Search Documents

By Jeremy G. Kress

We propose the discrete element method (DEM) as a complimentary alternative to analytical solutions and FEM models for the analysis of pile response. DEM is a novel approach to the engineering design of deep foundations which can be used to provide insight into the mechanics of soil-soil and soil-structure interaction. It is common to use analytical, empirical, and semi-empirical methods to predict pile behavior, where if granular properties, pile length, or load orientation change, then significant adjustments are made in the design sequence. DEM provides a more uniform approach in granular soils. Based on constitutive force-displacement relationships and laws of motion in rigid and elastic bodies, few changes must be made for a wide variety grain types, pile types, embedment, and load orientation. Preliminary results for simulation of a single pile are qualitatively consistent with results from conventional design procedures and also provide significant information not available from other analyses (e.g., local information about interface failure during shear). Importantly, these analyses are portable to a variety of pile types and installation procedures, which may not be the case for empirical approaches. Given consistent increases in computing power and rapid advances in model speed and sophistication, the DEM should prove to be a robust method for design and the analysis of pile response in granular soils.

Jan 1, 2010

By Phil Wilkinson, Sam Whitaker

"The installation of large (XL) diameter monopiles offshore typically requires expensive and specialist plant, equipment and vessels. Due to the increasing size (weight, diameter and length) of the foundations, in order to mitigate installation risk, the use of large diameter drills is becoming an increasing requirement.Project developers often try to avoid drilling operations due to the time associated with the drilling process. This restricts projects in terms of location and it also overlooks the additional engineering benefits drilling can bring to monopile foundation design e.g. reduced foundation material and better fatigue design life.By comparing the lessons learned of three milestone overwater drilling projects; methods of maximising drill speed and decreasing drilling process time is established. Particular emphasis is put on pile internal relief drilling in a process known as Drive-Drill-Drive (DDD).The milestone overwater drilling projects are North Hoyle Offshore Wind Farm (OWF) (2003); Flamanville EPR cooling water outlet shaft (2008); and Gwynt-y-Mor OWF (2014).By evaluating the effect of foundation pile diameter on drilling process times, example foundation installation costs are derived and used to show that incorporating drilling as part of a process may not be cost prohibitive to projectsContinued advances in drill technology, and drilling rates of penetration, combined with an integrated approach to foundation design, challenge whether hammering only is always the optimal solution for XL monopile installation."

Jan 1, 2017

By James P. Hambleton, Anastasia Nally

This work focuses on the numerical simulation of multi-plate anchor systems (e.g., helical anchors) in sand subjected to vertical loading. In assessing the stiffness and capacity of these multi-plate anchor systems, full awareness of the abilities and limitations of the various analysis methods must be understood. This work first summarizes studies completed by others and then goes on to assess the failure mechanisms of multi-plate anchors in sand and the influence of (1) plate width-to-depth ratio, (2) number of plates, and (3) relative positioning of plates. The analysis makes use of (1) conventional limit analysis, (2) so-called modified limit analysis that employs reduced strength parameters to account for the influence of soil dilatancy, and (3) the displacement-based finite element method, which considers elastic as well as plastic deformation leading to failure. The work critically reflects on limitations in the current analysis methods for helical ground anchors. INTRODUCTION Helical anchors are a relatively low cost foundation type, typically consisting of a steel rod and single or multiple plate attachments. In recent decades, they have seen rapid growth, and as outlined by Merifield and Sloan (2006) and Hambleton et al. (2014). Design techniques for helical anchors have previously been predominately empirical, as much of the past research in this field is experimentally based. It is common practice for helical anchors to be modeled as horizontally oriented plate anchors in both numerical and experimental analysis. This work focuses on analysis based on the finite element method, including so-called finite element limit analysis and the conventional displacement-based finite element method, with some comparisons made to experimental studies. Numerical simulation of anchor pull-out capacity in cohesionless soils is stunted by the many difficulties faced when using numerical analysis with cohesionless soils. Additional variations can be seen when comparing the serviceability based load capacities to the ultimate load. In this work, both the force-displacement response (stiffness) and the ultimate anchor capacity are assessed, with more focus on the latter. This work focuses only on analysis techniques for multi-plate anchors with vertical loading in cohesionless soils. Many studies have been completed in this area, some of which assume a rectangular plate in a plain strain model (Rowe & Davis, 1982; Merifield & Sloan, 2006; Cerfontaine et al., 2019). Whereas others use axisymmetric conditions (Baker and Kondner, 1966; Saeedy, 1987; Murray & Geddes, 1987; Ghaly & Hanna, 1994; Sakai & Tanaka, 1998; Merifield et al., 2006;) and minimal studies considered both axisymmetric and plane strain in the one study (Vesic, 1971; Tagaya et al., 1988; Murray & Geddes, 1987; Sarac, 1989).

