Search Documents

By Carlandrea Albonico, Salvatore Miranda

After a brief introduction of the whole Project, the paper describes two special geotechnical engineering solutions provided within the scope of the Galataport Project, in Istanbul, Turkey. The first refers to the new quay of Salıpazarı, which is a combination of retaining structure and ground improvement, formed by a combiwall, a reinforced concrete diaphragm wall and a soil improvement by deep soil mixing (Turbojet). The second, refers to the soil improvement works executed underneath three existing buildings. Single-fluid jet grouting columns had the scope of improving the mechanical properties of the bearing soil and reducing the associated risk of liquefaction. A set of underpinning micropiles was installed in order to allow the excavation of a partial basement inside two of these three buildings. All activities were conducted from inside the existing buildings, with reduced headroom. The paper highlights the importance of employing cutting-edge technologies within the foundation engineering field and state-of-the-art electronic control devices, in parallel with the essential human expertise, in order to obtain the desired results in this high-profile Project.

Nov 1, 2022

By Thomas W. Scott, Manh N. Tran

Marine environments present a range of challenges for pile construction. This paper contains a discussion on the design and construction of marine piles for a recent Toll Shipping wharf upgrade in Burnie, Tasmania. The project involved several new structures including mooring, berthing and ramp dolphins supported by driven tubular piles with rock sockets, and an onshore mooring dolphin and ramp abutment supported by bored piles. Through the project, a range of construction challenges were experienced, including availability of tubular piles, the different penetration depths of driven piles into rock, the ability to drill out sockets when the piles were raked, the difficulty in verifying the design intent, latent conditions and ship impacts. The paper will present a summary of the different factors that influenced design concepts for the structures involved in the upgrade, and the challenges involved in the design of the structures. Following this, the paper will describe the methodology used to verify the design (including a pullout test), observations made during pile construction and lessons learned on how to limit risk throughout construction.

Nov 1, 2022

By Mark Zablocki, Dakarai McCoy

Ground vibrations are an unavoidable effect of driving piles and may pose a risk to nearby infrastructure and the comfort of adjacent occupants. Driven-pile-induced ground vibrations are known to vary widely based on ground conditions, pile material, and installation means and methods. A monitoring sensor to record ground vibrations during pile driving is necessary for understanding potential impacts to sensitive infrastructure and should be considered when implementing a monitoring program anticipating ground vibrations. The implementation of a vibration monitoring program historically relies on experiential-based decision-making, which may result in the costly vibration monitoring of low-risk infrastructure. Prior understanding of anticipated ground vibrations is necessary to create an appropriate monitoring program. A framework is proposed for organizing data from past monitoring programs and quantifying the anticipated risk of driven-pile-induced vibrations. An example of risk quantification from data imported to ]a cloud database is presented by comparing driven steel H-pile and prestressed precast concrete vibration monitoring measured and collected by Haley & Aldrich between 2010 and 2020. The methods presented within the example can be applied to quantify a first order approximation of risk for ground vibrations at proposed driven pile sites based on the measured performance of previous sites with similar ground characteristics and pile installation methods. The presented novel data managements tools allow for a quick aggregation of vibration data with similar site conditions.

Sep 8, 2021

"Standing 92 stories high and just over 1,362 ft tall, Chicago’s Trump International Hotel and Tower is perfectly positioned at the center of one of the world’s most impressive skylines.The Tower serves as a link between its famous predecessors, Willis Tower (formerly, the Sears Tower) to the south and the John Hancock Building to the north. Originally planned to be the world’s tallest building, the project was scaled back when the developers started questioning the need for super-tall buildings after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. In its River North neighborhood, Trump Tower dominates the skyline as a symbol of Chicago’s last great building boom, standing triumphantly over other high-profile projects that have been postponed due to current economic realities.It is often said that the three most important factors in real estate are location, location and location. This maxim was not forgotten by The Trump Organization when the site was selected for the International Hotel and Tower. Located two blocks west of Michigan Avenue and Chicago’s famed Magnificent Mile, the site is bound by the historic Wrigley Building to the east, Wabash Avenue to the north and west, and the Chicago River to the south. The building’s position along a bend in the Chicago River allows visitors and residents unobstructed views to the mouth of the Chicago River and Lake Michigan. Site ChallengesUnderneath the site there are approximately 10 to 20 ft of sand and urban fill underlain by soft Chicago blue clay. At 75 ft in depth, the soft clay transitions into Chicago hardpan, a very hard till that was consolidated by the glaciers over 10,000 years ago. Below the hardpan, the till turns granular with cobbles, boulders and water under pressure. Bedrock is about 100 ft below existing grade and has a weathered surface with fractures and clay seams. Unweathered limestone bedrock is sound and hard with unconfined compressive strengths of 10,000 to 20,000 psi."

