Search Documents

By Rob van Dorp

"AbstractThe Monitoring & Instrumentation Committee (MIC) of DFI Europe has the objective to support DFI members in concern of risk management of geotechnical matters, where monitoring and instrumentation have added value.Work of the CommitteeA study by the committee showed that there are already several existing (national) guidelines. They all have their strengths and limitations and their focus may vary a little per country due to local regulations and typical local building activities, but the main question remains what added value another new guideline would have. More likely it would add to the confusion instead of providing overview.Companies with larger experience in geotechnical monitoring (often larger consultancy firm, contractors or clients) are already quite familiar with its benefits do not really need a new guideline in how to design and effectively apply sophisticated geotechnical monitoring systems for special projects.Therefore the aim of the MIC is to focus a little more towards smaller organizations - that are less familiar with monitoring and instrumentation - and the more ‘regular’ type of project that they are mainly involved in. The MIC wants to create a tool which helps them to create risk awareness, to understand the benefits of geotechnical monitoring and to provide them information about how and where to find the right partners and equipment to setup and apply appropriate monitoring systems for their projects.Monitoring and instrumentation benefits are for example:• Risk control during construction stage;• Costs reduction in design and construction (taken limitation of geotechnical aspects into account).• Prevent of unnecessary delays in construction work• Increasing general awareness of geotechnical risks and possibilities of monitoring.The cost of monitoring compared to the cost of failure and/or the savings that can be achieved play a role in the work of the committee. DFI members benefit from the shared knowledge by the MIC on monitoring and instrumentation within their process of risk management."

Jan 1, 2014

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By Mario A. Terceros Herrera, Mario Terceros Arce, Antonio Marinucci

A Smart Cell is a closed-type tip post-grouting device that is attached to the bottom of the steel reinforcement cage of a drilled shaft and is used to enhance performance and to reduce uncertainty thereof. Control of the grout is maintained within the device during injection and a uniform stress is imparted across entire base area simultaneously, inducing a pre-mobilization load into the shaft as well as the soil. This paper describes the construction and tip post-grouting of drilled shafts from two bridge projects in the Santa Cruz, Bolivia region along the Paraí River. During the grouting process at each project site, there were noticeable differences in the grouting pressures achieved and responses observed, even within short distances between shafts. For this project, the greater benefit of using the Smart Cells was the reduction of risk and uncertainty of performance due to the highly variable soil conditions. Ultimately, since the response of each shaft was observed during grouting and because a “minimum” value of shaft resistance (i.e., pre-mobilization of load) was measured, there is a greater reliability with the anticipated performance of the shafts when axial loading is eventually applied.

By Randy R. Williams, Roberto R. Olivera, Brian W. Wilson, Marina S. W. Li

"An extensive, deep mixing (DM) ground improvement program using the Cutter Soil Mixing (CSM) technique was designed and constructed in 2013 to support up to 20 m (66 ft) high Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) walls and bulk earthworks for the development of the Kitimat Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) facility at Bish Cove, British Columbia. The deep mixing program consisted of overlapping rectangular panels of in situ cement treated soils, constructed using the CSM technique, to form barrettes covering an area of approximately 12,900 m2 (15,428 yd2) and providing suitable static and seismic stability of foundation soils for support of the proposed MSE walls, which would in turn support LNG facilities. The deep mixing program comprised of 1645 CSM panels that were constructed through varying thicknesses and discontinuous layers of very soft fine-grained marine deposits and/or loose sandy silt to silty sand deposits, embedding typically 2 m ( 6.6 ft) into dense silty sand to sand and gravel. CSM panel depths ranged from 5 m (16 ft) to 30 m (98 ft) and were constructed by treating approximately 73,900 m3 (96,658 yd3) of soil yielding average unconfined compressive strengths exceeding 2.5MPa (363 psi).This paper outlines the approach adopted for the design of the CSM ground improvement program in the highly variable subsurface conditions present at the site. A phased sitespecific investigation consisting of boreholes, test pits, Cone Penetration Tests, piston tube sampling, advanced laboratory testing and groundwater monitoring was implemented. In addition, soil-cement bench scale testing was completed, followed by installation of 8 CSM panels for field trial purposes. Extensive geotechnical static and seismic analyses including Limit Equilibrium stability analyses, liquefaction assessments, and advanced numerical modeling were undertaken to optimize the design and meet the project-specific design performance criteria. The Design-Build team worked closely to develop and implement Quality Assurance and Quality Control plans and managed significant construction challenges while achieving suitable panel termination depths."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 1998

