Search Documents

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

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

Oct 1, 2022

By Patrick E. Durnal, Henrik Dahl

"A joint venture of Ben C. Gerwick Inc., Sverdrup (now Jacobs) and DMJM (now DMJM + Harris) designed the $779 million seismic upgrade of the Richmond - San Rafael Bridge over the San Pablo Bay in the San Francisco Bay Area and provided construction support to Caltrans. Construction of the marine foundation retrofi t was completed by a joint venture of Tudor Saliba/Tidewater/Koch-Skanska and their subcontractors: Pomeroy Precast Construction, AGRA Foundations, Dutra Construction and Vortex Divers. Construction management and inspection was performed by Caltrans with the support of various consultants. MARINE FOUNDATION RETROFIT SCOPEThe retrofi t design of the submerged foundations included:??A total of 476 tension and compression micro piles (290- 1140 kips or 1290-5071 kN) installed through cored holes through the underwater bells at 31 pier locations??Fourteen 126/150/164 inch (3.20/3.81/4.17m) diameter CISS (Cast-in-steel shell) concrete shear piles (1160- 2660 kips or 5160-11832 kN) installed through new precast concrete pile cap extensions??Twelve CIDH (Cast-in-drilled-hole) shear piles (1060- 2130 kips or 4715-9475 kN) with 150 inch (3.91m) diameter steel shells to top of bedrock and 30 ft (9,14m) long and 11 ft (3.35m) diameter rock socket installed through new precast concrete pile cap extensions The specifi ed post bid test boring revealed deeper bedrock at one pier location allowing deletion of the rock socket. Thus 15 CISS and 11 CIDH shear piles were installed at 11 pier locations - 9 piers with 2 piles and 2 piers with 4 piles. Cut off elevations for the shear piles ranged from 46 ft to 60 ft (14.0m to 18.3m) below mean sea level and cut off for the micro piles was 8 ft to 46 ft (2.44m to 14.0m) below mean sea level. Almost all foundation retrofi ts required work under limited headroom conditions. Underwater construction connections required innovative design details and construction techniques for each pile type. The 11 piers had 22 precast concrete pile cap extensions installed in pairs and connected by either tremie concrete closure pours or by large pipe struts. The precast pile cap extensions were strapped underwater using large steel bands wrapping around the belled piers with grouted annulus. The precast pile caps were founded with 14 inch (355mm) diameter steel pipe piles, which were either support piles or seismic tension and compression piles. The seismic piles were connected in grouted corrugated steel pipe sleeves cast into the new concrete pile caps."

Jan 1, 2007

By Nozomu Kotake, Rakshya Shrestha, Ralph Griffin, Stefanos Papadopulos, Jeff Fippin, Sushil Kafle

Direct Power Compaction (DPC) is a deep Vibro-compaction method used for liquefaction mitigation. In DPC, H-beams are used as vibrating rods penetrating deep into the ground, and a vibrating force is applied directly to the tip of these H-beams to densify the loose ground. A characteristic feature of DPC is the use of a flapping plate installed at the base of the H-beam to enhance the compaction efficiency during penetration. In addition, 2-rod and 4-rod type equipment have been developed to improve productivity and enable rapid construction. DPC was selected as the most suitable and cost-effective technique to mitigate liquefaction hazards in two projects in the San Francisco Bay Area, one on Alameda Island and another on Treasure Island. Both sites were capped with hydraulically placed sand fills. Liquefaction analyses indicated excessive liquefaction-induced settlements and large lateral spread without ground improvement. Densification using DPC was performed up to depths of 42 ft to reduce the liquefaction potential of the sand fill to acceptable levels and to allow planned improvements. Cone penetration tests were conducted before and after DPC to evaluate its performance. This paper describes the equipment and process involved in DPC and discusses its application in terms of subsurface conditions and geotechnical design considerations.

