30 ft of soft sediments were encountered, which required special foundation preparations."

Jan 1, 2009

By Masaki Kitazume

"Abstract The wet type and dry type of deep mixing methods have been developed and widely applied for on-land and marine constructions in Japan. The quality assurance (QA) of the methods has been usually carried out by unconfined compression test on field stabilized soil sampled by core boring in Japan. In some other countries, stabilized soil excavated by the wet grab sampling instead of core sampling is often subjected to unconfined compression test for quality assurance. There are several merits and demerits in each method, but few studies have been carried out to compare the stabilized soil strength of these two types of specimens to discuss their applicability to practical construction. The author has conducted a series of field and laboratory tests to compare the stabilized soil strength and discuss the applicability of wet grab sampling to QA for wet and dry types of deep mixing method.In this study, the wet grab sampling was carried out at two road embankment construction sites where the wet type and dry type of deep mixing were applied. The cement stabilized soil was excavated at the three depths by a wet grab sampler soon after the DM column construction. The test result is compared with the other test data in the previous study to discuss the applicability of the web grab sampling method for QA of cement stabilized soil.IntroductionThe Deep Mixing Method (DMM), an in-situ soil stabilization technique using cement and/or lime as a binder, is often employed to improve soft soils (Kitazume and Terashi, 2013). A variety of factors and their interactions affect the eventual strength of a deep-mixed column, while some of which are controllable (e.g. binder type and dose) by engineers while the others are not (e.g. soil types, ground temperature, etc.; Babasaki et al., 1997). In addition to laboratory mix tests, which in essence are a parametric study to estimate the influence of these factors on a particular soil’s strength, the quality assurance (QA) practice in Japan usually involves unconfined compression test on sampling cores from the stabilized columns after a given curing period. It has been recognized, however, that the ‘field strength’, or the strength of the retrieved core, quf is on average lower than the ‘laboratory strength’, qul, evaluated by laboratory mix test. Also allowing for the inevitable variability, existing guidelines (for example, PWRC, 2004 and CDIT, 2008) recommend the design quf /qul values of, for example, 0.5-1.0 for the CDM (Cement Deep Mixing; a wet-type technique, in which binder is added as slurry) and 0.2-0.33 for the DJM (Dry Jet Mixing; a dry-type technique, in which binder is added as powder)."

Jan 1, 2014

By Almer E. C. van der Stoel

"Abstract This paper deals with assessing the bearing capacity of existing wood pile foundations. With a wide range of restoration projects being performed in the Netherlands, on many locations deep excavations need to be constructed next to existing, many times listed buildings. The building are founded on piles that are often centuries old, so a close evaluation of the remaining bearing capacity, combined with and assessment of the influence of the excavation is in place.After giving an introduction on Dutch pile foundations, a methodology is described to assess the bearing capacity. Aspects as physical foundation investigation, determination of the current bearing capacity and a calculation of the bearing capacity in the new situation are discussed. The results of both analytical and Plaxis calculations are outlined, focussing on how to practically use this approach in renovation projects. Finally, cases studies of the successful application of this approach in major renovation projects in Amsterdam, such as the Conservatorium Hotel and the New Rijksmuseum are used to illustrate the successful application of this approach.A Short Dutch Pile Foundation History (based on Van der Stoel, 2001)The first houses built in Amsterdam, in the 12th century, were very light constructions of timber without foundations. Because of the soft peat layers found in Amsterdam, the houses there suffered from damage due to settlement. In the 13th century, castles and churches were increasingly built of bricks, which made it necessary to provide support for bigger loads. Under the wall of the construction a trench was dug, and this was filled on either side by alder fascines. Between the fascines small wood piles were driven (by hand) on which another series of fascines was put. On top of this construction, were placed oak slabs on which the bricks were then laid. From that moment on, a problem was caused by the decay of wood foundation elements in the humid soil. In 1503 a law was introduced forbidding building foundations on public streets without permission of the Building Inspection (to keep the fronts of the buildings in a straight line). In 1528 a law requiring permission from the local authorities for all building activities replaced this law. In this period developments started which led to the use of the type of foundation that can be considered the mother of the current “typical” Dutch pile foundation. The piles used in this period were shaft- bearing piles about 5 to 7 meters long. The mostly pine piles were driven between oak beams, which were placed on either sides of a trench, after which other oak beams were laid across at regular spaces: the so called “pile bent” pile foundation (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2014

