Search Documents

By Osamu Taki

The innovative Soil-Cement Mixed Wall Technique emerged in Japan and obtained recognition in the engineering and construction communities in the 1980's. This technique was introduced to the United States in 1986. It was accepted as the most credible construction technique by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for ground stabilization and cutoff wall work in the Jackson Lake Dam Project, Wyoming in 1987 and 1988. It was also accepted as a remediation technique by U.S. EPA for a Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration on in-situ solidification/ stabilization. The Soil-Cement Mixed Wall Technique consists of mixing in-place soils with cement grout or other reagent slurries using multiple axis augers and mixing paddles to construct overlapped soil-cement columns. The overlapped column panel is then extended to form an underground continuous soil-cement wall for use as a cutoff wall or a structural diaphragm wall for groundwater control and excavation support. By arranging the column panels in various configurations, the technique becomes a versatile tool for stabilization of soft or liquefiable soils.

Jan 1, 1990

By Bradley J. Fleming

Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading. The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface. In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil.

By Jin-Wei Huang, Bradley J. Fleming, Sri Sritharan

"Although soil improvement and its application to deep foundations is gaining popularity in the engineering community, this technique is not widely used in high seismic regions due to lack of fundamental understanding of both the behavior of improved soils under high-strain cyclic loading and the interactions between the pile, improved soil, and unimproved soil. This paper describes part of an ongoing Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (NEES) project, where two identical full-scale steel pipe piles were driven at a soft clay site in Oklahoma. The soil surrounding one of these piles was improved using the cement deep soil mixing technique in order to enhance its lateral load behavior. Both piles were tested for seismic resistance using dynamic and quasi-static loading.The pile in unimproved soil provided larger displacements with limited lateral force resistance. This pile was subjected to lateral displacements of up to 400 mm, but experienced minimum inelastic actions. On the other hand, the pile in improved soil reached its lateral capacity at a displacement of 100 mm, at which point the critical region at the base of the pile just above the improved ground experienced buckling and fractured due to low cycle fatigue. Compared to the pile in unimproved soil, the improved ground increased the system strength by 42%. Although the soil was improved over 2900 mm, the effective improvement depth was approximately 1300 mm below the ground surface.In this paper, it is demonstrated that the effects of block type soil improvement of limited horizontal and vertical dimensions can be described using a simplified theoretical approach involving a modification to the well-known p-y representation of soil response. An example using this method is presented and shown to give adequate support to a standard 12-inch diameter steel pipe pile embedded in soft soil,IntroductionPilings are the preferred foundation support for many civil engineering structures including highway bridges, railroad bridges, and port wharves. These structures and their foundations are subjected to forces created by earthquakes, wind, waves, water current, vessel impact, ice, and gravity. All loads applied to the superstructure must be transmitted to the foundation where they are resisted by the surrounding soil. With significant lateral loads, use of pile foundations may be the only solution to transmit large structural loads to competent soils. Piles supported by competent soils are relatively easy to design and costs are often attainable. However, thick layers of weak soils such as soft clays are widespread in high seismic areas (e.g., San Francisco, southern Nevada, Washington, Eastern Missouri, and Arkansas), exacerbating design challenges. Soft clays reduce the lateral resistance of the pile-soil system, making the pile foundation less cost effective. In this case, the current design practice is to use an increased number of larger diameter piles, which is a costly alternative (see SDC, Caltrans 2010). An innovative and more cost-efficient solution to this problem is to improve the soil within a short depth surrounding the foundation, thereby increasing its lateral stiffness. Some well-known methods for improving soil include deep soil mixing, stone columns, and simple soft soil replacement with select granular material."

