Search Documents

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 John P. Turner, Benjamin J. Turner

"Non-destructive testing and evaluation (NDT/NDE) methods have become standard tools as part of the post-construction quality assurance of drilled shaft foundations. In responding to anomalies, foundation designers, owners, and contractors face a number of choices, including: (i) acceptance of a shaft with known anomalies, (ii) further investigations of integrity (e.g., concrete coring), (iii) repair schemes, and (iv) reject and replace. To assist in selecting the best option, analyses are often performed that involve assessing the structural performance of reinforced concrete shafts that may include defective concrete or voids. Currently, the analytical tools for predicting the flexural strength and stiffness of drilled shafts with defective concrete located in discrete regions of the cross section are limited. This paper presents a robust moment-curvature analysis tool for drilled shafts based on the fiber-element discretization method. The tool allows for consideration of anomalous or defective concrete regions in the shape and location that they are believed to exist in the shaft while considering explicitly the nonlinear material behavior of the intact regions based on expected material properties. A case study is used to illustrate the practical application of the analysis to drilled shaft projects.INTRODUCTIONImperfections such as defective concrete or accidental eccentricity of reinforcing cages are an inherent part of the drilled shaft construction process that will occur occasionally even when construction best-practices are followed. Petek et al. (2002), O’Neill and Sarhan (2004), Poulos (2005), and others have described the effects that construction defects can have on the axial and lateral performance of drilled shafts. Our industry has seen rapid progress in recent years in the development and improvement of tools for detecting drilled shaft anomalies, such as gamma-gamma and crosshole-sonic logging, sonic-echo testing, thermal integrity profiling, and even visual inspection with invasive video cameras. Nonetheless, in most cases the wealth of data from these tests is used by foundation engineers to make a fairly “black or white” decision—should the defects be repaired, or should the shaft be rejected? A third option that is not typically considered is to directly analyze the section, including anomalies, and compare the reduced strength and/or ductility to the actual project demands. This option takes full advantage of the data collected during integrity testing, and may provide a justifiable means for avoiding further construction costs and delays, whether for repair or replacement."

Jan 1, 2016

By James J. Anderson

In this talk I will report on an effort to reassess the risk of pile driving to juvenile salmonids migrating through Puget Sound. The study was motivated by the concern of the construction industry that provisions restricting pile driving during the spring migration is resulting in an unbalanced burden to the industry. In simple terms the industry wants to know if some construction can be conducted in the spring without harming the juvenile fish. Fisheries agencies have agreed to reconsider their regulations in the context of additional studies. So, in this talk I will present some thoughts on risk assessment in general and the results of our study to assess the impact of pile driving on Snohomish River juvenile pink and chum salmon that migrate through the Navy Homeport construction site at Everett. The research, which is being carried out by the Fisheries Research Institute at the University of Washington, was planned and is supported in a joint effort including: the Washington Department Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; General, Manson, and Hurlen construction companies, the Department of Transportation and a number of Puget Sound ports authorities. I will first briefly discuss the early life history of the juvenile salmon the regulations are designed to protect Second, I will outline the legal criteria required for risk regulation and some specific thoughts on how a reassessment of pile driving risk might be approached. With this basis I will report on our research and how it can be applied to a new risk assessment.

Jan 1, 1990

By Stefano Trevisani

Abstract The FIEC Sustainability Vision states that “risks should be identified and allocated in a fair manner across the project team from the early stages of the design phase. A partnering approach, where objectives and timescales are agreed in advance together with all relevant partners in the value chain, offers a useful solution to improve on site efficiency and reduce disputes”. An alliance or collaborative form of contract involving all parties is the best way to ensure fair contract conditions and proper risk allocation in construction projects. Collaborative contracts are particularly useful where there is uncertainty or undefined information or in the event of technical difficulties and other risks difficult to allocate among the parties involved in the project. Owners sometimes require even special output in terms of innovative technical solutions or special performance. In addition, this particular form of cooperation has been construed and developed with the intention of avoiding and mitigating another great risk associated with the construction industry (especially in complex projects): disputes and conflicts, which are often a major cause of delays, increased costs, loss of reputation and opportunities. In contrast, Alliances are a way to increase and strengthen business relationships, technical and economic innovation and effectiveness, in a worldwide global context where the waste of resources must be avoided in order to guarantee future recovery and growth. Of course, the total cost of a project is usually a key factor and the main driver for the Owner and the Contractors in deciding the type of relationship between them as well as the subsequent relationship with subcontractors and lower-tiers. This paper and presentation, will explain the main features and the principle benefits that the use of collaborative contracts can bring to all parties involved in the construction project, including the sustainable financial return that might be achieved if costly and time consuming disputes can be avoided.

