Search Documents

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

The pile inspector is a critical element in the quality control process necessary for a successful pile installation project. This guide is intended to provide the inspector with a basic understanding of only one of the many components of this process - the pile driving hammer. Pile driving hammers are used to install both bearing piles for structure foundations and sheet piles (and soldier piles) as used in retaining structures. In a single document, this guide offers a general presentation of the operation of the more common types of hammers the inspector is likely to encounter. It should make the information in the contractor's hammer submittal for the project more understandable. It should also provide an appreciation for the importance of a properly operating pile hammer. Prior to the start of most pile driving operations, the contractor will normally furnish a submittal to the engineer giving the specific pile driving equipment that he intends to use on the job. This submittal should include the make, model, and type of the intended pile driving hammer or hammers and their operating characteristics such as ram weight, rated energy, operating speed, external power requirements and, other pertinent information. Frequently, the operating characteristics are provided in the form of the manufacturer's specification sheet. The engineer will review this information and when he is satisfied, approve it and pass it on to the inspector. The driving criteria will have been determined by the engineer or others (the geotechnical engineer, consulting engineer, contractor, etc.) from the results of static analysis (for minimum penetration), driving during a test pile installation, Wave Equation analysis, dynamic formula, pile instrumentation during driving, static load test, or a combination of these or other appropriate analyses. The driving criteria can be a minimum penetration of driven pile length (embedded length), or a minimum (or maximum) blow count per unit of penetration. The pile inspector should become familiar with this information prior to the start of the job and should understand or seek help to comprehend the terminology and intent of each specification.

Jan 1, 1995

By Arash Khosravifar Ph. D. P. E., Thomas Torkelson P. E., Milad Souri Ph. D. P. E.

Kinematic demands from lateral ground deformations can be a major cause of damage to maritime and highway transportation structures such as wharves, piers, and bridges. These kinematic demands are different from the ground deformations in the free field in that the resisting forces from piles will reduce the ground deformations to some extent (i.e., pile pinning effect). Current design codes for wharf structures allow the beneficial resisting forces from pile pinning effects to be incorporated in pseudostatic slope stability analysis (e.g., ASCE/COPRI 61-14). While design guidelines that are specifically developed for bridge foundations provide recommendations on how to incorporate the pile pinning effects (e.g., Caltrans 2012), their applicability to wharf structures need to be evaluated. This study uses the results of a large-scale centrifuge test on a pile-supported wharf structure to evaluate the accuracy of available Newmark sliding block analysis in estimating the lateral ground deformations. Pile pinning effects are incorporated based on the approach outlined by Caltrans. The results of this study support the use of existing pile pinning methods that were primarily developed for bridge foundations in maritime structures (e.g., wharves and piers). It was found that median Newmark displacements provide a good estimate of the permanent end-of-shaking displacements and that the median plus 1 standard deviation Newmark displacements provide a good estimate of the peak transient displacements. Design considerations for use in the Newmark sliding block analysis to estimate the kinematic demands on piles are discussed.