Jan 1, 2009

By John Vickers, William H. Hover, Paul C. Schmall

"Any sudden subsurface issue that threatens the stability of existing buildings or infrastructure is cause for immediate investigation and prompt remedial action. Nowhere is this more true than the nation’s dams and levees. A breach of any kind, no matter how small initially, has the potential to be catastrophic and impact a wide downstream area. Addressing the problem quickly and effectively is therefore critical. When a turbid water discharge developed from a rock drainage embankment at the toe of the earthen dam impounding Cannonsville Reservoir, near Deposit, NY, the source of the problem was quickly identified as resulting from an artesian water release from an underlying permeable silty sand and gravel formation during drilling of three exploratory boreholes in preparation for construction of a hydroelectric plant at the downstream toe area of the dam facility. Work was halted, intense 24-hour monitoring was implemented, and as a risk reduction measure NYCDEP began to draw down the reservoir’s total storage at a rate of a billion gallons per day. Input sought from contractors within the geotechnical community helped result in the design and development of a deep well system to control the artesian pressure. Once this primary objective was accomplished, modified compaction grouting was performed at the borehole locations to densify loosened soils, fill any voids created by the discharge activity, and seal off the permeable aquifer. This paper discusses the dewatering program, specialized drilling techniques required, monitoring and verification of pressures within the dam, and the grouting program.BackgroundCannonsville Dam, owned and operated by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), is located in Deposit, New York on the West Branch of the Delaware River and impounds the Cannonsville Reservoir. Built between 1959 and 1964, the dam has an impervious central and upstream core zone keyed into the glacial till foundation, a semi-pervious downstream embankment zone, and a rockfill toe and is approximately 2,800 ft (853.4 m) long and 175 ft (53.3 m) high. The dam is formed by two embankment sections. The left section forms the main embankment blocking the main river channel, while the right section is constructed over a topographic saddle or low ridge. Reservoir level is actively influenced by withdrawals through the West Delaware Tunnel, based on water supply need. Under normal circumstances, water is continuously discharged downstream to the Delaware River."

Jan 1, 2016

By Fabio Santillan, Lyndon Bedford

"This paper presents the main features of the Wolf Creek Dam Foundation Remediation Project, highlighting the innovative construction approach and stressing on how the collaboration between the contractor and the owner became a key element for the success of this project.The main rehabilitation contract, $341 M, was awarded in 2008 for the construction of a 980,000 sqft concrete barrier. Most of this 2ft-wide concrete barrier wall is being built to depths reaching 277 ft using innovative construction techniques proposed by the contractor and under quality control measures that exceed by far the industry standards.The construction of the barrier wall entails the use of nine different foundation techniques which run concurrently following very stringent requirements in terms of verticality, distance between open elements, strength, permeability and dimensions that control the installation sequence of each barrier wall element.The innovative construction approach by the contractor and the collaborative efforts by the contractor and the USACE (“US Army Corps of Engineers”) have brought this unique and very difficult project to a successful completion, setting new standards in the dam foundation industry and nine months ahead of scheduleINTRODUCTIONWolf Creek Dam is on the Cumberland River in south central Kentucky. It provides hydropower, flood control, water supply, and water quality benefits for the Cumberland River system and surrounding region. The lake is a source of recreation that has attracted more visitors (4.89 million) than Yellowstone National Park (2.87 million).The dam and its adjacent reservoir reside upon a heavily Karst bedrock foundation. In late January 2007, the USACE placed the dam under a 'high risk' for failure designation. As a temporary measure, the pool elevation was lowered to 680 ft Above Main Sea Level (“AMSL”), 80 ft below its maximum capacity, with huge impacts to the local economy while the major, and ambitious, $ 594 million remediation program to bring the dam back to its full operating condition was carried out.The main rehabilitation contract of $341 million was awarded in 2008 for the construction of a 980,000 sqft concrete cut-off barrier. Most of this 2ft-wide concrete barrier wall has been built to depths reaching 277 ft using innovative construction techniques under quality control measures that far exceed the industry standards."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ihab Allam PE, Meeok Kim. PE. Ph. D

