Search Documents

By Phillip E. Glogowski, N. Catherine Bazan-Arias

Steel foundations can be designed to cross-sectional configurations ranging from triangular and square to other multi-side shapes. Adding lateral extensions (hereby called wings) along the length of the steel stem can increase the foundation’s uplift, torsional and lateral load capacities. DiGioia Gray staff developed a methodology for the optimal design for multi-facetted, winged deep steel foundations. A finite element (FE) model is used to represent the steel components and the nonlinear subsurface behavior. The geometry of the foundation can be complex; thus, an optimal design needs to be fine-tuned to the specific site conditions. We created a pre-processor tool to generate the FE model including varying values for the number and size of wings, depths of embedment, reveal/stickup heights, top plate geometries, and subsurface profiles. The analytical model has been partially validated through full-scale testing and the methodology has been applied to two installed projects to date.

Sep 8, 2021

By John C. Niedzielski

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

By Georgette Hlepas

How often phrases like these have been made by project managers and project teams trying to explain why there has been cost growth, project delays and differing site conditions claims. But does it really take x-ray vision? Do we really approach geotechnical construction projects unprepared for the subsurface that may be encountered because we can't get the answer? Too often our industry seems to think the answer is, "yes." However, this is not because we can't understand the subsurface. All too frequently it is because a choice is made to save money or time by foregoing or shortchanging upfront subsurface investigations. This is accepting a risk at the beginning of the process and realizing it during construction. Case histories have proven time and time again that upfront investment in site exploration and constructing a ground model mitigates risk in design and construction. But how much do we prepare? What level of investigation (or investment) is appropriate? The answer of course, is it depends; how much risk are you willing to take for your project and what are the potential consequences?

May 1, 2022

By Manasi Wijerathna, D. S. Liyanapathirana

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

Jan 1, 1900

By Richard E. Sylwester

Evaluating surface and subsurface conditions for marine foundations (bridges, causeways, terminals, etc.) is often done with a limited amount of data. Subsurface information for these projects is primarily acquired using traditional methods, such as boreholes, test pits or divers, which tend to be expensive and limited in the area of coverage. A number of geophysical methods, including precision bathymetry, sidescan sonar, and seismic reflection or subbottom profiling are extremely cost-effective and obtain significantly more data than can be acquired using traditional intrusive methods. These geophysical methods provide detailed surface images and continuous profiles of the subsurface stratigraphy. This information can be invaluable for selecting the best location for geotechnical boreholes and to map potential geohazards such as submarine slides and filled or open scour holes. Offshore investigations conducted for a proposed highway bridge (Knik Arm Bridge, Cook Inlet, AK), the retrofit of two existing bridge (Antioch and Dumbarton Bridges, CA) and a proposed cruise ship terminal (Ketchikan, AK) used a combination of geophysical methods to map water depth, detect and map debris on the seabed, map the thickness of unconsolidated sediment, determine the depth to bedrock and identify potential geohazards such as scour holes. The results of the geophysical investigations will be used to select locations for obtaining geotechnical borings, to extrapolate geologic information between existing or proposed boreholes, evaluate the potential depth of scour and design a pile support pier. Geotechnical engineers, offshore contractors and bridge designers are realizing the importance of the early use of offshore geophysics for (i) site characterization, (ii) to reduce the uncertainty of geotechnical conditions thus avoiding designs that may be overly conservative and thus more expensive and (iii) to assist in selecting locations for geotechnical borings.

Jan 1, 2013

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By Yu Chuang, Zai Jinmin, Liu Songyu

"The piled raft foundation is a geotechnical composite construction method, consisting of three elements, piles, raft and soils, which is applied for the foundation in an increasing number. Differential settlements have numerous negative effects on a superstructure in piled raft foundations. Through the analysis of the production mechanism of differential settlements and differential settlements control measures, a method of adjusting pile configurations is presented to control differential settlements. By comparing the measured data and finite element method analysis of one oil storage piled raft foundation, the new method is verified that the differential settlements can be reduced effectively and the inner forces of foundations are more reasonable with varying length pile configurations. The differential settlements can be minimized or even reduced to zero with right pile length.INTRODUCTIONPiled raft foundations are widely adopted for the prominent advantage of limited settlements and adequate bearing capacities. However, there always exits differential settlements in conventional piled raft foundations. The differential settlement is the main cause that produces additional stresses in the structure. Differential settlements have numerous negative effects on a superstructure as well as on a foundation, and should be restricted to allowable limits. How to control the differential settlement is the key interest.An increasing number of structures are founded on piled rafts. For this reason, design strategies that enable an optimized design have a major importance for safety and economy. An optimized design may be defined as a design achieving maximum economy of the solution, that is minimum cost for the installation of the foundation."

