Search Documents

By Glen Mann, H. G. Vestberg, Robert D. Holtz

"Underpinning of residential and commercial structures is often accomplished using a number of driven-in-place small diameter steel pipe piles. These piles, at least in the Seattle area, are typically described as pin-piles and are driven with an air compressor operated jack hammer to a refusal criterion developed from an empirical basis. Over the past twenty years or so, the materials have improved in quality and strength, and the driving equipment has improved in efficiency and capability. These improvements have resulted in damage to the pin-piles during driving as well as to the driving equipment. The primary objectives of this load testing study were to develop a relationship between the driving penetration resistance of 2-inch diameter pin-piles and the ultimate bearing capacity when piles were driven at different penetration rates and, based on the load test results, to develop an opinion regarding an increase in the allowable axial load capacity [ultimate load capacity divided by a factor of safety] of a 2-inch diameter pin-pile over the currently used permissible load capacity of 4 kips in the Seattle area. Also, if feasible, a reduction in the present driving penetration rate was to be recommended to help reduce the rate and magnitude of pile and equipment damage whilst maintaining the allowable load capacity. The recorded ultimate bearing capacities were also compared with the Tagnent-line and the Davisson analytical methods in an effort to determine if either of these provided a reasonable determination of the pile load capacity.IntroductionThis paper describes the results of a series of load tests performed on small diameter, 2-inch, driven-in-place steel pin (pipe) piles and based on these results, provides the support for a modification to the presently used allowable axial pin-pile capacities.The intent of the load testing program was to determine how much influence the penetration resistance might have on the individual piles' ability to support the allowable axial load without undergoing any significant vertical deformation. For the purposes of this paper the ""allowable load capacity"" is considered to be the ultimate pile load capacity divided by a minimum factor of safety, typically considered to be 2.0 in this area. A pin (pipe) pile comprises an open or closed ended, schedule 80 steel tube which is driven-in-place, usually with an air compressor operated 90 pound pneumatic jack hammer. These jack hammers typically operate at a rate of about 1,200 blows per minute, (Haggard, Holtz and Mann, 2001 )."

Jan 1, 2005

By Jeff Starchuck, Harald Kullmann

"In 2005, an inspection showed that the Deception Bay Wharf in the Canadian Arctic was at the end of its service life. Although Deception Bay is closed with landfast ice up to 5 ft thick, shipping operations continue year-round, with additional voyages in the summer open-water season to supplement mine supplies. The rehabilitation scheme that allowed minimal interruptions to shipping involved concrete caissons cast on barges and an ingenious placing system.WorleyParsons Westmar of Vancouver, B.C., performed the inspection under contract to the owner, Xstrata Nickel, Montreal, Quebec. The wharf, on the coast of the Nunavik region of Quebec, was originally constructed in 1971 for an asbestos mine, and is now used to support Xstrata’s Raglan nickel mine, importing fuel for p o w e r g e n e r a t i o n a n d general mine supplies, and exporting nickel concentrate to smelters in the south. Emergency repairs were essential to allow operations to continue at the site, while the parties considered permanent rehabilitation options and secured funding. The repairs were done in the openwater seasons, and included reinforcing the failed interlocks above water level with steel patch plates and injection grouting of the cell fill below the port crane in 2005. In 2006, workers installed a circumferential belting system below water level.Westmar held critical planning sessions with the mine operation personnel to find ways to stretch the limits of the mine supplies and nickel storage facilities. In the end, the parties agreed to shut down construction activities four times during the ice-free season to allow access to the dock site.Westmar developed a plan that allowed mine operations to continue during construction, and Xstrata approved the plan and budget in September 2006, for execution in 2007. Rapid construction was essential. To accommodate the short construction season and maintain minimum levels of service for the mine, the work was radically different from conventional Arctic deep-sea port construction. Like the original Deception Bay Wharf, construction practice was to use steel sheet pile circular cells with the consequential heavy support services for the labour force. Construction duration was typically two seasons. The plan for Deception Bay was executable in one season based on a concrete caisson structure. Only a modest amount of schedule float was needed."