The wet weather equalization basin (EB) planned for Pacifica, CA is a 45 feet deep rectangular shaped underground water tank containing over 2.1 million gallons of water, and located only 500 feet away from the Pacific Ocean. The location and size of the water tank, and the geotechnical characteristics of the selected site presented many engineering and construction challenges. The engineering had to consider a structural system which can fit into the limited area of the site and yet need to meet the storage volume requirement. In addition, the system construction should meet the city’s tight budget and schedule.

By Lance Rasband, Richard Hanke

"Seattle Tunnel Partners (STP) started mining on Seattle’s SR99 tunnel on July 30, 2013, working slowly through a 15 ft (4.6 m) thick fiber-reinforced concrete headwall. Once through the headwall, the machine would move through roughly 400 lineal ft (122 m) of jet grout-improved soil at a rate slightly over 6 ft (1.8 m) per day. It was anticipated that once through the improved area, Bertha—the world’s largest tunnel boring machine—would move at a rate of 35 ft (10.7 m) per day. By the end of October 2013, Bertha had mined roughly 430 ft (131 m), averaging 4.73 ft (1.4 m) per day, and had begun mining within native soils. By the start of December 2013, tunneling reached the 800 ft (244 m) mark and Bertha averaged 12 ft (3.7 m) per day, achieving as much as 42 ft (12.8 m) of progress on some days. However, on December 6, 2013, Bertha began to stumble and all progress quickly came to a halt. Preliminary InvestigationInitial reports stated that an obstruction had stopped the machine in its tracks. Malcolm Drilling received an early morning call on Sunday, December 8, 2013, from STP to rapidly mobilize a Bauer BG-50 drill rig with crews to investigate what was hindering Bertha’s progress. Malcolm’s equipment and crews flew into action and were completely mobilized and operational by mid-week. The preliminary investigation involved installation of 10 deep dewatering wells to reduce the hydrostatic head within the ground around the machine and allow STP personnel to inspect the cutter head from within the shaft for presence of obstructions. By the close of December 2013, the wells were installed and the dewatering system was fully commissioned. STP crews were then able to inspect the cutter head and found small fragments of a steel pipe wrapped around the outside of the shield. The steel was apparently from an abandoned 10 in (0.25 m) diameter monitoring well casing previously installed by WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) to monitor groundwater conditions for the design and planning of this very project. After the steel was cut out of the head and cleared from Bertha’s path, she attempted to move forward but was only able to manage a slow crawl"

Jan 1, 2015

By Kenneth E. Henn, David B. Paul, John D. Rice, Brian H. Greene

"Several laboratory modeling programs have been conducted to investigate the mechanisms associated with internal erosion of dam embankments and foundations. The investigation consists of developing laboratory devices to model three separate mechanisms associated with process: 1) contact erosion along bedrock joints, and 2) piping into an open bedrock defect. The contact erosion device subjects the soil above a bedrock joint to high velocity flows in the joint. The erosion into a bedrock defect device examines a number of static and transient hydraulic conditions to study the mechanisms associated with this type of erosion. Numerous tests have been conducted using both devices. The results of the modeling will be discussed along with a discussion of how this information could be used in future dam design and risk assessment studies.IntroductionA series of laboratory modeling programs were performed to assess the seepage and internal erosion behavior of several man-made and natural structures within dams and their foundations. Each model was performed on a “bench scale” and depicted an isolated location where internal erosion was likely to occur. The models were subjected to hydraulic boundary conditions to simulate the in-situ conditions so that the processes of internal erosion could be observed. Two laboratory devices were developed to model conditions depicting 1) contact erosion along a bedrock joint in contact with a dam embankment, and 2) backward erosion (piping) into an open bedrock defect (joint, solution void, etc.).Embankment dams often have rock foundations containing defects which may detrimentally impact future performance. Further, there are existing foundations which contain rock defects that may already be detrimentally impacting the dams; however, due to the inherent aspects of the mechanism, the signs of distress may not have propagated to the surface and thus not observed during inspections. A better understanding of the mechanisms which are influenced by, and impose their influence upon, rock defects will enhance the ability of dam safety professionals to analyze the risks associated with internal erosion due to rock defects, increase our ability to monitor and successfully initiate earlier detection, and also increase our ability to design remediation methods to contend with rock defect failure modes."

