Search Documents

By Alok Bhowmick

The most uncertain and challenging part of a bridge design and construction is the ‘Choice of foundation’. During the planning and conceptual design stage, it is extremely important to choose the right type of foundation. Wrong choice can lead to disaster for the project. This paper will present three interesting case studies of past bridge projects, to demonstrate how correct choice of foundation can help to meet the project commitments while the wrong choice of foundations can led to huge delay in project completion, leading to time and cost overrun.

Nov 1, 2022

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 1989

"1 INTRODUCTIONThe use of nondestructive testing (NDT) methods to evaluate the integrity of Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) and Drilled Displacement (DD) piles has been a subject of significant debate among engineers, contractors and NDT practitioners. This guideline document will illustrate the importance of reviewing all available information in conjunction with the NDT records. ACIP and DD piles have unique properties that must be considered when using a specific NDT method. Any evaluation of the integrity of an ACIP or DD pile must also include a thorough review of the detailed pile installation records and the site specific soil conditions. Long or theoretical descriptions of the methods have not been included in this publication. More detailed information about these NDT methods including their theoretical and historical backgrounds can be found in DFI’s Manual for Non Destructive Testing and Evaluation of Drilled Shafts (2004). Additional information can also be found in the more comprehensive textbook Nondestructive Testing of Deep Foundations by Hertlein and Davis (2006).1.1 PurposeThe intent of this guideline is to provide practical guidance for the proper interpretation of NDT results on ACIP and DD piles. Short descriptions of the main integrity methods available are provided along with several examples of how to use all of the information available to make sound engineering judgments about the results. This publication is a state-of-the-practice guideline to promote accurate engineering evaluations.For engineers inexperienced with NDT, these guidelines provide sufficient background information on NDT methods to help understand the limitations of the testing, assess the results presented to them, and formulate appropriate questions. This is particularly important for engineers charged with the responsibility to determine from those results what, if any, consequences there may be on the performance of the structure under construction."

Jan 1, 2016

By Mario Aiezza

This paper outlines the results of a relationship developed during the design and construction of the foundations for the Gallery Towers project in Melbourne. Both the builder and the piling contractor were determined to arrive at a satisfactory foundation solution to the problems encountered at the site. The scope of piling work was to provide load-bearing piles under the building columns, some of which were located within a retention system that also required a piling solution. Geological conditions were variable and challenging. The site area was small and located adjacent to the National Arts Centre in the developed Southbank area, a high density office area. This presented logistical problems in limiting construction traffic on site and also demanding minimal noise and vibration emanating from piling activities. The piling contractor, Vibro-Pile, and the builder, Walter Construction Group, faced the challenges presented with a refreshing cooperative attitude that was beneficial to both companies. Commercial issues rising from design and construction problems were first put apart in order to allow the respective technical department of each company to work with minimum constraints to achieve the most cost effective solution. In the process usual adversarial attitudes resulting in loss of time and money was avoided. A number of issues were addressed successfully at minimum cost and time during this contract. Despite the difficulties encountered, the job was completed on time and with negligible claims for extras, resulting in the development of a strong mutual respect between both companies.

Jan 1, 2002

By Paikowsky, Samuel G.

"Due to the way drilled deep foundations are being constructed, their structural integrity and geotechnical capacity are highly variable. Drop weight systems are increasingly being used to dynamically test the capacity and integrity of drilled deep foundations. Conventional pile driving hammers are often either inadequate or not economical to test these foundations and drop weight systems have therefore been developed to allow for dynamic testing.The advantages of the tests include high mobility, short testing time, low cost relative to static load tests (allowing multiple tests at a single site), and integrity/construction quality evaluation concurrent with capacity determination. The dynamic testing method for drilled deep foundations encounter several difficulties including: the need for a pre-testing analysis for matching pile, soil and testing system, adequate mass and drop height to reflect the mobilized capacity without structural damage, test interpretations for irregularly shaped and/or non-uniform piles, need for reliable dynamic measurements depending on the impact and the distance between the impact and the measuring point, and limited knowledge about the accuracy of the predictions.The principles of the tests are presented using simplified models and demonstrated via a case history. Drop weight systems are reviewed. Dynamic measurement principles are explained and the construction and testing quality effects are outlined and demonstrated via numerical modeling and case histories. A comparison of dynamic and static tests is presented via a database, case histories and finally a short review of relevant codes is provided.1 IntroductionTraditional static axial load test is performed by a slow application of a force produced against independent reaction, imitating structural loading. It is the most reliable method to determine the pile’s performance as commonly required under typical service conditions. The major limitations of this testing are: (i) high cost associated with set-up, test duration, interpretation and construction delays, and (ii) inability to obtain information about the pile-soil interaction along the pile without additional testing means (e.g. tell tales, strain gauges, etc.). These limitations are acute when high capacity foundations are involved."