Jan 1, 2017

By Thomas G. Tavernaro, Jeffrey A. Schaefer

"The $106 million Olmsted Approach Walls Project, completed in the spring of 2004 by Massman Construction Co., Kansas City, MO, is one phase of a new $1.4 billion Corps of Engineers locks and dam facility located at Mile 964 on the Ohio River, approximately 17 miles (27.4 km) upstream of its mouth at the Mississippi River. When completed, the Olmsted Locks and Dam (Figure 1) facility will replace two aging locks and dams (Locks and Dams 52 & 53) built in the 1920’s, and produce an estimated $600 million annual economic benefit to the nation through reduced lockage time and operation and maintenance costs. PROJECT OVERVIEWThe Olmsted Approach Walls Project consisted of “in-the- wet” construction of four fixed nose pier structures, four floating concrete approach walls, one fixed wall and related underwater excavation, grading and stone placement. Over 12,000 tons (11,000 tonnes) of structural steel and pre-cast concrete elements, up to 335 tons (304 tonnes) in weight, were safely erected during the project.To support these massive structures, the Louisville District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers teamed with INCA Engineers, Inc., Bellevue, WA to design thirty seven 10’ (3m) diameter shafts (cast-in-place steel-shell piles) capable of maintaining elastic behavior below ground while resisting barge impact loads, extreme head-on collisions from runaway tows, and environmental forces from river current, wind, and seismic events.The shafts (typically 150’ (45.7m) in length) were founded 100’ (30m) into the riverbed through alluvium, a very consolidated fine sand and clay Cretaceous soil, and finally into a hydrothermally altered rock. Thirty seven shafts were installed under open river conditions at the site, a group of four shafts at each nose pier-pylon location (Figure 2), and 21 at the fixed land wall. Due to difficulty in achieving the required casing tip elevation the team developed a design modification that was successfully implemented for 27 of the shafts.Concurrent with the work at Olmsted, eleven pontoon segments for the four floating approach walls were constructed at a graving yard in Paducah, KY, developed by Massman Construction Company specifically for the project. While the pontoon geometry varied, the pontoons averaged 350’ (107m) in length, 40’ (12.2m) in width and weighed 4,500 tons (4,082 tonnes). The longest of the four walls, at 1,700’ (518m) was comprised of five interconnected pontoons."

Jan 1, 2006

By Vijaya Bhushan Rao, Ali Semercioglu, Jason Redgers

Large diameter steel water tanks with high storage capacities impart heavy loads deep into the ground, generally requiring deep foundations to adequately support them. The use of ground improvement as a sustainable and cost effective alternative is tempting but the design of the foundations for such heavily loaded, thin-shelled structures have to meet several performance requirements such as bearing capacity, limiting the specified total settlements, typically limiting the radial differential settlement to 13mm over 10m along the circumference and dishing settlement from edge to center of 1/120 as per standard API 650 Appendix B as well as the mitigation of liquefaction induced settlement risk. Any inadequacy in the soil investigation, geotechnical design, or misrepresentation of stresses of the foundations may lead to serviceability compromise or potentially catastrophic failures. Therefore, the selection of the foundation is dependent on the availability of suitable ground report and the limitations imposed by operational requirements. Two such case studies are evaluated and compared in this paper, with tank diameters ranging from 41 to 106m in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, (KSA) which were founded on two types of soils and supported on deep foundations i.e., stone columns and bored cast-in-situ piles.

Oct 1, 2022

By M. Kitazume, H. Imai

The deep mixing method was developed in Japan and put into practice in the middle of 1970s. Since then, the wet and dry type methods have been applied for various improvement purposes in Japan. One stork of mixing tool produces a column shape of stabilized soil in a ground. By the series of productions, arbitrary shape of improved ground can be constructed by overlapping each columns. It is specified to complete the overlapping within 24 hours in order to ensure the tight connection of the columns. However, it can not be completed within the specific time in some cases due to bad weather or machine trouble, which causes a cold joint in the improved ground. In this study, the influence of the cold joint to the behavior of the block type improved ground is examined by a series of centrifuging model tests and FEM analyses. It is found that the ground behavior is influenced by the position of the cold joint, where the cold joint at the sea side shows a little influence to the behavior but one at the port side causes large decrease in the stability of the improved ground.

Sep 8, 2021

By Dan Yang

Pile foundation designs are performed routinely based on geotechnical information available at the time of design, often with due consideration of large uncertainties inherent to soils and site conditions. These uncertainties frequently are the causes of piles being installed not the same as those designed, especially by factors beyond quality assurance and quality control. With a variety of both satisfactory and unsatisfactory pile test results from these nonconforming piles, the design engineers are required to examine the foundation performance as a whole against the project design requirements before signing off on them or calling for potentially costly remediation. Over the years, as-built analysis has been a consistent way of dealing with pile non-conformity and damage in our practice, avoiding many construction delays and it is an integral part of our pile foundation design. In this paper, the key elements of an as-built analysis along with several major bridge projects are presented.

