Search Documents

By Seth H. Hamblin, John E. Regan, Dimitrios Palantzas

"Through reliability-based calibration of larger pile load test databases, recent developments of the Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods, which include geotechnical load and resistance factors for deep foundations design, have advanced the state of practice for geotechnical engineering. These load test databases upon which the current geotechnical load and resistance factors have been developed are limited, however, and do not provide sufficient data to support the development of resistance factors for uplift (tension) pile capacity. As such, some recommended resistance factors for uplift capacity estimation methods are simply derived by reducing the recommended resistance factors for piles in compression by a factor of 0.10.The results of three (3) tension loading tests performed to failure on 508 mm (20- in) square precast, prestressed concrete piles, driven though granular soil in southeastern Massachusetts, are presented and compared to static pile capacity calculations and dynamic analyses performed using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) during installation. These results are presented along with current recommended LRFD resistance factors for driven piles under uplift (tension) loading conditions. These comparisons offer an assessment of the applicability and limitations of current resistance factors methods for piles under uplift loading and may be useful additions to the existing database for future calibrations of LRFD resistance factors for driven prestressed concrete piles in sand.IntroductionIn 2010, two (2) natural draft cooling towers were constructed by Kiewit (Kiewit) Construction Company of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey at the Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. These massive 500 foot tall, 400 foot diameter cooling towers were designed to convert the existing “open loop” system into a “closed loop system” thereby dramatically reducing the thermal impact to Mt. Hope Bay.Based on design guidance from the German VBG Design Code and the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC), tension (i.e. uplift) and lateral loads due to wind loads and design seismic events represented the critical loading conditions.Weighing approximately 190,000 kips upon completion, the cooling tower loads are transferred to 44 foundation nodes (i.e. pile caps) evenly spaced along ring beams which run the circular perimeter of each tower base. Each pile cap node was designed to resist a 2,000 ton compression load, 200 tons in tension (i.e. uplift), and 600 tons in the lateral direction."

Jan 1, 2015

By Chunli Wei, Mark Jen, Xiaojun Wang

"After more than 85 years of service, a critical link between New York and New Jersey, the Goethals Bridge over the Arthur Kill waterway, is being replaced with two new parallel bridges. Each bridge includes 1,650 feet long signature steel composite cable-stayed bridge, a 2,789 feet long New York approach and a 1,889 feet long New Jersey approach. The superstructure of each approach is supported on a series of two-column concrete piers and each column is supported on a single large diameter drilled shaft varying from 4.5 to 9 feet in diameter and anchored 45 feet below ground into the underlying rock.A performance-based methodology was followed for the strength and extreme event limit states design of the drilled shaft foundations. The design for seismic loads has been performed using the AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design. For all strength and service loads, the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications were used. Since the longitudinal and confinement requirements in the two specifications vary, the minimum longitudinal reinforcement was based on the more stringent requirements of the two codes. A design example is presented to illustrate the methodology in bridge deep foundation design using nonlinear time-history global analysis results with soil-pile interaction represented by sets of horizontal and vertical nonlinear soil springs along the drilled shaft, based on the soil and rock properties from the boreholes test results. In this paper the design methodology implements strain limits related to earthquake intensities and damage levels to calculate the capacity using XTRACT analysis, which aids designers to adopt applicable provisions that meet specific design requirements.INTRODUCTIONAfter more than 85 years of service, a critical link between New York and New Jersey, the Goethals Bridge over the Arthur Kill waterway, is being replaced with two new parallel bridges designed to carry vehicular traffic and a future mass transit corridor. They include two 1,650 feet long signature steel composite cablestayed bridges with 260 feet tall V-shaped concrete gateway towers (Figure 1). The approaches consist of continuous pre-stressed concrete girders. The New York approach is a single structure consisting of 18 continuous spans, sloping at 4% for a total length of 2,789 feet without expansion joints. Similarly, the longest continuous portion on the New Jersey approach, with a similar slope, consists of 11 spans for a total length of 1,889 feet without expansion joints. The superstructure of each approach is supported on a series of two-column concrete piers that vary in height from 121.3 feet near the cable-stayed bridges to 11.8 feet near the abutments. Each column is supported on a single large diameter drilled shaft varying from 4.5 to 9 feet in diameter and anchored 45 feet below ground into the underlying rock."

