Search Documents

By Richard J. Finno

Detailed measurements made at a test section adjacent to a deep braced cut and other published data are combined to illustrate the limitations of the common methods of predicting movements associated with excavations in soft to medium clay. While past performance data can be used to estimate expected responses before construction in many cases, actual wall and soil deformations throughout construction can only be estimated using finite element procedures. Success of such analyses depends equally upon considering all aspects of construction that induce strains in adjacent soil, such as wall installation, excavation and bracing sequence, and time, and adequately modeling soil stress-strain behavior. Even when these two criteria are met, soil deformations can not be predicted adequately when strain levels exceed those that produce peak shear stress.

Jan 1, 1991

By Tom Szynakiewicz

Micropiles are routinely used in the United States for foundation support and underpinning applications. The high capacities achievable with the use of micropiles, combined with specialty rigs for easy installation in low headroom and difficult access areas makes them a good choice for situations often encountered on existing commercial projects. The bond zone of the pile is typically drilled into a competent stratum such as sands, gravels or bedrock. In this paper, the authors will discuss a project where the lack of a shallow ?competent stratum? led the geotechnical contractor to create their own bond zone for the micropiles using jet grouting. Due to problematic clay (CH) soils, the original foundation of a six story office building in west Houston had experienced up to five inches of differential movement in-between the shallow under-reamed shafts. The owner desired a permanent solution to the problem without disturbing the majority of the tenants. The structure was underpinned with a hybrid system of jet grouted micropiles as well as jet grouting alone and the structure was re-leveled using hydraulic equipment to within a 0.25? tolerance. Design, construction and sequencing of the project are discussed in the paper. QA/QC methods are also discussed, including coring for verification of jet grout column diameter as well as a full-scale micropile compressive load test. The structure was successfully re-leveled and the entire project was completed without disturbing any tenants on the floors two through six.

Jan 1, 2008

By Andrew J. Ciancia

The construction of the Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, the Beaux-Arts masterpiece, was completed in 1910. In financial ruin, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sold the station in the 1960?s and the new Madison Square Garden and the Penn Plaza complex were constructed at the site. The demolition of Pennsylvania Station brought public awareness and outcry to protect historic structures and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) was subsequently established in 1965. In the 1960?s relatively little engineering data was available on the performance of historic structures during adjacent construction and thus, no published criteria were established by the LPC on allowable movements and vibrations. During the late 1970?s a commercial tower was planned adjacent to the landmark Fraunces Tavern Block (FTB) in lower Manhattan. Through negotiations between the LPC and the developer, Dr. M. I. Esrig and the author were retained to monitor the historic block during foundation construction. The monitoring data and building performance compiled from the project formed the basis of the published 1981 ASCE technical paper by Esrig and Ciancia entitled ?The Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures Resulting from Adjacent Construction?. Based on the ASCE paper, the NYC Department of Buildings adopted Technical Policy and Procedure Notice #10/88 entitled ?Procedures for the Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures Resulting from Adjacent Construction When Subject to Controlled Inspection by Section 27-724 and for Any Existing Structure Designated by the Commissioner?, June 1988. This paper describes the author?s recent experience during the installation of deep foundations within, or adjacent to, three Manhattan landmark structures. Discussions are provided on the foundation construction, monitoring programs and performances of the three structures.

Jan 1, 2008

By Venugopal B, M Kumaran, Thomas John, Vetriselvan A

The initial pile load tests are conducted to ensure the geotechnical capacity of the pile in a particular site condition. Normally kentledge method is adopted for the compression pile load tests. In this method the entire kentledge load is loaded above secondary beams which are supported by concrete blocks above the Natural Ground Level. So, it is important to ensure the SBC (for shear and settlement) of the natural ground. In one of our projects initially it was decided to go with kentledge system for initial compression load test on 56m long 1200mm diameter BCIS pile. The test load and total kentledge load were 2160t and 2700t, respectively. The soil strata mainly consisted of clay with low SPT N value and water table almost at ground level. It was suggested to replace top soil using Granular Sub-base (GSB) with good compaction in order to avoid excessive settlement of concrete blocks placed to support the kentledge weight. When the kentledge loading started, even before reaching 10% of total kentledge load, excessive settlement on the GSB layer was observed. This paper describes the problems faced during normal kentledge method and how it was overcome using the liner pile system for initial compression load tests in this particular site condition for higher test load.

