Search Documents

By Takefumi Takuma, Tsunenobu Nozaki, Masashi Nagano

Using sheet piles and pipe piles for permanent earth retaining is one of the most economical methods for constructing basement walls since they can also work as temporary shoring during construction. A major mixed-use redevelopment project in the UK, encompassing two to three large city blocks, utilized both sheet and pipe pile walls for a two-level subterranean parking structure. The 290m (950ft) x 100m (330ft) basement’s steel walls were designed to temporarily support excavation during construction and eventually to become a load carrying permanent structure in order to expedite the construction process and to achieve cost reduction. Two types of press-in piling machines, one for sheet piles and the other for pipe piles, were used for the job because of their abilities to press in sheet and pipe piles within tight tolerances for finished walls, for difficult installation conditions with very hard soil, and for its very low noise and practically zero-vibration operation; an essential factor for the job in close proximity to other businesses and residents. BACKGROUND Steel sheet pile and pipe piles have been used for many purposes including earth retaining. They are produced at steel mills and spirally welded at a fabrication yard to their corresponding specifications under strict quality control measures. Therefore, they can form highly reliable walls to its design capacity with proper installations. Their advantages as underground walls are:  They can form a high level of water cut-off function with their interlocks sealed by welding or with hydrophilic materials. See Figure 1 for a few examples for a sheet pile application.  They can carry vertical loading in addition to horizontal load and bending moment.  They can be a self-standing and temporary/permanent wall with flexible design and construction processes; bottom-up, top-down or hybrid sequences can be chosen per the project’s needs.  They can form a thinner wall than other wall types, creating larger inner space. See Figure 2.

Jan 1, 2019

By Eric P. Bregman

As part of an on-going effort to improve water quality and reduce discharge into Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) East Boston Branch Sewer Relief Project was designed under a Federal mandate from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to upgrade the aging sewer system, increase system storage and greatly reduce the volume of combined sewer overflows into the Harbor. The project scope of work includes the installation of over 2 miles (11,800 linear feet) of 36-inch and 66-inch diameter sewer relief piping, twenty (20) temporary shafts and an approximate 100 foot open cut section, located within the densely populated neighborhood of East Boston, Massachusetts. This area is a former marshland backfilled in the early to mid 1800?s where busy commercial streets co-mingle with thickly settled residential houses. The subsurface conditions present within Boston?s complex geology include the presence of subsurface contamination as well as complex networks of underground utilities. Additional site limitations included low headroom, noise, and traffic restrictions. Together these limitations required the design of individual earth support systems, tailored for each shaft location. Moreover, challenging subsurface conditions identified during construction required design modifications to minimize cost and schedule impacts related to construction dewatering, treatment of contaminated groundwater, internal bracing, and utility relocations. This paper provides a case history of the Geo-structural design and performance of various earth support techniques utilized to construct jacking and receiving shafts designed to launch and receive two (2) micro-tunnel boring machines (MTBM) and to support the construction of new deep shaft structures in an urban coastal area.

By Eric P. Bregman, Franklin M. Grynkewicz, John E. Regan

"As part of an on-going effort to improve water quality and reduce discharge into Boston Harbor, the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) East Boston Branch Sewer Relief Project was designed under a Federal mandate from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to upgrade the aging sewer system, increase system storage and greatly reduce the volume of combined sewer overflows into the Harbor. The project scope of work includes the installation of over 2 miles (11,800 linear feet) of 36-inch and 66-inch diameter sewer relief piping, twenty (20) temporary shafts and an approximate 100 foot open cut section, located within the densely populated neighborhood of East Boston, Massachusetts. This area is a former marshland backfilled in the early to mid 1800’s where busy commercial streets co-mingle with thickly settled residential houses.The subsurface conditions present within Boston’s complex geology include the presence of subsurface contamination as well as complex networks of underground utilities. Additional site limitations included low headroom, noise, and traffic restrictions. Together these limitations required the design of individual earth support systems, tailored for each shaft location. Moreover, challenging subsurface conditions identified during construction required design modifications to minimize cost and schedule impacts related to construction dewatering, treatment of contaminated groundwater, internal bracing, and utility relocations.This paper provides a case history of the Geo-structural design and performance of various earth support techniques utilized to construct jacking and receiving shafts designed to launch and receive two (2) micro-tunnel boring machines (MTBM) and to support the construction of new deep shaft structures in an urban coastal area."