Jan 1, 2009

By Zhang Wengang, L. John Endicott

The properties of many geological materials are variable. This is especially true for variations in elevation of the top of rock profile, strength of weathered rock, and conductivity of rock masses. Often the site investigation stage is completed by site specific ground investigation utilizing boring, sampling, and testing. Statistically this is a sampling procedure, but the borings are often widely spaced, and ground conditions between borings are deduced by interpolation. Often budgets are a limiting restraint and the information that is obtained may be less than desired. Sampling and testing is often biased. If claims for unforeseen ground conditions are to be avoided, the properties of the ground should be adequately identified. This paper describes how data can be used to evaluate the subsurface top of rock profiles, and can give insight into representative, maximum, and minimum strengths, and variation in conductivity relating to inflow of water into excavations, that can assist in planning the works and also in resolution, or avoidance, of disputes about unforeseen ground conditions. INTRODUCTION The mechanical properties of the ground are naturally variable. The work of Geologists, Engineering Geologists and Geotechnical Engineers is fundamentally investigative. Frequently, budgets for ground investigation are squeezed, resulting in widely spaced boreholes, with conditions between them determined by interpolation. Profiling can be adopted but the measurement, such as seismic velocity, is used as an indirect means of computing in-situ profiles and mass properties. Often a lot of test data are generated on large projects or by many projects in the same vicinity. Published data enlarge the database for a given project, and databases can be interrogated to gain insight into different categories of ground. Integration with geological studies can then lead to more reliable characterization of the ground in terms of identifying the materials present, their extent and their range of properties. This paper focuses on properties of rocks that are generally required for ground engineering, namely the top of rock profile, the unconfined strength of rock materials, and the mass conductivity. Data are obtained from Granodiorite and Granite in Hong Kong, and from Granite and the Jurong Series of weakly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks in Singapore. All four rock types have been tropically weathered, resulting in widely varying top of rock profiles, material strengths and mass conductivity. With a wide range in values for these parameters, project specific ground investigation conducted within a limited budget may run the risk of falling short of obtaining sufficiently reliable data sets, resulting in risk that unforeseen ground conditions may be encountered.

Jan 1, 2019

By Dharmil Patel, Michael J. Chow

"Construction progress is nearing completion at a Brownfield Site for a 100,000sf mixed-use 10 story building plus cellar for Silver Star Motors including a two-floor pre-owned Mercedes Benz showroom; high-end residential rental studios, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments; and penthouses on the upper two floors. Excavation through impacted soil extended to 15ft depth. Project is approximately 7 ft north of a NYCT subway station, portions of the SOE are within inches of a 6ft diameter NYCDEP Sewer, and cellar extends below the depth of adjacent structures, requiring over 200 lf of underpinning.A complex series of earth retention systems was utilized consisting of underpinning, drilled-in soldier piles (micro-piles), timber/concrete lagging, soil anchors and inclined rakers supported by a partially constructed foundation mat. Foundation mat subgrade was approximately 4 ft below the groundwater level creating more challenges during underpinning and achieving suitable foundation subgrades. All construction was undertaken on a non-union basis.This paper describes the design, construction, and lessons learned for the multiple earth retention systems, Brownfield Remediation requirements, instrumentation, and monitoring used to manage complications of building adjacent to an active subway station, in close proximity to existing utilities, with underpinning and mat foundation installation below the water table.Results of the instrumentation program are summarized which utilized an AMTS, monitoring prisms on adjacent structures, automated seismographs, and manual NYCT surveys."