Nov 1, 2022

By James P. Hambleton, Sam A. Stanier

A perceived advantage of screw-type foundations is the ability infer aspects of foundation performance from quantities measured or observed during installation, especially the installation torque. A particular concept widely used in practice is to correlate installation torque to ultimate capacity. This notion has proven useful as a field verification technique despite the absence of validated models that relate key variables of interest, such as installation torque, axial (crowd) force, geometrical parameters, and soil strength. This paper considers previous work by the co-authors and collaborators on analytical, numerical, and physical modelling of screw piles to relate the quantities measured or controlled during installation (e.g., installation torque) to the ultimate capacity and soil strength. Attention is given to saturated clay as a particular soil type amenable to simplified analysis. An analytical model for a single-helix pile is considered as a means of directly relating the ultimate capacity and undrained shear strength to the installation torque, crowd force, plate pitch, plate diameter, shaft diameter, installation depth, and surface roughness. The connection between the installation variables and ultimate capacity—and the sensitivity to crowd force in particular, a quantity that is typically not measured during field installations—is also discussed. The theoretical predictions are compared against data obtained from small-scale laboratory experiments that suggest the installation torque relates to the remolded strength of the soil. INTRODUCTION Screw piles are deep foundations that are twisted into the ground through an applied torque. Advantages over driven piles or drilled foundations include the relative silence of the installation, with low ground vibrations, and the possibility of being easily decommissioned by reversing the direction of twisting. Screw piles are now routinely encountered as a flexible, low-cost solution for numerous applications (Figs. 1 and 2), and they are also being considered for applications in offshore energy production due to limitations being imposed with respect to decommissioning and underwater noise. Also known as “screw anchors,” “helical piles”, or “helical anchors,” screw piles consist of helices or helical plate elements attached to a central shaft. Figure 3a shows the components of a single-helix pile and key variables. The diameters of the shaft and helix are denoted by d and D, respectively, and p is the pitch of the helix. Variable H denotes depth of the helical plate, and T and N denote the torque and axial (crowd) force applied during installation. In typical applications, the pile includes multiple helical plates, and the shaft is composed of segments that allow for it to extend to large depths into the soil.

Jan 1, 2019

By Timothy C. Siegel

This report presents the results of a synthesis on the design and analysis of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. The synthesis included an industry survey concerning the practice of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. Participation in the survey was solicited by advertisements in several trade magazines and by e-mail for the DFI membership. The survey participants numbered 150. Their professional roles include consulting engineers, specialty contractors, design engineers, government engineers, and academicians. They represent a variety of geographical areas including North/Central/South America, United Kingdom, Middle East, Caribbean, Hawaii, Japan, India, Egypt, France, Australia and New Zealand. Upon completion of the survey, several professionals in the field of liquefaction and ground improvement were interviewed for them to elaborate on the survey results. The interviews are included in the Appendix of this report. Financial support for the project was provided by DFI and Dan Brown and Associates PC. The concept of the liquefaction mitigation synthesis was developed by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee in recognition that: (a) The results of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have challenged previously longheld beliefs about liquefaction and associated mitigation techniques, and; (b) The DFI membership and the engineering/construction industry are interested to know if and how engineers and designers are subsequently adjusting their practice in consideration of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance. For more detailed information on recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance, presentations are available from the State-of-the-Art Forum: Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation that was held in St. Louis in 2012. A commentary of the state-of-practice in ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation (prepared by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) is included in this issue of the DFI Journal. The author would like to thank the participants of the survey and especially Mr. Mike Jeffries, Dr. Les Youd, and Dr. Ikuo Towhata for their willingness to share their expertise in interviews. The author also acknowledges Mary Ellen Bruce of DFI, Billy Camp of S&ME, Inc., and Marty Taube of DGI Menard (and Chair of DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) for their signifi cant contributions.

