Search Documents

By Ronnie Melker, Joel Webster, Daniel Belardo, Thomas Hyatt

Quality assurance of drilled shafts is highly dependent upon the construction practices used during the excavation and concrete placement process. When performed under slurry, challenges are presented in maintaining borehole stability and placing a uniform and continuous concrete column. An integral part of the construction operation is to evaluate the as-built integrity to verify the drilled shaft is capable of safely transferring the required loads to the subsurface. One such case is exemplified by a project involving the expansion of an existing public transit rail line. The expansion required the construction of a new bridge bent supported by seven 5-ft diameter drilled shafts of various lengths. The specifications for the project required both Cross-Hole Sonic Logging (CSL) and Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) for drilled shaft integrity evaluation. Both of these post-construction non-destructive tests (NDT) are designed to detect anomalies or the presence of regions with reduced concrete quality. However, the implementation and methodologies of performing each of these NDT methods are significantly different. Cross-Hole Sonic Logging uses ultrasonic signals emitted from a transmitter in one access tube to a receiver in another access tube. Thermal Integrity Profiling measures elevated concrete temperatures during the curing process using embedded thermal wires. Both test methods require different access details and therefore have different costs associated to the contractor or owner to perform. This paper provides a detailed comparison of these NDT methods as performed on these seven drilled shafts. The associated financial and time costs to perform each method are compared and the results are discussed in detail. INTRODUCTION Drilled shafts are a fundamental deep foundation element that can be designed to resist large bending moments as well as to transfer large compressive axial loads through weaker upper soils to competent soils or rock below. Often times when the upper soils are very soft, lateral support by casing or slurry, or a combination of both, may be used to hold back the softer soils from collapsing into the hole before concrete has been placed. Due to the blind nature of drilled shaft construction and the qualities issues that may arise during the placement process, it is essential for design engineers to specify non-destructive testing (NDT) to assess the quality of the as-built drilled shaft. CSL and TIP testing are two NDT methods designed to detect areas of lower quality concrete or soil inclusions throughout the length of the drilled shaft and determine its overall quality. Each method uses different technologies and methods to achieve the results required to determine the as-built condition of the drilled shaft.

Jan 1, 2019

By Osamu Taki

The innovative Soil-Cement Mixed Wall Technique emerged in Japan and obtained recognition in the engineering and construction communities in the 1980's. This technique was introduced to the United States in 1986. It was accepted as the most credible construction technique by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for ground stabilization and cutoff wall work in the Jackson Lake Dam Project, Wyoming in 1987 and 1988. It was also accepted as a remediation technique by U.S. EPA for a Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) demonstration on in-situ solidification/ stabilization. The Soil-Cement Mixed Wall Technique consists of mixing in-place soils with cement grout or other reagent slurries using multiple axis augers and mixing paddles to construct overlapped soil-cement columns. The overlapped column panel is then extended to form an underground continuous soil-cement wall for use as a cutoff wall or a structural diaphragm wall for groundwater control and excavation support. By arranging the column panels in various configurations, the technique becomes a versatile tool for stabilization of soft or liquefiable soils.

Jan 1, 1990

By David A. Jack

The Mission Valley Viaduct is located in San Diego, California. This structure is the intersection of Interstate 8 and 805. The project consists of the main viaduct, 8 connecting ramps, and one highway overpass. This job was originally built back in the 70's. After the Loma Prieta Earthquake in 1989, Caltrans began an aggressive program to seismic retrofit all of its bridges throughout the state. Most retrofit designs required major upgrades to the existing footings. These footing upgrades consisted of either driven or drilled shaft piling. The existing footings of the Mission Valley interchange were supported on driven H pile. The soils throughout the site were dense sands and gravels, cobbles, occasional boulders with a dense sandstone bearing strata, which varied through out the site. It was this sandstone strata that the engineers designed their pile tips around. High ground water in sandy soils created a high probability of liquefaction in all of the upper stratas.