Jan 1, 2016

By Manuel M. Reyes, Thuraisamy Thavaraj, Alex Sy

"The new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bridge features a single tower self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge. During construction of the SAS bridge, a temporary bridge was used to support the box girders until erection of suspension cables was completed. The transfer of deck load from the temporary bridge to the suspension cables was achieved in November 2012 and the SAS bridge has become the largest of its kind in the world. The new bridge will be in service in Fall 2013.Large diameter driven steel pipe piles were used for the temporary bridge foundations at Towers D, F and G located in San Francisco Bay. At Tower D, the large diameter steel pipe piles were driven through thin overburden into bedrock using a large Menck MHU500T hammer with a rated energy of 550 kJ. As there was no precedence in driving open-ended pipe piles into the Franciscan Formation bedrock, challenges were faced with uncertainties in drivability, driving stresses, pile embedment in bedrock and pile capacity. These uncertainties were addressed by incorporating additional measures into the pile design, and by the use of dynamic pile monitoring during initial driving and re-strike. Pile relaxation was observed during pile installation.At Towers F and G, setup effect was a key issue for the piles driven into the deep soft marine sediments. Drivability analyses were conducted to predict pile run, driving stresses, selection of hammer and refusal criteria. The piles were dynamically monitored during driving to estimate pile capacities. Due to the set-up effect in the Bay Mud, the piles gained up to 3.3 times the initial capacity during the re-strike and were in excess of the design capacity.This paper presents details of the design, construction, testing and performance of the driven pipe piles at temporary Towers D, F and G. Settlement data of the temporary tower foundations while in service confirmed the satisfactory performance of the pile foundations.INTRODUCTIONThe new east span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge features a single tower self-anchored suspension (SAS) bridge, the largest of its kind in the world. The new east span replaces the existing double-deck steel bridge built in the mid-thirties. A span of the existing bridge had collapsed during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake but was repaired. Construction of the new east span commenced in 2008 and is expected to be completed for the Labour Day opening in 2013. Figure 1 shows a schematic (looking north) of the new bridge with its 160 m high main tower T1 in the middle, and Piers W2 and E2 at the west and east ends, respectively. The west and east spans of the SAS bridge are 180 m and 385 m, respectively.During construction of the SAS bridge, a temporary bridge, complete with towers and trusses, was used to support the box girders of the new permanent bridge until the loads from the box girders were transferred through suspension cables to the permanent bridge. The transfer of deck load from the temporary bridge to the main cable was completed in November 2012."

Jan 1, 2015

By Sven Schröer, Lilma Schimmel, Dimiter Alexiew

"The Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC) deep foundation system for embankments on soft soils was introduced some 20 years ago and is now considered State-of-the-art worldwide.The GECs consist of compacted granular fill, similar to common gravel columns, with one decisive difference: they are confined in a high-strength low-strain flexible geotextile “cylinder” (encasement). This engineered element provides a very efficient tool to control and optimize the behavior of the system. GECs perform very well even in extremely soft soils ensuring bearing capacity (stability) and reducing settlements. Due to the encasement, they a lso provide high lateral ductility. A wide range of fills including sands can be used.The remarkable reduction of vertical stresses in the soft soil surrounding the GECs results in a decrease of lateral pressure as well. Such reduction combined with the lateral ductility allow GECs to be also used for lateral pressure-relief adjacent to sensitive foundations, e.g. rigid piles. The application of GECs as lateral pressure relief was recently used in Brazil and Germany where bridge abutments were built on concrete reinforced-piles. The GECs below the bridge approaches and adjacent to the piles decreased the lateral pressure to acceptable values.This paper presents two case studies for which the most relevant parameters, the geotechnical conditions, specific problems, engineering philosophy, final solution and lessons learned are discussed. Furthermore, instrumentation programs were applied in both projects. The most important results in terms of displacements and stresses are shown, evaluated, summarized and commented upon, focusing on the lateral stress-relief, followed by conclusions and recommendations."

Jan 1, 2016

By Diane Reid, Antonio Marinucci, Robin Mao

Super Cells are an innovative, open-shaped bi-directional static load testing device used to promote concrete flow during placement while utilizing greater cross-sectional area of the pile to achieve large applied axial loads at relatively low hydraulic pressures (≤ 250 bar). This paper describes the results of multi-level load testing performed on a sacrificial drilled shaft that was 3.8 m (12.7 ft) in diameter and 110.6 m (363 ft) in length for the Jiaxing-Shaoxing River Crossing Bridge that spans Hangzhou Bay in Shaoxing, China. The test shaft was instrumented with embedded strain gauges and telltale rods along with displacement transducers at the top of the pile to measure the load-induced displacements along the length of the shaft. Load testing was performed twice using a Super Cell placed near the tip of the shaft, prior and subsequent to tip post-grouting, and then again using a Super Cell placed higher in the shaft. The axial resistance for the tested conventional drilled shaft was more than 5 times greater than the estimated axial resistance. In addition, the axial resistance after tip post-grouting (347,100 kN (39,033 ton)) was about 5.3% greater than the ungrouted axial resistance (329,600 kN (37,050 ton)). INTRODUCTION During the past few decades, the magnitude of axial, lateral, and flexural loading has considerably increased due to updated design codes, larger superstructures, and the manner in which extreme event loading (e.g. seismic and scour) is incorporated into design. The diameter and depths to which bored piles or drilled shafts are constructed have increased considerably during the last three decades due to the advancements in equipment technology and capabilities. In addition, monoshaft foundations have become increasingly used, as one large drilled shaft is able to replace a group of smaller diameter piles connected by a cap. Correspondingly, adequate strata, for both side and end resistance, must be discovered/determined as well as achievable to be able to construct the required foundations to support the greater design demands. As design demands have increased, the need to ensure integrity, quality, and performance of a constructed drilled shaft has become ever more crucial. Load tests are essential to validate design assumptions of side and end resistances, to assess the behavior and load transfer characteristics of the constructed drilled shafts, and to evaluate construction methods. Load tests utilizing a bi-directional static load testing (BDSLT) device can achieve considerably large applied axial loads and can be performed more economically, in less time, and in a much safer manner than conventional top-down static load testing methods.

