Search Documents

By Sanjeev Malhotra

"This paper presents the results of a pile installation monitoring and performance assessment program for pile foundations supporting 14 piers and 2 abutments of the 1700-ft long bridge crossing over a river in Baltimore, Maryland. Dynamic measurements were conducted during installation and restrike of 16 test piles, one at each support location. The foundation piles were 30-inch diameter, 0.75 inch thick pipe piles at the piers and 24-inch diameter, 0.5 inch thick at the abutments. The piles at the piers were approximately 100 ft long and were designed to carry 260 kips service load with a factor of safety of 2.25. The piles were driven open ended into a variable site stratigraphy containing recent deposits of organic clayey silts near the mudline followed by loose to medium dense sand, with some silt, and then by soil deposits from the Cretaceous period consisting primarily of dense to very dense, poorly to well graded sands and gravels and cobbles, with occasional seams of very hard to very stiff, low to moderate plasticity silts and clays. This paper presents the approach taken to evaluate the driven index piles and to develop criteria for driving production piles. It provides the Engineer with some data on pile driveability in Cretaceous soils in the Baltimore area, soil set-up effect, and an estimate of pile capacity.INTRODUCTIONThe typical approach to pile foundation design and construction should include an indicator pile program with dynamic measurements and a static load test program. However very often paucity of funds and schedule constraints cause an owner to do away with conventional static load testing which can take $25,000 to $100,000 and several weeks per test. This paper examines an alternate (though not equivalent) truncated approach to foundation assessment and presents a case history where this approach was implemented.Dynamic measurements were conducted during pile installation for the 14 piers and 2 abutments of the new 1700-ft long bridge over a river in Baltimore, Maryland. Strain transducers and accelerometers were attached to the pile top during initial driving and restrike of 16 pipe piles. The foundation piles consisted of 30-inch outside diameter, 0.75-inch thick pipe piles at the piers and 24-inch outside diameter, 0.5 inch thick at the abutments. The piles were driven open ended into a variable site stratigraphy. The approach taken to assess the foundation performance included 1) a pre-field wave equation driveability analyses, 2) field pile driving measurements, 3) post-field Case Pile Wave Equation Analyses (CAPWAP), and, 4) revised wave equation analyses based on field and CAPWAP data. The following sections describe in greater detail each of the steps taken to assess foundation performance and the results obtained."

Jan 1, 2005

By Nicolas Moscoso, Gerald Verbeek, Marcel Bielefeld, Rob van Dorp

Upon recently, most offshore foundations were based on a number of driven piles that were installed with an impact hammer. With the increase in offshore windfarms two major developments have occurred: the shift from jackets to monopiles, leading to increase of the diameter of the foundation piles, and a shift from impact hammers to vibro hammers. As the use of vibratory hammers is becoming more and more common practice, the need for accurate vibro-driving simulation software has increased, which requires that the soil modelling is enhanced to address soil fatigue during pile driving and to predict reliably the soil behavior and resistance during pile driving. In addition pile driving monitoring, which is routine for piles driven with an impact hammer, needs to become common practice. This paper addresses advances in soil modelling that allows more accurate pile driving simulation as well as the application of Vibro Driving Analysis (VDA) or Monitoring (VDM) to validate the simulation results. This is illustrated by a case study of the test pile for the Delft Offshore Turbine project, a 28 m long monopile with a diameter of 4 m that was driven 15 m into dense sand layers using a vibro hammer. After some 6 months the pile was extracted, and pile driving simulations and VDA were done both for the installation and extraction phase. 1. INTRODUCTION At the end of 2017, the total worldwide offshore wind power capacity was 18.8 GW [1]. The vast majority of offshore wind farms are currently in Northern Europe, which together account for over two thirds of the total offshore wind power installed worldwide, followed by East Asia, while developments in North America are still in very early stages.

