Search Documents

By Jogeshwar P. Singh, Aser I. Abbas, Mohamed Ashour

The presented methodology predicts the pile head response (i.e. pile head load - displacement curve) and develops the load transfer (t-z) curve of piles in sandy soils under tension forces based on soil/pile properties and soil-pile interaction. The proposed approach improves the prediction of the t-z curve in sandy soils compared to current practice. The method employs a nonlinear soil constitutive model to calculate the mobilized shear stress/strain in soil at the soil-pile interface induced by pile upward displacement. The approach accounts for the influence of the pile slenderness ratio on the predicted t-z curve and is validated through comparisons with measured pile head response and t-z curves from full-scale pile load tests. INTRODUCTION Piles may be subjected to axial uplift forces due to either static loading or cyclic loading. The majority of methods are only concerned with the pile ultimate tensile capacity. However, the mobilized pile stiffness (i.e., pile-head load-displacement relationship) is essential to determine the interaction between the foundation and the superstructure and consequently the performance of the whole structure. Methods that assess the pile ultimate tensile capacity usually assume the failure surface at the soil-pile interface and estimate the local side shear resistance using a lateral earth pressure approach. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC 1986) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1991) employed Eq. 1 to assess the ultimate shear stress (τ) developed at the soil-pile interface.

Jan 1, 2018

By Adriaan van Seters

"Abstract The content of Eurocode 7 – Part 1 and Part 2 – with respect to piled foundations is outlined. The important role of pile testing is presented and the derivation of the characteristic value of pile bearing resistance is explained. Recommendations for the use of correlation factors are given. The ongoing work of the Evolution Groups on piling is to prepare a revision of Eurocode 7 after 2019. Future topics and changes are highlighted.General outline of pile design by Eurocode 7In his paper for this conference Frank (2014) outlined the various aspects of standardisation for pile foundations, which involves Eurocode 7 as leading for pile construction in Europe. Standards for pile testing and execution of piling works were established in the last 15 years.This paper focuses on the design of piled foundations according to the design code Eurocode 7, which consists of 2 parts:EN 1997-1 Geotechnical design - Part 1: General Rules (CEN, 2004);EN 1997-2 Geotechnical design – Part 2: Ground investigation and testing (CEN, 2007) In Eurocode 7-1, Section 7 – Pile Foundations - deals with the design of piles. The safety concept for pile design is given in Section 2 – Basis of Geotechnical Design - for the three Design Approaches.In Section 7 presents the design of piles according to four methods:1. Results of static load tests2. Empirical or analytical calculation methods3. Results of dynamic load tests4. Observed performance of a comparable pile foundation.Guidelines for the ground investigation for piles is provided in Eurocode 7-2, Annex B.3. In the Annexes of Eurocode 7-2 examples of analytical methods to determine the bearing resistance of a single pile based on the results of various ground investigation techniques are given. Thus calculation models are presented based on design using the results of Cone Penetration Tests (D.6 and D.7) and Pressuremeter Tests (E.3). The Annexes of Eurocode 7-2 are informative.For the interpretation of Eurocode 7, reference is made to Frank et al (2004) and Bond and Harris(2008)."

Jan 1, 2014

By Yazn Khasawneh Ph. D. P. E., Will Tjaden, Spencer E. Ness P. E., Mohammed Nasim Ph. D. P. E.

Wind turbine components undergo many loading cycles during their operational life. Additionally, wind turbines may undergo extreme loading conditions from natural hazards, mechanical failures, or emergency stops. Current design practice for the foundations of wind turbines accounts for these complex loading conditions through a simplified pseudo-static approach based structural loading combinations. A rotational stiffness for the foundation is estimated from the pseudo-static analysis and then compared to an acceptable minimum rotational stiffness provided by the turbine manufacturer. These minimum rotational stiffnesses are based on dynamic analysis of the tower and nacelle system with the foundation represented as linear springs. This approach provides a reasonable approach to the foundation design but does not accurately capture the true dynamic performance of the entire soil-foundation-tower-nacelle system. This becomes especially important for pier-type foundations, which are being more commonly used to support modern and future generations of larger turbines. Additionally, the dynamic performance of the foundation will vary as the adjacent soil undergoes a large number of loading cycles of varying strain magnitudes. In this study, the full turbine-tower-foundation-soil system was modeled using finite element methods. An advanced non-linear soil constitutive model and dynamic loading time histories were used to investigate changes in stiffness of the soil, and the possible impact on the dynamic response of the system. Results were compared to conventional design methodologies with the goal of reducing foundation capital costs while avoiding increases in O&M costs and which can lower the LCOE of wind energy.

