Search Documents

Jan 1, 2002

By T Vijayakumar, Vipul Dobhada, Rajesh Patel, Swarnadip Dey, Naveen Babu D

The most challenging scope of any bridge project in marine or inter tidal zone is to construct sub structure like well Foundation, group pile, pile cap etc. Similarly, it also affects the marine environment/ecology to a great extent. Understanding the level of difficulties and aiding to provide an environment friendly solution, various options are analysed to overcome these and found mono pile to be the best alternative in this context. Generally, the foundation type of any bridge constructed in river, marine or intertidal zone in India is preferred for group piles. For the first time, monopile is being accepted as the foundation of bridge in India at Mumbai Coastal Road Project. The diameters of the monopiles used in this project are 2.5 m and 3.2 m. Hence, the challenges involved in monopile construction and experiences to overcome it are worth to share. Here, a brief discussion on environmental, geological issues and the needs of monopile as the foundation of bridge has been discussed. Furthermore, the monopile construction stages and confirmation of monopile capacity through different load tests have been elaborated.

Sep 1, 2022

By Howard A. Perko, Melinda J. Hummel

"Hydraulically jacked piles, herein referred to as jacked piles, are commonly used for underpinning existing structures to arrest settlement or augment an existing foundation for higher loads. They consist of steel pipe segments coupled together and jacked into the ground using a hydraulic ram. Pipe sections can vary in size from 3"" diameter to 18"" diameter or larger. Jacking resistance is typically provided by dead loads of existing structures. This type of piling system has been utilized for foundation underpinning, repair, and augmentation for more than 120 years, yet little has been published on the capacity, installation standards, and reliability of these systems. Pile load tests from a number of projects are presented and analysed. The data show that previous methods of jacked pile capacity and depth prediction are crude at best. Empirical relationships between capacity, depth, soil type, and standard penetration resistance blow count contain a high degree of scatter. Scatter in the data indicate capacity prediction for jacked piles needs further research and refinement.INTRODUCTIONPush pier, resistance pile, steel pier, and jacked pile are some of the names often applied to hydraulically jacked piles used for underpinning. The term ‘jacked pile’ is more common in building codes and will be used herein. Although jacked piles can be installed for new construction, this paper is focused on piles used for support of existing structures.Jacked piles consist of short segments of pipe or structural steel tube that are coupled together and forced into the ground using a hydraulic ram fastened to or beneath a footing, stem wall, or grade beam of an existing structure. In this way, the weight of the structure provides the resistance necessary to force the pile into the ground. A factor of safety can be achieved in design by redundancy, which is consecutively installing more than one jacked pile to support the same portion of foundation. Installing jacked piles consecutively using the same dead load and then releasing the load after each pile installation allows one to continue adding piles to the same general area until a total aggregate capacity is achieved to account for anticipated dead plus live loads and a desired factor of safety for that area.An engineering schematic of an example jacked pile connected to a footing foundation is shown in Figure 1. Modern jacked piles typically incorporate a steel bracket. There are many sizes and styles of brackets available. Some categories include plate brackets that bolt to the outside of an existing foundation wall, wide and narrow angle brackets that extend under existing footings, pin brackets for attachment to structural steel, and reverse angle brackets for attachment to footing and wall. Table 1 lists example brackets and their benefits."