Jan 1, 2010

By Abid O. Adekunte, David Greentree, David Hilton

"The construction industry is witnessing an upsurge in demand by property developers to have basements incorporated into their residential and commercial development schemes. This is attributable to perceived improvement to aesthetic and commercial values of buildings by underground space, amongst property owners. This trend is compelling more owners of buildings with no basements to explore the possibility of creating underground additional space beneath their existing buildings. The creation of a basement beneath an existing building entails the installation of a reinforced concrete (RC) underpinning system, temporary works, bulk excavation to basement formation level and construction of the basement structure, with associated aesthetic finishes.The L-shaped segmental RC underpins are a common system of choice for such underpinning works. They are multi-functional; providing vertical support to the existing superstructure, providing lateral support to earth and groundwater, supporting temporary and permanent surcharge loads from adjacent structures and services, whilst also forming part of the basement slab. This paper focuses on the first function of the Lshaped RC underpins; capacity under vertical compressive loading from the superstructure. The most common industry approach for the prediction of vertical capacities of L-shaped underpins is the oldfashioned Meyerhof’s (1953, 1963) effective width method, which is based on the traditional bearing capacity theory, whilst accounting for correction factors for eccentricity and foundation depth.The traditional bearing capacity formula is surrounded by a significant degree of uncertainty; estimates are highly user-dependent, as capacity prediction is sensitive to the chosen angle of shearing resistance (?), while there are difficulties in accurately measuring the in-situ ??value of cohesionless soils. In addition, the effective width approach has been shown to be very conservative by many research workers. The segmental RC underpins presented in this paper have been designed with an alternative less conservative method, which involves the use of a recently proposed consistent work-hardening plasticity model calibrated with field-based tests on footings of various aspect ratios and relative embedment in sand. The paper highlights the principles behind underpinning works for urban basement construction, the design of L-shaped RC underpins with the recently proposed plasticity model and the advantages of the method over traditional bearing capacity solutions and pre-existing plasticity models."

Jan 1, 2016

By Jonathan J. Dewsbury

It is argued that approximate computer based methods are only suited to modelling conventional piled rafts, for pile enhanced rafts where the interactions will be non linear three dimensional finite element analysis is required. However current 3D finite element analysis often relies on symmetry to reduce computational cost and there are concerns over the dependency of the results on the user. Therefore a new strategy within the finite element framework has been proposed. The main advantage of this strategy is that each stage of the model can be checked for consistency. There is also the added benefit that non symmetrical models can easily be constructed by tying the validated components together without dramatic increases in computational time. The proposed strategy compared well to the published results of a hypothetical example of a piled raft previously analysed with numerous methods by Poulos et al. (1997).

Jan 1, 2010

By Joel Moskowitz, Jan Cermak

"New York City has unique geologic conditions which must be considered when designing pile foundations. Where shallow foundations are not feasible, the City's subsurface conditions require a variety of deep foundation systems, ranging from high capacity rock socketed piles, to piles end-bearing on bedrock, to friction piles bearing in alluvial or glacial deposits. Pile load testing is essential in confirming pile capacities as pile analyses include assumptions on soil and soil-pile response, and pile driving equipment. Load test results must be interpreted to estimate the long-term pile behavior. Except for lightly loaded driven piles, the New York City Building Code (the Code) requires that pile capacities be confirmed by static load testing. The Code provides the number of static load tests required, test procedures, and acceptance criteria. In the last few decades, methods other than static load testing have been developed including dynamic and rapid (pseudo-static) load tests. Recently, those methods have also been employed on several projects in New York City. The traditional approach to pile load testing in New York City is discussed herein including engineering involved in the analyses of test data with examples. In addition, several projects which included non-static load testing are discussed INTRODUCTIONPile load testing complements the subsurface information and pile design by providing further data on pile-soil interaction for the selected pile type and installation method. Traditional approaches to pile load testing in New York City involve static load tests to verify the design capacity of the piles for a given minimum factor of safety.In the late 1950's, Dr. Phillip C. Rutledge summarized his views on the philosophy of pile foundations in an unpublished, in-house document. He viewed pile foundations as good illustrations of pertinent and impertinent aspects of geotechnical engineering. In the analyses of piles he divided engineering into four general types:(a) Theoretical engineering in which decisions are made based on theoretical analyses. This represents ideal engineering, in which all factors affecting the pile design are well established or, at least, few simplifying assumptions with known effects on the analyses are made."