Jan 1, 2017

By Terence Ma, Seok hyeon Chai, Jeff Lam, Thamer Yacoub, Brigid Cami, Sina Javankhoshdel

The Limit Equilibrium (LE) analysis of pile-supported geotechnical structures normally assumes a constant shear force for the pile instead of considering the non-linear capacity of the pile which is related to the pile displacement. In this study, a 3D Limit Equilibrium analysis is carried out for a landslide model supported with piles by considering the constant and non-linear capacity of the pile which is computed using a separate Finite Element (FE) algorithm. The depth of the pile, soil layering, and the pile properties are used with an assumed maximum displacement to compute the geotechnical non-linear capacity of the pile. In this study, the results of the initial unreinforced 3D LE model was first compared to the 3D FE analysis results. Then, the pile pattern was applied to the failure region in the 3D LE model, and then the factor of safety was recomputed. The results of the constant shear piles were compared to the model with the non-linear piles.

Sep 8, 2021

By Martin Walker, Joseph Ang, Jongwon Lee, Alvin Bayudanto, Lilian Lorincz, Morteza Khorshidi, Wenyong Rong

This paper presents a case history of liquefaction susceptibility evaluation study for a major infrastructure project in the San José area. The subsurface material of the study area consists of Holocene alluvial deposits composed of interbedded and crosscut clays and silts, sands and gravels. The simplified approach for liquefaction triggering evaluation was carried out using both CPT data and SPT data representing site’s seismic capacity and the peak ground acceleration associated with a return period of 975 years at ground surface representing seismic demands. Site-specific cyclic stress ratio (CSR) profiles as seismic demand are also estimated from one-dimensional site response analysis. The simplified approach uses empirical depth stress reduction factors (rd) based on generic shear wave velocity profiles to account for the non-rigid response of the soil profile in estimating CSR. The CSR profiles of the simplified procedure were examined by completing site response analyses using site-specific soil profiles to represent site-specific seismic demands in the liquefaction triggering evaluation. The paper concludes with a comparison and discussion of the liquefaction evaluation examining results from CPT versus SPT data, and the comparison of CSR profiles from the simplified procedure versus site-specific response analysis.

Sep 8, 2021

Jan 1, 1987

By Dharmil S. Patel, Zoyav S. Benyaminov, Cassandra A. Wetzel

Rehabilitation of the Henry Hudson Bridge is nearing completion, connecting Spuyten Duyvil in the Bronx to Inwood Hill in Manhattan, New York. Constructed in 1936, the Henry Hudson Bridge spans 840 feet over the Hudson River. Challenging geotechnical aspects of this Project required a team of innovators to overcome. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge involved the replacement of sixteen bent pedestal substructures, two abutment pilasters and installation of new deep foundations at the skewbacks. However, the Bridge, roadways, adjacent Metro-North Railroad (MNR) structures and New York City (NYC) Parks land were to remain open to the public for use, with minimal disturbance. In addition to physical constraints, geologic site conditions varied widely across both sides of the River, with varying bedrock quality and depth, greatly impacting the proposed design and construction. Extensive analysis of bedrock conditions was conducted to locate areas of potential wedge failure. The implementation of anchors was used to reinforce rock stability where pedestals and pilasters were replaced. This paper describes several challenging technical and natural aspects overcome in the rehabilitation of the Henry Hudson bridge foundations, including varying geologic site conditions, access restrictions, construction limitations, project specifications and design requirements.

Sep 8, 2021

By Tsuyoshi Honda, Kazuhiro Kaneda, Masayuki Imai, Kazuo Konishi, Kunio Higashinaka

