Search Documents

By Rick Deschamps

"Fountain Slide is located approximately 10 mi (16 km) northeast of Lillooet, British Columbia, Canada, within the Coastal Mountain Range, and has been locally active since the 1970s. The project site is located near the base of the relic Tunnel Mountain landslide. The progressive movements have posed a significant challenge to British Columbia (BC) 99, the main north-south highway in the region. The slide began affecting the British Columbia Railway Company (BCR) tracks in the 1990s. In 2004, the Canadian National Railway Company (CN) acquired BCR and, during the next 11 years, undertook measures to stabilize the rail bed. Some of the measures undertaken include numerous track realignments, a shotcrete and soil nail wall, an anchored soldier pile-and-lagging wall, and adding a row of anchors to the wall. For many years, the measures had proved successful until mid-2014 when it was observed that the slide retrogressed uphill of the tracks. Since that time, the slide movements typically ranged between 5/32 and 0.4 in (4 and 10 mm) per day, leading to extreme distortion of the earth retention system and the need for frequent track realignment.In the spring of 2016, CN issued a request for proposals (RFP) for a designbuild solution with the expectations of: (1) a safety factor greater than 1.2, (2) considering only the currently identified retrogressive blocks that extend to about 200 ft (61 m) above the track; and (3) minimizing activities outside the current easement. It was also communicated that there was a possibility that a portion of the line may have to be abandoned if the proposed remediation was cost prohibitive.The fact that the existing slide was a small fraction of the relic slide was intimidating. The relic slide extended for approximately 1.0 mi (1.6 km) above the uppermost retrogressive block that was now affecting the rail line. Other areas of concern included:"

Jan 1, 2017

By Mary Ellen Large

This publication of Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) is intended to provide project owners, design engineers and construction professionals with guidelines for selecting cutoff wall and barrier systems and a general introduction to their methods of construction. Three categories of cutoff wall and barrier construction technology (excavated cutoff systems, in situ techniques, and driven cutoff systems) are presented and parameters for evaluating their design and construction are discussed. The information presented was compiled from the opinions of practicing engineers and construction specialists from the DFI Slurry Wall Committee.

Jan 1, 2021

By Lianyang Zhang

For optimal design of rock socketed shafts used to support axial loading, it is important to predict the end bearing capacity. The existing empirical methods for determining the end bearing capacity of rock socketed shafts use the empirical relations between the end bearing capacity, qmax, and the unconfined compressive strength of intact rock, sc. Since rock socketed shafts are supported by the rock mass (both intact rock blocks and discontinuities separating them) not just the intact rock, one should consider not only the intact rock properties but also the influence of discontinuities when determining the end bearing capacity. Although the effect of discontinuities may have been implicitly (partially) included in the empirical relations derived from the results of load tests, it is not clear how big the effect is and how much of it has been included. In this paper, a database consisting of 50 test shafts, 25 of which contain the RQD (rock quality designation) value, is developed. Using the database, the applicability of the existing empirical relations is evaluated and two new empirical relations between the end bearing capacity, qmax, and the unconfined compressive strength of rock mass, scm, are derived. The new empirical relations explicitly consider the effect of discontinuities by using scm which is directly related to RQD. Finally, an example is presented to demonstrate the application of the newly derived relations.

Jan 1, 2008

By Anburaj C., Srinivas A.

Deep excavation with support system is required to construct various part of underground structures like shafts, stations and entry structures etc. These structures have to be constructed using permanent or temporary embedded retaining walls with support system. The selection of a suitable type of retaining wall will depend upon the geological condition present in the particular location, time, cost and available equipment etc. In Bangalore Metro Rail Project, secant pile wall is adopted as the temporary earth retaining system and depth of excavation is about 20 m. It is designed initially based on bottom up construction methodology with 3 level of struts and 3 level of anchors but at later stage due to time and other construction related issues, it is decided to change the configuration to 6 levels of strut. Generally, in deep excavations, all the underground structures should be designed and checked for the critical forces from both permanent stage and construction stages. Since, secant piles are used as temporary retaining wall, only construction stage analysis is carried out to get the governing forces and deformation. In construction stage analysis, soil layers are defined with boundary conditions and the surcharge during construction and surcharge from actual building near the secant pile are considered. This paper discusses the effect of change in the support system from anchors to struts and how these changes in the support system affect the behavior of secant pile and subsequently adjacent buildings present in the influence zone of the excavation. As a result, in changing from anchors to struts, the wall displacement, strut forces and ground movement on the adjacent ground and buildings increases. The increase in deflection, ground movements and strut forces occurs during backfilling sequence of the underground station excavation. During backfilling, struts has to be removed and this imparts higher magnitude in deflection, strut forces and ground movements.

