Search Documents

By L. C. Reese

? Good construction and inspection presumed. ? Capacity-computation factors are independent of construction method. ? To account for variable or uncertain site conditions, anticipated construction problems, and/or minimal inspection, increase factor of safety. ? Conduct load tests and/or develop easily implemented design alternates (e.g., straight shaft in case bell can't be formed) to reduce factor of safety.

Jan 1, 1988

By G. G. Goble

Significant progress has been made in the past decade in determining the load bearing capacity of pile foundations. Developments in the means of prediction of pile capacity as limited by soil strength have been substantial, particularly in the use of dynamic methods. The use of currently available equipment, analytical procedures, and practices in the field, will often produce material economies on a job by allowing increased loads with proven factors of safety. This approach justifies the minimum number of piles required for a safe foundation in a wide range of job sizes and soil conditions. To avoid exposing the reader to excessive detail in the body of this paper, technical topics have been covered more thoroughly in several appendices. I. Wave Equation Analysis of Piles Appendix A II. Dynamic Monitoring and the Pile Driving Analyzer Appendix B III. Case Method Capacity Calculation Appendix C IV. Case Pile Wave Analysis Program Appendix D 1 Preliminary Analysis In designing driven pile foundations, there must be a close relationship between design, construction control procedures, driving practices, and the size of the job. Small commercial buildings or residences involving loads that are only a fraction of the pile capacities do not justify the expense of detailed design processes or elaborate construction controls. Nevertheless, some preliminary analysis of the job requirements and a limited subsurface investigation must be made to understand existing conditions and the possible foundation solutions. In other words, it is necessary to determine that driven piling is the best overall choice of foundation.

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1988

By Don C. Warrington

This paper describes a new wave equation analysis program called ZWAVE, which is a program specifically for external combustion hammers. The program is de-scribed in detail, the discussion dealing with topics concerning the program such as 1) the numerical method the program uses to integrate the wave equation, which is different from most other wave equation programs; 2) the modelling process of both cushioned and cushionless hammers; 3) the automated generation of mass and spring values for both hammer and pile; 4) the method of dealing with plastic cushions; 5) the use of a recently developed model for computing shaft resistance during driving; 6) the computation and generation of values based on basic soil properties such as shear modulus, Poisson's Ratio and soil density; 7) the completely interactive method of feeding data to the program; 8) the method used to compute the anticipated rebound and the energy used to plastically deform the soil; and 9) the format of the inter-active input of the program and the program's output. Sample problems for the program, along with comparison of the program results with data gathered in the field, are presented.

Jan 1, 1988

By Charles F. Seemann

It is with considerable trepidation that I set out to defend "litigation" to Design Professionals (DPs), as a better method of resolving disputes than arbitration, in the light of my personal feeling that an increasing amount of America's productive process is being squandered in litigation. Newer methods of dispute resolution, particularly arbitration, are fashionable, and opponents of these schemes risk being viewed as cynical or self-serving. My quandary is heightened since for some smaller disputes, arbitration seems clearly the better choice. I must concede, for example, that when the cost of dispute resolution--i.e., the cost of the process (such as arbitrators fees, attorneys fees, etc.), plus the cost impact of the non-productivity of involved employees--approximates the amount of the dispute, controlling that cost may be as important as a correct resolution. This principle is particularly true for small disputes arising during the progress of a project; it is probably more cost-effective for all parties to resolve their disputes quickly than permitting the dispute to drag out.

Jan 1, 1988

By Ronnie W. Sisk

1. Troubles start early - Inadequate Geotechnical Data A. Owners think they are saving money by allowing limited soil borings at their site. This places a high gamble on the bidders and the Lump Sum Price will be higher. B. Inaccurate elevations on soil reports. a. Surprises in depths - over or under design bid bottom elevations. 1. Requires backfill and extraction of casing that is too short for the greater depth of the drilled shaft. 2. Redrill utilizing longer casings. 3. Softer earth (backfill) can cause difficulties in redrilling such as less quantity extracted on the auger and maintaining plumbness. 4. Greater concrete overrun. b. Extreme under depths. 1. Excessive concrete is placed as a result of planning for a deeper shaft. c. Geotechnical report that does not supply a layout of boring locations. d. Design Engineer does not have a basic knowledge of how a caisson is installed.

Jan 1, 1988

By Bengt H. Fellenius

THIS PAPER deals with the analysis of results from axial testing of vertical single piles, i.e. the most common field test per-formed. Despite the numerous tests which have been carried out and the many Papers which have reported on such tests and the analysis thereof, the understanding of pile test loading in current engineering practice leaves much to be de-sired. The reason for this is that the engineers have concerned themselves with mainly only one question: "Does the pile have a certain least capacity?", finding little of practical value in analysing the actual capacity and the pile-soil interaction. This Paper aims to show that engineering value can be gained from elaborating on a pile test ? during the actual testing in the Held, as well as in the analysis of the results. The first portion of the notes make use of an earlier Paper by the author (Fellenius. 1975). However, additional views and recent literature have been incorporated.