Jan 1, 2019

By Paolo Cavalcoli, Federico Pagliacci

"As opposed to the static functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles). Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago. These are real challenges for those carrying out these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the rhetorical figure of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In reference to the case studies in this article: the permanent retaining walls for the Copenhagen Metro, and the structural repairs to the Arapuni Dam in New Zealand and the Wolf Creek Dam in the U.S., we will describe the foundations constructed in presence of rock using combined small-diameter direction drilling solutions, associated with their enlargement up to the project’s size, at depths exceeding 300 feet. Finally, a case study will be presented on the implementation of a large cross-section of an excavation in the rock, at depths greater than 800 feet.IntroductionAs opposed to the functional recovery of existing structures, the construction of infrastructures in an urban environment, when combined with complex geological situations, often involves building foundation structures, whether circular or rectangular in section, through rock formations or chaotic strata (sand and gravel with cobbles).Until a few years ago, these formations or strata were sometimes an insurmountable constraint on traditional foundation installation techniques. The difficulty in overcoming these geological situations is sometimes added to the increasingly frequent need to reach depths that were unimaginable just a decade ago.These are real challenges for those building these works and for those manufacturing the necessary equipment. There are two main methodological approaches to these problems, that can be summed up in the biblical figures of ""David and Goliath"": cunning versus force. In the engineering field, the force is summarized in the use of ever-larger drilling equipment in terms of installed power, weight in working conditions, winch and rotary capacity."

Jan 1, 2015

By Giulia M. B., Ferruccio Cribari, Alessandro Bertero, Eliano Romani, Roberto Sorge, Francesca Casini

"The use of Artificial Ground Freezing (AGF) to form earth support and seepage control barrier systems has had applications worldwide. These cover a variety of construction problems, including the formation of frozen earth walls to support deep excavations, structural underpinning for foundation improvement, and temporary control of ground water in construction processes. An application of AGF during construction of Line C of Rome underground is described in detail.The new line “C” of San Giovanni metro station was constructed adjacent to the existing line “A” of San Giovanni station; the new metro line “C” is deeper than line “A” and runs below the existing station. The underpass project envisages an Artificial Ground Freezing in order to create a structural and waterproof temporary cut-off suitable to the two new tunnels excavation, while keeping trains running in the safest possible condition. The excavation of tunnels under the water table, with a hydraulic head of over 10 m in not homogeneous soils having different mechanical properties and permeability and below existing sensitive structures, involves special ground freezing sequences and methods, as well as peculiar drilling systems and operations, such as TDDT (Trevi Directional Drilling Technology).Artifical Ground Freezing IntroductionNatural freezing occurs seasonally in many areas of the globe and can affect negatively the engineering performance of geotechnical structures; on the other hand, man-made freezing is a controllable process that can be used by civil engineers to stabilise temporarily the ground in order to support and/or exclude groundwater from an excavation until the final retaining and lining structures are constructed. Freezing and thawing of the pore fluid within soils involve complex thermal, hydraulic and mechanical processes that have significant mutual interactions. For example, phase changes of the pore fluid caused by temperature variations can modify the pore water pressure in the soil, which, in turn, can induce mechanical deformation. At the same time, any changes in the hydraulic and mechanical conditions affect the thermal processes by advection and changes of ice and water contents.An application of AGF which will be presented in the paper, refers to the construction works of Line C of Rome underground. In this case AGF was carried out to provide temporary support during excavation of the two Line C running tunnels directly underneath the existing S. Giovanni station of Line A, in the safest possible condition. In order to keep the trains of Line A operational during excavation, a temporary structure was installed and a real-time monitoring system was conceived in order to control the temperatures of the soil during freezing and the response of the structures of the existing station."