"In recent years, the demand for measures to control liquefaction of existing airport runways and harbor structures has increased. However, from the perspectives of constructability and cost, application of grid-form deep mixing walls to these types of structures requires the formation of wider grid spacing as compared with conventional designs. In this research, we focused on the extent of liquefaction and ground surface settling when grid spacing is made wider than conventional designs. We conducted centrifuge model tests, and confirmed the liquefaction suppression effect when grid-form modifications involving wide grid spacing are adopted under asphalt pavement. The tests were conducted under conditions that included changing the grid spacing and groundwater level. When the groundwater level was high, an increase in water pressure was observed, even within the grid. However, when the groundwater level was low, the increase in water pressure inside the grid was suppressed. We also found that if the generation of water pressure can be suppressed, the amount of settling due to liquefaction can also be controlled.INTRODUCTIONOne construction technique used as a countermeasure to liquefaction is grid-form deep mixing walls. Grid-form deep mixing walls are a construction technique for which improved grid-shaped wall bodies are built into the ground below the surface using a deep mixing method. This construction technique minimizes shear deformation by surrounding liquefied ground with improved wall bodies, thereby preventing liquefaction (Fig.1). With conventional designs, grid-form deep mixing walls determine the grid spacing that can deter liquefaction based on a ratio of the grid spacing L to the improved depth H (ratio = L/H). Ordinarily, designs are implemented with an L/H ratio of 0.8 or less (PWRI, 1999).In recent years, a demand for measures to control liquefaction of existing airport pavement and harbor structures has increased. However, when liquefaction countermeasures are implemented at these types of facilities and structures, the construction work must be implemented while the facilities and structures remain in service. Therefore, temporal and spatial constraints must be considered. In addition, unlike conventional liquefaction countermeasures, performance requirements are such that, even if some degree of liquefaction is allowed, the performance is acceptable as long as the amount of settlement is within a predetermined value. Therefore, if grid-form deep mixing walls are applied to these structures, grid spacing that is wider than conventional standards is desired."

Jan 1, 2015

By Dan Yang

Pile foundation designs are performed routinely based on geotechnical information available at the time of design, often with due consideration of large uncertainties inherent to soils and site conditions. These uncertainties frequently are the causes of piles being installed not the same as those designed, especially by factors beyond quality assurance and quality control. With a variety of both satisfactory and unsatisfactory pile test results from these nonconforming piles, the design engineers are required to examine the foundation performance as a whole against the project design requirements before signing off on them or calling for potentially costly remediation. Over the years, as-built analysis has been a consistent way of dealing with pile non-conformity and damage in our practice, avoiding many construction delays and it is an integral part of our pile foundation design. In this paper, the key elements of an as-built analysis along with several major bridge projects are presented.

Jan 1, 2010

By Waddah Akili

The demand on pile installation in the offshore of the Arabian Gulf has, over the last two decades, experienced unprecedented boom, triggered by the construction of platforms, to help facilitate the production and transport of oil and gas. Available borehole data show that ground conditions for pile installation in the offshore is highly variable, resulting in misassessment of insitu conditions, leading to a huge discrepancy between ultimate pile capacities, based on design, and actual capacities after installation. The paper makes use of pile installation records derived from several platforms in the offshore of the state of Qatar, the Gulf Region. More specifically, the paper evaluates “as–installed” ultimate capacities and safety factors, recommends remedial installation procedures, and proposes a means for determining pile acceptability for piles meeting refusal short of design penetration. The paper offers what is believed to be relevant recommendations to guide the design and installation of future offshore structures; enabling the geotechnical community in the Region to solve their current offshore pile installation problems and gain an added margin of confidence regarding the ultimate capacity of installed piles.

"1 INTRODUCTIONThe use of nondestructive testing (NDT) methods to evaluate the integrity of Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) and Drilled Displacement (DD) piles has been a subject of significant debate among engineers, contractors and NDT practitioners. This guideline document will illustrate the importance of reviewing all available information in conjunction with the NDT records. ACIP and DD piles have unique properties that must be considered when using a specific NDT method. Any evaluation of the integrity of an ACIP or DD pile must also include a thorough review of the detailed pile installation records and the site specific soil conditions. Long or theoretical descriptions of the methods have not been included in this publication. More detailed information about these NDT methods including their theoretical and historical backgrounds can be found in DFI’s Manual for Non Destructive Testing and Evaluation of Drilled Shafts (2004). Additional information can also be found in the more comprehensive textbook Nondestructive Testing of Deep Foundations by Hertlein and Davis (2006).1.1 PurposeThe intent of this guideline is to provide practical guidance for the proper interpretation of NDT results on ACIP and DD piles. Short descriptions of the main integrity methods available are provided along with several examples of how to use all of the information available to make sound engineering judgments about the results. This publication is a state-of-the-practice guideline to promote accurate engineering evaluations.For engineers inexperienced with NDT, these guidelines provide sufficient background information on NDT methods to help understand the limitations of the testing, assess the results presented to them, and formulate appropriate questions. This is particularly important for engineers charged with the responsibility to determine from those results what, if any, consequences there may be on the performance of the structure under construction."

