Search Documents

By Mark R. Svinkin

Construction vibrations may adversely affect surrounding buildings and their effects range from human discomfort and disturbance of sensitive devices to visible structural damage. There is no unique conclusion regarding the effect of construction vibrations at every site. Measurement is usually made to monitor vibrations and control them with the vibration thresholds for disturbance of sensitive objects as well as damage to structures. To prevent potential litigation and mitigate the vibration effects on sensitive devices, people and structures, it is necessary to manage and minimize vibration problems before the beginning of construction activities or installation of vibrating machine foundations, and during construction. Pre-construction damage survey and engineering vibration investigations, including the prediction of anticipating vibrations, have to be made at most construction sites in advance of construction activities. Vibration monitoring and control have to be provided during construction. The instrumentation feedback of vibration prediction, monitoring and control provide the basis for choice of measures to prevent or mitigate vibration problems and settlement damage hazards.

Jan 1, 2002

By Leo Panian, Ryan Nagle, Priyanshu Singh, Gina Carlson, Wayne Magnusen

"This case study presents the design and construction of an integrated foundation and ground improvement solution utilizing deep soil mixing (DSM) and micropiles. 270 Brannan is a midrise office building in San Francisco that straddles the historic shoreline that was reclaimed in the 19th century. Subsurface conditions include shallow bedrock inland of the historic shoreline, and steeply dipping bedrock overlain by 60 feet of compressible deposits and liquefiable fill on the bay side. Project challenges included mitigating the liquefaction and lateral spreading hazards, addressing settlement concerns in the fill and the bay deposits, developing a cost-effective foundation support solution, assuring satisfactory seismic performance, and addressing construction restrictions with existing adjacent structures.DSM combined with micropiles was identified as the most cost-effective solution for the ground conditions. The DSM panels act both as a liquefaction mitigation mechanism and a foundation support system. Resistance to seismic overturning is provided by uplift-resisting micropiles. The DSM-micropile solution allows the use of efficient conventional spread footing foundations, integrating isolated micropile groups to anchor the shear walls. Successful installation of the system relied on a program of field testing to validate the design and conformance with the design criteria.INTRODUCTIONThe regular grid of surface streets within San Francisco’s South of Market (SOMA) district provides little evidence of the geotechnical complexities that lie below. In the late 1800s, sand dunes, bedrock hills, cliffs, marshes, and mud flats were flattened and filled, concealing their locations and characteristics. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire leveled many buildings in SOMA; new buildings were built after 1906 – often on top of rubble and debris from the structures that came before. Locally, the combination of natural geology and historical interventions can produce complex subsurface conditions that vary dramatically over short distances. This is particularly true at locations where tidal mudflats once met bedrock hills at the shore of San Francisco Bay.This case study describes an integrated foundation and ground improvement system implemented for a multistory “Class A” office building at a complex SOMA urban infill site. The system utilizes cement deep soil mixing (DSM) in combination with spread footings and micropiles to address a range of design and construction issues, including liquefaction and lateral spreading mitigation; consistency of earthquake ground motions; shallow foundation support; seismic uplift resistance; and avoidance of loading adjacent basement walls. The system was implemented by a technically-sophisticated owner through a process that included constructive collaborations between the project geotechnical engineer, structural engineer, general contractor, and specialty foundation and ground improvement contractor(s). The system is designed to cost-effectively provide a high level of seismic performance."

Jan 1, 2017

By Yin Zongze

The pile foundation of Sutong bridge pylons is an extra large pile foundation. The length of piles is 115m, and the diameter of the piles is 2.5-2.8m. Since the traditional design method may not determine the settlement and capacity reasonably for such a large pile foundation, the finite element method is used to study stress and deformation of the foundation. The interface element is set to simulate the possible slide between piles and soil layers. The hyperbolic model is taken for soils. Parameters are determined from triaxial test first, and then modified by back analysis on basis of in-situ loading test. The computation results show that the axial force of piles changes with the location of the pile. Outer piles support greater axial force and also friction. The settlement will not be greater than 26cm. The stress and deformation of the pile cap, the abutment, are obtained too. The whole foundation is safe.

