Search Documents

By Michael W. Oakland

Deer Island is the site of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) wastewater treatment plant which, when completed in 1999, will serve 43 cities and towns in central eastern Massachusetts. Deer Island is located in the Boston Harbor, as shown on Figure 1. The existing wastewater treatment plant on Deer Island is being upgraded to include secondary treatment to comply with Federal require­ments. The new treatment facilities will process an average of 455 million gallons of sewage per day; total capacity will be about one billion gallons per day. The new treatment facilities will cover virtually the entire island. [ ]

Jan 1, 1994

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

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 Alexi J. Neill

"This presentation will showcase two challenging projects with deep excavation support systems in the Atlanta area where state-of-the-art instrumentation and monitoring systems were used to manage risk by confirming design performance requirements / calculations during construction. The instrumentation and monitoring system successfully reduced risk by recording real-time data on a project website while simultaneously sending email alarms to key site personnel when data exceeded pre-determined alarm thresholds. The monitoring data revealed unexpected performance at an early enough stage so that contingency plans could be engaged and remedial efforts devised in order to limit the consequences. Finite element analysis was used to model deformations, analyze the unexpected performance, and prepare theremedial design.INTRODUCTIONConstruction in densely populated urban areas is becoming more common in order to keep up with the increasing infrastructure demands of our growing population. America’s big cities continue to outpace the overall nation in population growth. The city of Atlanta, the nation’s ninth largest city based on metropolitan population, is a prime example of this. The population has grown at a rate of 6.6% between 2010 and 2013, nearly triple the overall growth rate of the United States during the same period (SustainAtlanta, 2015).As a result of increasing infrastructure demands in Atlanta, developers are now constructing larger buildings on smaller properties. In addition, developers are attempting to maximize space on their selected properties, often by designing underground parking garages to accommodate as many cars as possible on these compact sites. In some cases the selected sites are adjacent to buildings, utilities, and other existing structures. The risk associated with construction increases during underground work that requires a support of excavation system, particularly on confined sites adjacent to existing structures. There is a risk posed to people, property, and the environment that the project team should monitor when constructing in these conditions."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tony Suckling

The commercially available finite element program Plaxis has a key benefit over other finite element analysis programs in that it has a relatively simple user interface to input and output data. This benefit though may also be it?s weakness in that anyone, regardless of their grounding in geotechnical engineering, may use the program and produce results for design. It is essential, as for all engineering design, that the models are checked by competent engineers. This paper describes the key recurring problems found by the authors when checking Plaxis models, such as the generation of the initial in-situ ground stresses and the modelling of groundwater. Interestingly, the authors have not encountered similar problems when checking finite element models produced using other programs and conclude that this may be due to the higher calibre of modeller needed to use these other programs. The geotechnical industry is in a situation at the moment where senior managers who may not have been trained in finite element modelling are relying on less experienced staff who have had some training in modelling, either at university or post graduation. The quality of this training is variable and all organisations running easy to use programs need to be aware of the potential risks and dangers. Management procedures and engineering checks that are essential to validate the results of these models are described, assuming that those in charge are not experienced modellers themselves. The model checking process by competent persons is absolutely essential and it is hoped that this paper will help those organisations that do not have such procedures as part of their own internal Quality Assurance or design validation system. The procedures described are valid for all finite element programs.