Jan 1, 2016

By Swaminathan Srinivasan, Aaron J. Muck

"When an opportunity arises to combine state-of-the-art concepts with advanced modeling tools, engineers need to take what they know and apply forward thinking to geotechnical solutions to promote the state-ofpractice. Such an opportunity was seized during the design and construction of the Great American Tower in Cincinnati, Ohio. The forty-one story Great American Tower at Queen City Square – currently the tallest building in Cincinnati – has not only changed the downtown skyline, it is also contributing to the advancement of the state-of-the-art use of auger cast-in-place (ACIP) piles as settlement reducers. Predicted settlements of a traditional mat foundation were excessive, and the costs and construction time associated with traditional ACIP piles extending to bedrock were not preferred. A mat supported on a limited number of ACIP piles, with the piles primarily acting as settlement reducers, was evaluated as the preferred foundation type.Promoting the unique soil-structure interaction of the foundation system with confidence required the use of sophisticated numerical modeling tools. Traditional standard penetration test boring data (SPT) was initially used to develop a numerical analysis of the soil-structure interaction using FLAC 3D software. The model was further modified with cone penetration (CPT) and pressuremeter testing (PMT), along with actual load test results on several ACIP pile elements of varying lengths, but all tipping above bedrock. Through a combined design team effort, and detailed numerical modeling analysis, ACIP piles were recommended for reducing mat foundation settlement. Instrumentation during and post-construction confirmed design assumptions and predictions. Integrating sound geotechnical concepts, and using advanced geotechnical analysis and design methods, traditional mat and ACIP pile foundations were successfully integrated into a unique foundation support system.INTRODUCTIONThe Great American Tower at Queen City Square in Cincinnati, Ohio is located within a region dissected by historical geologic deviances associated with the meander of the Ohio River and glacial progression/recession. Combining a challenging geology, with the development of a high-rise office building afforded the design team an opportunity to combine state-of-the-art soil-structure interaction concepts and method with traditional geotechnical engineering concepts. Such a combination required a variety of field tests, collaboration with the design team and owner, and geotechnical-structural modeling during the design phase. During construction, in addition to materials testing and observation, a variety of instrumentation systems were employed. Together, the data was used to corroborate the design model and make adjustments during construction and further substantiate design assumptions following construction."

Jan 1, 2015

By George W. Little, John Councilman

"The selection, evaluation, and modification of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers, completed by the slurry trench excavation method, can be one of the most critical and challenging tasks to ensure the cutoff wall meets the design performance criteria. Contractor mix designs should incorporate all available geotechnical data, including subsurface soil characteristics, groundwater information, and potential site contaminates. However, the pre-construction mix design can have limitations if subsurface data is limited or shows variability from initial investigations. Placement of the seepage barrier material needs to be evaluated during construction to identify in-situ performance. In one particular case study, the self-hardening cutoff wall mix design was evaluated over a one year period followed by a year and a half installation period, in which, a number of adjustments were made to the laboratory mix design during construction due to performance in the field. Installation for the selected mix was monitored on a real-time basis, using quality control data, as well as early strength and permeability results to determine if adjustments to the self-hardening mix were necessary. Evaluation of early results and relationships between strength and permeability were used to make adjustments prior to achieving the final test results for 28-day strength and permeability. Test results of the installed mix illustrated a direct correlation between strength and permeability. Achieving a minimum unconfined compressive strength was necessary to meet the minimum permeability of the seepage barrier. Other determinations conclude that the thorough development of a pre-construction mix design can have limitations even when all geotechnical data and site conditions are taken into account. Understanding early indicators and key strength and permeability relationships are necessary to determine seepage barrier performance and limitations.IntroductionThe evaluation of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers was reviewed for one particular case study where a mix was developed using available geotechnical background information, including considerations for impacted groundwater. Following development of the laboratory mix design, the seepage barrier wall was installed over a one and a half year period, where the contractor mix design was evaluated and modified to accommodate field conditions affecting performance. The objective of the project was to cutoff and collect impacted groundwater and prevent the migration of contaminants to the creek running adjacent to the project. The self-hardening seepage barrier wall was installed using the slurry trench excavation method along 4700 ft of alignment and extended to depths ranging from 20 to 85 ft below ground surface, where it tied in with a low permeability stratum or competent bedrock."

