Search Documents

Jan 1, 1995

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

Jan 1, 1992

By Meeok Kim, Paul Beljan, Gordon Chen

"Clinton combined sewer overflow storage (CSO) facility project developed by the Department of Water Environment Protection of Onondaga County, New York, is to improve sewer facilities and infrastructure in Syracuse, New York. The below grade facility will provide a storage of untreated stormwater during highflow periods to be treated later, thus reducing CSO discharges to Onondaga Creek.The CSO system consists of three parallel storage tunnels and two end chambers (west and east chambers) as main underground structure. The storage tunnels are about 850 ft. long, 55 ft. wide, 24 ft tall and located 20 ft deep below grade. The chambers, include above access and operation structure, are about 40 to 55 ft. deep and approximately 60 to 100 ft. wide.Kiewit Infrastructure and Weidlinger Associates Inc. developed an alternative approach for the tunnels to meet the facility completion schedule, strict design guide lines and quality control as an environmental and water tight concrete structure for the project. The original design anticipated use of a TBM machine to bore three parallel tunnels between two previously constructed chambers.The alternative design used a three barrel culvert cast-in-place structure in a cut and cover excavation supported by a soil bentonite wall. The SOE along the jet grouted bottom seal provided a ground water cut off as well.The SOE system is specially designed to enhance the quality of culvert CIP structure construction by providing enough space for a full height construction. Also it further reduces the construction time by having the less squarefootage of jet grout installation. The design of tunnel systems is accomplished effectively through the utilization of soil structure interaction using a finite element methodIntroductionTo avoid construction of an additional treatment plant to handle increases in combined sewage flows, the Department of Water Environment Protection of Onondaga opted to construct the Clinton combined sewer overflow storage (CSO) facility.The Clinton CSO facility provides an environmental friendly mitigation method for combined sewer overflows on Onondaga lake which is located in northwest of Syracuse."

Jan 1, 2015

By Robert L. Goehring, Fred Munene

This case history for three major additions to a tire manufacturing plant in north Georgia discusses the impact of highly variable Karst (sinkhole) geology on both foundation design and construction. For Phase 3, alternatives were considered for a heavily loaded mixing tower with up to 2,000 kip column loads. A non-traditional approach of using auger cast piles was adopted. To satisfy a risk-averse Owner, a pile load testing program including strain gauges was conducted. One test pile was cored full depth to demonstrate effective bearing on steeply inclined rock. For Phase 4, similar methodology was used at another critical mixing tower structure associated with that phase and the installation procedure was refined to reduce grout take. In Phase 5 construction, another mixing tower and the equipment pits were supported on auger cast piles. After pile installation, a sinkhole opened up between two equipment pits. Remedial grouting was performed. Development also required construction of a R&D building over a 96 inch diameter RCP storm sewer. Auger cast piles were used to support the building to avoid overstressing the existing pipe and risk separating joints. This case history outlines lessons learned while constructing auger cast piles in Karst and proving quality was built into the foundations.

By Shoichi Tsukuni, Akihiko Uchida, Kazuo Konishi

"In order to investigate the effect of grid-form deep mixing walls as a countermeasure for liquefaction damage to roads and private houses in Urayasu, Japan, three dynamic centrifuge model tests were conducted. Urayasu is located in the Tokyo Bay area, and private houses in the city incurred severe damage due to liquefaction during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake. In grid-form deep mixing walls design, the distance between grid-form walls is critical to prevent liquefaction. This study clarifies the relationship between the settlement of private houses and the distance between grid-form walls under the conditions that exist in Urayasu.INTRODUCTIONMany private houses in Urayasu, Japan suffered severe damages due to liquefaction during the 2011 Tohoku earthquake (Photograph 1). Fig. 1 shows the location of Urayasu and the maximum acceleration of the observed seismic waves in the Tokyo Bay area. At Urayasu, the duration of the seismic waves (hereafter called the Urayasu Wave) was about 2 min. The maximum acceleration was 1.57 m/s2 (Fig. 2), which is relatively small. The damages occurred in the land reclamation areas that consist of loose sand with an SPT-N value less than 10.To prevent liquefaction in future, it is necessary to adopt suitable countermeasures in the areas where many private houses suffered severe damages. Grid-form deep mixing walls are one such countermeasure. Fig. 3 and Photograph 2 show grid-form deep mixing walls. Walls are constructed using the deep cement mixing method. Fig. 4 shows a plane view of planned grid-form deep mixing walls for roads and existing private houses in Urayasu."

