Search Documents

Jan 1, 1995

The pile inspector is a critical element in the quality control process necessary for a successful pile installation project. This guide is intended to provide the inspector with a basic understanding of only one of the many components of this process - the pile driving hammer. Pile driving hammers are used to install both bearing piles for structure foundations and sheet piles (and soldier piles) as used in retaining structures. In a single document, this guide offers a general presentation of the operation of the more common types of hammers the inspector is likely to encounter. It should make the information in the contractor's hammer submittal for the project more understandable. It should also provide an appreciation for the importance of a properly operating pile hammer. Prior to the start of most pile driving operations, the contractor will normally furnish a submittal to the engineer giving the specific pile driving equipment that he intends to use on the job. This submittal should include the make, model, and type of the intended pile driving hammer or hammers and their operating characteristics such as ram weight, rated energy, operating speed, external power requirements and, other pertinent information. Frequently, the operating characteristics are provided in the form of the manufacturer's specification sheet. The engineer will review this information and when he is satisfied, approve it and pass it on to the inspector. The driving criteria will have been determined by the engineer or others (the geotechnical engineer, consulting engineer, contractor, etc.) from the results of static analysis (for minimum penetration), driving during a test pile installation, Wave Equation analysis, dynamic formula, pile instrumentation during driving, static load test, or a combination of these or other appropriate analyses. The driving criteria can be a minimum penetration of driven pile length (embedded length), or a minimum (or maximum) blow count per unit of penetration. The pile inspector should become familiar with this information prior to the start of the job and should understand or seek help to comprehend the terminology and intent of each specification.

Jan 1, 1995

By the courtesy of Metropolitana Milanese (Milan Underground), roost of the delegates visited on April 12, 1991 the tunnel of "PORTA VENEZIA" STATION of MILANO RAILWAY LINK. The "PORTA VENEZIA" STATION will be the most important in the link and it will he also the largest underground project of the whole railway transport network in Lomhardy. The particular conditions of the soil and the collocation of site in the center of Milano have required new technologies and the technical solution applied to this job is called "Cellular Arch Method" by its designer Prof. P. Lunardi. Our sincere thanks go to Prof. P. Lunardi and Eng. E.M. Pizzarotti of Rocksoil, Milano who have kindly furnished us a technical description of this method. Eng. Pizzarotti was the guide during the visit and gave all the technical explanations to the delegates. THE "VENEZIA" STATION IN THE 2PB SECTION OF THE RAILWAY LINK The excavation of cavities in loose ground, exceeding a certain dimension and at shallow depth, is not feasible using traditional methods: in fact it is not possible to consolidate the ground around the cavity in such a way that homogeneity and resistance is sufficiently guaranteed.

Jan 1, 1994

By Edmund Cardoza

In the spring of 1993, construction began on an ambitious building project in Boston, Massachusetts. The Shriners organization committed to offer state-of-the-art adolescent burn treatment and rehabilitation in its Boston facility by expanding in a most unusual way. In short, the concept included installation of caisson foundations and perimeter slurry wall panels to enable construction of a completely independent structure around and above the existing, continually functioning, hospital. Two distinct phases of work were detailed in the Contract Documents. At the completion of the first phase, patients will be moved into the new building, above, and demolition of the old structure, beneath, will be performed. In Phase I, sections of the slurry wall and caissons, located outside the footprint of the existing building, were planned. The next phase of the work includes the installation of the remaining caissons and slurry wall. Once excavation is completed, the balance of the new hospital structure will be constructed from the bottom upward, connecting to the under side of the new structure.

