Search Documents

By J. D. Findlay

The demands on development in London in recent years has led to the increasing use of top down construction methods in which there is a requirement to place steel columns to high tolerances into large diameter bored piles with deep cut-offs. A number of different proposals for the sequence of construction are being suggested. The tolerances requires for the steel columns are becoming increasingly stringent. This review examines a number of basic construction proposals and comments on the problems and solutions used by foundation contractors to provide the required foundations.

Jan 1, 1989

By Peter Chou

A total of 117 slope stabilization drilled piers were installed as part of a major hillside revitalization project. The 110-million dollar development, known as Stratford at Kenwood, included an 18-story upscale senior residential tower, a 3-story healthcare building, and 4-story condominium buildings, offering approximately 580,000 square feet of living space with panoramic views of Downtown Cincinnati, Ohio. In an effort to establish a flatter hillside plateau for the new 4-story condominium and to create a cut and fill balanced jobsite environment, an 800-foot long row of drilled piers and a 600-foot long multi-tiered shear key system was used to terrace existing 1.5H to 3H: 1V steep slopes and support the new fill. These slope stabilization features reduced the amount of spoils needed to be wasted off-site and mitigated the risk of slope instability. An ODOT/FHWA research indicated that spacing of stabilization piers and necessity of top-connecting elements are highly dependent on pier diameter, spacing, soil type, depth to potential failure surface, surcharge loads, and pier deflection. Due to pre-existing deep buried swales, various load combinations, and the complex mechanism of soil arching effects between adjacent piers, both analytical and numerical computer modeling was performed to estimate the loading on each pier. New generation multiplexed, 3-Dimensional, Micro-Electro-Mechanical-System based inclinometers were installed between selected piers to confirm the pier design, and monitor the fill placement, as well as long-term slope stability.

Jan 1, 2009

By Walter I. Paniagua

A housing complex of 76 buildings is being constructed in the city of Morelia, in western central Mexico; the buildings are 5 levels high, with a shallow concrete slab foundation. Soil conditions include a soft clay stratum, with up to 8 m depth, in a highly seismic area. Pile foundations and micro-piles were considered, but discarded due to economic factors. The alternative of soil improvement with rigid inclusions was used. An FEM (Finite Element Method) analysis was conducted to determine the diameter, spacing, length and arrangement of the inclusions. Construction was implemented with traditional methods: soil boring, and mortar tremied with pipe and the aid of a sock to contain the material (no steel reinforcement was used). So far, 46 buildings have been built, and level measurements for 18 buildings have been recorded since 2006, with resulting good behavior in both total and differential settlements.

Jan 1, 2008

By Ricardo Dobry, Alain Pecker, George E. Leventis, Ralph B. Peck

"This year’s DFI Outstanding Project Award is for the design and construction of the foundation scheme for the largest cable-stayed bridge in the world. In 1993, Gefyra, SA (a French/Greek consortium led by VINCI of Paris, France) was awarded a €750 million ($1billion+ USD) Concession Contract to design, build, fi nance, operate and maintain a three-span cable-stayed suspension bridge connecting the Peloponnese, Greece’s southernmost peninsula, with the mainland across the Gulf of Corinth. The contract extends over a 42-year period, 7 years for design and construction and 35 years for operation. The project was fi nanced through a combination of public funds, private equity and bank loans. Alternative foundation concepts that were considered included traditional driven piles, deeply embedded caissons and soil improvement. PROJECT CHALLENGESThe extreme technical challenges faced included:??Weak foundation soils composed of soft alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded layers of granular and cohesive materials with thin layers and lenses of gravel and liquefi able sand pockets; rock is believed to be at a depth of 1,000 m (3,500 ft) or more.??A very deep seabed exceeding 60 m (200 ft).??The requirement to withstand the collision of 180,000-ton tankers traveling at 16 knots.??Maximum wind forces of 250 km/hour (155 mi/hour).??Design seismic forces corresponding to Richter magnitudes of 7.0+ with peak ground accelerations of 0.48 g at seabed.??Design tectonic movements of 2 m (7 ft) in any direction between any two adjacent bridge pier foundations/pylons.Considering subsurface conditions and local seismicity and water depths, foundation design and construction methods were the key drivers for this project. In large part, the success of the project is owed to the unprecedented partnering and collaboration between all partners involved fostered under the leadership of Jean Paul Teyssandier and Gilles De Maublanc of VINCI Group (France) who served as lead Concessionaire and General Contractor. The joint venture’s lead Greek partners were Elliniki Technodomiki/AKTOR and J&P/AVAX. Alain Pecker of Geodynamique et Structure (France) served as lead Geotechnical Consultant/ Designer while Buckland and Taylor (Canada) served as Design Checkers with Ralph Peck and Ricardo Dobry (U.S.) as Special Advisors on foundation issues, Langan International/Langan Engineering and Environmental Services P.C. (George E. Leventis, Gregory Biesiadecki and Diane Fiorelli) served as Technical Advisor on geotechnical, geodynamic and foundation/marine construction issues."