Jan 1, 2005

By Arash Saeidi-Rashk-Olia, Dunja Peric

Energy piles are gaining increased popularity due to a growing demand for clean energy. To further advance the understanding of soil-structure interaction in energy piles, recently-derived analytical solutions have been implemented to investigate the impact of stratigraphy on the soil-structure interaction. This was accomplished by comparing the measured and predicted head displacements, axial strains and stresses in an energy pile embedded in the actual homogeneous and layered soil profiles, as well as into synthetic homogeneous soil profiles. The analytical solutions for homogeneous soil profile captured the smooth experimentally observed response versus depth very well. In the case of a layered soil profile, the corresponding analytical model was capable of capturing nuances in trends of axial stress and strain versus depth at the interface of different layers. The analytical predictions for the layered profile appear to be slightly less accurate than for the homogenous profile. The experimental data obtained from the layered profile appear to be a bit more scattered than those from the homogeneous profile. In the former case, the interplay of the individual soil layers with the pile occurs while maintaining the continuity of the pile stress and displacement at the interface of different layers. The response throughout each layer of the layered profile is quantitatively different than the corresponding homogeneous response. Nevertheless, qualitatively the response throughout each layer of the layered profile is similar to the response of the pile embedded in the corresponding homogeneous layer.

Sep 8, 2021

By Masahiko Yamaki, Takahiro Yamanashi, Hijiri Hashimoto, Hirochika Hayashi

"In this study, the authors used heat conduction analysis with the aim of quantitatively evaluating whether treating improved ground with cover soil is an effective measure for maintaining strength development in the surface layer of improved ground after constructing cement treated soil for the winter season. This report describes a simple procedure to evaluate covering soil thickness, which is necessary for the strength of the surface of cement treated soil, by using the freeze index and both the water content ratio and dry density.INTRODUCTIONIt was reported that when ground improvement using cement is performed in winter in a snowy cold region (Fig. 1 photo, Fig. 2), the uppermost 1 m of the improved ground (i.e., the cement-treated soil) tends to become prone to solidification failure from exposure to the cold air during curing (Hashimoto et al. 2006). In light of this, our research laboratory conducted unconfined compression tests using curing temperature as a parameter of analysis on improved ground toward understanding the influence of curing temperature (ambient air temperature) on the strength improvement afforded by ground improvement.The authors found that if the curing temperature is maintained at 0°C for the first 28 days after improvement and then at 5°C for the next 337 days after improvement, the improved ground is expected to have 90% of the unconfined compressive strength of improved ground whose temperature was maintained at 20°C for the first 365 days after improvement (Hashimoto et al. 2011)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Prasanta Paul, Aminul Islam

"Nhava Sheva (India) Gateway Terminal Private Limited proposed to construct a container terminal yard, comprising a back-up area at Jawaharlal Nehru Port Terminal (JNPT), Uran, Maharashtra. The proposed container terminal yard is located on a recent reclamation on the Thane Creek, which was developed by land-based reclamation method. The underneath soft marine clay was treated, using vertical band drains and placement of surcharge upon.Settlement of the reclamation during its construction was monitored using settlement plate installed at +4.8m CD elevation which was above the highest high water level.This paper examines the settlement behaviour of the reclamation during the ground improvement works. The geotechnical parameters are back-analyzed by the authors from the field settlement results and the concerned preloading details. The back analyzed coefficients of consolidation due to horizontal flow (Ch) are compared with laboratory determined parameters and the estimated value, using Asaoka Method (1978). The authors also studied field compression ratio [CR= Cc/(1+e0)] vs. the compression ratio determined by laboratory test using back-analysis method.1. INTRODUCTIONNhava Sheva (India) Gateway Terminal Private Limited proposed to construct a container terminal yard, comprising a back-up area of approximately 27 hectares, complete with associated buildings and services on a part brownfield/ greenfield site. The back-up area shall include a heavy duty block paved pavement with band beams for electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry Crane (eRTGC) alongwith surface water drainage system and other services including area lighting, provision of fire-fighting facilities , sources for potable water and power.Based on the Employer’s Requirement and the available geotechnical investigation report, ground improvement scheme is designed by the construction contractor. Ground improvement works included the installation of prefabricated vertical drains and subsequent placement of surcharge for accelerating the consolidation of the underlying soft marine clay."