Jan 1, 2017

By Chu E. Ho, Paul Napoli

A new waterfront park was developed on Long Island in close proximity to the East River and Newtown Creek. The existing ground consisted of fill over soft organic clay, medium dense silty sand, glacial till and schist bedrock. The ground was initially raised to preload the underlying soft soils to stabilize the ground in preparation for site development. The ground was subsequently cut down to temporary grades for installation of foundation piles for the overlook structures and construction of reinforced concrete cantilever retaining walls forming pathways located adjacent to the water bodies. The retaining walls were located in two rows at different elevations along the sides of a steep embankment. Where the pathways converge, some of the walls were too close to each other, and were redesigned as a combined U-wall with a common base slab. The individual retaining walls were designed for adequate bearing, sliding and overturning resistance. Ground anchors were installed to enhance global stability of the retaining walls. This paper presents the design considerations for the retaining walls for various loading conditions, and evaluation of the trial and proof tests for the anchors. INTRODUCTION The New York City Master Plan included the transformation of an approximately 30-acre parcel of land in Long Island City, Queens, New York from a former manufacturing zone into a residential, commercial and recreational zone for middle-income community. The site was located at Hunters Point South along the eastern shoreline of the East River and Newtown Creek (Figure 1). The development included low to high- rise residential buildings, a public school, and retail structures. Open spaces were provided along the East River and Newtown Creek waterfronts in the form of a continuous park providing for recreational and community-related activities. Waterfront structures included small park buildings, walkways and viewing platforms. The shoreline was surrounded by revetments as part of the flood mitigation strategy. The project involved extensive site re-grading and several retaining walls were constructed. The earthwork volume amounted to approximately 47,000 cubic yard of imported fill and 93,000 cubic yard of cut. The exposed height of the retaining walls ranged from 3 to 15 feet. This paper focuses on the design and construction of the retaining walls for the project.

Jan 1, 2019

By Damian R. Siebert

Risk-reduction measures implemented during the design and construction of a 21-story pile-supported building adjacent to a below-grade 100-year-old sewer structure were keys to a successful foundation system. Avoiding damage to the existing sewer structure during construction activities and the future ability to access the structure post-construction were the main concerns for the utility owner. Clear communication and a deliberate design process between all parties ? utility owner, building owner, structural engineer, geotechnical engineer, architect, and contractor ? were integral to the project?s success. This collaborative process helped all parties to understand the risks, both real and perceived, and to develop mitigation measures to reduce the risks. Bringing together all parties to engage in dialogue and encouraging open communication throughout the project were paramount to its success. By implementing the joint design plan, using mutually-acceptable construction techniques, and careful monitoring, the building foundation was successfully installed and all parties? risks were averted.

Jan 1, 2011

By Michael Kynett, Francke Walberg, Richard Millet, Khaled Chowdhury, Mary Perlea

"Cutoff walls are the most common seepage improvement measure for levee flood control projects throughout California’s Central Valley. Cutoff walls are widely used because they can be implemented within an existing right of way in either heavily urbanized areas with limited access, or in high-value crop agricultural areas. The most commonly used seepage cutoff wall types are soil-bentonite (SB), soilcement- bentonite (SCB), and cement-bentonite (CB). Contract values for cutoff wall rehabilitation projects in the Central Valley range from several millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars, and play a significant role in the reduction of flood risk in urban and rural areas. However, recentlycompleted construction of several levee improvement projects has shown limitations and inconsistencies among the commonly used technical specifications for construction of seepage cutoff walls. These limitations were evaluated by practicing engineers involved in different stages of cutoff wall design and construction. This paper describes the specification areas that typically generate design and construction issues. Recommended improvements to specifications are suggested to address these issues. The paper’s topics include: the applicability of the different types of cutoff wall materials and construction methods, quality control testing requirements, backfill gradation requirements, mixing procedures, and settlement criteria for backfill.INTRODUCTIONFlood control projects on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the Central Valley region of Northern California consist of a large system of reservoirs, bypasses, and levees. The thousands of miles of levees within the system were largely constructed and raised by local entities as need arose; this construction occurred prior to the development of modern design and construction techniques. The majority of these levees were initially constructed to protect land for agricultural development; however, a significant portion of these areas have become or will soon be urbanized. This urbanization has historically occurred in locations right up to the levee footprint. This expedient form of historical levee construction, when combined with adverse riverine geomorphology, urban development, and productive agricultural regions, has led to a levee systems with severe seepage performance issues in a real-estate-constrained setting."