Jan 1, 1988

By Roy H. Borde

The design of foundations to support overhead signs is primarily based on providing adequate resistance against horizontal wind loads. The typically used subgrade reaction model for the load-deflection analysis of laterally loaded piles and shafts has been found to underpredict the capacity of shafts with length to diameter ratios less than five. The general applicability of an improved model incorporating the influence of shear and moment resistance at the shaft base is demonstrated. The detrimental effect of ground surface slope angle on the ultimate capacity is discussed, and a design chart for estimating the magnitude of the reduction in capacity is presented. A comparison between the predicted and measured responses of nine full-scale load tests performed within this study and sixteen external tests is presented. The models described are implemented in the computer program "LTBASE".

Jan 1, 1988

By Stanley A. Schwartz

In the Piedmont, heavily loaded structures are generally supported by either drilled piers or one of several pile types. The choice of drilled piers or piles is typically one of comparative costs. The cost of a drilled pier foundation is usually the more difficult to predict because of the greater impact that variable conditions and construction monitoring have on cost. Poor specifications, related to the drilling equipment, procedures and bearing level, can also result in large cost extras. In the southern Piedmont, straight shafts are typically extended down to hard rock to achieve primary support in end-bearing: when bells are required, they are often constructed manually. In some eastern and northern Piedmont locations the thickness of the decompossed rock zone is significant and considerable skin friction can be mobilized. Typically piers are constructed in holes temporarily cased with steel liners. The bottom is cleaned of loose material and water, and then evaluated by a geotechnical engineer to confirm the design bearing pressure (and friction, where appropriate) or recommend alternative construction measures.

Jan 1, 1988

By J. Allan Tice

In the past fifteen to twenty years, the use of drilled piers to support high capacities in coastal plain deposits has become more and more common. With improved construction techniques and better understanding of pier behavior, drilled shafts with capacities of 200 to 500 tons are not unusual. The purpose of this presentation is to review several drilled pier installations from North Carolina to north-east Florida as a means of illustrating the different types of design concepts and installation techniques which are presently being used. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The information in this presentation was obtained from work performed by many individuals and companies. The section on limestone socket caissons in South Carolina is an abridged version of a paper prepared by Rob Smith and Neil Gilbert of Law Engineering's Charlotte, North Carolina office, and is used with permission. The section on pier installation in northeast Florida is an abridged version of a paper prepared by Kirk Mcintosh, Tom McDaniel, and Randy Knott of Law Engineering's Jacksonville, Florida office, reprinted here with permission. Additional data discussed in this presentation has been obtained from Farr Foundation Company, McKinney Drilling Company, and Peterson Drilling Company.

Jan 1, 1988

Case I- Timber Pile Test- 4 pages describe the pile driving record, the pile load test and the boring log. Case II- 24 inch square prestressed concrete pile-5 pages give details about the pile driving, the boring log, the pile driving record, and the pile load test. Case III- 12 inch square prestressed concrete pile- 5 pages describe the compilation of SPT blow counts for the whole project, the pile driving record, the pile load test and the detailed boring logs. The 70 foot long pile was driven by a Vulcan 08 pile hammer. Case IV- 12 BP 53 Steel H pile- 3 pages give the pile load test, the pile driving record and the nearest boring log. The 64 foot long pile has its tip at elevation 908 ft. and the ground is at elevation 972 ft. The contractor augered to elevation 959 ft. before driving the pile with a Conmaco 08 single acting pile hammer. The hammer had an 8000 pound ram, a rated energy of 26,000 ft-1b., and a 7 1/2 inch thick asbestos cushion. Dynamic measurements were made during driving of the test pile and measured a hammer energy equal to 12,500 foot-pounds.

Jan 1, 1988

By Robert G. Lenz

Control of ground water for construction purposes is an everyday occurrence in the U.S. Thousands of pumps are in service at any given time. Most of these applications simply consist of pumping water out of an excavation, generally with the aid of sumps. Modern hydraulic and electric submersible pumps permit these procedures because of their ability to pump solids and take air without losing their prime. These procedures work fine up to a point and permit the contractor to control his ground water problems adequately and at minimal cost. When that point is exceeded, the ground water problems sometimes are compounded. Over-application of open pumping techniques can result in slope failures, cofferdam instability, bottom heaving, boils, loss of ground, damage to adjacent structures and utilities, and assorted other maladys which could and should be avoided. This paper will deal with the options involved in ground water control, a discussion of the unwanted side effects of dewatering, and examples of ground water control projects in various cities around the U.S.

Jan 1, 1988

By James J. Neate

The augered cast-in-place pile system came into use in the late 1940's where various techniques were tried using pressure grouting methods. In the early development stages some piles were installed using the preplaced aggregate concrete system. As development continued it became more apparent that placement of coarse aggregate was more costly than making a pile out of a cement and sand mixture only. Various techniques were tried consisting of pumping structural grout into an open hole through a pipe left in the bottom of the hole, drilling or driving a pipe in close proximity to the tip elevation of the auger or in working a pipe down adjacent to the auger fluting. For these techniques the pipe was usually withdrawn after grout appeared at the surface. In 1951 a patent was applied for by Raymond Patterson describing the above techniques along with a technique for placement of grout using a hollow stem auger and a removable plug or lead bit at the tip of the auger. The plug or lead bit was removed by grout pressure and this would be an expendable item for each pile placed. The patent was granted in 1956 and patent rights were assigned to Intrusion-Prepakt, Inc. Shortly thereafter other contractors were granted licenses to utilize the system. Patent coverage expired in 1973 and this method now is in the public domain. Today the method is in wide use throughout the world and is particularly well accepted in Japan and England.

