Search Documents

By William M. Dalrymple, William P. Owen, Benjamin S. Rivers

For the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), geophysical applications have played an important role as part of a successful multidisciplinary approach to subsurface characterization for the design of high value structures. Since at least the 1950’s, geophysical methods have been deployed to guide the exploration drilling program and to maximize the return on drilling investment by increasing the amount of data obtained from test borings. Geophysical applications saw increased use beginning in the 1990’s, during the seismic retrofit of the state’s toll bridges and the replacement of the west span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Over the intervening years, increases in computing power and increasingly sophisticated commercial off-the-shelf software applications have allowed Caltrans to leverage advancements and perform geophysical investigations of increasing complexity and scale. Ultimately, the goal of these efforts is to maximize return on investment, whereby increased investigation costs at the design phase are offset by reduced uncertainty regarding subsurface conditions, leading to reduced cost overruns related to change orders and unforeseen site conditions during construction. These objectives are consistent with the recent Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative to incorporate Advanced Geotechnical Methods in Exploration (A-GaME) into routine engineering practice. Caltrans is an implementation partner of the A-GaME initiative, and Caltrans’ practices represent a model toward the institutionalized geophysical site characterization practices for other transportation organizations. The authors provide a retrospective on 70 years of experience with geophysical applications for transportation infrastructure, with examples and observations on potential future direction of the industry.

By Allen Cadden

The type of soil we had was a silty fine sand. It had been placed by hydraulic methods in 1904 so it was quite clean I would say less than 10% silt the rest of it was very loose sand. That I'm not certain, I've only done it on sandy soils but it would stand to reason that some sort of a number should apply because you are measuring the amount of work that you are doing to it so if the soil is fairly consistent over the site it should be able to generalize from there but I don't know for a fact that it works. Well, verifying to ourselves that this method actually worked because we weren't certain at first when we were doing it so then we would develop the numbers and then check the results.

Feb 10, 2003

By William D. Oder, Seth H. Hamblin, Les R. Chernatskas, Jonathan L. Ernst

Large diameter drilled deep foundations are a widely utilized solution throughout North America and the world. Numerous design and construction techniques developed over the past 100 years have made this type of foundation a robust, reliable, and efficient foundation option to support a wide variety of structures. From bridges, to marine structures, to high-rise buildings, drilled shafts are a time-tested approach for all types of infrastructure projects. Yet, what remains ambiguous in the current state of engineering practice is how to respond when a shaft is constructed that, for potentially different reasons, may or may not meet the design requirements? In this case, what are the best practices for Contractors and Engineers when a structural, geotechnical, or material integrity issue arises during construction? In our experience the answers to these questions are not widely known, but are profoundly important so that engineers can have tools available to confidently and efficiently address concerns, and provide a path forward for the project. This paper seeks to answer the above questions by presenting details of different remediation approaches using the results of several case studies where structural and geotechnical engineering methods, combined with non-destructive integrity testing (NDT), were employed to evaluate the acceptance of “questionable” drilled shafts. Through multidisciplinary techniques like Cross-hole Sonic Logging and 3-D Tomography which enhance the resolution of anomalous zones and defects in concrete, the development of concrete strength estimates from non-destructive testing data, and executing innovative structural and geotechnical analyses to evaluate the as-built conditions, drilled shafts that might have historically been rejected were ultimately accepted by the project team. This paper presents a series of unique case studies that together depict a roadmap for a comprehensive approach to reliably evaluate and guide the industry to address these types of drilled shaft construction issues.

Oct 1, 2022

By Gustav Jahner, Michael Baltrusch, Norbert Hoffmann

Near the port city of Whitby in the north-east of England, Anglo American (AA) is setting up the deepest mine in the UK, which will have a depth of 1,500m. The purpose of the project is to extract and transport polyhalite, both underground, and to market it globally. As part of the construction works, BAUER Technologies Ltd, the UK subsidiary of BAUER Spezialtiefbau GmbH, constructed three different shafts using the diaphragm wall technique, with depths of up to 120m. In order to ensure the specified vertical tolerance of maximum 200mm, several measurement methods were applied, and the results were documented in a 3D model. Complex de-sanding plant technology and specially developed polymer products were adopted to regenerate the trench supporting bentonite-slurry.

