Search Documents

Jan 1, 2002

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 George J. Tamara

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

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 1996

By Gustavo E. Armijo

This job was done in Morristown, NJ, with mono fluid system jet grouting for the construction of a new bank building. After the demolition of the existing two story structures, an excavation in loose sandy fill materials was necessary in order to reach the new structure basement level. Due to this jet grouting was selected as a medium to provide both excavation support and permanent underpinning, minimizing the adjacent building settlements. These two adjacent buildings were partially underpinned with a "gravity wall" made with 2 and 3 rows of secant vertical and inclined jet grout columns. Besides the classical jet grouting control methods, during the jet grouting execution, all the drilling and grouting parameters were recorded by a proprietary system called "Slogger". Additionally, after the jet grouting execution, an innovative result control technique was used by means of the application of the same parameter recording system. Some of the production columns were re-drilled and a comparison was made between the obtained drilling parameters and those obtained for the same age test columns. Under the referred existing conditions and in comparison with the conventional underpinning techniques, this project demonstrated that jet grouting, with proper execution and result control, can be faster than them and can maintain the building structural stability and act, at the same time, as a retention system minimizing the existing building settlements.

Jan 1, 2002

Jan 1, 2001

By Mario Aiezza

This paper outlines the results of a relationship developed during the design and construction of the foundations for the Gallery Towers project in Melbourne. Both the builder and the piling contractor were determined to arrive at a satisfactory foundation solution to the problems encountered at the site. The scope of piling work was to provide load-bearing piles under the building columns, some of which were located within a retention system that also required a piling solution. Geological conditions were variable and challenging. The site area was small and located adjacent to the National Arts Centre in the developed Southbank area, a high density office area. This presented logistical problems in limiting construction traffic on site and also demanding minimal noise and vibration emanating from piling activities. The piling contractor, Vibro-Pile, and the builder, Walter Construction Group, faced the challenges presented with a refreshing cooperative attitude that was beneficial to both companies. Commercial issues rising from design and construction problems were first put apart in order to allow the respective technical department of each company to work with minimum constraints to achieve the most cost effective solution. In the process usual adversarial attitudes resulting in loss of time and money was avoided. A number of issues were addressed successfully at minimum cost and time during this contract. Despite the difficulties encountered, the job was completed on time and with negligible claims for extras, resulting in the development of a strong mutual respect between both companies.

Jan 1, 2002

Jan 1, 2003

By Tim Chapman

This general report considers what promoters of deep basement projects want from their teams and whether they get it often enough. Most large projects are based on complex financial models where the funding is related to a future income stream. Project delays and cost over-runs can critically affect the financial model. Too often, delays and cost over-runs originate in the substructure and foundations. We must take positive steps to improve our industry's reputation for reliability.

Jan 1, 2006

By H. Boghosian

This paper presents the design and construction of a deep basement in a steeply sloping site in glacial till in Glasgow city centre. Existing foundations, adjacent structures and services, in tandem with asymmetric loading, presented particular challenges in the planning, execution and design of the project. The construction methods and temporary works, analysis by the Finite Element method and monitoring carried out are all described.

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1989

Jan 1, 1990

Jan 1, 1994

Jan 1, 1988

Jan 1, 1991

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 1998

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1994