Search Documents

By Sastry Putcha, Santosh Mummaneni, Swamy Avasarala, Vamshi Vemula

"This paper presents the results from a case study on the comparison of two strain acquisition instrumentation technologies, Geokon rebar strainmeters and Embedded Data Collectors (EDC) for the DC Water Main Pump Station project, in Washington D.C. These two instrumentation systems were installed by AVER in a single 18-inch (0.45 m) diameter augercast pile (with one-1.25 inch (3.175 cm) dywidag bar) at critical locations to determine the load transfer mechanism and establish a comparison between strain/load measured with these two systems along the pile. A quick static load test was performed on the test pile as per ASTM D1143 standard.Prior to the installation of the pile, a 24-inch (0.6 m) diameter outer casing was installed to the proposed cutoff elevation of -22.5 feet (-6.85 m) to discount the frictional resitance within the upper overburden zone. The pile was then drilled through the outer casing to the tip elevation of -65.02 feet (-19.8 m) with inner casing within the overburden zone. Strainmeters along with EDC were installed on dywidag bar at various locations and then wet set into the concrete following auger retrieval. The loads measured with EDC and Geokon sensors were within 15% percent of each other.PROJECT BACKGROUNDProject Background & Requirements:Like any other foundation piles, augercast piles are extensively used in the public and private sector structures in the United States for many years. It is a common practice to perform static compression (ASTM D1143), tension (ASTM D3689), and lateral load tests (ASTM D3966) depending on the project requirements. In recent years, embedded strain sensors, manufactured by Smart Structures, USA has gained prominence for its use to collect both static and dynamic measurements for driven piles. In addition, AVER has successfully used EDC for collecting long term static measurements for an abutment drilled shafts for I-95 Hotlanes project in Virginia, USA.Geokon sisterbar strain gages are widely used in the foundation industry to monitor the load transfer mechanism within pile foundations throughout the world. As the Geokon strainmeters are vibrating wire and are welded to a sister bar, there is often a debate within the engineering community with regards to what modulus to use when converting measured strains to loads. EDC sensors, unlike Geokon strain gages are embedded directly into the concrete and therefore do not have the same concern."

Jan 1, 1900

By A. C. Ackenhell

The geologic environment of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is both inviting and challenging to drilled pier installation. The shales and clayey soil zone of the hills are favorable but the alluvial soils of the three major rivers create problems. Beginning in the early 1950's, drilled pier installation continually improved as methods were developed to meet the geologic challenge. Case histories are presented to illustrate the historical development of piers in Pittsburgh. Recent innovations reducing the groundwater problem are illustrated by a case history of a high rise building construction. Load test information for side wall shear on the cylindrical shaft area between the concrete and bedrock continues to be desired but remains generally uneconomical.

Jan 1, 2010

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 Mohamed Elgouhary, Carol L. Tasillo, Daniel Koziol

"The Bolivar Dam, located near the Village of Bolivar, Ohio is one of a system of dams designed to provide flood control and water conservation in the Muskingum Watershed. The Bolivar Dam is a “dry dam” that only impounds water during flood events. In order to address problematic seepage, which negatively affects the structural stability of the dam, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) designed a partial-depth and partial-length Seepage Barrier Wall (SBW) through the upstream slope of the dam. For this project, TREVIICOS constructed a 36 in (914 mm) positive SBW by plastic concrete panel wall method and excavated using hydromill and clamshell equipment. The plastic concrete was manufactured on-site, which allowed for enhanced quality control and prompt service. This required the installation, commissioning and operation of a concrete batch plant on-site. This paper presents the challenging aspects of the design, manufacture and placement of the plastic concrete for the SBW in order to meet contract strength and permeability requirements as well as workability requirements necessary for tremie concrete placement.Project General InformationBolivar Dam is located in Northeast Ohio (Fig. 1). It is one of a system of sixteen dam projects designed to provide flood control and water conservation in the Muskingum Basin, which covers 20 percent of the State of Ohio (Fig. 2). Bolivar Dam is on Sandy Creek, a tributary of the Tuscarawas River.The Dam has been constructed, operated and maintained by the USACE, for the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District. Its construction was completed in 1937 and it has been in operation for flood control since 1939.Bolivar Dam is a rolled earth fill dam, with a typical embankment section made of a central impervious core flanked upstream and downstream by a pervious outer shell with downstream rock toe. The embankment has a maximum height of 87 ft (26.5 m) and a crest length of 6,300 ft (1,920 m), and is comprised of the main embankment starting on the left abutment of about 1,500 ft (457 m) heading to the Northeast, followed by the terrace embankment of 4,800 ft (1,463 m) heading to the North. An upstream impervious blanket extends up to 500 ft (152 m) upstream of the dam along the majority of its length. The outlet works are to the left of the embankment, and consist of an intake structure with six gates, followed by two outlet conduits that finish in a stilling basin. To the left of the outlet works is the uncontrolled emergency spillway, which was doubled in width to 540 ft (165 m) in 1989, and excavated material utilized for construction of a stability berm against the upstream face of the main embankment. A concrete parapet wall was also installed along the upstream side of the crest during this work. In 1982, a toe drain, downstream filter berm and line of 35 relief wells were installed. The filter berm was recently extended an additional 200 ft (61.0 m) downstream and granular filters were placed over an approximate 2000 linear ft (610 m) reach of the lower terrace slope. (Fig. 3)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Marc Raithel, Sven Schröer, Lilma Schimmel, Dimiter Alexiew