Jan 1, 2010

"The Morris Island Lighthouse (MIL) is located between the jetties leading to the Charleston Harbor and Folly Beach, S.C. The present structure is the third lighthouse to occupy this location. The first navigational aid was erected in 1673, and consisted of a raised pan filled with pitch, which was set afire at night to guide early ships. The next structure was built in 1767, and constituted the first real lighthouse, standing 42 ft (12.8 m) in height. In 1838, a second lighthouse was built on the site, and it measured 102 ft (31 m) in height and featured a revolving light. This structure lasted until 1862 when Confederate troops, during the Civil War, destroyed it to deny its use to Union troops.Navigators steered these waters without a lighthouse for nearly a decade until 1876, when the current structure was built under the direction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In 1886, the Charleston area suffered a M7.6 earthquake. Significant damage was caused throughout much of the area, including a slight “list” of the lighthouse to the northeast. As a result, the cast of the beacon was reduced from 18 mi (29 km) to about 6 mi (9.7 km), causing much distress to navigators until the beacon platform was releveled and remains at this list to the present day.Conditions for ConcernThe current lighthouse was originally constructed about 1,200 ft (366 m) from the shoreline. Over the years, USACE has undertaken several programs to meet the increased shipping and navigation demands in the Charleston Harbor. Around the turn of the last century, two jetties were constructed, which drastically changed the approach direction for ships entering the harbor. In subsequent years, the harbor began to experience accelerated siltation."

Jan 1, 2017

By Andrew Baxter

The Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art in Bentonville, Arkansas is a beautiful glass and concrete structure cut into a valley that mingles with water ponds spanned by multiple bridges with suspended roofs. Or, at least it will be when completed in 2009. At Crystal Bridges, most of the proposed buildings involve cuts up to 50 ft high to be retained by the building structures. This requires the construction of retaining walls adequately founded to support lateral loads of up to 70 kip/ft. To add to this difficulty, the site is within a karst region with all the variability and irregularities associated with solutioning and erosion of the parent rock in this environment. The irregular rock profile made it virtually impossible to conceive a predictable arrangement of shallow footings and shear keys for the retaining walls. The existence of layers of soft soils within a hard rock formation made a caisson foundation impractical. The authors developed an innovative solution based on micropiles, which proved to be invaluable from a cost and schedule point of view. In areas where rock was shallow, micropiles were used as ?shear pins? to transfer the horizontal loads to the rock. In areas with significant overburden, a system of vertical and battered micropiles was devised to carry vertical and horizontal loads from the retaining walls. This paper presents a detailed description of the design and installation of the micropiles used as shear pins, and includes the results of lateral load tests performed on full-scale models of the grade beams on shear pins. The work performed shows that micropiles in rock can be effectively utilized for support of significant lateral loads provided that an adequate arrangement of suitably sized micropiles is provided, and that micropiles used as shear pins may develop significant tensile stresses when loaded laterally.

Jan 1, 2008

By Eric Brandner

Expansive soil formations can be found throughout the United States. When subjected to wetting, many of these formations have the potential to swell and exert large uplift forces which can significantly damage lightly-loaded structures. Designing an economical foundation that can resist uplift forces is critical to prevent damage to these structures. The current solutions to control uplift due to swelling soils, such as over-excavation and replacement of the expansive material, or drilled shafts, can be costly and problematic. Piles made from recycled polymer materials may provide a solution. Due to a lower coefficient of friction along the interface than piles made from traditional materials, solid recycled plastic piles can allow expansive soils to move nearly independently from the pile when wetted. This results in a much smaller magnitude of uplift force being transferred to the structure which minimizes the risk of significant structural damage. This paper presents the preliminary results of research conducted on the use of recycled plastic piles in an expansive shale environment. The preliminary phase of the project involved the installation of six 13 in. (330 mm) diameter recycled plastic piles at a test site on the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology campus. The piles varied in length from 15 ft. to 25 ft. (4.6m to 7.6 m). Two of the piles were subjected to a full-scale compression load test in order to determine ultimate capacity, while the additional four piles are being subjected to long-term monitoring of uplift movement. A cast-in-place concrete pile, with a diameter of 6 in. (152 mm) and length of 15 ft. (4.6 m), was also installed at the test site for monitoring. The preliminary results indicate that the use of solid recycled plastic piles is a viable alternative for support of lightly-loaded structures in expansive soil environments.