Oct 1, 2022

By K. Rainer Massarsch, Bengt H. Fellenius

"Abstract Vibrations generated during the driving of piles or sheet piles can affect buildings or installations in the ground. However, observed building damage is not always caused directly by dynamic effects, but can also be related to foundation conditions. The importance of geotechnical conditions is usually not taken into consideration in most vibration standards. This paper describes how building foundations, and in particular mixed foundation types, are especially sensitive to ground vibrations. A method is presented for assessing the risk of settlement due to vibrations in granular soils. Also, a simple concept is proposed for estimating settlements in the vicinity of driven piles.1. INTRODUCTIONUnder unfavorable conditions, the installation of piles or sheet piles can cause damage to buildings or other structures on the ground. Frequently, such damage is attributed to vibrations of the building itself. In many countries, national or international standards are used to assess the risk of vibration damage to buildings. As such standards are often prepared by engineers with little or no geotechnical knowledge, the effects of ground conditions on vibration propagation and damage to building foundations are generally not recognized, and damage criteria based solely on the dynamic response of buildings neglect the importance of damage mechanisms governed by geotechnical conditions. One potentially important damage mechanism is differential settlement below buildings, especially when these are founded on loose granular soils. When seeking guidance in the literature, little or no information can be found regarding methods to assess permissible levels of ground vibrations with respect to risk for settlement.This paper focuses on building damage that can be attributed to foundation conditions. In the case of ground vibrations due to pile and sheet pile driving, differential settlements are of particular importance as the ground vibrations attenuate relatively rapidly from the source. Consequently, settlement below part of the building, which is located close to the vibration source, can be significantly larger than at a distance further away.Piles are often a cost-effective foundation solution for buildings on loose and compressible soil, frequently located in urbanized areas. Sheet piles are commonly used as support for deep excavations. While impact driving is most commonly used to install piles, vibrators are frequently used for driving (and extraction) of sheet piles. It is important to recognize the fundamental differences between impact and vibratory driving. During impact driving, the pile is subjected to stress waves of short duration. The driving process creates vibrations, which radiate from the shaft and/or the toe of the pile into the soil. The larger the intensity of the stress wave, the larger the dynamic force and the intensity of ground vibrations. In addition to the vibration intensity, which often is expressed in terms of particle velocity, also the vibration frequency is important. When the dominant frequencies of the generated vibrations harmonize with the resonance frequency of buildings or building elements, the risk of building damage increases."

Jan 1, 2014

This manual provides basic practical instruction on the inspection of driven piles. It covers the essential components of pile driving, such as the pile driving hammer, hammer accessories, the pile and soil, and frequently encountered test methods in an uncomplicated, yet knowledgeable, and practical manner. Insight is given into the methods of installing the foundation, dealing with the cranes which do the lifting, the hammers which do the driving, the leads that guide the hammer and pile, the compressors which provide the external power when required, and finally prevalent analysis tools and testing instrumentation and procedures which enable you, the Inspector, to do your job. This DFI Inspector's Manual for Pile Foundations will help the Pile Inspector who has limited knowledge of pile foundations. Perhaps this Inspector has been pressed into service at a moments notice; a few helpful hints and suggestions to him are desperately needed and he can look here for the basics. It is also useful for the experienced Pile Inspector as a reference guide. However, this manual is not a detailed check list of every possible scenario and detail which could ever be encountered. There are other sources available which give more detailed descriptions (and should be consulted by the Inspector when appropriate; a list of this additional reference material is provided and suggestions made in appropriate chapters of this text). The current manual is more a brief "textbook overview" with some of the more important aspects given at least some emphasis so that the Inspector has some direction and hopefully helps to produce a safe, yet economical, foundation.

