Search Documents

By Tim Chapman

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

Jan 1, 2006

By Jean J. Abiassi

The Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) VENT 6 project is a cut and cover tunnel, part of the Central Artery / Tunnel (CA/T) in the city of Boston. The BMIP job will serve as the south approach to the Third Harbor Tunnel crossing. The alignment is approximately 2500 Ft long and is made up of four sections starting from west to east: 1. West Tunnel 2. Boat Section 3. East Tunnel 4. Tunnel inside Vent 6 Cofferdam and connection to the Third Harbor Tunnel. The support of excavation (SOE) system for the West Tunnel, Boat Section, and East Tunnel are all a part of this project whereas the SOE for Tunnel inside the Vent 6 Cofferdam was a part of the contract for the Third Harbor Tunnel.

Jan 1, 1994

By George Filz, Peter R. Cali

"Unnecessarily restrictive specifications could be limiting the cost effectiveness of deep mixing (DM) applications and therefore limiting use of DM on projects where there are other options. Excessively restrictive standards demanded for strength and permeability certainly increase contractors’ bid prices, and costing the owners and, in the case of Government projects, the taxpayers more than necessary. Yet, lax or ineffective specifications often exist for some vital components of the quality assurance and quality control. In this paper, specifications for key elements of DM design and construction are examined. Recommendations are made to improve and streamline DM specifications to better serve the common objective of constructing a safe and cost effective ground improvement project.INTRODUCTIONSpecifications should, at their best, convey the project design requirements and provide clear direction to the contractor regarding requirements for submittals, materials, execution, measurement, schedule, and other aspects as necessary. The specifications should not be overly conservative, restrictive or ambiguous, and they absolutely should not be deficient in measurement of quality. Guide specifications or recycled sections from previous projects often form the template for new project specifications. But standards that appear in guide specifications or from former successful construction should be critically scrutinized by the designer for relevance before using the copy/paste functions of the specifications writer’s keyboard. Because work does not always go as smoothly as planned, specifications for remediation of non-compliant construction should be clearly stated and enforced. Often, non-compliancy is reviewed after-the-fact and deemed to have met the design intent, indicating that either the specifications were too restrictive or the enforcement too weak.The Federal Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support, October 2013, was written by a panel of DM expert design practitioners and contractors. Guide specifications are included as Appendix C of the FHWA manual. Those guide specifications have been updated in the deep mixing section of the www.GeoTechTools.org website, and the updated specifications represent the most complete and authoritative compilation published to date. Although the specifications for DM at www.GeoTechTools.org are current and complete, and they portray the state-ofthe- practice, they too must be modified to fit specific DM applications, project needs, and site conditions. The keys to a good set of specifications are to prescribe construction only to the level that is required to meet the design intent, to require appropriate quality control and quality assurance (QC/ QA) activities, and to clearly address remedial measures required for non-compliant work."

Jan 1, 2015

By R. J. Yan

There was a plant equipped with a 32000t Hydraulic Press to be built, under which a box foundation of 22.5m x 15m x 14.25m (depth) with a base slab of, varying thickness was proposed. The subgrade reactions, bending moments and settlements needed to be determined by means of in-situ model test. A model of the same materials as the prototype scaled to l/10 was embedded in-situ with simulated depth in the bedrock. A lot of data obtained from 39 bench marks, 32 elongation measuring points, 30 couples of electric resistance strain gauges and 24 pressure cells attached to the model foundation enables all the quantities required to be found out. Since it was put into operation, the settlements measured has reasonably agreed with the test results and the foundation has been in good condition.

Jan 1, 2010

By J. Matos e Silva

The paper refers two examples of structures located in seismic areas (Cases 1 and 2). The first one (Case 1) is the Torroal Bridge, located about 100 Km South of Lisbon, in the road Troia-Grandola. The horizontal loads due to the seismic actions were mainly carried by an anchor curtain connected, to the abutments, by reinforced concrete struts-ties. For the some purpose diaphragm walls were also placed under the pile caps of the column foundations. The second one (Case 2) refers to a building located about 50 Km South of Lisbon, at Sesimbra, near a cliff. To reduce the horizontal displacements of the structure due to seismic actions, in order to prevent the endangering of the cliff stability, an anchor curtain was adopted and connected, to the structure, by prestressed anchors.