Jan 1, 2015

This Section describes four alternative methods for load testing of drilled shafts: high strain dynamic test (HSDT), rapid load test, static load test, and bottom load test. Until recently, static load tests were the only method available for verifying the capacity of a drilled shaft. However, because many drilled shafts carry very high design loads, the static load test was prohibitively expensive. The alternative methods, HSDT, rapid load testing, and bottom load testing are gaining acceptance because of their lower cost and faster implementation. However, these different methods do not necessarily yield the same results. This section describes the load testing methods and the differences that may occur when interpreting the test results.

Jan 1, 2004

By Pawan L. Sethi

Design and construction of deep foundations and basements is increasingly becoming more complex, as the density and frequency of urban development increases. This growth brings various associated challenges in the form of design considerations and construction challenges. This paper discusses some of the challenges routinely encountered as well as some specific complications in this area, based on author’s experience gained through exposure as specialist contractor (designer), consultant and specialist consultant, along with some information on how these challenges were overcome. The paper highlights some of the key aspects of design coordination and importance of having an awareness of the overall perspective. Examples will be used to illustrate practical problems and the approaches used to respond.

Nov 1, 2022

By Rob van Dorp

"AbstractThe Monitoring & Instrumentation Committee (MIC) of DFI Europe has the objective to support DFI members in concern of risk management of geotechnical matters, where monitoring and instrumentation have added value.Work of the CommitteeA study by the committee showed that there are already several existing (national) guidelines. They all have their strengths and limitations and their focus may vary a little per country due to local regulations and typical local building activities, but the main question remains what added value another new guideline would have. More likely it would add to the confusion instead of providing overview.Companies with larger experience in geotechnical monitoring (often larger consultancy firm, contractors or clients) are already quite familiar with its benefits do not really need a new guideline in how to design and effectively apply sophisticated geotechnical monitoring systems for special projects.Therefore the aim of the MIC is to focus a little more towards smaller organizations - that are less familiar with monitoring and instrumentation - and the more ‘regular’ type of project that they are mainly involved in. The MIC wants to create a tool which helps them to create risk awareness, to understand the benefits of geotechnical monitoring and to provide them information about how and where to find the right partners and equipment to setup and apply appropriate monitoring systems for their projects.Monitoring and instrumentation benefits are for example:• Risk control during construction stage;• Costs reduction in design and construction (taken limitation of geotechnical aspects into account).• Prevent of unnecessary delays in construction work• Increasing general awareness of geotechnical risks and possibilities of monitoring.The cost of monitoring compared to the cost of failure and/or the savings that can be achieved play a role in the work of the committee. DFI members benefit from the shared knowledge by the MIC on monitoring and instrumentation within their process of risk management."

Jan 1, 2014

By David H. Sanders, Ramin Motamed, Fahim M. Bhuiyan, Raj V. Siddharthan

Large-diameter drilled shafts (DS) are a critical part of a seismic-resistant system, and therefore it is important to be able to accurately model lateral resistance. To undertake the lateral load analysis of largediameter DS, a finite-difference p-y analysis program, NVShaft, is being developed at the University of Nevada Reno. Validation of the new program involved numerous p-y analyses using commercially available programs. Subsequent comparisons suggested the program's ability to yield reasonable predictions for typical diameter DS. Based on the I-15/US 95 load test program carried out in Las Vegas, NV, this study presents the evaluation of NVShaft in Nevada’s subsurface condition. Lateral load analyses of a 2 ft and an 8 ft diameter DS were attempted using NVShaft. The location of the applied lateral loads and the presence of cemented soil-layers were incorporated in the modeling. A good agreement between NVShaft prediction and the measured response was found for the 2 ft diameter DS. For the 8 ft diameter DS, a stiffer response was predicted. The inspections of the moment-curvature characteristics at different load levels suggested cracked response of the concrete due to prior axial load testing may be one of the reasons behind the deviation.