Sep 1, 2022

By Abid Adekunte

"Engineers and developers have witnessed the growing popularity of deep basement structures as components of urban commercial and residential developments. This is often attributed to inadequate surface parking facilities in urban centres and a somewhat popular belief that underground parking facilities improve both commercial and aesthetic values of urban structures. For many years, diaphragm walls and sheet pile walls have been widely accepted as effective deep excavation support systems for basement construction in urbanised zones. However, these are now being replaced by bored pile retaining walls as preferred earth retention systems of choice on many projects for several reasons, which may include economy, faster installation process, reduced space requirement for machinery and ancillary equipment, flexural rigidity and axial capacities.However, there are complexities associated with the use of bored pile retaining walls on urban developments. These include; limitations due to vertical and horizontal installation tolerances, which is a major issue when wall is required to provide groundwater cut-off for multi-level basements as tolerances are difficult to achieve for deep piles, uncertainty associated with the prediction of wall axial capacity as piles are rarely tested, difficulties in using temporary props as wall restraint due to restricted working spaces in urbanised zones and difficulties in adopting ground anchors as restraint due to the existence of adjacent sensitive structures in built-up areas. Such complexities have resulted in cases of failure, non-serviceability and abandonment of basement construction schemes. Therefore, overcoming the intricacies associated with the application of bored pile walls is becoming a priority to the present day basement engineer.This paper is centred on the numerical modelling, design, construction and monitoring aspects of four recent case histories of multi-level basement and marine engineering construction schemes in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, which involved the use of bored pile retaining walls. The paper highlights the various customised approaches and innovative novel solutions adopted on the sites, to mitigate risks and ultimately overcome the intricacies associated with the earth retention techniques. Simple empirical equations for developing the geometry of secant pile walls for effective groundwater cut-off are presented and validated. An alternative approach for predicting axial capacities of bored pile walls is also presented; this is shown to be considerably less conservative than a common routine design approach, while also in good agreement with observations made in a recent series of laboratory-based scale model tests."

Jan 1, 2017

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 Zia Zafir

"Levees in the central valley of California are primarily for flood control purposes and thus are subjected to infrequent hydraulic loading. The primary concern for these levees is their instability due to through and under seepage. Primary seepage control measures are seepage cutoff walls and/or seepage berms. The cutoff walls primarily consist of soil-bentonite (SB) slurry walls. The seepage berm could be a drainage blanket to allow the seepage with controlled exit gradient or an impervious layer to provide enough cover to protect any adverse effects of seepage in terms of sand boils. Although, Sacramento is an area of moderate seismic activity, levees protecting urban areas require assessment for the potential instability due to liquefaction and associated vertical and lateral deformations. In certain cases, the seismic deformations of the levee may not compromise the stability of the levees, but they may cause damage to the seepage control measures. Depending on the nature and extent of the damage, the mitigation measures may require limited or full replacement of the seepage control measures. This paper will provide a systematic assessment of these different types of seepage control measures under vertical and lateral deformations due to liquefaction and lateral spreading under seismic loadings.INTRODUCTIONThere are two broad categories of levees in Central California: levees that are subjected to continuous hydraulic loading such as delta levees and are called frequently loaded levees (FLL) and flood control levees that are subjected to seasonal or infrequent hydraulic loading, called infrequently loaded levees (ILL). This paper will focus on the seismic response of ILL. The probability of ILL experiencing an earthquake at the time of the design flood is very low. Therefore, consequences of seismic failure of flood control levees are only significant in terms of response time required to restore the level of flood protection provided by the levee before the next flood season. An example for this restoration is the restoration of the Pajaro River levees in Santa Cruz, California after the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake. Nevertheless, failure of flood control levees due to a seismic event could result in loss of the entire levee and/or loss of freeboard. In addition, some of the seismic failure of ILL levees may result in loss of seepage control measures such as the soil-bentonite wall.The State of California State approved Senate Bill (SB) 5 in 2007 that mandates for 200-year flood protection to be the minimum level of protection for urban and urbanizing areas in Central California (Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley) by the year 2025. This legislation also requires that urban and urbanizing areas protected by Federal project levees cannot use adequate progress as a condition to approve development after 2025. SB 5 requires that the urban level of flood protection be consistent with criteria used or developed by DWR (Government Code § 65007(k)). To avoid delaying urgently needed flood protection, Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC, 2012) was developed."