Jan 1, 2007

By Bartho J. Admiraal

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

Jan 1, 2016

By Sebastian Fischer, Rolf Katzenbach, Steffen Leppla

"The risk management in the case of liquefaction is one of the most serious and also difficult issues in geotechnical engineering because failure caused by liquefaction is always a sudden failure without ahead indication. For that reason ground improvement technologies for the prevention of liquefaction are necessary. The paper explains the responsible and effective risk management. Methods for the risk management and stabilizing the soil sustainably are described in detail.1. INTRODUCTIONDue to population growing more and more settlement area is needed, which is often including improper regions (e.g. mountain and coast regions) with raised risk of various kinds of disasters. But also in densely populated areas the risk of disasters like landslides can occur. One reason for the raising of risk in densely populated regions can be the opencast mining for raw material production. An essential element of the opencast mining is the loose deposition of the removed overburden, the so-called “overburden dump”. When an opencast mining is running out of the raw material, an opencast hollow remains in landscape. The slope areas of these hollows mostly consist of loose bedded material of the overburden dump. Due to the end of groundwater conservation these loose bedded slope areas are flooded. In consequence the slopes are in extreme danger of becoming liquefied. The result of a liquefaction in these slopes will unavoidably be a slope slide. Such a slope slide can extend up to several hundred meters into the landscape and can move several million cubic meters of material. An upsetting example for such a landslide is the slope failure in the German city of Nachterstedt on July, 18th 2009, which made necessitate remedial measures and also prevention works for the further utilisation of the region. The phenomena of liquefaction is not limited of slopes in series of opencast mining. Especially in regions with a highly appearance of earthquakes the phenomena of liquefaction is well known.2. RISK MANAGEMENTAn essential part for the stability assessment of slope systems is the investigation of sensitivity against liquefaction. In the case of given sensitivity against liquefaction there is no calculation method according to soil mechanics to determine the factor of safety against slope failure. Just for the case that sensitivity against liquefaction is not met, a comparison of the load (effect) E and the resistance R which is the traditional verification of stability against slope failure, can be calculated (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2015

By Dave Paul

Dam rehabilitation involves a range of design, construction, and operation risks, some of which are not encountered in new dam construction. These risks can have significant impact on project schedule and project budget. Owners, engineers, and contractors need to understand these risks. Existing dams typically were designed in an era of design and construction standards that have been upgraded and changed. Modern standards will impact the construction approach taken and involve understanding the earlier standards. Knowledge of historical standards/practices as well as current design standards and construction methods is valuable for developing and designing rehabilitation components. Construction records and as-built drawings are valuable when they are available. Rehabilitation projects often consist of older projects where as-built documents or construction records are not available. Where these records exist, many (most) times, they do not fully reflect the current conditions within the dam and appurtenant works. leading experienced practitioners to “expect surprises” both during investigation of the existing facility, as well as during construction. “Surprises” should be expected even when historical records of investigations, design and construction are available. Unknowns, be they known unknowns or unknown unknowns, can be planned for by developing an approach for the design and construction process to identify potential issues/problems, or at least alert the designer and contractor of potential issues. A Risk-Based approach applied for the entire life of the rehabilitation project can be used to alert the parties of potential “surprises” and provide direction for mitigating issues as they arise. This type of approach is particularly effective when the process includes senior practitioners with decades of design and construction experience in all aspects of dams. Minimizing impacts created by “surprises”, particularly during construction, can result in an improved project meeting budget and schedule goals and design standards. This paper identifies and categorizes risk types salient to dam construction, reviews the process of risk identification and analysis, discusses guidelines for risk allocation, reviews strategies to mitigate risks, presents several case studies where risk mitigation strategies were employed successfully (or unsuccessfully), and presents lessons learned. The paper concludes with a summary and recommendations for best practices for Project Risk Management and mitigation that can be used by: Owners; Design Engineers; and Construction Managers, in planning, design, pre-construction and construction phases of dam related projects.