Nov 1, 2022

By Jiwei Duan

The energy transferred from a hammer to the pile top is considered as the effective energy in this paper. The effective energy is related to the pile dimensions, soil and pile-soil interface properties. This relation may be expressed as an equation based on the dimensionless theory. The relationship between pile capacity and effective energy was studied by performing a series of wave equation analyses using a commercial software called GRLWEAP (Wave Equation Analysis Program) by GRL Engineers, Inc. The results show that the pile capacity increases with the blow count when the effective energy is constant, however, it has a little change as the blow count is over 100 blows per foot. The pile capacity decreases as the ratio of pile penetration depth to pile diameter increases if the effective energy is constant. The pile capacity will increase as the pile diameter and wall thickness increases if the effective energy is constant. The pile stickout (pile length above the ground surface) does not have a significant effect on the effective energy and may be neglected. Curves for pile capacity versus effective energy are presented to be used for preliminary hammer selection according to effective energy and hammer efficiency. Finally, a case from PDA testing was studied. Measurements of the effective energy and pile capacity by CAPWAP were presented and compared with the results by GRLWEAP.

Jan 1, 2006

By Serhan Guner, Sundar Chiluwal

Although significant research has been conducted on helical piles, there is a lack of research and official design provisions on the helical pile-to-pile cap connections. These connections may govern the global response of pile cap systems—especially in tall and light structures where uplift forces dominate the response. To improve future industry practice, the objective of this study is to understand the influence of pile-to-pile cap connections on the global behavior of concrete pile caps and develop recommendations for their efficient design. For this purpose, 108 high- fidelity nonlinear finite element simulations are conducted to quantify the influences of bracket type, embedment depths, longitudinal reinforcement percentages, shear span-to-depth ratios, and loading conditions on the load, deformation, cracking, and failure behavior of concrete pile caps. The results indicate that the design configurations involving single bracket type may result in premature concrete cracking around the anchorage zones with a 25% reduction in the uplift load capacity. The investigations also confirm that high reinforcement percentages and low shear span-to-depth ratios result in higher load resistance in all bracket types, and that the load capacities of the double and studded bracket types are similar. For applications requiring the use of lower embedment depths, it is recommended that either double or studded bracket types be used. The research findings have applicability to both helical and micro piles given that both include similar connection types. INTRODUCTION Tall and light structures may experience significant uplift forces at their foundations due to large overturning moments from wind or other lateral loads. Helical piles (e.g., Fig. 1a) can provide a cost- effective, practical, and resilient solution for resisting significant uplift forces. In order to realize the full potential of helical piles, it is imperative that the helical pile-to-pile cap connections (see Figs. 1b, c and d for examples) are properly designed to resist the applied forces. However, there is a lack of research and associated knowledge on the influence of pile-to-pile cap connection detailing on the global response of pile caps.

Jan 1, 2019

By P. Bermingham

A new approach to load testing of high capacity piles is presented. The method is mobile, inexpensive, repeatable and non-destructive allowing for multiple pile testing at a single site. A reaction mass is placed over a pressure chamber situated atop the pile to be tested. The test method is significant in that it can produce linearly increasing forces of high magnitude (over 5.0 MN) with durations of up to 80 milliseconds. This represents pulse durations an order of magnitude longer than achieved using a drop hammer. The accelerations the pile undergoes are less than one g, (conventional dynamic methods = 50 to 100 g). These effects combine to produce pile behaviour no longer dominated by the action of stress wave, instead the pile is under high levels of stress through its length during the force input. This is representative of the situation when static loads are applied, thus the method may be considered quasi-static. Further advances introduced with this method are that pile deflection and transmitted force are measured directly by means of a laser beam and load cell. This allows accurate correlation of event load displacement histories without the error associated with zero shift (acceleration integration) or non-homogeneous materials (strain measurement). The load displacement histories emulate those obtained for static load testing.