Jan 1, 2006

By Jorj O. Osterberg

The Osterberg (O-Cell) Method makes it possible to separate the side shear resistance (skin friction) from end bearing. The O-Cell is placed on or near the bottom of a drilled shaft and after the concrete is poured and cured, an equal upward and downward pressure is applied. From the test, the load-upward deflection curve in side shear and the load-downward deflection curve in end bearing are drawn. Typical curves are shown where the ultimate load in side-shear is reached and where the ultimate load in end bearing is reached. Several examples of tests in which the test load reached ultimate loads far in excess of what was expected are shown. The side shear in rock sockets is shown to be much larger than generally estimated. Examples are given of where side shear is smaller than expected and the reasons discussed. Disturbance of the sides of drilled holes due to poor construction techniques and ways to avoid these conditions are considered. Examples of bottom hole disturbance are given and ways to prevent the disturbance are discussed. A graph showing the actual measured capacity of drilled shafts compared to the estimated capacity as a function of the hardness and strength of the soil or rock is presented.

Jan 1, 1999

By Jouko L. Lehtonen

Sheet pile walls can be sealed watertightly using various methods. The objective of this paper is to introduce a new innovation comprising the use of continuous cement grouting during embedding. The method has been tested on a field test site and installation and permeability features have been observed and analyzed. Installation can be carried out using traditional sheet piling machinery, merely some additional grouting equipment is needed. Installation speed of grouted sheet piles corresponds to that of conventional embedding. The permeability of the tested method is satisfactory in applications where e.g. polluted soil or water has to be isolated from the surrounding environment. In addition, this method can be used for conventional retaining walls where very low permeability is required or for reduction of soil vibration, e.g. close to a railway embankment. The new method to grout simultaneously and continuously during embedding has been developed based on respective innovations on impact driven steel piles.

Jan 1, 2006

By Jim Frazier

Tradition has often dictated low design load stresses on piles. Such traditions often developed prior to modern static or dynamic pile testing methods and perhaps result from a few limiting situations. These low stress limits were then broadly applied, even in cases where the piles could carry substantially higher loads. With sufficient testing to prove the design, higher design loads may present significant overall savings to the project owner. The cost of the testing then becomes an insignificant cost compared to the potentially great benefit of increased pile loadings. To confirm higher load possibilities for driven piles, the pile is tested either statically or dynamically. Further savings and increased testing efficiency result from remote dynamic pile testing. This paper presents a project where design stresses were considerably increased as a result of additional testing and use of remote dynamic pile testing equipment.

Jan 1, 2002

By Leonardo Massone

The p-y method is one of the most popular methods in pile design and has been calibrated for various boundary conditions using numerical and experimental studies during recent years. Most studies on reinforced concrete (RC) piles have included the impact of flexural nonlinearity, (e.g. nonlinear moment?curvature relations) but not considered associated pile shear deformations when deriving p-y curves from field data. Common p-y curves may be better applicable for piles with flexure dominated failures (e.g. piles with free- head boundary conditions). For piles with fixed head boundaries (i.e. rotation restrained piles) shear deformations could be of significant influence. To study this problem, a coupled shear flexure interaction model for axial-bending-shear behavior coded in OpenSees was applied to a 0.61 m (2 ft) diameter flagpole and a 0.61m (2 ft) diameter fixed head pile specimen to investigate the possible influence of shear deformations to the overall pile responses. The surrounding soil was represented by p-y curves derived from prior large scale testing on piles with similar boundary conditions. Analysis results show that for flagpole piles, shear forces and shear deformations were insignificant. Considerable contributions of pile shear displacements and forces were observed for the fixed head pile, with shear displacements contributing up to 40% of the total pile displacement. Results suggest that nonlinear shear deformations for reinforced concrete piles should be considered for fixed-head or similar conditions, and that currently used p-y curves may underestimate the actual lateral pile displacement and possibly lead to unsafe design for the particular boundary condition.

