Search Documents

By Richard F. Sliwoski

The Virginia State Capitol was designed by Thomas Jefferson and constructed in 1785. The Capitol is of great historic and architectural significance to not only the Commonwealth of Virginia but to the nation. It is the oldest operating Capitol in the U.S. and required a total restoration/renovation as well as an expansion to continue to remain functional. Site conditions dictated that the expansion (a new visitor center) be placed underground on the south side of the Capitol building, requiring a 40-foot deep excavation approximately 5 feet from the Building. Because of its historic significance, every measure had to be taken to ensure the safety and function of the Capitol during construction. The construction techniques that were used to make the deep excavation and protect the historic Capitol included a tied back concrete slurry wall, jet grouting, compensation grouting, and instrumentation monitoring. This paper describes the history of the Capitol building, the techniques that were employed for construction of the deep excavation, results of the latest movement monitoring, and factors contributing to meeting the restrictive movement goals.

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1991

By Ashraf M. Eid

Most research dealing with the problem of laterally loaded piles has been the response of individual piles subjected to lateral loads and/or bending moments. However, piles are seldom used individually but are normally constructed in clusters or groups. Little information is available of the effect of pile-soil-pile interaction (PSPI) on the performance of the group. This may be attributed to the difficulty of carrying out full-scale tests. Such tests are prohibitively expensive and require special installations to provide the required large lateral loads. The problem of laterally loaded single piles or pile groups involves the complexity of extending the theoretical solutions to the limits where the actual soil behaves nonlinearly. As the load increases, the elastic soil behavior cannot be adopted for design. Nonlinear soil behavior or the elasto-plastic behavior is evident. This research consists of experimental and theoretical models. The experimental work was conducted on models of free head pile groups in different configurations. The piles were in a sand formation and compared to the behavior of a single pile. The possible factors that influence the group behavior could be visualized. The experimental data was also compared to the widely used theoretical approaches to determine their adequacy. The analytical model makes use of the finite difference approach to calculate the soil non-linearity. A new approach equates the measured ground deflection and maximum bending moments of each row at every load level with the analytical model of single pile. This is the Deflection-Moment Fitting (DMF). The most suitable non-linear soil modulus modes and row contributions could thus be determined. Design of pile groups can be based on data pertaining to soil characteristics of the single pile. Results of the analysis were consistent with other approaches and proved to be adequate for design.

Jan 1, 2005

By Timothy C. Siegel

This report presents the results of a synthesis on the design and analysis of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. The synthesis included an industry survey concerning the practice of ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation. Participation in the survey was solicited by advertisements in several trade magazines and by e-mail for the DFI membership. The survey participants numbered 150. Their professional roles include consulting engineers, specialty contractors, design engineers, government engineers, and academicians. They represent a variety of geographical areas including North/Central/South America, United Kingdom, Middle East, Caribbean, Hawaii, Japan, India, Egypt, France, Australia and New Zealand. Upon completion of the survey, several professionals in the field of liquefaction and ground improvement were interviewed for them to elaborate on the survey results. The interviews are included in the Appendix of this report. Financial support for the project was provided by DFI and Dan Brown and Associates PC. The concept of the liquefaction mitigation synthesis was developed by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee in recognition that: (a) The results of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance have challenged previously longheld beliefs about liquefaction and associated mitigation techniques, and; (b) The DFI membership and the engineering/construction industry are interested to know if and how engineers and designers are subsequently adjusting their practice in consideration of recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance. For more detailed information on recent research and post-earthquake reconnaissance, presentations are available from the State-of-the-Art Forum: Liquefaction Consequences and Mitigation that was held in St. Louis in 2012. A commentary of the state-of-practice in ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation (prepared by DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) is included in this issue of the DFI Journal. The author would like to thank the participants of the survey and especially Mr. Mike Jeffries, Dr. Les Youd, and Dr. Ikuo Towhata for their willingness to share their expertise in interviews. The author also acknowledges Mary Ellen Bruce of DFI, Billy Camp of S&ME, Inc., and Marty Taube of DGI Menard (and Chair of DFI?s Ground Improvement Committee) for their signifi cant contributions.