Jan 1, 1996

By Helene Kennedy, Josef Macsik, Yvonne Rogbeck, Gregory Makusa, Göran Holm

"Constructions activities in cities often imply large volumes of surplus material which could be treated by stabilization for re-use in new geotechnical constructions. Modification of dredged sediments by e.g. stabilization/solidification (s/s) is an example of sustainable handling option implying dredged contaminated sediments to become a potential resource for civil engineering constructions. The SMOCS project (Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments) within the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 has developed a guideline based on a sustainability approach free to download at www.smocs.eu. The paper presents key issues in the guideline and highlights the importance of performing a field test as part of the design process. Two field tests with s/s-treated dredged sediments for new port areas are presented. Strength, permeability and leakage properties of s/s-treated contaminated sediments make beneficial use in geo-constructions possible. The influence of possible physical/chemical deterioration processes on the durability has been studied showing that freeze/thaw cycles might degrade the monolith of s/s-treated sediments. Consequently s/s-constructions shall be below freezing depth. Other deterioration processes such as salt and sulfate penetration were found of minor importance. Research is on-going to study the influence of and how to cope with freeze/thaw cycles on the long-term properties.BACKGROUNDConstructions activities in cities often imply large volumes of surplus material which could be treated by stabilization for re-use in new geotechnical constructions. The mechanical and environmental properties of the contaminated sediments could be modified through the stabilization/solidification method (s/s method) and provide a potential resource for civil engineering constructions. The SMOCS project (Sustainable Management of Contaminated Sediments) within the Baltic Sea Region Programme 2007-2013 has developed a guideline on management of contaminated sediments based on a sustainability approach. A field test on the application of the stabilization/solidification method for treatment of dredged soft contaminated sediments was implemented in the Port of Gävle, Sweden. The treated sediments were beneficially used as fill material in the new port area replacing ending natural resources."

Jan 1, 2015

Jan 1, 1990

By A. R. Dover

The Richmond San Rafael Bridge (Figure 1) is a 4.3 mile long major toll bridge span across northern San Francisco Bay. Tutor-Saliba/Koch/Tidewater (TSKT) conducted a comprehensive seismic retrofit, which was at the time Caltrans? largest-ever construction contract at $484 million. The robust foundation retrofit design of 11 bridge piers included the installation of 26 new, large diameter (126 to 162 inch OD, wall thickness 1.5 to 2.25 inches) CIDH and CISS piles, with steel pipe piles installed to tip elevations of Elev. ?140 to -220 ft, in water depths up to 70 feet. The open-ended steel pipe piles had initial sections ranging from 71 to 172 feet long, with full lengths that extended to the bay bottom and then through 100 to 130 feet of marine sediments to top of bedrock. The marine soils of most interest consisted mainly of soft to firm Young Bay Mud (YBM), a silty, moderately-sensitive clay common to SF Bay. A key constructability issue was the prediction of pipe piles ?running? under self weight (198 to 625 kips in air) and pile driving hammer weight (IHC S-500 with total assembly weight of 322 kips). The term "pile running" is used to describe the penetration of the pile into the soil due to the self-weight of the pile only. This issue was critical because 1) there was limited head room under the bridge deck, and 2) if piles run too deep, the pile splicing on several piles would be problematic (the lowest desirable pile top elevation after running was +10 ft). While running measurements are sometimes made during marine/nearshore construction, there is little published data on predicted vs. actual running. This paper discusses the running prediction under self weight for 26 piles, and the methodology used in developing the predictions, which ranged from 15 to 94 ft of penetration below mudline. Pile running was recorded and compared with predicted values. The prediction methodology was quite good, and no significant constructability problems were encountered. The authors ?tweaked? the model to provide a slightly improved prediction method. The paper presents the model, predictions, observations, and discusses important lessons learned.

