Search Documents

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"INTRODUCTIONIn partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects. The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect project-specific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project. 1. SCOPE The work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, and testing helical piles used to support foundation loads (compression, tension and lateral), and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment and materials necessary to install the required piles. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows: • The Owner is the property owner. • The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to design and oversee the overall project. • The pile designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical piles. • Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical piles, and possibly tasks associated with the project. It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development. The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of pile performance if required by the Owner or the pile designer to confirm performance of the piles subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional piles if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2015

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect projectspecific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project.1. SCOPEThe work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, post-tensioning and testing helical anchors used to support tension loads, and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to accomplish the work. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows:• The Owner is the property owner.• The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to execute project tasks required for the successful design and construction of the overall project. Tasks could include construction management, design, oversight, etc.• The anchor designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical anchors.• Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical anchors, and possibly other tasks associated with the project.It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development.The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of anchor performance if required by the Owner or the anchor designer to confirm performance of the anchors subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional anchors if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2016

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 Diane Reid, Antonio Marinucci, Robin Mao

Super Cells are an innovative, open-shaped bi-directional static load testing device used to promote concrete flow during placement while utilizing greater cross-sectional area of the pile to achieve large applied axial loads at relatively low hydraulic pressures (≤ 250 bar). This paper describes the results of multi-level load testing performed on a sacrificial drilled shaft that was 3.8 m (12.7 ft) in diameter and 110.6 m (363 ft) in length for the Jiaxing-Shaoxing River Crossing Bridge that spans Hangzhou Bay in Shaoxing, China. The test shaft was instrumented with embedded strain gauges and telltale rods along with displacement transducers at the top of the pile to measure the load-induced displacements along the length of the shaft. Load testing was performed twice using a Super Cell placed near the tip of the shaft, prior and subsequent to tip post-grouting, and then again using a Super Cell placed higher in the shaft. The axial resistance for the tested conventional drilled shaft was more than 5 times greater than the estimated axial resistance. In addition, the axial resistance after tip post-grouting (347,100 kN (39,033 ton)) was about 5.3% greater than the ungrouted axial resistance (329,600 kN (37,050 ton)). INTRODUCTION During the past few decades, the magnitude of axial, lateral, and flexural loading has considerably increased due to updated design codes, larger superstructures, and the manner in which extreme event loading (e.g. seismic and scour) is incorporated into design. The diameter and depths to which bored piles or drilled shafts are constructed have increased considerably during the last three decades due to the advancements in equipment technology and capabilities. In addition, monoshaft foundations have become increasingly used, as one large drilled shaft is able to replace a group of smaller diameter piles connected by a cap. Correspondingly, adequate strata, for both side and end resistance, must be discovered/determined as well as achievable to be able to construct the required foundations to support the greater design demands. As design demands have increased, the need to ensure integrity, quality, and performance of a constructed drilled shaft has become ever more crucial. Load tests are essential to validate design assumptions of side and end resistances, to assess the behavior and load transfer characteristics of the constructed drilled shafts, and to evaluate construction methods. Load tests utilizing a bi-directional static load testing (BDSLT) device can achieve considerably large applied axial loads and can be performed more economically, in less time, and in a much safer manner than conventional top-down static load testing methods.

Jan 1, 2019

By Abolfazl Eslami, Sara Heidarie Golafzani

CPT-based methods considered as complementary tools for static analyses outperform other axial pile bearing capacity predictive methods. Considering soil spatial variability and minor errors associated with procedure and operator, CPT-base methods mitigate the effect of latent uncertainties in pile design. These methods were developed based on different databases and purposes. Hence, several statistical and probabilistic attributes were defined and implemented to assess the predictive CPT-based methods’ performance via CPT and pile databases in terms of the model parameter. These features make a comparison among methods in terms of precision, accuracy, and efficiency. Furthermore, CPT-based methods can be subjected to scrutiny over their backgrounds and how they were developed via reliability analysis. In this regard, a database of sixty-two driven piles and their adjacent CPT soundings were gathered, and six commonly applied CPT-based methods were examined according to criteria other than prevailing statistical and probabilistic ones, including; (a) input variables, (b) soil behavior classification (SBC) (c) model assumption (d) Influence zone, and (e) axial loading direction. According to these introduced criteria, CPTbased methods were classified and appraised via efficiency ratio. Eventually, these reliability-based, statistical, and probabilistic criteria evaluate the understudied methods performance for the investigated compiled database and help designers select consciously appropriate predictive methods according to the site conditions.