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

By P. V. Chandramohan

"In ports, piled berths are designed and constructed for berthing of ships with a finite draught. Piles in a bridge foundation also have a large free stand above scoured level. The piles of these structures have to withstand large horizontal forces imparted by the impact of the approaching vessels or due to longitudinal and transverse action in a bridge. It is also imperative that these piles have to project out of the dredged / scoured bed. These piles are normally designed as slender compression members subjected to bending also. They are subjected to vertical load tests for assessing the soil resistance. Lateral load tests, as a rule, are also stipulated. IS and IRC codes stipulate a deflection criteria for lateral load test to arrive at the capacity. These tests are usually conducted on a working pile by jacking out two piles. At the time of the test, pile will be free headed. But in service, piles are fixed head. There is a large difference in deflections between a fixed head and a free headed pile. Besides, a free headed pile will be subjected to a much higher bending moment than the fixed head one. This will put the working test pile under risk of breaking during the test. The problem is analyzed with case studies. INTRODUCTION Vertical capacity of piles is assessed by static formulae. This formula is based on the soil properties obtained from random soil exploration and laboratory and in-situ testing. Since soil is not a homogeneous medium, properties can vary. The design parameters taken for computations may be different from the ones at the interface of the pile with the soil. The best way is to find out is by a load test. The code IRC:78-2014 has rightly stated that initial load test is part of the design process. This is true with the vertical load test. But there are certain problems with the purpose and inference of the lateral load test. In both the tests the criteria for acceptance is the quantum of movement of the point of application of the load. In the former, the movement is vertical and depends more on the compression of the soil than the compressive strain in concrete. But in the latter, this movement is partly on account of the flexural rigidity of the pile and partly due to the horizontal compressibility of the soil. The role of rigidity of the pile is more when compressibility of the soil is higher. Lateral load test is done by jacking one pile against another because it is difficult to get an independent horizontal reaction. Please see Fig.1 Photo."

Jan 1, 2015

By Gunhild Hennum, Tewodros Tefera, Gisle Håland, Annette Jahr

"Abstract The Gudrun field is located west of Stavanger in the North Sea at water depth of 109 m. A jacket substructure was selected to support the topside and was installed in 2011. The jacket shall be able to support 16 of 0.762 m (30 in) diameter conductors and is equipped with a drilling deck to allow for pre-drilling by a jack-up rig through the jacket. In general the soil conditions below mudline comprise of a thin top layer of very loose to dense sand overlaying several layers of sandy clay, ranging in stiffness from firm to hard. Below some 30 m depth the soil consists of layers of medium dense to dense silty sand overlaying very hard sandy clay containing thick beds of sand to 100 m depth or more below mudline. The jacket is secured to the seabed by twelve 2.438 m (96 in) diameter steel pipe piles, three at each pile cluster located at the four legs of the jacket at sea floor. Different design methods were used to determine the pile penetration depth. Pile drivability was evaluated using best estimate and upper bound soil parameters. The pile driving and blow count record show that the target penetration was reached as predicted. This paper discusses the different methods used to determine the pile capacity, target penetration depth and the drivability analyses made for the Gudrun jacket piles. The soil resistance during pile driving is back-calculated from the pile installation data and compared with the prediction made.IntroductionThe Gudrun platform is located west of Stavanger in the North Sea at water depth of 109 m. A jacket substructure was selected for the Gudrun platform. The general Gudrun platform jacket configuration is to a large extent dictated by the topside layout, the requirements for support points enclosing the well slots and access for the jack-up rig. The Gudrun platform jacket is a traditional 4 legged structure with a vertical side towards the jack-up rig. At the seabed the jacket is quadratic with a base dimension of 40 by 40 metres. Figure 1 shows the Gudrun jacket during load-out from the fabrication yard to the transport barge. At the site the jacket was lifted off the barge, upended and placed on the seabed by the installation vessel. The jacket is secured to the seabed by twelve 96"" (2.438 m) diameter steel pipe piles, three at each pile cluster located at the four legs of the jacket at sea floor. The target penetration of the piles is 47 m."

