Search Documents

By Lawrence F. Johnsen, Felix Ferrer, Dino Tomasetti, Cassandra A. Wetzel

"A 17 story building was constructed at the Brooklyn Navy Yard on a site with a long history of development. Most recently the site supported a dewatering well and craneway to service two adjacent drydocks. The subsurface conditions generally consist of the following strata and approximate depths: miscellaneous fill and debris to 20 ft., organic soils to 35 ft., liquefiable sand to 45 ft., varved clay to 65 ft., glacial till to 95 ft. and gneiss bedrock.Hollow core bar piles replaced 18 in. diameter caissons on a 1.67:1 basis. The resulting service loads on the hollow bar piles were 600 kips compression, 21 kips lateral, 180 kips tension and 450 inch-kips moment. The top 30 feet of the hollow bar was cased with a 16 in. x 0.375 in. Grade 50 steel pipe. The piles were socketed 6 feet into bedrock. An extensive load testing program confirmed the axial and lateral load capacities. The paper will also discuss some adjustments to the installation procedure based on the load test program.PROJECTThe hollow bar piles were installed to support a 95,000 sf footprint, 17-story office building at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Brooklyn Navy Yard was first developed in the late 1700’s to build merchant vessels. The federal government purchased the old docks and adjoining 40 acres in 1801. The site was an active U. S. Naval Shipyard from 1806 to its decommissioning in 1966. At its peak in World War II it employed 70,000 people, 24 hours a day. Since 1966 the property has been converted to private manufacturing and commercial activity.The site is located between Dry Docks 2 and 3. The adjacent drydocks extend 40 to 43 feet below grade. The drydock walls are restrained by tierods extending back to deadman anchors. The site is also underlain by piles that were installed to support rail lines and a craneway. The building footprint also covered an 85 ft. wide, 70 ft. deep dewatering well which had a thick slab. The structural engineer for the project, ARUP, designed the building to span over the dewatering well.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSIn September 2014, Langan Engineering conducted a geotechnical engineering study for the project. Figure 1 provides a subsurface profile through the long axis of the site. The general soil profile was very erratic but generally consisted of miscellaneous fill and debris to 20 ft., organic soils to 35 ft., liquefiable sand to 45 ft., varved clay to 65 ft., glacial till to 95 ft. and gneiss bedrock. The fill contained numerous obstructions from the over 200 years of site development. The organic soils were mostly very weak and compressible organic silt. The depths and thicknesses of the varved clay, and sand varied"

Jan 1, 2017

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 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 Gilbert Chuah, Peter Middendorp, Joost Bakker, Soon-Hoe Chew

"The Rapid Load Testing (RLT) of foundation piles has been applied worldwide since 1984. Several International and national codes are available, such as the Japanese Code of Practice (2002), ASTM D7383-2010, German recommendation on Piling (2012) and Eurocode (2015). RLT methods like Statnamic and StatRapid are gaining popularity in Asia, Europe and North America. For checking the performance of piles, they are more economical, faster and environmentally friendly than Static Load Testing (SLT), while yielding good correlations with SLT results through an objective analysis method. To date (October 2016) hundreds of piles have been successfully tested by RLT method in Singapore. A number of these RLT tests were coupled with static load testing correlation tests, some of them with instrumentation for shaft load transferred. Examples of some correlation results for foundations installed in various geological formations in Singapore are presented in the paper. The findings from these results indicate that loading rate effects are negligible for Rapid Load Test results when foundations are socketed in competent non-cohesive soil layers and derive most of their capacity from these soil layers.INTRODUCTIONRapid Load Testing (RLT), by which a quasi-static load is applied to a foundation pile, is used increasingly as an alternative to Static Load Testing (SLT) for cast in-situ piles, such as drilled shafts or bored piles. It is recognized nowadays that the determination of the pile capacity with Dynamic Load Testing (DLT) through signal matching techniques such as CAPWAP, TNOWAVE and AllWave-DLT, yield a wide spread of results for cast in-situ piles (Stahlmann et. al, 2012), making it practically very difficult, if not impossible to calibrate the DLT results with SLT results. This spread is due to the empirical and subjective assumptions that are used to interpret the test data, especially for cast insitu piles (Holeyman et al. 2001, Viana da Fonseca in 2008, Herten et al, 2013). This is further complicated by the inhomogeneity of the concrete and variable cross-sections over the pile length for the cast in-situ piles."

