Search Documents

By Mark Spence, Tom Lardner, Matthew Janes

"IntroductionThe design-build method streamlines project delivery through a single contract between the Contract manager and the design-build team. The design-build method places emphasis on collaborative project management between design and construction disciplines to minimize project schedule, reduce costs, encourage balance risk amongst the design-build team. Since 1985, the percentage of nonresidential design and construction projects has increased from 5% to 45%.1A project carried out in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada will be used as an example to illustrate the challenges of the design-build project delivery method and the merits of establishing a GBR. The project involved a complex slope stabilization as part of an extensive freeway widening. At the project location the roadway was being widened within the base of a historic stream valley into a steep slope with a history of a previous slope failure. The slope was to be steepened through the installation of a series of 14 interlocking arc structures constructed half way up the slope. Access and schedule proved critical to the successful completion of the project.Geotechnique and Site HistoryThe geotechnical investigation undertaken for the site included six boreholes drilled at the crest of the slope to depths ranging from 14.5 m to 30.2 m. Laboratory testing of the soil samples included direct shear tests, Atterberg limits and grain size analysis. The geotechnical report also referenced a previous geotechnical investigation that was carried out in response to a failure of the slope in 1971."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gregory A. Stephan

A case history of design, prediction, instrumented static load tests on probe piles, installation monitoring, and integrity testing of production piles is presented. Based upon project-specific subsoil conditions, as obtained from several 60 to 80 ft (18.3 to 24.4 m) deep test borings, deep foundation system alternatives included driven concrete and steel pipe piles as well as augered cast-in-place (ACIP) piles. High structural loads, site-specific constraints, and the production time frame mandated by the project owner led to the selection of an ACIP pile foundation system that was designed for a pile capacity of 75 tons (667 kN) in compression and 35 tons (309 kN) in tension. Site-specific concerns were raised about the highly porous nature of fragmented and decomposed sandy limestone as well as the high grout intake during construction that could result in increased foundation cost as well as interconnecting of the piles in the rock layer. Consequentially, a multi-phase ACIP pile evaluation program consisting of instrumented compression pile load tests, in conjunction with single-hole ultrasonic pile testing, pile echo testing (sonic testing), as well as full-time production pile monitoring by an experienced geotechnician was specified. As a result of this testing and evaluation program, while grout usage was determined to be within an acceptable range, the instrumented compression load tests yielded data that allowed use of 55 ft (16.8 m) long ACIP piles in lieu of the original plans to use 70 ft (21.3 m) long precast concrete piles. This information was effectively utilized as part of the overall quality control program to install a total of 268, 14 in. (356 mm) diameter ACIP piles within the building footprint to depths of 55 ft (16.8 m) below the pile cut-off elevation as part of the foundation support system. Information recorded during installation included rate of insertion/extraction of the auger, grout pump strokes and pressure, total grout volume, and grout factors, as well as quality and strength of grout. Additionally, many pre-selected installed piles were tested for integrity with a Pile Integrity Sonic Analyzer (PISA) using both sonic and ultrasonic methods. This engineered, monitored, and tested foundation solution provided an effective and quality intensive basis for completion and approval of the foundation work for the building that resulted in cost savings over other foundation alternatives for the owner.

Jan 1, 1999

By Tae Hwan Lee, Jun-Shin Lee, Daejin Kwag, Sangchul Bang, Gerard T. Houlahan, Moo Sung Ryu

"Geotechnical engineers have been installing innovative, permanent underwater foundation systems utilizing suction buckets for the offshore industry since the early 1980s (Senpere and Auvergne, 1982). This foundation system has been successfully used on numerous and various types of offshore structures in a wide range of environments. Suction buckets have numerous advantages compared to conventional underwater foundation systems. The more notable advantages include easy installation, large loading capacity, low noise and retrievability. The application of reduced water pressure inside the bucket facilitates the installation of the suction buckets, where a suction pump attached at the top of the bucket can accomplish the entire driving operation. Because of this efficient operation, very large suction buckets can be driven into the seafloor, which eliminates the use of a large number of small piles.In Korea, one of the most economical and reliable renewable energy sources is wind power; however, onshore wind power generation has encountered many problems, such as the lack of favorable sites and public concerns about noise and environmental damage. Consequently, offshore wind power generation has attracted increasing attention due to its abundant potential, high efficiency of grid connection, and availability of easy expansion.In November 2011, the government of Korea announced a national offshore wind power development roadmap, which targeted its offshore wind power generation with the goal of becoming one of the top three nations in the world for offshore wind power generation. Korea Electric Power Corporation Research Institute (KEPRI) is the main research arm of the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and conducts research and development on electricity, power generation, renewable energy and other energy-related matters. KEPRI ultimately provides forefront knowledge and leadership to KEPCO with respect to energy and related areas for its near- and long-term needs. Financial support for the overall project, of which the suction bucket foundation system installed for the pilot phase wind turbine is described below, was provided from the New and Renewable Energy Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning funded by the Korean Government Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy"