Jan 1, 2015

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

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

Jan 1, 2005

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

By Vivek Samu, Murthy Guddati

A new method called Effective Dispersion Analysis of Reflections (EDAR) was recently developed to effectively analyze the dispersive waves generated from lateral impact to piles. This paper presents the results of nondestructive length estimation of existing piles through EDAR. EDAR provides a new visualization method for analyzing wave reflections by transforming the response into the frequency domain thus eliminating the need to perform difficult peak picking in the time domain. In addition to being able to analyze dispersive waves, EDAR also incorporates the effects of radiation damping due to the surrounding soil leading to more accurate length estimates. Concrete filled steel tubes of different embedment depths were tested both in laboratory and field conditions. Length estimates obtained were within 10% error margins after careful analysis accounting for the presence of soil effects and effects from pile top reflection.

By Mohammed Faizal, Abdelmalek Bouazza

"The operation of ground source heat pumps combined with foundation piles can have an effect on the thermal behaviour of the pile and the surrounding soil. This paper presents the effects of continuous heating, continuous cooling, and alternate heating and cooling operations on ground and pile temperatures as well as the thermo-mechanical behaviour of a field scale energy pile. The effect of pile operation on the ground temperatures is highest near the pile and reduces with increasing radial distance. The results of the present studies generally showed that the thermal elasticity of the pile is not affected.INTRODUCTIONGeothermal energy piles are foundation piles used as underground heat exchangers to maintain thermal comfort in buildings, via the use of ground source heat pumps (GSHPs). Ground source heat pumps are more economical and environmental friendly compared to conventional heat pumps. Energy piles can be combined with supplemental surface heaters or coolers, known as hybrid systems, for forcefully recharging the ground during non-operational times of the GSHP. Alternative heating and cooling of the GSHP improves geothermal energy usage and alleviates heat build-up in the ground and provides a balance of ground temperatures around the heat exchanger (Jalaluddin and Miyara, 2012).The temperatures induced in the piles during GSHP operation can lead to a complex response of thermal strains and stresses in the pile concrete. An assessment of the thermo-mechanical response of energy piles for various thermal loads may assist engineers in the design process. Furthermore, an assessment of ground temperatures will also highlight any potential thermal interactions with other energy piles in actual building operations.At present, the thermal strain and stress distribution in field scale energy piles has mostly been studied for continuous operation (Laloui et al., 2006; Bourne-Webb et al., 2009; McCartney and Murphy, 2012; Akrouch et al., 2014; Mimouni, 2014; Murphy and McCartney, 2014; Murphy et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2015). These studies have contributed considerably to the understanding of the axial thermal strain and stress distributions in the piles and have shown that pile thermal behaviour is mostly thermo-elastic without inducing major structural concerns.The present paper adds to the current knowledge by assessing the pile thermo-mechanical and ground thermal response for continuous and alternating thermal loads of a field scale energy pile. The operation modes studied are 24 hours continuous cooling (Faizal et al., 2015), 24 hours continuous heating, (Wang et al., 2015) and alternate heating and cooling operation (Faizal and Bouazza, 2016). The forced ground thermal recharging is done during the non-operating times of the cooling unit, simulating a solar hybrid GSHP system for a scheduled intermittent mode of operation."

Jan 1, 1900

By H. Yoshida

Jet grouting was first introduced in Japan in the second half of the 1960s, approaching 50 years ago. By the end of the first 40 years, jet grouting from single to triple fluid systems had become a global technology. In the last ten years, progress in the jetting has been remarkable, and operational efficiency has improved. The quantity of carbon dioxide emitted in unit soil improvement has become one-third that of the initial technology. Meanwhile, technologies in waste recycling and horizontal jet grouting are also emerging. This paper discusses developments in the most recent ten years.