Jan 1, 2009

By Herbert F. ?Buck? Darling

A bridge replacement project in Rochester, NY, encountered difficulties when it was determined that rock below one pier was sloping downward toward the river at an angle of 42 degrees versus anticipated 12 degrees. Cofferdam design and construction became very difficult. The unanticipated subsurface conditions delayed the project by eighteen months and increased the cofferdam cost by almost $3.0 million ($US) when direct costs and associated delays were taken into account. The initial approach after discovery of the problem was to use the same type pier design and modify the cofferdam accordingly. This resulted in a cofferdam 12 meters (39.4 feet) deep on the shore side and 18 meters (59.0 feet) deep on the water side. The design used a master pile system to attain required wall strength and used rock anchors to prevent the cofferdam from moving toward the river. The pier foundation was then redesigned by the owner using revised seismic parameters. The original stepped footing carved into rock was replaced by caissons socketed into the rock beneath a large tremie concrete placement. The revised pier and cofferdam designs caused a shift from a mostly land based cofferdam, excavation, and rock removal project into an almost entirely water based cofferdam, caisson drilling, and tremie construction project. These design changes resulted in a reliable, safe, and unusual cofferdam and construction method. All of this was accomplished within a very narrow worksite with a railroad on one side, and the river with its public and commercial freighter traffic on the other. In addition, the existing two-leaf drawbridge was to be maintained in place which put further limitations on the water borne equipment. The engineering and construction considerations, problems, and solutions related to these cofferdams and pier foundations are presented.

Jan 1, 2013

By Liu Run, Jia Zhao-lin, Yan Shu-wang

"Piles with diameter larger than 2m in engineering can be defined as large diameter pile, and piles used for oil platform foundation in Bohai Gulf, are usually over 100m long and 2m in diameter. Such long piles have to be manufactured by segments before installation, because of transformation and hoisting difficulties. The segments of the pile are assembled by welding during installation one to another. Normally, assembling two pile segments takes one day or even a longer time, which mainly depends on construction conditions. After pile segment assembling, it proves to be difficult to restart the successive penetration. The mechanism of pile refusal is discussed and the process of driving a segmented pile is simulated with a finite element program. The calculating results show that, when the stick-up stability was satisfied, increasing the length of the last segment of the pile and assembling the pile segments when the pile tip penetrates into a clay layer could greatly ease the difficulty of driving the pile. Furthermore, cutting down the pile extension time is also one of the most effective measures to minimize the refusal risk.1. InstructionIn recent years, more and more oil platforms with six or eight legs have been adopted in Bohai Gulf, China. The leg piles with diameters of 2m or more have to be driven to about 100m below the sea bed. Such long piles have to be manufactured by segments before installation, because of transportation and hoisting difficulties. The segments of the pile will be assembled during installation, in which a successive segment will be attached to a formerly penetrated one by welding (Fig.1). The assembling work often takes one day or even a longer time."

Jan 1, 2014

By James D. Hussin

The Florida limestone is a relatively soft rock which presents many challenges to engineers when designing deep foundations. One alternative is micropiles which have grown significantly from their early days as very small diameter, light capacity elements. Also known as minipiles, pin piles, needle piles or root piles, micropiles offer an attractive deep foundation alternative for sites with tight access, low headroom, and where difficult subsurface conditions or obstructions necessitate a small diameter, high capacity deep foundation. The ability to confirm the competence of the limestone bearing formation by drilling in a rock socket has made micropiles a growing deep foundation selection in Florida.