Sep 8, 2021

By Clayton A. Signor

Abstract: Expansive soils cause more damage to structures annually than a combination of other major natural disasters. Because of the cost to our society, all means and methods need to be fully explored to mitigate the problems associated with expansive soils. This study will present a foundation design approach that is underutilized in this application, driven piles. The main objective of the study is to present pile test results and analysis from four driven pile project sites in three types of expansive soils found in central Texas: Del Rio formation, Taylor/Navarro formation, and expansive alluvium. High strain dynamic pile tests were conducted on each of the four studies with rigorous signal matching analysis from the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP). Ultimate pile capacities ranged from 73 to 311 kips with an average of 61% of the total capacity coming from the pile shaft and were two to six times the structural capacity needed. Allowable loads calculated from Modified Gates dynamic formula best modeled allowable test results. Average unit skin frictions ranged from 0.50 to 4.71 ksf. Restrike pile tests of 1 to 17 days after initial driving reported 30 to 100% shaft capacity gain. All open-ended pipe piles driven produced soil plugs ranging from 4 to 14 feet thick. Small diameter, thick-walled, open-ended pipe piles reached penetration of twice the depth of designated zone of seasonal moisture change without problem. The observed production rate of the driven piles was on average 8 minutes, which implied daily production of 15 to 40 piles. Predrills or augered holes should be specified for underground obstructions found in soil investigation.

By C. M. Haberfield

"1 INTRODUCTION Around the world, there is a demand for larger structures, tall buildings and large bridges. While good footing design is important for all structures, it is even more important in the case of large structures. Recent experience with footing design for tall buildings (e.g. Burj Al Alam development and Nakheel Tower in Dubai, the Gate of Kuwait in Kuwait, the City Centre Project in Bahrain and Eureka Tower and Freshwater Place in Melbourne) has shown the benefits of investing in footing planning, design and construction (Haberfield, 2011, Poulos and Bunce, 2007). The footing systems for most of these projects include the use of deep bored piles or barrettes (piles of rectangular cross-section). Many use piled rafts where the piles, while acting to support the load, are primarily used to reduce settlements. A clear understanding of the factors controlling the behaviour of the footing system is needed to enable a good engineering design to be achieved. This starts with a sound understanding of the ground characteristics and individual pile performance, including adequate collection of data and testing. The best footing solution can then be found using recent improvements in data collection and analytical techniques, complex and highly capable computer-based models and the availability of high speed computers. This paper focuses on the axial performance of deep bored piles socketed into rock – both their individual performance and their performance as part of a larger footing system. Recent research and construction practice is discussed. In practically all cases, serviceability conditions control the behaviour of the footings. Methods of establishing the parameters for input into sophisticated computer programs are described. Application of the methods to case studies is included and it is shown that the behaviour of individual piles can be closely predicted. These developments lead to lower construction costs, better constructability and shortened construction time because of the better understanding of footing behaviour. 2 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF FOOTINGS ON ROCK For a typical pile-supported footing, it is necessary to consider both individual pile, pile group and raft performance. These require consideration of the behaviour of the ground immediately beneath the surface raft or footing, along the pile shaft, and at and beneath the pile toe (Figure 1). Immediately beneath the surface raft or footing, the important factors are strength for bearing capacity and stiffness for settlement and interaction effects. Along the pile shaft, of most interest are strength for bearing, excavatability and stability; stiffness for settlement and interaction effects; geology and permeability for pile stability and, most importantly, pile shaft resistance. At the pile toe all the above factors for the pile shaft are present and in addition the pile end bearing is of interest. Below the toe, stiffness for pile settlement is important to at least a depth of twice the building width."