Jan 1, 2019

By Mario A. Terceros Herrera, Mario Terceros Arce, Antonio Marinucci

This paper describes the general principles of the expander body with post-grouting (EBI) system, and how it is similar in nature to a large-scale pressuremeter device. The results from the installation of an EBI can be used to provide information about the stress-strain characteristics of the soil adjacent to the device and to compute estimates of nominal axial resistance. As the EBI expands during grouting, pressure is applied to the in-situ soil surrounding the device thereby compacting/densifying the soil. The nominal axial resistance for small diameter piles/ground anchors can be increased due to the greater soil stiffness and shear strength around the device, larger surface and end area, and improved soil-to-EBI interaction in side resistance. The shape of the response curves depends on the geotechnical conditions of the soil (e.g., in-situ stress state, strength, and stiffness) and the installation method of the piling/ground anchor. This technique has been used successfully with different pile types and ground anchors in a wide range of conditions from very loose sands/silts to very dense sands and medium-dense gravels as well as in soft to stiff clays. This paper also describes a mini case history in which 80 piles were installed to support an office building, and the results of the static axial compression load tests performed on a production FDP+EBI pile is also included.

By Thomas L. Vande Voort

The strategic plan for bridge engineering issued by AASHTO in 2005 identified extending the service life and optimizing structural systems of bridges in the United States as two grand challenges in bridge engineering, with the objective of producing safer bridges that have a minimum service life of 75 years and reduced maintenance cost. Material deterioration was identified as one of the primary challenges to achieving the objective of extended life. In substructural applications (e.g., deep foundations), construction materials such as timber, steel, and concrete are subjected to deterioration due to environmental impacts. Using innovative and new materials for foundation applications makes the AASHTO objective of 75 years service life achievable. Ultra High Performance Concrete (UHPC) with compressive strength of 26,000 psi (180 MPa) and excellent durability has been used in superstructural applications but not in geotechnical and substructural applications. This paper explores the possibility of using precast, prestressed UHPC piles in future bridges. An H-shaped UHPC section, which is 10-in. (250-mm) deep with weight similar to that of an HP10×57 steel pile, was designed for constructability and economical reasons. Instrumented UHPC elements were cast to conduct large-scale field tests. In the field, two UHPC piles have been successfully driven in glacial till clay soil and load tested vertically. Test results, durability, drivability, and other material advantages over normal concrete and steel indicate that UHPC piles are a viable alternative to extend the life of bridge structures.

Jan 1, 2008

By W. G. K. Fleming

Mr P. Bermingham introduced paper 9.1, describing the development and trials of a new pile load-testing technique that the Authors had termed "Statnamic". The system involved launching a test weight mounted on the head of the pile by igniting chemical fuel in a pressure combustion chamber between the pile head and the test weight. The expansion products from the burning fuel generated large pressures which were used to launch the weight upwards at high velocity. The reaction from this force generates an equal and opposite force at the pile head. This force is typically of much longer duration compared with, for instance, dynamic load testing by drop hammer. In addition the pile experiences a much lower acceleration - typically of less than one g. Because of the long duration blow, the pile is loaded at below its natural frequency and is therefore under a uniform high stress over its full length throughout the duration of the test. The pile behaviour is not dominated by the complex action of an impulsive stress-wave as with standard dynamic testing. The test technique is thus essentially quasi-static. It was anticipated that a ram test weight of 16 tonne would be sufficient to provide the test reaction for a 600 tonne load test. It was pointed out that the device was still at the research stage, but had yielded encouraging results to date. Testing would proceed from model testing and computer simulation to full scale field testing.