Jan 1, 2003

By Rafael A. Rivera

"Since the dawn of construction, there has been a need for excavations, which sometimes need to occur below the groundwater table. Excavations in themselves are difficult enough, with the myriad of requirements, such as engineered support of excavations, considerations for stability and numerous other concerns. Excavations executed in rural landscapes can be accomplished easily without significant consideration to accessibility, adjacent properties or structures, and construction limits and deformations. However, all of these factors can have an impact on excavation considerations in an urban landscape. When digging below the groundwater table, these conditions, along with concerns associated with groundwater drawdown requirements, discharge limitations, groundwater contamination, property limits, adjacent buildings and subsidence concerns, can lead an experienced dewatering contractor to consider diverse installation methodology and equipment to allow construction to occur below the groundwater table.534 W. 29th St. New York, N.Y.There are many things that must be considered when constructing a new high-rise building within a small property footprint measuring 25 ft (7.6 m) wide by 80 ft (24.4 m) in length. When you take into account that the foundation needs to go several feet below the groundwater table and that there are two existing multistory buildings with shallower foundations on either side of the proposed structure, this task now becomes much more difficult. Consideration of geology, groundwater levels, depths of excavation and shoring for the excavation becomes critical to the success of the project. On a regular basis, dewatering contractors confront similar situations in congested cities where available real estate is limited.To minimize the negative impacts of construction dewatering, it is important to mitigate the potential effects of construction dewatering to the surrounding buildings, sidewalks, underground structures, tunnels, subways and other existing infrastructure. Such an instance occurred at the project located at 534 W. 29 St. in New York City. On this particular project, the required drawdown was greater than the typical 15 ft (4.6 m) of suction lift, so a vacuumed can pump system was utilized. The tubing was connected to a vacuumed perimeter dewatering well-point system, which is a predrainage system that is installed prior to the start of excavation for the underpinning of the adjacent structures and for the overall foundation. Each well-point, which was composed of a PVC pipe that was 1.5 in (38 mm) in diameter by 25 ft (7.6 m) long, was drilled to a depth of about 23 ft (7 m) using a hollow stem auger and was installed around the perimeter at a centerto- center spacing of about 7.67 ft (2.3 m). In lieu of a traditional perimeter collection header, and to allow for greater flexibility for the contractor, the well-points were interconnected to a modified vacuum can pump system utilizing ¾ in (19 mm) drop tubes that were “spaghetti” around the perimeter."

Jan 1, 2017

By Donald A. Bruce

"The Deep Mixing Methods (DMM), in their current forms, have been employed in the United States since 1986, although an earlier version had seen service from 1954. The earlier developments were strongly influenced by practices in the Nordic countries and Japan, while by the late 1980’s several DMM systems had been developed in the U.S. itself. Since then, DMM has continued its evolution, principally via the challenges of a series of large, landmark projects, but also via distinct, significant technological advances. This paper highlights the key points in the history of DMM in the U.S., and provides an overview of the different methods currently in use.IN THE BEGINNINGIt is a common misconception that the history of applications of the Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) in the United States dates from 1986 when SMW Seiko Inc. — a subsidiary of Japan’s Seiko Kogyo Company — was established in the Bay Area. However, the author believes that Intrusion Prepakt Co.’s patented MIP (Mixed in Place) system had been used, albeit sporadically (about 30 projects are recorded), since 1954 (FHWA 2000, 2001). Ironically, by 1961 this single auger method had been extensively used under license in Japan for excavation support and groundwater control — by the Seiko Kogyo Company. By 1972, the original MIP technique had been succeeded by more advanced Japanese methods, involving multiple augers. Intrusion Prepakt have long since become defunct.The first systematic studies of contemporary Deep Mixing Methods in Japan began in 1967 when the Port and Harbor Research Institute of the Ministry of Transportation began laboratory testing using granular and powdered lime for treating soft marine soils. Fundamental studies continued through the early 1970’s, by which time the development of industrial scale equipment was well advanced, having its first application on a marine trial near Haneda Airport. Coincidentally, laboratory and field research also began in 1967 in Sweden (“Swedish Lime Column Method”) for treating soft clays using unslaked lime. Reportedly the progenitor was a Norwegian, Kjeld Paus, who had made observations on fluid lime columns in the U.S. It would seem that developments in Japan and the Nordic countries proceeded independently until 1975 when the technology leaders from each group (Broms and Boman; and Okumura and Terashi, respectively) presented their — very similar — findings at a conference in Bangalore, India. Limited technical exchanges ensued thereafter.Whereas the Nordic developments continued to focus on the use of dry reagents (cement and lime) and relatively light equipment compatible with operating on and in very soft clays and organics, the Japanese progressed into the use of fluid reagents (cement-based grouts) and heavier equipment for both marine and land-based projects. Thus, by 1986, there were a large number of proprietary (wet and dry) DMM systems in Japan, and a rapidly growing market already by then accounting for over 12,000,000 m3 of ground treatment."