Jan 1, 2016

By Jean Wehbe, Daniel C. Brahana

"This paper presents a case history of drilled pier construction for a new stadium in Atlanta, Georgia. The stadium structure is supported on several different foundation types, with the heaviest ""mega columns"" typically bearing on drilled pier supported mats. The project includes 141 drilled piers with design diameters of 5.5, 6 and 6.5 feet. The piers bear on bedrock at depths of 20 to 110 feet below the ground surface. Many of the piers included rock sockets with design lengths of 5 to 18 feet. A pre-production drilled pier load test program was completed including one Statnamic load test, two Osterberg Cell tests and two lateral load tests. Non-destructive testing (crosshole sonic logging and sonic integrity testing) were also performed during construction. Production pier installation with over 3800 linear feet of earth excavation and over 1350 linear feet of rock excavation was completed in a little over four months. The piers were installed using both the cased hole method and the slurry method. All cased holed required downhole inspection and slurry holes were initially inspected with a mini-SID device and subsequently by sounding. Advanced drilling equipment and tooling were used to meet the production requirements for the project. This paper reviews the highly variable soil and rock conditions encountered at the site, briefly presents the results of the load tests, and discusses pier installation procedures and the equipment used for installation. The paper also presents conclusions related to the installation and lessons learned.INTRODUCTIONWith the opening of AT&T Stadium in Dallas, a new era of stadium construction began in the U.S. The new age stadiums are larger and have more amenities than their predecessors. The new Atlanta Falcons stadium is no exception. Many of the new features, including Atlanta’s innovative retractable roof, result in extraordinary structural loads. The roof structure is supported by a series of mega columns that bear on eight large caps, six of which are drilled pier supported. Each of the pier caps contains between 8 and 16 drilled piers that bear in the underlying bedrock. The design pier diameters are 6 and 6.5 feet. Augercast piles were used to support two of the mega column caps. Drilled piers, augercast piles, aggregate piers and spread footings are used to support the more lightly loaded portions of the structure."

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 P. Middendorp, Gerald E. H. Verbeek

"INTRODUCTIONStatic Load Testing (SLT) is generally considered the pile testing method that provides the de-facto answers regarding pile capacity and load-deflection behavior. However, as this testing method is time consuming and costly, alternative pile testing methods are applied, such as High-Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT), commonly referred to as Dynamic Load Testing (DLT), and Rapid Load Testing (RLT), which includes Statnamic Testing (STN) and the Fundex Pile Load Tester (PLT). Extensive descriptions of these pile testing methods as well as comparisons of the results from these two methods have been widely published, but little is written on the choice between HSDT and RLT. This article will address this issue for concrete piles by discussing five different aspects that should be considered when making a choice between HSDT and RLT for either cast-in-situ piles or precast driven piles. TIMINGThe timing of the pile load test is independent of the testing method. For cast-in-situ piles load testing is performed some time after the pile has been installed (to allow the pile to obtain the compressive strength required to withstand the test load), while for precast driven piles load testing is performed after a so-called set-up period following pile installation (to allow the soil to recover from driving induced disturbances and, at least in most cases,regain strength).In other words, the timing of the test does not affect the choice of the testing method.ACCURACY OF THE APPLIED LOADWhen a pile is tested by RLT the applied load is measured by a calibrated load cell placed on the pile head, just as it would be during SLT. This means that the error in the applied load value is less than 0.1% of the maximum range of the load cell.However, when a pile is tested by HSDT the load is calculated from the measured strains, which means that the outcome is dependent on the pile material properties. In this case the applied load (F) on the pile head is calculated by multiplying the measured strain (?) with either the calculated or estimated elastic modulus of concrete (E) and the pile cross section (A).The elastic modulus is generally back calculated from the (average) stress wave velocity (c), which in turn is derived from the reflection time (T) it takes for a stress wave to travel over the pile length (L) from the pile head to the pile toe and back to the pile head."