By David L. Borusiewicz, M. Suri Surendra

"Abstract Helical piles have been used as anchors and for supporting lightly loaded structures as a method of underpinning, etc in the past. Recently, helical piles are being used to support new structures because of their simple installation process using relatively light and mobile equipment. This paper presents the results of evaluation and design performed for the temporary support of existing piers during a bridge rehabilitation project.INTRODUCTIONThe helical screw foundation was invented and patented by Alexander Mitchell in England in 1833. He installed screw piles to support lighthouses in the tidal basins of England. Many applications in the earlier years in the USA were in North Carolina and in Florida to support lighthouses (in coastal plain deposits). A lighthouse of similar foundation design is still in use at Key Biscayne, Florida.In the USA, the helical piles were reintroduced as foundation elements for electrical transmission towers. Helical piles were also used for anchoring guys of self supported towers and as tie-backs for excavation support systems. Typically, helical piles are being used for supporting lightly loaded buildings and for underpinning buildings undergoing distress as a means of remediation. The helical piles are not commonly used in the transportation industry.HELICAL PILESHelical pile is a segmented deep foundation system with helical bearing plates welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates. Central steel shafts are available in either a square shaft (Type SS) or a round shaft (Type RS). The Type SS series are available in 38 mm to 57 mm square sizes. The Type RS series are available in 73 mm to 114 mm diameter sizes. Type SS-RS combinations are also available for compression applications in soil conditions where dense/hard soils must be penetrated with softer/loose soils above the bearing strata.The leading segment consists of a shaft with one or more helical plates that are welded to the shaft. The plates vary in diameter from 203 mm to 355.5 mm and have a thickness of 9.5 mm or 13.7 mm. Typically the plate diameter increases from the bottom of the shaft upward. A helical bearing plate or helix is one pitch of a screw thread. All helices, regardless of their diameter, have a standard 76 mm pitch. Being a true helical shape, the helices do not auger into the soil but rather screw into it with minimal soil disturbance. Helical plates are generally spaced a distance of two to three times the diameter of the plate directly below in order for them to function independently as individual bearing elements. A typical detail of helical pile is shown on Figure 1."

Jan 1, 2014

By Mario A. Terceros H., K. Rainer Massarsch

"ABSTRACTThe Expander Body (EB) technology has been used successfully to increase the pile toe capacity of bored piles in loose to medium dense soil. An important advantage of the EB system is the ability to monitor the EB expansion process, which provides important information regarding soil strength and soil stiffness. This information, obtained for each installed pile, can be used to determine the actual shape and pile toe area. The expansion pressure can be used to design the pile base capacity.The Expander Body system has been recently improved by incorporating the possibility of post-grouting of the soil below the expanded pile toe. This improvement measure provides additional strength and stiffness to the pile toe and reduces pile settlement.The shaft bearing capacity of bored piles can be increased by using a soil displacement auger, which avoids soil decompression and increases lateral soil stress. This paper describes the principle of the EB system. During the past 20 years, a large number of EB piles have been installed in Bolivia and elsewhere, providing a sound database. Results from field loading tests are presented. A comprehensive study of test piles with and without EB base has been carried out which demonstrates the improvement effects that can be achieved by the EB pile system and the combination with the displacement auger pile method. A design concept for the EB pile system with the full displacement auger pile is presented. A high degree of quality control can be achieved by monitoring the entire pile installation process, including the displacement pile and the Expander Body.1. IntroductionIn many regions of South America, soil deposits consist often of predominantly loose to medium dense sands and silts, often with high groundwater table. In the Santa Cruz area in central Bolivia, such soils are frequently quaternary sediments, deposited by the river Piray. The city of Santa Cruz is located at the right bank of the river.The most common deep foundation method during the last 30 years has been cast in situ piles, augered and concreted under support of bentonite slurry. The design of such piles has been based on SPT results. However, SPT is often performed without quality control and the reliability of geotechnical data is therefore often poor. Traditional methods of pile installation with simple well drilling equipment of insufficient capacity are frequently used. Such methods lack basic requirements of quality control. Such piles have usually low toe resistance and work mainly by shaft resistance . Although the construction process and materials are cheap, the final product has variable and limited capacity. However, the most serious deficiency is that actually achieved pile capacity and pile settlement can be erratic and difficult to predict, leading to uncertainties with regard to actual foundation performance."