Jan 1, 2016

By Thomas Billups, Brendan FitzPatrick, Doug LeDo, David Carchedi

"Working in urban environments presents unique logistical challenges beyond those typically associated with traditional geotechnical analysis and design. These challenges often include working on sites with limited access and laydown area, vibration concerns for adjacent structures and the need to work from variable elevations or within excavations. This paper describes the use of the modular Ductile Iron Pile system, a low-vibration driven micropile, on two urban projects on the Johnson & Wales University campus in Providence, Rhode Island. The paper describes the successful implementation of Ductile Iron Piles installed to develop capacity in end-bearing on one site and friction on the second site. Design, installation and quality control operations are all presented as well as the results of full-scale load testing performed on non-production test piles. This paper is of importance to the industry because it describes a versatile option for project teams as an alternative to traditional micropiles, helical piles or other deep foundation systems for urban sites.INTRODUCTIONWorking in urban environments presents unique logistical challenges beyond those typically associated with traditional geotechnical analysis and design. These challenges often include working on sites with limited access and laydown area, vibration concerns for adjacent structures and the need to work from variable elevations or within excavations. Two recent projects in downtown Providence, Rhode Island faced a combination of problematic soil conditions and urban construction challenges including vibration concerns. Both projects were a part of the Johnson and Wales University campus development. Figure 1 illustrates the urban locations of the sites."

Jan 1, 2016

By A. David Miller, Chika Oya

"Field sampling and testing are part of the Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) requirements for all Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) Projects. Field sampling and testing are also used for determining the performance and quality of soil mixing method(s) and are the primary basis for accepting or rejecting the soil mixing wall among all other QC testing. Two of the most commonly recognized and used sampling methods for CDSM walls are wet grab sampling and verification coring. Depending on the types of wall construction and project budget, one or both of these methods are normally used to help evaluate the in-situ matrix and quality of the mixed soils. Additional to ASTM strength and permeability testing from wet grab sampling and verification coring, more and more testing methods are being employed and accepted. However, these other testing methods tend to be unnecessary, lack consistency and repeatability, and are more subjective to manipulation and interpretation. In certain projects, there are also misconceptions involved with the results of wet grab sampling and verification coring, hence it is important to note how these wet grab sampling and verification coring work and represent the work in terms of quality of production.TYPES OF PROJECTSCDSM projects include (but not limited to) in-situ stabilization, liquefaction mitigation, excavation support, groundwater cutoff, and pollution containment. Although these projects use similar equipment on the jobsites, each project is treated differently in terms of catering to specification, uses of different mix designs, and emphasis on certain steps during production.Different types of projects with different specification changes the focus of quality, but soil types in jobsite also determine how to proceed with production. For example, a jobsite with predominate gravel layer must be treated differently as opposed to jobsite with clayey sand as the main soil type.WET GRAB SAMPLEWet grab sampling is one of the most used testing methods for QA/QC. The wet grab sample specimen is retrieved right after finishing the production of the desired element.Wet grab sampling equipment consist the use of 28 cubic inch (458.84 cubic cm) box attached directly to one of the auger stems. Hinges attached to the top and bottom of the box is fabricated to allow collection only during auger withdrawal. The collection box is strapped just above the mixing paddles on the auger stem and measured from the center auger head tip to confirm proper depth of collection. This box method has been used in Japan and U.S. for numerous projects."

