Search Documents

Jan 1, 1988

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 Peter J. Nicholson

The methods of reinforcement to be discussed in this paper are all insitu methods, ones that can be used on the soil structure as it exists in the ground, and do not rely on excavation and replacement of the soil. Current practice in the United States, as well as new ideas and methods, will be discussed as they relate to slope stability, retaining walls, and to other uses such as control of mine or cavity related subsidence and to liquefaction control under existing structures. The method is based on the concept of "nailing" or reinforcing the soil in place, and thereby causing a mass of soil to act as a coherent unit. When performed properly, a true gravity structure can be constructed, one that will remain intact under both horizontal and vertical loadings and that will also resist vibrational and seismic loadings.

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 1992

By Eric Lindquist, John Compagnone, Gabriel Carvajal

"Condon-Johnson & Associates, Inc. (CJA) with the assistance of design consultant, Brierley Associates, designed and installed a water tight shoring system utilizing several ground improvement techniques jointly. Prior to the installation of the shoring system, a test program consisting of the installation and testing of 7 jet grout columns; 1 soil mix panel; 7 soil anchors and 3 tie downs was performed to verify design assumptions. State-of-the-art quality control measures were employed throughout the project.The shoring system consisted of:•,Deep Soil Mixing (DSM) wall utilizing triple axis tooling to install overlapping columns along the perimeter of the proposed excavation to a treatment depth of 54 feet.•,Installation of steel piles in DSM to provide rigidity to the wall.•,Installation of a jet grout bottom seal, installed from surface to a depth of 58 feet below existing grade.•,Installation of 153 soil anchors, 1-1/4” diameter and 47’-6” length, to tie the jet grout bottom seal to the native soil below to resist hydrostatic uplift, installed from existing grade to a depth of 91 feet.•,Installation of walers and pipe struts for internal bracing•,Installation and stressing of 117 tie downs, 1” diameter and 16 ft length, to tie the pump station mat slab to the jet grout bottom seal, installed from inside the excavated pit.Subsurface conditions at the site consist of uncontrolled fill materials to a depth of 20 feet comprised of sandy silt and clayey sand. The native soils underlying the fill generally consist of soft and compressible lean clay and silt with varying amounts of sands to a depth ranging from approximately 44 to 54 feet below ground surface, which in turn are underlain by dense to very dense silty sand. The groundwater elevation at the site is approximately 8 feet below ground surface.This paper covers the design aspects, construction, and quality control measures undertaken by the geotechnical contractor, with supporting figures.INTRODUCTIONThe owner, County Sanitation District No. 2 of Los Angeles County, designed upgrades to their existing Long Beach Main Pumping Plant Facility. The upgrades consist of a new pump station that includes a reinforced concrete below-grade wet well and dry well, a two-story operations building, two 78-inch diameter pipe inlets, two 42-inch diameter discharge pipelines connecting the existing manifold, two pipe junction structures, two insert-type junction structures, and electrical transformers. This paper focuses on the excavation shoring for the new pump station. The original shoring design concept for the pump station excavation illustrated on the contract plans consisted of pressed in sheet piles, a jet grouted bottom seal with soil anchors, 2 levels of internal bracing, and tie-down anchors to resist hydraulic uplift forces on the buried pump station."

Jan 1, 2017

By Mark Zablocki, Dakarai McCoy

Ground vibrations are an unavoidable effect of driving piles and may pose a risk to nearby infrastructure and the comfort of adjacent occupants. Driven-pile-induced ground vibrations are known to vary widely based on ground conditions, pile material, and installation means and methods. A monitoring sensor to record ground vibrations during pile driving is necessary for understanding potential impacts to sensitive infrastructure and should be considered when implementing a monitoring program anticipating ground vibrations. The implementation of a vibration monitoring program historically relies on experiential-based decision-making, which may result in the costly vibration monitoring of low-risk infrastructure. Prior understanding of anticipated ground vibrations is necessary to create an appropriate monitoring program. A framework is proposed for organizing data from past monitoring programs and quantifying the anticipated risk of driven-pile-induced vibrations. An example of risk quantification from data imported to ]a cloud database is presented by comparing driven steel H-pile and prestressed precast concrete vibration monitoring measured and collected by Haley & Aldrich between 2010 and 2020. The methods presented within the example can be applied to quantify a first order approximation of risk for ground vibrations at proposed driven pile sites based on the measured performance of previous sites with similar ground characteristics and pile installation methods. The presented novel data managements tools allow for a quick aggregation of vibration data with similar site conditions.