Sep 8, 2021

By Michal Topolnicki

"Discussed is the use of wet Deep Soil Mixing, generally executed with single mixing tools 0.8 to 1.6m in diameter, employed in the foundation of viaduct supports. The applications involve economical patterns of ground improvement, covering in average about 40% of the foundation area or less, which contribute to the competitiveness of DSM solutions when compared to traditional piling. The focus is on selected aspects of the geotechnical design, applicable for geo-composite systems in which the interaction between the stabilised and the native soil should also be considered. Evaluation of settlement can be carried out with simplified methods, accounting for punching effects, or with more advanced FE models in case foundation tilt or differential settlements become important. Potential bending of DSM columns should be considered when evaluating column stresses, especially when dealing with deep deposits of soft soil and/or foundations loaded with overturning moments and/or high horizontal forces. Statistical evaluation of UCS data using lognormal distribution is recommended, and a new classification system for DSM application is proposed. Field investigations and monitoring data from completed projects are also presented.INTRODUCTIONThe first applications of wet Deep Soil Mixing in foundation of road viaducts constructed across and along the newly built A2-highway in Poland took place in 2002. Following detailed analyses, it was concluded that 39 viaducts, originally designed to rest upon large diameter piles in order to reduce excessive settlement of individual supports, could also be founded directly on the ground improved with DSM columns, fulfilling all relevant requirements of serviceability and ultimate limit states (SLS and ULS, respectively). It was also noticed that shorter construction times and lower costs of ground improvement with DSM contributed to substantial economical savings as compared to classical piling. Since then, more than 250 road and railway viaducts have been successfully founded on DSM treated ground in Poland, and wet soil mixing is now seen as a reliable and widely accepted technology for this purpose. These applications, together with a parallel use of wet DSM for foundation of buildings, industrial halls and wind turbines, have drawn international attention to the state of practice of wet DSM in Poland for foundation of engineering objects. What follows is an attempt to summarise experience gained during planning and execution of DSM works for foundation of the majority of road and railway viaducts constructed in the last 13 years, with emphasis on selected design aspects and evaluation of collected data and observed performance.The design process of DSM treatment is iterative, as described e.g. in Annex B of EN 14679, and typically involves two main steps, i.e., the selection of the design strength of cemented soil, called soil-mix design, and the adoption of suitable column pattern, referred to as geotechnical design. Soil-mix design was initially based on purposely arranged simple laboratory tests, involving mixing of soil specimen with different cement types and dosages and subsequent strength testing. However, with a growing number of completed projects the accumulated field strength data of different stabilised soils have been more and more frequently used, reducing the need for preceding laboratory testing of soil-mix to special projects only. Information on cement factors utilised in Poland and the range of recommended compressive strengths for different stabilised soils, as well as on mixing tools and characteristics of the wet method applied, can be found in Topolnicki (2008). Consequently, soil-mix design is not further discussed herein. Selected aspects of the geotechnical design are the main focus."