Jan 1, 2019

By Andrew J. Ciancia

The construction of the Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, the Beaux-Arts masterpiece, was completed in 1910. In financial ruin, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sold the station in the 1960?s and the new Madison Square Garden and the Penn Plaza complex were constructed at the site. The demolition of Pennsylvania Station brought public awareness and outcry to protect historic structures and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) was subsequently established in 1965. In the 1960?s relatively little engineering data was available on the performance of historic structures during adjacent construction and thus, no published criteria were established by the LPC on allowable movements and vibrations. During the late 1970?s a commercial tower was planned adjacent to the landmark Fraunces Tavern Block (FTB) in lower Manhattan. Through negotiations between the LPC and the developer, Dr. M. I. Esrig and the author were retained to monitor the historic block during foundation construction. The monitoring data and building performance compiled from the project formed the basis of the published 1981 ASCE technical paper by Esrig and Ciancia entitled ?The Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures Resulting from Adjacent Construction?. Based on the ASCE paper, the NYC Department of Buildings adopted Technical Policy and Procedure Notice #10/88 entitled ?Procedures for the Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures Resulting from Adjacent Construction When Subject to Controlled Inspection by Section 27-724 and for Any Existing Structure Designated by the Commissioner?, June 1988. This paper describes the author?s recent experience during the installation of deep foundations within, or adjacent to, three Manhattan landmark structures. Discussions are provided on the foundation construction, monitoring programs and performances of the three structures.

Jan 1, 2008

By Manasi Wijerathna, D. S. Liyanapathirana

"Deep cement mixing is a popular soft ground improving technology that improves the bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of natural soil. When Deep Cement Mixed (DCM) columns are installed attached to each other in a wall configuration, the walls are capable of resisting bending moments and shear forces in the direction transverse to the columns. Therefore, installing DCM walls beneath the embankment slope perpendicular to the alignment of the embankment is a proper solution to prevent excessive lateral deformations of the embankment. Previous research studies have shown that failure patterns of DCM column walls are different to failure patterns of individual DCM column rows, under lateral loads. This study investigates the failure patterns of embankments where DCM column walls are located beneath the slopes, with respect to DCM wall strength, DCM column wall width and the spacing between DCM walls. 2D and 3D numerical models developed using the ABAQUS/standard finite element programme, were used in this investigation. Results show that the DCM wall strength and width of the DCM wall have a significant influence on the failure mode and the critical failure surface of the embankment. 3D simulation results demonstrate that the failure due to soil extrusion between columns was less pronounced in embankments improved with DCM walls, due to the interaction between the DCM walls and the surrounding natural soil.INTRODUCTIONEmbankments constructed over soft ground are highly susceptible to global slope failure and excessive displacements due to combined effects of vertical and lateral loads beneath the embankment slope (Zheng et al., 2009, Han and Gabr, 2002). The overall stability of the embankment can be significantly improved by improving the soil beneath the slope of the embankment using Deep Cement Mixed (DCM) column rows or overlapped DCM column walls (Jamsawang et al., 2015, Larsson and Broms, 2000, Topolniki, 2004, Broms, 1999). According to the literature, the improved ground experience different failure modes other than shear failure, such as separation of columns, overturning, shear failure along the columns or dowel action (Broms, 1999). Some of the failure modes reported by Broms (1999) are shown in Fig. 1. The ultimate failure mode depends on the geometry and the strength of the improved ground (Jamsawang et al., 2015, Kitazume and Maruyama, 2006, Kitazume and Maruyama, 2007)."

Jan 1, 1900

By Hyun. I. Park

Although numerous investigations have been performed over the years to predict the behavior and bearing capacity of piles, the mechanisms of these behavior and bearing capacity of piles have yet to be entirely understood. Bearing capacity is difficult to predict, because it is affected by many parameters, which have complex relationship with each other. The present paper describes the application of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) in dynamic load tests to predict the resistance of driven piles. The tip, shaft, and total pile resistances can be predicted only for piles with available corresponding measurements of these values. The design methodology composed of ANN and genetic algorithm (GA) is applied to find the optimal neural network model to predict pile resistance. The results of this study indicate that the neural network model serves as a reliable and simple tool for predicting the capacity of driven piles.