Jan 1, 2015

By Aaron L. Sacks, David R. Good, Srinivas Yennamanda, Joseph K. Carey

Construction of Parcels 6 and 7, the second phase of The Wharf, began in 2019 and geotechnical construction was completed by December 2020. The overall project consisted of horizontal site, parks, and office buildings. The Wharf’s Phase 2 development includes approximately 1.2 million ft2 (110,000 m2) of above-grade construction including five multi-story, mixed-use buildings constructed over up to three levels of underground parking. The site is located between the WMATA Green Line Tunnels to the north and the Washington Channel to the south; it is bisected by a 108-in. (2740-mm) diameter DC Water outfall pipe. This arrangement, along with very difficult ground conditions, created challenges in the geotechnical design and construction. The support of excavation for this complex project required several different methodologies, including sheet piles, soldier piles, displacement piles, tiebacks, deep foundation anchors, jet grouting, and internal bracing with multi-tier rakers. Ground improvement was also required for support of spread footings in soft soils over the garage footprint. Underpinning of the active 108-in. (2740-mm) diameter DC Water outfall pipe running on a north/south alignment through the center of the site between the two garage structures was also performed. Since portions of the support of excavation are below the groundwater table, an extensive pre-excavation dewatering program was necessary and was separate from the foundation package. On the north side of the project, support of excavation (SOE) was required on a curved alignment, offset approximately 10 ft (3 m) from the outbound Green Line tunnel. Due to the proximity of the tunnel, a stiff, near-zero displacement wall was required. A portion of the buildings extend over the tunnels, imparting load to the tunnels to approximately restore original overburden loads excavated for the basement space. The building foundation is a 3 to 4-ft (0.9 to 1.2-m) thick mat slab anchored into the Potomac clay formation. Continuous movement monitoring of the tunnels was performed by an automated system. This paper describes the design and construction of the SOE and foundations for this high-profile project, which required collaboration between the Owner, Engineer, Construction Manager, and Specialty Geotechnical Contractor to solve many challenges.

Oct 1, 2022

By Allen B. Stanton, Parthiv Brahmbhatt, Michael Grimm, Stanley L. Worst

Constructing a circular shaft consisting of secant piles has its own complications which make it more difficult than typical drilled shaft construction. Add to that performing under low overhead powerlines and sitting inside of a 40-foot deep, 50-foot diameter shaft and it becomes more about logistics than the actual drilling. The complexities associated with the Romeo Arm Interceptor Segment 5 Lining project are the focus of this paper, delving into the details that made it work successfully.

Oct 1, 2022

By Alessandro Bertero, Stefano Valagussa, Filippo Maria, Wesley Schmutzler, Leoni

"Abstract The Deep Mixing Method (DMM) represents a viable solution to improve the adverse geotechnical properties of foundation soils. Differences and the importance of performing pre-construction laboratory and field tests will be highlighted. Comparative analyses and interpretations between the various lab and field stages, along with accumulated information about soil properties and QC results, allowed fine-tuning of the production parameters throughout almost the entire project.Two projects where the US Army Corps of Engineers selected the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) for the required stabilizations, and a third project completed in Italy, will be illustrated:•,?the LPV 111 Project (New Orleans - LA – USA); DMM was used for groundimprovement/foundation strengthening and consequently stabilize and support the burden of the new levee.•,the Rio Puerto Nuevo Project (San Juan - PR - USA); DMM was applied to improve the soils adjacent to a 90” forced sewer main relocation and to improve the soils for the base of a new drainage channel•,the new Italian high speed railway project (Florence Italy); DMM technology was applied to realize a a TBM break in/break out, foreseen originally by jet-grouting.IntroductionThe Deep Mixing Method (DMM) represents a viable solution to improve the adverse geotechnical properties of foundation soils. The effectiveness of working parameters depends largely on the physical and mechanical properties of the soil to be treated. Therefore, well designed laboratory and field test programs, aimed to disclose the interaction between the site-specific soils and the mixing parameters, are essential to achieve the desired end product."