Jan 1, 2017

By Maria Flessas, Justin Ray, Danielle Steinmetz, Brian Zuckerman

"The Ventura County Medical Center Hospital Replacement Wing project consists of the construction of a 2- to 3-story building with a basement encompassing the entire footprint and two corridors connecting the new hospital wing to existing buildings. The site is located in the Ventura Basin where strong ground shaking has been observed during moderate to large earthquakes on nearby faults. The upper 90 feet of the soil consists of loose to medium dense finegrained sands and low plasticity silts that are potentially susceptible to liquefaction, seismic densification, and hydroconsolidation. Ground settlement associated with a large seismic event on a nearby fault is estimated at 20 to 26 inches. To account for the anticipated ground settlement, auger pressure grouted (APG) piles gaining support below the potentially liquefiable soil were selected for the support of the proposed structure. Challenges for pile design included the anticipated earthquake-induced ground settlement, high downdrag loads, low soil lateral capacity during strong ground shaking, and the effect of pile installation on the performance of the existing adjacent buildings and the installed shoring system. The replacement hospital is supported on over 600 APG piles, with lengths varying between 120 and 140 feet. Axial pile capacities were verified with an extensive indicator pile installation program and dynamic pile load testing.INTRODUCTIONThe Hospital Replacement Wing (HRW) project is at the Ventura County Medical Center (VCMC) in Ventura County, Southern California (Figure 1). The VCMC consists of three interconnected hospital buildings (Buildings 303, 304, and Fainer Building), the Medical Laboratory/Cafeteria Building, two mental health buildings, a medical office building, an emergency generator building, and surface parking lots. The HRW is near the center of the campus, adjacent to several existing buildings.The HRW is a 2- to 3-story structure, with a 15- to 20-foot-deep basement beneath the entire 95,000-square-foot building footprint. The HRW project includes a Loading Dock, a four-level corridor to the Fainer Building (Fainer connector), and a two-level corridor to the Medical Laboratory/Cafeteria Building (Café connector). The corridors are structurally separated from the existing buildings. Typical dead plus live load column loads for the HRW range from about 635 kips to 935 kips and total loads range from about 860 kips to 1,295 kips."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ali Azizian, Brian Hall

"Driven piles were selected to support the Fraser Heights Bridge bents. Piles were a key component of the top-down construction approach, which was adopted for minimizing potential impacts on an environmentally sensitive wetland. Project requirements mandated verification of pile capacities using dynamic methods. More than 40 Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) tests were performed. The subsurface conditions were highly variable. On the east side, piles extended through loose sands, soft silts/clays, and two peat layers and were founded in glacial till-like soils at about 45 m depth. However, on the west side, till-like materials were so shallow that it was difficult to drive the piles sufficiently deep to obtain the necessary lateral support. This paper provides an overview of the geotechnical considerations of the bridge design and top-down construction approach, and expands on the presentation of PDA results and how they compared to pile capacity estimation methods and parameters recommended in the applicable design codes.INTRODUCTIONThe Fraser Heights Bridge (FHB) was a component of the Fraser Heights Connector (FHC), a 2 km section of the South Fraser Perimeter Road (SFPR), constructed as part of the Port Mann/Highway 1 (PMH1) Improvement Project. The FHC is located in northeast Surrey BC (Fig. 1).Two major design and construction determinants were: 1) a mandated tight schedule to provide a non-tolled alternative to a new toll bridge; and, 2) an obligation that construction had to occur with minimal impact on the environmentally sensitive wetland the FHB crossed, including limiting the footprint of the permanent and temporary works to less than 45 m2, and prohibiting construction access onto the wetland. Construction equipment was only allowed on the wetland on temporary trestles or on the finished structure. This latter requirement resulted in the bridge being constructed span by span, using a top-down approach."

Jan 1, 2016

By Fabio Santillán, Mario Mauro, Raffaella Granata

"This paper presents the utilization of slurry walls methods for the recent remediation of three high hazard active dams in the United States. Tuttle Creek Dam, located in Manhattan, KS, required seismic retrofit. To this extent, transverse shear walls were installed on the downstream slope using self-hardening slurry (SHS) to reinforce the liquefiable foundation soils. Herbert Hoover Dike, located around Lake Okeechobee, FL, is subject to potential failure because of internal erosion, piping and slope instability at high water levels. The innovative use of the hydromill equipment with SHS allowed the successful construction of the cutoff wall through heterogeneous soils and rock. At Bolivar Dam, located in Bolivar, OH, under-seepage negatively affects the structural stability of the dam, and a partial seepage barrier wall is required through the upstream slope of the dam. In this case, the Contractor selected the plastic concrete seepage barrier, excavated by a combination of clamshell and hydromill equipment. The main features of the three projects are summarized in Table 1. IntroductionTuttle Creek Dam was constructed by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) on the Big Blue River in North-East Kansas in the 1950s for flood control. Tuttle Creek Dam is a zoned earthfill embankment, 7,500 ft long and about 137 ft high with a crest width of 50 ft (Fig. 1). It is located in an area of moderate seismicity associated with an old continental rift zone located just to the east of the dam. The USACE, under the Dam Safety and Assurance Program, determined the need for remediation. Site investigations and geotechnical analyses identified the upper alluvial foundation sands as being susceptible to liquefaction when subjected to the Maximum Credible Earthquake.In 2005, USACE awarded a construction-manager-at-risk/early Contractor involvement contract. The USACE and the Contractor closely cooperated to identify the most effective technologies, materials and configurations to be used in the remediation. The original remediation design required both the upstream and downstream slope stabilization of liquefiable foundation. Results of refined seismic deformation analyses revealed that the stabilization of the downstream slope and toe was needed to protect the downstream seepage control system and to provide assurance that a liquefaction-induced flow slide would not occur (Stark et al., 2012)."