Jan 1, 2014

By M. Hesham El Naggar, Yasser Abdelghany

"ABSTRACT: The axial and lateral monotonic and cyclic behavior of helical pile foundations was investigated and new innovative helical screw systems suitable for seismic loadings were developed and patented. More than one hundred full scale field load tests were conducted on instrumented helical screw piles installed in cohesive soil. The piles included: plain helical screw piles (P-HSP); grouted (G-HSPs); fiber reinforced polymer FRP-G-HSPs; and reinforced grouted RG-HSPs. The RG-HSP piles axial capacity was more than twice that for P-HSP, with minimal reduction after cyclic loading, and their lateral capacity was more than 3 times the P-HSPs capacity. A 3-D finite element model was established. The results of 3-D finite element modeling were used to establish the load transfer mechanism and a design methodology for the considered piles.INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEWHelical (screw) anchors have been utilized in tension loading and have gained popularity for bearing load applications. Helical piles represent an overall cost effective alternative to conventional piles for new construction and repair applications. The helical piles speed and ease of installation, less noise during installation added advantage with regards to their efficiency and reliability for underpinning including re-support and reconstruction of distressed and damaged foundations for either stabilization or rehabilitation. The “square shaft” SS175 pile is a segmented deep foundation system with helical steel bearing plates (helices) welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from the shaft to the surrounding soil through these bearing plates. Segments or sections are joined with bolted couplings. Practically installed depth is limited only by soil resistance and economics. A helical bearing plate or helix is one pitch of a screw thread. All helices regardless of their diameter have a standard 75 mm pitch (Figure.1). The performance of single helical anchors and group action were studied experimentally and theoretically by several researchers, the researches focuses on the installation torque and uplift resistance. Some researches focus on the load carrying capacity with little pile response to cyclic loading effects or to instrumented full scale field testing. Helical piles axial compressive or lateral loading still is not well characterized and needs more analyses and their seismic performance was not investigated. For such this research was initiated to investigate the helical piles monotonic and cyclic performances under axial and lateral loadings to consider their usage in different applications in seismic zones. Among the several researchers, Clemence (1983); Mooney et al. (1985) conducted field and laboratory testing; Hoyt (1989), Hoyt et al. (1995), and Ghaly and Clemence (1998) conducted theoretical and experimental testing, Puri and Vijay (1984), Huang et al. (1995), Perko (2000), and Pack (2000) conducted theoretical analyses. Rao and Prasad (1993), Prasad and Rao (1994), conducted experimental testing; Vickars and Clemence (2000) studied the performance of helical piles with grouted shafts."