Jan 1, 1991

"After the non-destructive testing is completed, the data must be compiled, evaluated, and interpreted. During this process, the data may indicate that there is an anomaly warranting further investigation, which may eventually be determined to be a flaw or defect. The definitions of an anomaly, flaw, and defect can be described as follows (after Amir, 2002):Anomaly - Any irregular feature identified in the NDT graphic results. An anomaly may be due to the testing instrumentation (such as noise), to the means used to perform the test (e.g. access tube debonding in CSL) or to the shaft itself. It is the responsibility of the NDT practitioner to gather and analyze all relevant data and try to resolve every anomaly before it is declared a flaw or defect.Flaw - Any deviation from the planned shape, size and/or material of the shaft.Defect - A flaw that, because of either size or location, may detract from the shaft’s intended performance or durability. The geotechnical engineer and the structural engineer are jointly responsible to decide which flaw comprises a defect.This section describes the process of evaluating the data, determining if an anomaly exists, and if so, deciding whether the anomaly is actually a flaw or a defect. If the anomaly is determined to be a defect, its effect on the performance of the shaft must be evaluated, and if necessary, the can be re-engineered, repaired, or replaced."

Jan 1, 2004

By William (Bill) H. Walton

"I arrived in Chicago in 1993 with Dr. Ralph Peck’s University of Illinois bulletin titled Engineering Properties of Chicago Subsoils (Bulletin 429), which he published in 1954 with William Reed. Being an outsider, I wanted to learn from Chicago geotechnical practice leaders that included Clyde Baker, Jr., John Gnaedinger, Charles Pfingsten, Dr. Safdar Gill, Robert Lukas and Dr. Jorj Osterberg, who have influenced foundation designs for the structures that make up the contemporary Chicago skyline. One of my immediate goals was to get the Illinois Structural Engineering license to be on par with the likes of Eli Cohen, Mike Tylk, Stan Korista, Bob Halverson, Joe Burns, Ron Johnson, Bill Baker, Bob Sinn, Chuck Anderson and Dave Eckmann, who have led their structural firms in the design of the skeletal core and frames of many of Chicago’s iconic buildings (and for many other buildings around the world). From my time with GEI Consultants (GEI), then on with STS Consultants (STS, and now AECOM), and now back with GEI, I have had the opportunity to analyze and design foundations and, with the help of many skilled foundations and building constructors, to verify that predicted foundation performance matches actual movement data. The theme of Chicago’s foundation design practice is to assume and verify. In 1948, Peck published the History of Building Foundations in Chicago (Bulletin 373) that was updated in 1998 by Baker, Pfingsten and Gnaedinger, who meticulously documented hundreds of Chicago’s foundations, and have shown the value of advanced analyses and testing to advance the deep foundation design practice that includes a variety of high-capacity driven and drilled deep foundations. Mehmet Uyanik, Peck and Baker have made Chicago’s subsurface into a full-scale foundation test laboratory. They confirmed soil mechanics principles like Terzaghi’s 1-D consolidation theory when early foundations bearing on sand-clay crust over soft to medium silty clays (e.g., Auditorium, Masonic Temple, Monadnock Block and Old Board of Trade buildings) took 40 to 60 years to consolidate clay 1 to 2 ft (0.3 to 0.6 m). They also confirmed proven increases in bearing pressures based on measured performance of deep foundations bearing on the glacially derived hardpan clay till and in solid dolomite that underlies Chicago."