Jan 1, 1989

By Patrick J. Hannigan

The pile foundation designer typically performs a subsurface exploration program and static pile capacity calculations before selecting a pile foundation type, length, and capacity. During construction, a pile installation criterion must be established to meet these design requirements. This installation criterion usually consists of a minimum penetration resistance or blow count to confirm pile capacity and may also include a minimum embedment requirement. This text will focus on use of wave equation analysis and dynamic measurements to meet design requirements. BEFORE THE WAVE EQUATION Since the mid-1800s, over 450 dynamic formulas for pile driving control have proliferated. In their simplest form, these formulas relate hammer energy to the work of soil resistance, or simply: W ? h = R ? s (1) Where W = ram weight h = ram drop height or stroke R = pile capacity s = pile penetration per blow

Jan 1, 1990

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

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 Stephan A. Jefferis, Adrian H. Bath

"This paper draws together some themes on the durability of barrier systems, and particularly cementitious systems. For contaminated land and water retaining structures, durability can be poorly addressed at all stages of a project, from specification, to barrier material selection, barrier design including toe-in and through to performance assessment in operation. Permeability (hydraulic conductivity) is a dynamic property which will vary over time as reaction processes propagate through a barrier. However, laboratory testing, when undertaken, tends to be focused on short term tests with aggressive chemicals so that the effects of longer-term processes such as carbonation and leaching by permeating water are missed. For water retaining structures, carbonation and leaching actually may be the most significant processes affecting barrier performance as the groundwater adjacent to many water bodies can be otherwise rather benign (as regards bentonite and cementitious systems). These and other reaction processes have been modelled in the arena of nuclear waste repositories and procedures are well recognised. However, such procedures have yet to be widely adopted for the assessment of other barrier systems.INTRODUCTIONOver the last few decades there has been an enormous amount of laboratory research on the durability of barrier materials or more specifically papers reporting the results of permeability tests. Unfortunately there is a much smaller literature on scaling test results to barrier dimensions in the field or to required design lives. Although in the geotechnical industry durability research has been largely laboratory based, in the nuclear industry where relevant timescales are multi-millennia rather than decades, research has been heavily underpinned by geochemical modelling. A significant purpose of this paper is to examine the tools that may be used to analyse the results of tests on barrier materials used in geotechnical engineering, for example, for water retaining structures and contaminated land and draw the attention of the construction industry to the potential of the modelling procedures developed for nuclear repository assessments. Modelling can help to identify underlying processes and so augment information from laboratory testing focused on changes of physical properties such as permeability and strength."

Jan 1, 2016

By George J. Tamara

The urban environment presents special challenges for the design and construction of earth retention systems. Complications arising from difficult subsurface conditions are compounded by the presence of urban infrastructure and existing and prior construction. The proximity of adjacent structures as well as intense prior use can cause special concerns including the potential for archeological artifacts or contaminated ground or ground water. Utilities and structures may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of ground movement, dewatering and vibrations. Difficulty of access, congestion and limited work areas may severely restrict means and methods of construction. Dewatering may be limited or prohibited because of concerns for disposal of clean or contaminated water, depletion of aquifers, drawing of contaminants to the site or dewatering induced settlements.

Jan 1, 2003

Jan 1, 2003

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

Jan 1, 1986

By Peter Faust, Peter Hubbard, Kenichi Soga

The European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and The Deep Foundations Institute (DFI) have set up a task group to compile a Guide for Working Platforms. The first edition of this Guide has been published in January 2020. The aim of the Guide is to provide reliable methods for design, testing and verification of working platforms for construction equipment, especially in the deep foundation industry where track loads can be excessive due to the nature of its operations. The Guide has identified areas where knowledge is limited. Actual track pressure and its distribution along the length of the tracks is still not well researched. Current recommendation provided in EN 16228-1 are believed to be overly simplified and may lead to conservative requirements for working platform thickness. This paper presents results of a series of field tests where the actual track pressure of a large drilling rig during operation was measured in real time together with the deformation of the working platform. Embedded, distributed fiber optic sensing (DFOS) at different depths throughout the platform allowed for a three-dimensional evaluation of the platform deformation throughout the entire operation. Results will help to develop more reliable recommendations for future safety requirements of working platforms for deep foundation equipment.