Jan 1, 1997

By Leonardo Massone

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

Jan 1, 2012

By Rudolph P. Frizzi

"Abstract Pile design for building structures in the United States is typically performed by: 1) investigating and assigning engineering parameters to the respective ground bearing materials, 2) calculating ultimate pile to ground (geotechnical) capacity which is then reduced by a Safety Factor deemed appropriate by a registered Design Professional thereby arriving at an allowable pile geotechnical pile capacity, and 3) determining the required pile structural section using allowable pile section material properties. It is advantageous to use a Working Stress Design Method (WSDM) approach as one system of loads (service loads) are used in both the geotechnical and structural evaluation. There are a variety of methods used to determine the ultimate and allowable geotechnical capacity, and Building Codes often require a registered Design Professional to determine the appropriate method(s) and capacities. The International Building Code is the Code typically referenced in building design and construction in the United States. Structural design usually follows Building Code requirements and Allowable Stress Design (ASD) procedures. As design of the overlying structure typically follows a Strength Design Method (SDM) approach using factored loads, in some cases piling is first designed for pile-to-soil interaction using service loads, followed by evaluating the pile geometry for factored loads. Construction is the finalization and implementation of the designed piling. As such, project-specific technical specifications are typically developed by a registered Design Professional such that a project Owner can bid, buy, and instruct a Contractor as to the desired piling work and acceptance criteria. There are several Industry groups, including DFI, PDCA, ADSC, and ACI that provide guidance documents which the registered Design Professional can refer to in developing the piling technical specifications. It is the author’s opinion that the registered Design Professional is best suited to observe and verify the piling installation; many Building Departments require verification and documentation by a registered Professional as a condition of final acceptance.INTRODUCTIONPile design for building structures consists of: investigation, design, specification, and verification. In major metropolitan areas within the United States, Building Codes typically identify minimum requirements for each of the above steps. The International Building Code (ICC, 2012) is the Code typically referenced in building design and construction in the United States. Recognizing the ground conditions as well as piling construction means and methods can vary on a site-by-site basis, latitude is given to the registered Design Professional and Contractor to optimize the piling system for the respective project conditions. Field testing and quality control / assurance measures are typically implemented to verify the design intent is attained for the production pile elements."

Jan 1, 2014

By Sastry Putcha, Santosh Mummaneni, Swamy Avasarala, Vamshi Vemula

"This paper presents the results from a case study on the comparison of two strain acquisition instrumentation technologies, Geokon rebar strainmeters and Embedded Data Collectors (EDC) for the DC Water Main Pump Station project, in Washington D.C. These two instrumentation systems were installed by AVER in a single 18-inch (0.45 m) diameter augercast pile (with one-1.25 inch (3.175 cm) dywidag bar) at critical locations to determine the load transfer mechanism and establish a comparison between strain/load measured with these two systems along the pile. A quick static load test was performed on the test pile as per ASTM D1143 standard.Prior to the installation of the pile, a 24-inch (0.6 m) diameter outer casing was installed to the proposed cutoff elevation of -22.5 feet (-6.85 m) to discount the frictional resitance within the upper overburden zone. The pile was then drilled through the outer casing to the tip elevation of -65.02 feet (-19.8 m) with inner casing within the overburden zone. Strainmeters along with EDC were installed on dywidag bar at various locations and then wet set into the concrete following auger retrieval. The loads measured with EDC and Geokon sensors were within 15% percent of each other.PROJECT BACKGROUNDProject Background & Requirements:Like any other foundation piles, augercast piles are extensively used in the public and private sector structures in the United States for many years. It is a common practice to perform static compression (ASTM D1143), tension (ASTM D3689), and lateral load tests (ASTM D3966) depending on the project requirements. In recent years, embedded strain sensors, manufactured by Smart Structures, USA has gained prominence for its use to collect both static and dynamic measurements for driven piles. In addition, AVER has successfully used EDC for collecting long term static measurements for an abutment drilled shafts for I-95 Hotlanes project in Virginia, USA.Geokon sisterbar strain gages are widely used in the foundation industry to monitor the load transfer mechanism within pile foundations throughout the world. As the Geokon strainmeters are vibrating wire and are welded to a sister bar, there is often a debate within the engineering community with regards to what modulus to use when converting measured strains to loads. EDC sensors, unlike Geokon strain gages are embedded directly into the concrete and therefore do not have the same concern."

