Search Documents

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

Jan 1, 1989

By David L. Borusiewicz, M. Suri Surendra

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

Jan 1, 2014

By 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

Jan 1, 1996

Jan 1, 1995

Jan 1, 2001

By Guilherme L. M. G. Carvalho, Zachary T. Fleming

In a world of 2-dimensional design documents, envisioning and understanding 3-dimensional interferences for complex foundation construction scenarios can be challenging. Videos and computer models serve as 3-dimensional spatial aids but have drawbacks related to a fixed perspective. Augmented and virtual reality (AR/VR) provide new tools to communicate design challenges and improve construction planning. This paper provides a practical look at the basics of AR/VR systems and the tools available to the foundation design and construction industry by giving a high-level example of the technologies’ use in the design and delivery phases of a complex micropile installation project for the remediation of a dam foundation. Using these technologies, GEI was able to design and deliver a complex foundation remediation solution. AR/VR benefited regulators, and the client, to help understand the design concept, construction sequencing, and approach to overcoming installation challenges. Due to its user-friendly nature and less rigorous programming and hardware requirements, AR proved to be more useful than VR for this scenario. AR/VR will likely not replace videos and computer models; however, it can be a useful 3-dimensional visualization aid that complements the project delivery process and offers benefits that traditional methods cannot. INTRODUCTION Augmented and virtual reality is a promising and rapidly developing technology within the engineering and construction world. Like any rapidly developing new technology, the language describing it can be confusing and dynamic. To eliminate the confusion some definitions must be made. AR/ VR definitions The definitions of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) for the purposes of this paper are as follows: VR is a computer-generated immersive environment that the user experiences within a digital 3- dimensional space (Satava, 1993)AR is a composite view created by superimposing digital objects into the user’s real-world view (Azuma, 1997). Often, VR is used in an office environment and allows the user to “visit” the digital site to review site planning, construction sequences, and interference geometry. AR can be utilized in both the office and onsite environments. Like VR, the in-office application for AR is commonly site planning. AR also can be utilized in the field for applications such as seeing through the ground to locate known existing obstructions like utilities, gas tanks, etc.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 2001

By Vijayakumar Viramuthu, Martin Heinrich

Tower of Lot L, L1 & M, Kuala Lumpur City Centre when completed would stand 700 m tall. This Mega tall Skyscraper would merely be less than 500 m away from the world tallest Twin Tower, the Petronas Twin Tower. From June 2018 to February 2020 BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. constructed 225 nos bored piles with diameters of 2.0 m and 2.5 m for this tower. To comply with the depth requirement of the initial design and the need to have the pile toe 2.0 m above competent bedrock, the drilling equipment was required to be able to achieve a maximum drilling depth of 150 m. Actual piles constructed on site were deeper than 120 m. These dimensions caused superlative challenges which included but were not limited to controlling the open borehole stability over time with polymer, installing 70 t heavy steel cages and pouring up to 550 m³ concrete continuously in conjunction with installation of 88 t heavy kingposts into workable fresh concrete. The piling works were executed with one BAUER BG 48 and one BG 72, the biggest drilling rig globally available.

May 1, 2022

By C. Vipulanandan

With the aging infrastructure, there is a need to maintain and extend the service life of steel structures in general and steel piles in particular. Steel piles support not only vertical loads but also dynamic horizontal loads in onshore and offshore applications. In order to select the appropriate methods to repair corroded steel piles used in onshore and offshore application, corrosion mechanisms were investigated with the rate of corrosion in various environments. The corrosion rate of steel in soil, water and soil-water interface varied from 2 to 500 µm/year. Based on literature review and analyses, the repair methods can be broadly characterized as protective coating, electro-chemical methods, wrapping and encasement and partial replacement of steel. Also, methods to evaluate the repair materials and the repair configuration have been documented.