Oct 1, 2022

By Tracy Brettmann, Melis Sutman, C. Guney Olgen

"The use of energy piles for geothermal heat exchange has been steadily increasing during the last decade, yet there are still pending questions on their behavior during temperature changes. This paper focuses on the thermo-mechanical response of three full-scale energy piles installed in Richmond, TX. The behavior of test piles subjected to thermo-mechanical loadings was studied in situ with the aim of quantifying the thermal influence on the performance and capacity of energy piles. An extensive field test program, including conventional pile loading tests and application of heating-cooling cycles was conducted on the test piles during a period of six weeks. For thermal load applications, the heat exchanger fluid with maximum temperature of 113°F (45°C) and minimum of 47°F (8°C) was circulated in the geothermal loops placed at the center of the test piles. Optical fiber sensors, vibrating wire strain gages, thermistors and thermal integrity profile wires were installed to monitor the strain and temperature variations along the energy piles throughout the field tests. The strain and temperature profiles during heating-cooling cycles on the test piles under static loads and without a maintained load were monitored to investigate the effect of thermo-mechanical and pure thermal loads on the energy piles, respectively. Conventional pile load tests were applied before and after the application of thermal cycles. The results of the pile load tests are compared to evaluate the effect of temperature cycles on pile capacity.IntroductionEnergy piles are deep foundation elements designed to access and exploit the relatively constant temperature of the ground and its heat storage capacity for efficient heating and cooling of buildings. The deep foundation elements that are already in place for structural support are integrated with adsorber pipes to perform as heat exchangers connected to ground source heat pump (GSHP) systems. With the use of energy piles, the heat energy is fed into and withdrawn from the ground for cooling in the summer and heating in the winter, respectively.Energy piles present an innovative way to harvest near-surface geothermal energy and to provide lower carbon emissions, however, there are still pending question on their performance. During heating-cooling cycles, energy piles experience temperature changes, which result in expansion or contraction of the piles."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1992

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 Sudip Basack

"The topic of pile foundation subjected to lateral cyclic load is an age-old problem confronted by Geotechnical Engineers. The environment prevalent in ocean and shorelines necessitates the piles supporting offshore and onshore structures to be designed accounting for the lateral cyclic loading resulting from the effects of sea waves. The quasi-static nature of this type of loading induces remarkable deterioration in the interactive performance of the soil-pile system. This can be manifested as progressive loss in pile capacity associated with increased pile head deflection. The work reported herein is aimed towards conducting rigorous theoretical analysis using finite difference technique so as to analyze the lateral cyclic loading response of a single, vertical pile embedded in cohesionless soil. The theoretical results are compared with the experimental results and reasonably good agreement is noted. This paper presents a brief description of the theoretical analysis carried out with some typical results and the relevant conclusions drawn therefrom. 1. INTRODUCTIONOffshore structures, namely, quay & harbour structures, jetties, tension leg platforms, oil drilling platforms, etc. are largely supported on pile foundations. Apart from usual loads from superstructures, these piles are subjected to continuous action of wave loading. This type of lateral loading is quasi-static cyclic in nature which results in considerable degradation in the interactive performance of the pile-soil system initiating progressive reduction in pile capacity associated with increased pile-soil stiffness. This may ultimately lead to disastrous consequences.Amongst limited research works in this field, the major contributions are made by Matlock (1970), Idriss et al (1978), Poulos (1982), Vucetic et al (1988), Long & Venneste (1994) and Basack (1999). A brief review of these works indicates that the degradation of the pile-soil system under lateral cyclic loading mainly depends upon the following parameters: number of cycles, frequency (cycles per unit time), cyclic load level (ratio of cyclic load amplitude to the lateral static ultimate pile capacity, in case of loadcontrolled mode) and cyclic displacement level (ratio of cyclic displacement amplitude applied at the pile head to the external pile diameter, in case of displacement-controlled mode). As pointed out by Poulos (1981 & 1982), the degradation is mainly due to: 1) partial to zero dissipation of excess pore water pressure generated during cyclic loading in progress, 2) destruction of interparticle bond with particle realignment and 3) rearrangement and gradual accumulation of permanent plastic deformation around pile"