By Kevin Cunningham

"Litigation resulting from neighboring structures with settlement and/or lateral movement or improper pile design and faulty soils engineering analysis, are a multi-faceted opportunity for law firms. These types of claim scenarios are an attorney’s dream, and can obliterate a Deep Foundation Contractors profit and more importantly, can be avoided with a progressive approach to risk management in design and project management.The following (4) case studies will be examined and dissected to discern certain lessons learned for risk management solutions to avoid these deep foundation related challenges in the future.1) Pipe Flotation – Soil Conditions Not Anticipated in Specifications or Contract2) Easement Encroachment – Easement Dimensions Not Recognized Until Completion of Project3) Subjacent Lateral Support – Neighboring Structure Wooden Pile Unprotected Causing Structure to Settle4) Improper Pile Placement - Construction & Design Caused Retail Store to SettleSpecific Deep Foundation project challenges involving: buoyancy calculations regarding subsurface soil characteristics, design factors taking existing subsurface sewer line easements into account, structural instability as result of excavation causing exposure/heavy rainfall to existing wooden piles supporting adjoining building and improper pile location resulting from faulty pile design will be described with risk management recommendations to avoid these challenges in the future.From the very start of construction on any project deep foundation and excavating work poses numerous engineering and technical challenges for developers, contractors and engineers. Dealing with changing or hidden conditions is one of the most difficult challenges facing any contractor or engineer on a project. Relying on incomplete or inaccurate engineering reports is another common problem. Other challenges include dealing with technical errors or oversights that are deeply embedded in the project specifications or bid process.No matter what is the origin of the problem or how it manifests, deep foundation contractors, design professionals and engineers should be ever-mindful of good risk management practices that can prevent serious disputes that can result in costly litigation."

Jan 1, 2015

By Mark Maday

As part of the I-94 North-South Corridor reconstruction program, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (department) is reconstructing the Mitchell Interchange in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Located on the south side of Milwaukee near Mitchell International Airport, The Mitchell Interchange interconnects I-94, I-43 and I-894. Reconstruction began in 2009 with the letting of the first advance contract for local crossroad bridge reconstruction. A second advance contract for construction of collector-distributer roads on each side of the I-94 mainline was completed in 2010. The main contract involving reconstruction of the core of the Mitchell Interchange was let in the summer of 2010, and is scheduled to be completed by the end of 2012. The core contract includes construction of three cut and cover tunnels along two system interchange ramps. Construction of the three tunnel structures is on the critical construction path. The contract includes an interim contract completion date that requires the tunnels to be open to traffic by the end of 2011. A top down method of construction using drilled shaft secant piles for the sidewalls of the cut and cover tunnel structures was selected as the preferred structure type to address subsurface and construction schedule challenges. The department identified in pre bid coordination that no cost reduction incentives would be reviewed or accepted for changes in tunnel wall type. A major component of the tunnel structures requires the installation of 1,500, 4-foot diameter secant piles. This paper presents mitigation strategies to manage construction risks associated with the installation of the secant piles including; prequalification of the secant pile subcontractors, requirement for use of full depth temporary casing, a site specific quality control plan, specifying drilling equipment, and developing a geotechnical baseline report for this critical component of the Mitchell Interchange reconstruction project.