Jan 1, 2006

By John C. Niedzielski

The existing US-70 Bridge over the Gila River at Bylas, Arizona is planned to be replaced due to its current poor condition. The replacement bridge is planned to be a 15-span, 1,904-foot (580 meter) long bridge, the third-longest bridge in the state highway system. Within the Gila River floodplain, granular alluvial soil is underlain by cohesive lacustrine soil; bedrock was expected due to nearby terrain but not encountered within the geotechnical exploration depth of 166.5 feet (51 meters) or less. Based on the anticipated loading conditions, design scour depths and the soil conditions, the full structural loads are carried by large diameter drilled shafts; therefore accurately determining the axial capacity of the proposed drilled shafts has important practical and safety implications. The conventional methods for axial capacity determination may be overly conservative to use for design in the site?s layered granular and hard clay soils. An Osterberg cell load test was performed to obtain detailed information on the load transfer from the drilled shaft in side friction and base resistance to allow optimization of the bridge foundation design. The full-scale field test played a significant role in the design of the project?s deep foundations, notably, by incorporating the specific subsoil properties and consequently, an exact prediction of the load-settlement behavior under loading. This paper provides the results of the geotechnical site investigations, drilled shaft load testing procedures, and shaft load distribution from the load test results. Comparisons were developed between predicted axial capacities of drilled shafts using several design methodologies and the axial capacity measured from static load testing. The load test results showed that underestimation of the axial capacity is evident using conventional methodologies. The exact prediction of the load-settlement behavior under loading combined with a site-specific design approach, resulted in a substantial reduction of foundation costs due to reduced drilled shaft dimensions.

By Seth H. Hamblin, John E. Regan, Dimitrios Palantzas

"Through reliability-based calibration of larger pile load test databases, recent developments of the Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) methods, which include geotechnical load and resistance factors for deep foundations design, have advanced the state of practice for geotechnical engineering. These load test databases upon which the current geotechnical load and resistance factors have been developed are limited, however, and do not provide sufficient data to support the development of resistance factors for uplift (tension) pile capacity. As such, some recommended resistance factors for uplift capacity estimation methods are simply derived by reducing the recommended resistance factors for piles in compression by a factor of 0.10.The results of three (3) tension loading tests performed to failure on 508 mm (20- in) square precast, prestressed concrete piles, driven though granular soil in southeastern Massachusetts, are presented and compared to static pile capacity calculations and dynamic analyses performed using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) during installation. These results are presented along with current recommended LRFD resistance factors for driven piles under uplift (tension) loading conditions. These comparisons offer an assessment of the applicability and limitations of current resistance factors methods for piles under uplift loading and may be useful additions to the existing database for future calibrations of LRFD resistance factors for driven prestressed concrete piles in sand.IntroductionIn 2010, two (2) natural draft cooling towers were constructed by Kiewit (Kiewit) Construction Company of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey at the Brayton Point Power Station in Somerset, Massachusetts. These massive 500 foot tall, 400 foot diameter cooling towers were designed to convert the existing “open loop” system into a “closed loop system” thereby dramatically reducing the thermal impact to Mt. Hope Bay.Based on design guidance from the German VBG Design Code and the Massachusetts State Building Code (MSBC), tension (i.e. uplift) and lateral loads due to wind loads and design seismic events represented the critical loading conditions.Weighing approximately 190,000 kips upon completion, the cooling tower loads are transferred to 44 foundation nodes (i.e. pile caps) evenly spaced along ring beams which run the circular perimeter of each tower base. Each pile cap node was designed to resist a 2,000 ton compression load, 200 tons in tension (i.e. uplift), and 600 tons in the lateral direction."