Jan 1, 2010

By William G. Ryan, David S. Graham, Dan A. Brown, Rich A. Lamb, Paul J. Axtell

"The St. Croix River Crossing project on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border has been in the process of planning and public debate for two decades, with several changes in alignment. During the course of the earlier planning process in 1995, a drilled shaft load test was performed to obtain preliminary design information. There were some difficulties in maintaining stability within the weak sandstone bearing formation, and the measured axial resistance was relatively low. Subsequent experience by the Minnesota Department of Transportation with similar weak sandstones on the I-35W project suggests that improved construction techniques using modern drilling fluids may offer opportunities for improved performance. During final design in 2012 a second load test program was performed of a full scale test shaft constructed using polymer drilling fluids. The stability of the socket excavation in the weak sandstone appeared to be greatly improved and the measured axial resistance significantly higher.This case history illustrates the excellent performance that drilled shafts can provide in even relatively weak sandstone bedrock as well as the profound influence on axial resistance associated with the construction techniques used. The improved resistance values obtained by the new load test with more recent construction technology allowed the foundation scheme to be substantially optimized with respect to the number and size of required drilled shafts, reducing the size, cost, and risk of the coffercells and footings.IntroductionThe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has awarded the first phase of a bridge construction project that will cross the St. Croix River between Oak Park Heights, MN and St Joseph, WI. The first phase construction contract involves building the river pier substructures including groups of drilled shafts beneath each tower leg. A general location of the bridge project is provided in Figure 1.Prior to award of the construction contract, two separate design-phase axial load tests were performed on non-production drilled shafts with rock sockets. Both tests were static, bottom-up tests using the Osterberg Cell (O-cell). The first test was performed in 1995 when final design and construction was thought to be imminent. After years of public debate and literally, an act of Congress, design of the project was finally restarted and a second load test performed in 2012. The 1995 test was conducted on the Minnesota bank approximately 900 ft southwest of the St. Croix River bank. The 2012 test was conducted in the river about 2,100 ft northeast of the1995 test location. A plan-view of the project indicating the test program locations relative to the bridge alignment is provided in Figure 2."

Jan 1, 2015

By James G. Ulinski, Sebastian Lobo-Guerrero, Vishal B. Patel

"Recently modified design equations used in the transportation industry to calculate side friction and end bearing capacity for drilled shafts are now providing more realistic estimations of capacities than did previous methods. Using multiple case studies and test results from various projects, a more realistic design approach was formulated by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which resulted in greater values of ultimate capacity for side friction and end bearing and in a more efficient design overall.In 2010, the FHWA published GEC-10 – Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and LRFD Design Methods, which illustrates a different method of calculating side friction and end bearing resistance and results in greater values for design. In 2014, the Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) adopted the method put forth by FHWA, which was included in its LRFD Bridge Design th Specifications, 7 Edition. The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) recently adopted and incorporated the similar methodology as AASHTO for calculating side friction and end bearing for drilled shafts in rock, and these changes are reflected in the 2015 edition of the PennDOT Design Manual, Part 4 (DM-4). This article discusses the past and current design methodology along with a project case study with results from Osterberg Cell (O-cell) load testing, which presents a comparison between the design resistances of ultimate side friction and end bearing and the measured capacities at failure.The Old and the NewEditions of the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Manual from 2012 and earlier estimated ultimate side resistance, qs, in rock using the following equation (modified from Horvath and Kenney, 1979):qs=0.65aEpa(qu/pa)0.5 < 7.8pa(f ’c/pa)0.5 where: qu is the uniaxial compressive strength of the rock in ksf; pa is the atmospheric pressure in ksf; aE is the reduction factor to account for jointing in rock; and f ’c is the compressive strength of the concrete in ksi. For intact rock, previous versions of the AASHTO manual required that the ultimate end bearing resistance, qp, was calculated using the following equation: qp=2.5qu."

Jan 1, 2017

By Tony D. Canale, Anthony Mazzo

"Times Square, arguably one of the best-known destinations in the world, has undergone and continues to undergo a re-development aimed at attracting corporate tenants to the area. Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) was involved with the planning, design and construction of the foundations for the Conde Nast and 5 Times Square sites, as well as Times Square Tower. These sites are pictured in Figure 1.This paper will focus on the design and construction of the deep foundations for Times Square Tower that was developed by Boston Properties. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONTimes Square Tower is 47 stories tall, with no setbacks and an overall height to top of crown of 730 feet (222.5m). It has two basement levels extending 30 feet (9m) below grade over the full site. As shown in Figure 1, the structure occupies the entire site and has a footprint of 22,000 square feet (2,044 m2), with a total rentable area of about 1.2 million square feet (111,480 m2). The planned use for the building is office space with retail at the ground level. When completed, Times Square Tower was the final building constructed as part of the Revitalization of Times Square. Due to the site constraints, designing and constructing the foundations was akin to placing the final piece of a puzzle.Times Square Tower provided numerous design and construction challenges that were a result of tight working conditions, heavy column loads, and a compressed schedule.GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SITE HISTORYThe Times Square area is part of the Manhattan Prong called the Manhattan Ridge, a formation of old and durable metamorphosed and folded bedrock, now termed the Hartland Formation. The bedrock generally has a thin soil cover and uneven surface overlain in some areas with a thin mantle of decomposed and/or weathered rock. Overburden soils include glacial and post-glacial deposits and recent fills.Transit improvements have been made in and around the Times Square area since the early 1900’s. The 1, 2 and 3 Subway Lines that run below 7th Avenue were constructed circa 1915 using cut and cover techniques and extend about 28 feet (8.5m) below grade. The N, R, Q & W Subway Lines that run below Broadway were also constructed in 1915 using cut and cover techniques and extend about 38 feet (11.6m) below grade. The 7 Line that runs below 41st Street was constructed later, using both cut-and-cover and tunneling methods as it runs below the other subway structures at a depth of about 55 feet (16.8m) below grade."