Jan 1, 2005

By Scott A. Walker, Gabriel J. Alcantar, Brian Zuckerman, Ramin Golesorkhi

"The new San Francisco 49ers Levi’s Stadium is part of the next generation of sporting facilities. Constructed in Santa Clara, Calif., the new structure has 68,500 open-air bowl seats and includes a 7- story tower housing more than 150 suites. The overall project includes the stadium structure, elevated open pedestrian walkways, commercial community space, three new pedestrian bridges and improvements to the adjacent light rail station. Sustainable design for the project includes a green roof, photovoltaic panel and a ground source geothermal system. Stadium-wide next-generation Wi-Fi capability is another feature. The design-build project team included HNTB (project architect), Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA, structural designer) and a joint venture of Turner Construction and Devcon Construction (TDJV, general contractor).During preconstruction, the 49ers’ original design team and the design-build team formed later worked together to facilitate communication and provide continuity. This helped to meet the project’s aggressive schedule. Working directly for the 49ers, with the design-build team, Treadwell & Rollo (T&R) served as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project from preliminary to final design and through construction. Although not contracted directly to TDJV, the stadium ownership encouraged direct interaction between T&R and TDJV and improved responsiveness to geotechnical issues during design and construction.Subsurface ConditionsThe new stadium lies within the Santa Clara Valley, a deep alluviumfilled basin resulting from historic movement on the active and potentially active strike-slip and thrust faults that bind the valley. The valley is filled with Holocene age (approximately 11,000 years old to present) alluvium, consisting of levee and basin deposits, with bedrock more than 750 ft (229 m) beneath existing ground surface. The stadium site is between two of the highly-active faults in California, the Hayward Fault 6.8 mi (11 km) northeast, and the San Andreas Fault about 11.8 mi (19 km) southwest."

Jan 1, 2014

By Matthias Pulsfort, Jiarui Du, Torsten Wichtmann, Achim v. Blumenthal, Diethard König, Rowena Verst

The influence of the interaction between support fluid and soil, e.g., filter cake formation, on the shear stress transfer in the soil-concrete interface of diaphragm walls and bored piles is still controversially discussed. Actual research on the soil-concrete interface using bentonite suspensions indicates that shear stress transfer is underestimated by existing standards. Investigations on the soil-concrete interface using polymer solutions are rare. Therefore, complementary field investigations and systematic laboratory studies were conducted to analyse the soil-concrete interface using both bentonite suspensions and polymer solutions. Thickness and composition of real-scale filter cakes were investigated on several slurry wall construction sites, where bentonite suspensions were used. Direct shear tests (60 mm x 60 mm) were executed for soilbentonite mixtures with varying amounts of bentonite and different granular fines representing a realistic bandwidth of in-situ filter cake compositions. Larger direct shear tests (300 mm x 300 mm) with preceding horizontal penetration, subsequent vertical tremie concrete placement, and filter cake consolidation were performed using both bentonite suspensions and polymer solutions. The results support the view that shear stress transfer in the soil-concrete interface can be described by a wall friction angle in a range of 25° to 30° for bentonite suspensions and between 35° and 40° for polymer solutions in non-cohesive soils.

May 1, 2022

By John P. Turner, Benjamin J. Turner

"Tieback anchors are now used routinely for landslide stabilization in the USA and abroad. It is generally understood by design engineers that friction loss over the unbonded length of a tieback anchor is inherent to the system, and such loss is permitted as long as it does not exceed a certain threshold, typically 20 percent of the post-tensioning load. However, recent experience from projects utilizing tieback anchors with unbonded lengths in excess of 150 feet has demonstrated that this criterion may be difficult to achieve, particularly in certain ground conditions. Furthermore, anchor friction loss, even if below the 20-percent threshold, has important implications for the stability of the slope that are often ignored in practice. This paper presents the results of a study in which friction loss is quantified from load test data for projects in a variety of ground conditions by means of a “wobble coefficient.” Factors that may influence the wobble coefficient are examined, and recommendations for addressing this issue in practice are presented. A recent instrumented load-test program for a landslide stabilization project in Southern California is examined, demonstrating that with appropriate monitoring controls, uncertainty with regard to friction loss can be minimized. IntroductionSteel-strand tieback anchors have been used by the geotechnical community to support shoring systems for many decades, and more recently as a means to stabilize landslides. For strand encased in grease-filled plastic sheathing, which is intended to allow the strand to elongate freely, some load can still be transferred by friction between the strand and the grease and between the grease and sheathing. The sheathing then transfers load to the surrounding grout and, in the case of ground anchors, to the surrounding soil or rock. The resulting decrease in load over the length of the unbonded zone is known as “friction loss.”A widely used criterion for ground anchor acceptance based on load testing is that the measured anchor elongation must achieve a minimum value of 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation, or in other words the actual elongation can be up to 20 percent less than the theoretical value. This ensures that the majority of the load applied at the anchor head is reaching the bond zone behind the assumed failure surface, since load shed within the failure mass does not contribute to stability. This criterion acknowledges that friction loss is an inherent feature of the anchor system which cannot be eliminated completely, only minimized."