Jan 1, 1994

[ ]

Jan 1, 1994

By Daniel L. Hanson

This paper presents a case history of the design, installation and performance of a tied-back tangent caisson retaining wall which was constructed as part of the Third Harbor Tunnel project currently underway in Boston, Massachusetts. The Third Harbor Tunnel project consists of a large multi-lane transportation tunnel which is being constructed by the sunken tube method. In this type of construction, the tunnel alignment, slopes and bedding are excavated and installed underwater and the tunnel sections floated over the proper alignment and sunk in place. The tangent caisson retaining wall discussed in this paper was constructed to provide support of the upper portions of the tunnel excavation at the East Boston Portal where the tunnel exited from below the harbor and continued underground on shore. A portion of the tangent caisson retaining wall was also utilized to provide earth support for the barge unloading facility where spoil from the tunnel excavation was transferred to surface vehicles for removal from the site. PROJECT BACKGROUND The tangent caisson retaining wall was constructed by The Millgard Corporation (TMC) as a subcontractor to the Boston Third Harbor Tunnel Contractors, a Joint Venture which consisted of the firms of Morrison-Knudsen Corporation, Interbeton Inc., and J.F. White Contracting Company. The entire project team is listed below on Table 1. The design of the tangent caisson wall system was performed by Hanson Engineering, P.C. (HE) acting as design consultant to TMC. The retaining wall system incorporated a single row of pressure injected earth anchors (tie-backs) as part of the design. The earth anchors were designed and installed by Drill Tech as a subcontractor to TMC.

Jan 1, 1994

By Jean J. Abiassi

The Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) VENT 6 project is a cut and cover tunnel, part of the Central Artery / Tunnel (CA/T) in the city of Boston. The BMIP job will serve as the south approach to the Third Harbor Tunnel crossing. The alignment is approximately 2500 Ft long and is made up of four sections starting from west to east: 1. West Tunnel 2. Boat Section 3. East Tunnel 4. Tunnel inside Vent 6 Cofferdam and connection to the Third Harbor Tunnel. The support of excavation (SOE) system for the West Tunnel, Boat Section, and East Tunnel are all a part of this project whereas the SOE for Tunnel inside the Vent 6 Cofferdam was a part of the contract for the Third Harbor Tunnel.

Jan 1, 1994

By James V. Errico

On October 1, 1993 the regulations for assessing and cleaning up contaminated soil and groundwater in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were revised. These new regulations, known as the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) 310 CMR 40.0000, were developed to keep routine releases out of the regulatory system and rely on private parties to handle most releases without Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) oversight. An integral part of the new MCP is the Licensed Site Professional (LSP). An LSP is required to handle activities and render opinions once a site enters the MCP. These regulations must be adhered to where ever a release has occurred, including construction sites. A brief overview of the new MCP is given below; see attached MCP Flowchart for graphical summary. Entering the MCP Process A release of oil or hazardous material (OHM) to the soil or groundwater above applicable reportable quantities (RQ's) or reportable concentrations (RC's) will require notification to the DEP and compliance with applicable provisions of the MCP. RQ's and RC's are listed in the MCP (310 CMR 40.1600) for most compounds that are typically encountered. For each compound there are two RC's for soil (S-1 and S-2) and two for groundwater (GW-1 and GW-2). The S-1 and GW-1 RC's apply to sites that are environmentally more sensitive, as a result they are lower than the S-2 and GW-2 RC's.

Jan 1, 1994

By Bengt H. Fellenius

Session 2, Deep Foundation without Soil Excavation, has attracted no fewer than 22 papers dealing with subjects from soil improvement by grouting, injection, and deep mixing techniques through vibroflotation and special piles, including aspects pertaining to conventional driven and bored piles. In the short time available, it is not possible to both do justice to the papers and provide a critical review of the state-of-the-art. Instead, to meet the objective of making the next half hour worthwhile to the audience, I have chosen to comment on a few special points brought forward in the papers and thereafter to discuss more in detail a couple of aspects I have deemed to be of general interest. Four papers deal with jet-grouting, injection, and deep mixing techniques: DOMSKI, J. J. Reinforcement of subsoil under the foundations of historical buildings in Cracow using deep injection technique. RESTELLI, A. B, BERTERO, M., and LODIGIANI, E. Deep mixing technology to improve the bearing capacity of a very soft clayey soil under an earth embankment.

