Search Documents

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 Han Jie

The results of full scale plate load tests on stone columns on soft clay in coastal areas are presented in this paper. Four load tests were made, two of which were performed on the ground treated with stone columns, one on an isolated stone column and the last one on the untreated ground. For a given stress range, the settlement of the rigid plate, the stress concentration factor, and the excess pore water pressure were measured. It is found that the distribution of vertical stress beneath the rigid plate supported by the composite ground of stone columns is very different in shape from the one by the untreated ground, that the stress concentration factor has a relation with the stress level and time, that the stone columns increase the bearing capacity up to by 2 times, and that the ground stabilized by stone columns is of great advantage to keep the foundation stable.

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1988

By Robert Thurner

The underground car park "Admonterhof in the historical centre of Graz is an example for the technical and economical success of a complicated structural design using a concept on the basis of the observational method. The intention to built a 20 m deep excavation beneath a protected monument was accompanied by some essential issues: the preservation of the existing state avoiding extensive displacements by means of a girder grid of reinforced concrete, its support on large bored piles and small steel-tube piles with possible active compensation of differential settlements, the excavation support in none built-up areas with secant bored piles, the underpinning of existing buildings with different structures by means of jet grouting. Furthermore the hydraulic gradient and the permeability of a rock formation in a part of the excavation had to be explored with the purpose to control the inflow of groundwater with a level difference of more than 10 m.

Jan 1, 2006

By Timothy J. Myers

Expansion and the economic growth in the southwestern region of Missouri necessitated the expansion of State Route 249 and the construction of a new interchange to provide service to the Joplin, Missouri area. The project is located above a former lead and zinc mine in Jasper County, Missouri and includes a five bridge interchange connecting State Route 249 and US Route 171. The variable subsurface conditions, both natural and manmade, prompted the design team to use ground improvement via grouting and small diameter micropiles to provide support for several of the bridge foundations on the project. The scope of work included mine shaft closures, 56,000 ft of overburden and rock drilling, 11,139 ft of micropiles, 524 cy of balanced/stabilized high mobility grouts, and over 8,700 cy of low mobility grout. The selection of the grout used was based on the actual subsurface conditions. Low mobility grout (LMG) was used in voided conditions and for closure of the mine shafts encountered during the excavation. High mobility grout (HMG) was used in fractured rock with the goal of improving the mechanical properties of the rock underneath the future bridge footings and controlling grout volumes during micropile installation. The split spacing method was utilized for both LMG and HMG holes. Geology of the project site subsurface consisted of extremely variable bedrock with strong to very strong limestone, chert, breccia, extremely weak shale, and weak to strong sandstone. Previous activities associated with the mining disturbance (such as partial filled vertical mine shafts, shallow and deep mine horizons, modified hydrology including artesian conditions) further complicates the site subsurface conditions. Real time monitoring and recording of all drilling and grouting parameters was conducted to assist in the evaluation of in-situ geological properties of the site in order to modify the ground improvement and micropile program as necessary. This paper will discuss the design and execution of the ground improvement and micropile program. The project is an excellent example of the use of multiple ground improvement and foundation support techniques combined with real time data analysis to provide a foundation support solution for a complex geological environment.

Jan 1, 2009

Jan 1, 1996

By F. Schlosser

The extension of Montparnasse Station in Paris required the construction of supports of very high unit capacity to support a particularly rigid super-structure. The majority of the site is characterized by the existence of old limestone quarries at a depth of approximately 20 metres. These workings have been backfilled in some places, have collapsed in some places and have given rise to local subsidences in the marne layers above them. This paper addresses the steps taken by the group of companies and their consultants to evaluate the equivalent stiffnesses of the supports necessary for the design of the superstructure, and gives details of the construction techniques chosen by the foundations specialist to adapt to the particular conditions encountered on this site.

