Search Documents

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

"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

By BRETTMANN TRACY

Jan 1, 2000

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

This Workshop was held at the Doubletree Inn, Seattle, Washington from September 26 to 28, 1997. Run under the auspices of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI), it was co-funded by the newly formed Japanese Association of Micropiles (JAMP), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Workshop was jointly organized and facilitated by Fujita Research Corporation and ECO Geosystems, Inc., with close support by Donald B. Murphy Contractors, Inc. DFI kindly consented to publish these Proceedings. As is clear from the list of attendees, 42 specially invited engineers from all aspects of micropile technology were present, representing Japanese, European and American practice. This proved to be a most friendly and interactive group of people, who freely exchanged ideas, views and close comradeship, not only during the technical sessions, but (and especially!) during the numerous social events. Perhaps the best illustration of this came in Day 2 when the attendees were divided into five competing teams, each comprising representatives from the different geographic groupings. These teams had to quickly devise solutions to two technical problems (using standard data previously provided. A team of "referees" (who also acted as "coaches") later determined the most apposite response, based on constructability design concept, cost, schedule and so on. Not only were the winning team very liberal in distributing the prize (vintage California champagne) among themselves, but the whole Workshop soon benefited from their generous division of the spoils of victory.

Jan 1, 1997

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

Jan 1, 1989

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"In partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects.The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"INTRODUCTIONIn partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects. The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

This specification, along with the drawings, encompasses all designs, materials, products, accessories, tools, equipment, services, transportation, labor and supervision, installation techniques, and testing procedures required for the installation of soil nail excavation support or earth retention systems. This is a Guide Specification designed to assist in the development of project specifications for soil nail excavation support and earth retention systems. This Model Specification is based on generally accepted industry standards but may require modification by the specification writer to accommodate unusual and/or unforeseen site and subsurface conditions and the particular circumstances of the project. Care must be taken to avoid internal inconsistencies. It contains language allowing for a Contractor-Designed Soil Nail Wall, which would be removed if the design is provided by the Owner (e.g. See Sections 1.2 and 4.1).

Jan 1, 2010

By Brian Wilson, Franz-Werner Gerressen

"Cutter Soil Mixing, also known as CSM, was developed in Europe as an alternate method of Deep Mixing to the more traditional single and multiple auger techniques, and brought to market by Bauer Maschinen GmbH (Bauer), towards the end of 2003. Initial development of the technique had been completed in a joint venture between Bauer and Bachy Soletanche. In 2004 the concept was introduced to the North American market. Continued development of the method and demonstration of its versatility, both in terms of applications and applicable soil types has seen a steady growth in the number of designs incorporating the approach, and contractors offering the technique. This paper provides a brief overview of the variety and size of projects and applications where the method has been adopted, discusses some lessons learned with respect to equipment operation as well as the improvements that have been introduced to the equipment, and briefly reviews the current state of practice, as well as some of the associated on-going research and development.BACKGROUNDCutter Soil Mixing (CSM) is a technique for deep soil mixing that was initially developed as a collaborative effort between Bauer Maschinen (Bauer) and Bachy Soletanche, but which ultimately resulted in the separate development of two somewhat different brands of CSM tool. The Bauer brand of CSM entered the European market in 2004, and was first promoted in the North American market in late 2004, with the first project starting in 2005. The Bachy Soletanche brand, sometimes referred to as “Geomix” was first marketed in Europe in 2005 and the first model introduced in North America in 2007.The development of the Cutter Soil Mixing technique utilized the experiences gained from Trench Cutter/Hydrofraise equipment, developing a technique that incorporates two cutting wheels rotating about a horizontal axis as opposed to the more conventional deep soil mixing approach which utilizes augers and mixing paddles rotating about vertical axes. Whereas the Trench Cutter/Hydrofraise technique excavates the soil from within a panel, and supports the open hole using a bentonite slurry, the CSM technique cuts and displaces the soil whilst pumping a slurry/grout directly into the soil through a port located between the wheels. The combination of cutting the soil while introducing an appropriate volume of slurry effectively fluidizes the column of soil around and above the cutter head. While this process achieves a high degree of mixing, even on the downward cutting stroke, thorough in-situ mixing typically occurs on the withdrawal stroke, when most of the slurry is added."

Jan 1, 2015

By Han Jie

The results of full scale plate load tests on stone columns on soft clay in coastal areas are presented in this paper. Four load tests were made, two of which were performed on the ground treated with stone columns, one on an isolated stone column and the last one on the untreated ground. For a given stress range, the settlement of the rigid plate, the stress concentration factor, and the excess pore water pressure were measured. It is found that the distribution of vertical stress beneath the rigid plate supported by the composite ground of stone columns is very different in shape from the one by the untreated ground, that the stress concentration factor has a relation with the stress level and time, that the stone columns increase the bearing capacity up to by 2 times, and that the ground stabilized by stone columns is of great advantage to keep the foundation stable.