Jan 1, 2005

By Jogeshwar P. Singh, Mohamed Ashour

The Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction (SFSI) problem involves Kinematic Soil- Foundation Interaction occurring during large (cyclic and permanent) ground deformations as well as Inertial Foundation-Structure Interaction occurring during shaking all of which take place while the soil and possibly structural properties degrade with time. The design of the deep foundations for liquefaction induced lateral spread loads include estimation of passive pressure applied by the liquefied material as well as the amount of anticipated displacement. Coupled analyses for SFSI problems that account for liquefaction induced lateral spread and their interaction with the deep foundation system can be performed using sophisticated numerical modeling techniques based on finite element and/or finite difference methods using computer programs such as FLAC or OPENSEES. Such complete SFSI analyses are very tedious and expensive and not feasible for most projects. In 2011, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) released guidelines for foundation loading and deformation due to liquefaction induced lateral spreading. This simpler prescriptive approach combines empirical and analytical methods through decoupled analyses using computer programs such as LPILE and SLOPE-W together with liquefaction induced lateral spread estimates based on published empirical equations. Pile group effects and pile caps are accounted for using a concept of super-pile. In this paper, we discuss the solution of the same lateral spreading related SFSI problem using computer program CGI-DFSAP (CGI-Deep Foundation System Analysis Program) based on the strain wedge theory that can account for liquefaction, lateral spreading, pile groups, pile caps and nonlinear behavior of piles in a more coupled manner to analyze the foundation system under the lateral spread loadings. CGI-DFSAP can be used to analyze piles in sloping ground conditions as well as piles beneath the abutments near a free-face slope. We have included Strain Wedge Model (SWM) solutions using CGI-DFSAP of several field and laboratory case studies of lateral spreading related to pile foundations. Finally, we have also included the SWM solution of one of the Caltrans (2011) example problems.

Jan 1, 2015

By Peter Faust

"The south access road to San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, known as Doyle Drive or Presidio Parkway, needs to be replaced. Built in 1936, it is the primary highway and transit linkage through San Francisco between counties to the north and south. The roadway is tucked into the natural contours of the Presidio and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, one of the nation’s largest urban parks.The old steel truss structure will be replaced by a new concrete cast-in-place bridge. The foundation design of the new bridge is based on drilled mono shafts below each bridge column. Most shafts required large diameter permanent steel casing installed under strict vibration limitations since several historic landmarks are near the project alignment. Malcolm Drilling decided to use the largest oscillator in the world to install the piles.The area occupied by the Presidio is generally hilly, sloping down northwards to San Francisco Bay. In the western half of the project route, two bluffs rise steeply to about 80 ft (25 m). The bluffs are separated by a valley 60 ft (18 m) deep and 1,500 ft (457 m) wide, which is spanned by the old and new bridge. Overburden soils in this valley are made up of artificial fill, slope debris, ravine fill and Colma Formation, a fine to medium-grained sand unit with clay beds. The Bay Muds encountered in the project area are typically soft clayey silts, becoming medium stiff with depth.The basement rocks underlying the overburden belong to the Franciscan Formation, described as shale, sandstone, serpentine and greywacke, it is extremely variable in hardness, fracturing and weathering. The material can vary from very hard to very soft, can be slightly to very intensely fractured and almost not weathered, to totally decomposed within relatively short distances both laterally and vertically. Rock strength can vary from too weak to be tested to serpentine layers with unconfined compressive strength of 15,000 psi (103MPa) or higher. Groundwater levels in the area are typically no more than 10 to 20 ft (3 to 6 m) below the ground surface."