Jan 1, 1900

The development of Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) piles started in the late 1940's when several projects were performed by Intrusion-Prepakt, Inc. utilizing various techniques to place the piling. On some projects, a grout pipe was placed down the augered hole after the auger was withdrawn, and structural grout was pumped into the hole until grout appeared at the surface, after which the grout pipe was withdrawn. In some instances coarse aggregate was placed after a grout pipe was in place, and then the grout was intruded into the coarse aggregate, making a pile using the preplaced concrete method. Another method of forming augered piles used a system of driving or drilling a grout pipe through soils adjacent to the auger once the auger was drilled to the bottom elevation. The tip of the grout pipe was placed in close proximity to the tip of the auger. As the auger was withdrawn, grout was pumped through the grout pipe filling the augered hole from the bottom. After grout was observed at the surface, the grout pipe was withdrawn. In 1951, a patent was applied for by Raymond Patterson describing the above techniques along with a technique for placement of grout using a hollow stem auger and a removable plug or lead bit at the tip of the auger. The expendable plug or lead bit was removed by using grout pressure. The patent was granted in 1956. Around this same time other augered piling con-tractors began operations under licensed arrangements.

Jan 1, 2003

By Ingemar Hermansson, Thomas Bjerendal, Mattias Grävare, Carl-John Grävare

"AbstractHigh strain dynamic pile tests (HSDPT) on driven piles have been carried out on a routine basis in Sweden for more than 30 years. The Swedish Commission on Pile research established, in the early 1980s, safety factors based on the percentage of piles tested. The safety factors could then be reduced, creating economic incentives for the contractor to carry out testing.Energy formulas adopted by our neighbour countries, Norway and Denmark, were not accepted in Sweden as a reliable method since the dynamic testing method was considered to be a more scientific and reliable method. It has become almost the only in-situ method used to verify geotechnical bearing capacity on driven piles.The typical Swedish geology of soft soils overlaying very hard strata makes it possible to verify high design loads, typically 20 kN per cm2 of pile cross sectional area for steel piles and 1,5 kN per cm2 for concrete piles.Conventionally a certain percentage of the piles have been tested in Sweden. The EC7, on the other hand states a number of piles to be tested, regardless of the total number of piles. The Swedish NA (National Annex) states a maximum distance between tested piles, which results in better distribution of the test piles over the foundation.For shaft-bearing piles in soft clays, dynamic pile tests have to be correlated by static load tests.Historical backgroundOn a research basis stress-wave measurements have been carried out for a long time in Sweden. One example is a project in the city of Gothenburg, conducted by Fellenius and Pejrud (1964). Strain gauges were glued on the reinforcement bars in 60 m long, precast concrete piles at 3 m and 25 m above the pile tip respectively. Evaluation was done with different methods such as dynamic formulas,stress-wave measurements and in addition compared with static load tests.In the 1975 Building Code in Sweden, driving criteria for concrete piles based on stress-wave theory were introduced, as summarized in Table 1. The driving criteria are intended for 3 and 4 tonne gravity hammers. For hydraulic rigs, which have free-falling hammers, the drop height indicated should be reduced to 80 % of the values in the table. The criteria were considered to include a safety factor of 3,0. For 330 - 450 kN pile load, pile with a standard a cross sectional area of 235 mm x 235 mm was used. For 600 kN load, the standard cross sectional area was 275 mm x 275 mm."

