Search Documents

By H. Boghosian

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

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1989

Jan 1, 1991

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 1988

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"In partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects.The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"INTRODUCTIONIn partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects. The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 2003

By Willie M. NeSmith, W. Morgan NeSmith, Alan Roach

"In 2013, Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles are a mature foundation technology throughout the United States. General guidelines for the design and construction of ACIP piles are available along with numerous references for design in specific North American geologies. In fact, the current generation of contractors and geotechnical practitioners might view ACIP piles as just another deep foundation option to be considered, along with driven piles, drilled shafts and others. This acceptance has developed, however, over a 60-plus year period.The term, Augered Pressure-Grouted (APG) pile is often used when referring to ACIP piles because the piles emerged out of construction processes at the Intrusion-Prepakt firm in the late 1940s. The company’s specialty was pressure grouting and preplaced aggregate concrete. The grouting was typically accomplished by driving a pipe to a target level and then injecting grout under pressure. In some soil conditions, it was necessary to use an auger to reach the desired grouting depth. In these circumstances, the grout pipe was driven beside the auger and grout was pumped as the auger was withdrawn. The grout pipe was then withdrawn as well. This was the genesis of the APG, or ACIP pile, and many piles were installed using this technique. The patent application, “Method for Forming Piles” was filed by Raymond Patterson of Intrusion-Prepakt in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1956. The process was eventually modified when a suitable hollow-stem auger was developed. Licenses were granted to the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. in the late 1950s. Each of the three companies Patent, LicensesThe patent application, “Method for Forming Piles” was filed by Raymond Patterson of Intrusion-Prepakt in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1956. The process was eventually modified when a suitable hollow-stem auger was developed. Licenses were granted to the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. in the late 1950s. Each of the three companies coined their own terms for the piling process: “Pakt-In-Place” for Intrusion-Prepakt, “Auger Pressure-Grouted” for Berkel and “Augercast” for Turzillo. Over time, “Augercast” was frequently used as a generic term for the system. The installation of these piles was, and still is, a highly nuanced process; “contractor dependent” is a term often seen today. Intrusion-Prepakt, Berkel and Turzillo all had personnel who were part of the original group that developed the system and who appreciated the craftsmanship involved in forming sound piles."

Jan 1, 2013

Jan 1, 1988

By Guilherme L. M. G. Carvalho, Zachary T. Fleming

In a world of 2-dimensional design documents, envisioning and understanding 3-dimensional interferences for complex foundation construction scenarios can be challenging. Videos and computer models serve as 3-dimensional spatial aids but have drawbacks related to a fixed perspective. Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) provide new tools to communicate design challenges and improve construction planning. This paper provides a practical look at the basics of AR/VR systems and the tools available to the foundation design and construction industry by giving a high-level example of the technologies’ use in the design and delivery phases of a complex micropile installation project for the remediation of a dam foundation. Using these technologies, GEI was able to design and deliver a complex foundation remediation solution. AR/VR benefited regulators, and the client, to help understand the design concept, construction sequencing, and approach to overcoming installation challenges. Due to its user-friendly nature and less rigorous programming and hardware requirements, AR proved to be more useful than VR for this scenario. AR/VR will likely not replace videos and computer models; however, it can be a useful 3-dimensional visualization aid that complements the project delivery process and offers benefits that traditional methods cannot. INTRODUCTION Augmented and virtual reality is a promising and rapidly developing technology within the engineering and construction world. Like any rapidly developing new technology, the language describing it can be confusing and dynamic. To eliminate the confusion some definitions must be made. AR/ VR definitions The definitions of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) for the purposes of this paper are as follows: VR is a computer-generated immersive environment that the user experiences within a digital 3- dimensional space (Satava, 1993)AR is a composite view created by superimposing digital objects into the user’s real-world view (Azuma, 1997). Often, VR is used in an office environment and allows the user to “visit” the digital site to review site planning, construction sequences, and interference geometry. AR can be utilized in both the office and onsite environments. Like VR, the in-office application for AR is commonly site planning. AR also can be utilized in the field for applications such as seeing through the ground to locate known existing obstructions like utilities, gas tanks, etc.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 1985

Jan 1, 1989

Jan 1, 2005

Jan 1, 2002

By Alexander Filotti, Richard Kalson

"1. INTRODUCTION- WHAT IS P3 OR PPP ?The Public Private Partnership (PPP or 3P) is a project delivery scheme based on the government providing land and/or a concession agreement, and on a private entity providing the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance of the project for an extensive duration of time (up to thirty years). At the end of the operation-maintenance period, the project is turned over to the public entity, which fully owns the project at all times. While there are many PPP delivery schemes used around the world, for the present paper, we are going to analyze the impact of the Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain (DBFOM) scheme on the deep foundation specialty subcontractor. There are couple of reasons that the PPP delivery system started to be used and implemented not only by developed nations (e.g. United Kingdom, USA etc.), but also by the International Development Bank for delivering major infrastructure projects in developing nations. From the point of view of government agencies, some of the reasons to use PPP are the following:??The primary use of private capital in an era where borrowing and/or supplemental taxation represents too much of a political risk. Budget deficits and taxation limits are extremely hot topics in every election (national or local) and the level of education of the electorate in this area is making it more and more difficult for politicians to use borrowed funds and additional taxation finance sources for public projects. At the same time, we see an increase in the social expenditures of the government in parallel with a needed increase in expenditures on infrastructure due to aging and neglect.??Bundling the construction risks with the operational and maintenance risks naturally pushes the private entity to increase the level of innovation and communications in the primary phase ( the construction phase) in order to develop future process based upon the innovation and communications utilized in the operation and maintenance phase of the project. This is true if contractual incentives are properly structured because “all revolves around incentives. In a world of ‘incomplete’ contracts, where it is difficult to foresee and contract about uncertain future events, it is important to get the incentive structure right” (Grimsey and Lewis, 2004).??The transfer of very expensive risks such as differing site conditions, schedule, design, construction, maintenance and operation costs from the public authority to the private entity.??The timespan of development and construction of a PPP project is usually shorter than the traditional procurement process (e.g. “ the I-595 P3 provided capacity improvements fifteen years sooner than a conventional plan would have offered. In Maryland, an innovative expansion of the Seagirt Marine Terminal in the Port of Baltimore was completed two years ahead of schedule due to the P3 model. As a result, the Port of Baltimore is only the second port on the US East Coast to have unrestricted access to both a fully functioning 50-foot channel and 50-foot berth.”)"

Jan 1, 2017

This Workshop was held at the Doubletree Inn, Seattle, Washington from September 26 to 28, 1997. Run under the auspices of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI), it was co-funded by the newly formed Japanese Association of Micropiles (JAMP), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Workshop was jointly organized and facilitated by Fujita Research Corporation and ECO Geosystems, Inc., with close support by Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc. DFI kindly consented to publish these Proceedings. As is clear from the list of attendees, 42 specially invited engineers from all aspects of micropile technology were present, representing Japanese, European and American practice. This proved to be a most friendly and interactive group of people, who freely exchanged ideas, views and close comradeship, not only during the technical sessions, but (and especially!) during the numerous social events. Perhaps the best illustration of this came in Day 2 when the attendees were divided into five competing teams, each comprising representatives from the different geographic groupings. These teams had to quickly devise solutions to two technical problems (using standard data previously provided. A team of "referees" (who also acted as "coaches") later determined the most apposite response, based on constructability design concept, cost, schedule and so on. Not only were the winning team very liberal in distributing the prize (vintage California champagne) among themselves, but the whole Workshop soon benefited from their generous division of the spoils of victory.

Jan 1, 1997