Jan 1, 2006

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By Richard J. Hartman

This presentation identifies some of the more common problems associated with cofferdam construction. After the various problems are identified, they are briefly explained and possible solutions and preventive measures are noted. Photographic slides used during the seminar illustrate the conditions. This discussion is limited to cofferdams which are braced structures excavated inside to allow access for construction. The common procedure is to drive sheet piling and then alternatively install bracing and excavate. They can be located either on land or in water. Loads are applied by soil, water, surcharge pres-sure, eccentricities, and impact loads. The loads are resisted by the sheet piling, the bracing, and the soil below the bottom of the excavation; each of these three components must be capable of resisting the applied loads.

Jan 1, 1987

By Sara Anderson, Rachel Nicholls, Tim Chapman, Janice Windle

"In city center sites around the world, and in particular in London, foundation reuse is becoming increasingly widespread as the ground is filled with detritus from previous developments. This paper sets out a systematic framework to consider the need for and benefits of foundation reuse and key issues to be resolved for foundation reuse to be successfully adopted on redevelopment projects. Once foundation reuse has been identified as a potential foundation solution there are several key stages in the design and construction process where the decision to reuse foundations needs to be assessed. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of ensuring that the foundations being installed now can more easily be reused in the future.INTRODUCTIONThe concept of re-using foundations is not new, and has been adopted on an isolated project-byproject basis for many years. However, over the past decade, interest in the potential of reusing existing piles and caissons within Europe has increased significantly, with a growing interest in the United States of America and Japan. The need has been driven by necessity: on many urban sites the space available for new foundations diminishes with each new set of piles, and these problems can only grow in the future.Initiatives such as the European Union's RuFUS (Re-use of Foundations for Urban Sites) research project have resulted in identification of the key issues for technical viability and risk that have previously hampered potential foundation reuse projects.There is a need to define a systematic approach to the reuse of foundations so that the risks associated with reuse can be identified, managed and mitigated. This requires improvements in knowledge to provide confidence in the long term behaviour of the foundation support and address the risks involved in reusing existing foundations to overcome perceived obstacles in making foundation reuse a realistic option for many sites."

Jan 1, 2005

By Anil Bhandari

Using subsurface data collected at each drilled shaft location is an ideal approach for conducting drilled shaft design. However, conducting subsurface tests at each drilled shaft location and subsequently performing the drilled shaft design can be a daunting task for a noise barrier wall that is divided into six (6) sections and stretches for approximately four (4) miles. In addition, having individual drilled shaft designs complicates the construction process. Grouping the subsurface conditions into broad categories and performing the design for each of those categories is an attractive alternative to the design per boring approach. Currently there are no existing guidelines to aid a designer on grouping the subsurface conditions for the drilled shaft design for the noise barrier walls. Therefore, a method was developed based on the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) N values of the near surface soils to categorize the soil profiles into distinct categories. Since the soil engineering properties of the near surface soils are known to be critical for drilled shaft lateral capacity, these soils were emphasized in the methodology. This method was successfully implemented for the design of drilled shafts supporting the noise barrier walls along the I-20 in Columbia, SC. For this project, two distinct soil profiles, labeled as ?strong? and ?weak?, were used. An overview of the soil profile grouping methodology is presented as well as the vertical and lateral drilled shaft capacity analyses for this project for the two general soil profiles. The analyses indicated that the axial capacity governed the design in the ?weak? soil profile and the lateral capacity controlled the design in the ?strong? soil profile. However, this is not a generalization and whether the axial or the lateral capacity governs the design of drilled shaft depends on the soil profile and design loads. Nonetheless, our findings emphasize that both lateral and axial capacity should be checked for drilled shaft design even when the vertical load are minor.