Jan 1, 2017

By Sebastian Fischer, Rolf Katzenbach, Steffen Leppla

"The risk management in the case of liquefaction is one of the most serious and also difficult issues in geotechnical engineering because failure caused by liquefaction is always a sudden failure without ahead indication. For that reason ground improvement technologies for the prevention of liquefaction are necessary. The paper explains the responsible and effective risk management. Methods for the risk management and stabilizing the soil sustainably are described in detail.1. INTRODUCTIONDue to population growing more and more settlement area is needed, which is often including improper regions (e.g. mountain and coast regions) with raised risk of various kinds of disasters. But also in densely populated areas the risk of disasters like landslides can occur. One reason for the raising of risk in densely populated regions can be the opencast mining for raw material production. An essential element of the opencast mining is the loose deposition of the removed overburden, the so-called “overburden dump”. When an opencast mining is running out of the raw material, an opencast hollow remains in landscape. The slope areas of these hollows mostly consist of loose bedded material of the overburden dump. Due to the end of groundwater conservation these loose bedded slope areas are flooded. In consequence the slopes are in extreme danger of becoming liquefied. The result of a liquefaction in these slopes will unavoidably be a slope slide. Such a slope slide can extend up to several hundred meters into the landscape and can move several million cubic meters of material. An upsetting example for such a landslide is the slope failure in the German city of Nachterstedt on July, 18th 2009, which made necessitate remedial measures and also prevention works for the further utilisation of the region. The phenomena of liquefaction is not limited of slopes in series of opencast mining. Especially in regions with a highly appearance of earthquakes the phenomena of liquefaction is well known.2. RISK MANAGEMENTAn essential part for the stability assessment of slope systems is the investigation of sensitivity against liquefaction. In the case of given sensitivity against liquefaction there is no calculation method according to soil mechanics to determine the factor of safety against slope failure. Just for the case that sensitivity against liquefaction is not met, a comparison of the load (effect) E and the resistance R which is the traditional verification of stability against slope failure, can be calculated (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ricardo Dobry, Alain Pecker, George E. Leventis, Ralph B. Peck

"This year’s DFI Outstanding Project Award is for the design and construction of the foundation scheme for the largest cable-stayed bridge in the world. In 1993, Gefyra, SA (a French/Greek consortium led by VINCI of Paris, France) was awarded a €750 million ($1billion+ USD) Concession Contract to design, build, fi nance, operate and maintain a three-span cable-stayed suspension bridge connecting the Peloponnese, Greece’s southernmost peninsula, with the mainland across the Gulf of Corinth. The contract extends over a 42-year period, 7 years for design and construction and 35 years for operation. The project was fi nanced through a combination of public funds, private equity and bank loans. Alternative foundation concepts that were considered included traditional driven piles, deeply embedded caissons and soil improvement. PROJECT CHALLENGESThe extreme technical challenges faced included:??Weak foundation soils composed of soft alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded layers of granular and cohesive materials with thin layers and lenses of gravel and liquefi able sand pockets; rock is believed to be at a depth of 1,000 m (3,500 ft) or more.??A very deep seabed exceeding 60 m (200 ft).??The requirement to withstand the collision of 180,000-ton tankers traveling at 16 knots.??Maximum wind forces of 250 km/hour (155 mi/hour).??Design seismic forces corresponding to Richter magnitudes of 7.0+ with peak ground accelerations of 0.48 g at seabed.??Design tectonic movements of 2 m (7 ft) in any direction between any two adjacent bridge pier foundations/pylons.Considering subsurface conditions and local seismicity and water depths, foundation design and construction methods were the key drivers for this project. In large part, the success of the project is owed to the unprecedented partnering and collaboration between all partners involved fostered under the leadership of Jean Paul Teyssandier and Gilles De Maublanc of VINCI Group (France) who served as lead Concessionaire and General Contractor. The joint venture’s lead Greek partners were Elliniki Technodomiki/AKTOR and J&P/AVAX. Alain Pecker of Geodynamique et Structure (France) served as lead Geotechnical Consultant/ Designer while Buckland and Taylor (Canada) served as Design Checkers with Ralph Peck and Ricardo Dobry (U.S.) as Special Advisors on foundation issues, Langan International/Langan Engineering and Environmental Services P.C. (George E. Leventis, Gregory Biesiadecki and Diane Fiorelli) served as Technical Advisor on geotechnical, geodynamic and foundation/marine construction issues."