Jan 1, 1998

By Anthony T. C. Goh

"For deep excavations in soft clay, it is common to use jet grouting piles (JGP) prior to excavation to minimize wall deflections and ground settlement, and to prevent basal heave instability. In this paper, finite element analyses were carried out to assess the basal heave factor of safety for excavations in soft clay supported by JGP. Comparison of the factor of safety from the finite element analyses with limit equilibrium methods was then performed. Subsequently, to account for the uncertainties in the soil and JGP properties, a simplified reliability analysis procedure is proposed to estimate the probability of basal heave failure for deep excavations supported by JGP.INTRODUCTIONJet grout piles (JGP) are often used to prevent basal heave instability and to minimize excessive wall and ground movements associated with deep excavations in soft clay deposits (Shirlaw 2003; Wen 2005; Ou 2006). The jet grouting process which is carried out prior to any excavation works produces a series of short overlapping grout columns resulting in a “continuous” base slab (commonly termed as jet grout pile or JGP) below the final excavation level that spans across the entire excavation (Gaba 1990; Hsieh et al. 2003; Ho and Hu 2006). Typically, the JGP thickness ranges from 2 m to 4 m.The focus of this paper is on the assessment of basal heave instability for deep excavations in clay stabilized with JGP. Finite element analyses were first conducted to determine the basal heave factor of safety for deep excavations in clay with JGP. Comparisons were then carried out with factors of safety based on conventional limit equilibrium methods. Since the conventional factor of safety approach does not explicitly reflect the uncertainties of the soil and JGP properties, it is demonstrated in this paper that a simple reliability based approach (Hasofer and Lind 1974) can be used to assess the probability of basal heave failure.LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM METHODFor excavations is clay, the Terzaghi (1943), Bjerrum and Eide (1956) and Eide et al. (1972) methods which are based on bearing capacity theory, are commonly used to determine the basal heave factor of safety. Another commonly adopted method in Japan and Taiwan is the slip circle method which involves taking moments about the lowest strut level (JSA 1988; Hsieh et al. 2008; Luo et al. 2012). The slip circle method has also been applied for excavations with a JGP at the base by incorporating the undrained shear strength of the JGP. In the slip circle method, the basal heave factor of safety FSslip is assessed by taking moments about the lowest strut level (Fig. 1)"

Jan 1, 1900

By Akhila Manne, Prasad P. V S R

Storage tanks are heavily loaded thin-shelled structures that exert large loads on and require large foundations to support them. They are generally very sensitive to foundation settlements as it may hinder the performance of tanks resulting in significant commercial or social impacts. Selection of their foundation is dependent on availability of suitable ground and limitations imposed by design specifications. Design of the tank foundations is generally based on theoretical methods and validation by representative field tests. This paper reviews settlement criteria for storage tanks as per national and international standards, case studies of large to medium diameter tanks supported on deep foundation i.e., bored cast-in-situ piles and shallow foundations on improved ground and their performance during load tests & hydro-tests is discussed. Paper concludes that storage tanks can also be supported on shallow foundations resting on improved ground reducing the settlement, time and cost significantly depending on the sub-soil.

Nov 1, 2022

By Vijay Kumar, Serhat Baycan, Karsten Beckhans

For the deep foundation of podium and tower of the Kuala Lumpur City Centre, BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. constructed 225 bored piles with diameter range of 2.0 to 2.5 m. In order to comply with the depth requirement of the design, for planning purposes and preparation for site, the drilling equipment was required to achieve a maximum drilling depth of 150 m. Actual piles constructed on site were deeper than 120 m. These dimensions caused superlative challenges which included but were not limited to; controlling the open hole stability over time with polymer, installing 70-ton heavy steel cages, pouring up to 550 m³ concrete continuously, in conjunction with installation of kingposts into workable, fresh concrete. The piling works were executed with a BG 72, the biggest drilling rig globally available, and the stringent verticality of the pile bore holes which required approval prior to cage installation. For verification of verticality, Bauer’s patented Drilling Inclination System was successfully used.

Nov 1, 2022

By Nicolas Denies, Jeroen de Leeuw, Bart Lameire, Jan Maertens, André Vervoort, Flip Hoefsloot, Noël Huybrechts, Flor De Cock