Jan 1, 2016

By Prasanta Paul, Aminul Islam

"Nhava Sheva (India) Gateway Terminal Private Limited proposed to construct a container terminal yard, comprising a back-up area at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Terminal (JNPT), Uran, Maharashtra. The proposed container terminal yard is located on a recent reclamation on the Thane Creek, which was developed by land-based reclamation method. The underneath soft marine clay was treated, using vertical band drains and placement of surcharge upon.Settlement of the reclamation during its construction was monitored using settlement plate installed at +4.8m CD elevation which was above the highest high water level.This paper examines the settlement behaviour of the reclamation during the ground improvement works. The geotechnical parameters are back-analyzed by the authors from the field settlement results and the concerned preloading details. The back analyzed coefficients of consolidation due to horizontal flow (Ch) are compared with laboratory determined parameters and the estimated value, using Asaoka Method (1978). The authors also studied field compression ratio [CR= Cc/(1+e0)] vs. the compression ratio determined by laboratory test using back-analysis method.1. INTRODUCTIONNhava Sheva (India) Gateway Terminal Private Limited proposed to construct a container terminal yard, comprising a back-up area of approximately 27 hectares, complete with associated buildings and services on a part brownfield/ greenfield site. The back-up area shall include a heavy duty block paved pavement with band beams for electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry Crane (eRTGC) alongwith surface water drainage system and other services including area lighting, provision of fire-fighting facilities , sources for potable water and power.Based on the Employer’s Requirement and the available geotechnical investigation report, ground improvement scheme is designed by the construction contractor. Ground improvement works included the installation of prefabricated vertical drains and subsequent placement of surcharge for accelerating the consolidation of the underlying soft marine clay."

Jan 1, 2015

By John C. Niedzielski

The existing US-70 Bridge over the Gila River at Bylas, Arizona is planned to be replaced due to its current poor condition. The replacement bridge is planned to be a 15-span, 1,904-foot (580 meter) long bridge, the third-longest bridge in the state highway system. Within the Gila River floodplain, granular alluvial soil is underlain by cohesive lacustrine soil; bedrock was expected due to nearby terrain but not encountered within the geotechnical exploration depth of 166.5 feet (51 meters) or less. Based on the anticipated loading conditions, design scour depths and the soil conditions, the full structural loads are carried by large diameter drilled shafts; therefore accurately determining the axial capacity of the proposed drilled shafts has important practical and safety implications. The conventional methods for axial capacity determination may be overly conservative to use for design in the site?s layered granular and hard clay soils. An Osterberg cell load test was performed to obtain detailed information on the load transfer from the drilled shaft in side friction and base resistance to allow optimization of the bridge foundation design. The full-scale field test played a significant role in the design of the project?s deep foundations, notably, by incorporating the specific subsoil properties and consequently, an exact prediction of the load-settlement behavior under loading. This paper provides the results of the geotechnical site investigations, drilled shaft load testing procedures, and shaft load distribution from the load test results. Comparisons were developed between predicted axial capacities of drilled shafts using several design methodologies and the axial capacity measured from static load testing. The load test results showed that underestimation of the axial capacity is evident using conventional methodologies. The exact prediction of the load-settlement behavior under loading combined with a site-specific design approach, resulted in a substantial reduction of foundation costs due to reduced drilled shaft dimensions.