Jan 1, 2017

By Diego Bellato

Production data recorded by special foundation rigs during construction activities at the site are commonly used for quality assurance / quality control procedures and, in particular, to prove that the installed foundation elements comply with the geometrical and quality requirements defined in the design specifications. Parameters such as crowd force, penetration/withdrawal rate, rotational speed etc. are usually presented in reports in the form of depth and/or time profiles. This type of protocols are already standard QA/QC solutions for ground improvement methods like deep soil mixing or jet-grouting, but they are quite rarely applied in combination with other techniques like diaphragm walls or Kelly drilling. In the latter cases, one of the main reasons behind this lack of site documentation is related to the difficulty in interpreting huge amount of data collected during the creation of single elements, which, in some cases, can last several days (not always in a row). In addition, the building sequence is often characterized by many alternated operations involving different movements of the rig and the use of different tools. In this context, the identification of specific construction activities based only on the mere exam of the time profiles of the recorded production parameters is extremely difficult. In this paper, the time profiles of production parameters obtained from a fully-cased Kelly drilling rig employed on a site in Karlsruhe (Germany) have been investigated and compared with a detailed series of activities deduced from a video filmed during installation. Typical time profile patterns associated to specific procedures have been identified by combining the different information available. The outcome of this study helped project engineers to automatize the recognition of activities directly from production data and led to an overall understanding and optimization of the construction process. INTRODUCTION The special foundation industry is characterized by the use of highly sophisticated machinery for the realization of geotechnical systems such as piled rafts, retaining walls and slabs for excavation pits, cut-off walls for levees and embankments or ground improvement solutions. Rigs can vary in size, weight, and power and can be provided with several drilling tools to cope with the different soil conditions (e.g. clay, sand, rock) and the different geometries of the elements to be built at the site (e.g. micro-piles, large- diameter bored piles, diaphragm walls, anchors). Due to the challenging construction procedures, various types of sensors have started to be mounted on the equipment in the last decades to monitor the behavior of some important machine parameters and to inform rig operators about the on-going process and the status of their devices.

Jan 1, 2019

By Esam Abraham

A 13.6 mile portion of the 500 kV Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project crosses the mountains of the Angeles National Forest. Access and environmental constraints precluded road development for most transmission tower foundations, tower erection and conductor stringing operations. Because of the access constraints, helicopter-supported micropile foundation construction was used for this steep and environmentally sensitive portion of the project. The general methodologies incorporated on the project represent innovative implementations of micropile design criteria, preconstruction micropile installation and verification testing, on-site geotechnical characterization, micropile and pile cap installation, and proof load testing. Challenges in constructing the 224 foundations for 56 transmission towers provide lessons learned related to transmission lattice steel tower specific design constraints, construction challenges (environmental and geotechnical), and construction schedule.

Jan 1, 2010

By Bartho J. Admiraal

"As part of the Schiphol-Amsterdam-Almere project, the largest aqueduct in Europe is being built in order for the A1 motorway to cross the Vecht River. The A1 consists of 12 lanes and the total width of the aqueduct will be 65 m (213 ft). The total length of the structure will be 620 m (2035 ft). Speed of construction is essential for the DBFM-contract, which forms the primary reason for choosing a building method with a horizontal water retaining barrier created by low pressure grouting. After final checks on the water tightness of the silica based layer (softgel), excavation to a depth of approximately 12 m (40 ft) below the water table could be started in order to build the aqueduct.This paper presents a new approach for the calculation of the required grout volumes needed to ensure a “softgel” layer without gaps or holes. The approach applies measurement of deviations due to execution aspects in a probabilistic model. With this model, one is able to study the effects in a field application, i.e. multiple rows of grouted spheres. The results are visualized in order to analyze the risk of holes more easily. It is evident that the existence of a hole means a major leakage. By completing multiple runs, the strategy for grout volumes can be adjusted to minimize this risk.INTRODUCTIONThe Dutch Department of Waterways and Public Works invests over € 4 billion between 2012-2020 to increase the capacity of 63 km (41 mi) motorways of one of Holland’s major corridors. The A1/A6 will be transformed over a distance of 20 kilometers (13 mi). Near Muiden, the current drawbridge on the A1 for crossing the Vecht river will be replaced by a new aqueduct to be located slightly south of the existing bridge."