"In recent years, the Deep Mixing Method has increasingly been applied for the construction of earth and water retaining structures. From practice, it has been experienced that there is a real need to develop execution and design rules adapted to the function of the soil mix wall (retaining wall, water barrier, foundation solution or a combination) including the temporary or permanent character of the application. Based on the results of the BBRI Soil Mix project (2009-2013), a design approach has been developed in collaboration with the SBRCURnet. The present paper briefly discusses the principles of this design approach which takes into account the function of the soil mix wall and the characteristics of the soil mix material. The interaction between the soil mix material and the steel reinforcement can be considered in the calculations depending on the function of the soil mix wall. Design and quality control requirements are given in function of the application and take the lifetime of the structure into account. Durability aspects of the soil mix material are therefore considered in the present design approach.INTRODUCTIONSince several decades, the deep mixing method is used for ground improvement works. A more recent application is the use of soil mix as structural elements such as in the case of the earth-water retaining soil mix walls. Since 2000, due to the economic and environmental advantages of the method, this particular application has shown an amazing growth in Belgium and in the Netherlands. A typical excavation (16 m depth), realized with CSM (Cutter Soil Mix) panels, is shown in Fig. 1. For temporary applications, the questions related to the mechanical characteristics of the material, its permeability and its adherence with steel have been investigated with success within the framework of the BBRI Soil Mix project (2009- 2013) (see Denies et al. 2012 for more details). The durability of the soil mix material remains a complex topic while permanent applications are more and more observed in practice. In order to define an obvious design approach, it was necessary to clarify the potential functions of soil mix walls and to establish the requirements related to their design and construction. The BBRI (in Belgium) and SBRCURnet (in the Netherlands) have therefore worked together to publish guidelines in the form of a handbook titled ‘Soil Mix Walls’ (publication foreseen in 2015). In this handbook, a methodology is proposed for the design of the soil mix walls for which the interaction between steel and soil mix can possibly be taken into account dependent upon the application. Each potential function of the soil mix wall is described (e.g. earth retaining wall, cut-off wall, etc.) and the temporary or permanent character of the application is always considered."

Jan 1, 2015

By Rajarshi Pramanik, Nirjhar Dhang, Dilip K. Baidya

"This paper performs the reliability evaluation of pile foundation under vertical loading condition using the concept of fuzzy set theory. The uncertain parameters are expressed as fuzzy numbers. Monte Carlo simulation technique in conjunction with fuzzy set theory and fuzzy reliability index approach are implemented in evaluation of the probability of failure of pile foundations. The results are validated through some well established methods such as, First Order Reliability Method (FORM), Second Order Reliability Method (SORM), and direct Monte Carlo Simulation (MCS). Response surface method (RSM) is used to approximate the original limit state equation through second order polynomial. The effect of the position of the water table is also highlighted. Finally, the effect of the variation of applied load is examined and it is observed that the fuzzy reliability analysis gives more conservative estimate of failure probability than the other methods.INTRODUCTIONCivil engineering structures, such as high rise buildings, bridges, offshore platforms etc. are always subjected to vertical as well as horizontal loads. To support these structures, pile foundations are generally the solution in most of the situation. It transmits load from the superstructure to soil at a reasonably great depth. This transfer may be by vertical distribution of the load along the pile shaft or a direct application of load to a lower stratum through the pile tip. Different methods are available to estimate the capacity of piles embedded in different types of soil and under the application of vertical and horizontal loading. To consider the variability in soil and other unforeseen able situation, generally a reasonable value of factor of safety is used to estimate the designed capacity of the pile. Recent developments have shown a trend to place the treatment of uncertainty on a more formal basis, in particular by applying the results of reliability theory to geotechnical engineering. Keeping in mind the importance of pile foundation in the engineering structures it is essential to maintain a high structural safety which result in increase in reliability. The probability theory has been proved to be a powerful tool for representing variability in mathematical models. The variability associated with soil parameters and the modeling uncertainties are needed to be considered for the reliability assessment purpose.Recent development (Zhang et al. 2005; Misra and Roberts 2006; Haldar and Babu 2008; Basu and Salgado 2012; Teixeira et al. 2012; Pula and Rozanski 2012; and Chan and Low 2012) showed that the reliability analysis of pile foundations subjected to axial as well as lateral load has been one of the important current research topic in geotechnical field. Probabilistic based performance criteria were quantified for a single pile and pile groups in cohesionless soil by Eloseily et al. (2002). A p-multiplier approach was incorporated into the analysis to modify the p-y curve for a single pile to obtain the p-y curve for individual piles in a pile group. A statistical analysis of set up capacity of pile was carried out from the database of a large number of pile testing data in clay by Yang and Liang (2006). Load and resistance factor design (LRFD) using FORM was used for examining the different load and resistance factor for different target reliability index. Limit state analysis of drilled shaft was performed by Misra and Roberts (2006) in probabilistic framework. The fuzzy based reliability analysis (Dodagoudar and Venkatachalam 2000; and Park et al. 2012) of the earth slope was reported in the literature. Dodagoudar and Venkatachalam (2000) presented a new approach, called fuzzy point estimate method (FPEM) for reliability evaluation of earth slope. Park et al. (2012) reported a hybrid approach, fuzzy set theory in conjunction with Monte Carlo simulation technique, to determine the failure probability of earth slope. Second Order Reliability Method"