"The Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC) deep foundation system for embankments and dikes on soft soils was introduced some 20 years ago and is now considered State-of-the-art in Germany, Europe and, step by step, worldwide. The GECs consist of compacted non-cohesive granular fill similar e.g. to common gravel columns with one decisive difference: they are confined in a high-strength, high-modulus, flexible geotextile “cylinder” (encasement). This engineered element with parameters being adaptable in a wide range provides a decisive tool to control and optimize the behavior of the GEC foundation system. Consequently, the GECs work properly even in extremely soft soils, and a wide range of fills inclusive of sands can be used. In the meantime vast design and technological experience is available and codified design methods exist. Initially the paper briefly describes the general idea, the basics and specifics of design, construction technology, materials, restrictions and optimal application areas. Then it focuses on three informative case studies. They are briefly presented focusing for brevity only on the most important facts and experience inclusive of the most meaningful data of short- and long-term measurement programs.INTRODUCTIONWhen considering embankments on soft soils, generally two groups of solutions exist:Unsupported embankments; there are four main options:a) build up embankment extremely slowly waiting for sufficient consolidation after every stage;b) replace the soft soil partially or totally;c) install a high-strength basal reinforcement providing overall and local stability and allowing much faster embankment construction;d) combine c) with strip drains to accelerate consolidation and thus the construction process additionally (Fig. 1, left).Today, practically only option ""d"" is of practical relevance. Despite all the pros and cons, the common attribute of all non-supported options is that local and overall stability (Ultimate Limit State-ULS) can be achieved and controlled, but not the short- and long-term settlements (Serviceability Limit State-SLS). The latter can be significant, e.g. up to 30% of the nominal planned embankment height. Supported embankments (Fig. 1, right): the main common idea is to over-bridge the soft soil layers by supporting vertical elements of different types: rigid piles, trench walls etc. or by ""softer"" solutions of different column types (compacted, cemented, mixed-in-place etc.). Herein the borderlines between “piles”, ""pile-similar elements"" and ""soil improvement” are fluent and depend on country, traditions, codes etc. The common attribute of the “supported” schemes is a minimized settlement. Twenty years ago a new specific solution was launched: the Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC), which is discussed in more detail below."

Jan 1, 2017

By Raymond J. Poletto

This paper describes the special problems that occur with the construction of diaphragm walls and discusses the lessons learned during the repairs of structural walls. Although diaphragm or slurry wall technology and equipment has vastly improved since its development in the late 1950?s, significant problems still occur. Key issues are repairs related to panel joints between wall panels, concrete defects associated with tremie concrete problems, leaks and other defects at tieback reservations or inserts, wall leaks within the plane of the wall and surface repairs. The paper supports the position that diaphragm walls are relatively watertight when properly constructed, but cautions that it is necessary to address potential problems in the design stage and allow for flexibility in construction so that the problems that occur can be corrected once encountered. Due to the fast track nature of most projects the time available for design, detailing and construction is limited. As a result, insufficient attention to detail by any of the responsible parties can lead to imperfections and defects in the wall. The authors describe the nature of these problems and their potential resolution based on ?lessons learned.? The timely response to wall problems is essential to the successful completion of a diaphragm wall project. Appropriate repairs have resulted in largely successful jobs starting with the World Trade Center in New York City. The authors? total 80 years of experience as the engineer of record and designer, inspector and contractor?s representative for the diaphragm wall results in a unique insight to deal with these problems.