Aug 1, 2013

By Martin Walker, Joseph Ang, Jongwon Lee, Alvin Bayudanto, Lilian Lorincz, Morteza Khorshidi, Wenyong Rong

This paper presents a case history of liquefaction susceptibility evaluation study for a major infrastructure project in the San José area. The subsurface material of the study area consists of Holocene alluvial deposits composed of interbedded and crosscut clays and silts, sands and gravels. The simplified approach for liquefaction triggering evaluation was carried out using both CPT data and SPT data representing site’s seismic capacity and the peak ground acceleration associated with a return period of 975 years at ground surface representing seismic demands. Site-specific cyclic stress ratio (CSR) profiles as seismic demand are also estimated from one-dimensional site response analysis. The simplified approach uses empirical depth stress reduction factors (rd) based on generic shear wave velocity profiles to account for the non-rigid response of the soil profile in estimating CSR. The CSR profiles of the simplified procedure were examined by completing site response analyses using site-specific soil profiles to represent site-specific seismic demands in the liquefaction triggering evaluation. The paper concludes with a comparison and discussion of the liquefaction evaluation examining results from CPT versus SPT data, and the comparison of CSR profiles from the simplified procedure versus site-specific response analysis.

Sep 8, 2021

AUSTRALIA CHAPMAN Gary JOHN WAGSTAFF CONTSRUCTIONS PTY. LTD. 1 Ashgrove Crescent 4060 ASHGROVE BRISBANE HILLAR Jaaes Director J.A. HILLAR & ASSOCIATES 99 Woolwich Road WOOLWICH, NSW 2110 WAGSTAFF John Managing Director JOHN WAGSTAFF CONSTRUCTIONS PTY. LTD. 1 Ashgrove Crescent 4060 ASHGROVE, BRISBANE AUSTRIA FUCHSBERGER M. TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT INSTITUT FUR BODENMECHANIK Rechbauerstrasse 12 8010 GRAZ

Jan 1, 1994

A technical exhibition was held in conjunction with the 4th DFI International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Stresa. The exhibition was located in the ground floor of the Conference Hall. It was open from 15.30 on Monday April 8 till 16.30 Thursday April 11, 1991. The following is an alphabetical list of firms who took part. 1) A.P. VAN DEN BERG MACHINENFABRIEK B.V. P.O. BOX 68 8440 AB HEERENVEEN The Netherlands Tel: +31 5130 31355 Fax: +31 5130 31212 Stand Executive: A. Duyfjies

Jan 1, 1994

By R. H. Wright

This paper describes the design philosophy and methods employed in constructing the foundation elements for the Little Britain Project in the City of London. The Contract is a design and construct package for the foundations of a 3-storey basement which will be built using "top-down" construction techniques and is to be carried out by Fairclough Piling and Marine on behalf of Wimgrove Nominees. The Project includes 8000 sq.m. of diaphragm wall and barrettes 139 No. large diameter piles ranging from 900mm to 3000mm in diameter and up to 45m deep, and 9 No. cruciform barrettes for the heaviest column loads. Major factors influencing the design of these foundations include differential settlement, heave analysis and a fast track construction approach. Little Britain will provide 43000 sq.m. of space in two linked buildings which will bridge a new road joining London Wall to Newgate Street. The foundation contract is well advanced and the building is due for completion in the Summer of 1990.

Jan 1, 1989

By Dongwook Kim

Recently, load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is gradually being adopted internationally in geotechnical design due to the advantages of LRFD over the existing allowable stress design (ASD). LRFD is a more advanced design method compared to the ASD because resistance factor is calibrated based on the reliability analysis for a given target reliability index. Target reliability index changes with the importance of the structure. Typically, target reliability index of offshore foundation is less than those of onshore. The widely-used Imperial College Pile (ICP) design method is used for the calculation of pullout capacity of driven piles. The uncertainties regarding pullout capacities of driven piles are assessed using the statistical data reported in the literature. The first-order reliability method (FORM) is used to calibrate resistance factors for the pullout ultimate limit states of the driven piles for three different levels (2.5, 3.0, and 3.5) of target reliability index. The load factors used in this paper are the ones proposed in the AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications.