Jan 1, 2017

By Tae Hwan Lee, Jun-Shin Lee, Daejin Kwag, Sangchul Bang, Gerard T. Houlahan, Moo Sung Ryu

"Geotechnical engineers have been installing innovative, permanent underwater foundation systems utilizing suction buckets for the offshore industry since the early 1980s (Senpere and Auvergne, 1982). This foundation system has been successfully used on numerous and various types of offshore structures in a wide range of environments. Suction buckets have numerous advantages compared to conventional underwater foundation systems. The more notable advantages include easy installation, large loading capacity, low noise and retrievability. The application of reduced water pressure inside the bucket facilitates the installation of the suction buckets, where a suction pump attached at the top of the bucket can accomplish the entire driving operation. Because of this efficient operation, very large suction buckets can be driven into the seafloor, which eliminates the use of a large number of small piles.In Korea, one of the most economical and reliable renewable energy sources is wind power; however, onshore wind power generation has encountered many problems, such as the lack of favorable sites and public concerns about noise and environmental damage. Consequently, offshore wind power generation has attracted increasing attention due to its abundant potential, high efficiency of grid connection, and availability of easy expansion.In November 2011, the government of Korea announced a national offshore wind power development roadmap, which targeted its offshore wind power generation with the goal of becoming one of the top three nations in the world for offshore wind power generation. Korea Electric Power Corporation Research Institute (KEPRI) is the main research arm of the Korea Electric Power Corporation (KEPCO) and conducts research and development on electricity, power generation, renewable energy and other energy-related matters. KEPRI ultimately provides forefront knowledge and leadership to KEPCO with respect to energy and related areas for its near- and long-term needs. Financial support for the overall project, of which the suction bucket foundation system installed for the pilot phase wind turbine is described below, was provided from the New and Renewable Energy Program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning funded by the Korean Government Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy."

Jan 1, 2017

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY consists of a dual-span 1,982.5-ft long cable-stayed bridge with approach spans of 2,545 ft on the NJ side and 2,788 ft on the NY side. The bridge is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Drilled shaft resistances for design were based on load tests as described in a companion paper (Dapp et al. 2016). This paper presents the main foundation design considerations and challenges. The approach to construction of the rock sockets, with a focus on quality in order to support the use of high nominal values of side and base resistance, is described. Lessons learned from this project and their application to future similar projects are presented.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) project is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) that represents a major milestone for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) in its distinguished history of bridge building in the greater New York City metropolitan area. The new bridge will replace the existing Goethals Bridge, named after Major General George W. Goethals, Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal and the first consulting engineer for the Port Authority. The existing Goethals Bridge along with the Outerbridge Crossing and the Bayonne Bridge comprise the three Port Authority bridges connecting Staten Island with New Jersey. The existing Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing are cantilever truss structures and both opened on the same day in 1928. They were designed by J.A.L. Waddell under the supervision of the eminent engineer Othmar H. Ammann (1879-1965), who was the designer of many other iconic bridges in the NY City area including the Bayonne Bridge (1931), the George Washington Bridge (1931), and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge (1964). The designer of record for the replacement Goethals Bridge is Parsons Corporation, which is the successor firm of Robinson & Steinman, whose principal David B. Steinman was also a notable NY area bridge designer and a contemporary and rival of O.H. Ammann.The replacement Goethals Bridge is supported on over 200 rock-socketed drilled shaft foundations. Each main pylon tower is supported on a group of six 9-ft diameter drilled shafts and each anchor pier is supported by two 10-ft diameter shafts. Each approach pier consists of a two-column bent with each column supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft. A rendering of the Main Bridge crossing the Arthur Kill is shown in Fig. 1."