Jan 1, 2014

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 George Filz, Peter R. Cali

"Unnecessarily restrictive specifications could be limiting the cost effectiveness of deep mixing (DM) applications and therefore limiting use of DM on projects where there are other options. Excessively restrictive standards demanded for strength and permeability certainly increase contractors’ bid prices, and costing the owners and, in the case of Government projects, the taxpayers more than necessary. Yet, lax or ineffective specifications often exist for some vital components of the quality assurance and quality control. In this paper, specifications for key elements of DM design and construction are examined. Recommendations are made to improve and streamline DM specifications to better serve the common objective of constructing a safe and cost effective ground improvement project.INTRODUCTIONSpecifications should, at their best, convey the project design requirements and provide clear direction to the contractor regarding requirements for submittals, materials, execution, measurement, schedule, and other aspects as necessary. The specifications should not be overly conservative, restrictive or ambiguous, and they absolutely should not be deficient in measurement of quality. Guide specifications or recycled sections from previous projects often form the template for new project specifications. But standards that appear in guide specifications or from former successful construction should be critically scrutinized by the designer for relevance before using the copy/paste functions of the specifications writer’s keyboard. Because work does not always go as smoothly as planned, specifications for remediation of non-compliant construction should be clearly stated and enforced. Often, non-compliancy is reviewed after-the-fact and deemed to have met the design intent, indicating that either the specifications were too restrictive or the enforcement too weak.The Federal Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support, October 2013, was written by a panel of DM expert design practitioners and contractors. Guide specifications are included as Appendix C of the FHWA manual. Those guide specifications have been updated in the deep mixing section of the www.GeoTechTools.org website, and the updated specifications represent the most complete and authoritative compilation published to date. Although the specifications for DM at www.GeoTechTools.org are current and complete, and they portray the state-ofthe- practice, they too must be modified to fit specific DM applications, project needs, and site conditions. The keys to a good set of specifications are to prescribe construction only to the level that is required to meet the design intent, to require appropriate quality control and quality assurance (QC/ QA) activities, and to clearly address remedial measures required for non-compliant work."

Jan 1, 2015

By Dario Libano

"The Line 5 Extension, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, is currently the most important investment in public transportation by Sao Paulo’s state government. It will connect the south part of the city to the city center, crossing through four other major Metro lines and stations; all currently in operation. The total extension of the line is 11 km (6.8 mi), and includes a new parking yard for the trains and 11 new stations. The Brooklin Station, one of the new stations due to be open and operating in 2016, has a unique geometry of five secant shafts.The original design included constructing five secant shafts stabilized by two plastic slurry walls using conventional grab technology. One slurry wall, along the Santo Amaro Avenue, was to contain the contamination plumes, and another was for temporary support to enable the excavation of the shafts. The final retaining wall design was changed to a concrete structural diaphragm wall that reduced the construction time of the shafts by half, allowing the contractor to meet the construction schedule. This solution also avoided dewatering effects in a geological region characterized by Quaternary sediments and environmental contamination plumes. It was the first time that a hydromill was used in such a situation in Brazil. The hydromill, by overcutting the panels, increased the quality of the joints, and decreased the probability of having seepage into the shafts. The hydromill also created a seepage barrier and avoided movement of the contaminated plumes.The GeologyLocal geology is composed of a superficial Quaternary soil, basically soft organic clays and sands and gravels. From the depth of 8 m (26 ft) until 18 m (59 ft), geology is composed by tertiary medium compact sand with thin silt-clay layers. From 18 m (59 ft) down, there are alternations between compact silt-sands layers with very hard clays layers. Each is approximately 5 to 10 m (16.4 ft to 33 ft) thick.The Initial Basic DesignThe original basic design of the Brooklin Station was to be constructed from five 40 m (131 ft) diameter intersecting circular shafts, all in a line along the axis of the Metro tunnel, in 555 days. In the excavation sequence, the odd shafts were first excavated, waterproofed and had part of their inside cast-in-place structure built before the even shafts were excavated. During the excavation of the even shafts, part of the odd shaft’s support was demolished and connected with the even support. A 0.8 m (2.6 ft) thick plastic slurry wall, acting together with the wire mesh reinforced shotcrete support, ensured the excavation stability around the five shafts."