By Arash Saeidi-Rashk-Olia, Dunja Peric

Energy piles are gaining increased popularity due to a growing demand for clean energy. To further advance the understanding of soil-structure interaction in energy piles, recently-derived analytical solutions have been implemented to investigate the impact of stratigraphy on the soil-structure interaction. This was accomplished by comparing the measured and predicted head displacements, axial strains and stresses in an energy pile embedded in the actual homogeneous and layered soil profiles, as well as into synthetic homogeneous soil profiles. The analytical solutions for homogeneous soil profile captured the smooth experimentally observed response versus depth very well. In the case of a layered soil profile, the corresponding analytical model was capable of capturing nuances in trends of axial stress and strain versus depth at the interface of different layers. The analytical predictions for the layered profile appear to be slightly less accurate than for the homogenous profile. The experimental data obtained from the layered profile appear to be a bit more scattered than those from the homogeneous profile. In the former case, the interplay of the individual soil layers with the pile occurs while maintaining the continuity of the pile stress and displacement at the interface of different layers. The response throughout each layer of the layered profile is quantitatively different than the corresponding homogeneous response. Nevertheless, qualitatively the response throughout each layer of the layered profile is similar to the response of the pile embedded in the corresponding homogeneous layer.

Sep 8, 2021

By Filippo Leoni, Wesley Schmutzler

"The LPV-111 East Back Levee Improvement Project lies along the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) in Orleans Parish of New Orleans, La., and is an essential component of the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System. The Hurricane Protection Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) attributed failure of the New Orleans East levees system to overtopping, erosion and subsequent breaching of LPV-111 along the GIWW, as well as other sections of flood protection during Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The existing levee suffered extensive damages from Hurricane Katrina, such that the USACE elected to provide earth stabilization and to rebuild the levee sections. Due to the adverse geotechnical properties of the foundation soils, the Corps deemed ground improvement necessary to stabilize the new levee and to limit its footprint. Wet Deep Mixing Method (DMM) was selected as the most suitable technology for this task.ChallengesDesign: This reach specifically protects East New Orleans and the Bayou Savage National Wildlife Refuge, the largest urban wildlife refuge in the U.S. and home to several threatened or endangered species of birds as well as many reptiles, amphibians and small mammals. The Corps chose DMM due to the sensitivity of the protected marshlands and because the method limits the footprint of the raised levees. The increase in the load bearing capacity of the treated soil significantly decreases the footprint necessary to attain the required height increase. This limitation required the new levee to have steep slopes, drastically increasing the surcharge on foundation soils characterized by overall poor geotechnical properties (soft clays and peats). The design also considered the increased horizontal stresses on the levees due to the extreme storm surges during a hurricane.The design of the 1.6 m diameter (5.25 ft) DMM elements called for overlapping them to form a double auger element that formed buttresses perpendicular to the levee alignment. The contractor installed the buttresses at a maximum on center spacing of 4.7 m (15.5 ft). One additional double auger DMM element was midway between consecutive buttresses at the centerline of the levee to further help prevent settlement (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2013

By Julie Clarke

In 1939 Dr. Ralph Peck criticized the Civil Engineering community for taking a bifurcated approach to the prediction of building damage due to subsurface geo-technical works. Specifically, he observed that Geotechnical Engineers concerned themselves only with subsurface issues implying that their results were largely independent of the presence and condition of the structures above. He continued that Structural Engineers charged with risk assessment of buildings approached their work nearly in isolation of below ground activities. Seventy years later, although the state-of-the-art has enabled a better understanding of soil-structure interaction, the reality remains that risk assessment from subsurface construction, is not yet an integrated activity when done on a large-scale basis. To help move beyond this, this paper proposes a new, integrated methodology for preliminary assessment that considers a three-stage process that involves the following: (1) traditional empirical relationships for predicting ground movement from tunneling, (2) recent advances in condition assessments, and (3) architectural designators related to usage and historic preservation listings. The methodology is applied to a study area of nearly 260 buildings in the city center of Dublin Ireland, in an area slated for an upcoming metro. The results are com-pared to the Environmental Impact Statement issued for the official project. Al-though the test case is for tunneling, the approach may be adapted to other subsurface construction activities including excavation and piling.

