Search Documents

Jan 1, 1994

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, 2001

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 Takefumi Takuma, Ali Fayad, Shigeru Kambe

"This paper discusses the unique design and construction circumstances of the cantilevered dual sheet pile walls and the Accordion Sheet Pile Wall for the repair and upgrade of the East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel in Huntington Beach, California that was concluded in 2014. It also describes the 2008 Emergency Sheet Pile Project for the same channel. Both projects utilized the Press-in Piling Method for its low noise and almost no vibration advantages.BackgroundThe East Garden Grove-Wintersburg Channel is part of the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) and is operated and maintained by OC (Orange County) Public Works (see Figure 1 for its location). The channel, referred to as OCFCD facility # C05 (C05), had suffered significant toe undercutting and slope erosion of its levee due to a series of storms. These began after the facility was constructed in the 1960’s and culminated in 2005. Consequently, the levee was deemed significantly deficient and was eventually declared as a local emergency in 2007. C05 was an incised channel and its levee was constructed primarily from native materials. Operation and Maintenance (O&M) personnel notified the design staff at OC Public Works to be aware of major consequences associated with the dilapidation problem in the most downstream reach of the channel in the vicinity of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands Restoration Project. In 2007, the Orange County Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency to fix the levees with sheet piles to be driven by the Press-in Piling Method, hydraulic pushing piles into ground by holding onto previously installed piles. The project that ensued represented the first in-tandem use on the West Coast of the United States of the Press-in pile driver with its GRB System (Press-in pile driver, a support crane and pile transporter travel on top of already-driven sheet piles). This is further discussed in this paper in the sections titled “Press-in Piling Method” and “GRB System”, respectively. The project repaired approximately 3,800 feet of erosion on the north levee of C05 with 45-foot long cantilevered sheet piles. The sheet piles design constraints are discussed in this paper in the section titled “C05 2008 Emergency Sheet Pile Project (Phase 1)”. Between 2012 and 2014, another mile’s worth of levee reach was improved with the Soil-Mix-Sandwich (SMS) Method. This concept consisted of deep soil cement mix (DSCM) columns sandwiched within the dual rows of sheet piles. Additional details on the SMS, its DSCM construction, and its hybrid geo-structure design concepts are well beyond the scope of this discussion, which is primarily focused on sheet piles. Instead, the interested reader is referred to two papers on the SMS and its DSCM metrics (Fayad, 2015; and Arora, et al., 2015). These were presented and published in the Proceedings of the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) 2015 Conference on Deep Mixing. Hence, in the section of this paper titled “C05 SMS Dual Sheet Piles Project (Phase 2)” only the sheet pile design constraints of the SMS are covered. Finally, in the area where the project traversed the Alquist-Priolo zone of the Newport-Inglewood tectonic fault, an expandable and deflectable sheet pile wall was used to isolate the flood channel from the Bolsa Chica wetlands. Its details are addressed in the section titled “C05 Accordion Sheet Pile Wall (Phase 2)” of this paper."

Jan 1, 2017

This manual provides basic practical instruction on the inspection of driven piles. It covers the essential components of pile driving, such as the pile driving hammer, hammer accessories, the pile and soil, and frequently encountered test methods in an uncomplicated, yet knowledgeable, and practical manner. Insight is given into the methods of installing the foundation, dealing with the cranes which do the lifting, the hammers which do the driving, the leads that guide the hammer and pile, the compressors which provide the external power when required, and finally prevalent analysis tools and testing instrumentation and procedures which enable you, the Inspector, to do your job. This DFI Inspector's Manual for Pile Foundations will help the Pile Inspector who has limited knowledge of pile foundations. Perhaps this Inspector has been pressed into service at a moments notice; a few helpful hints and suggestions to him are desperately needed and he can look here for the basics. It is also useful for the experienced Pile Inspector as a reference guide. However, this manual is not a detailed check list of every possible scenario and detail which could ever be encountered. There are other sources available which give more detailed descriptions (and should be consulted by the Inspector when appropriate; a list of this additional reference material is provided and suggestions made in appropriate chapters of this text). The current manual is more a brief "textbook overview" with some of the more important aspects given at least some emphasis so that the Inspector has some direction and hopefully helps to produce a safe, yet economical, foundation.