Jan 1, 2011

By Tony Suckling

The commercially available finite element program Plaxis has a key benefit over other finite element analysis programs in that it has a relatively simple user interface to input and output data. This benefit though may also be it?s weakness in that anyone, regardless of their grounding in geotechnical engineering, may use the program and produce results for design. It is essential, as for all engineering design, that the models are checked by competent engineers. This paper describes the key recurring problems found by the authors when checking Plaxis models, such as the generation of the initial in-situ ground stresses and the modelling of groundwater. Interestingly, the authors have not encountered similar problems when checking finite element models produced using other programs and conclude that this may be due to the higher calibre of modeller needed to use these other programs. The geotechnical industry is in a situation at the moment where senior managers who may not have been trained in finite element modelling are relying on less experienced staff who have had some training in modelling, either at university or post graduation. The quality of this training is variable and all organisations running easy to use programs need to be aware of the potential risks and dangers. Management procedures and engineering checks that are essential to validate the results of these models are described, assuming that those in charge are not experienced modellers themselves. The model checking process by competent persons is absolutely essential and it is hoped that this paper will help those organisations that do not have such procedures as part of their own internal Quality Assurance or design validation system. The procedures described are valid for all finite element programs.

Jan 1, 2010

By Kevin P. Gleckler, Steven C. Highfill

"Escalators to access platforms for the Second Avenue Subway Station at 72nd Street in Manhattan are to be installed in the basement of an existing 19-Story residential building. The escalators, which extend below the existing building foundations, require excavation of an inclined rock cavern up to 80-feet deep. Underpinning of columns within the 19-story building as well as a stone masonry party wall and columns for an adjacent 5-story building was completed prior to excavation of the rock cavern to ensure structural stability.This paper will discuss the analysis and design of the underpinning system, the installation and load transfer procedures and the cavern excavation immediately below. The underpinning system was subject to very strict deformation limits and to electronic monitoring prior to and throughout the load transfer and construction process. Key details such as the load transfer mechanism between the reinforced concrete column and the temporary structural steel underpinning frame will be discussed. The challenging rock excavation process will be described which utilized conventional equipment and pattern drilling with Damite rock splitting mortar.INTRODUCTIONPhase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway is being built by MTA Capital Construction (MTACC) to improve subway service on the east side of Manhattan. Entrance 1 for the 72nd Street Station of the Second Avenue Subway is located on the east side of 2nd Avenue at the corner of E 69th Street in New York City. Access to the station mezzanine, approximately 80-feet below grade, is designed to be routed through the basement of an existing 19-story residential building. From the sidewalk, stairs and escalators within the width of sidewalk connect the riding public to a basement level mezzanine, which turns into the building at roughly 16 feet below grade (Fig. 1). Riders then connect to three long escalators to arrive at the station mezzanine. The escalators are to be installed within an inclined and arched cast-in-place (CIP) concrete lined rock cavern (Fig. 2). Construction of both the entrance into the basement and the escalator cavern require the transfer of columns within the 19-story building. Excavation of the escalator cavern also impacts the foundation support for columns and a load bearing party wall for the 5-story residential building immediately to the north. Two stages of load transfer were used at each location. The Stage 1 transfer used a temporary underpinning system to unload the current structure which allowed for construction of the permanent transfer girders. Stage 2 transferred the load from the temporary system to the permanent transfer girders."