Jan 1, 2009

By Federico Pagliacci

"Many existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or pervious rocks or karst. Remedial works are necessary in order to install new cut-off walls to stop the water flow. In some cases the cut-off walls have to be executed at depths never reached so far, and difficult to reach with traditional foundation techniques. In many cases the Hydromill technology proved to be the best system to overpass rocky layers and ensure the required verticality. The maximum depth reached by the industry was in the range of 120-150 meters. This article describes the test performed to excavate and cast in place a 3.2x1.5 m panel to a depth of 250 m. The article will also describe the stratigraphy of the site down to 250 meters, as well as the technique adopted to achieve the said depth with deviations from verticality of 30 cm along the longitudinal axis (0.12%) and 20 cm along the transverse axis (0.10%), measured at the bottom of the excavation. The concreting of the panel, for about 1,100 m³, with plastic concrete in the lower portion and conventional concrete in the upper portion will be illustrated. Finally, the tests performed during the excavation and after concrete casting will be also described, with special attention to the continuous directional core drilling that was performed along the whole length of the panel to verify the results of the deviation from verticality, through the onboard instruments, and to control the quality of concrete at a depth never reached before. IntroductionMany existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or caves and cavities or acid solutions in the bedrock formations.Conventional remedial works generally consist in the construction of an additional cut-off wall throughout the dam body and the subsoil, in most cases being deeper than the original one. Today, many examples of successful remedial cut-off walls allow the engineers to design the most suitable solution according to the dam and subsoil characteristics and nature.The real difficulty stems from the depth at which the new cut-off wall has to be socketed in competent rock or soil, so as to eliminate underwater seepage. The maximum depth ever achieved with a cut-off wall is 122.5 m for the remedial work of Mud Mountain Dam, Washington, USA, in 1988-1990. This 0.85-1.0 m thick cut-off wall was realized by means of a Hydromill, by excavating single 2.8 m-wide secant panels."

Jan 1, 2017

By Paolo Cavalcoli, Federico Pagliacci

"As opposed to the static functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles). Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago. These are real challenges for those carrying out these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the rhetorical figure of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In reference to the case studies in this article: the permanent retaining walls for the Copenhagen Metro, and the structural repairs to the Arapuni Dam in New Zealand and the Wolf Creek Dam in the U.S., we will describe the foundations constructed in presence of rock using combined small-diameter direction drilling solutions, associated with their enlargement up to the project’s size, at depths exceeding 300 feet. Finally, a case study will be presented on the implementation of a large cross-section of an excavation in the rock, at depths greater than 800 feet.IntroductionAs opposed to the functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles).Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago.These are real challenges for those building these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the biblical figures of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In the engineering field, the force is summarized in the use of ever-larger drilling equipment in terms of installed power, weight in working conditions, winch and rotary capacity."

Jan 1, 2015

By James G. Ulinski, Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero, Vishal B. Patel

"Recently modified design equations used in the transportation industry to calculate side friction and end bearing capacity for drilled shafts are now providing more realistic estimations of capacities than did previous methods. Using multiple case studies and test results from various projects, a more realistic design approach was formulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which resulted in greater values of ultimate capacity for side friction and end bearing and in a more efficient design overall.In 2010, the FHWA published GEC-10 – Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, which illustrates a different method of calculating side friction and end bearing resistance and results in greater values for design. In 2014, the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) adopted the method put forth by FHWA, which was included in its LRFD Bridge Design th Specifications, 7 Edition. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) recently adopted and incorporated the similar methodology as AASHTO for calculating side friction and end bearing for drilled shafts in rock, and these changes are reflected in the 2015 edition of the PennDOT Design Manual, Part 4 (DM-4). This article discusses the past and current design methodology along with a project case study with results from Osterberg Cell (O-cell) load testing, which presents a comparison between the design resistances of ultimate side friction and end bearing and the measured capacities at failure.The Old and the NewEditions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual from 2012 and earlier estimated ultimate side resistance, qs, in rock using the following equation (modified from Horvath and Kenney, 1979):qs=0.65aEpa(qu/pa)0.5 < 7.8pa(f ’c/pa)0.5 where: qu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock in ksf; pa is the atmospheric pressure in ksf; aE is the reduction factor to account for jointing in rock; and f ’c is the compressive strength of the concrete in ksi. For intact rock, previous versions of the AASHTO manual required that the ultimate end bearing resistance, qp, was calculated using the following equation: qp=2.5qu."