Jan 1, 1900

By Slav Tchepak

The King's Wharf development is located in Sydney's Darling Harbour area. The site was originally used for industrial maritime purposes, which over the years has been reduced to accommodating leisure craft only. The site has been filled with various materials, resulting in fill materials varying from soils, to concrete and rock fill. A prestigious new residential development at the site required piles to found in Sydney sandstone that occurred at depths ranging from 1 to 27m. The selection of appropriate pile types is discussed, as are details relating to the design and construction of cast insitu Omega piles and CFA piles. A number of issues needed to be addressed relating to the piling, including the design of the piles, the potential for liquefaction of the fill material due to earthquakes, penetration of the piles through the fill materials, installation of the piles to a satisfactory positional tolerance and pile performance. A number of piles were dynamically tested to prove pile performance and these results are presented and compared with design expectations. The project was successfully completed on time and budget, indicating the selection of pile types in the difficult ground conditions to be appropriate.

Jan 1, 2000

By Harald Vogel, Johannes Lachenski, Friedemann Koetzel, Sebastian Schnell

In this paper, a digital subsoil approach, a work-in-progress, will be presented describing the transformation from a classical 2D to digital 3D thinking process in the design of geotechnical structures. Certain pitfalls as well as lessons learned are described, and the reader can understand that the digitalization process of the design of geotechnical structures is always a problem-focused approach by creating systems for certain processes rather than setting rules or regulations. Three project examples are presented. Two of the presented project examples feature a heterogeneous geology distribution and made it necessary for the design of the foundations to work with 3D subsoil and 3D calculation models. However, the digital 3D design process in the third project, an inner-city excavation pit, is driven by the complicated boundary conditions making it necessary to work in a parametric 3D design space. All projects have in common, that new processes had to be developed. The paper concludes with a flow chart describing the process of the elaborated digital subsoil approach.

May 1, 2022

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

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 Rudolph P. Frizzi

Structures supported on ACIP and DD piles perform successfully when quality control is maintained from the initial site subsurface investigation through pile design, bidding, and construction. The four stages of ACIP / DD pile construction are: preparation, augering the pile, grout / concrete placement, and reinforcement installation. During all four stages, careful observations and communication between the contractor and the owner's engineering inspection personnel are vital to successful pile completion. Automated monitoring equipment (AME) exists to supplement, but not replace, the field personnel's observations during the pile augering and grouting operations. Full-scale field load testing is done to verify the pile's geotechnical and structural design, and the contractor's pile installation means and methods, using several procedures including: conventional top loading, high-strain dynamic, rapid axial compression (i.e. Fundex PLT and Statnamic), and Osterberg Cell. Non-destructive sonic testing is performed to investigate the below-grade sectional properties of the completed pile; such methods include: low-strain impulse testing, and single-hole and cross-hole sonic logging. Post-construction observations are necessary to verify pile location and top properties prior to overlying cap construction.

Jan 1, 2005

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 Kazuyoshi Kamimura, Masaya Kawata

"It has been 30 years since the cement deep mixing (CDM) method developed in Japan. CDM method has been applied to many structures. While various technical improvements have been implemented in the meantime, the single-axial and double-axial technologies used at the time of its initial development are still prevalent.In response to the recent trend of reducing construction costs, we developed a triple-axial CDM method called the “Lemni 2/3 Method.” This method uses two lemniscate motions caused by newly developed auxiliary stirring devices and employs a double-axial injection method in which the cement slurry injection takes place only from the outer two axes. In this way, it is possible to create a stabilized body around the three axes. Moreover, this method does not require substantial equipment investment as conventional construction machine and facilities can be used without modification and large volume work is possible.With these technologies, this method can achieve a substantial reduction in the construction period and cost, while ensuring the same level of improvement quality as conventional methods. As a result, this method is being applied to ground improvement work in a variety of places.Lemni 2/3 Method was first put to practical use in 2004. Since then, the method has been used for ten projects. In this paper, we show some application examples of this method.OUTLINE OF TRIPLE-AXIAL CDM METHOD (LEMNI 2/3 METHOD)In the newly developed CDM method (Lemni 2/3 Method), work efficiency is improved by employing triple-axial stirring blades instead of the conventional single- or double-axial type. Existing conventional construction facilities for double-axial type can be used with only minor equipment additions, because the cement slurry injection takes place only from the outer two axes.Construction Machine and Construction MethodThe combination of major construction machines of the Lemni 2/3 Method differs little from the standard specifications of the double-axial type as shown in Fig. 1. Existing work control equipment can be used without modification, which is further evidence of the simplicity, convenience, and economy of the new method. The Fig. 2 photo shows a full view of the construction machine, and the Fig. 3 photo shows the stirring blades and the auxiliary stirring devices. The work procedure for the Lemni 2/3 Method is shown in Fig. 4."