Jan 1, 2016

By Brenton Cook, Daniel Mageau, Larry Applegate, Aaron McCain

"Ground freezing was successfully used to create an impermeable barrier wall along 3,000 feet of the downtown Seattle waterfront as part of the Seattle Seawall Replacement Project. This $360 million re-development involved removing the original 1930-era seawall and replacing it with a new, seismically resistant concrete wall supported on fill soil improved by jet-grout. The replacement wall was one of the largest construction projects in the state of Washington at the time. Ground freezing is typically used as both a structural shoring wall and groundwater cutoff. However, at this project it was used primarily as a cutoff wall to stop groundwater seepage into the 16-foot deep excavation from the landside areas.The project was divided into ten boxes (sections), each typically 200 to 600 feet in length. Only a few boxes were under construction at one time to reduce the impact on tourist-dependent local businesses. Soil conditions in the freeze zone consisted of sand, gravel and silt fill with abundant wood and debris. Tidally influenced groundwater, much of it contaminated, was difficult and expensive to control using wells during initial stages of construction. For all subsequent stages, a frozen soil wall extending to about 35 feet in depth was used to stop groundwater seepage into the excavation. An additional benefit of ground freezing included elimination of potential settlement beneath nearby buildings, utilities, and the Alaskan Way Viaduct that would likely have occurred with the use of conventional dewatering wells. The frozen soil wall crossed more than 130 buried utility locations (including water, sewer, storm, electrical, fiber optic, phone, gas, steam) with no damage. The frozen soil wall was very successful and limited groundwater influx from the landside to the seawall excavation to a negligible amount so that pumping, storage and treatment of contaminated groundwater was essentially eliminated."

Jan 1, 2016

By Dimitrios Polantzas P. E., Collin E. Sweeney E. I. T., Franklin M. Grynkiewicz P. E., Leili Javidanian P. E.

In the latest AASHTO design specifications, the Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) method is prescribed for the design of retaining walls. However, inconsistencies arise when LRFD is used for retaining wall design versus the traditional Allowable Stress Design (ASD). Required toe embedment and wall loading demand vary greatly when the two design approaches are compared, all else being equal. This is due to application of linear load factors to properties that vary non-linearly in the design. These inherent inconsistencies are further intensified when introducing factors such as layered soil profiles, different wall types, groundwater elevation, and surcharge requirements. When applied correctly, these two design approaches, in theory, should lead the designer to the same result with little discrepancy, as they do with steel structure design. However, the use of the current AASHTO LRFD method for various geostructural retaining wall designs yields contradictory results that suggest existing retaining walls that have been successfully designed and constructed are unstable. Fundamentally, LRFD should be built on reliability-based calibrations; the successful past performance of existing retaining structures designed using ASD suggests that the LRFD approach requires considerable modification. The authors of this paper recommend that the current LRFD load factors be reviewed and revised based on more comprehensive wall performance data and wall type such that the difference between retaining structures designed using LRFD and those designed using ASD is eliminated.