Jan 1, 1989

By Ramin Motamed, Joseph A. W. Toth

Evaluation of the capacity of large-diameter drilled shafts using current load test methods present challenges when considering the magnitude of loads required to fully mobilize their capacities. Often, these full scale tests do not fully mobilize the capacity through side resistance. Therefore, the need for innovative solutions to extrapolate side resistance and interpret nominal capacity are of key interest. In this study, we evaluate three methodologies for extrapolating unit side resistance based on bi-directional load test data. Fellenius (2001) presented these methods for interpretation of pile capacity using static load tests. Our interpretations are based on the evaluation of 116 load tests. Unit side resistance was calculated and reviewed for each load test and categorized using three criteria of mobilization; (A) full, (B) partial and (C) linear. This study specifically focuses on load tests that showed fully mobilized unit side resistance behavior (Criteria A). The three methodologies were applied assuming Criteria (A) load tests were mobilized to 50% of their measured values. Subsequent comparisons of each extrapolation were then compared against the full measured values for each test and generally showed good agreement. INTRODUCTION It is widely accepted that conducting load tests such as standard top-down tests or bi-directional (i.e. O- cell) tests can help designers understand load-settlement behavior and the nominal resistance of drilled shaft foundations. These load testing methods provide the advantage of confirming design assumptions as well as improving the reliability of the foundation design. The potential cost savings from the application of these methods for mid to large size projects is self-evident. For example, in a recent project in Northern Nevada, an O-cell test on a 6.9 ft diameter, 114.8 ft length drilled shaft imposed an initial cost of $125k to the project, resulting in a 15% reduction on the total foundation cost; equivalent to $1.3 million in overall savings (Pease, 2014). However, the costs of implementing such methods on smaller projects can be prohibitively expensive (Hagerty et al, 2016). Despite the clear advantages of drilled shaft load testing, the current practice is not without limitations. Performing load tests on large-diameter drilled shafts with high capacities is a challenge considering the significant loads required to fully mobilize the capacity of such foundations. In some cases, the feasibility of these tests is impractical because the associated initial cost is not guaranteed to outweigh the final savings. As a result, large scale load tests are sometimes ruled out from the design phase of projects. Furthermore, in the majority of load tests the magnitude of loads applied are specifically selected to not approach failure, so the shafts can be used in the future foundation system (i.e. production shafts). This practice of field testing restricts our knowledge of the true capacity of the drilled shaft at failure; hence the nominal resistance remains unknown.

Jan 1, 2018

By A. M. Hanna

This paper presents the experimental investigation on the ultimate skin friction of batter piles. The model piles were pushed in medium dense sand deposits at different inclinations up to 30 with respect to the vertical and tested under axial compression loads. The decrease in the total skin resistance with increasing pile inclination can be explained in terms of the reduction of the ave­rage mobilized angle of friction between the pile shaft and sand. The analysis, which takes into account asymmetrical earth pressure distributions around the pile shaft, showed good agreement with experimental results.

Jan 1, 2010

By D. A. Bruce

The use of small diameter cast-in-place bored piles is becoming increasingly popular in the United States. Such inserts are used as conventional load bearing piles, and are generally referred to as pin piles. The other major application is for the in situ reinforcement of soil slopes or excavations. The paper reviews the applications, construction, design and performance of inserts of each type.

Jan 1, 1989

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

Jan 1, 1995

By Joseph C. Gillen

This paper discusses the design, construction, and performance of the support of excavation system used at The Atlantic Building jobsite. The support of excavation system had to be adaptable to the different conditions surrounding the site. These conditions included support of four historic building façades, including the nine-story Atlantic Building, as well as support of three historic row-houses along two walls. Directly adjacent to the site is the historic Ford?s Theatre and townhouse. Across a 15? alley is the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Building, and across a 30? alley is the Federal Election Commission Building and another ongoing excavation. Of historical note, these two alleys were the escape route for John Wilkes Booth following his assassination of President Lincoln. With the excavation being 53? to 58? deep, the system included driven and drilled soldier piles, drilled bracket piles, and two modified tangent walls. The bracing included tiebacks, corner braces, wales, cross lot struts, and a specially designed support system for the nine-story façade. The footprint of the excavation included 12 corners and all alleys and streets were to remain open during construction. The performance requirements for system movement at Ford?s Theatre and AILA Building were ½ inches in the horizontal direction. The modified tangent walls were used in these areas to provide stiffness. The soil conditions at the site were fill material on top of a shallow, sandy, silty, gravel layer on top of a deep layer of soft organic silt and clay. Below the silt and clay layer was fine sandy material at the subgrade.