Jan 1, 2012

Jan 1, 1993

By Jean Wehbe, Daniel C. Brahana

"The new Mercedes-Benz Stadium (MBS), home of the Atlanta Falcons, is part of a new era of stadium construction in the U.S. These new-age stadiums are larger and have more amenities than their predecessors. Many of the MBS’s features, including its innovative retractable roof, result in extraordinary structural loads. The roof structure is supported by a series of mega columns that bear on eight large caps, six of which are supported by drilled piers. Each of the pier caps contains between 8 and 16 drilled piers that bear in the underlying bedrock. The design pier diameters are 6 and 6.5 ft (1.8 m and 1.9 m). Augercast piles were used to support two of the mega column caps. Drilled piers, augercast piles, aggregate piers and spread footings were used to support the more lightly loaded portions of the structure.The focus of this article is the construction aspects of the drilled pier foundations. Initially, a fairly extensive drilled pier load test program was performed. Load testing included a Statnamic compression test, two Osterberg Cell tests and two lateral tests. Production pier installation included over 3,800 linear ft (1,158.2 m) of earth excavation and over 1,350 linear ft (411.4 m) of hard rock excavation. The piers contain more than 6,600 cu yd (4,587.3 cu m) of concrete and 1,100 tons (998 tonnes) of reinforcing steel. Drilled pier installation took about 4.5 months. ABE Enterprises was the specialty foundation subcontractor and Bauer-Pileco was the equipment provider.Site and Subsurface ConditionsThe project site is in downtown Atlanta and was originally occupied by residential buildings. A portion of the site was later developed as a rail yard, and other areas contained light manufacturing, warehouses and other relatively light structures. For the past 15 to 20 years the site had been used for surface parking.Beneath a surficial layer of manmade fill, soil test borings at the site generally encountered residual soil, partially weathered rock and the parent bedrock. The bedrock at the site is highly variable, both in elevation and in hardness/quality. The depth to rock is reasonably uniform within the western two-thirds of the site at about 20 to 50 ft (6 to 15.2 m), with a few exceptions. In the eastern third of the site, the rock drops off dramatically to the north and east. In one mega column cap, there was almost 80 ft (24.3 m) in elevation difference. In two borings in the cap that were 20 ft (6.1 m) apart, the top of rock varied in elevation by 34 ft (10.3 m)"

Jan 1, 2016

By Tony Amis, Marco Barla, Alice Di Donna

"Energy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular solution around the world for Developers looking to reduce CO2 and system running costs. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures that provide both the important role of structural stability while also acting as a heat exchanger with the ground, enabling the supported buildings and or infrastructure to be heated and cooled using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems. The main advantage of this innovative technology with respect to standard geothermal plant is the reduction of the initial installation costs and construction schedule benefits, compared to installing conventional geothermal solutions, largely due to the additional use of structures which would be constructed in any case. However, it is important with respect to energy geostructures that additional aspects need careful consideration. For this very reason, several research studies have been carried out over the last decade on this subject and a number of real case studies have been monitored and analysed. The key difference with respect to conventional shallow geothermal systems are mainly related to the geometry, which is imposed by the geotechnical project, and the need to ensure that the primary structural role is always guaranteed. Special boundary conditions, the reduced depth, the influence of atmospheric external temperature can also play an important role for energy geostructures. They can affect, both energy efficiency and, the geotechnical behaviour because of the possible thermal induced mechanical effects. This paper presents a picture of the current situation regarding energy geostructures and their peculiar features, and collects available data to provide a reference framework. Data has been collected from literature and personal communications and then processed to provide easy-to-read charts useful for practical consultation at a glance. This paper provides, an indication of the distribution of such systems worldwide, their spread in time, and a global view of their actual efficiency from the structural, energy, economic and environmental point of view.1. IntroductionEnergy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular consideration around the world. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures with a dual role of providing structural stability and the ability to exchange heat with the ground, to provide low carbon heat and coolth to supporting and or adjacent buildings and infrastructure, using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems (Barla and Di Donna, 2016; Laloui and Di Donna, 2013). A closed circuit of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes is embedded in the concrete, and a heat carrier fluid circulates through them exchanging heat with the ground. The HDPE pipework circuit inside the geostructure is linked to one of the above buildings or infrastructure through a heat pump, which adapts the temperature of the circulating fluid to the heating (winter mode) and cooling (summer mode) needs. In this way, heat can be injected into the ground during summer and extracted from it during winter. In principle, all structures in contact with the ground can be used as energy geostructures. The first examples of energy geostructures date back to the eighties in Austria and were mainly piles and shallow foundations. A decade later, Henderson et al. (1999) reported on what would appear to be the first successful use of geothermal energy piles in the US, with loops incorporated into the foundation for a hotel in Geneva, New York. As was their use in this New York case history, the typical geothermal energy pile application is used in conjunction with additional closed loop boreholes to provide the required energy capacity for a structure. Interestingly the report concludes that the geothermal energy piles had a better heat transfer performance than the borehole field. The first energy walls appeared slightly later, while still today only a few experimental cas"