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By John S. Civetta, Seth Martin, Marc J. Gallagher, Arthur J. Alzamora, Ronald Peralta

The Crown Building, built circa 1921, is a 26-story iconic building located at West 57th Street and Fifth Avenue in the heart of Manhattan. The paper highlights collaboration between the geotechnical engineer and foundation contractor to develop economical and practical solutions to foundation design and construction challenges associated with this complex redevelopment project. The project includes both below-grade and above-grade expansion of the occupied building, and required undermining the existing foundations, and essentially doubling the foundation loads. The below-grade expansion required surgical foundation work including drilling minicaissons, shoring columns, underpinning, and excavating 20 feet of rock.

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Alex Ryberg, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

Driven piles are widely used for foundation support. In the vast majority of cases, an increase in pile capacity occurs with time which is referred to as “set-up.” However, in a very limited number of cases, a decrease in capacity with time can occur. This phenomenon is referred to as “relaxation.” This paper will provide a brief review of the relaxation phenomenon, as well as pile driving information and dynamic test data on cases where relaxation has occurred. The pile types in the presented relaxation cases include H-piles, open-end and closed-end pipe piles, prestressed concrete piles, and prestressed concrete piles with H-pile stingers. The soil conditions where relaxation occurred includes dense to very dense fine sands, heavily over consolidated clays, and weak laminated rocks. Relaxation information from 36 piles at 26 sites is assessed. The collected data will assist foundation designers by identifying the subsurface conditions where relaxation has occurred, as well as by documenting the corresponding relaxation magnitude. One method of addressing relaxation when it is encountered is to drive the foundation piles to a greater end of initial driving capacity than required long-term. Hence, the identification and quantification of the relaxation magnitude will be beneficial to foundation designers installing similar pile types in similar subsurface conditions. The paper will also present pertinent observations and recommendations on mitigating relaxation when encountered. INTRODUCTION One of the earliest observations of a decrease in redriving resistance following initial driving was reported by Miller (1937). He reported that piles driven into a saturated, coarse grained soil could lose 40 to 50% of their resistance when redriven 24 hours after initial driving. Yang (1956) similarly reported that after a break in driving, a decrease in driving resistance could be encountered for piles driven in dense fine sand, inorganic silt, or stiff fissured clay. Parsons (1966) in his paper that described piling difficulties in the New York City metropolitan area termed this phenomenon “relaxation”. In this time period, pile capacity was most often evaluated from a pile driving formula frequently checked by a static load test. Hence, the true magnitude of the capacity decrease on a given pile was often poorly quantified. Furthermore, dynamic measurements that could determine what influence driving system performance variation had on the observed redriving resistance were not yet readily available.

Jan 1, 2019

By Amr Sallam, Ahmad Mohamed, Mohamed Alrowaimi

Renewable energy, in the form of wind and solar, has emerged as main source of energy in the modern society. The wind industry has substantially grown over the last two decades to become a key player in providing energy to public. Wind turbines are getting larger, taller, and more efficient every year. The foundation is a major component of the wind turbine system. The wind turbine foundation must provide short and long-term stability for the overall turbine to allow continuous and safe turbine operation for energy production. The turbine serviceability and stability requirements must be geotechnically and structurally satisfied. In North America, major foundation types currently utilized in the wind industry include gravity spread foundation, mono pier foundation, and pile foundation. In this case study, a Post Tensioned Pile Cap (PTPC) foundation was used to support a 3.15-3.4 Megawatt turbine with 125M Rotor supported on 87.5M-hub-height tower. Soil anchors in the form of Auger-Pressure-Grouted-Displacement (APGD) piles and Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles were utilized. Four distinct subsoil conditions were identified, and for which four pile designs were adapted. Due to the occasional encounter of stronger soils at 50 to 55 feet (15.2 to 16.7 m), shorter pile design was preferred. To satisfy the design uplift load, pile post grouting were utilized to increase the shaft capacity of the piles. In this paper, the pre-production pile load test program will be described. The pile load test procedure, analysis, and results will be presented. A discussion will be provided, which led to the selection of the optimum pile design to support the high tension loads taking into consideration pile length limitations.