Jan 1, 2016

By Brandon M. Robinson, Osman F. Besler, Dominik Gaechter

The Sandbukta-Moss-Såstad (SMS) project is a part of the Intercity development project, which is part of the largest transport project in Norway, consisting of 270 km of new double-track rail. The SMS project consists of 10km of double-track railway including three open stretches and two tunnels. Soil conditions consist of quick clay underlain by Bedrock. Dry soil mixing (DSM) was considered as the main soil improvement method to allow for excavation of the quick clay and construction of the D-Wall panels. The preliminary design revealed around 25,000 ton of binder installation. Therefore, a test field has been conducted to evaluate binder alternatives in means of improved soil strength by considering CO2 emissions. Multicem and Standard cement (Standard FA) have been compared for that purpose. Multicem is a type of binder which mainly consists of Portland cement and cement kiln dust (CKD). CKD is a fined-grained, solid, highly alkaline material removed from the cement kiln exhaust gases. reverse column penetration test (FOPS) and pre-drilled column penetration test (FKPS), which are common tests to evaluate DSM strength have revealed comparable strength outcome for both binder types. Therefore, Multicem has been selected as the main binder type to be used further which provided a reduction in CO2 footprint of up to 40%.

May 1, 2022

By Dale Berner, Michael O’Sullivan

"This paper focuses on lessons learned from the innovative designs, in-the-wet construction methodology and modified foundation conditions, for two United States Army Corps of Engineers, USACE, Megaprojects:(a) The over $2 Billion Olmsted Dam across the Ohio River for the Louisville District; and(b) The $1.75 Billion Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, IHNC, Lake Borgne Hurricane Barrier in New Orleans for the Hurricane Protection Office, and the New Orleans District.Design innovations for the 24-inch dia. pipe pile foundation for the Olmsted Dam project include: (i) the use of controlled-fixity moment connections to the dam monoliths in order to tune the response of the dam under the 8.3 Richter scale seismic Maximum Credible Event, MCE; (ii) soil densification to inhibit liquefaction potential and (iii) design to facilitate underwater construction in a river with a highly moveable sand bed.Design innovations for 66-inch dia. concrete cylinder piles for the IHNC floodwall include: (i) the use of soil structure interaction, SSI, analyses to verify capacity to resist deep-seated failure plane in soft soil, while limiting lateral deflections to acceptable limits; (ii) the use of geo-fabric and scour stone for enhanced foundation response and (iii) design for ""in-the-wet"" construction on a fast-track basis.LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE INNOVATIVE OLMSTED DAM FOUNDATIONThe over $2Billion Olmsted Dam on the Ohio River is currently under construction 16 miles upstream from the confluence with the Mississippi River. It will consist of an 800-foot-long tainter gate section, a 1,400-foot navigable pass, two boat abutment sections, a fixed weir section, and upstream and downstream scour protection. The Olmsted Dam and its two, 1,200-foot locks, which were built in 2002, will eventually replace both Locks and Dam #52 and #53, both built in 1929, and thereby bring significant benefits to the Ohio River navigation system.In 2002, the Jacobs/COWI JV completed the design of the dam; which was an engineering challenge for several reasons, including:(a) Its proximity to the New Madrid Fault, could impose an 8.4 Richter Scale seismic event on the structure, which is located in an area of potentially liquefiable alluvium. The extensive seismic analysis performed by COWI included a response spectra analyses; lateral pushover analyses of pile foundations; hydrodynamic added masses; pile group effects; and the development of kinematic motions as a result of the soil-pile-structure interaction.(b) Maintaining vessel traffic along the river and accommodating fluctuating river elevations between 30-40 ft annually, and as much as 60 ft in a 100-year period.(c) Designing for the scour and uplift forces of artesian ground water and preserving a wildlife sanctuary on the Southern shore at the dam site."