Jan 1, 2011

By Brian J. Olson, Kevin Haiar

Originally constructed between 1939 and 1941 as part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the Bonneville to Hood River 115 kV Transmission Line required an infrastructure upgrade to remain reliable and in-service. The line traverses the rugged landscape of the Columbia River Gorge on the Oregon- Washington border, featuring steep, talus slopes; uneven, rocky terrain; and a variety of environmental sensitivities. This paper details the design and construction of 27 micropile foundations for new, fire- hardening steel poles through a particularly challenging stretch of the alignment. The difficult access and environmental constraints at these sites designated them as helicopter-accessible and precluded the collection of detailed geotechnical information prior to construction. Micropiles provided a viable foundation alternative due to their portability and flexibility during construction. Detail will be provided on the extensive preliminary desktop study performed, as well as the process of developing engineering designs to successfully accommodate for variability and unknowns in complex geological conditions. With an increasing number of electric power projects traversing challenging terrain and facing similar obstacles, this project stands to provide valuable lessons learned to the industry.

Sep 8, 2021

By Abhijit Saha

"The stone columns improve the performance of foundations on soft and loose soil due to the ability of composite ground to sustain increased structural loads under reduced settlements. The interaction between the two basic elements: the ambient subsoil and installed column, present a complexity of behaviour, both in terms of applied stresses and resulting strains. Moreover, as the same is provided in-group in a regular array beneath foundations, the performance of an individual column is likely to be influenced by the presence of neighbouring columns. The present paper addresses this very issue. Analysis of reported field hydro-test data of large diameter oil storage tanks in soft ground in reference to some existing theories led to the development of the stone-column ‘group efficiency factor’. In order that such factor is of general use, it was felt necessary to examine the applicability of the factor to different sizes of groups under varied subsoil conditions. With this in view, some model test results reported in literature of single and group of columns have been analysed and in the process an explicit relationship regarding the stone-column ‘groupeffect’ could be established.INTRODUCTIONThe field application of the stone column technology has gained momentum than the intricate design methodology due to its simplicity in installation and intuitive performance. The ground improvement is due to the complex interaction within the ‘unit-cell’ comprised of the installed column in ambient ground under sustained vertical stress; in association with the interdependence of problem geometry and material properties of the two different soils-one 'native' and the other 'back-filled'. The beneficial effects are increased load capacity, reduction in total and differential settlements, minimization of post construction settlements effected by accelerating consolidation, reduced risk of soil liquefaction, aiding in improvement of slope stability of embankments and natural slopes and effecting changes in the dynamic response. The ‘unit-cell’ concept of a tributary soil cylinder encapsulating an installed column with some reasonable assumptions and boundary conditions (Aboshi et al, 1979; Balaam & Booker, 1981; Van Impe & De Beer, 1983; Priebe, 1976; Saha & De, 1994; Saha; 2005, 2006, 2007, 2011, Saha & Das; 2007) deals with the load-settlement behaviour of the composite system. The present investigation is based on published field data from literature & validated with experimental study reported in literature. The study addresses the effect of group interaction of stone columns beneath a large area loading on ground settlement. The hydrotest load-settlement data of 12 large diameter oil storage tanks founded on stone column reinforced soil at Haldia1 and Kandla2 refinery sites in India; reported by Som (1997), has been analysed to quantify the group efficiency. The results as obtained are compared with experimental study on 2, 3 and 4 stone column groups at different spacing-diameter ratios in soft clay3 reported by Rao et al (1997) to validate the above analysis. A unique relationship between the column spacing and group efficiency has been obtained."