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

By David Sherwood

The paper has been prepared as the basis for the 2008 John Mitchell Memorial Lecture. It reviews major developments in ground engineering over the last 20 years, not from the point of view of technical processes, but from the drivers that have driven these developments and the needs that they have met. It concludes with a glimpse into the future and suggests to where current trends will probably lead us. By its nature such a review is closely aligned with personal experience and it relies heavily on case histories largely from within the writer?s own experience over that period.

Jan 1, 2008

By Christopher J. Ramsey, Don W. Dotson

"An existing four lane section of US 27 was widened to eight lanes. The project lies in the rugged Valley and Ridge Province of the Appalachian mountains starting at the Tennessee River in Chattanooga, Tennessee and extending 2.6 km north to Signal Mountain Boulevard. This terrain presented many challenges to accommodate the road widening in the narrow, rugged topography. Multiple tiered wall systems consisting of large tieback walls, post-tensioned reaction blocks, and gravity MSE walls for a total of approximately 30 retaining walls were required. The retaining walls served to stabilize the thrust faulted geology while also minimizing right-of-way acquisitions. The cut walls consist mainly of a tiered system of tied-back soldier piles walls with cast-in-place concrete facing. Cast-in-place pile shear walls were required along the toe of existing MSE walls to maintain stability during construction. This paper discusses the design methodology, which includes a hybrid (rather than traditional) earth pressure diagram intended to reduce life-cycle maintenance and long-term performance. Further this paper addresses wall construction, slope stability analysis, landslide mitigation alternatives, soldier pile wall design features, site challenges, monitoring and performance (to date) of the wall systems.INTRODUCTIONThis project involves the proposed widening of US Highway 27 (State Route 29) from the north end of the Tennessee River Bridge at Manufacturer’s Road to State Route 8 (Signal Mountain Road), approximately 2.64 km of roadway (Fig. 1). The project site is located adjacent to the Tennessee River on the north side of downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee in Hamilton County. The existing, limited access highway is to be widened from four lanes (two northbound and two southbound) to a minimum of eight lanes. Some portions of the alignment will expand to as much as ten lanes where northbound and southbound ramp acceleration/deceleration lanes coincide.In addition to the number and heights of cuts and fills involved, a major factor in determining an economical design for the alignment is the complicated geologic conditions along the roadway alignment. The existing roadway is situated between several steep cut slopes, some of which are only marginally stable or currently exhibit signs of instability. Due to the proximity of the project to the downtown area, the steep slopes along the alignment, and the relatively dense population near the alignment, widening the pavement and constructing cut and fill slopes to a stable configuration would result in major land acquisition for slope right-of-way."

Jan 1, 2015

By Adam Pickles, Duncan Nicholson, Richard E. Prust, Hoe C. Yeow

"Moorhouse is founded on what at the time of construction were the deepest base grouted piles ever installed in London, specifically designed to accommodate settlement from the proposed development of Crossrail. This paper describes design and construction issues associated with this project with special emphasis on the construction aspects of installing these piles in a heavily congested site in Central London.INTRODUCTIONConstruction of the deepest base grouted bored piles in a congested site in Central London in 2002 posed a number of design and construction problems. To add to the complication, the new structure's footprint is within the safeguarded zone of the proposed new cross London rail link, Crossrail. Therefore the piles were required to be designed to allow for the effects of construction of the proposed Crossrail's tunnels and a new station at Moorgate. The design and construction issues associated with this project are described in this paper and methods used to address such issues are presented.MOORHOUSE DEVELOPMENTThe new nineteen storey high Moorhouse building was commissioned by Moor House Limited Partnership and will form another new Central London landmark building by the British architect Foster and Partners. Two of the four facades feature complex geometry to fulfill the city's planning requirements. The building is a steel frame structure stabilised by a reinforced concrete core. Floor plates span between the core and the perimeter with two rows of internal columns.The complex geometry of the superstructure requires a diagonal ""bandolier"" to transfer floor loads to certain perimeter columns. Another salient feature of the superstructure is the ribs that are provided to act as sloping columns to carry the loads down to the foundations."

Jan 1, 2005

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