Jan 1, 2012

By Frederick C. Rhyner

This paper describes the design and construction of two high-capacity rock anchors to restrain a supplementary backstay for the Bear Mountain Bridge, which is a suspension bridge spanning the Hudson River about 40 miles north of New York City. The supplementary backstay was installed to relieve a portion of the tension in the southern main cable, which had been creeping in recent years. The two new rock anchors were 1,200 kip capacity each, installed at a batter to depths of 59 feet. This paper describes the subsurface investigation, group capacity analysis, installation and load testing. The rock anchors included strain gages connected to the monitoring system for the bridge. The paper describes the long term strain gage data which shows no change in stress distribution in either anchor.

Jan 1, 2010

By Hodjat] [Shiri

A 4-legged jacket structure was installed by an Offshore Installation Contractor (OIC) in the Persian Gulf. In addition to four open-end pipe piles, six conductors were installed by OIC. During the installation of the piles and conductors, some cemented layers were encountered, which had not been accounted for in the foundation design performed by an independent well known offshore geotechnical site investigation contractor (OGSIC). Six months later, the Drilling Company (DC) hired by Client to execute the wells, reported that all of the six conductors were presenting anomalies, such as vertical misalignments up to 10o and/or collapse of the conductors tip and mid height. The DC faced with serious problem in drilling of the wells and in spite of several times milling the conductors and spending 40 days unpredicted extra time, some of the routes could not be opened and Client lost millions of dollars due to direct and indirect associated costs and expenses. This paper presents a complete overview of all engineering, construction and specially geotechnical investigations and shows that how an inaccuracy in interpretations of the results of an offshore geotechnical site investigation as the main reason in this case study can cause serious damages to whole project with unbelievable time and cost impacts some times up to millions of dollars.

Jan 1, 2006

By Erik M. Westerberg

The Soilex Pile combines a slender shaft, for quick and easy installation, with an enlarged pile toe, for high capacity. The key component is the Expander Body, which is inflated by injecting cement grout when in position. The latest development in the Soilex Pile System results in a reduction of the total cost of Soilex Piles, in many cases values that are competitive with pre­cast concrete piles and displacement piles. Soilex Piles can now be installed on top of a bearing soil layer, instead of 3 to 4 m into that soil as previously required, further minimising the ground disturbance. Soilex Piles achieve high capacity in relatively loose soils, with ultimate loads typically between 1000 and 2000 kN in a sand with CPT qc = 5 to 10 MPa or SPT N= 10 to 20. It is possible to pre-load and proof-load all piles with dynamic testing up to 2000 kN or using built-in jacks, thereby verifying the capacity. The vibratory installation method, which is extremely quick and causes very little soil disturbance and noise, is exemplified by two case histories.

Jan 1, 2000

By M. T. Davisson

Pile compression load capacity prediction methods are divided into four categories for purposes of discussing their reliability compared to static load test results. The categories considered are: 1) static analysis, 2) driving formulas, 3) wave equation analysis, and 4) dynamic measurement and analysis. It is concluded that any method of static analysis that works for the geological deposit in question may be satisfactory. However, any given method can be quite wrong when applied to other deposits of soil that are different in terms of their engineering and geological characteristics. Dynamic formulas are found to be theoretically unjustifiable. The ready availability of the wave equation analysis for microcomputers eliminates the need to utilize dynamic formulas. The wave equation analysis is found to be the best analytical method for making predictions both for design and for construction control. Dynamic methods of measurement and analysis are found useful, but have limitations that have caused troubles on many projects. Two case histories are presented that show the limitations of dynamic measurement and analysis, and of the wave equation analysis. Soil deposits exist that defeat both the wave equation and dynamic measurement techniques; static load tests are currently the only method of proving the load capacity of piles in such soils.

