Search Documents

By BRETTMANN TRACY

Jan 1, 2000

By Brian FitzPatrick, Michael J. Weaver

Everyone has a role in site safety, even consultants. This paper presents a summary of how a geotechnical and environmental consulting firm, with field staff on construction and subsurface explorations sites, engaged their staff and leveraged relationships with contractors to assess the construction related risks to which its staff members are exposed. These findings were then integrated into their technical training materials for both new staff and those needing a refresher, so that safety is discussed at the same time as the technical work and not treated as a separate topic. The paper outlines the process of identifying and evaluating the construction related risks that staff members face and presents examples of how the consultant can engage contractors in the process. By doing this, knowledge can be shared and there is a better mutual understanding of the risks associated with common construction and exploration related field tasks. The work resulted in an increase in staff engagement in safety, a better understanding of the true risks that staff face in the field, better relationships with contractors, and lower safety metrics. HISTORY At Haley & Aldrich, Inc., we renewed our safety journey in May 2012. Like many others, we had concerns over injuries our staff experienced in the three previous years, and a potentially significant utility strike we experienced while excavating a trench. In 2009, 2010 and 2011 we experienced an increase in recordable injuries, including two significant injuries, which caused our Experience Modification Rate (EMR) (see note below), Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), and Days Away-Restricted, and Transferred Rate (DART) to rise significantly. See Fig. 1 for details. This caused us to step back and review our approach to safety, and our “safety culture”. The rise in reportable incidents and injuries also corresponded to the beginning of a growth period for the company.

Jan 1, 2019

By Nien-Yin Chang

The contemporary seismic response analysis of structures using a finite element analysis code requires six elastic spring constants to address the six degrees of freedom ground/foundation contribution to the response of a structure to earthquake shaking. However, the ground response is nothing but linear. Thus, it is critical to address the effect of the nonlinear ground response to the performance of structures under strong earthquakes. This study specifically addresses the effect of pile foundation on building vibration using finite element analyses. The effect of single pile was first investigated and the load was applied at the pile head using the single-degree-of-freedom load at a time, including three translational loads in the x, y and z directions and three moment loads about the three respective axes. In this study, the coupling effects between two or more different loads were not investigated. A load is increased monotonically to investigate the nonlinear behavior of pile under various loads. The Mohr-Coulomb model was used to represent concrete. To explore the effect of soil models on the nonlinear spring functions, the following constitutive models of soils were used: linear elastic, Mohr-Coulomb model, Cap model, modified Cam-Clay model, and Duncan-Chang hyperbolic model.

Jan 1, 2007

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

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 1991

By Helen D. Robinson

Traditional practice to resist large lateral loads on foundations is the use of large diameter caissons, battered driven piles, or battered micropiles. Dense urban construction environments, however, limit the usefulness of these systems due to the close proximity of below- and above-grade obstructions. This paper presents two micropile construction projects in the United States where a complex scheme of battered micropiles and grade beams was developed to counteract large lateral loads at the foundation level. The paper also presents a procedure used to design vertical micropiles for large lateral loads, which can greatly simplify the design of foundations subject to significant lateral loads in urban environments. A design example shows a case where vertical micropiles were used to support allowable design lateral loads greater than 80 kip per micropile.

Jan 1, 2010

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

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

Jan 1, 2013

Jan 1, 2003

By Robert Thurner

The underground car park "Admonterhof in the historical centre of Graz is an example for the technical and economical success of a complicated structural design using a concept on the basis of the observational method. The intention to built a 20 m deep excavation beneath a protected monument was accompanied by some essential issues: the preservation of the existing state avoiding extensive displacements by means of a girder grid of reinforced concrete, its support on large bored piles and small steel-tube piles with possible active compensation of differential settlements, the excavation support in none built-up areas with secant bored piles, the underpinning of existing buildings with different structures by means of jet grouting. Furthermore the hydraulic gradient and the permeability of a rock formation in a part of the excavation had to be explored with the purpose to control the inflow of groundwater with a level difference of more than 10 m.