Jan 1, 2014

By Bengt H. Fellenius

The bearing capacity equation?"the triple N formula"? is now about 50 years old. It was developed from theory of plastic resistance of metal to a cone being pressed into the surface of the metal, superpositioned by resistance due to shear in an interparticulate medium (soil; note, we are not dealing with metallurgy), and tempered by work necessary to move the footing into the medium. The equation (and its coefficients) was "confirmed" by tests on small footings placed at or near the surface of the soil. The equation is a basic tenet of every geotechnical textbook, manual, and code. Over the years, innumerable variations of the N-coefficients and adjustments to the equation have been published. The main assumption behind the bearing capacity equation is that a shear plane develops between two essentially otherwise unaffected bodies: the main soil body and a body comprised of the footing with some soil. Moreover, the notion is that a model footing placed at or near the surface of a soil would behave proportionally or similarly to a full-scale footing, or to even a same size footing (pile toe) placed at some depth in the ground. This is not in agreement with factual observations. It is suggested that the behavior of a small or large diameter footing as well as a pile toe is governed by compression of the soil below the footing or pile toe and not by "bearing capacity".

Jan 1, 1999

By S. T. Kok

This paper presents a case study in West Malaysia for passive piles failure in very soft marine clay in open excavation. In this particular case, the thickness of the very soft marine clay ranges from 5 m to 7 m (16 ft to 23 ft) from the ground surface. Preliminary site investigation reported SPT ?N? value of zero for the very soft marine clay. The design was based on a deep foundation utilizing driven piles to support the superstructure. During pile cap construction, the piles were subjected to uncontrolled open excavation, inducing bending moment in the piles, resulting in some cracked and broken piles. Analyses were carried out using an existing three-dimensional finite element code with a non-linear soil model to predict the response of these piles during excavation. Finally, the predictions of pile responses during excavation were compared satisfactorily with the observed results.

Jan 1, 2009

By Edward Jacobsen

The Oak Creek Power Plant in Oak Creek, Wisconsin is currently undertaking an expansion project. In order to supply cooling water to this facility, a 27' (8.2m) diameter tunnel will be bored, in rock; to connect to 4 vertical Intake shafts located approximately 1.5 miles (2.4km) offshore in Lake Michigan. In 2004, Case Foundation Company was awarded a lump sum contract to Install these intake shafts. When complete, the plant is expected to circulate upward of 2 billion gallons per day (7.5 billion liters) through this system. Two shafts were drilled in a (shortened) construction season in 2005 and the remaining 2 shafts and 4 liner assemblies were completed in 2006. Future connection to the tunnel, in 2007, will be accomplished by mining upward to reach the lower portion of each liner and then removing its internal bulkheads to permit the flow of the lake water into the tunnel.