Jan 1, 1997

Jan 1, 2003

By Juan M. Pestana-Nascimento, Robert G. Bea, Hamed Hamedifar, Emery M. Roe

The current State-of-the-Practice is grounded heavily on deterministic characterization and assessment of the performance of civil engineering infrastructure. In particular, flood defense systems, such as levees, have been evaluated within the context of the Factor-of-Safety where the computed capacity of the system is compared with the code specified demand forces. Uncertainties associated with the capacity and demand forces render deterministic modeling incomplete. In particular, two structures with the same Factor of Safety can have vastly different probabilities of failure. While efforts have been made to assess levee vulnerability, results from traditional engineering approaches omit important factors because they do not account for uncertainties included in analytical modeling, and natural variabilities, or human and organization factors. This paper utilizes risk assessment methods to advance methods for quantifying the contribution of uncertainties to engineering analyses, and thereby provide additional information to help assess sustainability of geotechnically engineered systems. The probability of failure of a geotechnically engineered system is directly impacted by how well the system is understood, and how uncertainties are incorporated in development of understanding of the system. This paper presents methods to evaluate two types of uncertainties for three potential failure modes of flood protection levees: underseepage, slope (or levee) instability, and overtopping/erosion. These analyses account for two types of uncertainty: 1) Type I – inherent uncertainty, 2) Type II – analytical modeling uncertainty. Human and organizational task performance and information development and utilization uncertainties are not included in these analyses. This paper focuses on the behavior of the flood protection levee system for Sherman Island, a western island in California’s Delta. Sherman Island is of critical importance to California because of the very important infrastructure systems that pass under, on, over, and adjacent to Sherman Island, including: natural gas pipelines, regional and interregional electricity transmission lines and telecommunication facilities, two deepwater shipping channels; and State Highway 160, a link between major transportation expressways. The work evaluates current (year 2010) and future conditions (year 2100) and incorporates variations in capacity and demand arising from projected human response activities and global climate change.

Jan 1, 2017

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 Gerry Houlahan

"The 2015 Outstanding Project Award (OPA), which recognizes the superior work of DFI members, was awarded for the San Francisco- Oakland Bay Bridge New East Span. The award was presented to representatives from Caltrans and the T.Y. Lin International/Moffatt & Nichol Joint Venture at the DFI 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations in Oakland, Calif. A committee selected this project based on size, scope and challenges of the project; degree of innovation and ingenuity exercised; and the uniqueness of the solution to the difficulties of the job. A bridge across the bay between San Francisco and Oakland was proposed as early as 1872, but it took until November 12, 1936, until it became a reality. The bridge spans to the west of Yerba Buena Island were conventional suspension spans, while the east spans used a steel cantilever truss design and simple steel truss spans. This double-deck bridge served the Bay Area well until 1989. In that year, the magnitude 7.1 Loma Prieta earthquake damaged the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. The resulting interruption to service across the bay demonstrated the vital role this bridge plays in the economic and life safety activities of the Bay Area. The project owner, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), determined that the safest, most cost-effective solution was a total bridge replacement. The Engineer-of-Record, T.Y. Lin International/ Moffatt & Nichol Joint Venture, working closely with Caltrans, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the California Transportation Commission (CTC), was charged with developing a comprehensive design strategy that met the project’s stringent criteria for seismic safety. These criteria included the new bridge’s designation as a regional Lifeline Structure that must open to emergency traffic shortly after the occurrence of a 1,500-year return period earthquake"

Jan 1, 2015

By Maurice Guillaud

The most striking innovations on diaphragm-wall construction plant are those associated with continuous real-time trajectory monitoring of the excavating tool (either a grab or a hydro-cutter). The recent equipments are fitted with clinometers and gyrometers to control deflection, rotation or deviation from the vertical, thus allowing to install diaphragm-walls with a verticality accuracy of less than 0.3%. One of the greatest advantages of extensive use of on-board IT systems on the Hydrocutters and hydraulic grab machines is that it aids quality control by automatically producing complete real-time reports of all excavating data (verticality, depth, type of ground, rate of progress, stoppages, etc.). These reports are available to the Engineer, providing the total transparency required for Works Supervision and the Quality Assurance Plan. They also provide the Contractor with input data for databases used for optimising efficiency and progress criteria on future jobs.

Jan 1, 2002

By Harry Schnabel, Mitchell L. Fong, Douglas R. Jenevein, Thomas S. Lee

"The Warm Springs Extension (WSX) is one of a series of projects that will eventually extend the Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) from Fremont to San Jose, California. A cut and cover tunnel was used for a portion of the extension that runs through Fremont Central Park to minimize the impacts that an at-grade railway would have on the Park. A cement deep soil mix (CDSM) wall was selected by the engineer as the preferred method of providing structural support and groundwater cut-off for a portion of the tunnel where it passes through an important aquifer and near Lake Elizabeth. In addition to the CDSM wall, a jet grout plug was constructed at the base of the tunnel to provide a complete groundwater cut-off.This paper will discuss the unique quality assurance and quality control measures taken for the soil mix wall and jet grout plug as well as the methods used to repair leaks and mitigate water seepage through the exposed wall and grout plug.PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Warm Springs Extension (WSX) project is located south of the existing Fremont BART station extending 8.9-km (5.4 miles) to Warm Springs District in Fremont, California. The WSX project has been divided into two contracts with different delivery methods. In order to minimize impacts to Fremont Central Park, a subway was selected at this portion of the alignment under a conventional design/bid/build contract.The Fremont Central Park Subway (FCPS) which begins on the south side of Walnut Ave and ends just north of Paseo Padre Parkway and is about 2.3-km (1.4 miles) long. Fig. 1 shows the entire WSX and the FCPS project. The FCPS contract consists of a cut-and-cover subway box, subway transition structures, ventilation structures and a section of which transverses Lake Elizabeth (a man-made lake). The geologic conditions consist of fill (sand, silt, clay and construction debris), Young Alluvium (clay and silt), Basin Deposits (clay, silt, and sand), and Older Alluvium (sand and gravel) as shown in Fig. 2.HYDROGEOLOGY OF THE PROJECT SITEThe FCPS is dominated by two geologic features - the Hayward Fault and the Above Hayward Fault (AHF) aquifer. The AHF aquifer provides a significant source and storage of water for the local water district. The underground subway will penetrate this aquifer and is up to 11m (36 ft) below the groundwater table. No groundwater was allowed to be pumped during construction of the subway box by Alameda County Water District (ACWD). To facilitate excavation for the subway box, temporary cut-off walls and a grout plug were designed to retain and resist high differential hydraulic pressure. The following section describes the selection of a deep soil mixing method for water cutoff. Design of the grout plug has been described in Lee, et al., 2011 and Fong and Lee, 2009, and is not the focus of this paper."