Jan 1, 2007

By Matthew Janes

Quality control procedures are increasingly important with today's higher capacity foundations and complex loading conditions. The need for a mobile, repeatable, nondestructive and economical load test method led to the development of an entirely new approach. The system described involves using solid propellant fuels to accelerate a reaction mass off the test pile. The force required to accelerate the reaction mass upward acts equally downward on the pile. Very high forces may be applied to the pile in a controlled, linearly increasing manner. The duration of the applied load is approximately 100 milliseconds. This rate of loading is slow enough to allow the pile and soil to react together as a composite rigid body. Pile/soil accelerations and velocities are low, typically 1 g and 1 m/s respectively. The effects combine to produce pile and soil response no longer dominated by the transfer of force via stress pulse (as with impact). Instead the pile force increases throughout the length of the pile, with pile top and toe stresses building in unison with time. This emulates the stress condition during static pile loading. Finally, state of the art instrumentation systems are used to obtain test data. Displacement is monitored directly using a laser datum and integrated receiver located at the centre axis of the pile. Force is also monitored directly using a calibrated load cell. Data is acquired and digitized using a 386 PC with user friendly software capable of producing load deflection curves and time histories in the field seconds after testing.

Jan 1, 1990

By Sven Schröer, Lilma Schimmel, Dimiter Alexiew

"The Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC) deep foundation system for embankments on soft soils was introduced some 20 years ago and is now considered State-of-the-art worldwide.The GECs consist of compacted granular fill, similar to common gravel columns, with one decisive difference: they are confined in a high-strength low-strain flexible geotextile “cylinder” (encasement). This engineered element provides a very efficient tool to control and optimize the behavior of the system. GECs perform very well even in extremely soft soils ensuring bearing capacity (stability) and reducing settlements. Due to the encasement, they a lso provide high lateral ductility. A wide range of fills including sands can be used.The remarkable reduction of vertical stresses in the soft soil surrounding the GECs results in a decrease of lateral pressure as well. Such reduction combined with the lateral ductility allow GECs to be also used for lateral pressure-relief adjacent to sensitive foundations, e.g. rigid piles. The application of GECs as lateral pressure relief was recently used in Brazil and Germany where bridge abutments were built on concrete reinforced-piles. The GECs below the bridge approaches and adjacent to the piles decreased the lateral pressure to acceptable values.This paper presents two case studies for which the most relevant parameters, the geotechnical conditions, specific problems, engineering philosophy, final solution and lessons learned are discussed. Furthermore, instrumentation programs were applied in both projects. The most important results in terms of displacements and stresses are shown, evaluated, summarized and commented upon, focusing on the lateral stress-relief, followed by conclusions and recommendations."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tony Brunger, Abid O. Adekunte, George Munteanu, David Greentree

A number of novel solutions have been proposed in recent years as alternatives to props and tie-backs in deep excavation support e.g. Adekunte (2008), Deschamps et. al. (2008), Adekunte et al. (2010) and Adekunte (2014). A number of these non-standard restraining solutions involve the construction of permanent or temporary vertical or raking buttress piles that are rigidly connected to the excavation support wall at regular intervals along the wall run. This paper chiefly focuses on the design and construction of twin-vertical buttress piles as restraining systems behind or in front of embedded retaining walls. The system essentially relies on the push-pull mechanism that develops between the twin piles, to maintain the overall stability of the excavation support. The paper’s main areas of concentration include; finite element modelling, geostructural design, construction procedure, instrumentation and monitoring that are associated with the application of twin- buttress pile systems. These are supported with project details of three recently completed high-end luxurious residential developments in Greater London, England, on which the twin-buttress pile system was used to restrain the excavation support walls for the basements on the sites. The mode of application of the system varies across the three sites. While the system was adopted as a long term solution behind the retaining wall on one of the sites, it was designed and constructed for temporary use in front of the retaining walls on the other two sites. Instrumentation and monitoring results from all the sites show the non-traditional system to be safe and effective, whilst having significant beneficial effects on construction programme, sequence of works and project cost.