May 11, 2007

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

Jan 1, 1984

By G. G. Goble

Dynamic pile testing is now over 20 years old as a routinely applied tool for evaluating driven pile installation. The first test on a cast-in-place pile was performed more that 15 years ago. The research that produced the method began almost 30 years ago. But, questions still arise regarding the appropriate use of this technique so some review is useful. Today a number of methods including dynamic testing all depending in some way on the application of dynamics are in routine use. First, Wave Equation analysis can be used to predict pile driveability before going to the field. The same approach can be used during driving to estimate the bearing capacity based on the blow count observed in the field. Dynamic measurements, on the other hand, can only be used after pile driving has begun. They offer predictions of pile capacity as well as measurements of hammer, driving system, and pile driving performance characteristics. The first part of this paper will be devoted to discussing how the foundation engineer can use these tools. First, a brief review of what dynamic methods actually do. In Wave Equation analysis a numerical model of the hammer, driving system, pile, and the soil is created by the engineer. The hammer is dropped on the pile and using a discrete, dynamic analysis the motion of the individual pile elements is calculated as a function of time. Of course, input information must be supplied by the program user to describe the hammer, driving system, pile, and soil. In the current state of development, the primary problem in input data is with the hammer performance (efficiency) and the soil description. Research may be able to do a better job with the soil data, but hammer performance will always vary from hammer to hammer and is dependent on the affectiveness of the inspection process. Prior to beginning pile driving the Wave Equation analysis supplies the best available estimate of what will happen when driving begins. It gives an estimate of blow count during driving, driving stresses, both tension and compression in the pile, and for diesel hammers, stroke. The selection of the driving system can be checked with the results of Wave Equation analysis and modifications can be made if required. For example, if the blow count at the required capacity was deemed excessive by the contractor a larger hammer could be tried or if driving stresses were too high changes could be made in the cushion or the hammer selection could be modified. All of these modifications are possible with only the cost of a computer run. The primary questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of Wave Equation analysis at this time is with regard to the assumptions made to represent the soil characteristics and the difficulty in predicting hammer performance.

Jan 1, 1993

By James F. Davis, Matthew A. Conte, Robert F. Tonning

This is a paper demonstrating the steps taken to combine multiple types of piles for a single site to maximize the benefits and characteristics of each method. We intend to discuss the use of grouted displacement piles in lieu of traditional pile types that were specified on an individual project. We will show how implementing this alternate pile type can both supplement and replace the originally specified pile to increase efficiency and lower costs. We will demonstrate a reduction in spoils, vibration, crew hours, and equipment size while employing methods to overcome unforeseen ground conditions.

By George Burnhart

"Sonic drilling is a relatively new technology even though it has been in development since the late 1940s. It was initially funded by the U.S. petroleum industry and then, in the late 40s, Russian scientists worked on developing sonic drilling, their interest based on drilling rates 3 to 20 times that of conventional methods. In the early 1960s, the Shell Oil Company backed research that resulted in a down-hole device with a series of eccentric weights driven by drilling fluid to generate vibration. Hawker Sidley, in the early 1980s, developed the first modern prototype sonic drills in Vancouver B.C. and the North Star Drilling Company in Minnesota became the first contractor in the U.S. to operate sonic equipment in 1985. In 1994, North Star became a division of Boart Longyear, headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah.What’s Unique about a Sonic DrillA sonic drill rig appears and operates very much like any conventional top-drive rotary rig. The key difference is that a sonic drill has a specially designed hydraulically powered drill head, containing oscillators, that generates adjustable high-frequency vibratory forces. The sonic head is attached directly to the drill pipe or outer casing, sending the high frequency vibrations down through the drill steel to the face of the drill bit. This creates displacement, fracturing or shearing action depending on the material being drilled. The oscillator uses two eccentric, counter-rotating balance weights or rollers that are timed to direct 100% of the vibration at 0 degrees and 180 degrees. An air spring houses the oscillators and separates the vibration from the drill rig itself. The vibratory frequency is controlled to suit operating conditions and to achieve optimum drilling rates.When the vibrations coincide with the natural resonant frequency of the steel drill rod or casing, a natural phenomenon called “resonance” occurs. It allows the rig to transfer timed vibratory energy into the top of the drill string, utilizing the natural stored energy of the steel. This causes the drill string to use inertia and act like a flywheel delivering tremendous amounts of energy directly to the bit face. In friendly overburden formations, a sonic drill rig can achieve penetration rates of one ft per second."

Jan 1, 2008

Jan 1, 1989

By R. Stenne

This paper presents the trends in deep foundations in Europe, both in terms of design and construction. Eurocode 7 which is a design code for geotechnical engineering will be introduced in the European Union member countries, and will oblige geotechnical engineers to abandon traditional methods based on a global factor and adopt a new approach based on partial factors of safety. Execution codes (for construction of foundations and other geotechnical processes) are currently being introduced without problems. Ever more demanding environmental constraints push foundation contractors to adapt old techniques and develop new ones to comply with new regulations.

Jan 1, 2000