Jan 1, 2010

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

"Limit states design (LSD), or load and resistance factor design (LRFD), is a method to account for the uncertainty in loads and resistance through a reliability calibration that requires all applicable limit states (strength, service and extreme) to be checked during foundation design. LRFD has been in use internationally for several decades; however it wasn’t until recently that engineers working on highway projects were required to use the method for the design of highway bridges and other appurtenances. Although the bridge community has been using a form of limit states design for structural components since the early 1970s, the design of foundations for bridges, walls and other geotechnical features had long been performed using allowable stress design (ASD), whereby all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is combined in a single factor of safety. While the move to LRFD was viewed as a more rational approach for the design of bridges and structures, the transition to its use for geotechnical engineering has been met by many with confusion and difficulties in application. This article will revisit the history of transition from ASD to LRFD for geotechnical engineering, summarize the status of the transition and issues with its use, and briefly discuss some emerging research opportunities for improving and advancing the design platform.Background and HistoryUntil about a decade ago, foundations and substructures for bridges were traditionally designed using ASD, while the superstructure was designed using load factor design (LFD), a precursor to LRFD that incorporated factored design loads but no risk assessment. This combination led to uncertain and incompatible safety margins in design for the various bridge components. In 1986, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) concluded that the standard bridge specifications in use at the time for U.S. transportation projects had significant inconsistencies and gaps, wasn’t up to date with emerging technology and that the development of new specifications was warranted. The proposed solution by the subcommittee was to transition to a more coherent method of design where applicable failure and serviceability conditions could be evaluated considering the uncertainties associated with loads and resistance."

Jan 1, 2015

By Rick Deschamps, Amanda Blank, Matthew W. Drewek, Michael P. Walker

The Prairie du Sac Dam, located on the Wisconsin River, northwest of Madison, Wisconsin, was constructed 1912-1914. The spillway is an Ambursen-type, consisting of a series timber pile supported pier and buttress walls and rollway slab. The timber piles supporting the spillway, numbering approximately 5,000, have deteriorated, and the spillway structure was underpinned with over 700 micropiles as part of a design-build construction project. The underpinning micropiles needed to be arranged to avoid interferences with the existing timber piles, requiring the micropiles to be installed in the open spaces between the piers and buttresses. Inevitably, the installation of the new micropiles encountered obstructions, including existing timber piles out of alignment, as well as timber piles used to support the original construction activities and sheet pile used to control water during the original construction. This paper discusses using finite element analysis to model the spillway structure to estimate the vertical and horizontal stiffness with an extensive sensitivity analysis was performed during the design phase to account for anticipated construction challenges and potential variations in the underpinning performance. The inherent rigidity of the spillway structure allowed for load distribution to the underpinning system even when new micropiles needed to be re-located and aligned to avoid interferences with existing timber piles and other abandoned foundation elements dating back to original construction.

Sep 8, 2021

By Walter E. Vanderpool

Three drilled foundations for an elevated water-tank were instrumented, tested and monitored during construction and the first two years in service. One shaft was load tested by the Osterberg method. A void was detected in one shaft by cross-hole sonic logging, pulse-echo logging and concrete coring. The void was instrumented, hydrostatically tested and pressure grouted. The shaft was ?abandoned? and replaced by two smaller shafts with a straddle beam cap. One of the replacement shafts and the cap were instrumented. The strain that appeared in the abandoned shaft, the replacement shaft and the cap were monitored during the remainder of the construction, through the commissioning test and the first two years of service. The results demonstrate the precision and sensitivity of the vibrating wire strain gage.