Jan 1, 2011

Jan 1, 1997

By P. Arz

With a total of five basement levels, ground floor and a further six levels above grade, construction of the Kö-Galerie building, on the Königsallee, in the centre of Düsseldorf, was completed with all the difficulties which accompany property development today in the inner city. To meet the intermediate and final deadlines, ad­vanced building techniques were used. Notable among them are the top/down method for simultaneous construction upwards and downwards from an intermediate level, and the use of pre-fabricated composite columns in drilled shafts for the main load-bearing foundations as well as diaphragm walls designed as permanent structural wall of the basement.

Jan 1, 1989

By Donald Bruce

The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: ? Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. ? Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. ? Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications. Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

"The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: • Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. • Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. • Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications.Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.The owner, designer and contractor will together be responsible for the tasks associated with the design, installation, acceptance, and performance of the micropiles. The installation of micropiles requires specialized equipment, techniques, and appropriate workmanship. Not every detail of the work can be specified, and not every potential problem can be anticipated. Therefore, a contractor who has demonstrated experience in micropiles must be selected to execute the work required."

Jan 1, 2004

By Haoran Zhang, Chu Ho

A recent design-build project in New York involved various degrees of additions and improvements to four existing transit stations. Reuse of the existing foundations was considered a more sustainable alternative than constructing new foundations for the project. This approach mitigated the extent of demolition work and limited the amount of downtime for track operations. A key challenge for reusing the existing foundations was the lack of as-built drawings. In order to obtain some measure of confidence for the proposed foundation reuse, non-destructive investigation technology was adopted to evaluate the structural integrity of the piers and foundations. A total of 47 piers for the existing passenger platform were investigated for possible reuse. Several test pits, excavated to verify the foundation type and configuration, indicated the piers were founded on a combination of shallow footings and drilled shafts. Pile integrity tests were performed to verify the length of the drilled shafts. Geotechnical capacity of drilled shafts was evaluated for side friction and end bearing resistance, and confirmed using a proof load test conducted from the existing platform structure. This paper presents the investigation methodology and discusses the approach adopted for geotechnical design of the existing foundations for reuse.

Sep 8, 2021

By Amr M. Sallam

In recent years, with the increase of the number of high-rise buildings that are proposed and being built in Central Florida especially in Downtown Orlando, Augered Pressure Grouted Displacement (APGD) piles became a pronounced foundation option. The APGD pile is a bored displacement pile that does not result in drilling spoil. APGD piles are mostly suited for loose to medium granular soils and slightly silty/clayey sandy materials, such as those encountered in Central Florida. The case history presented in this paper involves the APGD piles recommended for a 35-story mixed-use condominium in Downtown Orlando. The subsoil condition was typical for the region; that is loose to medium fine sands underlain by thin layer of plastic sandy clays and plastic clays followed by mixed clayey sands and sandy clays with phosphates and traces of shells transitioned to the weathered limestone. Four APGD test piles were installed and were, statically, tested. Three of the tested piles failed to support the design load. Analysis of load test results showed that the bottom half of the test piles, below the plastic clay deposits, was not effective, which was attributed to structural deficiency resulted from possible pile necking due, in our opinion, to the increase of the porewater pressure within the plastic clays. Three additional test piles were constructed with modified reinforcement cage; that is to extend beyond the plastic clays with tighter stirrups. The additional test piles were, statnamically, tested and were able to sustain the design loads. The construction of the APGD piles through subsoil conditions similar to those of Downtown Orlando, where plastic clayey deposits are encountered, should account for the high porewater pressures that mostly will be developed within the plastic clay, hence, may cause pile necking. Extending the cage to penetrate through and pass the plastic clays reduced the necking potential and improved the test piles performance.

Jan 1, 2006

By Roger A. Bullivant

As the UK's foremost domestic foundation underpinning contractor over the last 25 years it has become abundantly clear that the size of the repair market, some £500m per annum is a significant waste of resource and cost. To experience this scale of foundation failure in mainly new construction less than 20 years old is unacceptable. This is being further endorsed by our contracting experience in the USA over the last 10 years. Our foundation repair systems are mainly based upon the use of driven mini piles and it was considered appropriate that this type of pile should be upgraded and used on new build construction where the ground was marginal or bad.

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 1992