Jan 1, 2017

By Bengt H. Fellenius

.1.1 Prior to commencement of pile installation operation, submit to [Engineer] for [approval] [review], details of equipment for installation of piles. SPEC NOTE: The information requested in 3.1 .1.2 is necessary as input to a detailed wave equation analysis of the pile driving. .1.2 For impact hammers, give manufacturer's name, type, maximum rated energy and rated energy per blow at normal working rate during easy and at termination driving, mass of striking parts of hammer, mass of driving cap, and type and elastic properties of hammer cushion. .1.3 For non-impact methods of installation, such as drilling, jacking, jetting, use of vibratory hammers, or other means, give full details of characteristics necessary to evaluate performance. .2 Impact Hammer SPEC NOTE: Do not exclude a hammer type unless for very specific reason. .2.1 [Drop hammers will not be permitted.] [Diesel hammers will not be permitted.] For final driving of [TYPE] piles, provide a hammer capable of delivering to the pile a non-erratic impact stress not smaller than [VALUE] Pascal and transferring a non-erratic energy not smaller than [VALUE] Joules per blow to the pile head at normal working rate.

Jan 1, 1991

By H G. Poulos

"This paper sets out a simplified approach by which the practical foundation designer can undertake the relevant calculations to satisfy the requirements for deep foundation design in seismic areas. The following matters are dealt with:a. Design issues that should be addressed;b. Pile design for axial loading, including the possible effects of liquefaction;c. Pile design for lateral loading where liquefaction does not occur;d. Pile design for lateral loading where liquefaction does occur;e. Measures to mitigate against liquefaction effects.The paper is a modified version of a paper presented in 2013 to the 19th NZGS GeotechnicalSymposium, Queenstown, New Zealand.1. INTRODUCTIONConsideration of the effects of earthquakes and seismic loadings is an increasingly important aspect of modern foundation design, and most contemporary standards have a mandatory requirement for such consideration. For example, the Australian Piling Code, AS 2159-2009, states that “a pile shall be designed for adequate strength, stiffness and ductility under load combinations including earthquake design actions”. However, the methods by which such considerations can be undertaken are generally not set out in the standards, and many approaches have been utilized, ranging from very simplistic methods to extremely complex computer analyses. Accordingly, there appears to be scope for an approach that is soundly based but which is neither too simplistic nor too complex.Poulos (1989) has suggested that there are three categories of analysis and design, as follows:1. Category 1: empirical methods.2. Category 2: simplified but soundly-based methods.3. Category 3: more comprehensive methods that are soundly-based, and site-specific.The objective of this paper is to set out a systematic but simplified approach which falls into Category 2 above, and by which the foundation designer can undertake the relevant analyses to satisfy the foundation design requirements for seismic regions. Emphasis is placed on methods that do not require “black box” software or which employ complex soil models in which the physical meaning of the parameters is unclear."

Jan 1, 1900

By Paul J. Axtell

The results of in-situ geophysical cross-hole tests on improved soil by soil mixing (SM) and jet grouting (JG) are described. This testing was conducted on soil improved by SM and JG columns constructed in the downstream free-field of Tuttle Creek Dam near Manhattan, Kansas as part of the seismic retrofit. Results of similar geophysical testing performed on untreated soil in the vicinity of the Downstream Test Program (DTP) area, as well as beneath the embankment at several locations, are also described and used for comparison purposes. In-situ shear moduli are also compared with those determined in laboratory resonant column tests. The increase in stress wave velocities and associated shear moduli by SM and JG treatment are presented for use in liquefaction potential and seismic deformation analyses of SM or JG treated soil. This data is required to determine the decrease in liquefaction potential and earthquake-induced permanent deformations due to SM or JG with respect to that of untreated soil.