Jan 1, 1991

By M. Pernot

A 12 m-deep excavation has to be perfomed in the Shanghai soft clay to install an underground electric substation. This article was originally intended to study the behaviour of the wall, the excavation bottom and the surrounding ground during the excavation. Since the works are behind schedule, and the data referring to the excavations are not, therefore, available, the article is limited to a presentation of the analysis methods that we envisaged for the study of the behaviour of the excavation.

Jan 1, 2010

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

By Marcel Bielefeld, Joost Bakker, Rob van Dorp

Pile load testing can be performed by a static, rapid or high strain dynamic (generally designated as dynamic) testing method. The static load test is often considered the “gold standard” of testing with the other methods merely ‘alternatives’. However, the rapid load test, as a quasi-static test, has all the positive elements of the static alternative: the direct measurement of loads and displacements. Moreover as stress wave phenomena have no influence, the interpretation of rapid load test results is more straightforward than that of dynamic testing, and also independent of the person performing the interpretation. This paper will explore the Rapid Load Testing method and illustrate the advantages and limitations through a case study in Rostock, Germany

May 1, 2022

By Y. G. Qin

In this article an experimental study of axial bearing capacity of half-closed steel pipe pile installed at BKSH dock is presented. In comparison with open and closed end piles, half-closed end pile is considered to have high bearing capacity and good penetration, that is, it not only has a capacity as twice as the same size open end steel pipe pile, but also has blow counts as half as the same size closed end steel pipe pile. It is economic to use half-closed end pile in soft ground without a deep deposit of thick stiff clay. This article also describes a large scale model pile test and preliminarily analyses mechanism of improvement of bearing capacity of half-closed end pile with emphasis on effect of squeezed soil on side friction; an empirical approach is presented in which side friction is related to density of squeezed soil and which is useful for reasonably chosing side friction of different types of piles in design of foundarion.

Jan 1, 2010

By Martin van Staveren

In today's rapid changing construction world, the business pressures on piling and deep foundations reach sky-high levels. Ever increasing complexity of construction projects do severely contribute to these business pressures. Projects are often constructed in densely populated areas and located close to vulnerable buildings and infrastructure. The inherent uncertainty of ground conditions plays a dominating role in these foundation projects. Effective risk management is a key success factor for profitable and sustainable operations of piling and deep foundations. It starts with a fundamental requirement to be aware of risks. Next the different risk perspectives of all stakeholders in any foundation project have to be acknowledged. A simple and structured risk management approach is introduced, to demonstrate that effective risk management is not necessarily that complicated. A major element is the contractual allocation of risks, as a result from differing ground conditions. It is based on the so-called Geotechnical Baseline Report (GBR). The main objective of the GBR is to provide a clear contractual arrangement for the allocation of risks, arising from differing site conditions. The benefits of explicit risk management in general and contractual risk allocation in particular are illustrated with an example and experiences. The presented structured risk management approach, including contractual risk allocation, is still rather new. It proves to be promising for cost-effective risk control of piling and deep foundation projects, anywhere in the world.