Jan 1, 2015

By Michael Gebman, Jack Gerwick

"With the opening of the new San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span, the former bridge and its caisson foundations are being demolished. Caisson foundations are in the path of a future shipping channel and therefore need removal down to the mudline 50 ft below water (MLLW). For the first caisson to be removed (E3) a mechanical demolition was performed above the waterline and an implosion was done for the remaining caisson down to mudline. Mechanical demolition consisted of excavators operating from either on top of the caisson, from work platforms or from barges. The demolition was implemented on a trial basis with a successful implosion on November 14, 2015. The work was conducted in an environmentally sensitive area, with measures taken to protect fish, marine mammals and birds. This demolition technique was cost effective, faster to execute, and had a better environmental impact then an alternative option. The demolition, measures implemented to protect the environment, outcome, and lessons learned are presented.INTRODUCTIONThe California Department of Transportation needed a cost effective and environmentally friendly solution for removal of the remaining San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (former East Span) caisson foundations, starting with caisson E3. This was necessary to clear a future shipping channel. One option was to construct a steel cofferdam around the caisson to allow demolition in the dry down to the mudline. This option would take years to complete, be cost prohibitive, and its noise would disrupt aquatic life and birds throughout the cofferdam construction and demolition. An alternative option was implemented on a trial basis to conduct a mechanical demolition of the caisson above waterline along with an implosion of the remaining caisson down to mudline. This had the clear advantage as a cofferdam was not needed, and the demolition project duration would be approximately 6 months, instead of several years for the cofferdam option. The potential impact on aquatic life and birds from the implosion was a concern, as the location is environmentally sensitive; however, measures were implemented to minimize these impacts. As presented in this paper, this demolition option was implemented on a trial basis for Caisson E3. The technique succeeded and will now be used on the remaining caissons.BACKGROUND INFO ON CAISSON E3The reinforced concrete Caisson E3 is the largest caisson which supported the former East Span of the Bay Bridge. It was constructed in 1934, with the Bay Bridge opening in 1936. Figure 1 shows the project location. The caisson had a cell arrangement of 7 x 2 above the mudline. Below mudline, the caisson had a cell arrangement of 9 x 4. A structural transition was made between the 7 x 2 and 9 x 4 cell arrangements with buttress walls. All cells were flooded, as underwater openings were included in the original caisson walls to equalize the hydrostatic pressure. Figure 2 shows the caisson layout with limits for mechanical demolition and for the implosion."

Jan 1, 2016

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY consists of a dual-span 1,982.5-ft long cable-stayed bridge with approach spans of 2,545 ft on the NJ side and 2,788 ft on the NY side. The bridge is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Drilled shaft resistances for design were based on load tests as described in a companion paper (Dapp et al. 2016). This paper presents the main foundation design considerations and challenges. The approach to construction of the rock sockets, with a focus on quality in order to support the use of high nominal values of side and base resistance, is described. Lessons learned from this project and their application to future similar projects are presented.INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUNDThe Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) project is a Public-Private Partnership (P3) that represents a major milestone for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) in its distinguished history of bridge building in the greater New York City metropolitan area. The new bridge will replace the existing Goethals Bridge, named after Major General George W. Goethals, Chief Engineer of the Panama Canal and the first consulting engineer for the Port Authority. The existing Goethals Bridge along with the Outerbridge Crossing and the Bayonne Bridge comprise the three Port Authority bridges connecting Staten Island with New Jersey. The existing Goethals Bridge and the Outerbridge Crossing are cantilever truss structures and both opened on the same day in 1928. They were designed by J.A.L. Waddell under the supervision of the eminent engineer Othmar H. Ammann (1879-1965), who was the designer of many other iconic bridges in the NY City area including the Bayonne Bridge (1931), the George Washington Bridge (1931), and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge (1964). The designer of record for the replacement Goethals Bridge is Parsons Corporation, which is the successor firm of Robinson & Steinman, whose principal David B. Steinman was also a notable NY area bridge designer and a contemporary and rival of O.H. Ammann.The replacement Goethals Bridge is supported on over 200 rock-socketed drilled shaft foundations. Each main pylon tower is supported on a group of six 9-ft diameter drilled shafts and each anchor pier is supported by two 10-ft diameter shafts. Each approach pier consists of a two-column bent with each column supported on a rock-socketed drilled shaft. A rendering of the Main Bridge crossing the Arthur Kill is shown in Fig. 1."