Jan 1, 2015

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

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

Oct 1, 2022

By Terrence M. Carroll, Chu E. Ho, Dimitrios Niarchos

"Construction of the new extension to Terminal 4 at John F Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York involved the application of tapered piles for foundation support. Initial design based on past load testing experience had indicated that a pile depth of 65 feet was necessary to achieve a capacity of 394 tons. However, piles with a single length of 62 feet were ordered and installed, which led to marginal performance of the piles. This paper presents the technical considerations for mitigating the situation based on a systematic review of three preliminary pile load tests and dynamic capacity measurements on the shorter piles. Consideration was given to the long term gain in capacity of tapered piles due to set up in the Glacial Sand. The observational approach to the evaluation of piling performance adopted on this project resulted in salvaging many piles which failed to comply with the specified driving criteria. It was acknowledged that a more prudent course of action was for the Contractor to have ordered more appropriate pile lengths that allowed for potential variation in soil conditions across the site. The 4.6% saving in pile material did not warrant the effort that was required to mitigate the 39% of installed piles that did not meet the specified driving criterion.INTRODUCTIONAn expansion project at John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York involved the Phase 2 extension of Concourse B at Terminal 4. The site consists of 4 to 5 feet of pavement over about 10 feet of hydraulically placed sandy fill. Below this is a layer of marsh deposit, comprising of soft organic clay and peat, up to about 11 feet thick. Beneath the marsh deposits is a deep layer of glacial sand which extends to well over 100 feet below ground. Figure 1 shows the typical subsurface profile at the site. The new structures were supported on 223 steel tapered piles. The piles consisted of a straight steel pipe 18 inches in diameter and 0.375 inches thick, with a 25 feet long tapered bottom section (diameter varying from 18 inches down to 8 inches at the pile toe). The piles were first driven to the founding depth and subsequently in-filled with concrete. The concrete strength (fc) specified was 4,500 psi and the yield strength of the steel piles (fy) was 50 ksi. Initial pile design, based on earlier experience with static pile load testing for Phase 1 development at the same terminal, indicated that a pile length of 65 feet was necessary. However, piles with a single length of 62 feet were ordered and installed by the Contractor, leading to marginal performance of the piles. This paper presents the technical considerations for the adoption of alternative pile driving criteria, based on a systematic review of the preliminary static load test results for the present site and PDA measurements obtained during pile installation, in order to accommodate the capacity of the shorter piles."

Jan 1, 2017

[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 Dongwook Kim

Recently, load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is gradually being adopted internationally in geotechnical design due to the advantages of LRFD over the existing allowable stress design (ASD). LRFD is a more advanced design method compared to the ASD because resistance factor is calibrated based on the reliability analysis for a given target reliability index. Target reliability index changes with the importance of the structure. Typically, target reliability index of offshore foundation is less than those of onshore. The widely-used Imperial College Pile (ICP) design method is used for the calculation of pullout capacity of driven piles. The uncertainties regarding pullout capacities of driven piles are assessed using the statistical data reported in the literature. The first-order reliability method (FORM) is used to calibrate resistance factors for the pullout ultimate limit states of the driven piles for three different levels (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5) of target reliability index. The load factors used in this paper are the ones proposed in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications.

Jan 1, 2010

This manual is limited to Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles constructed using a hollow stem continuous flight auger. 1.1SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for observing and documenting the installation of ACIP piles. The manual may also serve as a guide for the training of inspection personnel. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described in this manual for the inspection and installation of ACIP piles will be supplemented by engineering judgment, local practice, and experience. ACIP pile construction procedures will vary depending on soil, rock, and groundwater conditions. This manual represents a wide range of possible applications in a variety of projects. It is not intended to be applicable in all situations nor replace engineering judgment for any given project. Therefore, an all-inclusive inspection manual is not considered practical or desirable. This manual should not be used to interpret or replace project specifications. It has, however, been prepared to complement the Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) Piles Manual model specification (DFI, 2003).

Jan 1, 2010

By Matthew E. Meyer

The intent of this manual is to provide guidelines for observing and documenting the installation of ACIP piles. The manual may also serve as a guide for the training of inspection personnel. It is expected that the general guidelines and procedures described in this manual for the inspection and installation of ACIP piles will be supplemented by engineering judgment, local practice, and experience. ACIP pile construction procedures will vary depending on soil, rock, and groundwater conditions. This manual represents a wide range of possible applications in a variety of projects. It is not intended to be applicable in all situations nor replace engineering judgment for any given project. Therefore, an all-inclusive inspection manual is not considered practical or desirable. This manual should not be used to interpret or replace project specifications. It has, however, been prepared to complement the Augered Castin- Place (ACIP) Piles Manual model specification (DFI, 2003).