Jan 1, 2016

By Burt G. Look, David W. Lacey

"Certification of foundation capacity during the construction phase is often assessed by strength or weathering state descriptors based on visual observations. This case study used the Point Load Index (PLI) test as a quantitative tool in the construction certification of a pile’s design capacity. Construction phase tests were completed on irregular sized rock samples whilst comparable design phase testing was completed on intact rock core samples. Statistical comparisons were made to assess the repeatability between the PLI tests, with best-fit Probability Distribution Functions (PDFs) determined for both datasets. Pronounced differences were observed based on the PDF adopted to characterize the PLI dataset, the consequence of which would be a significant change to the pile’s design capacity. The adoption of the lower quartile value is shown to satisfy both design conservatism and construction simplicity requirements. The commonly held belief that rock samples produced during socket excavation may be biased towards the higher strength portion of the rock mass, is shown to be invalid for this site. As the central bridge piers were certified using Plate Load Tests (PLTs), the resultant load-settlement relationships were compared with the PLI strength assessments made for similar materials recovered from the adjacent abutment piles.INTRODUCTIONThe upgrade of the Foxwell Road Overpass across the Pacific Motorway in South East Queensland required the duplication of an existing four span bridge structure. The foundations of the new bridge included the installation of 1.2m diameter cast in place (bored) piles at the bridge abutments and 900mm diameter cast in place (bored) piles below a retaining wall to be constructed adjacent to the existing abutment.The site geology was dominated by the Palaeozoic Neranleigh–Fernvale Beds, predominantly comprised of argillite, sandstone and greywacke. Limited soil materials existed at the site, with Extremely Weathered (EW) rock typically encountered within metres of the existing ground surface. The exception to the existence of shallow rock were locations where existing filling of the site had occurred – i.e. approach embankments to existing bridge structure.Capacity of pile sockets is typically assessed onsite by descriptive rock strength or weathering assessment. Such descriptors encompass a wide range of values and lack precision. Due to the subjectivity of such assessment techniques – a factor of 3 is often observed in terms of strength assessment based on one’s interpretation of rock strength descriptors alone – uncertainty on site often occurs regardless of whether a lower bound, average or other characteristic design parameter applies."

Jan 1, 1900

By Jorj O. Osterberg

The practice of using side shear resistance in the design of drilled shafts socketed in rock is discussed. In the absence of field test data for the particular rock involved, the designer often neglects the side shear altogether or uses an extremely conservative value. The uncertainty of using strength data from compression tests on rock cores is discussed. Examples of full scale load tests are given which illustrate that even in the weakest of rocks, considerable side shear resistances are obtained, enabeling reductions in the depths of the sockets and consequent savings. Existing Practice. The existing design practice in using side friction/bond between a drilled shaft in rock or hard soil varies very considerably in different areas of the U.S., in different areas of the world, among different Geotechnical Engineers, and in the requirements of different building codes. In fact, the variation is so great that it is inconsistent and contradictory. For example, in Florida where fairly weak coral limestone and sandstone is prevalent, the general practice is to use side friction only and to allow no end bearing. In Chicago, Detroit, Boston and other areas where soft clay overlies stiffer clays, hardpan and limestone or other hard rock, the common practice is to allow for no friction and to use end bearing only, even though the lower portion of a shaft frequently penetrates stiff to hard clays and hardpan (glacial till) before bearing on hardpan or rock. In Hong Kong, if the hole is stabilized with drilling mud, no end bearing is allowed. In Boston (Thompson, Erikson, and Smith, 1989), two tests at two sites on 18 inch pipe piles penetrating 100 feet of soft clay and driven only inches into an argillite, tested 140 and 210 tons in ultimate side shear resistance. Certainly, with long drilled shafts, no matter how soft or weak the soil or rock is, some if not considerable side friction occurs, and where drilling mud is used, there must be considerable end bearing.

Jan 1, 1991

By L. J. Whitworth

Five trial piles were constructed during the trial pile programme for the Birmingham International Convention Centre. In addition, trial piles have been tested on two other sites in central Birmingham. Methods of pile construction were conventional sandstone rock sockets, sleeved piles and voided piles. The results of these load tests are compared with the theoretical predicted behaviour based on the results of unconfined compressive tests of rock core taken on the Convention Centre site and on other sites in the central Birmingham area. On the basis of this work, the various design procedures are discussed.