Jan 1, 2014

By David E. Albus, Ahmadreza Mortezaie, Bidjan Ghahreman

The structural evaluation of seismic performance of an existing hospital in Long Beach, California, required spring constants of foundation elements. The structure included support by deep foundation elements comprised of belled (underreamed) caissons. The available relationships in the governing building code (ASCE41-13) to compute axial stiffness is not applicable due to the belled configuration of the caissons. The large diameter of the bells required consideration of the foundation medium to the axial stiffness; a detail not clearly described in ASCE 41-13. Furthermore, prescriptive equations in ASCE 41- 13 used to estimate lateral stiffness only consider pile groups with the assumption that the only source of lateral stiffness is the axial reaction of individual piles. These assumptions were invalid for the project at hand where all caissons are configured as single foundation elements, not a pile group. In the present work, the approach taken to estimate seismic stiffness of single-belled caissons is described which accounts for the elastic behavior of the foundation medium below the bell base and lateral behavior of single-pile shafts. Results of the work provide a more satisfactory derivation of the spring constants consistent with current modeling methods. INTRODUCTION Seismic evaluation of an existing hospital in Long Beach, California, required geotechnical investigation followed by site-specific ground motion analysis. This evaluation was required by the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) in order to meet the requirements of the Structural Performance Category 4D (SPC-4D) published as a part of the 2016 California Building Code, CBC (Section 3412A). SPC-4D utilizes ASCE41-13, as modified by OSHPD, and involves two seismic performance objectives: BSE-1E (20% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and BSE-2E (5% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Spring constants and capacities of foundation elements were needed for evaluation of the structural performance of the building subjected to these two performance objectives. Our review of the as-built foundation plans indicated that both shallow footings and caissons were used for support of the structure. The plans demonstrated that all caissons are belled (under-reamed) and are individual, i.e. not part of pile groups. In this paper, the subject site condition and foundation elements are described first. This is followed by details of assessing spring constants and vertical capacities for belled caissons. The new requirements of the 2016 CBC concerning the evaluation of critical facilities will likely entail evaluation of other structures with belled caissons due to the more extensive use of these foundations in the past. This paper proposes a method to address the conditions of individual belled caissons not explicitly considered in the current code provisions.

Jan 1, 2018

By Enrique Ibarra, Manuel J. Mendoza

"Abstract: This paper describes the current state-of-practice for the design of cast-in-place drilled shafts in granular soils under axial loading, addressing recent advances that take into account the surrounding soil grain size distribution and their behavior. The important role of the gravel content in the shaft response under axial loading is emphasized. Usual design approaches in Mexico are described, and the results of load tests from different sources are discussed. The analysis emphasizes the primary contribution of the lateral area of shafts to their axial bearing capacity, raising doubts regarding the common local idea of “point bearing shafts”. Finally, some lines of research are noted to permit advances in the important field of deep foundations. 1 INTRODUCTIONIn Mexico, cast-in-place drilled shaft foundations are widely used to support various structures in the west area of Mexico City, where alluvial and volcanic deposits predominate. Deep foundations are also used in modern construction works located in other major cities of Mexico. In fact, the use of drilled shafts for tall buildings and overpasses in the center of Guadalajara as well as in transportation works related to the Metro and roadways in Monterrey is well known. It is worth mentioning that these same structures have been applied in road bridges throughout the country.Procedures for pile construction in Mexico have been basically the same for the past 20 years (Paniagua et al., 2005); however, modern equipment has been incorporated into the construction industry, including innovations in sludge-drilling technology, control and the quality of the castings. In addition, novel and efficient procedures such as construction with continuous auger displacement piles have been implemented (Auger Cast in Place, ACP) and have begun to be used locally with success (Schmitter and Paulin, 2006).However, it can be argued that the technological developments that have resulted in more efficient construction procedures have not included a breakthrough in the full understanding of the phenomena or basic mechanisms of load transfer from piles to the surrounding subsoil and therefore in supported, tested and practical design methods. This is particularly true when seeking to determine the unit side shear strength of shafts drilled in granular media with gravels, where it has been observed that the commonly used calculations developed for sands underestimate the load-bearing capacity by frictionin a most important way. Due to the above reasons, it seemed appropriate to present in this paper a review of the current stateof- practice in Mexico for the design of cast-in-place drilled shafts, particularly in granular media, highlighting some recent advances and research that takes into account the grain size distribution and behavior of granular soil."