"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 C. Vipulanandan, M. Dawood, Dongmei Pan

"With the aging infrastructure, there is a need to maintain and extend the service life of steel structures in general and steel piles in particular. Steel piles support not only vertical loads but also dynamic horizontal loads in onshore and offshore applications. In order to select the appropriate methods to repair corroded steel piles used in onshore and offshore application, corrosion mechanisms were investigated with the rate of corrosion in various environments. The corrosion rate of steel in soil, water and soil-water interface varied from 2 to 500 µm/year. Based on literature review and analyses, the repair methods can be broadly characterized as protective coating, electro-chemical methods, wrapping and encasement and partial replacement of steel. Also, methods to evaluate the repair materials and the repair configuration have been documented.IntroductionOne of the biggest challenges facing the aging infrastructure is the materials loss and deterioration due to corrosion. Many studies indicate that in the US alone, costs due to corrosion loss is more than $276 billion annually (Michiel et al., 2010). Corrosion is the major cause of deterioration of steel structures and components (MNC, 2005). Load bearing steel piles are used as foundations for various types of structures and hence corrosion is very much influenced by the environment such as soil, water and soil-water interface. Corrosion of steel pile foundations may result in reduced capacity in the axial and lateral directions. Hence, understanding the rate of pile corrosion is essential to select the appropriate repair methods to avoid excessive deflection and failure (Decker et al. 2008).To prevent the deterioration mechanisms that attack a pile, it is fundamental both to identify and understand the deterioration mechanism that has been the cause of damage. Understanding the deterioration mechanism allows the engineer to design a repair that will combat this type of damage. It is widely recognized that the corrosion of carbon steel in soil, water and soil-water interface proceeds according to the following simplified anodic reaction and cathodic reactions in the presence of oxygen (Decker et al. 2008)."

Jan 1, 2017

By Brian FitzPatrick, Michael J. Weaver

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

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1987

By D. T. Bergado

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

Jan 1, 2010

By Ryan C. Linthicum

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

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 2002

This Workshop was held at the Doubletree Inn, Seattle, Washington from September 26 to 28, 1997. Run under the auspices of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI), it was co-funded by the newly formed Japanese Association of Micropiles (JAMP), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Workshop was jointly organized and facilitated by Fujita Research Corporation and ECO Geosystems, Inc., with close support by Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc. DFI kindly consented to publish these Proceedings. As is clear from the list of attendees, 42 specially invited engineers from all aspects of micropile technology were present, representing Japanese, European and American practice. This proved to be a most friendly and interactive group of people, who freely exchanged ideas, views and close comradeship, not only during the technical sessions, but (and especially!) during the numerous social events. Perhaps the best illustration of this came in Day 2 when the attendees were divided into five competing teams, each comprising representatives from the different geographic groupings. These teams had to quickly devise solutions to two technical problems (using standard data previously provided. A team of "referees" (who also acted as "coaches") later determined the most apposite response, based on constructability design concept, cost, schedule and so on. Not only were the winning team very liberal in distributing the prize (vintage California champagne) among themselves, but the whole Workshop soon benefited from their generous division of the spoils of victory.

Jan 1, 1997

By Kenneth Pidgeon

The Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) Boat Section, which is part of contract C04A2 of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project, is currently under construction in South Boston, Massachusetts (Fig. 1). The Boat Section is approximately 900 feet long and varies in width from about 135 to 185 feet (Fig. 2). The depth to the top of the Boat Section base slab varies from about 28 to 31 feet below final ground surface and about 23 to 26 feet below normal ground water levels. The Boat Section is supported on 578 anchors drilled into the underlying bedrock each designed for a working load of 630 kips. Design and Construction Team The owner of the project is the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). The owner's representative is the Management Consultant, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. The section design consultant (SDC) consisted of HDR Engineering, Inc. with GEI Consultants, Inc. as the geotechnical subconsultant. The general contractor was the joint venture of Kiewit, Perini, Atkinson, and Cashman. The boat anchors were installed by the subcontractor Delta Geotechnical Services, Inc.

Jan 1, 1994