Jan 1, 2015

By Richard Hanke, Franz-Werner Gerressen

"The twin decked Alaskan Way Viaduct is a passage to Seattle’s downtown waterfront and of great economic importance to the city. In 2001, the Nisqually earthquake damaged the viaduct and led to the redevelopment of this corridor. The project includes two miles of 57.5 ft diameter bored tunnel beneath downtown Seattle and a stretch of new highway and overpass bridges at the southern tunnel entrance. State-of-the-Art special foundation equipment was mobilized for the project to perform a broad range of geotechnical construction. Applications included soil mixing and jet grouting for confinement cells around new bridge foundations, large diameter secant pile walls for the Tunnel Boring Machine launch portal along with an extensive jet grouting regime for ground improvements within the tunnel alignment. This paper will study the evolution and use of advanced special geotechnical construction equipment and describe its application at the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project.INTRODUCTIONThe evolution of geotechnical construction equipment continues through innovative applications and continued modification or enhancement of machinery. Similarly and in parallel, market expectations continually demand more in terms of construction speed and performance. Together, market demands and contractor innovation have led way to the development of specialty geotechnical construction equipment with capabilities previously not seen feasible or possible. Several examples of this scenario have recently developed during design and construction of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project.The Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project is a joint project between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle. Three build alternatives were under consideration for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct: the Bored Tunnel Alternative, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Alternative, and the Elevated Structure Alternative. Ultimately, the bored tunnel option was selected as the best value approach. The project includes two miles of 57.5 ft diameter bored tunnel beneath downtown Seattle and a stretch of new highway and overpass bridges at the southern tunnel entrance. Several other associated improvements tie into this project that will ultimately lead to the complete demolition of the viaduct and redevelopment of Seattle’s waterfront."

Jan 1, 2015

By Manuel M. Reyes, Thuraisamy Thavaraj, Alex Sy

"The new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bridge features a single tower self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge. During construction of the SAS bridge, a temporary bridge was used to support the box girders until erection of suspension cables was completed. The transfer of deck load from the temporary bridge to the suspension cables was achieved in November 2012 and the SAS bridge has become the largest of its kind in the world. The new bridge will be in service in Fall 2013.Large diameter driven steel pipe piles were used for the temporary bridge foundations at Towers D, F and G located in San Francisco Bay. At Tower D, the large diameter steel pipe piles were driven through thin overburden into bedrock using a large Menck MHU500T hammer with a rated energy of 550 kJ. As there was no precedence in driving open-ended pipe piles into the Franciscan Formation bedrock, challenges were faced with uncertainties in drivability, driving stresses, pile embedment in bedrock and pile capacity. These uncertainties were addressed by incorporating additional measures into the pile design, and by the use of dynamic pile monitoring during initial driving and re-strike. Pile relaxation was observed during pile installation.At Towers F and G, setup effect was a key issue for the piles driven into the deep soft marine sediments. Drivability analyses were conducted to predict pile run, driving stresses, selection of hammer and refusal criteria. The piles were dynamically monitored during driving to estimate pile capacities. Due to the set-up effect in the Bay Mud, the piles gained up to 3.3 times the initial capacity during the re-strike and were in excess of the design capacity.This paper presents details of the design, construction, testing and performance of the driven pipe piles at temporary Towers D, F and G. Settlement data of the temporary tower foundations while in service confirmed the satisfactory performance of the pile foundations.INTRODUCTIONThe new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge features a single tower self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge, the largest of its kind in the world. The new east span replaces the existing double-deck steel bridge built in the mid-thirties. A span of the existing bridge had collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake but was repaired. Construction of the new east span commenced in 2008 and is expected to be completed for the Labour Day opening in 2013. Figure 1 shows a schematic (looking north) of the new bridge with its 160 m high main tower T1 in the middle, and Piers W2 and E2 at the west and east ends, respectively. The west and east spans of the SAS bridge are 180 m and 385 m, respectively.During construction of the SAS bridge, a temporary bridge, complete with towers and trusses, was used to support the box girders of the new permanent bridge until the loads from the box girders were transferred through suspension cables to the permanent bridge. The transfer of deck load from the temporary bridge to the main cable was completed in November 2012."

Jan 1, 2015

This manual provides basic practical instruction on the inspection of driven piles. It covers the essential components of pile driving, such as the pile driving hammer, hammer accessories, the pile and soil, and frequently encountered test methods in an uncomplicated, yet knowledgeable, and practical manner. Insight is given into the methods of installing the foundation, dealing with the cranes which do the lifting, the hammers which do the driving, the leads that guide the hammer and pile, the compressors which provide the external power when required, and finally prevalent analysis tools and testing instrumentation and procedures which enable you, the Inspector, to do your job. This DFI Inspector's Manual for Pile Foundations will help the Pile Inspector who has limited knowledge of pile foundations. Perhaps this Inspector has been pressed into service at a moments notice; a few helpful hints and suggestions to him are desperately needed and he can look here for the basics. It is also useful for the experienced Pile Inspector as a reference guide. However, this manual is not a detailed check list of every possible scenario and detail which could ever be encountered. There are other sources available which give more detailed descriptions (and should be consulted by the Inspector when appropriate; a list of this additional reference material is provided and suggestions made in appropriate chapters of this text). The current manual is more a brief "textbook overview" with some of the more important aspects given at least some emphasis so that the Inspector has some direction and hopefully helps to produce a safe, yet economical, foundation.