By Amr Sallam, Ahmad Mohamed, Mohamed Alrowaimi

Renewable energy, in the form of wind and solar, has emerged as main source of energy in the modern society. The wind industry has substantially grown over the last two decades to become a key player in providing energy to public. Wind turbines are getting larger, taller, and more efficient every year. The foundation is a major component of the wind turbine system. The wind turbine foundation must provide short and long-term stability for the overall turbine to allow continuous and safe turbine operation for energy production. The turbine serviceability and stability requirements must be geotechnically and structurally satisfied. In North America, major foundation types currently utilized in the wind industry include gravity spread foundation, mono pier foundation, and pile foundation. In this case study, a Post Tensioned Pile Cap (PTPC) foundation was used to support a 3.15-3.4 Megawatt turbine with 125M Rotor supported on 87.5M-hub-height tower. Soil anchors in the form of Auger-Pressure-Grouted-Displacement (APGD) piles and Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles were utilized. Four distinct subsoil conditions were identified, and for which four pile designs were adapted. Due to the occasional encounter of stronger soils at 50 to 55 feet (15.2 to 16.7 m), shorter pile design was preferred. To satisfy the design uplift load, pile post grouting were utilized to increase the shaft capacity of the piles. In this paper, the pre-production pile load test program will be described. The pile load test procedure, analysis, and results will be presented. A discussion will be provided, which led to the selection of the optimum pile design to support the high tension loads taking into consideration pile length limitations.

By Tai Luu, Maxim C. Schisler, Yaser Taheri

The Stevens Gateway Project is an expansion of the Stevens Institute campus overlooking the Hudson River in Hoboken, NJ. The plans call for 90,000 ft2 (8360 m2) of new classroom, research, and student life facilities in new, 4-story buildings. The excavations for the building footprints were bounded by city streets and existing buildings, including the historic Carnegie Laboratory of Engineering, built in 1902. Pit underpinning was originally specified for the Carnegie building. However, given the depth of cut, construction time required for the 13 ft (4.9 m) deep pits would be substantial. The geotechnical contractor retained for the support of excavation work therefore offered an innovative active soil nail wall design that would meet project requirements in a shorter timeframe. Unlike the passive soil nail systems common in the industry that are chiefly used for soil slope stabilization, active soil nail walls contain pre-stressed anchor components to resist soil movement and limit settlement of soil and structures being contained. In addition to a discussion of the overall design approach of the active soil nail wall system, this paper will include a detailed description of its constructability and effectiveness. This project’s use of a conventional slope stabilization technique for an unconventional purpose may have positive implications going forward. INTRODUCTION Stevens Institute of Technology is a private university in Hoboken, New Jersey that sits on the cliffs of the City of Hoboken overlooking the Hudson River and Manhattan Island to the east of the campus. In recent years, the university has executed numerous plans to expand and upgrade its campus academic, student life, and residential facilities. One such project is the Academic Gateway Complex. The plan adds 90,000 ft2 (8360 m2) of new classroom, research, and residential facilities while also enhancing community connections by building a park to serve as a green corridor for the city. The proposed construction took place on the north and south side of 6th Street between Hudson Street and River Street. The project included the demolition of an existing university building followed by the construction of two, 4-story buildings on the north and south property lots. The north and south buildings will be connected by a second floor bridge spanning 6th Street. The buildings each contain a full basement extending from the proposed ground floor at approximately El. 41ft (12.5 m) to the basement subgrade at El. 26 ft (7.9 m). Each building will be constructed on respective mat foundations. Figure 1 presents an overview of the project area.

Jan 1, 2019

By Scott A. Anderson, Benjamin S. Rivers, Derrick D. Dasenbrock, Silas Nichols

Unknown geotechnical conditions are a major source of risk. Unexplored places vastly outnumber the sampled and tested ones, and widely spaced boreholes with intermittent tests and samples are the norm. Sometimes site-specific planning and thought goes into locating these special, tested places, such as basing them on the geologic understanding or anticipated key locations for the structure; more often they are simply evenly distributed. We demonstrate a holographic model that allows viewers to see real data in real space, scaled or not, and to visualize where measurements are taken, what those values are indicating, and where there exists more unknown and more risk. The holographic model shows in an intuitive way, values from Standard Penetration and Cone Penetration tests, and surface geophysics. The mixed reality of this future is that a wide audience – owners, designers, project managers, contractors, and stakeholders interact together in a real space where they see and talk to each other, while at the same time are individually looking all around below or above ground, like a gopher, in a virtual one. Risk in the future will be better managed through more thoughtfully designed investigations and better communication of 3D data in a world of augmented reality. INTRODUCTION This paper explores the use of augmented reality to convey understanding of the subsurface conditions of a bridge site. This is in contrast with the current state of practice where this information is contained in a geotechnical report, and the ideas are also applicable to other structures, earthworks, and excavations. “Augmented reality” describes a situation where a 3D holographic model is displayed for users in such a way that the users experience both the model and the real environment of their setting- such as at a desk, in a meeting room, or in an open space at a project site (Figure 1). The 3D holographic model is used to directly visualize underground features, to see through the earth to the actual locations where explorations are made, samples are obtained, or measurements are taken, design values are assigned, or construction is planned. An immersive model provides the following three powerful functions for users:

Jan 1, 2019

By Emilie Lapointe, Fernando Famania

"A reliable determination of the in-placed cement factor, as defined by mass of cement over volume of final element of treated soil, allows the optimization of cement usage to achieve treated soil requirements. Cement determination tests were performed on soil-cement samples, both fresh (as per ASTM D5982) and hardened (as per ASTM C1084). This paper reviews the calibration work required for the D5982 determination of cement content by the heat of hydration method used on soil-cement samples obtained by wet-grabbing. Using the correlation curves in the field provides a rapid assessment of cement content hence optimizing the cement injection rate to match laboratory tests previously conducted. Cement determination tests on hardened soil-cement specimens from wet-grabs and cores were performed using the oxides method. Samples, both cored and wet-grabbed, were tested in a given cement-treated element, and in different soils to inform on the expected variation in cement content from field installation. Results indicate that both cement determination methods are valid for forensically determining cement contents and that they provide better assessment than the conventional field reporting methods. The methods can be used to optimise the cement usage as well as for Quality Assurance, especially when coring quality is poor.INTRODUCTIONThe degree of improvement, and inherent strength, which is attained in a deep-mixed soil is a function of many factors. The binder type, the existing soil, the mixing conditions and the curing conditions are the categories of factors influencing the strength of a given cement-treated soil as agreed by the deep mixing community and as summarized by the Coastal Development of Technology [CDIT] (2012). Given a site with existing soils and conditions requiring soil improvement using a given binder, the designer and/or contractor can control the mixing conditions. Mixing conditions are inclusive of the degree of mixing, mixing duration and the quantity of binder. Once a deep mixing method has been chosen to mix optimally the in-situ soil, the quantity of binder is the only remaining factor to be optimized. The quantity of binder, in the construction industry is commonly referred to as the field binder factor [ar] and defined by the mass of binder over the volume of soil treated with kg/m3 as unit. In research, the quantity of binder is referred to as the binder content [Cc] and expressed as a ratio of the mass of binder over the mass of dry soil mixed."

Jan 1, 2015

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Alex Ryberg, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

Driven piles are widely used for foundation support. In the vast majority of cases, an increase in pile capacity occurs with time which is referred to as “set-up.” However, in a very limited number of cases, a decrease in capacity with time can occur. This phenomenon is referred to as “relaxation.” This paper will provide a brief review of the relaxation phenomenon, as well as pile driving information and dynamic test data on cases where relaxation has occurred. The pile types in the presented relaxation cases include H-piles, open-end and closed-end pipe piles, prestressed concrete piles, and prestressed concrete piles with H-pile stingers. The soil conditions where relaxation occurred includes dense to very dense fine sands, heavily over consolidated clays, and weak laminated rocks. Relaxation information from 36 piles at 26 sites is assessed. The collected data will assist foundation designers by identifying the subsurface conditions where relaxation has occurred, as well as by documenting the corresponding relaxation magnitude. One method of addressing relaxation when it is encountered is to drive the foundation piles to a greater end of initial driving capacity than required long-term. Hence, the identification and quantification of the relaxation magnitude will be beneficial to foundation designers installing similar pile types in similar subsurface conditions. The paper will also present pertinent observations and recommendations on mitigating relaxation when encountered. INTRODUCTION One of the earliest observations of a decrease in redriving resistance following initial driving was reported by Miller (1937). He reported that piles driven into a saturated, coarse grained soil could lose 40 to 50% of their resistance when redriven 24 hours after initial driving. Yang (1956) similarly reported that after a break in driving, a decrease in driving resistance could be encountered for piles driven in dense fine sand, inorganic silt, or stiff fissured clay. Parsons (1966) in his paper that described piling difficulties in the New York City metropolitan area termed this phenomenon “relaxation”. In this time period, pile capacity was most often evaluated from a pile driving formula frequently checked by a static load test. Hence, the true magnitude of the capacity decrease on a given pile was often poorly quantified. Furthermore, dynamic measurements that could determine what influence driving system performance variation had on the observed redriving resistance were not yet readily available.