Jan 1, 2005

By Michel Bustamante

The Arbre viaduct, 200 metres long, is the most important structure on the Belgian portion of the High Speed Train line between Paris and Brussels. The particular geotechnical conditions of the soil with carboniferous limestone affected by karstic phenomena, has prompted the designer to found the viaduct on systems of high capacity vertical and batter micropiles. The design of the working micropiles was validated by full scale tests performed on instrumented micropiles. The size of the structure and the deformation criteria to be met when HS trains are crossing the viaduct, together with the lack of references for such innovative structure, called for monitoring the movements of the piers as soon as the link was open to traffic. The authors report on the results of loading tests on micropiles and the results of settlement structure monitoring for a period of 4 years. Settlement of the foundation is estimated taking into account the group effect.

Jan 1, 2002

By Jun Ohbayashi, Yoshiyuki Yagiura, Hiroaki Miyatake, Masuo Kondoh, Naotoshi Shinkawa

"Reducing the improvement ratio of ground improvement is an extremely efficient way to reduce the construction cost and construction period of mitigation measures for soft ground. The Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column (ALiCC Method) is one method for this, and it is being increasingly applied to sites. This method enables us to rationally evaluate the embankment loads that are acting on cement improved soil columns and unimproved ground, by considering the arch action generated in the embankments and from there thusly allocate improved soil columns in spans of a greater distance than those needed for conventional methods. As a result, it serves to reduce construction costs and the construction period, while also minimizing the settling of the embankment and differential settlement, by placing numerous improved soil columns in the ground immediately beneath the embankment at equidistant intervals. In this report, we give a basic overview of the ALiCC Method, report typical construction results from real life cases that have been carried out, and make comparisons with other construction methods in order to report on the effectiveness of this design method.OVERVIEW OF ARCH ACTION LOW IMPROVEMENT RATIO CEMENT COLUMN (ALiCC) METHODIn the area of mitigation measures for soft ground, a significant role is played by ground improvements using improved materials such as cement. For this reason, a reduction in construction costs and construction period required for ground improvements has become of greater importance. The Public Works Research Institute carried out joint research with Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co. Ltd., Kitac Co. Ltd., and Fudo Tetra Co. Ltd. over a period from 1998 through 2002, and, from that, developed the ""Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column Method"" (hereinafter referred to as the ""ALiCC Method"") that enables ground improvement with a lower improvement ratio (the improved area ratio is approx. 10% to 30%) than is required for conventional methods, while also ensuring stabilization and minimizing the settling of embankments.In the area of mitigation methods for soft ground by deep mixing, the dominant method until now has been that (50% or more of improvement ratio) shown in Fig. 1. This method comprehensively improves the area under the face of the slopes of both sides of the embankment. This is based on the calculated stability against rotational slip, which states, ""the most effective way to ensure the stabilization of the embankment environment is to carry out improvements of the area under the face of the slope."" Therefore, for the area under the face of the slope, ground improvement by deep mixing was done, and for the soft ground in the area under the middle part of the embankment, accelerated consolidation methods (hereinafter referred to as ""conventional method"") such as sand draining method and paper draining method were used. Mitigation measures that combine these improvement methods have also been mainstream for a long period of time and are used to prevent side deformation around the embankment. However, there have been some problems that have occurred, such as a situation where consolidation settling occurs in the center area under the embankment where no improvement had been carried out. This phenomenon leads to a situation in which the improved soil columns in the area under the face the of slope are pushed to the outside, which results in side deformation occurring around the area of the embankment, and additionally the occurrence of a step due to a situation of differential settlement between the improved ground and the consolidation advancing part, which results in cracks in the embankment."

Jan 1, 2015