Search Documents

By Amy B. Cerato, Shawn Allred, Tatiana Vargas

"Helical piles are deep foundation elements that resemble, and are installed like, a large steel soil screw — they have a slender steel shaft with one or more round helix bearing plates welded to the shaft to provide support to the structure they hold. Helical piles are rotated into the ground with a large torque motor and provide support through soil bearing on the helix bearing plates and along the shaft. The piles are available in many lengths and, due to their small footprint along with their ability to create minimal disturbance to surrounding structures, they are often used in urban settings for foundation repair, retrofitting existing buildings and for new construction projects. Helical piles are routinely installed as foundation elements in seismically active areas, such as New Zealand, Japan and the U.S.Anecdotal observations (e.g., from New Zealand, Japan and the U.S.) have shown that piles with a comparatively small cross-section and high anchoring capacity, such as helical piles, are beneficial for seismic resistance. This is presumably due to the pile’s slenderness, higher damping ratios, ductility and resistance to tipping uplift. In New Zealand, it was observed that helical pile foundations fared much better than driven and drilled concrete piles after the 2011 Christchurch earthquake. In a personal communication, Woods (2016) described that, out of the 300 structures in center city Christchurch that were supported by helical piles, fewer than 10 structures suffered significant structural damage. However, many structures supported by driven and drilled concrete piles were damaged to such an extent that they were condemned and subsequently demolished."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 2001

By Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

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

Jan 1, 2017

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"INTRODUCTIONIn partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects. The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

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

By Mary Ellen Bruce Large

"In partnership with California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and with support from International Association of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) organized a workshop on quality assurance (QA) practices for acceptance of post-grouted drilled shafts in conjunction with DFI’s 40th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations. The 1½-day workshop was held on October 15-16, 2015 at the Oakland Marriott City Center in Oakland, CA.Post-grouting, in the context of this workshop and report, refers to the alternative design and construction of base-grouted drilled shafts wherein a grout distribution system is installed during construction and used to grout the base under pressure after the drilled shaft concrete has gained adequate strength, resulting in a stiffer axial-compression load-displacement relationship and additional possible ground improvement effects.The primary goals of the workshop were to•?Identify and summarize the state of the practice for design, construction, inspection, verification, acceptance criteria, reliability and performance of post-grouting.•?Identify gaps and needs in quality assurance that should be addressed for successful use of post-grouting.This report is structured to follow the workshop program: workshop presentations outlined the state of practice and views from owners, engineers and contractors on acceptance of post grouting methods for drilled shafts; and subsequent workshop discussions attended by a small invited group of participants focused on identifying areas of agreement and disagreement on post-grouting best practices, acceptance criteria, design and verification procedures, and inspection requirements. A partial list of attendees of the open and closed sessions is provided as Appendix A, and copies of presentations are included as Appendix B.FHWA and Caltrans are the primary audiences for this report, and its content will be used to develop a roadmap for deploying the findings into policy and practice. The secondary audience is the broader industry group, and the report content will be disseminated in a variety of formats."

Jan 1, 2016

By Melissa S. Beauregard, Randall A. Pietersen

This study focuses on quantifying the effects of water infiltration on a full-scale energy pile system’s ability to meet the thermal demand of an HVAC system. Theoretically, an energy pile system should increase its thermal capacity after a rain event due to increased moisture content creating an increase in thermal conductivity of the surrounding soil matrix. The United States Air Force Academy has an energy pile research site consisting of 8 full-scale energy piles located below a shower facility. The local colluvium surrounding the piles allows for relatively high water infiltration during rain events. This study uses an 11kW Precision Geothermal Geocube to apply a thermal load on two single-loop piles. A weather station located south of the structure records atmospheric conditions. Results indicate that moderate rain events can caused up to a 23% increase in the system’s thermal exchange capacity. This change is due to the increase in moisture content near the surface, which penetrates to deeper soil layers with time. The time required for moisture to penetrate to greater depths and then dissipate in the soil matrix, explains why increased system performance is seen for over a week following the passing of a singular rain event. 1 INTRODUCTION With a “future-forward” focus, there is an ever-pressing economic and environmental need to use sustainable sources to meet growing energy needs. HVAC is typically responsible for 34% of the overall energy required by commercial buildings and 48% of the energy required by residential buildings (USEIA, 2009; USEIA, 2012). Energy piles are a low cost, sustainable technology that have been used to offset this energy demand incurred by a building’s space heating and air conditioning requirements. An energy pile consists of heat exchanging elements in a closed loop system integrated into a building foundation and connected to a ground source heat pump (GSHP). It is most common for these heat- exchanging elements to be constructed within a drilled shaft foundation due to both construction practices and geometric considerations. This system operates based on the principle that at a certain depth below ground (typically 4 meters) subterranean temperature remains constant at a value equal to the mean annual air temperature at a given location (Kavanaugh et al., 1997). This allows the soil to function as a heat sink for cooling operations and a heat source for heating operations when exchanged within this zone of relatively constant temperature. For the past 25 years, the implementation of energy pile technology in public, residential, and even large-scale architectural complexes has slowly expanded which has created an increase in research into the topic as a result (Brandl, 2006; Hamada, 2007; Sekine et al., 2007; Gao, 2008; Bourne-Webb, 2009; Stewart and McCartney, 2013; Murphy et al., 2014). When pile construction takes place beneath the groundwater table, soil is under fully saturated conditions, maximizing thermal exchange for a GSHP system. Under unsaturated conditions, however, changing moisture contents change thermal conductivity values in a soil, which affect a GSHP system’s ability to meet a thermal demand. The observational data presented in this paper apply to GSHP systems in unsaturated soil conditions.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1993