Jan 1, 1900

By Packer M. L

Residual load development in driven precast piles has been widely researched in recent decades, however, cast-in-situ piles are often falsely assumed to be unaffected by this mechanism. In contrast to driven precast piles, driven cast-in-situ (DCIS) piles require adequate time prior to loading for the concrete hydration and curing processes to occur. The concrete-soil interaction is complex with several processes influencing the strains within the concrete pile after installation. DCIS piles are of particular interest given that residual loads can be developed during both the driving and casting phases. This paper present four instrumented end-bearing DCIS piles in which temperature and strains were monitored from installation, with the objective of identifying the processes contributing to the measured strains prior to testing. Strain gauges at all depths recorded a net compression and compressive strains continued to increase up to the commencement of load testing. Residual strains in the test piles were interpreted to be influenced by temperature (concrete and ambient soil and air temperature), consolidation of soils due to dissipation of excess pore water pressure, and swelling from absorption of groundwater. Several residual load interpretive methods are evaluated with the Siegel and McGillivray (2009) approach being consistent with the skin friction full mobilisation theory of the Unified Design method. The full-scale field tests presented herein provide a unique opportunity to examine DCIS pile behaviour, particularly given the lack of presently available published studies on these pile types.

May 1, 2022

By Bengt H. Fellenius

The design of pile foundations is much more commonly verified by means of a full-scale test, than is the design of other foundation units. The reason is not that our knowledge of pile behavior is more uncertain than our knowledge of other foundation types making the verification necessary, but more that the loads in a structure are more concentrated to single foundations in a structure founded on piles as opposed to structures on footings or mats. Therefore, should a pile cap fail or move, the adverse consequence of this is often drastic, as the piled structure has little freedom to transfer its need for support to other foundation units. Consequently, it becomes important to assure the design of piled foundations. In many, maybe in most instances, the static pile loading test is routine and geared toward determining an at least capacity, only. However, in these times there is an ever increasing liability of the professional, demands for increased economy of the foundation, and frequent lack of the involvement in the test of the experienced old-timer exercising good judgment. Furthermore, modern pile design is leaving the single, simple concept of capacity and requires more information from the test to assist in determining aspects of long-term behavior and settlement. Therefore, even the straight forward, routine static loading test requires improved planning, execution, and analysis.

Jan 1, 1990

By Don Deardorff, Ke Yang, Yingcai Han, Ken Sorensen, Robert Kruger, Mark Petersen, Diane Fiorelli, Larry Goldfarb, Kathryn Petek, Kwabena Ofori-Awuah

Design of deep foundations for lateral loads requires an understanding of soil-foundation-structure response during loading. Lateral loads on a deep foundation (piles) could be due to earthquakes, winds, waves, and/or machine vibrations. Over the years, analysis of response of piles due to lateral loads evolved from closed-form solutions to p-y methods to strain wedge to finite element/finite difference modeling. Although analysis of lateral response of piles and shafts is routinely performed, there is no single guidance document and/or standard for design and testing. Several different analytical methods are available for the analysis, and the resulting design can result in significantly different responses which can create confusion. This is especially true for analyzing and designing piles in potentially liquefiable soils with lateral spread issues under seismic conditions.This guidance document is intended to assist geotechnical engineers, pile designers, and contractors in analysis, design, and testing of piles and drilled shafts for lateral loads. This document discusses the background of different analytical and testing procedures and presents the recommended methods for analysis, design and testing of piles for lateral loads.Chapter 1 defines the different kinds of lateral loads to which a single pile or pile group may be subjected. This first chapter also presents different types of piles used to resist lateral loads.Chapter 2 discusses geotechnical issues related to lateral pile design such as liquefaction and lateral spreading and other non-seismic issues. Also addressed in Chapter 2 is geotechnical site characterization (as related to lateral loads) in terms of site investigation, in-situ testing, geophysical testing, laboratory testing, and estimation of soil/rock properties.Chapter 3 discusses the background and available analytical methods and tools for the analysis and design of single piles and drilled shafts. Several methods of analyses from closed-form elastic solutions to the finite element/finite difference solutions and their applicability are discussed. Available commercial computer software packages for analyzing single piles and drilled shafts are also presented.Chapter 4 expands the discussion of single piles and drilled shafts into the analysis and design of pile groups. In addition, group effects, resistance of pile caps, results of previous experimental and analytical studies, and available analysis tools and software for pile groups are discussed.Chapter 5 presents the issue of lateral resistance of piles and drilled shafts as discussed in different national and international building and non-building codes. A summary of extensive research on several codes are presented to facilitate the compliance with different codes.Chapter 6 discusses structural design issues of individual piles and drilled shafts such as depth of fixity.Chapter 7 discusses soil structure interaction issues related to kinematic and inertial effects due to seismic loading and available methods of analyses.Chapter 8 discusses and presents the typical procedures for the lateral load testing of piles. This guideline was developed as an aid to the practicing engineer in providing information, direction and commentary on the lateral design of deep foundations. Although all reasonable effort has been made to accurately compile the material and information contained herein, no warranty is made with regard to any such material or information and the Deep Foundation Institute assumes no responsibility for any possible errors or any direct or indirect result of the use of any such material or information. It is not intended that this document address every factor affecting lateral design for every situation. Therefore it is the responsibility of the person utilizing information from this document to confirm that it is appropriate and correct for their situation as well as to understand and properly apply