Jan 1, 1988

By Reinhard Gnilsen

Soil Nail walls, like any other structure, must meet high standards of design to be acceptable to the public and owners. On the other hand, the concept of soil nailing trails behind other structures in terms of defined design criteria that are commonly acknowledged. This is not to say that soil nail walls need to be less safe or less conservative than alternative more conventional concepts. Instead, the lack of established design criteria and design methodology entails that rules of thumb from past experience, overly simplified calculation assumptions, and the engineers' common sense judgement must substitute for a complex analysis of true stability and wall performance. Those "design approaches" must be conservative to ensure an adequate structure. Also, soil nailing may not be perceived prudent where site conditions are considered beyond past experience. For instance, site conditions may be perceived out-side the scope of soil nailing applicability where walls are very high, soil parameters variable or low, or nearby buildings close to the wall edge. The latter relates in particular to deep

Jan 1, 1988

By Bert R. Oastler

BERT R. OASTLER: Born Atlanta, Georgia, October 19, 1933; B.S. Civil Engineering, Duke University, 1956; Doctor of Laws, Emory University, 1966; Bryan Honor Society; Associate Editor, Journal of Public Law. Partner in charge of litigation for Smith, Currie & Hancock Including federal and state courts, administrative boards, arbitration and negotiation. American Bar Association; American Trial Lawyers Association; Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Practiced structural steel design at Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company and building construction as an officer in the United States Air Force. Engaged in the building construction business in Atlanta, Georgia as estimator and project manager for five years. Lectured on construction litigation, arbitration and government contracts procurement law for Federal Publications, Inc., Associated General Contractors and other private entities on a nationwide basis. Served as guest lecturer on Government Contracts at Emory University and Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia. Served as arbitrator in cases for the American Arbitration Association.

Jan 1, 1988

By Jerry A. Steding

How many times have you heard "You can't drive piles because of the vibration."? You hear these words come out of the mouths of owners, engineers, and contractors. When a piling contractor hears this, he can almost always do a psychological profile of the individual uttering these words of wisdom. If the owner makes the statement, we know the odds are about 95% that the owner owns the building next door or he wouldn't care what happens to it; or the guy next door has threatened to sue the owner if he even so much as walks across the site of the proposed new building. If the owner owns the building next door to the new construction you can also be just as certain the old structure has undergone settlement. If the statement comes from the mouth of the contractor, it is usually just a case of him being inexperienced.

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1988

By Braja M. Das

Laboratory model test results for the ultimate uplift capacity of square and circular foundations in saturated clay (ø=0) have been presented. The results of the present model tests for square foundations have been compared with the previously published laboratory model tests results on circular foundations. Based on the comparison, it appears that the critical embedment ratio of square and circular foundations increases from about 3 for soft clays to about 7 for medium to stiff clays. By using the experimental results, an empirical procedure has been suggested for determination of the ultimate uplift capacity of belled pier foundations in saturated clay.

Jan 1, 1987

By Jörn M. Seitz

Dynamic load testing is employed with ever increasing frequency to estimate the strength and elastic settlement behavior of piles of all types. For dynamic loading ram masses up to 20 Mg have been used and pile resistance forces up to 30 MN have been activated. Strains and accelerations induced by the impact are measured near the pile top and a load-set curve is computed by the so-called CAPWAP method. This paper briefly describes both the necessary equipment and other details of the dynamic tests and the available analytical tools for data interpretation. Furthermore the need for further research and the current status of standardization will be discussed. This paper also presents the results from several static and dynamic correlation tests on cast-in-situ piles of up to 2 m diameter and 64 m length. The results demonstrate the economical and technical feasibility of this test method.

Jan 1, 1987

By C. D. Thompson

Pile load test programs were carried out in 1984 and 1985 at Stelco's and Dofasco's Steel Making Plants in the Hamilton Bayfront area. 323.9 mm outside diameter by 9.5 mm wall thickness Grade 3 steel closed-end pipe piles were driven to practical refusal at depths of 21 to 30 m in very dense silt till with Delmag D30 open-end diesel hammers. Ultimate bearing capacities of up to 5330 kN were proved by dynamic monitoring and static load tests. Allowable bearing capacities of 1780 kN were achievable on production piles without undue difficulty. It was found that the impact stress at the top of the pile was controlled by the yield strength of the steel rather than a useable upper limit based on the modulus of elasticity. A bearing to impact stress ratio of 1.2 at practical refusal was observed to be reasonable but conservative at this site, and is felt to be generally applicable for piles driven to practical refusal elsewhere. Dynamic monitoring during production pile driving was able to show that apparent relaxation was caused by pre-ignition of the hammer when visual observations indicated that pile driving was proceeding satisfactorily.

Jan 1, 1987