Jan 1, 2014

By W. L. Chong, Y. Zou

There are many types of Earth Retention Systems (ERS) available in the market where more than one method can be a feasible solution for a project. This paper examines the design and construct process of a project in Dee Why, NSW using a hybrid ERS comprising contiguous piles with jet grout infill. The development comprises a deep basement and mixed-use urban superstructure. The site is located in an area of variable ground conditions, high ground water table and in proximity to existing buildings with multi-level basements. This paper details a comprehensive assessment of the geological conditions and strategies adopted to better understand the effectiveness of the proposed product and to minimise the associated risks of the proposed solution. This involved conducting additional geotechnical investigation, extensive numerical modelling and in-situ monitoring of the movements and the performance of the walls. A monitoring regime consisting of inclinometers, survey points on capping beam and prisms on the neighbouring buildings and roads surrounding shoring wall was implemented. The monitoring results were back-analysed using computer software WALLAP, Plaxis–2D and Plaxis–3D for the post-construction examinations. This paper details the effectiveness and advantages of a hybrid ERS using contiguous piles with jet grout infill.

Nov 1, 2022

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Seth Robertson, Frank Rausche, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

The Top-Loaded Bi-Directional Test (“TLBT”) and the conventional Bi-Directional Load Test (“BDLT”) are full-scale load tests where loads are applied bi-directionally to the foundation element. The BDLT uses an embedded loading source consisting of a jack assembly with one or multiple hydraulic jacks located between two steel bearing plates. As the jack(s) within the jack assembly is/are pressurized, the plates receive the load from the jack(s) and transfer these loads to the foundation element. In the case of the TLBT, the loads are also applied bi-directionally to the foundation element. However, in the TLBT case, the loading source is located above the foundation head. With the TLBT’s non-embedded and reusable load assembly, the loads are applied to the foundation using the steel shaft bearing and base bearing plates cast within the foundation. These plates are connected to the load assembly at the foundation head via Grade 75 or Grade 150, threaded, steel bars. This paper presents comparison results from a full-scale load test performed by both bi-directional load testing methods on adjacent test shafts. Details regarding subsurface conditions as well as test shaft construction and installation are included for the comparison tests. Test results and corresponding analyses are presented and discussed in detail.

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 Ian Vaz, Takefumi Takuma, Rafael Holcombe, Chris DellAringa

"This paper will discuss the successful installation of seawalls for the first phase of a project in Long Beach in California known as the Naples Island Permanent Seawall Repair – Phase 1. How an unconventional method of pile driving resulted in the reduction of the duration of the project while using less space and maintaining minimal noise impacts to accommodate neighbors will also be discussed. Included in the paper will be how non-vibratory equipment used on this project also significantly minimized the risk of disturbances as well as settlement on residential properties; which in turn greatly reduced the risk of damage to existing structures. The first phase of a 6-phase project along a section of the canals with tight clearances and proximity to residents included the installation of a 1,912 linear-foot steel sheet pile wall system in front of the existing deteriorating walls from January until March 2015.INTRODUCTIONThis project was located in the Naples Island neighborhood of Long Beach in southern Los Angeles County, California. After 80 years of the same seawall structures lining the canals of this beautiful neighborhood, the City of Long Beach Department of Public Works decided that it was time to better protect the area’s multi-million dollar homes by repairing its crumbling seawalls. The City realized that the walls will only become worse due in part to several concerns, including bending failure for the already deflecting walls. According to the City, certain sections of the walls had a significant risk of global failure if the area experienced a “moderate” near-source earthquake (City of Long Beach, CA, 2014b). Although the seawalls were in need of major repair, this would not be simple. Due to the tight clearances of the seawalls between the homes and canals, installation would be difficult with heavy, conventional construction equipment.Phase 1 of the project involved installing sheet piles on the water side in front of existing and aging vertical concrete seawalls between the Ravenna and Toledo Bridges along the Rivo Alto Canal. See Figure 1 for the General Plan for Phase 1. Financing for this project by the City’s Tidelands Capital Improvement’s Division allowed the construction to begin in a timely manner. However, the challenges for the City included regulatory restraints that further complicated the construction in terms of the duration of the project due in part to numerous regulations from several regulatory agencies."