Sep 8, 2021

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

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1997

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

By Robert E. Schock, Eric J. Risberg

"Less than 20,000 years ago, the last of the glaciers retreated from the Chicago region. They left behind sheets of glacial clay till underlain by dense, over-consolidated till (“hardpan”) below which is the limestone bedrock, found about 100 ft (30.5 m) below street level. The most notable feature in this profile is the unusually soft clay till that has historically been called “Chicago Blue Clay.”But the founding fathers of Chicago really didn’t care about what was under the ground. They recognized the importance of the city’s location as a potential trade and transportation hub. With access to the East through the Great Lakes and access to the West through the Mississippi River system, the viability of the city was evident. Chicago’s population grew rapidly. The city continued to grow through the Civil War years, but was dealt a devastating blow in 1871 by the Great Chicago Fire, leaving the city in ruins. The Birth of the SkyscraperAfter the cleanup of the Great Fire came the first real building boom in Chicago’s history. During this era, buildings were generally founded on shallow footings bearing on sand or clay. Many multistory buildings were constructed between 1880 and 1890 on spread footings. The first tall buildings were constructed with load bearing masonry walls. These early tall buildings suffered significant settlement as the soft clay underwent consolidation.The Home Insurance Building, built in 1885, was 12-stories tall and is generally acknowledged to be the first “skyscraper” in the U.S. It was the first building constructed with an iron skeleton frame instead of load bearing masonry walls. Spread footings were used under the interior columns in an effort to better distribute the loads, but the building still experienced large settlements.Construction began for the Monadnock Building in 1891. The 17-story building was built using load bearing walls 7 ft (2.1 m) thick, supported on rail-grillage footing foundations. When completed in 1893, the Monadnock Building boasted the title “World’s Largest Office Building.” The total building settlement over the past 125 years has been measured at over 20 in (0.51 m). The engineering community in the late 19th century observed settlement, but did not yet understand the process of consolidation of the soft clay beneath the city. During this time, many of the new buildings required structural repairs during and after construction; the problem was especially acute in buildings where highrise towers joined lower podium structures."

Jan 1, 2016

By Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

"Downhole Seismic Testing (DST) is an important geotechnical testing technique for site characterization as it provides low strain (<10-5) in-situ interval compression (Vp) and shear (Vs) wave velocity estimates. These velocities are determined by obtaining relative arrival times of source waves as they travel through the stratigraphy and are recorded by one or more vertically offset seismic sensors. A challenging aspect of this process is to characterize the seismic data sets to determine the analysis method that will result in the most accurate interval velocity values. This paper introduces an assessment technique which utilizes linearity estimates (i.e., hodograms fitting straight lines) from the polarization analysis in conjunction with crosscorrelation coefficient calculations of the full waveforms as well as the deviation of the source wave frequency spectrum from a desirable bell-shaped curve. The paper will provide an overview of the technique and include some examples of actual data sets where the technique was applied to analyze those data sets.1. INTRODUCTIONIn general terms, Downhole Seismic Testing (DST) such as Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) is a geotechnical technique for measuring in-situ shear and compression wave velocities (VS and VP respectively). The main goal in DST is to obtain arrival times as the source wave travels through the soil profile of interest, and from these arrival times the velocities are then calculated. Figure 1 shows a schematic of the typical DST configuration: a seismic source is used to generate a seismic wave train at the ground surface. One or more downhole seismic receivers are used to record the seismic wave train at predefined depth increments. The downhole receiver(s) may be positioned at selected test depths in a borehole or advanced as part of an instrumentation package as in the case of SCPT. When triggered by the seismic source a data recording system records the response of the downhole receiver(s)."