Jan 1, 2016

By Nicholas P. Gura

This paper presents the analysis, design, and load test program results for drilled shafts to support a 70-story hotel tower and associated 10 story podium structures located in Las Vegas, Nevada. A mat foundation for the structure, although feasible, would have produced undesirable differential settlements within the high rise tower footprint and at the interface with adjacent lower level podium structures. The resulting foundation system solution for the 70-story, approximately 800-foot long hotel tower was four-foot diameter drilled shafts, extending 100 below shaft cutoff. The design compression capacity for the four foot diameter drilled shaft was 5,000 kips. The load test program proved that the unique Las Vegas valley geology lends itself to efficient installation, precluding the need for engineered slurry or casing. The load testing program included the installation of two four-foot diameter test shafts to 100 feet below theoretical cutoff and the performance of two highly instrumented independent Osterberg load cell tests with maximum sustained test loads of 12,000 kips. Sonic caliper testing was also performed to document actual in-place shaft diameters and verticality. The load test program also provided information necessary for the foundation design of the podium structures. In addition to the tower?s drilled shaft load test program data, continuous flight auger (CFA) pile evaluation and testing was also performed. The CFA testing consisted of traditional ?top down? loading techniques and was performed as an alternative to the recommended shallow drilled shafts for the lower level podium structures. The results of the CFA test program provided supplemental, insightful soil friction data which was used in conjunction with the drilled shaft test program data in evaluating the most appropriate support for the lower level structures.

Jan 1, 2007

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

By Ziyad Abunada, David O’Connor, Fei Jin, Abir Al-Tabbaa

"In-situ remediation of contaminated land with deep mixing can enable a multi-technique remedial strategy on the same site combining low permeability barriers, permeable reactive barriers, stabilisation/ solidification treatments as well as ground improvement, delivering significant advantages over alternative strategies. This was the core objective of Project SMiRT (Soil Mix Remediation Technology) which involved the execution of the largest research field trials in the UK to date to provide field validation for this technique. Around 800m3 of soil were treated on a contaminated site in Yorkshire in May 2011 with 6 different treatments, testing ~40 binder compositions and 10 different installation methodologies. Field monitoring, testing and coring activities at the site took place within the first 2 months after treatment and then again at 34 months after treatment. This paper presents an overview of the field activities to date and some 3-year results and assessment of a subset of the treated soil sections. Some good correlations are seen together with some clear differences between treatments. There is generally an observed consistency with depth, with the mixing effectiveness having a more profound effect than the binder composition or content, within the tested materials and ranges. These field trial activities are currently being used in the development of the full-scale commercial remedial strategy for the site.INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PROJECT SMiRTWhile there are strong financial and environmental incentives to remediate and redevelop brownfield sites there are also barriers including fear of the unknown, regulatory control, delays, increased costs and the stigma associated with such sites. Hence the remediation process needs to be conducted in such a way to maximise the incentives and overcome the barriers, which is how deep mixing found its niche in the land remediation market. Soil mix technology is such a versatile technique that can perform a number of remediation treatments on the same site. These include low permeability in-ground barriers (cut-off walls), permeable reactive barriers (PRB), stabilisation/solidification (S/S) treatments, other additive related remediation, e.g. in-situ chemical oxidation and bioremediation, as well as soil amendments for greening and also ground improvement all on the same site (Al-Tabbaa et al, 2011). Placed in the context of alternative solutions, soil mix technology could potentially replace the five techniques shown in Figure 1, which would be required to deliver the same treatments mentioned above. Treatment trains strategy, where a combination of techniques in succession are used to both reduce the contamination levels and deal with residual contamination, is becoming common in land remediation and the use of one set of equipment to deliver this would bring about significant financial advantages. In addition, soil mix technology has many other advantages in terms of speed of implementation, elimination of exposure to contamination, elimination of off-site disposal and low cost. Soil mix technology for the remediation of contaminated land emerged in the UK in the mid 1980s and has since been employed in over 30 or so projects, which far exceeds its application to ground improvement for which only a handful of jobs have been carried out to date."

Jan 1, 2015