Jan 1, 2016

By Brenton Cook, Daniel Mageau, Larry Applegate, Aaron McCain

"Ground freezing was successfully used to create an impermeable barrier wall along 3,000 feet of the downtown Seattle waterfront as part of the Seattle Seawall Replacement Project. This $360 million re-development involved removing the original 1930-era seawall and replacing it with a new, seismically resistant concrete wall supported on fill soil improved by jet-grout. The replacement wall was one of the largest construction projects in the state of Washington at the time. Ground freezing is typically used as both a structural shoring wall and groundwater cutoff. However, at this project it was used primarily as a cutoff wall to stop groundwater seepage into the 16-foot deep excavation from the landside areas.The project was divided into ten boxes (sections), each typically 200 to 600 feet in length. Only a few boxes were under construction at one time to reduce the impact on tourist-dependent local businesses. Soil conditions in the freeze zone consisted of sand, gravel and silt fill with abundant wood and debris. Tidally influenced groundwater, much of it contaminated, was difficult and expensive to control using wells during initial stages of construction. For all subsequent stages, a frozen soil wall extending to about 35 feet in depth was used to stop groundwater seepage into the excavation. An additional benefit of ground freezing included elimination of potential settlement beneath nearby buildings, utilities, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct that would likely have occurred with the use of conventional dewatering wells. The frozen soil wall crossed more than 130 buried utility locations (including water, sewer, storm, electrical, fiber optic, phone, gas, steam) with no damage. The frozen soil wall was very successful and limited groundwater influx from the landside to the seawall excavation to a negligible amount so that pumping, storage and treatment of contaminated groundwater was essentially eliminated."

Jan 1, 2016

By Michael Hughes, Selva Selvamohan, Ray Costa

"Cutoff walls are commonly used to mitigate underseepage problems for levee remediation projects. At abrupt changes in seepage cutoff wall depths there is a potential for water to flow around the back of the deeper cutoff wall leading to elevated seepage pressures on the landside that could result in exit gradients exceeding design criteria. This condition is referred to as end-around-effects and is a complex problem that requires detailed and time consuming 3-D numerical modeling to represent accurately. This paper presents a simple approach for assessing end-around-effects using the results of 2- D seepage analysis to determine if lateral extension of the deeper portion of the cutoff wall is required. This simplified approach provides a pragmatic solution to a complex 3-D problem. The presented procedure was used as part of the Feather River West Levee Project in Yuba City, California, to assess end-around-effects at 26 locations. The results showed that wall extensions of up to 100 feet were needed at only 2 locations.INTRODUCTIONAs the lead geotechnical consultant for the Feather River West Levee Project, AECOM were responsible for designing levee remediation works for approximately 35 miles of levee protecting the area around Yuba City, California, and communities to the north and south. Due to land use constraints, seepage cutoff walls were the main remediation alternative selected to address underseepage issues for the project.As part of the design review process, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) requested AECOM to look at 26 locations along the levee alignment where the depth of cutoff wall changed abruptly from shallow to deep, or vice versa. At these locations there was the potential for seepage pressures to pass behind the deeper section of cutoff wall and stress the blanket layer landward of the cutoff wall. A condition referred to as end-around-effects.End-around-effects involve complex 3-D ground conditions that have traditionally been addressed by laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based solely on engineering judgment. In discussions with DWR, AECOM developed a simple procedure to provide a more objective assessment of end-around-effects without the need for detailed and time consuming analysis. This procedure allows the engineer to make an informed decision of whether end-around-effects are a problem at the location of a cutoff wall transition rather than laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based on engineering judgment alone."