By Marcus Daubner, Karsten Beckhaus, Florian Bauer

The construction industry can and needs to contribute to a more sustainable world. Accordingly, geotechnical works potentially have a significant share. In this context, Bauer understands “sustainable products for geotechnical works” as those that may cause less emissions and increase the sustainability of construction activities. In order to structure the efforts and systematically pursue sustainable targets in the construction sector, and in the specialist foundation industry, the “17 sustainability goals” presented by the United Nations in their AGENDA 2030, can be used for general guidance and for continuous improvement. Benchmarks for relevant economic and social objectives, mainly with environmental aspects, are inevitable. The key parameter to sustainable products for geotechnical works in the focus of this paper is the optimisation of processes on site needed to fulfill the client’s building task, including the selection of technologies and construction methods with minimum environmental impact and minimum carbon footprint.

May 1, 2022

Jan 1, 2001

By Tony Amis, Marco Barla, Alice Di Donna

"Energy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular solution around the world for Developers looking to reduce CO2 and system running costs. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures that provide both the important role of structural stability while also acting as a heat exchanger with the ground, enabling the supported buildings and or infrastructure to be heated and cooled using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems. The main advantage of this innovative technology with respect to standard geothermal plant is the reduction of the initial installation costs and construction schedule benefits, compared to installing conventional geothermal solutions, largely due to the additional use of structures which would be constructed in any case. However, it is important with respect to energy geostructures that additional aspects need careful consideration. For this very reason, several research studies have been carried out over the last decade on this subject and a number of real case studies have been monitored and analysed. The key difference with respect to conventional shallow geothermal systems are mainly related to the geometry, which is imposed by the geotechnical project, and the need to ensure that the primary structural role is always guaranteed. Special boundary conditions, the reduced depth, the influence of atmospheric external temperature can also play an important role for energy geostructures. They can affect, both energy efficiency and, the geotechnical behaviour because of the possible thermal induced mechanical effects. This paper presents a picture of the current situation regarding energy geostructures and their peculiar features, and collects available data to provide a reference framework. Data has been collected from literature and personal communications and then processed to provide easy-to-read charts useful for practical consultation at a glance. This paper provides, an indication of the distribution of such systems worldwide, their spread in time, and a global view of their actual efficiency from the structural, energy, economic and environmental point of view.1. IntroductionEnergy geostructures are becoming an increasingly popular consideration around the world. Energy geostructures are geotechnical structures with a dual role of providing structural stability and the ability to exchange heat with the ground, to provide low carbon heat and coolth to supporting and or adjacent buildings and infrastructure, using the principle of low enthalpy geothermal systems (Barla and Di Donna, 2016; Laloui and Di Donna, 2013). A closed circuit of high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipes is embedded in the concrete, and a heat carrier fluid circulates through them exchanging heat with the ground. The HDPE pipework circuit inside the geostructure is linked to one of the above buildings or infrastructure through a heat pump, which adapts the temperature of the circulating fluid to the heating (winter mode) and cooling (summer mode) needs. In this way, heat can be injected into the ground during summer and extracted from it during winter. In principle, all structures in contact with the ground can be used as energy geostructures. The first examples of energy geostructures date back to the eighties in Austria and were mainly piles and shallow foundations. A decade later, Henderson et al. (1999) reported on what would appear to be the first successful use of geothermal energy piles in the US, with loops incorporated into the foundation for a hotel in Geneva, New York. As was their use in this New York case history, the typical geothermal energy pile application is used in conjunction with additional closed loop boreholes to provide the required energy capacity for a structure. Interestingly the report concludes that the geothermal energy piles had a better heat transfer performance than the borehole field. The first energy walls appeared slightly later, while still today only a few experimental cas"