Jan 1, 1989

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY consists of a dual-span 1,982.5-ft long cable-stayed bridge with approach spans of 2,545 ft on the NJ side and 2,788 ft on the NY side. The bridge is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Drilled shaft resistances for design were based on load tests as described in a companion paper (Dapp et al. 2016). This paper presents the main foundation design considerations and challenges. The approach to construction of the rock sockets, with a focus on quality in order to support the use of high nominal values of side and base resistance, is described. Lessons learned from this project and their application to future similar projects are presented.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) project is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) that represents a major milestone for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) in its distinguished history of bridge building in the greater New York City metropolitan area. The new bridge will replace the existing Goethals Bridge, named after Major General George W. Goethals, Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal and the first consulting engineer for the Port Authority. The existing Goethals Bridge along with the Outerbridge Crossing and the Bayonne Bridge comprise the three Port Authority bridges connecting Staten Island with New Jersey. The existing Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing are cantilever truss structures and both opened on the same day in 1928. They were designed by J.A.L. Waddell under the supervision of the eminent engineer Othmar H. Ammann (1879-1965), who was the designer of many other iconic bridges in the NY City area including the Bayonne Bridge (1931), the George Washington Bridge (1931), and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge (1964). The designer of record for the replacement Goethals Bridge is Parsons Corporation, which is the successor firm of Robinson & Steinman, whose principal David B. Steinman was also a notable NY area bridge designer and a contemporary and rival of O.H. Ammann.The replacement Goethals Bridge is supported on over 200 rock-socketed drilled shaft foundations. Each main pylon tower is supported on a group of six 9-ft diameter drilled shafts and each anchor pier is supported by two 10-ft diameter shafts. Each approach pier consists of a two-column bent with each column supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft. A rendering of the Main Bridge crossing the Arthur Kill is shown in Fig. 1."

Jan 1, 2016

By Brock Wallis, Steve Davidow

The following text will present the concept of rock socketed drilled shafts used to support electrical substation structures, and discuss the cost and schedule risks that traditional design responses to unforeseen shallow rock can pose to a project. Design considerations will be detailed, including rock characterization, shear strength of drilled shafts, and modeling lateral resistance of the shaft and surrounding rock. The specific case of drilled shafts installed for heavily loaded structures at the Moxie Freedom Substation will provide an example of how close collaboration between the engineer and contractor to refine designs based on site-specific feedback can provide tangible benefits to the project. In this example, value engineered designs resulted in an approximate 40% reduction in shaft/concrete volume and a 60% reduction in total rock socket depth. PROJECT OVERVIEW The Moxie Freedom Project included the construction of a new 500 kV switchyard in Berwick, Pennsylvania. The foundation contractor was selected to install both small and large diameter drilled shaft foundations to support the structures within the switchyard. The small diameter shafts were utilized to support transformers, switches, bus supports and a static mast, while the large diameter shafts were used to support one 180-foot monopole and six H-Frame structures. CHALLENGES: ROCK SOCKETED DRILLED SHAFTS Available geotechnical data at the time of bid included limited borings and seismic refraction. The borings were not located at every structure, and the contractor and design engineer were left to interpret desktop studies and geophysics to determine the probable site-specific conditions at each foundation. The data suggested substantial variability in the quality and depth to bedrock across the project area, indicating significant risk of deep embedment into bedrock at all seven large diameter shaft locations. Rock socketed drilled shafts pose unique challenges for both designers and contractors, and the topic has become a focus of national foundation organizations. Traditional design models result in deeper and/or larger diameter shafts where rock is encountered. In the case where site-specific geotechnical conditions are not clearly understood and rock is encountered at shallow depths, this can lead to significant additional rock drilling, impacting overall project cost and schedule. Rock drilling can result in more than ten times the cost of soil drilling and can easily take in excess of ten times longer to excavate.

Jan 1, 2018

By D. E. Sherwood

Mr. Tamaro introduced his paper which concerned the construction of foundations for the buildings and related infrastructure of the World Financial Center on a reclaimed shoreline site at the Southern tip of Manhattan Island. This large project presented difficult design and construction problems, both geotechnical and structural. All structures were supported by foundations carried to rock. Two of the buildings were supported by conventional pier (pad) foundations constructed within diaphragm wall cofferdams. The remaining structures were supported by either piles to rock or caisson (large diameter) piles with socket depths drilled through the rock of up to 7.6 metres. Underground services, railway and proposed road tunnels all affected the installation of foundations. The proposed road tunnels for the new six lane 'Westway' would involve an excavation 12 metres deep adjacent to and under three buildings. This problem was solved by an agreement that tower windloads would be taken by the tower foundations and not distributed through the basement walls. This was achieved by a system of battered caissons founded on the rock and arranged so that adjacent caissons were founded in different rock masses. Diaphragm walls were restrained using tie backs. Ground testing indicated an exposure to D.C. stray current corrosion of all underground construction. As a result all of the foundations were isolated from the ground by non-conductive materials. In the case of piles and caissons the reinforcing for the caisson was fully protected by concrete and all outside steel used for the installation of piling was considered sacrificial and not used in the computation of long term load carrying capacity.