Jan 1, 2017

By Willie M. NeSmith, W. Morgan NeSmith, Alan Roach

"In 2013, Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles are a mature foundation technology throughout the United States. General guidelines for the design and construction of ACIP piles are available along with numerous references for design in specific North American geologies. In fact, the current generation of contractors and geotechnical practitioners might view ACIP piles as just another deep foundation option to be considered, along with driven piles, drilled shafts and others. This acceptance has developed, however, over a 60-plus year period.The term, Augered Pressure-Grouted (APG) pile is often used when referring to ACIP piles because the piles emerged out of construction processes at the Intrusion-Prepakt firm in the late 1940s. The company’s specialty was pressure grouting and preplaced aggregate concrete. The grouting was typically accomplished by driving a pipe to a target level and then injecting grout under pressure. In some soil conditions, it was necessary to use an auger to reach the desired grouting depth. In these circumstances, the grout pipe was driven beside the auger and grout was pumped as the auger was withdrawn. The grout pipe was then withdrawn as well. This was the genesis of the APG, or ACIP pile, and many piles were installed using this technique. The patent application, “Method for Forming Piles” was filed by Raymond Patterson of Intrusion-Prepakt in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1956. The process was eventually modified when a suitable hollow-stem auger was developed. Licenses were granted to the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. in the late 1950s. Each of the three companies Patent, LicensesThe patent application, “Method for Forming Piles” was filed by Raymond Patterson of Intrusion-Prepakt in 1951, and the patent was granted in 1956. The process was eventually modified when a suitable hollow-stem auger was developed. Licenses were granted to the Lee Turzillo Contracting Company and Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. in the late 1950s. Each of the three companies coined their own terms for the piling process: “Pakt-In-Place” for Intrusion-Prepakt, “Auger Pressure-Grouted” for Berkel and “Augercast” for Turzillo. Over time, “Augercast” was frequently used as a generic term for the system. The installation of these piles was, and still is, a highly nuanced process; “contractor dependent” is a term often seen today. Intrusion-Prepakt, Berkel and Turzillo all had personnel who were part of the original group that developed the system and who appreciated the craftsmanship involved in forming sound piles."

Jan 1, 2013

Jan 1, 1991

By Howard A. Perko, Melinda J. Hummel

"Hydraulically jacked piles, herein referred to as jacked piles, are commonly used for underpinning existing structures to arrest settlement or augment an existing foundation for higher loads. They consist of steel pipe segments coupled together and jacked into the ground using a hydraulic ram. Pipe sections can vary in size from 3"" diameter to 18"" diameter or larger. Jacking resistance is typically provided by dead loads of existing structures. This type of piling system has been utilized for foundation underpinning, repair, and augmentation for more than 120 years, yet little has been published on the capacity, installation standards, and reliability of these systems. Pile load tests from a number of projects are presented and analysed. The data show that previous methods of jacked pile capacity and depth prediction are crude at best. Empirical relationships between capacity, depth, soil type, and standard penetration resistance blow count contain a high degree of scatter. Scatter in the data indicate capacity prediction for jacked piles needs further research and refinement.INTRODUCTIONPush pier, resistance pile, steel pier, and jacked pile are some of the names often applied to hydraulically jacked piles used for underpinning. The term ‘jacked pile’ is more common in building codes and will be used herein. Although jacked piles can be installed for new construction, this paper is focused on piles used for support of existing structures.Jacked piles consist of short segments of pipe or structural steel tube that are coupled together and forced into the ground using a hydraulic ram fastened to or beneath a footing, stem wall, or grade beam of an existing structure. In this way, the weight of the structure provides the resistance necessary to force the pile into the ground. A factor of safety can be achieved in design by redundancy, which is consecutively installing more than one jacked pile to support the same portion of foundation. Installing jacked piles consecutively using the same dead load and then releasing the load after each pile installation allows one to continue adding piles to the same general area until a total aggregate capacity is achieved to account for anticipated dead plus live loads and a desired factor of safety for that area.An engineering schematic of an example jacked pile connected to a footing foundation is shown in Figure 1. Modern jacked piles typically incorporate a steel bracket. There are many sizes and styles of brackets available. Some categories include plate brackets that bolt to the outside of an existing foundation wall, wide and narrow angle brackets that extend under existing footings, pin brackets for attachment to structural steel, and reverse angle brackets for attachment to footing and wall. Table 1 lists example brackets and their benefits."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1984

By Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

Cone penetration testing (CPT) is a popular and cost effective tool for geotechnical site characterization. CPT consists of pushing at a constant rate an electronic penetrometer into penetrable soils and recording cone bearing (qm), sleeve friction (fs) and dynamic pore pressure (u) with depth. The measured qm, fs and u values are utilized to estimate soil type and associated properties based predominantly on empirical correlations. The cone bearing measurements are highly susceptible to additive measurement noise for sandy, silty and gravelly soils. This measurement noise results in high peaks due to interbedded gravels and stones and low peaks due to softer materials or local pore pressure build-up. To date there has been little progress in filtering this additive noise aside from ad hoc techniques, which include discarding qm measurements and smoothing/averaging qm measurements. This paper outlines a qm filtering technique which attempts to put structure into the estimation problem. In this case, the dynamics of the cone bearing measurements are modelled within a state-space mathematical formulation and a Kalman filter (KF) is then utilized to obtain optimal estimates of qm. The mathematical details of the qm KF algorithm are outlined in this paper along with the results from a challenging test bed simulation.

Sep 8, 2021

By Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

Cone penetration testing (CPT) is a popular and cost effective tool for geotechnical site characterization. CPT consists of pushing at a constant rate an electronic penetrometer into penetrable soils and recording cone bearing (qm), sleeve friction (fs) and dynamic pore pressure (u) with depth. The measured qm, fs and u values are utilized to estimate soil type and associated properties based predominantly on empirical correlations. The cone bearing measurements are highly susceptible to additive measurement noise for sandy, silty and gravelly soils. This measurement noise results in high peaks due to interbedded gravels and stones and low peaks due to softer materials or local pore pressure build-up. To date there has been little progress in filtering this additive noise aside from ad hoc techniques, which include discarding qm measurements and smoothing/averaging qm measurements. This paper outlines a qm filtering technique which attempts to put structure into the estimation problem. In this case, the dynamics of the cone bearing measurements are modelled within a state-space mathematical formulation and a Kalman filter (KF) is then utilized to obtain optimal estimates of qm. The mathematical details of the qm KF algorithm are outlined in this paper along with the results from a challenging test bed simulation.

Oct 1, 2021

By Sam Warren, Antonio Marinucci, Genesis Z. Figueroa, Anne Lemnitzer

Drilled Displacement Piles (DDP) provide an ideal deep foundation solution that combines the benefits of ground improvement with traditional advantages of piling systems. This paper consolidates data from 20 construction projects in which more than 30 DDPs were installed and tested axially. High quality site exploration data (e.g., Cone Penetration Test and Standard Penetration Test) were evaluated to derive geotechnical analysis parameters. The test sites consisted of mostly mixed soil types with strongly stratified layers of sand, silt, and clay. Pile diameters ranged between 40 cm and 61 cm. Test results were compared with predictive methods developed specifically for DDPs as well as methods used in general geotechnical practice. The accuracy of the empirical methods is presented in terms of total pile capacity, pile length/diameter, and soil type. The large majority of all examined methods underpredict the in-situ pile capacities. It was also found that the difference between the tested and predicted capacity is strongly related to the level of improvement in the surrounding soil due to the piles’ installation. A general comparison between predictive axial accuracy and the observed level of ground improvement upon installation is also discussed.

May 1, 2022

By David H. Sanders, Ramin Motamed, Fahim M. Bhuiyan, Raj V. Siddharthan

Large-diameter drilled shafts (DS) are a critical part of a seismic-resistant system, and therefore it is important to be able to accurately model lateral resistance. To undertake the lateral load analysis of largediameter DS, a finite-difference p-y analysis program, NVShaft, is being developed at the University of Nevada Reno. Validation of the new program involved numerous p-y analyses using commercially available programs. Subsequent comparisons suggested the program's ability to yield reasonable predictions for typical diameter DS. Based on the I-15/US 95 load test program carried out in Las Vegas, NV, this study presents the evaluation of NVShaft in Nevada’s subsurface condition. Lateral load analyses of a 2 ft and an 8 ft diameter DS were attempted using NVShaft. The location of the applied lateral loads and the presence of cemented soil-layers were incorporated in the modeling. A good agreement between NVShaft prediction and the measured response was found for the 2 ft diameter DS. For the 8 ft diameter DS, a stiffer response was predicted. The inspections of the moment-curvature characteristics at different load levels suggested cracked response of the concrete due to prior axial load testing may be one of the reasons behind the deviation.