Jan 1, 2015

By Matthias Pulsfort, Hanna Nissen, Markus Herten

An insufficient integrity of cast in-situ bored piles can lead to a reduction of the load bearing capacity and may require cost intensive repairs. Reasons for an insufficient pile integrity are linked to the construction process, mainly to poor concrete quality leading to bleeding and segregation of the fresh concrete. Moreover, the entrapment of soil and an insufficient concrete cover can pose a problem. Knowledge about the time-dependent development of the fresh concrete pressure during the construction process of bored piles is needed for a better understanding of the underlying processes causing these defects. Therefore, pressure measurements were carried out on different construction sites with pressure cells being installed at different depths along the reinforcement cage. The measurements revealed the maximum pressure acting on the surrounding soil. The achievement is a better understanding of the effects of the concrete placement specifically and the construction process in general on the surrounding soil to reduce the risk of pile imperfections.

Sep 8, 2021

By Terrence M. Carroll, Chu E. Ho

"A pile installation and load testing program on driven tapered piles was undertaken at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City for the extension of the existing Terminal 4. As part of the program, dynamic testing by means of the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) was performed on several preliminary test piles as well as production piles. The results of the dynamic tests and subsequent static load tests were reviewed to develop an understanding of the pile-soil response of a tapered pile during driving and after setup. Pile setup occurred as a result of increase in shaft resistance with virtually no increase in toe resistance. More than 150 tons of additional capacity was gained after the setup time.The capacities measured during driving from the PDA are typically used as the basis for determining the pile driving set criteria, with the required initial driving capacities determined largely by the contractor’s experience. An improved appreciation of the setup phenomenon is required to better refine the driving criteria at the end of initial driving such that the required ultimate capacities can be obtained, with reasonable confidence, after a period of setup.This paper presents interpretation of pile-soil behavior from Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP) analyses and discusses the mechanism of increased capacity as a result of setup effects. Time-dependent capacity gain as a result of setup effects should be based on the extrapolation of the shaft resistance component rather than the total pile capacity as is commonly practiced. Prediction of pile performance using this approach was in good agreement with observed static and dynamic load test results.IntroductionTapered piles have been adopted for various projects at John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFKIA) since the late 1940’s. Initially timber piles were used exclusively, with steel Monotube piles being used from at least the 1980’s (Horvath and Trochalides, 2004). The steel Tapertube pile was developed in the mid-1990’s and has commonly been used in recent construction (Brusey and Yin, 2008). The Tapertube piles used for this project consisted of a 25 foot long tapered section that was 8 inches in diameter at the tip and 18 inches in diameter at the top. An 18 inch diameter straight pipe was welded above the tapered section."

Jan 1, 2015

By EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group

Concrete technology continues to advance rapidly and modern mixes with five components – cement, additions, aggregates, (chemical) admixtures and water – often have characteristics which differ significantly from the older three component mixes – cement, aggregates and water. Recent trends have favoured higher strength classes and lower water/cement ratios, resulting in greater dependence on admixtures to compensate for reduced workability and to meet the (often competing) demands for workability in the fresh state and setting time. The application of testing methods which reflect the true rheological properties of the concrete has not developed at the same rate as the mixes themselves and it is still not uncommon for the slump or flow table test to be used as the only acceptance test for fresh concrete.A joint review of problems in bored piles (drilled shafts) and diaphragm walls cast using tremie methods by both the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and the Deep Foundations Institute in the United States (DFI) identified a common issue. The review determined that many of the problems were caused by (or in part due to) the use of inadequate concrete mixes with inadequate workability, or insufficient stability or robustness of the mixes. It further identified the primary causes as inadequate concrete specifications and inadequate testing procedures. The consequences of these problems are often significant and it has been recognised that spending more time and money on getting the concrete right is the most cost effective approach.A joint Concrete Task Group was set up by EFFC and DFI in 2014 to look at this issue and this guide is the output from that Task Group. A research and development project, funded by the Sponsors of this guide, is being carried out by the Technical University of Munich in conjunction with the Missouri University of Science and Technology. This project includes desk studies, laboratory testing, and onsite testing at worksites in Europe and the US. The research work will be completed during 2016.