Jan 1, 1997

By S. E. Stallibrass, A. M. McNamara, J. P. Panchal, Leonardo M. LaLicata

Urban development in congested cities requires a better exploitation of the available surface, leading to taller structures. These buildings are usually founded on piles that have to be increased in dimension to accommodate the larger loads. Consequently, both the cost and the carbon footprint of the pile foundations rises. An alternative option is to improve pile performance by enhancing shaft capacity, which is commonly the most important factor in determining the ultimate capacity of a pile constructed in a clay soil subjected to axial load. For piles in stiff clays, such as London Clay, the soil/pile friction may be increased by profiling the side walls of a bored cast in situ pile with small discrete “impressions” such that the latter form nodules on the shaft of the concreted pile. The results from centrifuge and full scale field tests showed that the impression pile represents a viable technology to enhance the shaft capacity as they provide an increase in capacity of 40%. Alternatively, reduced length impression pile can be used. This paper explores the implications of the impression pile technology on the potential carbon saving.

May 1, 2022

Jan 1, 1997

By Brandon Smith, William Bohlen

Riverbank erosion along the Brazos River has modified the structural support conditions for an existing bridge structure in Southeast Texas. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was completed in 1992 along Highway 99, a key corridor for the Houston area. Foundation support conditions have been altered due to natural, ongoing river morphology for three bents on the affected riverbank. Recent events include three storms within a three-year period that each exceeded the 500-year return probability. This resulted in accelerated erosion along the northern riverbank. Over forty vertical feet of soil has been removed in some locations. Drilled shaft foundations are now functioning as columns. This review considers the behavior of columns and deep foundation elements due to the modified support conditions. The review ultimately presents a rational methodology for the review of the present and anticipated future bridge configuration with respect to current strength, service, and extreme event limits, with corresponding safety factors for the design. Introduction and Background The Fort Bend Grand Parkway Toll Road Authority (Owner) oversees the State Highway 99 Judge Jodie Stavinoha Bridge over the Brazos River. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was originally designed with four southern approach spans of 115 feet; a three-span continuous river crossing with span lengths of 195 feet-235 feet-195 feet; and a single northern approach span of 115 feet. Figure 1 provides an overview of the northern portion of the bridge. Table 1 provides a summary of the original bridge substructure configuration. When the bridge was completed, the centerline of the Brazos River was located at midpsan of the main span and the northern high bank was originally located at Bent 7. Erosion process has forced the northern high bank to Abutment 9 (also called Bent 9), and the river centerline during normal flow conditions is located south of Bent 8. The overall estimated river excursion at present day is approximately 270 feet to the north from its original location. An erosion wall that was installed in 2017 limits further erosion of the north river bank within the 300-foot width of the roadway corridor right-of-way. This study was developed to better understand the existing conditions, and to forecast the need, nature, and criteria for potential future improvements.

Jan 1, 2019

By Jesús E. Gómez

Verification and production testing of soil nails requires debonding the upper section of the soil nail to isolate the portion of the soil nail intended for testing within a specific ground type. In pre-drilled soil nails, debonding can be accomplished relatively easily because the bar can be fitted with a debonding sheath before its installation. However, debonding of hollow core bar soil nails requires special procedures to achieve the intended result. This paper is a summary of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hollow Bar Soil Nail (HBSN) Test Program, which is described in detail in FHWA-CFL/TD-10-001. The program was developed to establish a suitable debonding procedure to test hollow core bars in soil nailing applications, and to initiate a database on typical bond values of HBSNs. The investigation showed that it is possible to debond hollow core bars for testing. It was also found that hollow core bars installed in granular soils may present ultimate bond values that are significantly higher than those typically used for design of conventional pre-drilled soil nails.