May 1, 2022

"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 George G. Goble

In the middle of the nineteenth century, the dynamic formula appeared as a description of pile penetration during impact driving. The simplicity of use of the formula combined with the power of the energy concepts behind the formula caused it to be quickly accepted and integrated into practice. Dynamic formula had been in use for 100 years when the Wave Equation computer programs first appeared. With that long experience it is not surprising that the formula continued to be used and were only slowly abandoned. The Wave Equation offers many advantages over the various formula but it does not offer a clear sense of physical understanding of pile driving that is available with the formula. Large amounts of numbers are generated but often it is difficult or impossible to gain a physical understanding of the results or a feeling for the importance of the various parameters. The question that the Wave Equation user has is, "What will happen if I use a larger drive cap (or change any other item of equipment)?" In this paper, I will attempt to explain pile driving using elementary wave propagation theory. However, the presentation will not depend on any higher mathematics. With the use of wave mechanics, it is possible to explain driving characteristics that cannot be handled with the energy formula.

Jan 1, 1995

By K. Rainer Massarsch

"Part 2 of 2 (Continued from Summer 2004 edition) By K. Rainer Massarsch, Geo Engineering AB, Stockholm, SwedenVibrations, which are caused by the installation of piles in dry or permeable soils, can cause settlements. The magnitude of settlements depends on several factors, such as soil type and stratification, ground water conditions (degree of saturation), pile type and method of pile installation (driving energy). A method of settlement prediction due to construction-induced vibrations has been presented by Massarsch (2000). However, in many cases, an engineering assessment must be made at an early stage of a project. The following simplified procedure can be used to estimate settlements in a homogeneous sand deposit adjacent to a single pile, Fig. 5. This approach is based on extensive experience from soil compaction projects. It is assumed that intense densification due to pile penetration occurs within a zone corresponding to three pile diameters. The volume reduction resulting from the propagating vibrations will cause settlements in a cone with an inclination 2V:1H, with the tip at a depth of 6 pile diameters. Thus the settlement trough will extend a distance of 3D+L/2 from the centre of the pile, with maximum settlements at the centre of the pile. Maximum settlements, Smaxand average settlements, Smax can be estimated using the following relationship, choosing an appropriate a value of the soil compression factor, from Table 2.The driving energy depends on the method of pile installation, soil stratification and the pile type. The displacement volume of the installed pile has been neglected. The simplified method is applicable for estimating settlements at the perimeter of a pile group. It should be noted that settlements also occur outside the assumed cone, but these are often negligible. The effect of incompressible layers should be taken into account by adjusting the effective pile length."

Jan 1, 2004

By George W. Little, John Councilman

"The selection, evaluation, and modification of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers, completed by the slurry trench excavation method, can be one of the most critical and challenging tasks to ensure the cutoff wall meets the design performance criteria. Contractor mix designs should incorporate all available geotechnical data, including subsurface soil characteristics, groundwater information, and potential site contaminates. However, the pre-construction mix design can have limitations if subsurface data is limited or shows variability from initial investigations. Placement of the seepage barrier material needs to be evaluated during construction to identify in-situ performance. In one particular case study, the self-hardening cutoff wall mix design was evaluated over a one year period followed by a year and a half installation period, in which, a number of adjustments were made to the laboratory mix design during construction due to performance in the field. Installation for the selected mix was monitored on a real-time basis, using quality control data, as well as early strength and permeability results to determine if adjustments to the self-hardening mix were necessary. Evaluation of early results and relationships between strength and permeability were used to make adjustments prior to achieving the final test results for 28-day strength and permeability. Test results of the installed mix illustrated a direct correlation between strength and permeability. Achieving a minimum unconfined compressive strength was necessary to meet the minimum permeability of the seepage barrier. Other determinations conclude that the thorough development of a pre-construction mix design can have limitations even when all geotechnical data and site conditions are taken into account. Understanding early indicators and key strength and permeability relationships are necessary to determine seepage barrier performance and limitations.IntroductionThe evaluation of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers was reviewed for one particular case study where a mix was developed using available geotechnical background information, including considerations for impacted groundwater. Following development of the laboratory mix design, the seepage barrier wall was installed over a one and a half year period, where the contractor mix design was evaluated and modified to accommodate field conditions affecting performance. The objective of the project was to cutoff and collect impacted groundwater and prevent the migration of contaminants to the creek running adjacent to the project. The self-hardening seepage barrier wall was installed using the slurry trench excavation method along 4700 ft of alignment and extended to depths ranging from 20 to 85 ft below ground surface, where it tied in with a low permeability stratum or competent bedrock."

Jan 1, 2016