Jan 1, 2016

By K. Rainer Massarsch

"Part 1 of 2 By K. Rainer Massarsch, Geo Engineering AB, Stockholm, SwedenINTRODUCTIONConstruction activities, such as driving of piles and sheet piles, soil compaction or excavation generate noise and vibrations. In populated areas these can have a negative impact on the environment, disturb inhabitants and, under unfavorable conditions, cause damage to buildings and installations. This condition is aggravated by the growing public awareness of environmental issues and the increasing use of vibration-sensitive electronic equipment and machinery in industry. In many countries, environmental regulations are enforced more stringently and limit or even prohibit the use of impact or vibratory hammers. This development has restricted the use of cost-effective foundation methods, such as driven and vibrated piles and sheet piles.Vibration problems are gaining importance in many European countries and extensive research has been performed during the past decade, especially with respect to traffic vibrations (Massarsch, 2004). Significant progress has been made owing to the availability of high-quality field measurements and an improved theoretical understanding of how vibrations are generated and transmitted through soil layers. These findings can also be applied to vibration problems associated with construction activities. However, this information is not yet appreciated by the geotechnical profession and even less by the construction industry.This paper discusses the effects of ground vibrations on the surrounding soil and on buildings, with particular emphasis on the different mechanisms of damage that may occur. Guidance is given on the elements which should be taken into account in an assessment of risks associated with piling projects. A simplified method is proposed for assessing the risk of settlements or strength loss in soil deposits. Limiting vibration levels are presented, based on the Swedish standard, which can be used to assess the risk of damage to buildings. Aconcept to predict ground vibrations caused by pile driving and the mechanisms which control the propagation of ground vibrations, will be presented in the second part of this paper."

Jan 1, 2004

By Martin B. Hudson, Andrew K. Cho, Rolff B. Knobel, Les R. Chernauskas, Jonathan L. Ernst

ABSTRACT The Bruce Museum, located in Greenwich, Connecticut, is home to an extensive display of art and natural history exhibitions. A large addition was designed to be constructed adjacent to the museum requiring new spread footings to be installed up to 16.5 feet below the existing foundations. The soil conditions at the site consist of highly variable sand and gravel overlying weathered rock and sound bedrock. The Contract Documents called for traditional foundation underpinning. Traditional underpinning techniques, however, presented two major challenges on this Project; (1) deep underpinning pits would be required involving multiple levels and staging with tieback support and (2) the highly variable soil and bedrock composition and elevations presented uncertainty in the design and construction of the pits. In lieu of traditional underpinning, Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc. (GTR) proposed an “active” soil nail underpinning system. A major reason that the soil nail underpinning option was feasible, related to the fact that the soil nails and facing could be installed slightly in front of the existing footings rather than directly underneath the existing footings. The soil nail wall design involved one to four rows of soil nails with nail positions and wall depth able to be adjusted “on the fly” as excavation progressed depending on the field conditions encountered. To create the “active system,” the soil nails were pre-loaded to mitigate wall deformations that would be associated with a standard passive soil nail wall design. To evaluate the performance of the active soil nail wall and confirm design assumptions, an extensive automated monitoring, on-site testing and inspection program was proposed and executed by GTR to monitor deformations of the wall and the museum in real-time, evaluate and confirm bedrock and soil bond stresses and ensure that each soil nail was pre-loaded and locked off. Careful analysis, planning, and use of the observational method illustrates the importance of collaboration between design and construction personnel and applying engineering judgement throughout construction. The use of the observational method includes the potential for modifying design based on conditions observed. This paper presents a unique case study of the “active” soil nail underpinning system to support and protect sensitive structures, close collaboration between design and construction facilitated by real-time deformation monitoring, and its successful application as a safe and cost-effective alternative to traditional underpinning.

Oct 1, 2022

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 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 Bengt H. Fellenius

.1.1 Prior to commencement of pile installation operation, submit to [Engineer] for [approval] [review], details of equipment for installation of piles. SPEC NOTE: The information requested in 3.1 .1.2 is necessary as input to a detailed wave equation analysis of the pile driving. .1.2 For impact hammers, give manufacturer's name, type, maximum rated energy and rated energy per blow at normal working rate during easy and at termination driving, mass of striking parts of hammer, mass of driving cap, and type and elastic properties of hammer cushion. .1.3 For non-impact methods of installation, such as drilling, jacking, jetting, use of vibratory hammers, or other means, give full details of characteristics necessary to evaluate performance. .2 Impact Hammer SPEC NOTE: Do not exclude a hammer type unless for very specific reason. .2.1 [Drop hammers will not be permitted.] [Diesel hammers will not be permitted.] For final driving of [TYPE] piles, provide a hammer capable of delivering to the pile a non-erratic impact stress not smaller than [VALUE] Pascal and transferring a non-erratic energy not smaller than [VALUE] Joules per blow to the pile head at normal working rate.

Jan 1, 1991