Jan 1, 2006

By Reda M. Bakeer

"An approach slab is the roadway segment that immediately follows a bridge intended to provide a smooth transition between the two elements. Some approach slabs have developed rough rideability with time due to differential settlement between the roadway embankment and the bridge. Soils in south Louisiana are generally poor and highly compressible and, therefore, pile-supported approach slabs were occasionally used. Timber piles of variable lengths are driven into the soft soils where no appreciable toe support exists. This resulted in the soils both supporting loads through shaft resistance and yet experiencing long-term consolidation settlement. Field testing and review of the records of over 120 approach slabs constructed in south Louisiana yielded the conclusion that their performance is primarily governed by negative skin friction (downdrag) imposed on the relatively short timber piles. A software (TU-DRAG) was developed to evaluate the deflection profile of a pile-supported approach slab based on its geometry and conditions of the underlying soils. It evaluates the effect of dragload considering the number and spacing of the piles at each transverse row and their variable lengths along the approach slab. TU-DRAG was utilized in the design of two transportation related projects which have been in service for more than 10 years.INTRODUCTIONThe problem of differential settlement at bridge approaches or “the bump at the bridge” has been recognized for many years. Research studies (1986, 1989, 1997, 2009 and 2013) by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided comprehensive evaluations of the performance of bridge approach slabs by assessing their field conditions and construction and maintenance records. Various states have also performed their own studies to investigate the performance of bridge approach slabs. The studies considered various types of structures including soil- and pile-supported approach slabs, integral bridge abutments and open-end abutments. Recommendations were provided for the design of new structures and for maintaining and repairing existing structures. Guidelines were offered regarding tolerable movements of bridges and their foundations based on measurements of vertical and horizontal movements of 580 bridges Moulton (1986). Vertical and horizontal movements greater than 102 mm (4 inches) and 51 mm (2 inches), respectively, were considered intolerable. Tolerable limits for angular distortion (differential settlement to span length) were suggested to be 1/250 and 1/200 for continuous and simple spans, respectively. It was reported that a differential settlement greater than 13 mm (0.5 inch) at the bridge interface would be sufficient to constitute a “bump” requiring mitigation."

Jan 1, 2017

By Scott C. Vollmer

This paper seeks to examine some of the technical factors influencing the deflection of Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls based on the authors' field observation of numerous structures. Excessive deflections can be unsightly and can be perceived as wall failure. Deflections can cause cracking or gapping of the facing units and general misalignment. Deflection of the reinforced backfill zone behind the wall face can result in settlement of the backfill zone and adjacent pavement cracking. Deflections can be the result of excessive movement external or internal to the reinforced soil structure. This paper only examines internal factors affecting wall deflections. External factors such as foundation settlement are not discussed.

Jan 1, 2003

By Arturo Ressi di Cervia

From the times when men in lacustrine environments drove wooden piles into the mud to elevate their dwellings, until the beginning of the twentieth century builders reacted to the conditions found in the location of their proposed structures by attempting to distribute their loads in ways that could be supported by the foundation's soils; or, if those were unsuitable, by moving the structure, whenever possible. While many major structures were built on stable ground (the pyramids were founded on rock), others were built on [ ]

Jan 1, 2000

By Priyadharshini M. R., Premalatha K

"Abstract With the development in the construction of heavily loaded structures, the necessity of pile foundations has increased. For the transfer of heavy loads, it is mandatory that the piles need to be socketed in the underlying rock strata. The load transfer in bored rock socketed piles is by end resistance or the combination of shaft and end resistance which in turn depends on the length of the rock socket. The determination of socketing length of the pile at present is mostly based on a few factors which affect the pile load transfer mechanism. The effect of all the possible factors involved, need to be studied in proposing guidelines for the design of rock socketing length of the pile. Analyses are carried out using finite element analysis software (PLAXIS 3D Foundation) to understand the influence of the thickness of overlying strata for different socket lengths of piles in weak rock. From the load settlement curves, the influence of the overlying soil on the rock socket length isobserved and an effective rock socket length is proposed.IntroductionThe determination of socketing length of the pile at present is mostly based on a few factors affecting the pile load transfer mechanism, which sometimes give a better design and sometimes an uneconomical design. Too much socketing length results in more construction time and higher costs. Therefore, the effect of all possible factors involved need to be studied in proposing guidelinesfor the design of t h e r o c k socket length of the pile.The factors that affect the termination criteria of the rock socketed pile are the capacity requirement, thickness and properties of the overlying soil, characteristics of the founding strata, drilling tools used, roughness of the rock socket and nature of loading.A comprehensive study was performed to understand all the above mentioned factors in different types of rocks. In this paper discussion is made on the settlement results, specifically the influence of overlying sand of different densities above a weak rock. The influence of stress developed is not discussed, keeping in mind the size of the paper under study."

Jan 1, 2014