Search Documents

By Timothy C. Siegel, Derrick Dasenbrock, Rich Lamb, Paul J. Axtell

"The axial resistance provided by deep foundations may be divided into two components: side resistance and tip resistance. The direction that the side resistance acts depends on the relative movement between the deep foundation and the adjacent soil. That is, when the foundation moves downward relative to the soil, then the side resistance is positive and acts upward. Conversely, when the soil moves downward relative to the foundation the side resistance is negative and acts downward. Research supports that both positive side resistance and negative skin friction develop in essentially all deep foundations. The side resistance distribution is a function of the soil strength and stiffness, the applied top loads, and whether the top load is sustained, transient, or a combination of sustained and transient loads. Consideration of drag load and downdrag has become more convoluted with implementation of geotechnical aspects into the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and its use of load and resistance factors. This paper examines the current AASHTO Specifications and presents an alternative design approach for drag load and downdrag using the LRFD framework. The alternative design approach is illustrated by two examples involving drag load and downdrag.IntroductionThe axial resistance provided by deep foundations may be divided into two components: side resistance and tip resistance. The direction that the side resistance acts depends on the relative movement between the deep foundation and the adjacent soil. That is, when the foundation moves downward relative to the soil, then the side resistance is positive and acts upward. Conversely, when the soil moves downward relative to the foundation the side resistance is negative and acts downward. Research supports that both positive side resistance and negative skin friction develop in essentially all deep foundations. The side resistance distribution is a function of the soil strength and stiffness, the applied top load, and whether the top load is sustained, transient, or a combination of sustained and transient.Consideration of drag load and downdrag has become more convoluted with implementation of geotechnical aspects into the LRFD Bridge Design Specifications and its use of load and resistance factors. This paper examines current LRFD design specifications and presents an alternative design approach for drag load and alternative design approach is applied to several examples where drag load and/or downdrag may control design."

Jan 1, 2015

By Paul A. O’Brien, Gary A. Chapman, Thomas G. Cuniowski

"The new Amcor B9 paper mill in Botany, NSW, Australia, involved the design and construction of a new paper mill founded within the Botany Basin Sediments. There were numerous design and construction challenges to address, including tight settlement tolerances for the paper machine footings (6 mm total and 1/2000 mm differential limits), high variable and cyclic loads, deep (>25 m) bedrock and uncontrolled fill material across the site. The mill structure design incorporated a deep driven precast and CFA piled foundation solution, with a comprehensive swathe of testing to validate pile capacity and expected settlements. The pile design for the mill structure included the installation of approximately 1000 piles, with pile testing comprising dynamic testing and a static load test on precast piles. With consideration of Sydney’s increasing demand for development space in relative close proximity to the city’s CBD, industrial areas in the Botany Bay area are likely to make way for heavy or complex commercial and residential structures. Therefore, a better understanding of the engineering behaviour of sediments underlying these areas would allow for efficient foundation solutions. This paper presents a discussion on effective foundation testing techniques and the effects that the behaviour and characteristics of the Botany Bay sediments impose on deep piled solutions.2 PROJECT DETAILS2.1 New paper millThe project involved the construction of the largest recycled paper machine in Australia. The paper machine is 330 m (1080 ft) long, 22 m (72 ft) high, and capable of producing 1.6 km (1 mile) of paper per minute. Construction commenced in early 2011 and new paper mill officially opened in early 2013. The early works contract was awarded to Baulderstone Construction Pty. Ltd. (Lend Lease Corp. Ltd.), with the D&C contract awarded to a consortium headed by Leighton Contractors Pty. Ltd. (CPB Contractors Pty. Ltd.), which included Golder Associates Pty. Ltd. as the geotechnical designer and reviewer.2.2 Site history and effect on local topographyThe site has been used as a paper mill since 1902, and as such, has layers of uncontrolled fill and buried objects within the upper fill materials associated with historical industrial use. The fill material generally comprised of loose and very loose sands, with isolated pockets of cohesive materials, peats, pulped paper and general construction waste. In addition, during construction, underground storage tanks were identified at depth, indicating the historical extent of filling across the site was extensive. The presence of this generally uncontrolled fill was a factor for determining that the most cost effective foundation solution for the paper mill was piled foundations, to bypass these materials."