Jan 1, 2006

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 C. Guney Olgun, Fleur Loveridge, Tracy Brettmann, William Powrie

"Abstract Deep foundations are increasingly being used, not just to carry structural loads, but also to act as heat exchangers as part of a ground source heat pump system. Such foundations, often called energy piles, have the potential to make significant contributions towards meeting the heating and cooling demands of buildings, thus reducing the overall energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions during their lifespan. To ensure that the available energy from these systems is maximized, it is important to determine the thermal conductivity of the surrounding soils, a key design input parameter. In situ thermal response tests are commonly used to carry out this task for small diameter borehole heat exchangers. However, there has been debate over the applicability of these tests to energy piles due to their larger diameter and the consequent increased influence of the pile thermal properties on the test outcome. This paper examines the results of three thermal response tests carried out on piles of different diameters and thermal properties installed at the same site in Texas. Transient analysis of the test results, combined with comparisons to laboratory testing of soil samples from the site, is used to given an indication of the applicability of the thermal response test over different timescales for the different piles. It is concluded that the test is most suited to smaller diameter piles constructed with lower thermal diffusivity materials. Recommendations are given for the conduction of pile thermal response tests and interpretation of test data.INTRODUCTIONAs issues of energy security and scarcity become more important, the use of ground source heat pumps to provide renewable and sustainable heating and cooling to buildings is set to increase. Traditionally such systems use special purpose ground heat exchangers to extract and/or inject heat from/into the ground. The heat exchangers comprise a series of plastic pipes cast into the ground and then connected to the heat pump via a series of header pipes. In the case of building space heating, the heat pump then steps up the temperature difference to deliver the extracted heat at a useable level. However, financial and carbon savings can result by utilizing the building foundations as heat exchangers as well as to carry the building structural loads.Piles, often termed “energy piles”, are the most common type of foundation heat exchanger, and their construction has been increasing in recent years (Amis et al, 2009). However, while energy piles have the potential to make significant contributions towards meeting building heating and cooling demands, there remains scope for improving their thermal efficiency through improved analysis approaches (e.g. Loveridge & Powrie, 2013). In fact the greater diameter of many energy piles means they have the potential to deliver increased short term thermal energy storage compared to more commonly installed borehole heat exchangers."

Jan 1, 2014

By Mark A. Rohrbach, Timothy R. Kovacs, PhD Saidin

"Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing is commonly used to verify the integrity, quality and ultimately the acceptability of the concrete in structural elements such as drilled shaft foundations, secant pile cutoff walls, and secant/tangent pile earth retention structures. Besides concrete quality, many factors can impact CSL test results (e.g. laitance, air temperature, access tube spacing, access tube debonding, etc.). Effective use of CSL testing requires fully informed qualified practitioners capable of distinguishing between abnormal readings unrelated to deficiencies in the drilled shaft concrete and similar readings indicating the presence or possible presence of drilled shaft defects. Based on data and experience gathered from CSL testing of thousands of drilled shafts across North America, this paper discusses such factors and other information useful when evaluating CSL test results, and provides practical recommendations intended to reduce the potential for incorrect test data interpretation. The CSL testing industry is lacking in a clear, universally accepted guideline for the interpretation of CSL data and acceptance criteria of these concrete elements. This paper proposes terminology and a streamlined process for use when atypical results are obtained. The proposed terminology and method are intended to simplify and expedite the submittal review and approval process. Because construction activities for these elements are often on the project’s critical path, the benefits obtained in terms of project savings and reducing costly delays areundoubtedly valuable.1. INTRODUCTIONCSL testing is used extensively throughout the world on many projects to verify the quality of concrete used for drilled shaft foundations, secant pile walls, diaphragm walls, etc. In this paper, these structural elements will be referred to as “drilled shafts,” as they are the most common subject of this test method. In the United States, CSL testing is frequently specified by state and regional transportation agencies, ports, design builders, and others. Although other methods are currently available such as Gamma-Gamma Logging and low-strain Impulse-Echo or Sonic-Echo testing, and new methods are under development such as the Thermal Integrity testing, CSL testing is likely to remain one of the most useful tools for evaluating the acceptability of constructed drilled shafts for quite some time. The popularity of CSL as a testing method can be attributed to two main factors: 1) there is no depth limitation to the method and 2) the apparent ease of interpreting the results. A third advantage of CSL testing is that, when correctly interpreted and with adequate test coverage, it is unlikely to misrepresent a defective profile resulting in acceptance of a defective or inadequate drilled shaft. In other words, CSL testing is very likely to underestimate concrete quality/drilled shaft acceptability within its area of coverage."