Jan 1, 2015

"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 Ryan C. Linthicum

A system of steel sheeting and multiple levels of high capacity double corrosion protected soil anchors were used to restrain a major slope failure that occurred at the base of the Watchung Mountains mid-way through construction of a 650,000 SF retail center along Route 22 in Watchung, New Jersey. The implementation of a design-build earth retaining structure was necessary to stabilize and repair the disturbed mountainside in a timely fashion to permit completion of the retail center on a fast track schedule. The tied back steel sheetpile wall was approximately 2,000 feet long and varied in height from 12 to 25 feet. The hillside extended approximately 350 feet above and 600 feet beyond the wall with the main failure scarp extending 50 feet above and 90 feet beyond. The wall was constructed in a top-down manner and required the installation of 475 anchors to resist loads of up to 70 kips/ft produced by the creeping hillside and groundwater flows from both a series of springs and steady state seepage through an inclined zone of fine sand. Incorporation of a unique tie point connection eliminated the need for a waler, facilitating and simplifying modifications to anchor locations based on anchor load test results and conditions encountered during construction. Post grouting also proved to be an essential element in the successful construction. This paper presents the design and the construction methods used to restrain the significant earth lateral loads produced by a slope failure using steel sheeting tied back with high capacity soil anchors with anchor loads distributed to the sheeting through a unique tie point connection on a fast track schedule. Installation techniques, testing programs, and construction quality control are also discussed.

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1996

By Jim Glider, Noah Miner

The Gordie Howe International Bridge is a project to build a cable-stayed bridge and border crossing across the Detroit River. With a span length of 2,800-ft (853.4 meters), the Gordie Howe International Bridge will have the longest main span of any cable-stayed bridge in North America. Each tower has two legs that are supported by six drilled shafts each for a total of 12. The tower shafts are 9.84 feet in diameter (3-m) and extend well into bedrock. 17 each, 6.6 feet (2-m) drilled shafts were built to support the aging river bulkhead and replace shipping bollards. In addition to shallow groundwater fed by the Detroit River, artesian conditions at depth result in a water head that is approximately 17.2-ft (5.2-m) above surface. At 95-ft (29-m) below grade Dundee Limestone, of the Detroit River Group, is moderately weathered and fracture density decreases with depth. The Dundee Limestone strength ranges from 8-ksi (55.1-MPa) to 12-ksi (82-MPa) and may carry hydrogen sulfide in fractures. Working through casing that sticks three stories out of the ground is less than ideal, but was necessary to maintain a positive fluid head and prevent artesian-related quality issues. The sheer scale of the bridge forces required a load test configuration that could impart an equivalent static load of over 38,000,000 pounds (170-MN). A suite of QA/QC tests was developed to ensure the shafts would meet the project plans and specifications to include critical base cleanliness criteria. Interesting CSL and TIP results obtained highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each test method. Cleaning drilling fluids with a centrifuge allowed recycling of product and reduced exposure to environmental contaminate exposure. Having large construction equipment working next to the river presented challenges in working pad design. A driven pile system was developed to support high oscillator forces and protect the aging seawall.

Sep 8, 2021

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1994

By Walter E. Vanderpool

Three drilled foundations for an elevated water-tank were instrumented, tested and monitored during construction and the first two years in service. One shaft was load tested by the Osterberg method. A void was detected in one shaft by cross-hole sonic logging, pulse-echo logging and concrete coring. The void was instrumented, hydrostatically tested and pressure grouted. The shaft was ?abandoned? and replaced by two smaller shafts with a straddle beam cap. One of the replacement shafts and the cap were instrumented. The strain that appeared in the abandoned shaft, the replacement shaft and the cap were monitored during the remainder of the construction, through the commissioning test and the first two years of service. The results demonstrate the precision and sensitivity of the vibrating wire strain gage.

Jan 1, 2004

Jan 1, 1993

This Workshop was held at the Doubletree Inn, Seattle, Washington from September 26 to 28, 1997. Run under the auspices of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI), it was co-funded by the newly formed Japanese Association of Micropiles (JAMP), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Workshop was jointly organized and facilitated by Fujita Research Corporation and ECO Geosystems, Inc., with close support by Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc. DFI kindly consented to publish these Proceedings. As is clear from the list of attendees, 42 specially invited engineers from all aspects of micropile technology were present, representing Japanese, European and American practice. This proved to be a most friendly and interactive group of people, who freely exchanged ideas, views and close comradeship, not only during the technical sessions, but (and especially!) during the numerous social events. Perhaps the best illustration of this came in Day 2 when the attendees were divided into five competing teams, each comprising representatives from the different geographic groupings. These teams had to quickly devise solutions to two technical problems (using standard data previously provided. A team of "referees" (who also acted as "coaches") later determined the most apposite response, based on constructability design concept, cost, schedule and so on. Not only were the winning team very liberal in distributing the prize (vintage California champagne) among themselves, but the whole Workshop soon benefited from their generous division of the spoils of victory.

Jan 1, 1997

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 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

Jan 1, 1990