Jan 1, 2012

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

By Suthan Pooranampillai

Verification of drilled shaft resistance is primarily obtained through the use of different load testing methods. Procedures utilized include conventional top down static loading, the Osterberg load cell (O-cell) test and dynamic tests such as the Statnamic method. The O-cell test provides a means of obtaining separately the base and side shear resistance behavior of drilled shafts (cast-in-drilled-hole). Alternatively, the Statnamic load test method enables the engineer to derive base and side shear behavior separately, based on measurements of load, accelerations and strains along the length of the shaft. However, due to time and cost constraints these tests can only be performed on selected shafts within a project. Post grouting of a drilled shaft base embedded within a cohesionless material, with a low mobility compaction grout, will essentially pre-load the shaft base soil against the side shear and self-weight in much the same manner as an O-cell load test (when the load cell is placed within the base vicinity). Therefore, successful post grouting of a drilled shaft would enable verification of both shaft side shear and base resistance simultaneously on each and every shaft it is carried out on. Additionally, such post grouted shafts display stiffer load-displacement response during subsequent downward, superstructure induced, loading compared to ungrouted shafts. Verification of resistance on each and every shaft through the use of post grouting will allow an increase in resistance factors (reduction in safety factor) used in the design. Two 6 ft. diameter drilled shafts were constructed in Fredonia, WA, for WSDOT, each with an approximate length of 52 ft. The shafts were terminated within medium dense poorly graded silty sand. Statnamic load testing of the shafts indicated maximum derived static side shear and base resistances of 2545 kips and 507 kips (1.6 in. displacement) for shaft One and 2466 kips and 212 kips (1.4 in. displacement) for shaft Two. Shaft Two was subsequently grouted, with a low mobility compaction grout. Shaft base mounted total earth pressure cells measured a maximum sustained pressure of 55.44 ksf during the compaction grouting operation. Shaft displacement reached 0.65 inches in the upward direction at termination of grouting. Comparison of grouting data with initial load test information indicates that properly instrumented post grouting verifies shaft base and side shear resistance. In addition, these grouting induced resistances were much higher than design values supplied by the engineer using conventional resistance factor design. Large scale laboratory testing also shows that base grouting verifies higher soil resistances than permissible in conventional design.

Jan 1, 2010

By Karsten Beckhaus

Barrier walls in levees and dams are designed and constructed for new structures and for rehabilitation or upgrade of existing structures to control seepage. Construction methods applied are often deep soil mixing with a cementitious slurry or excavating a trench and refilling it with a plastic concrete. This paper explains the technical background of jointless cementitious barrier walls inevitably developing thermal tensile stresses and how these stresses can be controlled. The theoretical background of thermal stresses is explained based on experimental and numerical studies of essential factors. Although a low cracking risk is generally inherent, risk mitigation measures should be taken to thermal cracking and to ensure the permanent function of such walls as a low-permeability and high-deformability barriers.