Jan 1, 2015

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

Jan 1, 1988

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

By Diego Bellato

Production data recorded by special foundation rigs during construction activities at the site are commonly used for quality assurance / quality control procedures and, in particular, to prove that the installed foundation elements comply with the geometrical and quality requirements defined in the design specifications. Parameters such as crowd force, penetration/withdrawal rate, rotational speed etc. are usually presented in reports in the form of depth and/or time profiles. This type of protocols are already standard QA/QC solutions for ground improvement methods like deep soil mixing or jet-grouting, but they are quite rarely applied in combination with other techniques like diaphragm walls or Kelly drilling. In the latter cases, one of the main reasons behind this lack of site documentation is related to the difficulty in interpreting huge amount of data collected during the creation of single elements, which, in some cases, can last several days (not always in a row). In addition, the building sequence is often characterized by many alternated operations involving different movements of the rig and the use of different tools. In this context, the identification of specific construction activities based only on the mere exam of the time profiles of the recorded production parameters is extremely difficult. In this paper, the time profiles of production parameters obtained from a fully-cased Kelly drilling rig employed on a site in Karlsruhe (Germany) have been investigated and compared with a detailed series of activities deduced from a video filmed during installation. Typical time profile patterns associated to specific procedures have been identified by combining the different information available. The outcome of this study helped project engineers to automatize the recognition of activities directly from production data and led to an overall understanding and optimization of the construction process. INTRODUCTION The special foundation industry is characterized by the use of highly sophisticated machinery for the realization of geotechnical systems such as piled rafts, retaining walls and slabs for excavation pits, cut-off walls for levees and embankments or ground improvement solutions. Rigs can vary in size, weight, and power and can be provided with several drilling tools to cope with the different soil conditions (e.g. clay, sand, rock) and the different geometries of the elements to be built at the site (e.g. micro-piles, large- diameter bored piles, diaphragm walls, anchors). Due to the challenging construction procedures, various types of sensors have started to be mounted on the equipment in the last decades to monitor the behavior of some important machine parameters and to inform rig operators about the on-going process and the status of their devices.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1987

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 BRETTMANN TRACY

Jan 1, 2000

By Michael W. Driller, Wen Yan (Grace) Chen, Steven J. Friesen

"Remediation for Perris Dam has been proposed in response to deficiencies identified in a seismic stability study prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) in 2005. Lenses of potentially liquefiable soil have been identified within the dam foundation which may lose strength during a seismic event. The remediation was designed primarily to limit deformation of the dam. Nineteen construction methods were compared and evaluated for the remediation. The final decision was to use cement deep soil mixing (CDSM) to strengthen the foundation and to construct a downstream berm to stabilize the dam. The entire CDSM treatment will cover over 4,000 linear feet of the downstream toe of the dam. Over 300,000 cubic yards of CDSM will be used to strengthen the foundation. The construction of the project started in Fall 2014 and is anticipated to take approximately 3 years. This paper describes the design aspects of using CDSM to treat the foundation, including laboratory testing, investigation of overstressing/cracking, extent of treatment, effect of CDSM on pore pressures under the dam, and the results of a full-scale CDSM test section.INTRODUCTIONPerris Dam is a zoned earthfill dam with a length of 2.2 miles, a maximum height of 128 feet, and a capacity of 131,450 acre-ft of water. The dam is located in Riverside County, California at the terminus of the East Branch of the State Water Project. The embankment was constructed between 1971 and 1973 over an alluvial deposit between the Bernasconi Hills to the South and Russell Mountains to the North. A rock outcrop divides the dam into left and right reaches when viewed from the reservoir looking downstream. The embankment soil was obtained from a borrow source at the North end of the reservoir. The dam has a sloping sandy clay core (Zone 1) with a 10-foot deep cutoff trench and a silty sand shell (Zone 2) with a downstream chimney and blanket drain (Zone 3 and Zone 4) as shown in Figure 1."

Jan 1, 2015