Jan 1, 2015

By Mahdi Soudkhah, Akhter Hossain

Vertical micropiles are generally considered to be low in lateral resistance. Therefore, battered micropiles are often used when additional lateral load carrying capacity is required. However, battering of micropiles can sometimes be restricted due to existing adjacent structures or utilities, especially in highly urbanized areas. For example, presented in this paper are lateral load test data from a 43-story building project in New York City where vertical micropiles were used due to proximity to adjacent structures. Three static lateral load tests were conducted on micropiles consisting of 13.375-in-outside diameter and 25- to 51-ft-long casings, and socketed 10 to 12.6 ft into the bedrock (gneissic schist). The subsurface profile above the bedrock consists of loose to very dense, mostly sandy and silty soils. The design load for the three test piles was 14,000 lb and the maximum load applied during the tests was 200% of the design load. Lateral load- displacement behavior of the free pile heads from the load tests are compared with the results of p-y analyses based on a widely used p-y method for sandy soils and using a lower and an upper bound estimates of soil index properties and strength parameters. Since the existing p-y curves were formulated for larger diameter driven piles at a specific geographic location, major differences are observed between the results of the load tests and the p-y analyses. In general, the lateral displacements estimated based on the p-y analyses using upper bound soil parameters are relatively closer to the results of the field load testing. Modified p-y curves specific to the sandy and silty soils representative of the general subsurface conditions of New York City matched with the lateral load tests are presented in this paper. INTRODUCTION Micropiles generally are limited in lateral load carrying capacities due to their relatively higher slenderness ratios (ratio of depth to diameter) compared to more conventional deep foundation alternatives, such as driven piles and drilled shafts. So, micropiles are not typically considered as deep foundation solutions when significantly high lateral loads are expected on the substructures. Various means to increase the lateral resistance of micropiles include battering and installing an oversized casing in the top portion of the piles (FHWA 2005; and Richard and Rothbauer 2004). However, it is often not possible to install micropiles in a battered position in highly urbanized areas due to existing adjacent structures or utilities. Installation of oversized casing is often restricted by limited space availability and concerns of losing lateral capacities due to closely spaced group of piles. Thus, estimation of lateral resistance of vertical micropiles can become highly important for geotechnical engineering projects in urban areas when a small to moderate amount of lateral resistances are expected from the substructures, often to withstand seismic and wind loads.