Jan 1, 2017

By Adel Hanna

Earth pressure acting on piles driven in sand is playing a major role in estimating pile capacity. In literature, researchers entertained simplifying assumptions in estimating the earth pressure acting on the pile&apos;s shaft, ignoring the effects of pile installation and pile size. Empirical formulae were introduced based on laboratory or field test results, where major discrepancies can be found among these formulae. In this paper, the theory of cavity expansion and the finite element technique will be used to establish the effects of pile installation technique and pile&apos;s diameter on the earth pressure acting on the pile&apos;s shaft and accordingly on the values of the existing coefficient of passive earth pressure and overconsolidated ratio. It is of interest to note that pile driven technique and pile&apos;s diameter have significant increase on the earth pressure acting on the pile&apos;s shaft and accordingly on the overconsolidation ratio in case of loose or medium sands, while they may cause crushing and dilation in case of dense sand. Keywords: Single pile, Cavity expansion, Cohesionless soil, Driven piles, Numerical modelling, Finite element technique, Earth pressure.

Jan 1, 2003

By Cheng Lin, Guoming Lin

"This paper presents a case history for the design, construction and long-term performance monitoring of a driven prestressed concrete (PSC) piled foundation supporting a large liquefied natural gas (LNG) tank in Savannah, Georgia, USA. Following a geotechnical investigation, a design stage pile test program was performed with three objectives: to study the densification effect from pile driving on the liquefaction resistance, to test axial and lateral pile capacities, and pile behavior under lateral loads. The test program comprised five piles driven on a test pad constructed adjacent to the tank foundation. Cone penetration testing (CPT) was performed before and after pile installation to test soil densification effects from the pile driving and liquefaction potential was re-evaluated based on the soil densities after pile installation. The axial load tests involved static load testing, high strain dynamic testing, and Statnamic testing. This paper presents the findings of the densification effects, compares results from different axial testing methods and discusses the procedures to use the load test results in the pile design. The paper also comments on the construction issues and presents performance data with 10 years of monitoring.1. IntroductionThe project site is located at the Kinder Morgan’s Elba Island LNG Terminal on the Savannah River which is three miles downstream of the downtown Savannah, Georgia. This LNG terminal was initially developed in the 1970s as an LNG import terminal. The facility includes five LNG storage tanks with two larger tanks which were constructed in 2003 and 2006, respectively. The terminal is currently being converted into a liquefaction and export facility. This paper discusses pile foundations for Tank D4 which is a double walled insulated steel tank built to hold one million barrels of LNG in 2003. This tank has an outer tank diameter of 258 feet, an inner diameter of 252 feet, and liquid height of 113 feet. A number of geotechnical challenges were present in the foundation design and construction.??The site is a typical coastal deposit site featuring a thick layer of very soft under-consolidated clay (up to 40 feet in thickness);??The bedrock is a couple of thousand feet deep;??There is a sand layer that is liquefiable under a high seismic design category (0.5% possibility of exceedance in 50 years)."