Jan 1, 2019

By Jean Wehbe, Daniel C. Brahana

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

Jan 1, 2017

By 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 Richard Brink, Eric M. Klein, Kenneth B. Andromalos

"A portion of the roof for a 129 x 144-inch, nearly 100-year-old sewer outfall in the City of Baltimore had deteriorated to the point that it resulted in the development of a large sinkhole in a residential neighborhood. A subsequent video inspection of the sewer outfall indicated that there was a hole in the sewer outfall, and it would need to be repaired . After initial backfilling of the sinkhole and repairs to the water service lines, a conventional wood shoring system was used to support the excavation and expose the Main Outfall Sewer to inspect and repair it. This excavation was unsuccessful because of loose sandy soils and high groundwater conditions. An innovative use of a steel reinforced jet grout excavation support system was ultimately used to underpin an adjacent 20-inch water main and other nearby utilities, and provide access to the top of the Main Outfall Sewer some 22 feet below the street surface to facilitate inspection and repair of the sewer. This excavation support system was also successfully utilized in the final repair of the sewer roof by serving as a buttress for the new roof system.1.0 IntroductionThe project site is located in a residential neighborhood with brick masonry row houses situated on the south side of Chase Street and a brick masonry church on the north side of the street. Figure 1 illustrates the location of the site. The City right of way is 65 feet wide, and the street is 40 feet curb to curb. The centerline of the Main Outfall Sewer runs parallel to and a few feet south from the centerline of the street. Other utilities running parallel to the street include a cast iron 20-inch water line built about 1910, a 24-inch terra cotta storm drain, a 6-inch terra cotta sanitary sewer, a 4-inch cast iron gas line and a 40-inch electrical duct. Cross utilities included a 4-inch gas line and several smaller water and gas service lines to the church and row houses. One gas line that was not shown in the City's GIS database was exposed during the excavation."

Jan 1, 2005

By M. D. Riegel, Brian T. Felber

"Construction of foundation elements in an urban environment is often complicated by multiple constraints such as existing foundations, utility conflicts, maintenance and protection of traffic on high volume roadways, low overhead clearances, and vibration and displacement monitoring to reduce risks of impact to existing facilities. Micropiles are commonly a preferred foundation alternative in an urban setting to mitigate some of these risks. This paper presents examples in which micropiles helped reduce risk in an urban setting on the two subject infrastructure improvement projects. The case studies presented include the Verrazano Narrows Bridge HOV and Bus Ramp Improvements in Brooklyn, NY and the Kosciuszko Bridge Replacement in Queens and Brooklyn, NY. The paper details the micropile design, how risks were mitigated, and the complications to each of these projects associated with the urban setting.INTRODUCTIONThe paper begins with background information about the Verrazano Narrows Bridge HOV and Bus Ramp Improvements Project, followed by background information for the Kosciuszko Bridge Replacement Project. This introductory background information is followed by discussion of the urban site constraints, which controlled the foundation type selection for both projects. In closing, the paper discusses the micropile design process, load testing, and construction.VERRAZANO NARROWS BRIDGE HOV & BUS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS BACKGROUNDProject ScopeThe project consists of two new ramps; one designated for HOV / Bus traffic between Staten Island and the Gowanus Expressway, and one to be utilized for storing the barrier transfer vehicle. Also included is the complete reconstruction of Ramps B and F to accommodate horizontal and vertical alignment clearances from the new ramps, removal of the median of the upper level to add one lane, utilities improvements, stormwater improvements, and miscellaneous structural repairs. The new HOV / Bus Ramp was designed for reversible traffic flow to accommodate the demand of the peak traffic direction by movable barrier.Geotechnical / Foundation Engineering ScopeThe geotechnical work included a desk study review of existing plans, geotechnical reports, and geologic maps. This data was subsequently supplemented with a subsurface exploration program. Once completed, foundation design was performed for 25 proposed bridge substructures. Four existing battered pilesupported foundations and two shallow foundations were evaluated for increased loading. Upon completion of the foundation design, foundation plans, specifications, and an engineer’s estimate were prepared. Foundation installation was observed on a part-time as needed basis."