Jan 1, 2010

By Haoran Zhang, Chu Ho

A recent design-build project in New York involved various degrees of additions and improvements to four existing transit stations. Reuse of the existing foundations was considered a more sustainable alternative than constructing new foundations for the project. This approach mitigated the extent of demolition work and limited the amount of downtime for track operations. A key challenge for reusing the existing foundations was the lack of as-built drawings. In order to obtain some measure of confidence for the proposed foundation reuse, non-destructive investigation technology was adopted to evaluate the structural integrity of the piers and foundations. A total of 47 piers for the existing passenger platform were investigated for possible reuse. Several test pits, excavated to verify the foundation type and configuration, indicated the piers were founded on a combination of shallow footings and drilled shafts. Pile integrity tests were performed to verify the length of the drilled shafts. Geotechnical capacity of drilled shafts was evaluated for side friction and end bearing resistance, and confirmed using a proof load test conducted from the existing platform structure. This paper presents the investigation methodology and discusses the approach adopted for geotechnical design of the existing foundations for reuse.

Sep 8, 2021

By Daniel A. Thome, Robert C. Janke

"Installation of permanent soil nails through distressed mechanically stabilized earth retaining walls is a cost effective and aesthetically pleasing solution when using the appropriate equipment and drilling methods for installation. A forensic investigation was performed on an existing mechanically stabilized earth retaining wall to determine the possible causes for the excessive horizontal displacements and visual structural flaws found along a portion of the wall. Reports concluded that the visual shifting was due to a number of factors including improper drainage in the vicinity of the wall and unsuitable compaction of the backfill material. Conceptual designs were proposed to the owner and the installation of permanent soil nails through the existing precast panels was determined to be the most practical solution. A total of ninety-three permanent soil nails were installed to lengths of up to 40 feet (12 m) through sand backfill and silty day fill using a hydraulic rotary percussion drill attached to a tract mounted excavator.IntroductionThe Illinois State Toll Highway Authority awarded Contract RR-03-5144 in the summer of 2004. Construction work for the project consisted of the rehabilitation of two existing concrete culverts and approximately 100 linear feet (31 m) of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining wall. The retaining wall is located below the southbound lanes of the Tri-State Tollway near the intersection of Federal Highway 41 in Wadsworth, Illinois as shown in Figure 1.Reports were prepared by Applied Technologies in cooperation with Giles Engineering Associates to determine the condition of the MSE wall and recommended conceptual designs to extend the service life of the wall.Nicholson Construction Company (Nicholson) wasselected as the design-build geotechnical subcontractor to install the recommended permanent soil nails through the existing precast concrete panels of the MSE wall. Rehabilitation of the wall involved the installation of ninety-three permanent soil nails through the existing wall, along with soil nail verification tests and proof tests on production nails."

Jan 1, 2005

By Andrew Middleton, Mick Stadter, Chris Crowe, David Chong

"The Level Crossing Removal Project – Package 1 is part of the Victorian Governments commitment to remove 50 of the most dangerous and congested level crossings across Melbourne. This involved removing three crossings on the Frankston Line in the south east suburbs of Melbourne. The works involved replacing approximately 2.5km of at grade track with three rail cuttings up to 8 m deep at each of the bridges that replace the level crossings. The cuttings are retained by piled retaining walls and during the main construction occupation approximately 250,000 cubic metres of soil was removed. The project has presented significant geotechnical challenges due to the location in residential suburbs and tight rail corridor and rail occupation timeframe. These challenges included temporary and permanent wall stability, foundations, earthworks and dewatering. As a result, careful design and innovative construction techniques have been necessary to limit impacts on the community and meet the project timeline.INTRODUCTIONThe Level Crossing Removal Project – Package 1 is part of the Victorian Governments commitment to remove 50 of the most dangerous and congested level crossings across Melbourne. This involved removing three crossings on the Frankston Line where it crosses North Road in Ormond, McKinnon Road in McKinnon and Centre Road in Bentleigh.The project involved replacing approximately 2.5km of at grade track with three rail cuttings up to 8 m deep at each of the bridges that replace the level crossings. The cuttings will accommodate three lines of rail tracks with the cuttings up to 25 m wide. The cuttings are retained by piled retaining walls and during the main construction occupation approximately 250,000 cubic metres of soil has been removed.The project presented significant challenges due to the location in residential suburbs and tight rail corridor and rail occupation timeframe. As a result, careful design and innovative construction techniques have been necessary to limit impacts on the community. The geotechnical challenges generally fell into one of three areas, earthworks, structures and groundwater. The primary earthworks challenge for the project was moving the 250,000 cubic metres of soil in a 10 day window, however, from a geotechnical viewpoint, obtaining a stable subgrade on which to operate the necessary construction plant in a short time frame with constrained site access and time to import materials was the key. Whilst closely watching the performance of the dewatering system, a range of contingency plans were developed to cope with any difficulties."