Jan 1, 2018

By Amy B. Cerato, Shawn Allred, Tatiana Vargas

"Helical piles are deep foundation elements that resemble, and are installed like, a large steel soil screw — they have a slender steel shaft with one or more round helix bearing plates welded to the shaft to provide support to the structure they hold. Helical piles are rotated into the ground with a large torque motor and provide support through soil bearing on the helix bearing plates and along the shaft. The piles are available in many lengths and, due to their small footprint along with their ability to create minimal disturbance to surrounding structures, they are often used in urban settings for foundation repair, retrofitting existing buildings and for new construction projects. Helical piles are routinely installed as foundation elements in seismically active areas, such as New Zealand, Japan and the U.S.Anecdotal observations (e.g., from New Zealand, Japan and the U.S.) have shown that piles with a comparatively small cross-section and high anchoring capacity, such as helical piles, are beneficial for seismic resistance. This is presumably due to the pile’s slenderness, higher damping ratios, ductility and resistance to tipping uplift. In New Zealand, it was observed that helical pile foundations fared much better than driven and drilled concrete piles after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In a personal communication, Woods (2016) described that, out of the 300 structures in center city Christchurch that were supported by helical piles, fewer than 10 structures suffered significant structural damage. However, many structures supported by driven and drilled concrete piles were damaged to such an extent that they were condemned and subsequently demolished."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alex Grenoble, Alex Reeb, George Filz, Farzad Abedzadeh

"This paper summarizes available information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soilcement produced by the wet method. The topics covered in this paper include: unit weight, unconfined compressive strength, strength variability for field mixed materials, influence of curing time, influence of consolidation pressure, Young’s modulus, differences in strength and stiffness between small and large samples, creep deformations, Poisson’s ratio, and tensile strength. In addition, this paper discusses the development of design considerations and recommended property values for a project that uses soilcement to protect an existing dam penstock from loads applied by an overlying stability berm. Some of the key recommendations for the deep-mixed soil-cement to be used in this project are that (1) a curved strength envelope that includes tensile strength can be used in the analysis, (2) the stress-strain and strength properties can be characterized using Duncan and Chang's (1970) hyperbolic model, and (3) a specification based on the median unconfined compressive strength value is appropriate.INTRODUCTIONFor many projects, including foundation and embankment support, deep mixing can be designed based on simplified procedures and following standardized guidelines (e.g., FHWA 2013). However for unusually complex or critical projects, it is often necessary to perform numerical analyses, and in order to perform these numerical analyses well, a thorough understanding of the material properties is needed.This paper summarizes information on the characteristics and properties of deep-mixed soil-cement produced by the wet method, and it discusses the development of design considerations and recommended property values for a specific project, herein referred to as the penstock project, that requires numerical analyses. For the penstock project, a horseshoe-shaped enclosure of soil-cement is being considered beside and above an existing dam penstock to protect it from loads applied by an overlying stability berm that will be constructed for seismic remediation. The concept is to use soilcement created by the deep mixing method along the sides of the penstock and to use compacted soilcement above the deep mixing to create the crown of the protective soil-cement zone around the penstock. For this application, the soil-cement stiffness, rather than its strength, is the controlling design parameter. To achieve the necessary soil-cement stiffness, the strength will be high enough that the factor-of-safety values against instability along potential failure surfaces passing through the soil-cement are high. Following conventional practice, the soil-cement acceptance criteria will be based on the unconfined compressive strength, and the specified strength will be selected to produce the desired modulus value."