Jan 1, 2006

By H. Boghosian

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

Jan 1, 2006

[ENGLISH active earth pressure adapter additive adhesion admixture, addition adsorbed water aggregate air air entrainment air hose allowable bearing value allowable pile bearing load]

Jan 1, 1994

By Ryan C. Linthicum

A system of steel sheeting and multiple levels of high capacity double corrosion protected soil anchors were used to restrain a major slope failure that occurred at the base of the Watchung Mountains mid-way through construction of a 650,000 SF retail center along Route 22 in Watchung, New Jersey. The implementation of a design-build earth retaining structure was necessary to stabilize and repair the disturbed mountainside in a timely fashion to permit completion of the retail center on a fast track schedule. The tied back steel sheetpile wall was approximately 2,000 feet long and varied in height from 12 to 25 feet. The hillside extended approximately 350 feet above and 600 feet beyond the wall with the main failure scarp extending 50 feet above and 90 feet beyond. The wall was constructed in a top-down manner and required the installation of 475 anchors to resist loads of up to 70 kips/ft produced by the creeping hillside and groundwater flows from both a series of springs and steady state seepage through an inclined zone of fine sand. Incorporation of a unique tie point connection eliminated the need for a waler, facilitating and simplifying modifications to anchor locations based on anchor load test results and conditions encountered during construction. Post grouting also proved to be an essential element in the successful construction. This paper presents the design and the construction methods used to restrain the significant earth lateral loads produced by a slope failure using steel sheeting tied back with high capacity soil anchors with anchor loads distributed to the sheeting through a unique tie point connection on a fast track schedule. Installation techniques, testing programs, and construction quality control are also discussed.

Jan 1, 2003

By Walter E. Vanderpool

Three drilled foundations for an elevated water-tank were instrumented, tested and monitored during construction and the first two years in service. One shaft was load tested by the Osterberg method. A void was detected in one shaft by cross-hole sonic logging, pulse-echo logging and concrete coring. The void was instrumented, hydrostatically tested and pressure grouted. The shaft was ?abandoned? and replaced by two smaller shafts with a straddle beam cap. One of the replacement shafts and the cap were instrumented. The strain that appeared in the abandoned shaft, the replacement shaft and the cap were monitored during the remainder of the construction, through the commissioning test and the first two years of service. The results demonstrate the precision and sensitivity of the vibrating wire strain gage.

Jan 1, 2004

By David L. Borusiewicz, M. Suri Surendra

"Abstract Helical piles have been used as anchors and for supporting lightly loaded structures as a method of underpinning, etc in the past. Recently, helical piles are being used to support new structures because of their simple installation process using relatively light and mobile equipment. This paper presents the results of evaluation and design performed for the temporary support of existing piers during a bridge rehabilitation project.INTRODUCTIONThe helical screw foundation was invented and patented by Alexander Mitchell in England in 1833. He installed screw piles to support lighthouses in the tidal basins of England. Many applications in the earlier years in the USA were in North Carolina and in Florida to support lighthouses (in coastal plain deposits). A lighthouse of similar foundation design is still in use at Key Biscayne, Florida.In the USA, the helical piles were reintroduced as foundation elements for electrical transmission towers. Helical piles were also used for anchoring guys of self supported towers and as tie-backs for excavation support systems. Typically, helical piles are being used for supporting lightly loaded buildings and for underpinning buildings undergoing distress as a means of remediation. The helical piles are not commonly used in the transportation industry.HELICAL PILESHelical pile is a segmented deep foundation system with helical bearing plates welded to a central steel shaft. Load is transferred from the shaft to the soil through these bearing plates. Central steel shafts are available in either a square shaft (Type SS) or a round shaft (Type RS). The Type SS series are available in 38 mm to 57 mm square sizes. The Type RS series are available in 73 mm to 114 mm diameter sizes. Type SS-RS combinations are also available for compression applications in soil conditions where dense/hard soils must be penetrated with softer/loose soils above the bearing strata.The leading segment consists of a shaft with one or more helical plates that are welded to the shaft. The plates vary in diameter from 203 mm to 355.5 mm and have a thickness of 9.5 mm or 13.7 mm. Typically the plate diameter increases from the bottom of the shaft upward. A helical bearing plate or helix is one pitch of a screw thread. All helices, regardless of their diameter, have a standard 76 mm pitch. Being a true helical shape, the helices do not auger into the soil but rather screw into it with minimal soil disturbance. Helical plates are generally spaced a distance of two to three times the diameter of the plate directly below in order for them to function independently as individual bearing elements. A typical detail of helical pile is shown on Figure 1."