Jan 1, 2016

By Sara Anderson, Rachel Nicholls, Tim Chapman, Janice Windle

"In city center sites around the world, and in particular in London, foundation reuse is becoming increasingly widespread as the ground is filled with detritus from previous developments. This paper sets out a systematic framework to consider the need for and benefits of foundation reuse and key issues to be resolved for foundation reuse to be successfully adopted on redevelopment projects. Once foundation reuse has been identified as a potential foundation solution there are several key stages in the design and construction process where the decision to reuse foundations needs to be assessed. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of ensuring that the foundations being installed now can more easily be reused in the future.INTRODUCTIONThe concept of re-using foundations is not new, and has been adopted on an isolated project-byproject basis for many years. However, over the past decade, interest in the potential of reusing existing piles and caissons within Europe has increased significantly, with a growing interest in the United States of America and Japan. The need has been driven by necessity: on many urban sites the space available for new foundations diminishes with each new set of piles, and these problems can only grow in the future.Initiatives such as the European Union's RuFUS (Re-use of Foundations for Urban Sites) research project have resulted in identification of the key issues for technical viability and risk that have previously hampered potential foundation reuse projects.There is a need to define a systematic approach to the reuse of foundations so that the risks associated with reuse can be identified, managed and mitigated. This requires improvements in knowledge to provide confidence in the long term behaviour of the foundation support and address the risks involved in reusing existing foundations to overcome perceived obstacles in making foundation reuse a realistic option for many sites."

Jan 1, 2005

By Paul Morrison

The paper describes the design process, trial testing and contract pile installation of 772 pre­cast concrete piles at a site in Surrey, South East England. Recommendations on how to improve the design, construction trials and main contract piling phases of the project are made. The building layout is shown in Figure 1 and is comprised of a central circulation area with five office wings radiating out from its southern side (only three of these wings were constructed in Phase 1 of the project). Approximately 60% of the circulation area and one office wing were built with a single level basement. The basement was constructed "bottom-up" in open cut with the void between the basement walls and the cut slope being back-filled with compacted site won soil above a perimeter drainage system at basement slab level. The building has up to 3 stories above basement level and is a reinforced concrete structure. The client for the project is Pfizer Ltd. Pfizer Ltd was represented on site by Laing Project Management (Laing). The consulting engineer was Ove Arup and Partners (Arup) while the piling contractor was Roger Bullivant Ltd (RBL).

Jan 1, 2000

By David Gatto, Nicolas A. Willig-Friedrich, Jeff A. Segar

"With the increasing demand for electricity, and requirements to generate this power cleanly, more producers are turning towards hydroelectric power. A project in Iowa currently under construction will retrofit an existing Army Corps of Engineers Dam with a hydroelectric generating facility. The design of the intake structure requires the construction of a diaphragm retaining wall. The T-shaped diaphragm wall elements retain an unbalanced fill height up to 21.3 meters (70 feet). The design required a single production element be constructed, tested, and instrumented prior to beginning construction of the rest of the elements. The testing included extensive concrete mix design development, coring, and Cross Hole Sonic Logging. Installed in the other production elements are 10 inclinometers, 4 pressure cells, 4 piezometers, and multiple survey monuments. Some of these instruments require manual readings while most are monitored by an automatic data acquisition system and instantly transferred to a website providing real-time graphical display of the data. This paper will discuss the construction of the diaphragm wall from the contractor’s perspective when working on a site only large enough for two service cranes and a Hydromill excavation unit, without any storage area on the construction pad, describe the testing performed and the quality control procedures employed, and investigate the information gained from the automated instruments providing real time measurement readings.INTRODUCTIONIn 1964 the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) constructed a dam by raising the surface grade approximately 34.7 meters (114 feet) above the natural ground line using a combination of fill types. This earthen dam stretched slightly longer than a mile intersecting the flow of the existing Des Moines River. The center of the dam is a concrete spillway consisting of 12 monolith sections. On each end, three of the sections extend 42.6 meters (140 feet) from the spillway to transition from the concrete dam sections to the earthen dam section. Adjacent to these three sections on the East end is where the contractor is actively working, for a private developer under a lease agreement with USACE, on this site to convert it to a Hydroelectric facility licensed for an output of 36.4 megawatts, enough power to meet the needs of about 18,000 homes. To create this, a powerhouse structure, housing two vertical Kaplan turbines is being added to the downstream side of the existing dam. From the power house, two penstock pipes will be cored through the existing concrete monolith sections and connect to the Intake structure on the upstream side of the dam. Protecting and reinforcing the dam adjacent to the intake structure is a new diaphragm wall. This wall is constructed using T-shaped diaphragm elements, acting as a cantilever retaining wall for the intake platform. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the upstream features of the construction."