Jan 1, 2017

By Don W. Dotson

In 1962, Kondner prepared several papers dealing with hyperbolic stress-strain response of cohesive soils. The following year, Brinch Hansen proposed 80% and 90% failure criteria for stress-strain behavior of cohesive soils. Fellenius was instrumental in popularizing these failure criteria for pile load tests and offered a direct solution equation for the failure load according to the 80% failure criterion. Since the 90% Criterion has been incorporated into the International Building Code, equations for the direct solution of the failure load at the 90% Criterion would be useful to practicing engineers. This Technical Note supplies the derivation methodology for the 80% Criterion and provides expressions to determine the load and deflection at failure for the 90% Criterion.

Aug 1, 2013

By George Burke

"Many soil mixing methods have evolved over the years, but the Trench Cutting Re-mixing Deep method (TRD) was developed in Japan, circa 1993, to construct continuous uniform cutoff walls, without the need for an open trench. TRD mixing has been used on over 300 projects in Japan for excavation support, groundwater barriers, liquefaction mitigation, soil improvement and pollution containment. To date, TRD mixing has been used on only three projects in the United States: a test cell in Long Beach, Calif., for seawater intrusion barrier in 2004; a groundwater barrier at a wastewater treatment plant in Lincoln, Calif., in 2005; and presently at Herbert Hoover Dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee in southeastern Florida.The most notable benefits of TRD are its abilities to overcome difficult geology, such as layered rock and dense cobbles and gravels that hinder other soil mixing methods, and to create extremely high-quality walls. The method is ideal for situations in which access precludes the use of more traditional methods due to spoil control, such as waterways and congested urban environments or subsurface obstruction/difficult ground. Spoil disposal is minimized since TRD mixes the soil in place.TRD mixing has a horizontal continuity advantage over traditional multi-auger deep soil mixing (DSM) systems. Because DSM systems create walls by overlapping soil-cement columns, the auger may be deflected by difficult ground, and gaps are possible. Gaps may also occur when constructing an exceptionally deep wall due to the possibility of auger deviation from its required vertical alignment.The method also has a homogeneity advantage in layered soils. Because DSM constructs columns by rotating the defined length mixing tools up and down the soil profile while injecting binder, strength and permeability in each layer will vary. The TRD method vertically mixes the entire profile and core samples show highly uniform strength. It is most cost-effective in deep difficult ground such as layered rock or dense cobbles and gravels."

Jan 1, 2009

By Andreas Brandner, Karl Schoenherr-Strasse, I. B. Brandner, Dipl. Ing

"A world famous Wintersport resort in the Alpine planned to build a parking garage for more than 600 cars and busses situated between a torrent, a district road and the village.A nearly 200 m long building giving place for 6 parking levels and a maintenance level for busses and trucks is situated alongside a hill causing excavation height between 20 and 25 meters, which had to be secured. Due to restrictions – neighbours did not allow the client to drill anchors for retention – we designed a solution combining micropiles, strand anchors, shotcrete and nails as permanent earth retention not exceeding the space of 7 meters provided by the local street. Soil conditions were as challenging - reaching from backfill to moraine with boulders of more than 20 m³ volume – as the construction period of total 12 months for the whole project, which was opened mid of November 2015.The innovative solution outperformed the client´s project from the technical and commercial aspect and helped the contractor to save time and money.The design process with its difficulties as well as erection process is described in the following paper."

Jan 1, 2016