Jan 1, 2006

By D. A. Bruce

Small diameter cast-in-place bored piles (pinpiles) have been installed throughout the world since 1952, but only more recently in the United States. The special features of their construction and performance makes them ideally suited for structural underpinning applications in difficult ambient and geological conditions. This paper describes the underpinning of part of a major industrial facility near Mobile, Alabama. In addition to being a most interesting and successful case history, per se, the paper also describes in detail a fundamental test pile program which has afforded a unique insight into the basics of load transfer mechanisms.

Jan 1, 1992

Jan 1, 1993

By Kenneth Pidgeon

The Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) Boat Section, which is part of contract C04A2 of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project, is currently under construction in South Boston, Massachusetts (Fig. 1). The Boat Section is approximately 900 feet long and varies in width from about 135 to 185 feet (Fig. 2). The depth to the top of the Boat Section base slab varies from about 28 to 31 feet below final ground surface and about 23 to 26 feet below normal ground water levels. The Boat Section is supported on 578 anchors drilled into the underlying bedrock each designed for a working load of 630 kips. Design and Construction Team The owner of the project is the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). The owner's representative is the Management Consultant, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. The section design consultant (SDC) consisted of HDR Engineering, Inc. with GEI Consultants, Inc. as the geotechnical subconsultant. The general contractor was the joint venture of Kiewit, Perini, Atkinson, and Cashman. The boat anchors were installed by the subcontractor Delta Geotechnical Services, Inc.

Jan 1, 1994

By Patrick J. Hannigan

The pile foundation designer typically performs a subsurface exploration program and static pile capacity calculations before selecting a pile foundation type, length, and capacity. During construction, a pile installation criterion must be established to meet these design requirements. This installation criterion usually consists of a minimum penetration resistance or blow count to confirm pile capacity and may also include a minimum embedment requirement. This text will focus on use of wave equation analysis and dynamic measurements to meet design requirements. BEFORE THE WAVE EQUATION Since the mid-1800s, over 450 dynamic formulas for pile driving control have proliferated. In their simplest form, these formulas relate hammer energy to the work of soil resistance, or simply: W ? h = R ? s (1) Where W = ram weight h = ram drop height or stroke R = pile capacity s = pile penetration per blow

Jan 1, 1990

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016

By Amy B. Cerato

The application of this study is to use helical anchors as a foundation system for small wind tower (1 ? 10 kW) guyed cables. Helical anchors are currently used to anchor guyed cables of telecommunication and electric towers. However, the increased dynamic vibrations a wind turbine adds to the tower and foundation system under working loads, as well as extreme environmental conditions (e.g., straight line winds, ice load or sudden furling shocks), require additional knowledge about the behavior of helical anchors. These field conditions were simulated in this study by instrumenting a working tower with load cells and 3-axis accelerometers to gather data on wind speed and tower response. These tower responses were then transmitted to the helical anchors through an extensive, large-scale testing program that included monitoring the performance of the helical anchor foundation under dynamic loads, subject to natural variations in both wind regimes, precipitation (water level) and variations in helical anchor geometry. This paper specifically discusses the effects of helical anchor geometry on helical anchor performance under long-term dynamic loads.

Jan 1, 2008

By Derek J. Lennon

Ground conditions in central Glasgow generally comprise loose granular deposits overlying stiffer soils. CFA piling would normally be preferred for urban sites in these ground conditions, but flighting of the superficial deposits has on occasions resulted in building damage. Over the last five years rotary bored piling with vinyl polymer support fluid has proved to be an economic alternative to bentonite slurry. Two case histories in central Glasgow are described in this paper, one for piles founding in granular soils and one for piles founding into bedrock. A comparison is made between the methods required for disposal of the liquid waste from bentonite and vinyl polymer slurries.

Jan 1, 2006