Jan 1, 2011

By George J. Tamara

The urban environment presents special challenges for the design and construction of earth retention systems. Complications arising from difficult subsurface conditions are compounded by the presence of urban infrastructure and existing and prior construction. The proximity of adjacent structures as well as intense prior use can cause special concerns including the potential for archeological artifacts or contaminated ground or ground water. Utilities and structures may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of ground movement, dewatering and vibrations. Difficulty of access, congestion and limited work areas may severely restrict means and methods of construction. Dewatering may be limited or prohibited because of concerns for disposal of clean or contaminated water, depletion of aquifers, drawing of contaminants to the site or dewatering induced settlements.

Jan 1, 2003

By Hayel M. El-Naggar, Marawan M. Shahien

"Large capacity piles are important type of foundation elements that are needed in case of high column loads such as in tall buildings with large span between columns. In many projects, especially if the designer uses the concept of one pile supporting one column (Hamza, 2003a & b). The axial capacity of the large bored deep foundations can be further increased by grouting the shaft skin and the base of the pile. The increase in the capacity of the piles due to grouting can be tremendous. Thus grouting appears as an ideal solution for achieving more reliable foundation and greater savings (Littlechild et al., 2000). A data base of pile load tests of instrumented grouted piles is under development in a major study aiming to propose a simple method to estimate the axial capacity of large bored grouted piles. The data base include pile load tests from projects constructed in Egypt and abroad. The main goal of this paper is to analyze pile load test(s) from one project. The tested deep foundations included 1.2 m diameter and 1.5 m diameter piles and a barrette of size 1.0mx2.8m. The instrumentation of the tested piles and barrette allowed for the separation of skin friction and base contributions to the axial load. Further, the contribution of the skin friction of every layer along the pile shaft could be identified. The results of the analysis clarified how base and shaft grouting increased the axial capacity of the pile and decreased the settlements for certain load level compared to conventional un-grouted piles installed under similar conditions.INTRODUCTIONIn recent years, significant research has been carried out to develop new techniques which are suitable to withstand problems in major projects such as high applied loads in high rise building, large spans structures projects and structures designed using the concept one pile supporting one column (Hamza, 2003a & b). Base and shaft grouting of piles are one of these new techniques which aim at decreasing the settlements and increasing the capacity of the pile under axial load that became major requirements in large projects (Stocker, 1983; Mullins et al., 2001; and Hamza, 2015).Base grouting consists of injection grout under pressure at the base of the pile after the concrete is sufficiently hard. Field evidences showed that the ultimate end bearing of base-grouted piles could be as high as 1.5 that of non-base-grouted bored piles (Suckling and Eager, 2001). Further, field evidences was provided by Shahien and El-Naggar (2015) that showed an increase in end bearing resistance due to base grouting reached to 2 to 3 times that of non-base-grouted bored pile. On the other hand, shaft-grouting causes increase in the soil density in the zone which had been disturbed by the pile construction and thereby improves the shaft resistance of the pile. Field measurements by Gouvenot and Gabaix (1975), Stocker (1983), Robson and Wahby (1994), Troughton and Stocker (1996), Byrne et al. (1998), Joer and Randolph (1998), Hamza and Leoni (1998), Littlechild et al. (2000), Hamza and Ibrahim (2002), Hamza (2003 a&b), Hamza (2015) and Shahien and El-Naggar (2015) showed that the shaft resistance of grouted piles could be nearly 1.5 to 5 times that of non-grouted piles."