Jan 1, 2004

By Wei Zheng

A pulverized coal fired power plant is being built in Osceola, Arkansas, along the Mississippi River. The subsurface soil conditions consist of a certain amount of very soft clayey silt and clay underlain with a medium dense sand layer and a dense sand layer. The site has been raised four to five feet with fill material consisting of sand and gravel. Consolidation settlement due to the fill is expected to cause negative shaft resistance (downdrag) on the pile foundations. The site is located in a high seismic hazard area - the New Madrid Seismic Zone (NMSZ). The liquefaction analyses indicated that there is a high liquefaction potential in the medium dense sand layer. Load tests are needed to determine the shaft resistance and the end bearing of each soil layer for design purpose. Two types of pile foundations ? augered pressure grouted displacement pile (APGD) and partial augered pressure grouted displacement pile (P-APGD) were considered for this project. Ten pile load tests, including five compression tests and five tension tests, were performed for three different areas. Strain gauges were installed for the compression tests. The APGD and P-APGD piles were installed side by side for comparison. In addition, three additional dynamic tests were performed to supplement the information from the static load tests. Load deflection curves for the compression tests were predicted, and the failure loads were interpreted using four different methods. The shaft resistance and the end bearing were determined from the strain gauge data and were used to back calculate the ultimate capacity. The back-calculated capacities are in good agreement with the predicted failure loads; they were further verified with the tension load test results.

Jan 1, 2007

By A. Mazzucato

This paper presents the experimental results of driving and load tests on an instrumented pile driven into a test pit filled with fine homogeneous sand.

Jan 1, 2010

By Jorj O. Osterberg

Until ten years ago, the largest load tests on drilled shafts (bored piles) were about 3,000 tons (27MN). These tests were made with kentledge (large weights, usually concrete blocks) stacked up as a reaction to the applied downward load of a hydraulic jack. In some cases, the jack load is resisted by a load frame held down by piles or anchors connected to the frame. When the test loads exceed 3,000 tons (27MN), these methods become cumbersome expensive and time consuming. The Osterberg (O-cell) test method does not require any reaction load. It has become the only cost effective method for static load testing of high capacity shafts. Over 650 load tests have been performed with this method, 86 of which were over 3,000 tons (27 MN) and 40 over 5,000 tons (44 MN), and the largest test load was 17,000 tons (150 MN). Tests have been made on sands below the water table, shafts ending in rock sockets, and cemented sands and gravels. Test results and details for selected load tests are discussed.

Jan 1, 2002

This Section describes four alternative methods for load testing of drilled shafts: high strain dynamic test (HSDT), rapid load test, static load test, and bottom load test. Until recently, static load tests were the only method available for verifying the capacity of a drilled shaft. However, because many drilled shafts carry very high design loads, the static load test was prohibitively expensive. The alternative methods, HSDT, rapid load testing, and bottom load testing are gaining acceptance because of their lower cost and faster implementation. However, these different methods do not necessarily yield the same results. This section describes the load testing methods and the differences that may occur when interpreting the test results.

Jan 1, 2004

By David E. Thompson

This paper describes the full-scale field load testing of three deep foundation units using the Osterberg Load Cell. The load tests were completed on three separate projects, two in Massachusetts and one in New York. The Massachusetts projects involved the load testing of two 18-inch O.D. concrete-filled steel pipe piles over water for railroad bridge reconstruction projects in Revere and Saugus/Lynn. The New York project involved the load testing of a 24-inch diameter drilled shaft socketed into sandstone on land for a building foundation in Rochester. The 18-inch O.D. piles were loaded to failure at jack pressures of 142 to 215 tons. The drilled shaft was loaded to failure at jack pressures of approximately 450 tons. The loading testing procedure is described and the results of the three tests are presented. The advantages and disadvantages of the Osterberg load cell for load testing of deep foundations are discussed.

Jan 1, 1989

By Drew Floyd

Five full-scale pile load tests were performed on pairs of PZ-22 sheet piles installed with a vibratory pile driving hammer. The sheet piling was installed in several locations in soil generally consisting of miscellaneous granular fills overlying soft organic silts, inorganic silt interbedded with sands and gravels, very dense glacial till and shale bedrock. The test program also included the use of tip tell tales to determine what capacity could be attributed to tip resistance and skin friction. During the design phase of the project, it was assumed that the capacity of the sheet piles driven with the vibratory hammer could be correlated with the rate of penetration. The correlation between vertical capacity and rate of penetration would be used as a basis for determination of a driving criteria from driving the production sheet piling. The sheet piling load tests demonstrated that it was not possible to correlate the capacity of sheet piling driven with a vibratory hammer and the rate of penetration. It was also demonstrated that the capacity of the sheet piles was directly related to the density of the soil at or just below the tip. The results also tend to agree with empirical equations provided by Meyerhof (1976).

Jan 1, 1989