Oct 1, 2022

By Abhijit Saha

"Two analytical closed-form elastic-rigid-plastic solution methods to predict the rigid foundation behaviour on stone-column reinforced soil are compared, both of which takes into account the stone material yield within the host soil according to stress-dilatancy theory. These are the mechanistic methods developed by the author (2004, 2005) [that presently incorporates the dilatancy angle as per Schanz and Vermeer (1996)] and that developed by Pulko and Majes (2006), that takes into account the column yield as per Rowe dilatancy theory. Since optimal design of stone column necessitates optimum stress concentration on column, which is generally composed of dense gravel with/or without sand, the vertical stress on granular column is often close to its peak strength and the material dilates. To arrive at closed-form analytic solution to this complex soil-stone column interaction problem, some common assumptions like axi-symmetric soilstone column ‘unit-cell’, elastic host soil and rigid-plastic Mohr-Coulomb stone column material are combined with equilibrium and kinematic conditions. The results reflect the beneficial effect of dilatancy within the optimal range or techno-economic domain of area-ratio. The settlement predictions are compared with other analytical methods available in literature as well as with measured settlement reduction of stonecolumn reinforced ground at different subsoil conditions around the globe reported in literature.INTRODUCTIONStone columns or granular piles are frequently used in stabilization of soft clays, silts and loose silty-sands with large amount of fines. The majority of analytical methods assume infinitely wide loaded area with end-bearing columns having constant diameter and spacing that approximate to axi-symmetric conditions, and the approach is known as ‘unit-cell concept’. Several analytical solutions are available, and many of them (Aboshi et al; 1979, Balaam & Booker; 1981) are based on elastic approach considering the stonecolumn and surrounding soil as elastic materials. However, elastic methods give the ratio between the vertical stress in the column to soil (stress concentration factor) approximately equal to the ratio of constrained modulus of both materials. This ratio was found to be considerably higher than measured in the field and it is believed that elastic methods may overestimate the effects of stone columns on settlement reduction (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983). The elastic and elasto-plastic solutions presented by Balaam and Booker (1981, 1985) indicate that the problem can be idealized by assuming that the stone column is in a triaxial state and possibly yielding, such that there is no shear stress at the stone-soil interface and no yielding in the soil. Similar assumptions of stone column to be in a state of limiting equilibrium and under a triaxial stress state are considered in other methods also (Priebe; 1976, Van Impe & De Beer; 1983, Van Impe & Madhav; 1992, Saha & De; 1994, Saha; 2004, 2005, Pulko & Majes; 2006). In majority of the methods it is assumed that under load the stone-column yields at constant volume. However, the last three cases cited consider another parameter; the dilation of stone column. In Van Impe and Madhav’s (1992) and author’s (2004, 2005) method, the dilation is taken into account through the final value of the volumetric strain of column, whereas Pulko & Majes (2006) considered the stone column as Mohr-Coulomb rigid-plastic; dilating at yield in line with Rowe (1962) dilatancy theory."

Jan 1, 2015

By Huw Williams

"Power companies are always looking to increase the carrying capacity of existing transmission lines, and the preferred method is to string heavier capacity conductor lines. However this results in higher wind loading and the potential for towers overturning, if the existing foundations do not have the tensile capacity. On older lines, there is often a lack of information on construction type and dimensions and in practice the as-built foundation can differ considerably from design drawings, due to unforeseen ground conditions along the line route, and no record of the resulting change in design being made.Following successful trials in New Zealand, integrity testing with Frequency Response and impedance profiling techniques is now being used in the region to check concrete foundation properties in-situ and are enabling power companies to get the most out of their assets. INTRODUCTIONIn most regions of the globe, the US included, there is generally a requirement to upgrade transmission line capacities, to cope with increasing power consumption. Problems with under capacity only come to light for the public when blackouts occur, even in developed countries.A large number of transmission line towers are designed with a certain capacity redundancy and will be able to carry greater loads than originally designed for. Power companies are therefore looking for ways to assess their assets and to minimize the costs of upgrade work.Re-assessment of tower foundation capacities using design drawings may not be valid , as constructed foundations may differ considerably from design drawings, to accommodate local difficulties and in some instanced, particularly with earlier lines, there is no information whatsoever. This complicates efforts to determine the capacity of foundations considerably."

Jan 1, 2005

By Min Sunn Ye, Wei Wang, Huawen Xiao, Kai Yao, Fook Hou Lee, Siang Huat Goh

"Previous research have shown that introducing fibers to cement soil mixture is effective in improving the ductility as well as maintaining the strength of cement-treated soil. A good knowledge of stiffness of the improved soil at small strain is essential for realistic predictions of ground movements that may affect adjacent buildings or underlying infrastructure. This paper presents a triaxial system with local strain measurement developed for studying shear modulus degradation of cement treated clay with fibers. Cylinder specimens (70mm diameter by 140mm height) with 50% cement, 100% water, 0% to 1% polypropylene fibers by mass, and 7 days of curing period were used. A local strain measurement system with floating type miniature submersible LVDT is introduced in this paper. Configuration of the mounts including the pin size, length and distance are presented and discussed. Based on the experimental results, a reasonable configuration of the mounts is recommended for fiber reinforced cement treated clay. Results showed that the proposed local strain measurement system is effective for testing the shear modulus degradation of cement treated clay with fibers under both unconfined and confined condition. Comparisons with results from resonant column and bender element tests served to verify the reliability of the local strain measurements using the proposed method.INTRODUCTIONIn many geotechnical engineering problems, the operational strain domain ranges from 10-3% to 10- 1%. A good knowledge of stiffness at small strains is essential for realistic predictions of the ground movements that may affect adjacent buildings or underlying infrastructure. As such, during the last 3 to 4 decades, the importance of using the small strain stiffness of soils for the design of foundation and underground structures has widely been accepted. Triaxial testing has been widely used to study the stress-strain behavior of soil in the laboratory. However, the stiffness obtained from the conventional triaxial apparatus is usually far smaller than those back-calculated from field measurements. This is mainly attributed to the overestimation of axial strains from the external strain measurements, which usually includes compliance effects of the loading and load measuring system as well as sitting, bedding and alignment errors between sample and system (Baldi et al., 1988). The poor resolution of the external strain measurements is another important contribution. Therefore, conventional procedures are inappropriate for small-strain stiffness evaluation due to low accuracy and resolution."