Aug 1, 2013

By G. G. Goble

Dynamic pile testing is now over 20 years old as a routinely applied tool for evaluating driven pile installation. The first test on a cast-in-place pile was performed more that 15 years ago. The research that produced the method began almost 30 years ago. But, questions still arise regarding the appropriate use of this technique so some review is useful. Today a number of methods including dynamic testing all depending in some way on the application of dynamics are in routine use. First, Wave Equation analysis can be used to predict pile driveability before going to the field. The same approach can be used during driving to estimate the bearing capacity based on the blow count observed in the field. Dynamic measurements, on the other hand, can only be used after pile driving has begun. They offer predictions of pile capacity as well as measurements of hammer, driving system, and pile driving performance characteristics. The first part of this paper will be devoted to discussing how the foundation engineer can use these tools. First, a brief review of what dynamic methods actually do. In Wave Equation analysis a numerical model of the hammer, driving system, pile, and the soil is created by the engineer. The hammer is dropped on the pile and using a discrete, dynamic analysis the motion of the individual pile elements is calculated as a function of time. Of course, input information must be supplied by the program user to describe the hammer, driving system, pile, and soil. In the current state of development, the primary problem in input data is with the hammer performance (efficiency) and the soil description. Research may be able to do a better job with the soil data, but hammer performance will always vary from hammer to hammer and is dependent on the affectiveness of the inspection process. Prior to beginning pile driving the Wave Equation analysis supplies the best available estimate of what will happen when driving begins. It gives an estimate of blow count during driving, driving stresses, both tension and compression in the pile, and for diesel hammers, stroke. The selection of the driving system can be checked with the results of Wave Equation analysis and modifications can be made if required. For example, if the blow count at the required capacity was deemed excessive by the contractor a larger hammer could be tried or if driving stresses were too high changes could be made in the cushion or the hammer selection could be modified. All of these modifications are possible with only the cost of a computer run. The primary questions regarding the accuracy and reliability of Wave Equation analysis at this time is with regard to the assumptions made to represent the soil characteristics and the difficulty in predicting hammer performance.

Jan 1, 1993

Jan 1, 1997

By Martin D. Larisch

The construction of diaphragm walls and most large-diameter bored piles (piers) is often carried out under drilling support fluids to temporarily stabilise the excavation prior to concrete placement. In most cases such fluids are either mineral-based slurries (bentonite) or polymer support fluids. The working mechanisms of these two fluid types are fundamentally different. Designers need to consider possible fluid-related impacts on the permanent design performance of the project-specific deep foundations as well as for the temporary excavation stage during construction. Robust design methods for bentonite slurry-supported excavations have been developed in the last few decades and the working principles and associated risks of such mineral-based slurries are understood reasonably well. However, such meth-ods have not been developed in detail for polymer-based drilling fluids. This document provides a brief overview of the main characteristics of bentonite- and polymer-based drilling fluids as a guide for construction practitioners and design engineers alike. The paper also high-lights some common construction risks related to casing installation and the selection of suitable fluid systems for different ground conditions. Typical defects caused by the incorrect application of drilling support fluids, and their pro-active mitigation, are discussed, too. In addition, the basic concepts of sta-bility calculations for bentonite fluid-supported deep excavations are briefly introduced and their ap-plicability for other fluid types such as polymer-based support fluids or water are reviewed.

Nov 1, 2022

By Ramon Varghese, A. Boominathan, Subhadeep Banerjee

Pile raft foundation system has been accepted as an economic foundation design for high rises and heavily loaded structures. Seismic response analysis of PR foundation systems involves complex pile-soil-pile interaction as well as raft-soil-pile interactions, for which simplified methods have limitations. Kinematic rocking of a pile group is known to be influenced significantly by the pile configuration. The presence of an embedded pile cap, or a raft, as in the case of a piled raft can further alter the dynamic characteristics of a pile group-soil system. In the present study, frequency dependent kinematic response factors are evaluated for piled raft foundation, using the substructuring approach based ACS SASSI program. Performance of the numerical analysis methodology is first evaluated with results from analytical and experimental studies reported in literature. The effect of pile layout on kinematic response is then studied for a piled raft in clay system based on a centrifuge shaking table test reported in literature. Kinematic response factors and horizontal impedances were determined for varying pile spacing ratios. The influence of raft has been found to increase kinematic translation by up to three times in the piled raft in clay system. Pile configuration is found to play a significant role in kinematic rocking of piled rafts. The presence of raft is observed to significantly reduce dynamic rotational stiffness coefficient in the dimensionless frequency range of 0.23 to 0.6, and increase damping coefficient after a dimensionless frequency of 0.4, for all pile configurations studied. The effect of an embedded raft is hence an important consideration while evaluating foundation input motion as well as impedances of piled raft foundations. INTRODUCTION The Piled raft foundation (PR), is a composite foundation system that facilitates load sharing between pile and raft. It is an economic foundation option for high rises and heavily loaded structures. Soil structure interaction (SSI) in PR system involves raft-soil-pile, and pile-soil-pile interactions which needs to be considered in static or dynamic SSI analysis. The effect of pile can have substantial influence on foundation input motion, for seismic analysis (Di Laora et al. 2017). Piles are observed to depress a wide spectrum of the seismic excitation (Fan et al., 1991, Di Laora & de Sanctis, 2013). Although kinematic response of pile groups have been extensively studied in the past, the influence of the presence of raft on kinematic response characteristics of pile groups has not received much attention.