Jan 1, 2014

By Mohammad Ali Rowshanzamir, Mehdi Aghayarzadeh

"This article is an effort to improve our understanding of the performance of geogrid retaining structures (GRS) through numerical analyses. The numerical modeling utilized a commercially available finite difference program, FLAC3D. In this context an extensive parametric study has been carried out on two different GRS walls (vertical reinforced block and inclined reinforced block) to investigate the influence of internal design factors such as soil strength properties and reinforcement stiffness on the performance of these walls. The main purposes of the parametric study were to (1) investigate the sensitivity of the modeling results to the input material properties, (2) examine the influence of the internal design factors on the performance of GRS retaining structures, and (3) improve the internal design of GRS walls on the basis of the working stress information obtained from the parametric study. Based on the analyses results, it was revealed that GRS walls with oblique reinforcement and reinforced block (rotated against natural backfill) have much better performance in terms of reduction in the stresses and strains of reinforcing elements as well as decrease in the wall lateral and vertical displacements in comparison with vertical reinforced block (conventional wall). For example, with 12° inclination of the wall reinforced block there was 50% reduction in the backfill settlement. Also increasing the reinforcement stiffness amount from 10MPa to 50MPa decreases the wall face displacement more than 50% in both GRS walls.INTRODUCTIONOver the past few decades, Geosynthetic- Reinforced Soil (GRS), a soil mass reinforced by geosynthetic layers to restrain the soil lateral deformations, has been employed in the construction of many types of earth structures, including retaining walls, embankments, slopes and bridge abutments. In fact GRS structures are typically more flexible (hence more tolerant to differential settlement), more adaptable to low quality backfill, easier to construct, require less over-excavation, and more economical. Nevertheless, there is a need for an accurate design tool that can predict the performance of GRS structures under working stress conditions and can predict their failure loads as well.Many studies have been published on the performance of the soil reinforced walls such as Isabel et al., 1996; Bathurst et al., 2000; Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, 2005; Nernheim and Bathurst, 2008; Chen and Chiu, 2008 Correia et al., 2012; Erlich et al. 2012. Several numerical studies have also been made throgh finite elements and finite difference techniques on reinforced soil retaining walls to analyze the wall deformations (e.g. Hatami et al. 2001& 2006, Liu and Won 2009, and Abdelouhab et al. 2011). A limited laboratory research has been reported indicating of improving effect of tilting face on GRW performance (Chen and Chiu, 2008). However no major numerical study was found on the effects of face or reinforcement tilting."

Jan 1, 2017

By Bo Westerberg, Mattias Andersson, Yvonne Rogbeck

"Deep stabilisation has been used in Sweden for decades. The method has been improved to allow it to be used in different types of soils and with new binders. One challenging soil type in Sweden is so-called sulphide soil, a fine-grained soil which contains organic material and iron sulphides. There have been some cases in Sweden of problems when using deep stabilisation in this type of soil, and in one case a slope failure occurred. This paper shows that it is possible to achieve good results with deep stabilisation in sulphide soils. Laboratory and field studies from a test site along the Botniabanan railway line in Sweden are presented. Geotechnical and chemical properties of the natural soil were investigated in the laboratory and one or more of these properties may explain the differences in the stabilising effect of sulphide soils. The strength of the laboratory samples and the columns in the field were tested and compared. It is shown that a satisfactory stabilisation effect can be achieved with the proper choice of binder, amount of binder added, curing time and mixing energy. In sulphide soils, more binder additive is needed than in “ordinary” inorganic clays.1. INTRODUCTIONThe term sulphide soils is used in this paper to refer to the unique types of sulphide soil commonly found in the coastal areas along the north-eastern coastline of Sweden between the cities of Gävle and Haparanda, a distance of about 900 km. Sulphide soils are in general very compressible, susceptible to creep deformation and normally show low undrained shear strength. A sulphide soil may have a negative environmental impact through acidification and chemical action if it is subjected to oxygen, for example during excavation or lowering of the ground water table, Mácsik (1999). In foundation engineering works, efforts are made, for environmental or/and economic reasons, to use the sulphide soil as the foundation instead of excavating it. Deep stabilisation by means of columns is a potential method for use when sulphide soil needs to be improved in order to reduce settlements or/and increase the stability of embankments.Sulphide soils were formed as sediments at river mouths and off the coast in the special environment prevailing at the time of sedimentation, Mácsik (1994). The water in which the sulphide soil was sedimented was brackish/sweet and the environment was typically deficient in oxygen. The environment prevented complete decomposition of the organic material in the sediments. As a result, sulphide soils were formed primarily in the form of a fine-grained composition of clay and silt minerals, iron sulphides and organic matter. Such environments still exist today and new sulphide soil sediments continue to be formed."