Sep 8, 2021

By Vivian M. Troughton, Clifford J. Wren, Tony P. Suckling

"Secant pile walls are used for the construction of deep basement walls and earth retaining structures. Risk associated with secant pile walls is commonly perceived as being the safety of site personnel and the public during piling operations, or safety used in design. It is recognized that both of these are of paramount importance, but additional risks associated with the construction methods must also be considered to complete the risk management profile for any project. For the particular case of secant pile walls, if Clients take a ""back seat"" they may be unaware of the total risk package they are procuring. The authors argue that the piling contractor should be involved at the earliest stage giving input into the overall risk management process. Such early involvement within the professional team will maximise cost benefits to the Client and minimise the delays and cost increases sometimes associated with these works. A consistent methodology for identifying and then managing all the risks associated with secant pile walls is proposed. An example is used to demonstrate how this methodology should be employed. INTRODUCTIONThis paper discusses the value of a complete and integrated risk management process for structures with basements formed using a secant pile wall.The risk associated with any secant pile wall can be consicfered as comprising four components;1. Safety of people on site2. Safety of design or design methodology3. Construction risks4. Commercial risksAny risk management system needs to fully consider and integrate each of these four components to maximise the likelihood of a successful outcome for the basement.This paper concentrates on the construction risks for secant pile walls, as these are not often understood by the Client (in this paper the term ""Client"" also includes the main contractor, principal contractor, Engineer, Planning Supervisor, quantity surveyor and cost consultant)."

Jan 1, 2005

By Brian T. Nereson, Michael C. Penney

"This technical paper was prepared to describe the general process by which the authors designed a column-supported load transfer platform (LTP) for support of asphalt-paved runway and taxiway embankment areas over soft organic soils, the major tasks and observations made during construction of the system, and the outcome of the system design and construction. The LTP system was designed using the method described in the BSI Standards Publication Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills, BS 8006-1:2010 (BS8006), to achieve performance objectives for the project. The design also used other criteria based upon the authors’ engineering experience and understanding of the expected interaction between soils, structures and geotextiles. The design and construction process described herein resulted in a successful project. The authors identified that full-time engineering oversight during construction was of high importance and provided a high degree of value to the project. The authors’ intimate knowledge of the potentially adverse effects of variations in construction practices promoted timely identification of construction deficiencies that could have affected the reliability of the system. This resulted in corrections and modifications being made, while materials were still accessible, to protect the intended performance of the finished system.INTRODUCTIONThe site is located in Marshfield, Massachusetts. The surrounding area is flat and contains significant wetlands with a water table at or near the ground surface. Prior to the improvements described herein, the site was already developed as an existing municipal airport with an approximately 3,000 linear-feet asphalt-paved runway oriented in a northeast/southwest direction (northeast end referred to as Runway 24 and southwest end referred to as Runway 6; Fig. 1). The site is located approximately 0.5 to 1 mile (Runway 24 and Runway 6, respectively) from the Atlantic Ocean.The improvement project included total extension of approximately 550 linear feet of asphalt-paved runways and taxiways over existing wetlands that consisted of soft, organic soils with varying but significant depths (Fig. 2). An initial geotechnical assessment performed for the project identified that the subsurface conditions were not suitable to support the proposed runways and taxiways in their existing state."