Jan 1, 2015

By Christian B. Woods, Joe C. Drumheller

"Kenneth A. Huber, P.E., Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, New York, New York, USAThe dream to bring New Jersey Devils hockey to the largest city in New Jersey became a reality in the summer of 2005, when construction began for the Prudential Center in downtown Newark. The Prudential Center site encompasses an entire city block that had a varied history of uses ranging from a cemetery in the late 18th century, to a rail yard and train station for the now-defunct Central Jersey Rail Road in the 19th and early 20th centuries, to commercial development in the latter half of the 20th century. Each of these prior uses presented challenges to the design and construction of the Prudential Center that required innovative engineering solutions, including: archaeological investigation and exhumation of the former cemetery occupants, protection of historic buildings surrounding the site, and extensive demolition to remove old train bridge foundations.The design team was required to develop potential foundation systems for the arena. Several foundation concepts were evaluated for cost and constructability, including: driven piles, drilled shafts, and shallow foundations on improved subgrade. Following a detailed cost analysis and value engineering exercise, the decision was made to support the arena on spread footings following the completion of a multi-phased ground improvement program consisting of a combination of dynamic compaction and removal and replacement. To evaluate achievable allowable bearing pressure as part of the design, a dynamic compaction test section was performed within the building footprint prior to the start of production work; this resulted in an increase of the allowable design bearing pressure from 2 tons per square foot (tsf) to 3 tsf. This reduced the expected foundation costs by 30% and gained sufficient time in the schedule to allow for the completion of the arena in time for the New Jersey Devils 2007- 2008 hockey season.BACKGROUNDThe dream to bring New Jersey Devils hockey to the largest city in New Jersey became a reality in the summer of 2005, when construction began for the Prudential Center in downtown Newark. After several years of negotiating between the City of Newark, local landowners, area developers, and the Devils themselves, a deal was finally struck to erect Newark Arena, now known as the Prudential Center, right next to City Hall. This is not to say, however, that once the site location was finalized, that no further challenges were encountered in the construction of Newark’s new crown jewel."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ground Improvement Committee

The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation.

Aug 1, 2013

By Joe Harris

Large structures, such as a multistory office building or a large storage tank, are constructed the most economical way possible, which may involve a shallow foundation system placed on native soil or compacted fill material. Over the life of the structure, the foundation system may not perform as originally anticipated, leading to differential settlement. Minor differ- ential settlement is expected; however, settlement that exceeds allotted tolerance can render the structure inoperable. Compaction grouting is a well-known and accepted ground improvement technique that can be used to not only stabilize but relevel multistory buildings and large dia- meter storage tanks. Two projects, each with differing types of structures, were successfully remediated utilizing com- paction grouting as the primary method to remedy settlement.

Sep 1, 2023

By Donald Deardorff

"Helical piles often rely on the final installation torque for ultimate capacity verification. When helical piles are designed using traditional bearing capacity equations for deep foundations and field monitored for a specified final installation torque, a factor of safety equal to 2 is often allowed for the design. One of the more common methods of determining torque during helical pile installation is by correlating the differential pressure across a hydraulic gear motor to a torque. Most drive head manufacturers provide multipliers to convert differential pressure to torque for different drive head models. These multipliers are based on theoretical torque equations and vary with the planetary gear ratio, hydraulic gear motor displacement and drive head efficiency. Drive head manufacturers show a linear fit between the differential pressure and output torque with no scaling effect. Previous drive head testing performed by the author has confirmed that the drive head differential pressure to torque relationship is generally linear however there is a scaling adjustment needed. This results in a variation of multipliers across the differential pressure range for a given drive head.Eight hydraulic drive heads from three manufacturers were field tested by Foundation Supportworks, Inc. to compare the torque versus differential pressure curves with varying installation equipment, hydraulic line sizes and hydraulic flow rates. Differential pressure was monitored using three methods including pressure gages, PT-Tracker and an Ashcroft AT-100. Flow and temperature was measured using a Webtech system analyzer. Torque was measured using a Pro-Dig in-line torque transducer, a TruTorque indicator and a Chance Mechanical Dial in-line torque indicator. The current testing indicates that a change in installation equipment and/or a change in hydraulic flow rate may affect the torque versus differential pressure curve of a given drive head. The results of this testing also show that some of the methods for determining torque during helical pile installations may be unconservative, thereby resulting in safety factors less than required."