Jan 1, 2014

By Jesús E. Gómez

This work is a continuation of a paper presented in the 32nd DFI Annual Conference, Colorado 2007, titled ?Hollow Core Bar Micropiles - Design parameters interpreted from 260 load tests.? The first paper presented the results of the verification and proof tests performed for the retrofit of two bridges with hollow core bars that used 260 micropiles. It included an interpretation of the unit bond values in the different soils where micropiles were installed. Recently two additional bridges within the same geological environment were also retrofitted using 144 hollow core micropiles. This paper includes the interpretation of the additional data from the proof tests performed and refines recommended values for design of hollow core bar micropiles in soils similar to those encountered in these two projects. The authors believe that the data collected will significantly add to the relatively small existing database on micropile tests and may also be useful during implementation of the LRFD design methodology.

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1989

By Patrick J. Hannigan

The pile foundation designer typically performs a subsurface exploration program and static pile capacity calculations before selecting a pile foundation type, length, and capacity. During construction, a pile installation criterion must be established to meet these design requirements. This installation criterion usually consists of a minimum penetration resistance or blow count to confirm pile capacity and may also include a minimum embedment requirement. This text will focus on use of wave equation analysis and dynamic measurements to meet design requirements. BEFORE THE WAVE EQUATION Since the mid-1800s, over 450 dynamic formulas for pile driving control have proliferated. In their simplest form, these formulas relate hammer energy to the work of soil resistance, or simply: W ? h = R ? s (1) Where W = ram weight h = ram drop height or stroke R = pile capacity s = pile penetration per blow

Jan 1, 1990

By Donald Bruce

The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: ? Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. ? Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. ? Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications. Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.

Jan 1, 2004

By Joint Micropiles Committee

"The three types of specifications which are used for micropile work are: • Performance Specifications: The contractor is permitted control over certain design and/or construction procedures but must demonstrate to the owner through testing and/or certification that the final product meets the specified performance criteria. This method allows and encourages the contractor to provide a competitive and/or innovative micropile design within the framework of the overall design requirements. The responsibilities for the work are shared between the owner and the contractor. • Open Specifications: These leave the scope and design of the installation up to the micropile contractor. This method is the most common for securing bids on temporary micropile work. The responsibility for design and performance is clearly placed on the contractor. Open specifications are not recommended for permanent applications. This method allows the contractor to select the most economical micropile system. • Prescriptive Specification: The Owner describes specific procedures that must be followed, but which may not necessarily describe the objective of the work. When prescriptive specifications are used, the owner is responsible for the proper performance of the system. The contractor is responsible for satisfying the details of the specifications.Performance specifications are the most common and best reflect the challenges and interests of micropile technology and applications.The owner, designer and contractor will together be responsible for the tasks associated with the design, installation, acceptance, and performance of the micropiles. The installation of micropiles requires specialized equipment, techniques, and appropriate workmanship. Not every detail of the work can be specified, and not every potential problem can be anticipated. Therefore, a contractor who has demonstrated experience in micropiles must be selected to execute the work required."

Jan 1, 2004

By D. T. Bergado

The uppermost subsoil profiles of the Bangkok plain can be divided into four layers, namely: weathered clay, soft clay, stiff clay, and dense sand layers. The soft Bangkok clay is a normally consolidated marine clay with built-up preconsolidation effects and overlain by a weathered crust. Up to the present, a large number of full-scale tests on excavations and pile foundations has been made by numerous investigators. Based on these results, the available data are reviewed and evaluated. The results show that for test excavations, the excess pore pressures were overpredicted by the existing theories. The vertical and lateral movements in the excavations can be predicted by the bilinear and non-linear finite elements using appropriate modulus values. Relationships among probability of failure, safety factor, and safety margin of the excavation were also obtained. In the case of pile foundations, good agreement between the measured and predicted ultimate pile capacities were obtained for long piles. The adhesion factors ranged from 0.4 to 1.0 while the average skin friction factor was found to be 0.33. The ultimate capacity of the pile was also predicted successfully by using the Dutch cone data. For lateral deflection of piles, Davisson and Gill's theory predicted well in the low deflection zone while Poulos' theory agreed well in the high deflection zone. From the probabilistic analysis of ultimate pile capacity, the probability of failure was related to the central factor of safety. The piles usually used in Bangkok area are mainly precast concrete piles

Jan 1, 2010