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1995

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

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

Jan 1, 2013

By John D. Nelson

Foundation underpinning is a common component of remediation schemes for distressed foundations on expansive soils. For many applications in expansive soil, micropiles have distinct advantages over other techniques. This paper will concentrate on the design and construction of micropiles in expansive soil. It discusses the nature of building distress and the relationship between foundation movement and soil heave. It presents methods for determining the factors that are required for the design of micropiles. Such factors include calculation of expected free-field heave, depth of soil wetting, and prediction of pier movement. A finite element program developed by the authors and others to determine pier heave and internal forces is presented. The input parameters that are required for pier analysis are discussed, and the nature of the output and the sensitivity of the results to the output are described. A case example illustrates the advantages of micropiles over other methods.

Aug 1, 2013

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 Athul Prabhakaran, Ramin Motamed, Ahmed Elgamal, Milad Jahed Orang, Reza Boushehri

Documented case histories from past earthquakes have exhibited the devastating effects of the liquefaction phenomenon on the performance of buildings that are often presented in the form of excessive settlement of shallow foundations. Example earthquakes include the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan, and more recently the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence in New Zealand, and the 2011 Tohoku earthquake in Japan. All of the listed events comprised several examples of severe liquefaction-related damage to the buildings founded on shallow foundations. Although the liquefaction-induced building settlements have been experimentally studied extensively since 1964 using shake table tests and dynamic centrifuge experiments, studies focusing on cost-effective mitigation strategies are still limited. In this study, the performance of helical piles as a cost-effective countermeasure to minimize the damaging effects of liquefaction-induced ground settlements on buildings founded on shallow foundations is studied. Two large-scale shake table experiments were conducted at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) to investigate the effectiveness of helical piles in liquefiable grounds. Results from these two experiments highlight a highly improved performance of a shallow foundation supported on helical piles. These largescale shaking table experiments demonstrate the efficiency of using helical piles as a cost-effective countermeasure to reduce the liquefaction-induced building settlement.

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

By Jeffrey C. Schuh, Logan Bloemer, Daniel P. Dietzler

Over the past 30 years, the authors have encountered numerous projects where recognizing the geology, soil properties and groundwater conditions, and considering alternative construction techniques have promoted efficient and cost-saving construction. The construction documents for these projects, produced by various engineering firms, provided basic information on geotechnical conditions. The authors became involved in each project either because there was a problem during design or construction or, as a contractor, won the project because they saw a value engineering opportunity to take advantage of the geologic setting of the project to design and build alternatives to what the designer depicted. Understanding the geologic setting is critical before planning and designing begins. Being able to work with the geology and the materials on site is preferred before specifying more costly and complex solutions, which often require the importing of materials and adherence to unnecessary and/or inappropriate specifications. Failing to understand the geology or not knowing all the techniques available for construction can lead designers to develop solutions that could be inappropriate. This paper presents several examples of value engineering and project performance enhancements developed through knowledge of basic soil mechanics and implementing innovative solutions. History and Background Most people attend DFI meetings, present their experiences, listen to others, and read articles and papers with the hope they can learn from others. Geotechnical engineers and contractors often interface with others in the execution of projects who have, at best, a rudimentary knowledge of geology and soil mechanics. Of course, there is a need for architects, bankers, and regulators, etc., but they typically do not have much interest in the nuances of geotechnical engineering, which relies on both art and science. Thus, significant time is spent educating counterparts in the need for comprehensive subsurface investigation programs and the intricacies of construction in the “dirt,” as they typically refer to soil and rock.

Jan 1, 2019

By Bengt H. Fellenius

It is a truism that in the design of pile foundations one must consider both capacity and settlement. As to capacity, most basic text books contain simple methods of design of capacity of single pile. More sophisticated methods are the subject of many journal papers. However, methods for design considering settlement of pile foundations are scarce. (Most confuse settlement with the movement due to load-transfer?the transfer of load from the pile to the soil). Furthermore, for both capacity and settlement, most methods include several simplifying assumptions regarding soil layering and neglect the effect of the frequently occurring fill and excavations, as well as changes of the groundwater table and pore pressure distribution. Therefore, the methods may provide qualitative results, but not quantitative. Because of this situation, pile design often appears as somewhat of a guessing game and a very subjective?and risky?occupation. This need not be. Pile foundation design is controlled by three factors: capacity, strength, and settlement requirements and these have been combined in a method called "the unified design of piles and pile groups considering capacity, settlement, and negative skin friction" (Fellenius, 1984; 1989), which method is summarized in this guide.

Jan 1, 1991

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&apos;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