Jan 1, 2016

By Karen J. Dawson, Francisco Johnson

"Pressure-grouted high strength helical displacement piles are a recently developed pile type that can be useful in conditions where noise or vibrations must be low or where access or clearance is limited. However, there is no information in the literature that can be used to estimate the soil resistance of these piles or production rates. To fill this information need, this paper presents a New Jersey installation case history and the results of static axial and lateral load tests on both pressure-grouted and ungrouted high strength helical piles at the case history site and trial installation locations in New Jersey and Washington State. Piles between 25 and 50 feet long comprised of steel shaft diameters of 4.5, 5.5, and 7 inches with equivalent grout column diameters ranging from 12 to 22 inches were tested. Lateral loads of up to 100 kips and axial compression loads of up to 700 kips were applied. The results of the load tests are compared to predictions of lateral deformation and axial resistance.INTRODUCTIONHelical piles have long been recognized as a useful foundation type in situations where noise and vibrations must be limited, or where there are access or clearance restrictions. Relatively well-documented design methods and torque to capacity correlations have been developed for the most commonly used helical piles, which are relatively small (typically shafts of 6 inches or less) with corresponding low load carrying resistance.With the increased need to construct in congested urban environments, there is incentive to develop helical piles with higher axial resistance. Seismic and other loading conditions also require lateral resistance, which is low for the typically small helical pile shafts. One method of increasing the soil resistance, both axially and laterally and at relatively low cost, is to place grout around the shaft. Injecting the grout under pressure through the hollow helical pipe section and out a grout port or ports located near the toe of the pile has the potential to increase the pile resistance significantly above that which can be achieve by gravity grouting. Not only does the pressurized grout push out against the surrounding soil, but the rotating helix helps to distribute the grout laterally. Unfortunately, little information is available in the literature to help designers estimate the resistance of grouted helical piles in general and none is available regarding pressuregrouted helical piles."

Jan 1, 2016

By Seffen Leppla, Rolf Katzenbach, Matthias Seip

"Abstract The economic and safe design of deep foundation systems in difficult soil conditions is based on a reduction of construction material used, construction time spent, energy consumed and a high-level modelling of the soil-structure-interaction. The special foundation system Combined Pile- Raft Foundation (CPRF), in-situ load tests on the construction site and a sufficient soil investigation allow cost optimised constructions. In any case at challenging projects the observational method has to be applied for verification and quality control of the design. Regarding the 4-Eye-Principle as basis of the quality control management an independent peer review of the planning, design and construction phases is the guarantee for safety, serviceability and optimisation of all projects. Main execution standards for the construction of deep foundations based on the Eurocode 7 are summarised and discussed. The paper presents the basics of the safe and qualified design and construction of foundation systems including quality assurance. The application in engineering practice is shown on achallenging project of high-rise buildings with difficult boundary conditions.IntroductionThe construction of deep foundation elements in inner cities are special challenges due to the limited space for the construction works and the effects on existing buildings (Figure 1).An economic and safe design of deep foundation systems in difficult soil conditions is based on the following main aspects:•,qualified experts for planning, design and construction•,interaction between architects, structural engineers and geotechnical engineers•,adequate soil investigation•,design of deep foundation systems using the Finite-Element-Method (FEM) in combination with•,enhanced in-situ load tests for calibrating the soil parameters used in the numerical simulations•,quality assurance by an independent peer review process (4-eye-principle) combined with theobservational method if necessary"