Jan 1, 2015

By James P. Hambleton, Sam A. Stanier

A perceived advantage of screw-type foundations is the ability infer aspects of foundation performance from quantities measured or observed during installation, especially the installation torque. A particular concept widely used in practice is to correlate installation torque to ultimate capacity. This notion has proven useful as a field verification technique despite the absence of validated models that relate key variables of interest, such as installation torque, axial (crowd) force, geometrical parameters, and soil strength. This paper considers previous work by the co-authors and collaborators on analytical, numerical, and physical modelling of screw piles to relate the quantities measured or controlled during installation (e.g., installation torque) to the ultimate capacity and soil strength. Attention is given to saturated clay as a particular soil type amenable to simplified analysis. An analytical model for a single-helix pile is considered as a means of directly relating the ultimate capacity and undrained shear strength to the installation torque, crowd force, plate pitch, plate diameter, shaft diameter, installation depth, and surface roughness. The connection between the installation variables and ultimate capacity—and the sensitivity to crowd force in particular, a quantity that is typically not measured during field installations—is also discussed. The theoretical predictions are compared against data obtained from small-scale laboratory experiments that suggest the installation torque relates to the remolded strength of the soil. INTRODUCTION Screw piles are deep foundations that are twisted into the ground through an applied torque. Advantages over driven piles or drilled foundations include the relative silence of the installation, with low ground vibrations, and the possibility of being easily decommissioned by reversing the direction of twisting. Screw piles are now routinely encountered as a flexible, low-cost solution for numerous applications (Figs. 1 and 2), and they are also being considered for applications in offshore energy production due to limitations being imposed with respect to decommissioning and underwater noise. Also known as “screw anchors,” “helical piles”, or “helical anchors,” screw piles consist of helices or helical plate elements attached to a central shaft. Figure 3a shows the components of a single-helix pile and key variables. The diameters of the shaft and helix are denoted by d and D, respectively, and p is the pitch of the helix. Variable H denotes depth of the helical plate, and T and N denote the torque and axial (crowd) force applied during installation. In typical applications, the pile includes multiple helical plates, and the shaft is composed of segments that allow for it to extend to large depths into the soil.

Jan 1, 2019

By Caciola Jr. Joseph J., Nidal M. AbiSaab

"Thanks in great part to the geology of the New York City Metropolitan area, mini-caissons are a popular choice for deep foundations. These drilled elements are readily available, easy to install with minimal impact on adjacent structures, and can be designed with large compressive and tensile capacities. Despite the frequency with which they are employed, the engineering design community is divided over several of the underlying principles governing the design of mini-caissons. This paper seeks to draw attention to several of these issues in an effort to encourage further research and discussion, namely: (1) how the allowable stresses have changed for the NYC Building Code over time, (2) the inconsistent load transfer mechanisms considered for geotechnical capacity, and (3) the role of the permanent steel casing towards structural capacities of mini-caissons.INTRODUCTIONIn the local construction nomenclature, mini-caissons are drilled deep foundation elements which derive their capacity from a socket in rock. A permanent steel casing (commonly between 7- and 24-inches in diameter) aides the drilling through overburden soils to the top of bedrock. Afterwards, an uncased rock socket is drilled into the bedrock and the inside of the casing and rock socket is inspected by means of portable video equipment. After inspection, the interior of the socket and casing is filled with steel reinforcement and concrete or grout. The casing-soil interface is generally ignored for axial design purposes and the full geotechnical compressive or tensile capacity is assumed to be generated in the rock socket. Figure 1 shows a typical mini-caisson cross section.Mini-caissons have been used for decades in the New York City area for a number of reasons. They have historically been proven to develop high axial capacities in the city’s metamorphic rock (Tamaro et. al. 2000), often exceeding 300- to 500-tons. Additionally, their method of installation (drilling) is generally able to bypass layers of dense Glacial Till, boulders, and manmade fill which would interfere with the installation of other pile types (e.g. driven piles, auger cast piles). Further they are able to extend to depths exceeding 50-ft to reach bedrock underlying a site, making them a useful tool in areas where rock is relatively deep or varied in elevation. Drilled casing installation also results in fewer vibrations and disturbances to adjacent structures and can occur in areas of restricted access (a constant concern for any project in a dense urban environment such as NYC)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Krishna R. Reddy, Jyoti K. Chetri, Girish Kumar

Geotechnical engineering encompasses a major portion of the civil and infrastructure projects. The large amounts of energy and resources typically used in these projects leads to undesirable emissions and wastes which contribute substantially towards global environmental impacts (e.g., global climate change). This could further include secondary economic and societal issues which are often unaccounted in traditional engineering design of the geotechnical projects. In order to address this issue, it is imperative to integrate the broader environmental, economic and social implications into decisions of a geotechnical project. Recent years have seen a major impetus on life cycle assessment to evaluate the environmental sustainability of the geotechnical designs. However, there are no tools that can quantify the life cycle triple bottom line sustainability of potential design alternatives in a project with holistic considerations towards broader economic (indirect costs and benefits) and social impacts (stakeholder preferences, socio-environmental and socio-economic impacts). This study presents a new framework for quantitative assessment of life-cycle sustainability (QUALICS) for alternative designs in engineering projects. The framework integrates two multi-criteria decision analysis methods namely, the Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment (MIVES) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), to support decision making on the potential design alternatives. In this study, a brief overview of the framework is presented. A case study demonstrating the use of QUALICS framework is discussed with its application to the sustainability assessment of two deep foundation systems, caissons and piles, over their design life. The technical designs of both systems are developed based on bearing capacity, both primary and secondary settlements, and structural integrity. The results from the sustainability assessment of the two deep foundation systems are discussed, and the most sustainable option based on different stakeholder preferences and site-specific conditions are identified.