Jan 1, 1900

By A. B. Cerato, M. K. ElSawy, A. Elgamal

"Helical piles are gaining popularity as foundations for new construction as well as retrofitting option for deficient foundations. More recently, large diameter helical piles are used to support structures in regions characterized with high seismic hazard. Even though they have proven to be viable in seismic areas such as New Zealand, where they experienced little damage during the Christchurch earthquake, the knowledge about their seismic analysis and performance is largely lacking. Therefore, there is a need for comprehensive study to evaluate their performance under seismic loading. The current objective of this study is to investigate the performance of helical piles through a full-scale testing program that was performed at the NEES/UCSD Large High Performance Outdoor Shake Table (LLHPOST). The experimental setup involved ten steel piles of different configurations installed in dry sand. The piles were loaded with different masses and were subjected to different earthquake signals to simulate different dynamic behavior. This paper compares the performance of different moment curve fitting methods used to interpret the test data. Furthermore, the effects of different frequency content of loading on the pile response is illustrated in terms of deflection along the shafts of tested piles with different configurations.INTRODUCTIONEarthquakes are a major hazard for structures situated in seismic regions, and dynamic loading must be a design consideration. Successful design of a foundation system entails providing a safe and economic foundation solution to resist earthquake loading. Different foundation options have been used to support buildings in high seismic regions. Helical piles represent a viable foundation option that offers several advantages in terms of ease of installation, lower cost and environmental impact, ability to approximate the axial capacity directly from torque readings and more (Perko 2009). However, they are not typically considered as an option in many seismic regions. Meanwhile, several buildings supported on helical piles in New Zealand have survived the Christchurch earthquake with negligible damage, which encourages performing further research to understand the behaviour of these piles under seismic loading.A helical pile consists of a steel shaft fitted with a steel helix/helices. The helical pile is installed by applying torque to its head via mechanical torque. Nowadays, helical piles are used in a wide range of applications such as foundations for light posts and residential houses. The static behaviour of helical piles has been studied extensively and is relatively well understood (Tsuha and Aoki 2010; Mittal et al. 2010; Sakr 2011; Elsherbiny and El Naggar 2013; El Sharnouby and El Naggar 2012; Elkasabgy and El Naggar 2015; Weidong et al. 2015 and Bagheri and Naggar 2015) However, the dynamic and seismic behaviours of helical piles is seldom investigated (Elkasabgy and El Naggar 2013). This underscores the knowledge gap currently present regarding the seismic behaviour of helical piles."

Jan 1, 2017

By Rick Deschamps

A reoccurring problem with support of excavations in urban areas involves the placement of external support components like anchors or nails in right-a-ways, subway and utility setbacks, in areas occupied by adjacent structures, and within the property of non cooperative neighbors. Such a situation occurred for a project in Arlington, Virginia, which ultimately resulted in the preliminary design of a large footing supported cantilever retaining wall that was extremely costly and impractical to build. An innovative design alternate consisting of a series of vertical concrete elements (VCEs) supported by post tensioned tiedowns was proposed to the General Contractor and accepted by the owner. The VCEs were designed to serve as the main structural elements for both the temporary support of excavation system and the permanent wall. The VCE?s were constructed using single bite diaphragm wall panels oriented perpendicular to the excavation face including a rebar cage and tremie concrete. Threaded inserts were placed within the rebar cage to attach the cast in place exterior wall. Overall stability and lateral movement of the VCEs were controlled by high capacity vertical anchors embedded within the VCE. A detailed instrumentation program was installed to monitor the movements of the VCEs with relation to the excavation depth. The paper present the project case history by discussing the design concepts of the VCE, the construction approaches used to install them, the construction challenges encountered, and the performance of the unique system.

Jan 1, 2008

By Mark R. Svinkin

"Construction equipment and operations usually produce soil and structural vibrations which may harmfully affect various structures and also the content of buildings and houses. The level of structural vibrations depends on a number of factors such as characterized sources of vibrations, soil conditions, and susceptibility of structures. There are certain knowledge and experience for managing the effects of construction vibrations which require implementation of condition survey of structures, information on construction dynamic sources and soil conditions at a site, evaluation of possible vibration effects on structure, calculation of ground vibrations before construction, use mitigation measures to decrease vibrations, and a choice of appropriate vibration limits. The paper presents the application of known concepts for assessment of vibration effects on structures from bridge constructions.INTRODUCTIONVibrations producing by construction activities such as pile driving, dynamic compaction of loose soils, demolition work, heavy construction equipment and trucks can affect adjacent and remote structures. Vibration effects on structures, sensitive devices and processes may create significant practical problems. Legal actions are often required for solutions of vibration consequences. The level of construction vibrations depends on dynamic sources, soil conditions at a site in particularly availability of soils with settlement potential, distances from the sources, parameters of waves propagating at a site and susceptibility rating of adjacent and remote structures. It is likely that intolerable structural vibrations from direct vibration effects of impact pile driving and resonant floor vibrations from vibratory pile driving may be induced in adjacent structures to construction sites.Foundation settlements resulting from soil vibrations in loose soils usually occur in the proximity of dynamic sources, but it is important that dynamic settlement may happen at various distances from the source. There are such examples. First, Kaminetzky (1991) mentioned a case history of building settlements developed at a distance of about 305 m (1000 ft) away from a pile driving site. Foundations of the buildings were underpinned on piles down to the tip elevation of the new driven piles to prevent building settlements. Second, Lacy and Gould (1985) shows that the peak particle velocity (PPV) of 2.5 mm/s (0.1 in/s) of ground vibrations could trigger dynamic settlements at distances up to 30.5 m (100 ft) from driven piles."