Jan 1, 2008

By H. Boghosian

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in a steeply sloping site in glacial till in Glasgow city centre. Existing foundations, adjacent structures and services, in tandem with asymmetric loading, presented particular challenges in the planning, execution and design of the project. The construction methods and temporary works, analysis by the Finite Element method and monitoring carried out are all described.

Jan 1, 2006

By I. D. Dayal, Anil Kumar Jain

"Cutoff walls are frequently used to slow down or prevent seepage of water through and/or around dams. Cutoff wall is a type of seepage barrier structure designed to reduce the flow of water underneath temporary or main dam. There are number of techniques for the construction of cutoff walls including concrete, Jet grouting and permeation grouting. NHPC LTD, a premier Govt. of India undertaking has been instrumental in the hydropower development within the country & in nearby countries like Nepal & Bhutan since last four decades. NHPC LTD has completed more than 20 hydro-electric projects with total installed capacity of 6587MW (including capacity addition by JV- NHDC). In all these projects, different types of dams and spillways were constructed in not so benign to extreme challenging geological set up. There has always been challenge associated with the temporary diversion works. The project sites sometimes incur huge river bed excavations in case of concrete gravity dam founded on rock foundation at large depth. The challenges for minimizing the seepage have been well taken care by constructing the dedicated seepage barriers. The construction of cut-off walls have progressed from “conventional continuous trench backfilled with conventional concrete or plastic concrete” to “grout curtain”, to “jet grouting” to the “concrete cut-off wall” , the last being the most sophisticated & credible seepage barrier.The efficiency of the cut-off walls are monitored by the seepage quantity observed (reduction of the seepage flow), uplift pressures or exit gradients after construction of cut-off walls. For construction of the main concrete dam, required space is created by the river bed excavation for placing the dam foundation on sound rock. Sometimes there is deep river bed excavation from 30 to 40 m depth or even more as per the available rock profile. Temporary coffer dams are constructed for diverting the river flow through diversion tunnels / channels etc. In deep river bed excavation; there are high chances of the significant seepage through the coffer dam foundation / river bed material due to high hydraulic gradients. Seepage and piping are the main causes of the failure / damage of the temporary coffer dams. If the seepage quantity is too high, then it becomes difficult to handle it by dewatering in the dam pit. Dam concrete is required to be placed unhindered to have a monolithic construction of dam blocks & to have faster construction in the working season. Cut-off walls increase the seepage path considerably thus reducing the exit gradient and further reduction of the seepage thus helping in maintaining the seepage free area for working."

Jan 1, 2016

By Donald Bruce

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

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

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

Jan 1, 2004

By Gerry Houlahan

"The 2015 Outstanding Project Award (OPA), which recognizes the superior work of DFI members, was awarded for the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge New East Span. The award was presented to representatives from Caltrans and the T.Y. Lin International/Moffatt & Nichol Joint Venture at the DFI 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations in Oakland, Calif. A committee selected this project based on size, scope and challenges of the project; degree of innovation and ingenuity exercised; and the uniqueness of the solution to the difficulties of the job. A bridge across the bay between San Francisco and Oakland was proposed as early as 1872, but it took until November 12, 1936, until it became a reality. The bridge spans to the west of Yerba Buena Island were conventional suspension spans, while the east spans used a steel cantilever truss design and simple steel truss spans. This double-deck bridge served the Bay Area well until 1989. In that year, the magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The resulting interruption to service across the bay demonstrated the vital role this bridge plays in the economic and life safety activities of the Bay Area. The project owner, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), determined that the safest, most cost-effective solution was a total bridge replacement. The Engineer-of-Record, T.Y. Lin International/ Moffatt & Nichol Joint Venture, working closely with Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC), was charged with developing a comprehensive design strategy that met the project’s stringent criteria for seismic safety. These criteria included the new bridge’s designation as a regional Lifeline Structure that must open to emergency traffic shortly after the occurrence of a 1,500-year return period earthquake"

Jan 1, 2015