Jan 1, 1900

By Howard A. Perko, Melinda J. Hummel

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

Jan 1, 2017

By R. B. King

This document was prepared by the DFI International Grouting Committee with the intent to provide a summary of main Standards and Guidelines available for the North America and Europe grouting industry. This document highlights the different approaches, methods and tools used internationally. The DFI International Grouting Committee comprises all parties involved on a grouting project: Owners, regulators, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers (equipment and materials). This document is not intended to cover every conceivable application or requirement of grouting. However, it does provide standard practice requirements for qualifications, materials, equipment, testing, and production procedures for the professional engineer to incorporate into their project specific requirements.

Jan 1, 2021

By Sunil S. Basarkar, Vinothkumar S

Ground Improvement Techniques serves to improve various engineering properties for supporting various foundations. These may be undertaken either by conventional or advanced methods. The Controlled Modulus Column (CMC), also known as Rigid Inclusion is a soil improvement technique to reduce the total and differential settlement by using semi-rigid soil reinforcement columns. The CMC technique can be executed by displacement or non-displacement methods. It does not aim to bypass the compressive layer or to install a pile that will directly support the entire load from the structure. Principle of the technique is to introduce a load transfer platform between the head of the column and structure and transform a uniform load into soil. Initially, the structural load transmitted into the soil generate the settlement greater than CMC piles. When the settlement between the soil and column became equal at neutral point, maximum structural load shall be balanced by the positive friction and tip resistance to stabilize the foundation without exceeding the allowable settlement limit. This paper describes the behaviour of soil reinforcement with CMC column and their installation process with reference to a project at the Dry Bulk Terminal Port, San Pedro- Abidjan (Western Africa). Methodology of CMC, requirements of Ground Improvement, arrangements and outcome of this method are presented in this paper.

Sep 1, 2022

By M. Meckkey El Sharnouby

In this paper, the results of full-scale field testing of reinforced helical pulldown micropiles (RG-HSP) installed in clayey till soils and resting on sandy soils are presented. Piles were tested under monotonic and two way cyclic lateral loadings. Effect of different loading setups on the results is demonstrated. The factors affecting the piles' performance are discussed. It was found that under monotonic loading the piles were able to sustain displacement up to 50% of the grout shaft diameter. Under low cyclic loading levels, the piles did not suffer degradation in the performance. Also, the degradation rate during cyclic loading increased with the increase of the load level. The experimental results show that the reinforced helical pulldown micropile is a reliable foundation option for lateral monotonic and cyclic loading applications.

Jan 1, 2011

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 Kimberly Martin

The EFFC/DFI Carbon Calculator provides the deep foundations industry the opportunity to be a leader when it comes to carbon reduction. This tool was created 10 years ago in an extensive effort by the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC), DFI, member organizations and Carbone 4, a consultant with ex- perience in life cycle assessment. The tool was born out of the fact that governments and clients were asking for embodied carbon information for foundation systems, and that in- dividual companies were building their own calculators to meet these requests. To help all member organ- izations achieve compliance, and to have a sector-specific tool that is certified to the prevailing standards, EFFC and DFI agreed to partner to create the carbon calculator, which is: Excel based and, therefore, easy to learn and use Updated on a regular schedule Certified to ISO 14067, GHG Protocol and PAS 2050 Free and available for anyone to use Even though this tool is free and easy to use, most projects in the industry do not have a carbon calculation performed. The case to use the calculator is more obvious for members in places like Europe where there are stricter reporting standards and government work can be driven by sustainability over cost. In North America this is not the case, yet. Without directives from clients and governments, what can compel the industry to start regularly using this tool and care about the carbon emissions of projects during design and construction?

Nov 1, 2022