Jan 1, 2017

By W. G. K. Fleming

The general history of piling is traced up to the present time with regard to the evolution of methods and materials. The processes have been strongly influenced by developments in basic equipment and industrial change. It is noticeable that in the twentieth century more progress has taken place than in the many previous centuries. It has been strongly influenced by the general development of Soil Mechanics. Test loading is probably the most effective way to assess the success of designs and many empirical relationships have been challenged through it. As we approach a new century it appears that it will be an age of rapid equipment development, with much enhancement of understanding of what has been done. Processes of automatic construction and testing will becoming commonplace. These changes will narrow the limits of conventional scatter that have come to be accepted and to a large extent will be driven by political efforts to curtail energy consumption, to raise standards of quality and reliability, and to conserve the environment. 1. Ancient history. Piling is an ancient art. Its first mention in history is from Herodotus, the first person to commit an account of his times to the written word in the years 557 to 479 BC. He evidently had a strong interest in engineering matters because he wrote of building, brick making, reinforced brickwork, river training, canal building, bridge construction, tunnelling and its acoustic detection and piling. The piling reference comes from Book 5 at paragraph 16.

Jan 1, 1999

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 Charles M. Wilk, Lori Tiefenthaler

"Information presented in this paper can be used to support deep soil mixing, subsurface grouting and slurry wall technology as sustainable construction technologies. Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is the default cementitious material used by Deep Foundation Institute (DFI) Members for geotechnical work. Owners, engineers and contractors can contribute to the sustainability of a geotechnical project by increasing the use blended hydraulic cements and industrial byproducts to replace some of the OPC in mix designs. Sustainability is defined as the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources. Production of cementitious materials consumes natural raw materials and energy while also generating air emissions and waste. Life Cycle Assessments can be used to compare the relative environmental impacts of one cementitious material to another. Blended hydraulic cements (BHCs) are interground (or blended) mixtures of Supplementary Cementitious Materials (SCMs) with OPC. Commonly used SCMs include fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) and limestone. Examples of industrial byproducts commonly used in geotechnical work include coal combustion residuals (CCR) (aka fly ash), and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS). Much of life cycle impact of these SCMs and industrial byproducts have already been borne by the industries that generated them. There is increasing awareness to LCA and sustainability of different materials used on projects. This is evident in the application of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program. The savings in environmental impact with the use of SCMs and industrial byproducts can make proposed use of these materials in a geotechnical project more attractive in terms of sustainability. This paper presents (a) information that compares published life cycle assessment data of OPC, BHCs, and slag cement (SC) to illustrate the potential benefits to sustainability and (b) general strategies for positioning a geotechnical application, use, project design or cementitious material mix as a more sustainable alternative"

Jan 1, 2017

By Leykam Chris J., Jacobs Scott. A.

"Construction of the New NY Bridge over the Hudson River 25 miles north of New York City is one of the largest civil infrastructure projects presently underway in the United States (formerly Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing). The $3.14 billion Design-Build contract is also the largest ever awarded by the state of New York using an Alternative Project Delivery method, and the first major public project to use Design-Build. The new 3.1 mile long bridge will replace the existing Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge with a modern twin crossing featuring: Iconic side by side cable stay main spans; significant deck widths accommodating eight lanes of regular traffic, wide shoulders, and a shared use pedestrian and bike path; foundation with excess capacity to fully support a future rail bridge; more than 1,000 large diameter pipe piles driven in deep glacial deposits; drilled shafts installed through steep blast-rock slopes on the east shore landings. Geotechnical challenges included varied bedrock and glacial till surfaces with steep slopes and depths in excess of 750 ft.The purpose of this paper is to highlight major features of the New NY Bridge project with specific focus on the design and construction of the foundations supporting the approach and main span structures from abutment to abutment, provide background on alternative project delivery in NY, as well as provide an overview of the design-build process as it was applied to foundation delivery.The 3.1 mile Governor Malcolm Wilson Tappan Zee Bridge was constructed across the Hudson River connecting Nyack and Tarrytown (Rockland and Westchester Counties). Construction started in March 1952 and was completed in 1955 for a cost of $81 million. The seven lane crossing first opened to traffic on December 15, 1955 and coincided with the opening of a 28 mile segment of highway I-87 / I-287 between Suffern NY and Yonkers NY. The bridge is part of the extensive 574 mile New York State Thruway road system owned and operated by the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Seth K. Martin, Tony Nichlany, Alan R. Poeppel, Konstantinos Syngros