Jan 1, 1991

By A. David Miller, Douglas M. Barber

"The Rocky Mountain Arsenal was used by the military to produce chemical warfare agents and incendiary munitions for use during World War II and later by private companies for the production of industrial and agricultural chemicals. After an investigation performed in accordance with CERCLA confirmed significant levels of contamination due to the common industrial and waste disposal practices of the era and the discovery of over 300 species of wildlife inhabiting the land the Rocky Mountain Arsenal became a wildlife refuge and contamination cleanup efforts began. Three lime basins originally used to treat wastewater from the chemical production were decided to be contained in place, requiring a seepage barrier installed around the perimeter of the site to further prevent groundwater/contaminant migration. This case study will discuss the successful installation of a soil-bentonite cutoff wall around the area using deep soil mixing. Highlights of this case study will also include a discussion of the challenges faced due to construction activities performed with Level B Hazmat PPE requirements as well as added challenges brought on by the Winter season, after the project was delayed due to a positive air monitor detection for the chemical weapon Lewisite during construction of the work pad.INTRODUCTIONThe Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA), located just outside of Denver, Colorado, was established by the United States Army in 1942 to produce chemical warfare agents and incendiary munitions for use during World War II. Following the war, and as weapons production decreased, portions of the site were leased to private companies for the production of industrial and agricultural chemicals. The principal lessee, Shell Oil Company, manufactured mostly pesticides at RMA facilities from the early 1950s to the early 1980s.In 1984 an investigation began in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and confirmed significant levels of contamination due, in large part, to the common industrial and waste disposal practices of the era. It was also discovered that over 300 species of wildlife inhabited the land in the absence of regular human activity, including a group of bald eagles, leading to the passing of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act in 1992."

Jan 1, 2015

By R. A. Bullivant

Roger Bullivant Piling Limited has started 1992 with the introduction of the CONE PILE into its range of precast concrete foundation techniques. Since the establishment of its Piling Division ten years ago, alongside the original Underpinning Company, a commitment to innovated development has seen a steady growth in Roger Bullivant's activity in piling, ground treatment and general foundation engineering. Over the last four years, £1.2 million has been invested by the Bullivant Piling Division into research and development in the field of precast piling and other foundation systems. The goal has been to develop economically attractive systems tailored to our clients design requirements and, wherever possible, unique to Roger Bullivant Piling.

Jan 1, 1992

By Achyut Kumar Allady, Praveen Arumughan

NCHRP Synthesis 418 (2011) entitled, “Developing Production Pile Driving Criteria from Test Pile Data” details the occurrence of dichotomy between pile Skin resistance and pile Tip resistance mobilizations at different times for different hammer blows during pile driving operations. With increasing usage of High Strain Dynamic Testing (HSDT) the engineering community started paying more attention to this occurrence of dichotomy resulting in overdriving, pile damage, increased claims, and loss of time. To overcome the dichotomy limitations of HSDT, NCHRP recommends, “the use of superposition to combine the back-calculated tip resistance from a blow on initial drive or from redrive with the back-calculated skin resistance from the early blows at the beginning of restrike”. However, the current practice of external mounted gauges and signal matching for a single blow are unable to evaluate independently the Skin resistance and Tip resistance to achieve the goal of determining the optimum Total Pile Capacity using the superposition. This paper discusses advancements of science and technology with sensors embedded at the pile top and pile tip, the data collected is analyzed by the state-of-the-art FDOT Method to determine Skin and Tip resistances independently for every blow. Independent Tip and Skin resistances each with a Resistance Factor can be summed up to obtain optimum Total Pile Capacity. Additional benefits of determining independent Skin and Tip resistances include obtaining lost skin capacity due to scour, due to pre-drilling/preforming and uplift tension capacity. Furthermore, the benefits of embedded sensors include increased quality control/quality assurance through 100% testing, accelerated construction, life cycle monitoring and asset management.

May 1, 2022