Jan 1, 2019

By Jason Herron, Joseph Brown

The common couplings for joining sections of helical piles with an outside diameter of 6.625 inches and 8.625 inches are square on square, flange to flange, external pipe sleeve, internal pipe sleeve, and welded joint. Each coupling type has advantages and disadvantages in efficiency, capacity, installation, and economics of the installed pile. All these coupling types have been used in the helical pile market in North America for various applications and designs. Many of these applications require on-site testing, but test records are not typically shared with the helical pile industry. Due to the lack of information available for square on square and flange to flange couplings, testing was done to compare the efficiency of installation, load to deflection response, and torque to capacity ratios of external pipe sleeve, square on square, and flange to flange couplings. Field installations and tension tests were performed in non-cohesive (sand type) soil near Caseyville, IL and in cohesive (clay type) soil in Centralia, MO. The data collected during these tests included rotations per foot during installation, installation torque, applied pressure, and deflection. The results of this testing are analyzed and discussed within this paper. The results indicate that the square to square coupling is the most efficient of the designs tested, but this conclusion cannot be fully justified without further testing due to the variability in the data gathered and the small number of piles tested. INTRODUCTION A helical pile is typically assumed to be a medium-displacement pile when its outside diameter is between 4.5 inches and 8 inches and a high-displacement pile when its outside diameter is greater than 8 inches. A helical pile designer has multiple options when selecting a coupling type for medium- to high-displacement helical piles. Each type of coupling has advantages and disadvantages and must be analyzed on the bases of efficiency, capacity, installation, and economics of a project. Typical couplings that are chosen by designers include square on square, flange to flange, external pipe sleeve, internal pipe sleeve, and welded joint. A helical pile must transfer axial, lateral, bending moment, and torsional loads, and the coupling must be designed to effectively and efficiently transfer each type of load. During the installation of a helical pile, the rate of penetration and the disturbance of soil layers play a critical role in the efficiency and torque to capacity ratio (Kt) of the pile. It is common for a coupling to protrude beyond the outside diameter of the pipe section being used. This is necessary for the function of certain coupling types and can facilitate the connection of couplings. However, it causes increased soil disturbance and reduce the rate of penetration due to soil bearing against the protruding portion of the coupling. A helical pile designer typically will work to minimize the coupling protrusion and create a pile with optimal installation efficiency but may choose a design with lower installation efficiency if it offers sufficient economic advantage.

Jan 1, 2019

By K. Rainer Massarsch, Bengt H. Fellenius

"Abstract Vibrations generated during the driving of piles or sheet piles can affect buildings or installations in the ground. However, observed building damage is not always caused directly by dynamic effects, but can also be related to foundation conditions. The importance of geotechnical conditions is usually not taken into consideration in most vibration standards. This paper describes how building foundations, and in particular mixed foundation types, are especially sensitive to ground vibrations. A method is presented for assessing the risk of settlement due to vibrations in granular soils. Also, a simple concept is proposed for estimating settlements in the vicinity of driven piles.1. INTRODUCTIONUnder unfavorable conditions, the installation of piles or sheet piles can cause damage to buildings or other structures on the ground. Frequently, such damage is attributed to vibrations of the building itself. In many countries, national or international standards are used to assess the risk of vibration damage to buildings. As such standards are often prepared by engineers with little or no geotechnical knowledge, the effects of ground conditions on vibration propagation and damage to building foundations are generally not recognized, and damage criteria based solely on the dynamic response of buildings neglect the importance of damage mechanisms governed by geotechnical conditions. One potentially important damage mechanism is differential settlement below buildings, especially when these are founded on loose granular soils. When seeking guidance in the literature, little or no information can be found regarding methods to assess permissible levels of ground vibrations with respect to risk for settlement.This paper focuses on building damage that can be attributed to foundation conditions. In the case of ground vibrations due to pile and sheet pile driving, differential settlements are of particular importance as the ground vibrations attenuate relatively rapidly from the source. Consequently, settlement below part of the building, which is located close to the vibration source, can be significantly larger than at a distance further away.Piles are often a cost-effective foundation solution for buildings on loose and compressible soil, frequently located in urbanized areas. Sheet piles are commonly used as support for deep excavations. While impact driving is most commonly used to install piles, vibrators are frequently used for driving (and extraction) of sheet piles. It is important to recognize the fundamental differences between impact and vibratory driving. During impact driving, the pile is subjected to stress waves of short duration. The driving process creates vibrations, which radiate from the shaft and/or the toe of the pile into the soil. The larger the intensity of the stress wave, the larger the dynamic force and the intensity of ground vibrations. In addition to the vibration intensity, which often is expressed in terms of particle velocity, also the vibration frequency is important. When the dominant frequencies of the generated vibrations harmonize with the resonance frequency of buildings or building elements, the risk of building damage increases."

Jan 1, 2014

By Darrell Wilder

When designing excavation support systems in urban environments, it is often necessary to consider the effect of vertical surcharge loads from adjacent structures. Several methods are used in practice to establish the horizontal surcharge-induce pressure on the excavation support. According to the experience of the authors, these methods often seem to overestimate the effect of the surcharge and may have significant impact on the construction costs. This paper explores several of these procedures and provides a discussion as to the reasons for the differences in surcharge effect predictions between different procedures. It also provides practical recommendations for designers dealing with excavation support design.