"This paper presents a case study on bored pile construction in challenging karst conditions below a supertall building in Kuala Lumpur. Innovative design and construction techniques helped keep the project moving through very difficult and unpredictable geological and drilling conditions. The development encompasses about 12,400 square meters and includes a 77-story tower, a 59-story tower, a five-story podium, and four contiguous basement levels. The site is underlain by a residual soil derived from a siltstone/claystone (the Kenny Hill formation), then limestone bedrock. Subsurface conditions are relatively uniform within the Kenny Hill and highly variable at the limestone surface. Extreme cases included 40-meter-tall underground caverns, 40-meter-tall pinnacles, and a 50-meter-tall underground rock ledge. Local piling practice in Kuala Lumpur involves deriving pile capacity entirely in the Kenny Hill formation to avoid the unpredictable limestone surface. However, the massive tower foundation loads and relatively shallow bedrock required the piles to be socketed in the limestone. The 77-story tower will be supported by 2.0- and 2.2-meter-diameter bored piles 50 to 100+ meters long, socketed in limestone, with working loads between 40 and 70 Meganewtons. Two Osterberg-cell load tests were used to develop a site-specific rock socket skin friction correlation with RQD. Exploratory rock probes were drilled at each pile location to design the rock socket length based on the rock quality and sloping rock conditions. The rock mass was pressure-grouted during each rock probe to improve the rock quality and fill voids in the rock.INTRODUCTIONThe Kuala Lumpur City Centre, home of the Petronas Towers and the world’s deepest foundations, will be the future home of a new supertall tower. The 77-story tower will be supported by a piled-raft foundation that relies on piles terminating in the highly erratic, karstic Kuala Lumpur limestone formation. The high building loads coupled with relatively shallow limestone across the majority of the tower footprint forced the piles to extend into the limestone."

Jan 1, 2016

By Jon Huff, Jeffrey Donville, Hannah Iezzoni, Dan Stevenson

Occasionally, in the design of deep foundations for a structure, a single deep foundation element may be used to support a building column. The most common type of element used in such cases is a drilled shaft (also referred to as a drilled pier, caisson, or bored pile). However, as installation capabilities have improved, large diameter augercast piles are increasingly more common. While drilled shafts and augercast piles differ significantly in construction methods, in the eyes of the International Building Code (IBC), both are treated as cast-in-place deep foundations and must comply with many of the same code provisions. Deep foundations are required to be braced such that lateral stability is provided in all directions, however isolated, cast-in-place elements that have a diameter (D) of at least 2-feet and a length (L) not more than 12 times the diameter can be an exception. In response to the concerns raised by some member professionals, the Deep Foundations Institute’s (DFI) Augered Cast-in-Place Pile and Drilled Displacement Pile Committee took a closer look at the code and its applications, the historical development of the code language through the years and performed analytical modeling to evaluate the impact of this ratio on a pile’s stability. The question is whether the limiting ratio included in the IBC 2018 code provisions is justified, or whether different criteria should be used to determine when isolated deep foundation members are allowed.

Sep 8, 2021

By Camilo A. Alvarez, Stephen K. Harris, Brian R. Zuckerman, Philip J. Meymand, Danielle M. Steinmetz

"The sleek new air traffic control tower at the San Francisco International Airport stands at 221 feet tall and is set to replace the existing air traffic control tower by 2016. This aluminum-clad, torch-like structure and three-story Integrated Facilities Building at the base are situated between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 adjacent to the tarmac. Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. and Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. worked in conjunction with structural engineers from Walter P. Moore Engineers and Consultants, geotechnical engineers from URS Corporation, architects from Fentress Architects, and general contractors from Hensel Phelps Construction Company on the performance-based design of a foundation to support this critical facility, which is located in a high seismic zone and situated on the very soft soil of the San Francisco Bay margin. With the loading demands and performance criteria established and Young Bay Mud thicknesses ranging from 44 to 47 feet thick across the site, the design team employed a total of 214 24-inch diameter Auger Pressure Grouted piles, which were drilled into the underlying Franciscan Formation as deep as 148 feet below existing grade. Pile reinforcement included full-length confined cages.The piles were designed to resist Maximum Considered Earthquake axial demands as high as 1,400 kips in compression and 700 kips in tension. The performance-based pile design included verification of shear capacity under double-plastic-hinge flexural mechanisms, verification of pile ductility via non-linear moment-curvature analyses, and consideration of curvatures due to kinematic as well as inertial loading.The team implemented an extensive pile load test program including a full-scale static compressive load test on a sacrificial test pile and five non-destructive high-strain dynamic load tests, four of which were performed on indicator piles that were later used as part of the foundation system. These piles were monitored with extensive embedded instrumentation throughout their length, including strain gauges and accelerometers."

Jan 1, 2017