Jan 1, 2015

By Arash Khosravifar, Ali N. Ibrahim

"Large areas of Iraq are covered with collapsible soils namely gypsiferous soil which is often used as the foundation soil for structures. In particular, the Mosul Dam foundation is comprised of high contents of gypsiferous soils. Intrusion of water through the foundation soil dissolves gypsum which acts as the binding material between soil particles. This phenomenon results in the formation of collapsible soils which can cause serious damages to the dam structure. The failure of Mosul Dam, with a reservoir as large as 11 billion cubic meter of water, can be catastrophic. In the past, Mosul Dam Authorities have been remediating the soil foundation by injecting cement mortar. This method has been proved not economic; therefore, new, more efficient, methods are desperately needed.This research study focuses on finding practical methods to remediate collapsibility of gypsiferous soils by improving their geotechnical properties. This study presents remediation of collapsible gypsum-rich soil by grouting. Three types of stabilizer materials were used to make the grout; (1) sodium silicate (Na2 O3 Si) which is a well-known chemical soil stabilizer, (2) bentonite slurry, and (3) silicone oil. The purpose for using these stabilizer materials is to provide an impermeable layer (waterproofing coat) around the gypsiferous soil particles and to fill the voids that may occur in the soil as a result of gypsum dissolution when subjected to water.A series of double oedometer (collapse) tests and direct shear tests were carried out on gypsiferous soils before and after remediation by grouting. The results show that the soil compressibility decreases in the grout-treated gypsiferous soil by reducing volumetric strain. Consequently, the potential for collapsibility decreases too. It was also shown that grouting, increases the shear strength of the soil at confining stresses smaller than 250 kPa by increasing the cohesion combined with a slight reduction in the internal friction angle.INTRODUCTIONGrouting is one of the ground improvement techniques which is often used to improve the loose foundation soils. Bruce (2003) provides step-by-step procedures on using grouting techniques for sealing dams and other water reservoirs. Grouting can be classified as permeation grouting, compaction grouting or hydraulic fracturing. Permeation grouting is an effective way to send the grout into the ground without disturbing the soil structure, i.e. free flow of grout into the soil voids where grouting is accomplished by injection of a fluid-like material that is capable of forming a gel and binding the soil particles together. Grout materials may be solution grouts or suspension grouts. The permeation grouting technique is generally used to minimize ground permeability and to control ground water flow, but it can also be used to strengthen and harden the ground (Raman et al., 2012)."

Jan 1, 2017

By Steven E. Darnell, William W. Haasz, Brandon T. Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Landfills often cover expansive areas in locations where large building facilities or infrastructure is in high in demand after the land has been reclaimed. Most landfills have soil or fill properties that vary widely over small distances; combined with the strict guidelines and restrictions for the removal and treatment of soil or material that is on site, these projects can be a major challenge for any prospective developer. In order to make landfills suitable for the construction of any project it is necessary to conduct a detailed evaluation of the subsurface conditions. Ground improvement techniques are among the most typical methods for making reclaimed landfills suitable for the construction of any major project. The paper will discuss the approach that was taken to support a proposed warehouse in Elizabeth, New Jersey using Controlled Modulus Columns Rigid Inclusions (CMC Rigid Inclusions), which are grouted, auger-displacement elements. Additionally, we will discuss the use of Dynamic Compaction (DC) that was performed in areas outside the proposed warehouse footprint. Through the combination of CMC rigid inclusions and DC, the general contractor’s project schedule was expedited, the costs to support the warehouse were economized, and the anticipated settlement of the parking lot areas was drastically reduced. Furthermore, the paper will outline the benefits of using CMC rigid inclusions and DC methods in order to minimize the impact of working with contaminated soils from a landfill.OVERVIEW OF THE ELIZABETH WAREHOUSE PROJECTOver the past several decades the foundations industry has seen an increase in demand for the support of developments on reclaimed landfills; particularly, on the east coast where many landfills were capped before the 1980’s and steady population growth and city expansion have caused high demand for this now highly desired real estate. Unfortunately, these landfills, often as large as twenty (20) or more acres present tough geotechnical and environmental challenges for Owners planning to develop or build structures of any size on the reclaimed land. Consequently, the options for building on reclaimed landfills can quickly become cost prohibitive.Site SpecificSelected by a developer for the location of a future warehouse, the 29 acres (114,424 sq-meters) project site is located in Elizabeth, New Jersey and demonstrates the complexities of designing over a once reclaimed landfill. The landfill was used for municipal solid waste (MSW) consisting of trash, wood, metal, glass, plastic, brick, concrete fragments, and other types of debris. This landfill was capped in the 1960’s, and developed in the 1970’s for a warehouse. The new project included the demolition of the existing warehouse and the development of the site to be repurposed for a new 481,650 sq-ft single-story warehouse, surrounded by paved parking and truck loading areas. Figure 1 below, shows an overview of the project site layout."