Jan 1, 2014

By John S. Pack

The last 25 years have seen rapid expansion in the use of helical screw pile foundations and tiebacks for new and retrofit construction of buildings and earth retention structures. An estimated $100 million was spent in 2002 on helical foundations and tiebacks in the United States alone. While design information is available in the literature, information regarding quality control, inspection and performance monitoring is lacking. Recognition of at least one manufacturer's helical foundation material by the Uniform Building Code, Standard Building Code, and BOCA (all three codes now combined into the ICC International Building Code) has given added urgency to the dissemination of reliable and practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures. This paper describes a set of such procedures that have been followed for 17 years by engineers experienced in the industry who have directly installed or been involved in the installation of over 140,000 helical foundations and tiebacks in divers soil conditions for various types of structures, including earth retention structures. Topics covered include design responsibility, building code listings and requirements, manufacturer ISO certification, manufacturing process, material and installation specifications, installation contractor certification, field placement, installation procedures, field inspection, building code inspection and performance monitoring. The paper concludes with a step by step example of practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures on a typical helical foundation project.

Jan 1, 2003

By Terrence M. Carroll, Chu E. Ho, Dimitrios Niarchos

"Construction of the new extension to Terminal 4 at John F Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York involved the application of tapered piles for foundation support. Initial design based on past load testing experience had indicated that a pile depth of 65 feet was necessary to achieve a capacity of 394 tons. However, piles with a single length of 62 feet were ordered and installed, which led to marginal performance of the piles. This paper presents the technical considerations for mitigating the situation based on a systematic review of three preliminary pile load tests and dynamic capacity measurements on the shorter piles. Consideration was given to the long term gain in capacity of tapered piles due to set up in the Glacial Sand. The observational approach to the evaluation of piling performance adopted on this project resulted in salvaging many piles which failed to comply with the specified driving criteria. It was acknowledged that a more prudent course of action was for the Contractor to have ordered more appropriate pile lengths that allowed for potential variation in soil conditions across the site. The 4.6% saving in pile material did not warrant the effort that was required to mitigate the 39% of installed piles that did not meet the specified driving criterion.INTRODUCTIONAn expansion project at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York involved the Phase 2 extension of Concourse B at Terminal 4. The site consists of 4 to 5 feet of pavement over about 10 feet of hydraulically placed sandy fill. Below this is a layer of marsh deposit, comprising of soft organic clay and peat, up to about 11 feet thick. Beneath the marsh deposits is a deep layer of glacial sand which extends to well over 100 feet below ground. Figure 1 shows the typical subsurface profile at the site. The new structures were supported on 223 steel tapered piles. The piles consisted of a straight steel pipe 18 inches in diameter and 0.375 inches thick, with a 25 feet long tapered bottom section (diameter varying from 18 inches down to 8 inches at the pile toe). The piles were first driven to the founding depth and subsequently in-filled with concrete. The concrete strength (fc) specified was 4,500 psi and the yield strength of the steel piles (fy) was 50 ksi. Initial pile design, based on earlier experience with static pile load testing for Phase 1 development at the same terminal, indicated that a pile length of 65 feet was necessary. However, piles with a single length of 62 feet were ordered and installed by the Contractor, leading to marginal performance of the piles. This paper presents the technical considerations for the adoption of alternative pile driving criteria, based on a systematic review of the preliminary static load test results for the present site and PDA measurements obtained during pile installation, in order to accommodate the capacity of the shorter piles."

Jan 1, 2017

By Richard J. Finno

This paper presents an overview of methods that can be used to predict damage to buildings as a result of excavation-induced ground movements and describes an adaptive management approach for predicting, monitoring, and controlling excavation-induced ground movements. Successful updating of performance predictions depends equally on reasonable numerical simulations of performance, the type of monitoring data used as observations, and the optimization techniques used to minimize the difference between predictions and observed performance. This paper summarizes each of these factors and emphasizes their inter-dependence. Case studies are presented to illustrate the capabilities of this approach. Examples are given to show how optimized parameters based upon data obtained at early stages of excavation can be used to predict performance at latter stages, and how they can be applied to other excavations in similar geologic conditions.