Jan 1, 1900

By Scott Webster

Dynamic pile Monitoring Services (DMS) have been used for testing of offshore piles for several decades. However, most of this testing was to measure hammer performance and pile stresses rather than pile capacity or soil resistance. As the need for more economical solutions for foundation support increases, the use of DMS has provided a better means of evaluating in-place pile capacity for offshore structures, and therefore a method of determining pile acceptance. The authors have been involved in several offshore projects where DMS has been the primary source of data for acceptance of the driven pile foundations. The use of DMS for evaluation of offshore foundations requires considerations quite different from land applications and these considerations are often necessary for the careful and thorough analysis of the collected data in nearly real time for determination of pile acceptance. Case Method capacity estimates are often of little use due to the non-uniform cross sections of the foundation piles and their deep penetrations. Therefore, capacity assessments should be made using CAPWAP which is a signal matching program whose utility and reliability has been proven on thousands of projects every year, both on land and offshore. Depending upon the soil conditions at a given location, capacity assessment after soil setup effects may be necessary. In addition, tension capacity is often critical when pile refusal occurs significantly before the design pile penetration depth. Evaluation of uplift capacity can be accomplished by a CAPWAP analysis, which results in a total capacity prediction and its shaft resistance component. The use of hydraulic hammers for driving of these piles also adds the requirement of controlling hammer energy such that over-stressing of the pile is avoided. The calculation of non-axial stresses such as bending or eccentric stresses may also be involved in order to prevent pile damage.

Jan 1, 2010

By Fabio Santillán, Mario Mauro, Raffaella Granata

"This paper presents the utilization of slurry walls methods for the recent remediation of three high hazard active dams in the United States. Tuttle Creek Dam, located in Manhattan, KS, required seismic retrofit. To this extent, transverse shear walls were installed on the downstream slope using self-hardening slurry (SHS) to reinforce the liquefiable foundation soils. Herbert Hoover Dike, located around Lake Okeechobee, FL, is subject to potential failure because of internal erosion, piping and slope instability at high water levels. The innovative use of the hydromill equipment with SHS allowed the successful construction of the cutoff wall through heterogeneous soils and rock. At Bolivar Dam, located in Bolivar, OH, under-seepage negatively affects the structural stability of the dam, and a partial seepage barrier wall is required through the upstream slope of the dam. In this case, the Contractor selected the plastic concrete seepage barrier, excavated by a combination of clamshell and hydromill equipment. The main features of the three projects are summarized in Table 1. IntroductionTuttle Creek Dam was constructed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) on the Big Blue River in North-East Kansas in the 1950s for flood control. Tuttle Creek Dam is a zoned earthfill embankment, 7,500 ft long and about 137 ft high with a crest width of 50 ft (Fig. 1). It is located in an area of moderate seismicity associated with an old continental rift zone located just to the east of the dam. The USACE, under the Dam Safety and Assurance Program, determined the need for remediation. Site investigations and geotechnical analyses identified the upper alluvial foundation sands as being susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to the Maximum Credible Earthquake.In 2005, USACE awarded a construction-manager-at-risk/early Contractor involvement contract. The USACE and the Contractor closely cooperated to identify the most effective technologies, materials and configurations to be used in the remediation. The original remediation design required both the upstream and downstream slope stabilization of liquefiable foundation. Results of refined seismic deformation analyses revealed that the stabilization of the downstream slope and toe was needed to protect the downstream seepage control system and to provide assurance that a liquefaction-induced flow slide would not occur (Stark et al., 2012)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ross T. McGillivray, David S. Graham, Dan A. Brown, Steven D. Dapp

"The Selmon Expressway includes an elevated structure extending across several miles of weathered karstic limestone geology, and represents a challenge for design because of the high variability of the material and the difficulty in characterizing the strength. The nature of the epikarst in this region of Tampa is such that variability can be extreme within distances of only a few feet. The weathered rock includes extremely soft soil infill within solution features on and within the formation. The limestone is so weathered that coring typically does not yield useful samples for strength testing, and in-situ Standard Penetration Testing (SPT) tests often encounter refusal blow counts. Thus the challenge for foundation design includes two components of reliability risks: the uncertainty associated with the ground conditions at a given foundation location plus the uncertainty associated with the foundation performance at a given location even when the stratigraphy is determined.This paper describes the design approach that has been implemented successfully for two projects at the Lee Roy Selmon Crosstown Expressway (LRS) in Tampa, Florida: the assessment and remediation of the reversible elevated lane (REL) foundations constructed in 2004, and the elevated expressways widening project constructed in 2012. Included in this design approach is a method developed for computing axial resistance in this local geology. Design for axial loading relies primarily on the development of side resistance, which was considered less subject to performance risks than base resistance. The calculation method incorporates a statistical analysis of SPT data, tempered by engineering judgment, to characterize stratigraphy at a given location into either soil, intermediate geomaterial (IGM) or rock.IntroductionThe subsurface stratigraphy of sites underlain by weathered limestone formations can be highly variable with respect to material layer thicknesses and strengths, even over short horizontal distances. This is the case for much of Florida, and particularly the Tampa area. These conditions present a challenging environment for the design of drilled foundations because of the need for a reliable determination of subsurface conditions at each foundation location, as they relate to the expected axial performance. Contributing factors include:"

