Search Documents

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 Kirk Ellison, Sherif Elfass, Ramin Motamed, Kevin V. Stanton

"The determination of accurate load transfer curves are essential for estimating deep foundation loadsettlement response using t-z style analyses. While recently developed semi-empirical methods from Ashour et al. (2010) and Ashour & Helal (2012) have shown promise in preliminary studies, they have not yet been thoroughly benchmarked against a more widely accepted approach. To address this issue, these recent procedures are implemented in the computer program CGI-DFSAP to predict the results of four Osterberg-cell (O-Cell) load tests. These predictions are compared to outcomes obtained following the recommendations from Reese & O’Neill (1988) for t-z analyses of drilled shafts in sand and clay which are carried out with the program TZ-PILE. Overall, the results suggest that the new approach offers improved accuracy regarding predictions of drilled shaft response to axial loading.INTRODUCTIONThe behavior of axially loaded deep foundations is often analyzed using a technique known as the t-z method. In this method, deep foundation elements are broken into multiple segments which are supported by discrete nonlinear springs to capture the contribution of both side-friction (t-z springs) and end-bearing (Q-z springs). Hence, the t-z and Q-z relationships dictate the predicted load-settlement response. A number of different approaches have been developed to estimate load-transfer curves with some relying solely on empirical data from laboratory and field experiments (i.e. Coyle & Reese, 1966; Vijayvergiya, 1977) and others based mainly on analytical frameworks (i.e. Kraft et al., 1981; Randolph, 1994). Reese & O’Neill (1988) provide recommendations which are widely used for developing t-z and Q-z curves for analyzing drilled shafts. This method is hereafter referred to as Method 1 (M1). It should be noted that these empirically derived relationships are only applicable for problems associated with drilled shafts and are therefore not appropriate for developing load-transfer curves for other types of deep foundations (i.e. driven piles). This is because of the difference in the frictional resistance which can be developed between a circular concrete-soil interface as opposed to that of other materials (i.e. steel) and/or different cross sectional geometries.The M1 load-transfer curves form the basis for the t-z analysis of drilled shafts implemented in the computer program TZ-PILE (Ensoft, 2014). In light of this, TZ-PILE is employed herein as a reference to compare against the capabilities of another method of implementing t-z style analyses. This method is based on a semi-empirical framework for soil behavior developed by Norris (1986) and is implemented using the program CGI-DFSAP (Computers & GeoEngineering Inc., 2011). More information concerning this approach, hereafter referred to as Method 2 (M2), is given in subsequent sections."

Jan 1, 2017

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 Eric P. Bregman, Justin Zarrella, Ryan M. Coulson, Connor Johnson

Within a prominent Boston, MA suburb are a pair of historic stone and mortar structures built in the late 1800’s. Both the Main House and Carriage House have been maintained and occupied throughout their rich history, but renovations were needed to address structural concerns and building code compliance issues. The focus of this paper is to detail an innovative underpinning design that addressed ongoing settlement issues at the Carriage House. GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. (GZA) partnered with Phoenix Foundation Company, Inc. (Phoenix) to design foundation wall support systems for Consigli Construction Company (Consigli) that would effectively underpin the historic field stone foundations. Originally, conventional concrete pit underpinning and jet grouting were contemplated as methods for support. However, due to the age and condition of the existing foundations, worker safety concerns, and the risk of additional structural damage, GZA/Phoenix elected to pursue a less traditional approach. The alternate design consisted of micropiles used for combined temporary and permanent foundation support. The load transfer system included steel headers with needle beams cored through the field stone foundation walls and reinforced concrete grade beams/pile caps. To validate design performance and ensure worker safety, GZA installed a fully automated survey monitoring system to record lateral and vertical building deformations. This included real-time email alert notifications to inform the Project Team of any threshold exceedances. From the start of micropile drilling through full load transfer to the temporary support and permanent foundation systems, the underpinning performed as designed resulting in less than 3/16-inch of vertical and horizontal deformations observed. This magnitude of movement is less than half of what is generally accepted deformation tolerances for masonry structures and considered exceptional performance. The focus of this paper is to provide additional details on the unique design, sequencing, installation, and performance of the underpinning systems.