Jan 1, 2010

By Donald A. Bruce

"Abstract The Deep Mixing Methods (DMM), in their current forms, have been employed in the United States since 1986, although an earlier version had seen service from 1954. The earlier developments were strongly influenced by practices in the Nordic countries and Japan, while by the late 1980’s several DMM systems had been developed in the U.S. itself. Since then, DMM has continued its evolution, principally via the challenges of a series of large, landmark projects, but also via distinct, significant technological advances. This paper highlights the key points in the history of DMM in the U.S., and provides an overview of the different methods currently in use.In the BeginningIt is a common misconception that the history of applications of the Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) in the United States dates from 1986 when SMW Seiko Inc. — a subsidiary of Japan’s Seiko Kogyo Company — was established in the Bay Area. However, the author believes that Intrusion Prepakt Co.’s patented MIP (Mixed in Place) system had been used, albeit sporadically (about 30 projects are recorded), since 1954 (FHWA 2000, 2001). Ironically, by 1961 this single auger method had been extensively used under license in Japan for excavation support and groundwater control — by the Seiko Kogyo Company. By 1972, the original MIP technique had been succeeded by more advanced Japanese methods, involving multiple augers. Intrusion Prepakt have long since become defunct.The first systematic studies of contemporary Deep Mixing Methods in Japan began in 1967 when the Port and Harbor Research Institute of the Ministry of Transportation began laboratory testing using granular and powdered lime for treating soft marine soils. Fundamental studies continued through the early 1970’s, by which time the development of industrial scale equipment was well advanced, having its first application on a marine trial near Haneda Airport. Coincidentally, laboratory and field research also began in 1967 in Sweden (“Swedish Lime Column Method”) for treating soft clays using unslaked lime. Reportedly the progenitor was a Norwegian, Kjeld Paus, who had made observations on fluid lime columns in the U.S. It would seem that developments in Japan and the Nordic countries proceeded independently until 1975 when the technology leaders from each group (Broms and Boman; and Okumura and Terashi, respectively) presented their — very similar — findings at a conference in Bangalore, India. Limited technical exchanges ensued thereafter.Whereas the Nordic developments continued to focus on the use of dry reagents (cement and lime) and relatively light equipment compatible with operating on and in very soft clays and organics, the Japanese progressed into the use of fluid reagents (cement-based grouts) and heavier equipment for both marine and land-based projects. Thus, by 1986, there were a large number of proprietary (wet and dry) DMM systems in Japan, and a rapidly growing market already by then accounting for over 12,000,000 m3 of ground treatment."

Jan 1, 2014

By Sanket Rawat, Ravi Kant Mittal, Vikash Prasad

"The understanding of the response of pile foundations under various types of loads is a necessary prerequisite to analyze and design them properly. Therefore, this paper highlights and compares the provisions available in Indian Standard IS 2911:2010 to estimate the capacity of laterally loaded pile foundation with the provisions available in different country codes and existing literature. Comparisons are made between the Indian standard method, Broms method and Matlock & Reese method for the analysis of laterally loaded piles due to popularity and prevalence of the later methods in design offices worldwide. This has been achieved using a parametric study on pile embedded in pre-consolidated clay and sand for both fixed head and free head case in terms of displacement and ultimate load capacity. It has been found that there are various limitations to the Indian Standard method associated with various cases such as short pile analysis, complete moment distribution etc. Therefore, suitable recommendations have been made on the basis of the above comparison to improve the accuracy of the design in Indian perspective. The proposed comparison and subsequent area of improvements will present the design engineers all across the globe, a broad sight of design specifications of laterally loaded piles.INTRODUCTIONPiles in groups are very often subjected to both axial and lateral loads. In the 1960’s, designers used to assume that the piles could carry only axial loads and the lateral load is to be carried by batter piles. However, later, a large number of load tests authenticated that vertical piles also can transfer lateral loads through shear, bending, and lateral soil resistance rather than purely acting as axially loaded members. Initial attempts to analyze laterally loaded piles used the finite-difference method, as described by Howe (1955), Matlock and Reese (1960), and Bowles (1968). Matlock and Reese (1956) used the finite difference method to get a series of non-dimensional curves to enable the user to input the appropriate curve with the given lateral load and estimate the ground-line deflection and maximum bending moment in the pile shaft. Later, Matlock and Reese (1960) extended the earlier curves to include selected variations of soil modulus with depth."