Jan 1, 2017

By Charles M. Wilk

"Mass stabilization involves mixing binding agents into marginal or contaminated soil to improve the subject material’s physical and/or chemical properties. This paper concentrates on the principles of soil mixing and benefits and application to new and existing rail right-of-way. Successfully applied in Scandinavia and other European countries, the soil mixing is now being applied in right of way in the northern latitudes of the U.S. and Canada. These regions have significant areas of “peaty” soils that can complicate construction and maintenance of rail and structure foundations. Mass stabilization can be used to improve the bearing strength of these soft soils for subsequent construction of railroads, pipelines, roads, and buildings. In civil engineering, the technology is often used to improve the construction properties such as bearing strength, of a marginal soil. In environmental engineering, stabilization is remediation treatment technology that protects human health and the environment by immobilizing hazardous constituents within the treated material. . The treatment is conducted while the subject material remains in-place (insitu). Mass Stabilization is often used to accomplish both civil and environmental purposes on the same project effectively addressing marginal soil while eliminating the expense of soil removal and replacement.This paper presents the principles of mass stabilization technology, implementation in the field and recent completed railway projects.The example rail projects will present the various benefits that soil mixing provides to railway construction and maintenance. Bench-scale studies and full scale implementation as well as soil construction properties before and after mass stabilization will be discussed. The paper and presentation will include information on the advantages of mixing methods and binding agent delivery systems.INTRODUCTIONNew or existing railroad right-of-ways may cross ground with low bearing capacity. Right of way subgrade undergo deflection (strain) as loads (stress) are applied (1). The amount of strain or deflection of the subgrade caused by loading of a train is proportional to the stiffness of the subgrade materials. Some soils, such as tamped ballast, are very stiff and resist loads well. Other soils such as soft clay, peat, or loose sand have low stiffness and undergo substantial movement under loads. It is very desirable to have the stiffest possible material in a track subgrade. Stiff subgrade material limits deflection under load, reducing track roughness and occurrence of track defects. Mass stabilization is a geotechnical method that can be used to improve the bearing capacity or stiffness of soil in these right-of-way. Mass stabilization involves mixing binding agents into soil subject to treatment while the soil remains in-place or insitu. Variations in the design or areas subject to treatment can be used to address transmission of vibration to adjacent structures."