Jan 1, 2017

By Marc Raithel, Sven Schröer, Lilma Schimmel, Dimiter Alexiew

"The Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC) deep foundation system for embankments and dikes on soft soils was introduced some 20 years ago and is now considered State-of-the-art in Germany, Europe and, step by step, worldwide. The GECs consist of compacted non-cohesive granular fill similar e.g. to common gravel columns with one decisive difference: they are confined in a high-strength, high-modulus, flexible geotextile “cylinder” (encasement). This engineered element with parameters being adaptable in a wide range provides a decisive tool to control and optimize the behavior of the GEC foundation system. Consequently, the GECs work properly even in extremely soft soils, and a wide range of fills inclusive of sands can be used. In the meantime vast design and technological experience is available and codified design methods exist. Initially the paper briefly describes the general idea, the basics and specifics of design, construction technology, materials, restrictions and optimal application areas. Then it focuses on three informative case studies. They are briefly presented focusing for brevity only on the most important facts and experience inclusive of the most meaningful data of short- and long-term measurement programs.INTRODUCTIONWhen considering embankments on soft soils, generally two groups of solutions exist:Unsupported embankments; there are four main options:a) build up embankment extremely slowly waiting for sufficient consolidation after every stage;b) replace the soft soil partially or totally;c) install a high-strength basal reinforcement providing overall and local stability and allowing much faster embankment construction;d) combine c) with strip drains to accelerate consolidation and thus the construction process additionally (Fig. 1, left).Today, practically only option ""d"" is of practical relevance. Despite all the pros and cons, the common attribute of all non-supported options is that local and overall stability (Ultimate Limit State-ULS) can be achieved and controlled, but not the short- and long-term settlements (Serviceability Limit State-SLS). The latter can be significant, e.g. up to 30% of the nominal planned embankment height. Supported embankments (Fig. 1, right): the main common idea is to over-bridge the soft soil layers by supporting vertical elements of different types: rigid piles, trench walls etc. or by ""softer"" solutions of different column types (compacted, cemented, mixed-in-place etc.). Herein the borderlines between “piles”, ""pile-similar elements"" and ""soil improvement” are fluent and depend on country, traditions, codes etc. The common attribute of the “supported” schemes is a minimized settlement. Twenty years ago a new specific solution was launched: the Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC), which is discussed in more detail below."

Jan 1, 2017

By Chu E. Ho, Paul Napoli

This paper presents the performance of nineteen open-ended steel pipe piles driven through highly variable overburden soils into glacial till and schist bedrock. The piles were 16 inches in diameter and 0.656 inches thick, with yield strength of 50 ksi. The piles were designed for a service capacity of 250 kips and were driven to achieve an ultimate geotechnical capacity of at least 500 kips. Due to the large variation in the ground conditions, installed pile lengths ranged from 25 to 66 feet. Some piles were driven to refusal on the bedrock while others were terminated at final driving resistance of 2 to 7 blows/in. Two piles were suspected to be plugged during driving while others did not. Each pile was instrumented with strain gages and accelerometers near the pile top, and observed using a Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) to provide preliminary guidance on pile capacity achieved at end of initial drive (EOID). The influence of plugged and unplugged pile toe conditions on the interpretation of pile capacity was investigated using Case Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP). Characteristics of driving energy, compressive and tensile stresses developed in the steel pipe piles, and the resulting pile deformation behavior are discussed. INTRODUCTION The Hunters Point South redevelopment in Long Island City, Queens is one of New York City’s major efforts to transform former manufacturing zones into mixed developments for the middle-income community. The site is located along the eastern shoreline of the East River and Newtown Creek. The development included low to high-rise residential buildings, a public school and retail structures. Open spaces were created along the East River and Newtown Creek waterfronts in the form of a continuous park providing for recreational and community related activities. Waterfront structures included small park buildings, walkways and viewing platforms with the shoreline protected by revetments as part of the City’s flood mitigation strategy. The project was implemented in two phases, with completion of construction for Phase 1 in 2013 and Phase 2 in 2019. Based on available historical information, extensive reclamation took place between 1855 and 1898. After 1951, changes to the shoreline were made along the East River, including the removal of reclaimed land along the northern portion of the project site to allow for docking facilities. By 1977, these facilities had been demolished and backfilled to form the current shoreline configuration. The present site was temporarily used as a parking lot with stockpiles of fill mixed with construction demolition rubble, rip-rap and boulders of varying heights across the site. The existing ground surface varied significantly up to approximately 25 feet difference in elevation. The stockpiles were removed and the site was re-graded during final development of the project. This paper discusses the foundation design challenges due to the loose overburden soils and potential obstructions within the fill material, in particular, the issues relating to installation of open-ended steel pipe piles through the ground conditions encountered on site.