Jan 1, 2017

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

By N. Som

The pile capacity in cohesive and granular soils depends on a number of parameters. The values of these parameters as recommended by Indian Standard Code of Practice vary over wide ranges. A designer often finds it difficult to select appropriate values of these parameters for realistic estimate of a pile capacity. The present paper makes a critical review of the values of the parameters given in Indian Standard Code of Practice and suggests a realistic approach to selecting them in the light of recent research.

Jan 1, 1996

By SungWon Park

The efficiency of the current design methods for computing pile resistances is evaluated using field load-settlement tests results. Twelve load-settlement test data for drilled shafts and bored piles were obtained from the literature. These load-test data were fitted using the ?t-z? method. Subsequently, the ultimate resistances were evaluated based upon the failure criteria from following methods: (1) the Davisson?s approach and (2) settlement corresponding to 5% or 10% shaft diameter approach. The ultimate resistances for these drilled shafts and bored piles were also predicted using methods based on the design code from North America (United States, Canada), Europe, and Asia (Japan). The pile resistances determined from field load-settlement tests were compared with those calculated using the design codes. The comparisons show that most design codes predict a conservative resistance for drilled shafts and bored piles. However, in the case of drilled shafts, we find that some of the design codes can over-predict the resistance and, therefore, should be applied cautiously. This research also shows that ?t-z? method can be successfully used to predict the ultimate resistance and the load transfer mechanism for a single pile.

Jan 1, 2009

By William H. Walton, Joel Dellaria, Jeffrey R. Hill

The City of Chicago has a world-renowned skyline and is known for its provocative architecture. The subsurface conditions in the city have allowed for construction of these significant structures. The skyline is supported on caissons as they are called in Chicago or drilled shafts in other locations. Despite the significant strides the industry has made in advancing the drilled shaft, the use of other specialty geotechnical construction techniques like micropiles has not been overlooked in Chicago and the surrounding areas. Micropiles have been utilized to underpin famous existing historic structures like Orchestra Hall any many others. Engineers have used 200 to 600 kip micropiles to underpin compromised, inadequate, or damaged caissons. The paper will discuss the use of drilled shafts, micropiles, and ground improvement over the last 30 years in Chicago using a curated collection of case histories. It will also examine advancing the industry beyond its current technical limitations using these techniques. INTRODUCTION 20,000 years ago, glaciers from the Chicago region left behind sheets of glacial clay till underlain by dense, over consolidated glacial till below: limestone bedrock, found about 100 ft below street level. An unusual feature in this profile is the soft Chicago Blue Clay. Chicago has been called the birthplace of the Skyscraper and drilled shaft foundation, both of which came about in the 19th century. After the Great Fire of 1871, tall new structures were built rapidly and designing a successful foundation was trial and error. The first deep driven wood pile and caisson foundations bypassed the problem layer and found solid support on hardpan till or bedrock below (Schock and Risberg 2013). Once the drilled shaft foundation became acceptable to the Chicago engineering and construction community, building heights and complexity grew dramatically. As the city grew, building foundations were being repurposed. There was also the need to underpin structures for additional loads and shallow foundations for adjacent construction. Hand-dug drilled shafts were an option for some of these restricted access and low headroom sites but a new technique, micropiles, would prove to be the future of retrofit and hard to construct foundations. Micropiles were introduced on a limited basis to the United States market in the 1970s and 80s. In the early 1990s, the Chicago market began to latch onto micropiles and their use has grown significantly as a solution to the most complex foundation problems a maturing skyline has to offer.

Jan 1, 2019

By A. V. Shroff

The Indian Standards code of practice for design and construction of underreamed piles contains provision for installing such piles in expasive soils. In recent years, a large amount of research work has been carried out in the analysis, design, construction and performance of underreamed piles in expansive soils. This paper suggests that the results of this research field tests should be included in the code. Various additions and modifications as well as deletions that should be incorporated in the code are discussed.

Jan 1, 1996