Jan 1, 2016

By Marco Fellin, Van E. Komurka

Significant cost and construction benefits were obtained from performing a bi-directional static load test prior to construction on the Russell Street Bridge Replacement project in Missoula, Montana. The project utilized 24 drilled shafts to support two three-span bridges across the Clark Fork River. A bi-directional static load test (“BDSLT”) was performed on a large-diameter production shaft to demonstrate construction methods and confirm design assumptions. Subsurface conditions consisted of gravel with sand to a depth of 20 feet (6.1 m), underlain by gravel with sand, silt, cobbles, and occasional boulders. The test shaft had a nominal diameter of 5.9 feet (1.8 m), and an embedded length of 75.5 feet (23.0 m). The geotechnical engineer of record and the BDSLT test engineer collaborated to optimize the BDSLT jack assembly location within the test shaft, determine appropriate instrumentation locations, and plan the test protocol. The maximum applied test load was 10,707 kips (47.6 kN). Significant benefits were obtained from performing the BDSLT test, including 1) reducing each production shaft’s length by using a higher LRFD resistance factor allowed by having performed the testing, 2) using test-determined unit shaft resistances to evaluate and accept two production shafts that may have otherwise required remediation, and 3) providing the Montana Department of Transportation (and other designers) with increased presumptive unit resistance values in the gravel/cobble/boulder deposits. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project was constructed in Missoula, Montana for the Montana Department of Transportation (“MDT”). The original bridge was approximately 60 years old, and consisted of a two-lane, 420-foot-long (128-m), four-span, riveted steel plate girder design spanning the Clark Fork River. The bridge was due for replacement owing to its deteriorated state, and the need for increased traffic volume capability afforded by a four-lane structure. HDR was the structural engineer. The preferred bridge alternate was a 459-foot- long (140-m), three-span, welded steel plate girder design. The new bridge was designed to meet current standards in accordance with MDT bridge design and AASHTO LRFD criteria. The new bridge was constructed in phases to keep traffic open during construction.

Jan 1, 2019

By Derrick Dasenbrock

Two DFI committees independently organized two complimentary panel sessions for the recent American Society of Civil Engineers' (ASCE) Geo- Risk 2023 "Advances in Theory and Innovation in Practice" Conference in Arlington, Virginia, July 23-26. The Geo- Institute (GI) specialty conference welcomed more than 200 professionals and students interested in risk from around the world to the Washington, D.C., area for three full days of plenary keynote lectures, papers and no-paper sessions. The GI Risk Assessment and Management Technical Committee organized the event, which is the third in a series planned on a 6-year cycle. The previous two events were in 2011 in Atlanta and 2017 in Denver.

Sep 1, 2023

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule. SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007

By Monique Nykamp

"INTRODUCTIONTerminal 46 is located just south of downtown Seattle, and is one of the Port of Seattle’s busiest container terminals. The Terminal 46 Redevelopment Project was undertaken to replace the existing 15-m-wide (50 ft) cranes along the apron with 30-m-wide (100 ft) cranes, which can unload larger, post- Panamax ships. The project included upgrading the existing waterside crane rail with new piles and constructing a new land-side rail behind the sheetpile bulkhead. The new piles had to be installed adjacent to the existing apron without causing damage, which was a signifi cant geotechnical challenge due to the soft soil conditions at the site. An instrumentation program performed during the test pile program evaluated this challenge and allowed for the development of specifi c production pile installation procedures that had the least possible effect on construction costs and schedule.SITE HISTORYThe site lies along the west side of Elliott Bay, north of the mouth of the Duwamish Waterway. Prior to development, this area was part of the tide fl ats where the Duwamish River drained into Elliott Bay. Prior to 1970, there were several existing timber piers and structures in the area. In the 1970s, the Port of Seattle constructed a 900-m-long (3,000 ft), 30- m-wide (100 ft) apron to support fi ve, 15-m-wide (50 ft) container cranes. The contained backland area was then fi lled with dredged spoils (sand and silt with organics) and the upper 5 to 20 m (16 to 65 ft) backfi lled with sand and gravel.The existing apron was constructed using 0.4 m (16 in) octagonal prestressed concrete piles to support the precast concrete deck and crane rails. The pile-supported bents were spaced at 6.1 m (20 ft), center-to-center, along the longitudinal direction. Pile lengths typically varied from about 20 to 40 m (65 to 130 ft) with 15 to 26 m penetration below mudline (50 to 85 ft penetration). The slope below the apron was constructed at about 1.75 horizontal to 1 vertical to allow for suffi cient water depth for cargo ships. In most areas, a riprap buttress was placed at the toe of the slope. A typical cross section of the apron is shown on Figure 2.Several stability, settlement and pile driving issues arose during the original construction of T-46 (Pita, 1983). Reportedly, movement of the submarine slope occurred during pile driving, resulting in settlement behind the bulkhead. Pile driving reportedly caused settlement of adjacent piles. In addition, some piles were “running” (dropping quickly under one hammer blow) during installation."

Jan 1, 2007