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 Steven E. Darnell, William W. Haasz, Brandon T. Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Landfills often cover expansive areas in locations where large building facilities or infrastructure is in high in demand after the land has been reclaimed. Most landfills have soil or fill properties that vary widely over small distances; combined with the strict guidelines and restrictions for the removal and treatment of soil or material that is on site, these projects can be a major challenge for any prospective developer. In order to make landfills suitable for the construction of any project it is necessary to conduct a detailed evaluation of the subsurface conditions. Ground improvement techniques are among the most typical methods for making reclaimed landfills suitable for the construction of any major project. The paper will discuss the approach that was taken to support a proposed warehouse in Elizabeth, New Jersey using Controlled Modulus Columns Rigid Inclusions (CMC Rigid Inclusions), which are grouted, auger-displacement elements. Additionally, we will discuss the use of Dynamic Compaction (DC) that was performed in areas outside the proposed warehouse footprint. Through the combination of CMC rigid inclusions and DC, the general contractor’s project schedule was expedited, the costs to support the warehouse were economized, and the anticipated settlement of the parking lot areas was drastically reduced. Furthermore, the paper will outline the benefits of using CMC rigid inclusions and DC methods in order to minimize the impact of working with contaminated soils from a landfill.OVERVIEW OF THE ELIZABETH WAREHOUSE PROJECTOver the past several decades the foundations industry has seen an increase in demand for the support of developments on reclaimed landfills; particularly, on the east coast where many landfills were capped before the 1980’s and steady population growth and city expansion have caused high demand for this now highly desired real estate. Unfortunately, these landfills, often as large as twenty (20) or more acres present tough geotechnical and environmental challenges for Owners planning to develop or build structures of any size on the reclaimed land. Consequently, the options for building on reclaimed landfills can quickly become cost prohibitive.Site SpecificSelected by a developer for the location of a future warehouse, the 29 acres (114,424 sq-meters) project site is located in Elizabeth, New Jersey and demonstrates the complexities of designing over a once reclaimed landfill. The landfill was used for municipal solid waste (MSW) consisting of trash, wood, metal, glass, plastic, brick, concrete fragments, and other types of debris. This landfill was capped in the 1960’s, and developed in the 1970’s for a warehouse. The new project included the demolition of the existing warehouse and the development of the site to be repurposed for a new 481,650 sq-ft single-story warehouse, surrounded by paved parking and truck loading areas. Figure 1 below, shows an overview of the project site layout."

Jan 1, 2017

By Dimitrios Polantzas P. E., Collin E. Sweeney E. I. T., Franklin M. Grynkiewicz P. E., Leili Javidanian P. E.

In the latest AASHTO design specifications, the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method is prescribed for the design of retaining walls. However, inconsistencies arise when LRFD is used for retaining wall design versus the traditional Allowable Stress Design (ASD). Required toe embedment and wall loading demand vary greatly when the two design approaches are compared, all else being equal. This is due to application of linear load factors to properties that vary non-linearly in the design. These inherent inconsistencies are further intensified when introducing factors such as layered soil profiles, different wall types, groundwater elevation, and surcharge requirements. When applied correctly, these two design approaches, in theory, should lead the designer to the same result with little discrepancy, as they do with steel structure design. However, the use of the current AASHTO LRFD method for various geostructural retaining wall designs yields contradictory results that suggest existing retaining walls that have been successfully designed and constructed are unstable. Fundamentally, LRFD should be built on reliability-based calibrations; the successful past performance of existing retaining structures designed using ASD suggests that the LRFD approach requires considerable modification. The authors of this paper recommend that the current LRFD load factors be reviewed and revised based on more comprehensive wall performance data and wall type such that the difference between retaining structures designed using LRFD and those designed using ASD is eliminated.