Jan 1, 2019

By C. Guney Olgun, Mohammad Khosravi, Daniel W. Wilson, Deepak Rayamajhi, Scott A. Ashford, Shuji Tamura, Ross W. Boulanger

"Dynamic centrifuge tests were performed on unimproved and improved soil with soil-cement column models. The reinforcing effect of isolated soil-cement columns for reducing liquefaction potential and ground deformation in improved soil were investigated. This paper presents the observed acceleration, pore pressure, and settlement responses under an earthquake base motion for both unimproved and improved soil models. In addition, lateral reinforcing effects of soil-cement columns were also investigated in terms of site stiffening effects and the increasing natural frequency of improved soil. The test results show that the soil-cement columns were rather ineffective in preventing liquefaction triggering in improved soil and in significantly reducing the magnitude of the resulting soil settlement compared to the model with unimproved soil profile. Furthermore, the predicted natural frequency of the improved soil profile estimated using existing design equations is shown to be significantly higher than the observed natural frequency inferred from centrifuge tests results. These design equations assume shear strain compatibility between the columns and the surrounding soil. On the other hand, revised design equations that account for shear strain incompatibility between column and surrounding soil are shown to give reasonable estimates compared to the observed natural frequency of the improved soil model.INTRODUCTIONGround improvement using stiff columns (e.g., stone columns, deep-soil-mixing columns, and jet-grout columns), are often used in practice to reduce liquefaction potential (and associated deformations) in loose soil sites. Typically, saturated silty soils are difficult to densify or drain rapidly due to their lower hydraulic conductivity, so densification and drainage techniques of improvement are often found to be ineffective. Instead, the shear reinforcing mechanisms of stiff columns are considered effective for reducing the seismic stresses and strains, and thereby reducing liquefaction potential in the enclosed saturated silty soils (Baez 1995, Adalier and Elgamal 2004, Mitchell 2008)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Abolfazl Eslami, Masoud Zare, Ali Asadi, Ali Abrang

"Physical small scale models for study of deep foundations can be performed in simple chambers (1g), calibration chambers (CC), and centrifuge apparatus (ng) which involve some limitations and difficulties. In recent years, Frustum confining vessels (FCV) have been developed for physical modeling of deep foundations. This device is frustum of a cone shape that applies a steady pressure on its bottom and creates a linear stress distribution along its vertical central line. A new FCV which has been built in AUT is introduced. This device has a height of 1200 mm, top and bottom diameters of 300 and 1300 mm, respectively. Through the application of bottom pressure up to 300 kPa, the insitu overburden stress conditions equivalent up to 40 m soil deposits consistent to the embedment depth of commonly used piles. Observation indicated that there is approximately a linear trend of stress distribution, and this device can create realistic overburden stress in the desired control volume along the central line. Moreover, a couple of compressive and tensile load tests were performed on steel tubular open end model piles driven in sand with length of 750 mm and different diameters and L/D ratio between 8-15. Comparison of load capacity between tested and full scale piles demonstrate a suitable conformity for similar confinement conditions. Therefore, the FCV can be realized as an appropriate apparatus for investigation of piling geotechnical behavior and examination of construction effects.IntroductionDeep foundations are designed as foundation system for supporting heavy loads, high rise and important structures. Different theoretical, numerical and experimental approaches have been developed to study the geotechnical behavior of deep foundations. Experimental methods are employed to clarify directly pile-soil interaction and because of repeatability, analogy, rapid measurement and cost efficiency, physical modeling can be realized as an intermediate technique compared to element testing and full scale load tests."

Jan 1, 2015