Jan 1, 2019

By John Erikson, Alan J. Lutenegger, Nicholas Williams

"In order to evaluate the level of disturbance produced in clays during installation, a series of single-helix and multi-helix anchors were installed at a test site consisting of a stiff overconsolidated clay crust overlying softer near normally consolidated clay. Field vane tests were then conducted over the top of the helical plates at various depths to determine the undrained shear strength after installation and were compared with undrained shear strength measured in adjacent undisturbed ground. The tests represent the first time that the degree of installation disturbance has been evaluated directly and show that even with perfect installation practice the clay is disturbed as a result of rotation of the helices during installation. The results show that the soil is not completely remolded but that the strength is below the peak undrained strength of the adjacent undisturbed ground. Measurement of the installation torque and the rate of advance are used to define an “Installation Disturbance Factor” which may help to evaluate the quality of the installation by the Contractor and degree of soil disturbance. INTRODUCTIONAn important consideration in the design of Helical Anchors is the degree of disturbance to the soil during installation. This may be especially important for saturated fine-grained soils where the disturbance from installation may produce a reduction of the undrained shear strength. Even though this was recognized as early as 1950 by Skempton, soil disturbance is often ignored by engineers using current design procedures. Field investigations were performed to obtain both directs and indirect evaluation of the degree of disturbance produced by the installation of single-helix and multi-helix anchors in clay and the influence of disturbance on behavior. The investigations involved measurement of torque and advance during installation, load tests performed to determine load-displacement behavior and ultimate capacity and field vane tests performed over the helical anchors to evaluate changes in undrained shear strength as compared to adjacent undisturbed ground. The characteristics of the site and details of the installation are presented. Results of the field vane tests are shown for a number of helical anchor installations and results of load tests are presented. The results indicate that a reduction should be made to the undisturbed undrained shear strength for design and that the reduction may be related to the Sensitivity of the clay and quality of installation."

Jan 1, 2017

By Kenneth R. Chadwick, Thomas J. Tuozzolo, Terence P. Holman

"Micropiles are often installed to retrofit existing foundations that experience distortion and to underpin structures prior to future construction. The Dublin Road Pump Station project is an example of retrofitting due to a basal failure during construction that compromised the bearing capacity of the soils. A completed pump station settled and had to be restored to its original position, and work could not proceed until a new support system for the partially completed wet well could be designed and installed. The project involved the construction of three below-grade structures for a new pump station in a growing area of Jackson Township, N.J. The general contractor constructed three pump station structures consisting of a pump chamber, wet well and an inlet chamber in early 2006.The geologic conditions beneath the project site (Figure 1) consisted of loose/soft to medium dense/stiff sand, silt and clay to a depth of 40 ft below ground surface, underlain by medium dense to dense glauconitic silty fi ne sand. When the general contractor was constructing the wet well, which involved an internally supported sheet pile excavation 32 ft below the ground surface and 28 ft below the static groundwater level, basal failure, boils and ground loss occurred. Driven piles were installed to support the wet well structure, but additional ground loss was observed within and outside the sheet pile excavation, followed by settlement of the adjacent pump chamber structure. Post-failure investigations were conducted by Mueser Rutledge Consulting Engineers, N.Y. (MRCE), a geotechnical and foundation engineering consultant. Their investigation concluded that the ground losses around the pump station structures had compromised the supportive capabilities of the natural subsoils.The owner engaged Moretrench, a geotechnical specialty contractor, to work with MRCE to develop a constructible solution to support the pump station structures in general and to restore the pump chamber to its original position. Knowing that ground loss had already occurred as a function of the initial basal heave and subsequent pile driving, the team selected micropiles as the preferred foundation element, primarily due to their flexibility in bypassing these disturbed zones and generating capacity as a function of grouting volume and pressure. Drilled piles were also recommended due to concerns about causing additional settlement of the pump chamber if driven piles were used."

Jan 1, 2008