Jan 1, 2016

By Gilbert R. Tallard

"Pouring deep foundations by the tremie pipe method is nowadays such a common process that it has becomes an unspecified practice. Means and methods are almost entirely at the contactor’s discretion. A variety of practices are permitted and seldom associated with the discovery of abnormalities and areas of random defects in concrete. This writer wishes to call the attention of stakeholders to the initiation details of the tremie pour operation.KEYWORDSINTRODUCTIONThe advent of slurry as a means of shoring an excavation of relatively small cross section but of possibly great depth has become part of state of the art in foundations construction, with the substitution of said slurry by concrete to provide the structural end product element through the use of tremie pipes. In appearance, there is nothing more simple than pouring concrete into a tremie pipe through a hopper after the basic work has been done i.e. the excavation or drilling, the cleaning of the slurry, the placement of the reinforcing cage, then the tremie concrete pour is almost a reward for a successful achievement. Force of habit has removed the awareness on the process fundamentals for initiating the pour; a variety of practices used call for a review and a reassessment as a means of reducing construction defects that may result from flawed practices, and and especially we are pouring deeper holes. This writer intends to address this issue focusing both on the drilled shaft and the diaphragm wall industries.TREMIE PIPES AND HOPPERSA tremie pipe diameter needs to be sufficiently large to allow the rapid descent of concrete with a minimum of friction loss and avoiding possible bridging in relation to aggregate size. Impervious joints between pipe sections are essential to prevent slurry “raining” over the concrete which can cause concrete segregation pockets and possibly plug the pipe with damaging consequences. That tremie pipes be long enough to reach the bottom may be self-evident but poorly written specifications can be erratic on that subject and seldom specific in terms of inches. A standard pipe of 10 inches is well accepted throughout the foundations industry; double O rings and spline joints are common and function well if properly maintained. However the practice to cover the joint with the ineffable duct tape indicates that all is not always well with this detail. Also, spline cables may shear in case of very long tremie pipes causing the separation of the tremie pipe requiring a restart in midstream with another probable source of inter mixing of concrete and slurry with subsequent defects."

Jan 1, 2017

By Vijayakumar Viramuthu, Martin Heinrich

Tower of Lot L, L1 & M, Kuala Lumpur City Centre when completed would stand 700 m tall. This Mega tall Skyscraper would merely be less than 500 m away from the world tallest Twin Tower, the Petronas Twin Tower. From June 2018 to February 2020 BAUER (MALAYSIA) SDN. BHD. constructed 225 nos bored piles with diameters of 2.0 m and 2.5 m for this tower. To comply with the depth requirement of the initial design and the need to have the pile toe 2.0 m above competent bedrock, the drilling equipment was required to be able 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 borehole stability over time with polymer, installing 70 t heavy steel cages and pouring up to 550 m³ concrete continuously in conjunction with installation of 88 t heavy kingposts into workable fresh concrete. The piling works were executed with one BAUER BG 48 and one BG 72, the biggest drilling rig globally available.

May 1, 2022

By Alice Y. Tseng, Dan MacLean

"Corrosion protection of all deep foundation systems made of steel is THE issue when considering durability of the element in the long term. Protecting steel from corrosion and maintaining the steel tendon cross sectional area ensures a competent and durable system. The foundation of a building is usually difficult to repair and therefore high risk is taken when unknowingly choosing a non-adequate solution.Requirements according to EN 1990 (Eurocode 0 or EC 0) on construction durability requires a service life over 100 years. How can a service life over 100 years be achieved? How shall bare steel be protected in soil, which sometimes could be an aggressive environment to the steel? Which corrosion protection methods are commonly used in Europe and in North America?This paper will focus on hollow bars used as Micropiles, Anchor piles and Soil Nails. It gives an overview about the state of the practice in regards to corrosion protection (including head construction) and evaluates different options following the European Standards focusing on type of material and method of installation. Further the different corrosion protective methods such as thickness of grout body, coating types and sacrificial loss are listed with the pros and cons evaluated.Based not only on North American standards like FHWA “Micropile Design and Construction Guidelines”, FHWA Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 7 for “Soil Nail Walls“ and Post-Tensioning Institute “Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors”, but also European standards like EN 14199 “Execution of special geotechnical works – Micropiles”, EN 14490 “Execution of special geotechnical works - Soil nailing”, EN 1537 “Execution of special geotechnical work – Ground anchors“, and other relevant standards, all possibilities of protecting the hollow bars and the steel quality will be introduced, discussed and compared ."