Jan 1, 1994

Abouleid,A.F.327 Ajdic, I.451 Albert, L.F. 221,307 Alem, A. 525 Asama, T. 431 Avgherinos, P. J. 373 Baker Jr, C.N. 331 Balossi Restelli, A. 171 Beckwith,G.H.33 Bellini, A. 469 Bermingham, P. 481 Bertero,M. 171,535 Beyer, M. 503 Bottiau, M.41 Botto, G. 205 Bruskeland, O. 337 Budhu, M. 349 Bullivant, R.A. 181 Bustamante, M.G. 185, 475, 535

Jan 1, 1994

[ENGLISH active earth pressure adapter additive adhesion admixture, addition adsorbed water aggregate air air entrainment air hose allowable bearing value allowable pile bearing load]

Jan 1, 1994

By Geoffrey D. Collins

This paper deals with the construction of the Effluent Outfall Diffusers which form part of the outfall for the Deer Island sewage project. The work was executed 15 km out to sea in Massachusetts Bay and required the drilling, installation, grouting and accurate determination of the actual position of 55 riser shafts in 33.5 m deep water. Although not strictly a "foundation", the contractor's approach to the installation of the diffusers was a logical development from many marine foundation projects executed by the Contracting companies over the last decades. The only previous application of this design of outfall had been in Australia where offshore oil drilling techniques had been adapted for use in riser installation.

Jan 1, 1994

By Kenneth Pidgeon

The Boston Marine Industrial Park (BMIP) Boat Section, which is part of contract C04A2 of the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project, is currently under construction in South Boston, Massachusetts (Fig. 1). The Boat Section is approximately 900 feet long and varies in width from about 135 to 185 feet (Fig. 2). The depth to the top of the Boat Section base slab varies from about 28 to 31 feet below final ground surface and about 23 to 26 feet below normal ground water levels. The Boat Section is supported on 578 anchors drilled into the underlying bedrock each designed for a working load of 630 kips. Design and Construction Team The owner of the project is the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). The owner's representative is the Management Consultant, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff. The section design consultant (SDC) consisted of HDR Engineering, Inc. with GEI Consultants, Inc. as the geotechnical subconsultant. The general contractor was the joint venture of Kiewit, Perini, Atkinson, and Cashman. The boat anchors were installed by the subcontractor Delta Geotechnical Services, Inc.

Jan 1, 1994

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

By Mark X. Haley

Foundation design and construction in Boston has changed dramatically during the past 10 years. Prior to 1985, the primary foundation element in Boston, where deep foundations are required, was driven end-bearing piles. Since 1985, drilled or excavated high capacity foundation elements have been utilized more frequently. This paper will provide a historic perspective of their use and a summary of design parameters for elements installed and founded in the bedrock. TOPOGRAPHY Boston was founded in 1630 by the Massachusetts Bay Company of John Winthrop and his hearty band of Puritans. The settlement was chosen for: ? its safe harbor, ? abundant source of fresh water, and ? peninsula setting offering protection of the ocean on almost all sides with high ground for fortification. These three factors were a direct result of past geologic processes that created the Boston Basin by erosion of the soft bedrock underlying this area as compared to the harder granite rock to the north, west and south. As the glacial ice sheets melted and moved northward, various soil types were deposited. During ice sheet re-advancement the hills and islands of Boston took on their precolonial shapes. The Trimont, consisting of Beacon, Mt. Vernon and Pemberton Hill, rose to 150 ft above sea level with the smaller Copps and Fort Hill to the north and south.

Jan 1, 1994

By William D. Spielvogel

The Massachusetts Highway Department awarded the Porter Street Outfall Project to the J.M. Cashman Company in November 1991. Timely completion of the Project in one and one half years is critical to the start of the subsequent Third Harbor Tunnel North Approach project. Existing subsurface conditions and the Project's location at Boston's Logan International Airport significantly increases the difficulty of construction. The major contractual work involves relocating a reinforced concrete double box culvert supported on a continuous wood pile foundation. This existing culvert crosses and interferes with the future Third Harbor Tunnel North Approach alignment. Two parallel culverts constructed approximately 20 feet from either side of the future Third Harbor Tunnel alignment replace the existing double box culvert structure. Under the original contract design, approximately 3,100 feet of 14 ft. by 15 ft. reinforced concrete culvert is cast in place adjacent to the west side of the Third Harbor Tunnel and is located in the center of the Airport's main service roadway, Harborside Drive. This culvert is the Porter Street Combined Sewer, PSCS, which handles a combined flow of sewerage from the East Boston community and storm water runoff from Logan Airport. In addition, approximately 2,230 feet of 17 ft. by 15 ft. reinforced concrete culvert is cast in place adjacent to the east side of the Third Harbor Tunnel and is within 20 feet of an active aircraft taxiway and heliport. This culvert is the Bird Island Flats Storm Drain, BIFSD, which handles storm water runoff from the Logan Airport airfield. The existing outfall, on the west side of the Third Harbor Tunnel alignment is to remain in service and is to be connected to the new PSCS and BIFSD culverts. Therefore, a portion of the BIFSD culvert is designed as a bridge to span 128 ft. across the Third Harbor Tunnel excavation during construction.