Jan 1, 2017

By Sanjeev Malhotra

"This paper presents the results of a pile installation monitoring and performance assessment program for pile foundations supporting 14 piers and 2 abutments of the 1700-ft long bridge crossing over a river in Baltimore, Maryland. Dynamic measurements were conducted during installation and restrike of 16 test piles, one at each support location. The foundation piles were 30-inch diameter, 0.75 inch thick pipe piles at the piers and 24-inch diameter, 0.5 inch thick at the abutments. The piles at the piers were approximately 100 ft long and were designed to carry 260 kips service load with a factor of safety of 2.25. The piles were driven open ended into a variable site stratigraphy containing recent deposits of organic clayey silts near the mudline followed by loose to medium dense sand, with some silt, and then by soil deposits from the Cretaceous period consisting primarily of dense to very dense, poorly to well graded sands and gravels and cobbles, with occasional seams of very hard to very stiff, low to moderate plasticity silts and clays. This paper presents the approach taken to evaluate the driven index piles and to develop criteria for driving production piles. It provides the Engineer with some data on pile driveability in Cretaceous soils in the Baltimore area, soil set-up effect, and an estimate of pile capacity.INTRODUCTIONThe typical approach to pile foundation design and construction should include an indicator pile program with dynamic measurements and a static load test program. However very often paucity of funds and schedule constraints cause an owner to do away with conventional static load testing which can take $25,000 to $100,000 and several weeks per test. This paper examines an alternate (though not equivalent) truncated approach to foundation assessment and presents a case history where this approach was implemented.Dynamic measurements were conducted during pile installation for the 14 piers and 2 abutments of the new 1700-ft long bridge over a river in Baltimore, Maryland. Strain transducers and accelerometers were attached to the pile top during initial driving and restrike of 16 pipe piles. The foundation piles consisted of 30-inch outside diameter, 0.75-inch thick pipe piles at the piers and 24-inch outside diameter, 0.5 inch thick at the abutments. The piles were driven open ended into a variable site stratigraphy. The approach taken to assess the foundation performance included 1) a pre-field wave equation driveability analyses, 2) field pile driving measurements, 3) post-field Case Pile Wave Equation Analyses (CAPWAP), and, 4) revised wave equation analyses based on field and CAPWAP data. The following sections describe in greater detail each of the steps taken to assess foundation performance and the results obtained."

Jan 1, 2005

By Abu B. Siddique, Anthony S. Crincoli

"The New Jersey Turnpike Section 2 widening program consisted of widening between Interchange 6 in Mansfield Township, Burlington County and Interchange 9 in East Brunswick Township, Middlesex County. To accommodate large volume of traffic the roadway was widened from 6 to 12 lanes with major modifications performed at four interchanges. The Section 2, NJTA Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program is a 4.2-mile section of Turnpike roadway which included a total of 12 new or modified structures. In order to facilitate the construction process Section 2 was divided into three construction contract packages. This paper will cover the last and final Contract T869.120.203 which is 1.7 miles in length. The work generally consisted of eight new ramps connection to and from the toll plaza to the new inner and outer roadways. New mainline bridges were constructed over several ramps. A new bridge was constructed to take northbound outer lanes traffic over two ramps along with new mainline bridges over Black’s Creek, Georgetown Road, and Laurel Run. In addition, a new bridge was constructed to take a ramp over Laurel Run and the existing U-turn Bridge was replaced with a new one.For Contract T869.120.203 a total of 74 five-foot diameter drilled shafts has been constructed to support all pier foundations for bridges. Three drilled shafts were tested using Osterberg Load Cells to verify the estimated shaft resistance during design phase. One Osterberg Load Cell test was performed on a demonstration (sacrificial) shaft and the other two Osterberg Load Cell tests were performed on production shafts. This paper compares the estimated total, side and tip resistances with corresponding measured total, side and tip resistances and provided recommendations for future design purpose.INTRODUCTIONTo accommodate large volume of traffic the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) decided to widen Section 2, which included Interchange 6 through Interchange 9. The Section 2, a 4.2-mile section of Turnpike roadway that was widened from 6 to 12 lanes with major modifications performed at four interchanges.The New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA) procured AECOM to perform engineering services for the final design of Section 2, NJTA Interchange 6 to 9 Widening Program. Section 2 is a 4.2-mile section of Turnpike roadway that will widen from 6 to 12 lanes and will include a total of 12 new or modified structures. It encompasses modifications of the existing and the design of four new ramps at Interchange 7. The project also includes the modification of two local roads over the mainline, two local roads under the mainline, two maintenance U-turns, and retaining walls. In addition, the project consists of the design of noise walls, sign structures, storm water management basins and the more typical drainage, utilities, lighting, roadway, ROW, and signing and striping design."

Jan 1, 2015