Sep 8, 2021

By Paul Pedini

The challenge of Contract C19E1 of Boston's Central Artery Project called for the construction of two roadways under the commuter rail yard at North Station. Two options were offered for the method of their construction: Slurry Wall Roof-First or Soft Ground Tunneling. The instability of the indigenous soils seemed to rule out the use of tunneling, so the slurry wall method was chosen. However, these soils were incapable of holding up during slurry trench excavation. After many episodes of ground loss on early panel excavations, Modem Continental Construction suggested a method of trench wall stabilization. The Contractor (MCC) both suggested wall stabilization method and requested that the owner participate in the funding for the effort. The Project and the Contractor were able to agree on a solution which resulted in collapse-free excavation...and found an innovative way to fund the solution.

Jan 1, 2002

Jan 1, 2002

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

By Ryan Law

Ground energy systems are being installed in increasing numbers in the United Kingdom. This is particularly true in London where planning regulations require larger scale developments to provide at least 10% of their entire energy demands from renewable sources. A common approach has been to use the groundwater from the Chalk aquifer as a source of energy. This paper explains the potential long and short term sustainability problems with groundwater based systems sited in central London (or any other urbanized area). It also outlines an approach to site testing and numerical modelling to ensure that the system functions well throughout its lifetime. This approach is then applied to a project located in central London.

Jan 1, 2008

By Thomas J. Kennedy, Michael D. Bennett

The study of geotechnical history is well-established. Most geotechnical practitioners, teachers, and graduate students have some grasp of the origins of the field. However, this understanding often consists of a jumble of names and anecdotes. This paper discusses how a deeper comprehension of geotechnical history can benefit academia and practice alike and describes how the authors have begun a wide-ranging study of the subject. The paper reviews the dual-track methodology the authors have generated for the study, which consists of written articles about different works in geotechnical history and a database tracking how often pieces have been cited in geotechnical literature. The first technique has shed light on aspects of geotechnical history such as the connection of the Darwin family to the origins of geotechnical engineering, the St. Francis Dam failure of 1928, and the rivalry between theoreticians and practitioners in the early days of the field. The second has helped quantify subjects such as the outstanding contributions of Karl Terzaghi, the disagreements between Terzaghi and Donald Taylor, and the specialization of the field over time. The paper concludes by discussing the authors’ planned future work on geotechnical history.

Oct 1, 2022

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

Jan 1, 2001

By Paikowsky, Samuel G.

"Due to the way drilled deep foundations are being constructed, their structural integrity and geotechnical capacity are highly variable. Drop weight systems are increasingly being used to dynamically test the capacity and integrity of drilled deep foundations. Conventional pile driving hammers are often either inadequate or not economical to test these foundations and drop weight systems have therefore been developed to allow for dynamic testing.The advantages of the tests include high mobility, short testing time, low cost relative to static load tests (allowing multiple tests at a single site), and integrity/construction quality evaluation concurrent with capacity determination. The dynamic testing method for drilled deep foundations encounter several difficulties including: the need for a pre-testing analysis for matching pile, soil and testing system, adequate mass and drop height to reflect the mobilized capacity without structural damage, test interpretations for irregularly shaped and/or non-uniform piles, need for reliable dynamic measurements depending on the impact and the distance between the impact and the measuring point, and limited knowledge about the accuracy of the predictions.The principles of the tests are presented using simplified models and demonstrated via a case history. Drop weight systems are reviewed. Dynamic measurement principles are explained and the construction and testing quality effects are outlined and demonstrated via numerical modeling and case histories. A comparison of dynamic and static tests is presented via a database, case histories and finally a short review of relevant codes is provided.1 IntroductionTraditional static axial load test is performed by a slow application of a force produced against independent reaction, imitating structural loading. It is the most reliable method to determine the pile’s performance as commonly required under typical service conditions. The major limitations of this testing are: (i) high cost associated with set-up, test duration, interpretation and construction delays, and (ii) inability to obtain information about the pile-soil interaction along the pile without additional testing means (e.g. tell tales, strain gauges, etc.). These limitations are acute when high capacity foundations are involved."