Jan 1, 2017

"Integrity tests refer to a variety of non-destructive tests (NDT) whose purpose is to measure or determine the quality and uniformity, and some- times dimensions, of cast-in-place concrete foundation elements. The tests are primarily aimed at detecting zones of poor quality concrete, voids, bulges, and/or necking.The non destructive integrity testing techniques in this section most generally used for drilled shaft testing are based on one of two physical principles - stress wave propagation or nuclear radiation. All of the stress wave methods involve monitoring a deliberately created vibration, usually of very low amplitude (strains on the order of ??). Some methods rely on direct transmission of the signal, while others rely on processing reflections of the imposed signal.The stress wave methods are inherently sensitive to vibrations from other sources, especially at frequencies that fall within the range of interest for the particular test being applied. Construction activity near the shaft being tested; such as: demolition jack-hammering, pile-driving, casing vibration, excavation and movement of track-vehicles are all known sources of interference that might render test data useless. The actual effect of such vibrations will vary with the type of activity, soil conditions and distance from the testing. The test operator must be able to recognize such interference, and the contractor should be prepared to cooperate with the testing personnel by stopping or moving the source of vibration. If this cannot be done immediately, testing should be postponed until the work in question is finished and the vibration source moved or shut down.NDT methods are not suitable substitutes for routine "topside" construction inspection as described in the Drilled Shaft Inspector’s Manual. However, these NDT methods do allow measurements of the quality of concrete placed in drilled shafts, which cannot be made from "topside" construction inspection. They should be considered supplemental to routine construction inspection as they do provide an additional level of quality control."

Jan 1, 2004

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

By Jim Slatter, Ben Collingwood

"It is well known that the adoption of an appropriate construction methodology is critical to quality outcomes for bored piles (drilled shafts). Many case studies have been published documenting quality issues that have arisen due to a range of causes involving ground conditions, ground support, drilling and cleaning techniques, groundwater, concrete properties and concreting methods, amongst other things. Despite the body of published information, pile defects remain common in practice. The authors share over 40 years’ experience in the Australian piling industry and have participated in many hundreds of projects involving bored piles in design, construction and testing roles. It is the authors’ experience that many defects are caused by conditions or practices that are known to be problematic, but that are often not recognised or addressed at the time of the works. This paper provides an overview of industry practices and key factors relevant to quality outcomes. The authors draw upon their own construction experience, published case studies and guidelines, and observations from independent pile testing activities they have been involved in across the Australian piling industry. The intent of the paper is to provide a consolidated review of typical industry practices and to highlight key areas in which construction quality can be enhanced.INTRODUCTIONThere are many published studies of cases where bored piles have been constructed and found to have concrete defects. The authors have had personal involvement in many cases where the outcomes and learnings are not publically available. The nature and cause of defects is always dependent on site and project specific factors, and therefore methodologies and materials that produce satisfactory outcomes in certain circumstances may be problematic elsewhere. The process of bored pile construction encompasses the following key areas:??excavation and ground support;??pile preparation and cleaning;??pile reinforcement and fitments.??concrete supply and mix performance;??concrete placement methodology;Each of these elements is equally important and can influence construction quality in completed piles. In the authors’ experience, it is often a combination of seemingly minor issues that leads to significant defects in piles. Conversely, attention to detail in all aspects of bored pile construction is required to produce outcomes of a consistently high standard."

Jan 1, 1900

By John C. Ryan

The Emeca Pile Splice, an innovative mechanical prestressed concrete pile splice, is the first robotically welded splice to be fabricated in the United States. An analytical and experimental study was conducted to establish the capacity of the standard splice for 12-in. and 14-in. square piles. The study illustrates compliance of the splice with International Building Code (2006) requirements. A case study for a large petroleum tank foundation project in Port Canaveral, FL is presented, demonstrating the efficiency achieved through use of spliced-piles. For the case-study project, single-piece 18-in.-square, 100-ft-long piles were replaced with 12-in.-square, two-piece, spliced piles. As a result, a significant reduction of material, labor, handling, and equipment was documented for the project. Savings realized on the installed pile cost was estimated to be in excess of 30% by the owner.

Jan 1, 2010