Jan 1, 2016

By Joel Moskowitz, Jan Cermak

"New York City has unique geologic conditions which must be considered when designing pile foundations. Where shallow foundations are not feasible, the City's subsurface conditions require a variety of deep foundation systems, ranging from high capacity rock socketed piles, to piles end-bearing on bedrock, to friction piles bearing in alluvial or glacial deposits. Pile load testing is essential in confirming pile capacities as pile analyses include assumptions on soil and soil-pile response, and pile driving equipment. Load test results must be interpreted to estimate the long-term pile behavior. Except for lightly loaded driven piles, the New York City Building Code (the Code) requires that pile capacities be confirmed by static load testing. The Code provides the number of static load tests required, test procedures, and acceptance criteria. In the last few decades, methods other than static load testing have been developed including dynamic and rapid (pseudo-static) load tests. Recently, those methods have also been employed on several projects in New York City. The traditional approach to pile load testing in New York City is discussed herein including engineering involved in the analyses of test data with examples. In addition, several projects which included non-static load testing are discussed INTRODUCTIONPile load testing complements the subsurface information and pile design by providing further data on pile-soil interaction for the selected pile type and installation method. Traditional approaches to pile load testing in New York City involve static load tests to verify the design capacity of the piles for a given minimum factor of safety.In the late 1950's, Dr. Phillip C. Rutledge summarized his views on the philosophy of pile foundations in an unpublished, in-house document. He viewed pile foundations as good illustrations of pertinent and impertinent aspects of geotechnical engineering. In the analyses of piles he divided engineering into four general types:(a) Theoretical engineering in which decisions are made based on theoretical analyses. This represents ideal engineering, in which all factors affecting the pile design are well established or, at least, few simplifying assumptions with known effects on the analyses are made."

Jan 1, 2005

By Satyajit A. Vaidya

This paper presents a case-study in the design and construction of deep foundation element supported mats for two residential towers on an18,000-square-foot site in Brooklyn, New York. Based on site sub-surface conditions, conventional mat foundations bearing on medium dense sand, having an allowable bearing capacity of 3 tsf, were originally anticipated for the 16 and 25-story towers. However, when the tower shear walls were relocated to the edges of the mat foundations due to architectural revisions, the significantly increased mat edge contact stresses applied to the soil subgrade resulted in calculated settlements of a magnitude that would adversely impact the proposed structures and the neighboring/bordering lot-line building and rail transit subway structures. To address this issue, deep foundation element supported mats were designed for the towers. The design was performed as an iterative process involving structural SAFE and geotechnical Plaxis finite element computer analysis to develop a coordinated geo-structural model of the foundation system. Initial presumptive design values of 45 pci and 445 kips/inch were used for the modulus of subgrade reaction and minimum deep foundation element stiffness, respectively. The designed foundation system consisted of 40 and 60-inch-thick mat foundations for the 16 and 25 story towers, respectively. Initially, the deep foundation elements were designed as 50-foot-long, 14-inch-diameter elements installed to sustain a maximum individual compressive load of 250 tons. The final deep foundation element design was subsequently refined to consist of a 48-foot-long, drilled and grouted IBO Titan 103/51 element designed to sustain a maximum load of 167 tons. Subsequent field load tests on the deep foundation elements confirmed element stiffness ranging from 1,040 to 1,530 kips/inch, with measured mobilized side shear of about 29 psi. The mat foundation reinforcement was adjusted for the pile stiffness values determined in the field load tests, and the deep foundation supported mats were constructed. The two towers were subsequently constructed, and have performed successfully.