Jan 1, 2016

By Michael Moran

Typical ACIP Pile Rig [ ] Hollow Stem Auger ? Continuous flight auger ? 3 inch inside diameter pipe ? Auger diameters: 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 30, and 36 inches ? Auger section lengths: 4, 5, 10, and 20 ft ? Weight ranges from about 70 lbs per ft for 12 inch to 120 lbs per ft for 24 inch and 200 lbs per ft for 36 inch

Jan 1, 2005

By Michael Perlow

Helical screw piles in use since 1838 are routinely used for energy, transportation, municipal, industrial, marine and coastal infrastructure as well as for excavation support, environmental remediation, and foundation repair. They are especially well suited for work in constrained areas, renovations and structure retrofits. Helical pile design procedures over the past 10 years have gone through a remarkable evolution with the establishment of the 2007 AC358 Helical Pile Acceptance Criteria and inclusion of helical screw piles in the 2009 International Building Code (IBC). New 2009 IBC building code requirements and AC358 Acceptance Criteria are presented along with advances in helical pile design procedures, installation, QA/QC, and recommended load test verification criteria. Use of helical smart piles to validate helical pile design and verification of ultimate pile capacity is highlighted.

Jan 1, 2011

By Tomio Tsuchiya

A construction method of bored steel H piles enclosed in soil-cement columns was developed by modifying steel H piles from the driven pile method and soil-cement walls from the earth retaining wall method, the latter of which produces cut-off walls and reduces noise and vibration during construction. In this method, as shown in Figure 1, rich mix cement paste is injected into the bottom of a borehole which is pre-excavated by a casing auger, then a steel H beam is inserted before it hardens. Since the high vertical resistance of piles created with this method has already been confirmed by loading tests, we have been investigating the applicability of this method for piles used to temporarily support building loads for top-down construction on raft foundations until the raft foundation is completed. However, in the loading tests, the bearing capacity at the lower end of the pile was measured by loading from ground surface on test piles which had friction cut to eliminate the shaft friction resistance. In other words, the loading tests neglected the effect of overburden pressure of soil above the lower end of the pile. To investigate the effect of the overburden pressure on the bearing capacity at the lower end of the pile, loading tests were carried out on a bored steel H pile of lm diameter (test pile) bored in a compacted sandy soil layer with N-value of 100 to 250 at each stage of a three-step excavation. The results show no significant change in the bearing capacity at the lower end of the pile when the depth ratio of the pile is in the range of 5.7 to 22.7.

Jan 1, 1996

By Joel L. Volterra

Since 1910, Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers (MRCE) has regularly provided professional engineering services including inspection of pile load tests. Historically, such services included on-site inspection of the driving of test piles and subsequent static load tests by qualified Geotechnical Engineers. Load testing procedures are specified by local or State Building Codes, locally the 1968 Building Code of the City of New York (1968 BCCNY). Between 1968 and 2008, the 1968 BCCNY required a minimum 48-hour hold period for standard loads per pile type, an extended 96-hour hold period for higher capacity piles, and a settlement criterion that the pile maintain a test load equal to two times the design load with less than 0.012 inches of settlement over the last 48 hours of the hold period. Effective July 2008, the new 2008 BCCNY shortened the hold period and relaxed the settlement criteria to that which is more similar to other governing codes and standards such as the International Building Code (IBC 2006) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). MRCE implemented an automated load test monitoring system to reduce costs and to alleviate or minimize overnight and off-hour staffing for load test readings. Initially, a series of linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) and data loggers were included in the Contractor?s load test setup to electronically record pile head settlement and where applicable, settlement of telltales installed to varying depths in the pile. A pressure gage was subsequently added in the hydraulic line, then a load cell, strain gages, and remote access using modems. The ease of the setup and modular adaptive nature of this system have proven it to be a useful tool and improved our ability to better serve our clients and manage our pile load testing services.

Jan 1, 2008