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

By Richard Berry

The spacing of grout injections is typically about 2 to 2 V½ meters if the purpose of the grouting is densification of the in-situ soils. Hole spacing will vary with the in-situ soil properties and the grout injection rate; faster rates requiring closer hole spacing.

Feb 10, 2003

By Ben C. Gerwick

This publication is intended to document recent innovations and technologies that have the best potential for effectively improving the quality of marine foundations while reducing the cost, time and risk of construction. Marine foundations originated in Neolithic times with the Swiss Lake Dwellers who constructed pile-supported houses, safe from invading tribes. The Queen of Babylonia built the first recorded bridge in 1500 BC across the Tigris. The foundations were large flat stones laid on the river bottom. About the same time in India, builders extended their water well techniques to the construction of ?well? foundations in the beds of their rivers. These were really the first open caissons; brick walls were built up in a circular ring while divers excavated sand from the bottom, sometimes at a depth of 100 feet. The Romans extended the clay-filled cribs of the Middle East to shallow cofferdams, which they sealed by underwater concrete made with pozzolanic cement from Mt. Vesuvius.

Jan 1, 2013

By William M. Camp

Construction-induced earthborn vibrations have long been recognized as a potential problem with respect to the constructed environment and various vibration criteria are in use to prevent damage. A special case of construction vibration control is the protection of early-age or ?green? concrete. Unlike limits for damage prevention to building stock, there is no rational, widely accepted limit for protection of early-age concrete. Numerous criteria have been proposed or reported in the literature and the most relevant and rational proposals are summarized herein. These findings are applied to a case history involving both bored and driven piles. Vibration measurements were made during pile driving activities and the vibration magnitude was evaluated with respect to the exposure of freshly-placed and curing concrete to the earthborn vibrations. The maximum vibration magnitude at the applicable distances from pile driving was on the order of 0.3 inches per second. Based on the most persuasive literature, threshold values of 0.8 inches per second or even 1 to 2 inches per second for the protection of green concrete appear to be well-supported. Consequently, it was concluded that the pile driving activities and bored pile construction could proceed simultaneously.

Jan 1, 2010

By Joram M. Amir

During recent years, the integrity testing of piles has made considerable progress. With the availability of portable and powerful computers, practically all integrity testing equipment is now digital. Using sophisticated software for data acquisition and analysis, today's testing systems can provide owners with important information regarding both the length and integrity of piles and drilled shafts. This sophistication carries a price: Very few clients, including experienced engineers, do understand the strange-looking graphs adorning the reports they get. In fact, most of them will never ask, some because they are too busy to care and others because they are ashamed to show their ignorance. This situation is well exploited by a few shrewd operators of test equipment. Facing strong competition and falling revenues, they simplify their task and cut their expenses by the following means: 1. Using old equipment until it falls apart, and then some, 2. Hiring under-qualified personnel, 3. Staying on site as little as possible, 4. Eliminating the analysis and evaluation stage altogether, 5. Confirming as-made lengths and reporting no defects.

Jan 1, 1999

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 Jim Henry

I would say mainly the cost. I showed only 3 cases. One of them was the one that Allen just described and there were two other cases. In those cases it was fairly easy to develop a solution using limited mobility grout to treat the soft soils suitable for the limited bearing pressures required by the structures. LMG readily provided a fairly reliable system for the foundation support at a reasonable cost.

Feb 10, 2003