Jan 1, 1900

By Peter Yen

This session consists of five papers. Three involved research on the properties of grout materials, specifically ultrafine cements and polyurethane grouts. Two papers present the development of soil grouting technology and monitoring methods. Of great interest are the papers on ultrafine grout penetrability testing focusing on the pressure filtration effects encountered in permeation grouting applications (Ericksson, Stille and Mittag, Savidis). The comparison testing of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polyurethane grouts submitted by Vrignaud, Ballivy, Perret and Fernagu assessed the long-term performance of these materials for repairing saturated cracks in concrete, subject to thermal expansion and contraction. Two very practical papers present the development of soil grouting, where permeation, fracture, replacement, jetting and other grouting techniques are utilized. The papers by Lees with Chuaqui and Warner present experience with ultrafine and other commonly used grout materials. Methods to measure and monitor the injection process and verify production progress are discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Anburaj C., Srinivas A.

Deep excavation with support system is required to construct various part of underground structures like shafts, stations and entry structures etc. These structures have to be constructed using permanent or temporary embedded retaining walls with support system. The selection of a suitable type of retaining wall will depend upon the geological condition present in the particular location, time, cost and available equipment etc. In Bangalore Metro Rail Project, secant pile wall is adopted as the temporary earth retaining system and depth of excavation is about 20 m. It is designed initially based on bottom up construction methodology with 3 level of struts and 3 level of anchors but at later stage due to time and other construction related issues, it is decided to change the configuration to 6 levels of strut. Generally, in deep excavations, all the underground structures should be designed and checked for the critical forces from both permanent stage and construction stages. Since, secant piles are used as temporary retaining wall, only construction stage analysis is carried out to get the governing forces and deformation. In construction stage analysis, soil layers are defined with boundary conditions and the surcharge during construction and surcharge from actual building near the secant pile are considered. This paper discusses the effect of change in the support system from anchors to struts and how these changes in the support system affect the behavior of secant pile and subsequently adjacent buildings present in the influence zone of the excavation. As a result, in changing from anchors to struts, the wall displacement, strut forces and ground movement on the adjacent ground and buildings increases. The increase in deflection, ground movements and strut forces occurs during backfilling sequence of the underground station excavation. During backfilling, struts has to be removed and this imparts higher magnitude in deflection, strut forces and ground movements.

Nov 1, 2022

By Richard T. Stain

"In 2001, a pile trial site was established at Limelette in Belgium consisting of 25 displacement screw piles and 5 driven pre-cast piles. Interested parties were invited to participate in a pile prediction event, whereby they would submit predicted static load test behaviour in the form of load settlement plots. These predictions could be based on soil investigation results supplied by the organizers, or dynamic load test measurements.Following the submission deadline, the organisers released the results of static load tests for comparison.Of all the six participants, including Statnamic, the SIMBAT method was independently accredited with achieving the best predictions.This paper examines at the differences between SIMBAT and other systems, and presents the correlations from the Limelette trial.INTRODUCTIONThe Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI) initiated an ambitious research programme involving the construction and testing of some 60 trial piles spread between two sites, a clay site at Sint Kateline Waver and a sandy site at the BBRI headquarters at Limelette. The project was financed largely by the Belgian Ministry of Economic affairs. (ref 1.) This paper refers only to the second site.At Limelette, six different types of displacement pile were installed: one driven pre-cast and five cast in place screw piles - Atlas, DeWaal, Fundex, Olivier and Omega. A detailed site investigation was carried out including in-situ and laboratory tests.An international pile capacity prediction event was publicised, participants being invited to predict static pile behaviour. Predictions could be based on:"

Jan 1, 2005