Jan 1, 2014

By H. (Sam) Salem

A site investigation for a wide and tall hotel building, in the San Juan Bay area, Puerto Rico, indicated a soil profile of silty clay on sand, soft and loose enough to require piled foundations. The apparent uniformity of the soil profile across the site indicated that a single pile driving and termination criterion could be applied to the installation of the piles ? driven precast concrete piles. Because of the size of the site and importance of the project, the project also included a static and dynamic testing programme. The dynamic monitoring using the Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA) verified a consistent hammer operation. However, the results of the static loading tests showed significant and inconsistent variation in pile capacity between locations and little correlation between end-of-driving and restrike penetration resistances (blow-counts) and pile capacity. Therefore, it was not possible to rely on a simple depth and blow-count termination criterion for the site. In contrast, pile driving response in terms of measured reflected force and mobilized resistance coupled with CAPWAP analysis gave a reliable correlation to the results of the static loading tests. As presented in the paper, the dynamic testing programme was enlarged and used to develop and verify a complex set of termination criteria tailored for the multitude of conditions encountered across the site to achieve and ensure economical and safe pile installation.

Jan 1, 2008

By Brandon Smith, William Bohlen

Riverbank erosion along the Brazos River has modified the structural support conditions for an existing bridge structure in Southeast Texas. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was completed in 1992 along Highway 99, a key corridor for the Houston area. Foundation support conditions have been altered due to natural, ongoing river morphology for three bents on the affected riverbank. Recent events include three storms within a three-year period that each exceeded the 500-year return probability. This resulted in accelerated erosion along the northern riverbank. Over forty vertical feet of soil has been removed in some locations. Drilled shaft foundations are now functioning as columns. This review considers the behavior of columns and deep foundation elements due to the modified support conditions. The review ultimately presents a rational methodology for the review of the present and anticipated future bridge configuration with respect to current strength, service, and extreme event limits, with corresponding safety factors for the design. Introduction and Background The Fort Bend Grand Parkway Toll Road Authority (Owner) oversees the State Highway 99 Judge Jodie Stavinoha Bridge over the Brazos River. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was originally designed with four southern approach spans of 115 feet; a three-span continuous river crossing with span lengths of 195 feet-235 feet-195 feet; and a single northern approach span of 115 feet. Figure 1 provides an overview of the northern portion of the bridge. Table 1 provides a summary of the original bridge substructure configuration. When the bridge was completed, the centerline of the Brazos River was located at midpsan of the main span and the northern high bank was originally located at Bent 7. Erosion process has forced the northern high bank to Abutment 9 (also called Bent 9), and the river centerline during normal flow conditions is located south of Bent 8. The overall estimated river excursion at present day is approximately 270 feet to the north from its original location. An erosion wall that was installed in 2017 limits further erosion of the north river bank within the 300-foot width of the roadway corridor right-of-way. This study was developed to better understand the existing conditions, and to forecast the need, nature, and criteria for potential future improvements.

Jan 1, 2019

By Bengt H. Fetlenius

The "Pile Prediction Event" at the ASCE GeoInstitute's Deep Foundation Conference in February 2002 involved prediction of drivability and capacity of three 14m long, 324mm diameter, closed-toe pipe piles driven into loose to compact fine sand to slightly silty sand. Predictors were provided the results of two soil borings and three cone penetrometer tests, as well as type and model of hammer to be used for the pile driving. A total of 33 persons submitted predictions. As to penetration resistance distribution, many predictions were far below actually observed values. As to capacity in compression, the predicted values ranged from 270KN through 2,340KN with a mean of 1,070KN. As to capacity in tension, the predicted values ranged from 100KN through 1,650KN. The maximum load applied to the compression pile in the static loading test was 1,25OKN, at which no more reaction load was available. The reaction system for the tension test failed early in the test. CAPWAP analysis on End-of-Driving blows showed capacities at the end of the driving for the push and pull piles of 670KN, and 710KN, respectively. No restrike tests were made. Additional CPT soundings indicate that the pile driving had densified the soil. Static analysis and calculations from the CPT indicated that capacities ranged from 1,000KN through 2,000KN. The paper presents the data and discusses the various methods of determining pile capacity and addresses influence of set-up Lessons useful for future similar events are indicated.