Jan 1, 1994

By Francis D. Leathers

Four friction pile load test programs, including 23 tension tests and 9 compression tests, have been performed as part of the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts. The tests, performed on both precast, prestressed concrete (PPC) piles and steel piles, yielded the following adhesion values: [Soil Type Clay Clay Glacial Till Interbedded Sand and Clay Interbedded Sand and Clay Pile Type PPC Steel Steel Steel PPC Adhesion (psf) 610 to 1,200 230 to 900 220 to 550 680 1,280 ] The adhesion appears to be affected by differences in pile material type, with PPC piles having higher adhesion than steel piles. However, part of the apparent difference for the clay may be due to differences in time between driving and testing. The significant range of test data means that the need for site specific testing to determine or verify design values of adhesion should be considered during design. Creep rates at loads near failure ranged from about 0.02 to 0.18 inches per log cycle of time, with most values in the range of about 0.04 to 0.08 inches per log cycle of time.

Jan 1, 1994

By George Goble

I hope that after the long evening and all the exercise that some of you took you won't be completely exhausted to listen to a little bit about pile testing. The topic that 1 have been given is pile testing. It seems to me useful to break this topic into some smaller pieces so that we can try and organize our thought a bit. As I understand the terms "pile testing", I believe we are really referring always to capacity, one way or another, so I am suggesting that we organize the things we are doing in terms of measurement of soil capacity and pile capacity. There are obviously two failure modes and we frequently speak of pile integrity rather than structural pile capacity, but it's really capacity that we are concerned about. Further within these breakdowns I am suggesting that we might look at the topic of soil capacity in terms of static methods and dynamic methods and, finally, within each one of these, measurements of axial capacity and measurement of lateral capacity. Also here some of these subdivisions might be there for the purpose of symmetry and finally the same sorts of breakdown in Pile Capacity area.

Jan 1, 1994

By P. A. Neill, O&apos

The caisson foundation for Vent Building No. 6, at the southern landfall of Boston's Third Harbor Tunnel, was installed inside an unbraced concrete cofferdam 250 feet in diameter and about 70 feet deep. As a spectacular engineering feat, the cofferdam itself certainly ranks first. However, the foundation work within was no routine caisson job and made its own contribution to the state of the art. Comprised of 5 ft. diameter caissons socketed 10 to 16 feet in sound rock, it posed serious challenges in logistics, space limitations and time, requiring development of unique, purpose-made equipment. The unexpected discovery of significant depths of shattered rock overlying acceptable sound rock, along with other surprises of lesser import, compounded the problems. How these challenges were planned for, met and overcome is the subject of this paper.

Jan 1, 1994

1.1 The parties agree to submit all claims, disputes or controversies arising out of, or in relation to, the interpretation, application or enforcement of this agreement, including dispute resolution procedures, to sequential mandatory discussion, mediation and arbitration for resolution of all disputes before, and as a condition precedent, to self-help, arbitration, judicial action or other remedies. This mandatory procedure will resolve each dispute within one-hundred (100) calendar days. Any deadline falling on a federal holiday or weekend will be the next working day. Breach of this disputes process shall constitute a material breach of contract for which the aggrieved party may recover all costs, including attorneys fees, interest and other expenses necessary to resolve the dispute through litigation. The obligation to discuss and then mediate and arbitrate covers all disputes arising from every aspect of the Project to be built by the owner, including, but not limited to, design, engineering, bonding, indemnification, labor, material and services, and the acts or omissions of any related party for whom a party to this agreement may stand responsible.

Jan 1, 1994