Jan 1, 2017

By Donald Deardorff

Helical piles often rely on the final installation torque for ultimate capacity verification. When helical piles are designed using traditional bearing capacity equations for deep foundations and field monitored for a specified final installation torque, a factor of safety equal to 2 is often allowed for the design. One of the more common methods of determining torque during helical pile installation is by correlating the differential pressure across a hydraulic gear motor to a torque. Most drive head manufacturers provide multipliers to convert differential pressure to torque for different drive head models. These multipliers are based on theoretical torque equations and vary with the planetary gear ratio, hydraulic gear motor displacement and drive head efficiency. Drive head manufacturers show a linear fit between the differential pressure and output torque with no scaling effect. Previous drive head testing performed by the author has confirmed that the drive head differential pressure to torque relationship is generally linear however there is a scaling adjustment needed. This results in a variation of multipliers across the differential pressure range for a given drive head. Eight hydraulic drive heads from three manufacturers were field tested by Foundation Supportworks, Inc. to compare the torque versus differential pressure curves with varying installation equipment, hydraulic line sizes and hydraulic flow rates. Differential pressure was monitored using three methods including pressure gages, PT-Tracker and an Ashcroft AT-100. Flow and temperature was measured using a Webtech system analyzer. Torque was measured using a Pro-Dig in-line torque transducer, a TruTorque indicator and a Chance Mechanical Dial in-line torque indicator. The current testing indicates that a change in installation equipment and/or a change in hydraulic flow rate may affect the torque versus differential pressure curve of a given drive head. The results of this testing also show that some of the methods for determining torque during helical pile installations may be unconservative, thereby resulting in safety factors less than required.

By Monica Prezzi

"Auger cast-in-place (ACIP} piles and drilled displacement piles are being increasingly used as foundation elements for structures, particularly in projects requiring accelerated construction or involving the rehabilitation of foundations of existing, overstressed structures. Auger cast-in-place piles (also referred to as continuous-flight-auger piles) are widely used to construct the foundations of all types of structures. There are many different types of drilled displacement piles, with the installation methods varying according to the equipment used. Depending on the specific rotary piling technology used, responses ranging from those associated with non-displacement to those associated with full-displacement piles are obtained. Conventional pile design methods do not account for how the various construction techniques involved in auger piling change the soil state around the pile during installation and, hence, cannot accurately estimate the pile resistance in a consistent way. Research on this subject, identifying the different variables that must be accounted for in design and linking these variables to installation methods, is lacking. This paper describes the different piling methods available for auger cast-in-place and drilled displacement piles, the equipment used to install them and the quality control processes typically used. It also reviews some of the design methods currently used.IntroductionDeep foundations are extensively used in geotechnical engineering practice. The wide spectrum of piling methods results in a variety of pile types. Each type behaves differently, depending on the installation or construction methods. On one end of the spectrum are non-displacement piles, the classicql examples of which are bored piles or drilled · shafts. These piles are constructed by removing a cylinder of soil from the ground and replacing it with concrete and reinforcement. On the other end are full-displacement piles, such as closed-ended pipe piles or precast reinforced concrete piles, which are typically driven into the ground. Driven piles preload the materials below the toe of the pile and displace the soil surrounding the pile shaft laterally during the installation process. Therefore, displacement piles are, in general, more likely to have a stiffer response than non-displacement piles. This is true particularly in the case of sandy soils where displacement causes densification."

Jan 1, 2005

By George J. Tamara

The urban environment presents special challenges for the design and construction of earth retention systems. Complications arising from difficult subsurface conditions are compounded by the presence of urban infrastructure and existing and prior construction. The proximity of adjacent structures as well as intense prior use can cause special concerns including the potential for archeological artifacts or contaminated ground or ground water. Utilities and structures may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of ground movement, dewatering and vibrations. Difficulty of access, congestion and limited work areas may severely restrict means and methods of construction. Dewatering may be limited or prohibited because of concerns for disposal of clean or contaminated water, depletion of aquifers, drawing of contaminants to the site or dewatering induced settlements.

Jan 1, 2003

By Amr M. Sallam

A case history of utilizing a mat foundation enhanced with ?settlement-control? piles to support a high-rise building in Downtown Orlando is presented. Original geotechnical engineering studies, performed by others, recommended pile foundations due to difficult soil conditions and highly variable loads. The value engineering study performed by the authors provided alternative foundation system of the mat foundation enhanced by ?settlement-control? piles. The alternative foundation system required few iterations of structural and geotechnical analysis. A target stiffness for the settlement-control piles was selected by the structural engineer. Pile load tests were performed to verify the recommended pile geometry. A total of 81 auger-cast-in-place settlement-control piles 45-foot long 16-inch diameter were installed. A total of 24 columns were monitored for settlement, which showed substantially less settlement than predicted. It is the authors? opinion that the ?settlement-control? piles increased the mat stiffness, relieved the concentration of contact pressures around heavily loaded columns, and reduced potential differential settlement. Mat foundation with settlement-control piles provided border-line foundation solution between shallow and deep foundations and has the potential to be widely used in Central Florida for similar subsoil and loading conditions; however a thorough analysis using three dimensional Finite Element Modeling may be needed to refine the geotechnical evaluations.