Jan 1, 2004

By Roy M. Schnabel

The Fashion Island Boulevard Bridge over the Marina Lagoon in San Mateo, California is an eight span precast, prestressed concrete girder bridge. It is approximately 495 feet in length and 61 feet in width. It is supported on 36" diameter octagonal, hollow precast-prestressed concrete pile columns. The bridge was constructed in 1968 and suffered considerable damage during the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989. A damage survey report prepared by the State's Office of Emergency Services (OES) recorded that sixteen of the twenty-one pile-columns sustained heavy to moderate damage from the Loma Prieta Earthquake. The damage consisted of cracking and spalling at the tops of the pile-columns. Spalls at the most heavily damaged columns exposed the prestressing strands and confinement reinforcing which also showed signs of corrosion.

Jan 1, 1993

By George Gazetas, Sissy Nikolaou, Fani Gelagoti, Irene Georgiou, Rallis Kourkoulis

"The need to shift geotechnical design from a “factor of safety” to a “performance based” design (PBD) approach has increased rapidly in the past years following examples from structural engineering. PBD supports sustainable engineered systems that target project-specific geotechnical behavior objectives and results in more rational and, in most cases, less conservative solutions. Resiliency, efficiency, risk optimization, and cost-effectiveness are key components of this approach. For design of retaining walls, the concept of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) systems combines these attributes, while being environmentally friendly and adaptive to variable construction conditions. Natural hazards, such as earthquakes, may drive the design of MSE systems whose reliability depends on their performance under extreme events. In this paper, the authors compare the seismic response of an MSE steel-reinforced vs. concrete-reinforced retaining wall. The MSE system is composed of a grid of longitudinal and transverse ribs which internally enhances the capacity of the soil backfill. Results of fully non-linear twodimensional (2-D) numerical finite element analyses using two commercial programs with emphasis on the interface conditions are presented. The pull-out resistance of the grid used in the numerical simulation was evaluated from actual pull-out experiments. The results demonstrate a superior performance of the MSE system as compared to the concrete one, especially when subjected to strong seismic excitations.INTRODUCTIONThe idea of performance-based geotechnical engineering is not new, and has been evolving as our perception for ‘good’ performance has also evolved (Kramer, 2008). In early practice, the only criterion for achieving good performance was to avoid failure; designers had only to ensure that the available capacity of the geotechnical system is sufficiently higher than the expected demand (i.e. Load and Resistance Factor Methodologies). Yet, even when the key design requirements against collapse are satisfied, the system may still be placed into a condition in which the deformation constraints are not met (Bolton, 2012). To address these issues, geotechnical design has been developing into a predominantly performance-based approach that correlates deformation considerations to the severity of the experienced loading. As such, in earthquake-related problems, the definition of good performance of a geotechnical system is no more unique; for a low intensity earthquake the system should remain serviceable (i.e., the developed deformations should remain low), whilst for the design earthquake the maintenance of lifesafety is the single performance criterion."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ronaldo Luna, Donald Deardorff

"The use of load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is well documented since the 1960s for structural applications when it was first adopted into the American Concrete Institute Building Code in 1963 and was established for geotechnical applications by the Danish Geotechnical Institute about the same time under the name of Limit State Design (LSD).The Federal Highway Administration required all federally funded projects to use the LRFD method by 2007. Due to this funding requirement, recent LRFD research for geotechnical applications has focused on common bridge foundations (i.e., driven or drilled shafts), resulting in good documentation for design using these methods. Unfortunately, the practicing geotechnical engineer does not intuitively know how to create resistance factors for deep foundations systems that have design methodologies and installation techniques significantly different from driven or drilled shaft foundation systems.Helical anchors typically use semiempirical methods for preliminary capacity design and a torque correlation methodology during installation to verify required capacity. Here we provide basic information on the LRFD methodology for helical anchor design. Additionally, the First- Order Second Moment (FOSM) method is applied to a previous helical anchor study (Hoyt and Clemence 1989) to determine resistance factors for an ultimate tension capacity strength limit state.MethodologyThe concept of the LRFD method is to establish factors for both the load and resistance that account for uncertainties using probability theory. The factors increase the nominal load and/or decrease the nominal resistance such that the probability of failure is an acceptable value. LRFD also accounts for the effects of load combinations (dead, live, seismic, wind, etc.) by determining the probability of the combined occurrence. The general form of the LRFD equation used by American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) is:"

Jan 1, 2009