Jan 1, 2006

By James P. Stewart

This case history describes the engineering design and construction for the Contractor of a 35-ft-deep excavation for an 800-square-foot addition to an existing sewage pump station. The site posed unexpected geotechnical complications that included deep gravelly soil, a history of local construction difficulties, groundwater consisting of heavy salt brine, and the need to underpin the existing pump station. The project took an interesting twist when the Owner issued a change order limiting the dewatering discharge to a fraction of that required to lower the water table. This documents the interesting circumstances of this job and documents the unusual subsurface conditions in the Syracuse, NY Lakefront area.

Jan 1, 2003

By Donald A. Bruce

"Abstract The Deep Mixing Methods (DMM), in their current forms, have been employed in the United States since 1986, although an earlier version had seen service from 1954. The earlier developments were strongly influenced by practices in the Nordic countries and Japan, while by the late 1980’s several DMM systems had been developed in the U.S. itself. Since then, DMM has continued its evolution, principally via the challenges of a series of large, landmark projects, but also via distinct, significant technological advances. This paper highlights the key points in the history of DMM in the U.S., and provides an overview of the different methods currently in use.In the BeginningIt is a common misconception that the history of applications of the Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) in the United States dates from 1986 when SMW Seiko Inc. — a subsidiary of Japan’s Seiko Kogyo Company — was established in the Bay Area. However, the author believes that Intrusion Prepakt Co.’s patented MIP (Mixed in Place) system had been used, albeit sporadically (about 30 projects are recorded), since 1954 (FHWA 2000, 2001). Ironically, by 1961 this single auger method had been extensively used under license in Japan for excavation support and groundwater control — by the Seiko Kogyo Company. By 1972, the original MIP technique had been succeeded by more advanced Japanese methods, involving multiple augers. Intrusion Prepakt have long since become defunct.The first systematic studies of contemporary Deep Mixing Methods in Japan began in 1967 when the Port and Harbor Research Institute of the Ministry of Transportation began laboratory testing using granular and powdered lime for treating soft marine soils. Fundamental studies continued through the early 1970’s, by which time the development of industrial scale equipment was well advanced, having its first application on a marine trial near Haneda Airport. Coincidentally, laboratory and field research also began in 1967 in Sweden (“Swedish Lime Column Method”) for treating soft clays using unslaked lime. Reportedly the progenitor was a Norwegian, Kjeld Paus, who had made observations on fluid lime columns in the U.S. It would seem that developments in Japan and the Nordic countries proceeded independently until 1975 when the technology leaders from each group (Broms and Boman; and Okumura and Terashi, respectively) presented their — very similar — findings at a conference in Bangalore, India. Limited technical exchanges ensued thereafter.Whereas the Nordic developments continued to focus on the use of dry reagents (cement and lime) and relatively light equipment compatible with operating on and in very soft clays and organics, the Japanese progressed into the use of fluid reagents (cement-based grouts) and heavier equipment for both marine and land-based projects. Thus, by 1986, there were a large number of proprietary (wet and dry) DMM systems in Japan, and a rapidly growing market already by then accounting for over 12,000,000 m3 of ground treatment."

Jan 1, 2014

By John L. White

The vibro driver/extractor is a machine that grips to a pile and vibrates it up and down. When the vibrating pile is lowered into the ground, all soil around the pile begins to vibrate. A vibrating pile breaks the friction between the pile and the soil, thus allowing it to penetrate the ground. A vibro is usually operated by hoisting it into the air with a crane and then placing it onto the pile. The vibro has hydraulic gripping jaws that are controlled from the ground. Once the operator has successfully lowered the vibro onto the pile, the jaws are closed and locked onto the pile and operations can begin. Please see the drawing below: [ ]

Jan 1, 1990