Jan 1, 2009

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Four drilled shafts, two on each side of the bridge (NJ and NY), were load tested using the bi-directional axial load method. Axial test results demonstrate that RQD, taken by itself, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of side or base resistance. High recovery with low RQD can be a function of horizontally bedded siltstone and shale where the individual pieces of core do not exceed four inches, but may still provide very high side and base resistance. Axial testing was followed by a lateral rapid-load test (Statnamic) on each of the same four shafts. In addition, one of the shafts was subjected to a static lateral load test to validate the rapid-load method as being representative of static loading conditions. Results of the axial load tests provide the basis of unit side and unit base resistances used in the LRFD design of the rock sockets for axial loading, while results of the static and Statnamic lateral load tests were used to calibrate p-y curve parameters used for design under lateral and moment loading. This paper describes implementation of the load testing program and its role in the design process.INTRODUCTIONDesign of drilled shaft foundations for the Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) required load testing in order to validate the parameters used for calculating geotechnical axial and lateral resistances. The bridge, including foundations, was designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, 6th Edition (2012). The bridge owner is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). One of the PANYNJ project requirements was stated as follows:“Perform a minimum of two (2) separate axial compression load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology to verify the design assumptions and construction procedures. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.Conduct a minimum of two (2) lateral load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.”"

Jan 1, 2016

By Partha Sircar

"For Berth 22 modifications at the Port of Oakland, nearly 600 octagonal 24-inch ‘diameter’ precast-prestressed concrete piles were driven, some piles over 160 feet long. Prior to production pile driving, an indicator/test pile program was performed, which included extensive use of dynamic load testing with (Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) & CAPWAP analyses. The indicator test-pile program resulted in requiring significantly longer piles than the original design based on subsurface borings. The cause of this discrepancy is investigated in light of the available geotechnical information, soil mechanics principles and standard techniques for pile capacity computations. Several interesting phenomena emerged. These include relatively low resistances offered by crushed rockfill than would conventionally be assumed, non-homogeneity of an apparently uniform formation and the effects of jetting on pile side friction. Also revealing was the significant increase in capacity between 1 and 3 weeks of driving for long piles in clay. Recommendations were developed for pile capacity for future use as “lessons learned”.IntroductionThe foundation for the replaced Berth 22 structure at the Port of Oakland in California involved driving approximately 570, 24-inch octagonal precast prestressed concrete piles. A plan and a section for the pile locations are presented in Figure 1.The ultimate loads on the piles used in the design are presented in Table 1 – the loads are quite heavy.The foundation design was followed by an extensive Indicator Pile Program. The contractors (Manson Construction Co. of Richmond, California) opted to use a Delmag D62-02 diesel hammer (Rated Maximum Energy – 165 kip-feet). Per the project specifications, the same hammer was used for both indicator and production pile driving. The production piles of appropriate lengths were ordered based on thr results of the Indicator Pile Program. A number of interesting results were found from the Indicator Program, which is discussed in this paper."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ronnie X. Gu, Xing Zheng, Gem-Yeu Ma

Due to implementation of the rotator construction method from which a smooth shaft was anticipated, a full-scale pile load test (Osterberg Method) was performed at Pier 14 Pile 9 of the main span of the New Benicia-Martinez Bridge to confirm the design parameters of the rock sockets. Two levels of load cells were fabricated in the reinforced cage of the rock socket. Each level consisted of three 670-mm Osterberg load cells with a total testing capacity of more than 50 MN in both directions. In an attempt to separate side friction and end beari ng, a 75 mm thick compressible Styrofoam material was placed at the bottom of the cage. The pile load test was carried out in four stages. The multi-level multi stage pile load test data was interpreted for casing friction, side friction for two rock strata, end bearing, and residual side shear values under repeated loading in opposite directions. The side friction from the casing in soils at Stage 2 is approximately 9 MN. The end bearing at the tip of the rock socket at Stage 3 was calculated to be approximately 17 MN at a displacement of about 75 mm. The residual side shear resistance for the 10 m 50% RQD rock strata was calculated to be 9 MN or approximately 50% of initial values, after being pushed 0.3 mm upward in Stage 1, 71 mm downward in Stage 2, then 55.5 mm upward again in Stage 3, and finally 105.3 mm downward in Stage 4. The test results surprising ly indicate that the side shear resistances from both low RQD intensely weathered rock and higher RQD slightly weathered competent rock are about the same at approximately 19 MN. This pile load test provides very critical information for confirming deep shaft design and analyses.