Oct 1, 2022

By Maurizio Siepi, Paul van Horn, John Coupland, Julian Crawley

"TTMJ is the acronym for the Slurry (Diaphragm) Wall Tension Track Milled Joint currently in development as part of the European Union's innovative and far-reaching Horizon 2020 initiative (FTI Pilot-2015-1 720579). The TTMJ Project has been specifically set up to deliver this versatile new step-forward in Slurry Wall technology. The TTMJ System is protected by patent in Europe and the USA, and is currently under development by a consortium comprising Trevi SpA (Italy), Arup (Netherlands) and CCMJ Systems (UK). The principles of the TTMJ System together with the installation process are herein described in general terms. The system is still under development with field trials scheduled for early 2018, so some of the detail will not be disclosed at this stage. It is the intention of the Authors that the results of these field trials and a more complete description of the System will be presented in a paper we intend to submit for the DFI/EFFC International Conference on Deep Foundations and Ground Improvement to be held in Rome, Italy in June 2018. The final section of this paper explains how the TTMJ system can be applied to a common application of slurry wall construction; deep circular or multi-cell shafts. The system can be used to construct shafts more easily and at less cost than current methods. It also allows shafts with smaller internal dimensions to be constructed than is currently practical.INTRODUCTIONCCMJ Systems (UK) realised that an innovative new approach to forming joints in both Slurry (Diaphragm) Walls and Secant Pile Walls would provide greatly improved joint integrity to greater depths, to the overallbenefit of retaining wall quality, across the world-wide foundations industry.In particular this new system is designed to:??Increase the effective depth range of Slurry Walls (especially walls excavated by grab) and Secant Walls??Remove the requirement for Stop-ends or Joint Formers??Allow for a Shear Key at the joint??Allow for a Water Stop to be installed at the joint??Permit Continuous Reinforcement across the joint??Optimise Reinforcement Density and hence Concrete Flow??Facilitate joints in corner panels eliminating the need for “L” shaped cages and reducing largesingle-pour concrete volumes and slurry storage capacity requirements.??Enable the construction of smaller-dimensioned square and circular deep shafts (especially useful for city-centre sites) than is possible with current methods.CCMJ Systems approached other industry specialists with a view to forming a development team to explore the possibilities for this new technique."

Jan 1, 2017

By Harry Schnabel, Mitchell L. Fong, Douglas R. Jenevein, Thomas S. Lee

"The Warm Springs Extension (WSX) is one of a series of projects that will eventually extend the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) from Fremont to San Jose, California. A cut and cover tunnel was used for a portion of the extension that runs through Fremont Central Park to minimize the impacts that an at-grade railway would have on the Park. A cement deep soil mix (CDSM) wall was selected by the engineer as the preferred method of providing structural support and groundwater cut-off for a portion of the tunnel where it passes through an important aquifer and near Lake Elizabeth. In addition to the CDSM wall, a jet grout plug was constructed at the base of the tunnel to provide a complete groundwater cut-off.This paper will discuss the unique quality assurance and quality control measures taken for the soil mix wall and jet grout plug as well as the methods used to repair leaks and mitigate water seepage through the exposed wall and grout plug.PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Warm Springs Extension (WSX) project is located south of the existing Fremont BART station extending 8.9-km (5.4 miles) to Warm Springs District in Fremont, California. The WSX project has been divided into two contracts with different delivery methods. In order to minimize impacts to Fremont Central Park, a subway was selected at this portion of the alignment under a conventional design/bid/build contract.The Fremont Central Park Subway (FCPS) which begins on the south side of Walnut Ave and ends just north of Paseo Padre Parkway and is about 2.3-km (1.4 miles) long. Fig. 1 shows the entire WSX and the FCPS project. The FCPS contract consists of a cut-and-cover subway box, subway transition structures, ventilation structures and a section of which transverses Lake Elizabeth (a man-made lake). The geologic conditions consist of fill (sand, silt, clay and construction debris), Young Alluvium (clay and silt), Basin Deposits (clay, silt, and sand), and Older Alluvium (sand and gravel) as shown in Fig. 2.HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT SITEThe FCPS is dominated by two geologic features - the Hayward Fault and the Above Hayward Fault (AHF) aquifer. The AHF aquifer provides a significant source and storage of water for the local water district. The underground subway will penetrate this aquifer and is up to 11m (36 ft) below the groundwater table. No groundwater was allowed to be pumped during construction of the subway box by Alameda County Water District (ACWD). To facilitate excavation for the subway box, temporary cut-off walls and a grout plug were designed to retain and resist high differential hydraulic pressure. The following section describes the selection of a deep soil mixing method for water cutoff. Design of the grout plug has been described in Lee, et al., 2011 and Fong and Lee, 2009, and is not the focus of this paper."

Jan 1, 2015