Jan 1, 2010

By Mikael Calando, Thomas Joussellin

"San Francisco's rapid growth has caused the city to plan for the Transbay Transit Center Project, a visionary transportation and housing project, that will transform downtown San Francisco and the San Francisco Bay Area’s regional transportation system by creating a “Grand Central Station of the West” in the heart of a new transit-friendly neighborhood that will be home to more than 20 new towers rising a high a 1,070 ft. This paper describes the specificities of using advanced diaphragm wall technology, tooling, equipment and installation practices for deep foundation and permanent underground structures. In particular, this paper will emphasize on the urban constraints, geotechnical conditions, and the novel approaches adopted for the construction challenges of the Transbay Transit Center’s Load Bearing Elements, or Barrette PilesPaperThe Transbay Transit Center Project consists of the construction of a new multimodal, five-story Transit Center located in the South of Market neighborhood near the Financial District in San Francisco. The future Transit Center will incorporate nearly 83,000 square feet of retail, a 5.4-acre rooftop park, an extensive public arts program and bus ramps that will connect the Transit Center to a new off-site bus storage facility and the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. The new facility will accommodate more than 100,000 passengers each weekday and up to 45 million per year. Additionally, the new Transbay Transit Center will replace the since-demolished San Francisco Transbay Terminal, and nearly 20 towers, such as Salesforce Tower, will take advantage of the height increases allowed through the Transit Center District Plan.The approximately $4.5 billion project features a new five-story structure (including two underground stories) and new bus ramps which include a cable-stay bridge. The deep foundations for the pylon of the bridge (Pylon 9) consist of two each 21 ft x 5 ft barrettes (also called Load Bearing Elements in the US) extending more than 180 feet below grade and 10 feet into the bedrock. The barrettes were chosen because of the combination of high loads, significant depth and small footprint. The barrettes are installed using the Diaphragm Wall technology. Nicholson Construction was contracted by Shimmick Construction to install the cable-stay bridge’s foundation elements."

Jan 1, 2016

By Bo Westerberg, Mattias Andersson, Yvonne Rogbeck

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

Jan 1, 2015

By Kenneth E. Henn, David B. Paul, John D. Rice, Brian H. Greene

"Several laboratory modeling programs have been conducted to investigate the mechanisms associated with internal erosion of dam embankments and foundations. The investigation consists of developing laboratory devices to model three separate mechanisms associated with process: 1) contact erosion along bedrock joints, and 2) piping into an open bedrock defect. The contact erosion device subjects the soil above a bedrock joint to high velocity flows in the joint. The erosion into a bedrock defect device examines a number of static and transient hydraulic conditions to study the mechanisms associated with this type of erosion. Numerous tests have been conducted using both devices. The results of the modeling will be discussed along with a discussion of how this information could be used in future dam design and risk assessment studies.IntroductionA series of laboratory modeling programs were performed to assess the seepage and internal erosion behavior of several man-made and natural structures within dams and their foundations. Each model was performed on a “bench scale” and depicted an isolated location where internal erosion was likely to occur. The models were subjected to hydraulic boundary conditions to simulate the in-situ conditions so that the processes of internal erosion could be observed. Two laboratory devices were developed to model conditions depicting 1) contact erosion along a bedrock joint in contact with a dam embankment, and 2) backward erosion (piping) into an open bedrock defect (joint, solution void, etc.).Embankment dams often have rock foundations containing defects which may detrimentally impact future performance. Further, there are existing foundations which contain rock defects that may already be detrimentally impacting the dams; however, due to the inherent aspects of the mechanism, the signs of distress may not have propagated to the surface and thus not observed during inspections. A better understanding of the mechanisms which are influenced by, and impose their influence upon, rock defects will enhance the ability of dam safety professionals to analyze the risks associated with internal erosion due to rock defects, increase our ability to monitor and successfully initiate earlier detection, and also increase our ability to design remediation methods to contend with rock defect failure modes."

Jan 1, 2016