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1995

By James S. Graham

Research at the University of Colorado on southern pine and Douglas-fir piling has determined that the existing building code design stress values of 1200 psi and 1250 psi, as determined by ASTM D-2899, are substantiated; but testing procedures should be revised. All full size piling tests should be standardized at 1/d ratios of 2:1, or confined tests performed. Also, it has been determined that theoretical design values for timber piling should not be based on the lumber criteria of D-245 and D-2555, but instead should follow the pattern set by engineers in the utility industry for timber poles, in accordance with ANSI 05.1.

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 2005

By Bengt H. Fellenius

.1.1 Prior to commencement of pile installation operation, submit to [Engineer] for [approval] [review], details of equipment for installation of piles. SPEC NOTE: The information requested in 3.1 .1.2 is necessary as input to a detailed wave equation analysis of the pile driving. .1.2 For impact hammers, give manufacturer's name, type, maximum rated energy and rated energy per blow at normal working rate during easy and at termination driving, mass of striking parts of hammer, mass of driving cap, and type and elastic properties of hammer cushion. .1.3 For non-impact methods of installation, such as drilling, jacking, jetting, use of vibratory hammers, or other means, give full details of characteristics necessary to evaluate performance. .2 Impact Hammer SPEC NOTE: Do not exclude a hammer type unless for very specific reason. .2.1 [Drop hammers will not be permitted.] [Diesel hammers will not be permitted.] For final driving of [TYPE] piles, provide a hammer capable of delivering to the pile a non-erratic impact stress not smaller than [VALUE] Pascal and transferring a non-erratic energy not smaller than [VALUE] Joules per blow to the pile head at normal working rate.

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1991

By Michael Kynett, Francke Walberg, Richard Millet, Khaled Chowdhury, Mary Perlea

"Cutoff walls are the most common seepage improvement measure for levee flood control projects throughout California’s Central Valley. Cutoff walls are widely used because they can be implemented within an existing right of way in either heavily urbanized areas with limited access, or in high-value crop agricultural areas. The most commonly used seepage cutoff wall types are soil-bentonite (SB), soilcement- bentonite (SCB), and cement-bentonite (CB). Contract values for cutoff wall rehabilitation projects in the Central Valley range from several millions of dollars to hundreds of millions of dollars, and play a significant role in the reduction of flood risk in urban and rural areas. However, recentlycompleted construction of several levee improvement projects has shown limitations and inconsistencies among the commonly used technical specifications for construction of seepage cutoff walls. These limitations were evaluated by practicing engineers involved in different stages of cutoff wall design and construction. This paper describes the specification areas that typically generate design and construction issues. Recommended improvements to specifications are suggested to address these issues. The paper’s topics include: the applicability of the different types of cutoff wall materials and construction methods, quality control testing requirements, backfill gradation requirements, mixing procedures, and settlement criteria for backfill.INTRODUCTIONFlood control projects on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers in the Central Valley region of Northern California consist of a large system of reservoirs, bypasses, and levees. The thousands of miles of levees within the system were largely constructed and raised by local entities as need arose; this construction occurred prior to the development of modern design and construction techniques. The majority of these levees were initially constructed to protect land for agricultural development; however, a significant portion of these areas have become or will soon be urbanized. This urbanization has historically occurred in locations right up to the levee footprint. This expedient form of historical levee construction, when combined with adverse riverine geomorphology, urban development, and productive agricultural regions, has led to a levee systems with severe seepage performance issues in a real-estate-constrained setting."

Jan 1, 2015

Jan 1, 1992

By EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group

Concrete technology continues to advance rapidly and modern mixes with five components – cement, additions, aggregates, (chemical) admixtures and water – often have characteristics which differ significantly from the older three component mixes – cement, aggregates and water. Recent trends have favoured higher strength classes and lower water/cement ratios, resulting in greater dependence on admixtures to compensate for reduced workability and to meet the (often competing) demands for workability in the fresh state and setting time. The application of testing methods which reflect the true rheological properties of the concrete has not developed at the same rate as the mixes themselves and it is still not uncommon for the slump or flow table test to be used as the only acceptance test for fresh concrete.A joint review of problems in bored piles (drilled shafts) and diaphragm walls cast using tremie methods by both the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and the Deep Foundations Institute in the United States (DFI) identified a common issue. The review determined that many of the problems were caused by (or in part due to) the use of inadequate concrete mixes with inadequate workability, or insufficient stability or robustness of the mixes. It further identified the primary causes as inadequate concrete specifications and inadequate testing procedures. The consequences of these problems are often significant and it has been recognised that spending more time and money on getting the concrete right is the most cost effective approach.A joint Concrete Task Group was set up by EFFC and DFI in 2014 to look at this issue and this guide is the output from that Task Group. A research and development project, funded by the Sponsors of this guide, is being carried out by the Technical University of Munich in conjunction with the Missouri University of Science and Technology. This project includes desk studies, laboratory testing, and onsite testing at worksites in Europe and the US. The research work will be completed during 2016.

Jan 1, 2016