Jan 1, 2005

By Federico Pagliacci

"Many existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or pervious rocks or karst. Remedial works are necessary in order to install new cut-off walls to stop the water flow. In some cases the cut-off walls have to be executed at depths never reached so far, and difficult to reach with traditional foundation techniques. In many cases the Hydromill technology proved to be the best system to overpass rocky layers and ensure the required verticality. The maximum depth reached by the industry was in the range of 120-150 meters. This article describes the test performed to excavate and cast in place a 3.2x1.5 m panel to a depth of 250 m. The article will also describe the stratigraphy of the site down to 250 meters, as well as the technique adopted to achieve the said depth with deviations from verticality of 30 cm along the longitudinal axis (0.12%) and 20 cm along the transverse axis (0.10%), measured at the bottom of the excavation. The concreting of the panel, for about 1,100 m³, with plastic concrete in the lower portion and conventional concrete in the upper portion will be illustrated. Finally, the tests performed during the excavation and after concrete casting will be also described, with special attention to the continuous directional core drilling that was performed along the whole length of the panel to verify the results of the deviation from verticality, through the onboard instruments, and to control the quality of concrete at a depth never reached before. IntroductionMany existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or caves and cavities or acid solutions in the bedrock formations.Conventional remedial works generally consist in the construction of an additional cut-off wall throughout the dam body and the subsoil, in most cases being deeper than the original one. Today, many examples of successful remedial cut-off walls allow the engineers to design the most suitable solution according to the dam and subsoil characteristics and nature.The real difficulty stems from the depth at which the new cut-off wall has to be socketed in competent rock or soil, so as to eliminate underwater seepage. The maximum depth ever achieved with a cut-off wall is 122.5 m for the remedial work of Mud Mountain Dam, Washington, USA, in 1988-1990. This 0.85-1.0 m thick cut-off wall was realized by means of a Hydromill, by excavating single 2.8 m-wide secant panels."

Jan 1, 2017

By Paul J. Sabatini, Robert C. Bachus, Terence P. Holman, Panos Andonyadis

A recent landslide comprising approximately 12 acres (4.86 hectare) and a displaced volume of more than 500,000 cy (382,000 m3) caused the shutdown of a four-lane state highway and two high-capacity freight railway lines. After completion of immediate landslide stabilization activities, various long-term slope stabilization measures were implemented that focused primarily on gradual slope unloading in areas near and upslope from the scarp of the landslide. Near the completion of the upslope excavation, an anchored soldier beam and lagging wall was constructed to allow for the temporary unloading of the toe of the main landslide area to facilitate installation of a permanent underdrain. The design of the anchored wall utilized information collected during the rehabilitation construction and included inclinometer data, site survey results, piezometer data, and field construction observations. Using the history of site-specific movements, results of back-analysis calculations from the landslide, and geometry/performance of the post-construction slope configurations, the fully softened and residual shear strengths along two potentially critical sliding surfaces were calculated. Owing to the high confidence in the values of shear strength as afforded by this information, the confidence in local groundwater conditions, and control of the loads, the designers selected a relatively low, calculated short-term factor of safety (FS) (i.e., FS ˜ 1.1 to 1.2) for the most critical unloading step. Long term calculated FS values on the order of 1.2 to 1.3 were anticipated. This paper describes the detailed evaluation of the landslide slope movement data associated with the shallow and deep potentially critical failure surfaces and selection of the associated values of design shear strength for these potentially critical surfaces. A description is presented of the analyses and design of the anchored wall, measures implemented during construction to minimize slope movements, and post-construction monitoring results during the unloading and subsequent installation of the underdrain.

Jan 1, 2017