Jan 1, 2015

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By W. G. K. Fleming

Mr P. Bermingham introduced paper 9.1, describing the development and trials of a new pile load-testing technique that the Authors had termed "Statnamic". The system involved launching a test weight mounted on the head of the pile by igniting chemical fuel in a pressure combustion chamber between the pile head and the test weight. The expansion products from the burning fuel generated large pressures which were used to launch the weight upwards at high velocity. The reaction from this force generates an equal and opposite force at the pile head. This force is typically of much longer duration compared with, for instance, dynamic load testing by drop hammer. In addition the pile experiences a much lower acceleration - typically of less than one g. Because of the long duration blow, the pile is loaded at below its natural frequency and is therefore under a uniform high stress over its full length throughout the duration of the test. The pile behaviour is not dominated by the complex action of an impulsive stress-wave as with standard dynamic testing. The test technique is thus essentially quasi-static. It was anticipated that a ram test weight of 16 tonne would be sufficient to provide the test reaction for a 600 tonne load test. It was pointed out that the device was still at the research stage, but had yielded encouraging results to date. Testing would proceed from model testing and computer simulation to full scale field testing.

Jan 1, 1991

By Gust Van Lysebetten, Monika de Vos

The objectives of monitoring geotechnical structures can be very diverse, including optimisation of the design, quality control, long term performance assessment, and approval of innovative execution techniques. In this context, new measurement techniques, based on optical fibres, offer the possibility of accurate strain and temperature monitoring with very small sensors and limited numbers of cables. This paper briefly presents optical fibre sensing techniques and illustrates their application to geotechnical structures by means of some projects, carried out by the Belgian Building Research Institute (BBRI).

May 1, 2022

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 Ground Improvement Committee

The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation.

Aug 1, 2013

By Scott A. Walker, Gabriel J. Alcantar, Brian Zuckerman, Ramin Golesorkhi

"The new San Francisco 49ers Levi’s Stadium is part of the next generation of sporting facilities. Constructed in Santa Clara, Calif., the new structure has 68,500 open-air bowl seats and includes a 7- story tower housing more than 150 suites. The overall project includes the stadium structure, elevated open pedestrian walkways, commercial community space, three new pedestrian bridges and improvements to the adjacent light rail station. Sustainable design for the project includes a green roof, photovoltaic panel and a ground source geothermal system. Stadium-wide next-generation Wi-Fi capability is another feature. The design-build project team included HNTB (project architect), Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA, structural designer) and a joint venture of Turner Construction and Devcon Construction (TDJV, general contractor).During preconstruction, the 49ers’ original design team and the design-build team formed later worked together to facilitate communication and provide continuity. This helped to meet the project’s aggressive schedule. Working directly for the 49ers, with the design-build team, Treadwell & Rollo (T&R) served as the geotechnical engineer of record for the project from preliminary to final design and through construction. Although not contracted directly to TDJV, the stadium ownership encouraged direct interaction between T&R and TDJV and improved responsiveness to geotechnical issues during design and construction.Subsurface ConditionsThe new stadium lies within the Santa Clara Valley, a deep alluviumfilled basin resulting from historic movement on the active and potentially active strike-slip and thrust faults that bind the valley. The valley is filled with Holocene age (approximately 11,000 years old to present) alluvium, consisting of levee and basin deposits, with bedrock more than 750 ft (229 m) beneath existing ground surface. The stadium site is between two of the highly-active faults in California, the Hayward Fault 6.8 mi (11 km) northeast, and the San Andreas Fault about 11.8 mi (19 km) southwest."

Jan 1, 2014

By Philip Bonanno

The first major project in Boston's new access to Logan Airport was an Immersed Tube Tunnel which extended 3,600 ft. from South Boston to East Boston across Boston Harbor. Twelve tube sections, 300 ft. long x 80 ft. wide x 40 ft. high, were lowered into an excavated trench which was then backfilled. The depth of the trench at mid-channel was approximately 100 ft. below mean high tide. At the East Boston end the tube terminated close to the present shoreline. At the South Boston end the tube terminated approximately 600 ft. inland from the shore line where a ventilation building was required. The depth to subgrade from existing ground at the ventilation structure was approximately 85 ft. The soil profile at this location consisted of 50 ft. of miscellaneous rubble fill, 25 ft. of Boston blue clay, and 10 ft. of glacial till. A small amount of weathered argellite existed at the north end of the structure. Part of the Morrison Knudsen, Interbeton, J.F. White, Joint Venture contract to construct the Immersed Tube Tunnel (ITT) was the construction of a cofferdam at the tube/ventilation building interface. The ventilation building was to be built as part of another contract. The construction of the cofferdam and the excavation to the building subgrade was the responsibility of J.F. White Contracting Company.

Jan 1, 1994

Jan 1, 1994