Jan 1, 2015

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 2005

By D. M. Holloway

As a part of the 1-15 Reconstruction Project, static and dynamic (high-strain) testing methods formed the basis to estimate long-term axial capacities, and to assess the magnitudes of bearing capacity gains (setup) from the end of installation to the time of static/dynamic tests weeks later. This paper summarizes the results of nine full scale pile load tests to failure in compression, and how the designers used these data to finalize pile selection and penetration criteria bridge-by-bridge in the final design stages. Soil conditions along the project alignment ranged from deep, lightly over-consolidated Lake Bonneville clays interbedded with granular strata of varying consistency, to sites dominated by dense alluvial deposits of cohesionless soils well above the water table. The test sites were selected to bracket the conditions that are expected. Twelve-, 16-, and 24-inch-OD pipe piles are to be used to support the new bridges. The team plans to impact-drive all piles closed-end to final penetrations. The test piles varied from 35-ft-long pipes driven to refusal in the shallow dense sands at some sites, to 115-ft-long pipes stopping at 3 blows per foot in predominantly cohesive deposits. The capacities gained with time proved to be reasonably predictable, and significant setup was noted both in the cohesive and cohesionless strata. The test program objectives included providing the means to estimate long-term capacities from short-term (24- to 48-hour) restrikes following installation of foundation piles during production driving operations.

Jan 1, 1998

By H. Boghosian

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in a steeply sloping site in glacial till in Glasgow city centre. Existing foundations, adjacent structures and services, in tandem with asymmetric loading, presented particular challenges in the planning, execution and design of the project. The construction methods and temporary works, analysis by the Finite Element method and monitoring carried out are all described.

Jan 1, 2006

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

By Mary Ellen Large

This publication of Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) is intended to provide project owners, design engineers and construction professionals with guidelines for selecting cutoff wall and barrier systems and a general introduction to their methods of construction. Three categories of cutoff wall and barrier construction technology (excavated cutoff systems, in situ techniques, and driven cutoff systems) are presented and parameters for evaluating their design and construction are discussed. The information presented was compiled from the opinions of practicing engineers and construction specialists from the DFI Slurry Wall Committee.

Jan 1, 2021

Jan 1, 1995

By Paikowsky, Samuel G.

"Due to the way drilled deep foundations are being constructed, their structural integrity and geotechnical capacity are highly variable. Drop weight systems are increasingly being used to dynamically test the capacity and integrity of drilled deep foundations. Conventional pile driving hammers are often either inadequate or not economical to test these foundations and drop weight systems have therefore been developed to allow for dynamic testing.The advantages of the tests include high mobility, short testing time, low cost relative to static load tests (allowing multiple tests at a single site), and integrity/construction quality evaluation concurrent with capacity determination. The dynamic testing method for drilled deep foundations encounter several difficulties including: the need for a pre-testing analysis for matching pile, soil and testing system, adequate mass and drop height to reflect the mobilized capacity without structural damage, test interpretations for irregularly shaped and/or non-uniform piles, need for reliable dynamic measurements depending on the impact and the distance between the impact and the measuring point, and limited knowledge about the accuracy of the predictions.The principles of the tests are presented using simplified models and demonstrated via a case history. Drop weight systems are reviewed. Dynamic measurement principles are explained and the construction and testing quality effects are outlined and demonstrated via numerical modeling and case histories. A comparison of dynamic and static tests is presented via a database, case histories and finally a short review of relevant codes is provided.1 IntroductionTraditional static axial load test is performed by a slow application of a force produced against independent reaction, imitating structural loading. It is the most reliable method to determine the pile’s performance as commonly required under typical service conditions. The major limitations of this testing are: (i) high cost associated with set-up, test duration, interpretation and construction delays, and (ii) inability to obtain information about the pile-soil interaction along the pile without additional testing means (e.g. tell tales, strain gauges, etc.). These limitations are acute when high capacity foundations are involved."

Jan 1, 2015

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

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

Jan 1, 2012

By Peter J. Nicholson

The methods of reinforcement to be discussed in this paper are all insitu methods, ones that can be used on the soil structure as it exists in the ground, and do not rely on excavation and replacement of the soil. Current practice in the United States, as well as new ideas and methods, will be discussed as they relate to slope stability, retaining walls, and to other uses such as control of mine or cavity related subsidence and to liquefaction control under existing structures. The method is based on the concept of "nailing" or reinforcing the soil in place, and thereby causing a mass of soil to act as a coherent unit. When performed properly, a true gravity structure can be constructed, one that will remain intact under both horizontal and vertical loadings and that will also resist vibrational and seismic loadings.

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1994

Jan 1, 1993

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1996

Jan 1, 1988