Jan 1, 2018

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

By John N. Cunningham

Despite the wide use of micropiles for rehabilitating and retrofitting existing structures, little is known regarding the load-transfer distribution of grouted micropiles in various soil deposits. The rehabilitation of a concrete-frame warehouse in Portland, Oregon, required provisions for the seismic restraint of a new shear wall; the installation of two micropiles was specified to meet project requirements. The micropiles were uncased, 19-m (63-ft) long, 200-mm (8-in) nominal diameter, and reinforced full-length with a 64-mm (No. 20) diameter hardened steel threadbar. Due to space limitations, a sacrificial, instrumented micropile was installed near the two production piles to verify design assumptions. This paper describes the geologic setting of the project within the unsaturated Missoula Flood deposits, instrumentation, load-displacement behavior, load transfer, and Beta-coefficients for the sacrificial micropile.

Jan 1, 2011

Jan 1, 1989

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

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

Jan 1, 1985

By Gustavo E. Armijo

This job was done in Morristown, NJ, with mono fluid system jet grouting for the construction of a new bank building. After the demolition of the existing two story structures, an excavation in loose sandy fill materials was necessary in order to reach the new structure basement level. Due to this jet grouting was selected as a medium to provide both excavation support and permanent underpinning, minimizing the adjacent building settlements. These two adjacent buildings were partially underpinned with a "gravity wall" made with 2 and 3 rows of secant vertical and inclined jet grout columns. Besides the classical jet grouting control methods, during the jet grouting execution, all the drilling and grouting parameters were recorded by a proprietary system called "Slogger". Additionally, after the jet grouting execution, an innovative result control technique was used by means of the application of the same parameter recording system. Some of the production columns were re-drilled and a comparison was made between the obtained drilling parameters and those obtained for the same age test columns. Under the referred existing conditions and in comparison with the conventional underpinning techniques, this project demonstrated that jet grouting, with proper execution and result control, can be faster than them and can maintain the building structural stability and act, at the same time, as a retention system minimizing the existing building settlements.

Jan 1, 2002

By Han Jie

The results of full scale plate load tests on stone columns on soft clay in coastal areas are presented in this paper. Four load tests were made, two of which were performed on the ground treated with stone columns, one on an isolated stone column and the last one on the untreated ground. For a given stress range, the settlement of the rigid plate, the stress concentration factor, and the excess pore water pressure were measured. It is found that the distribution of vertical stress beneath the rigid plate supported by the composite ground of stone columns is very different in shape from the one by the untreated ground, that the stress concentration factor has a relation with the stress level and time, that the stone columns increase the bearing capacity up to by 2 times, and that the ground stabilized by stone columns is of great advantage to keep the foundation stable.

Jan 1, 1991

By Zia Zafir

Design of the deep foundations for the loads imposed by lateral spread include the estimate of the pressure applied by the liquefied material as well as amount of anticipated displacement. In the absence of a non-liquefiable cover over a liquefiable layer, it is possible to design the foundation system just for the additional pressure applied by the flow slides. On the other hand, if a non-liquefiable layer exists above the liquefied zone, the foundation should be designed for anticipated movements. To completely account for liquefaction and/or lateral spread and their interaction with the deep foundation system, a coupled soil-structure interaction (SSI) analysis should be performed. However, a complete SSI analysis may not be feasible for most of the projects. This paper will present recent advances in analysis techniques and simplified methods to design deep foundations for liquefaction and lateral spreading. In addition, a case history of the Rancho California Bridge in southern California located within 1 km of the active Elsinore fault will be presented. One of the bridge abutments is underlain by potentially liquefiable layers. The pressure applied by the liquefiable layer was estimated to be greater than the shear capacity of the 36-inch CIDH piles designed for the abutment. However, with limited ground improvement and more careful analyses incorporating structural effects of CIDH piles, resulting design and construction resulted in a factor of safety greater than 1 against slope failure. The recommended approach was generally consistent with the recently published, and AASHTO sponsored, NCHRP 12-49 project regarding seismic design guidelines for new bridges and the effects of seismic displacements against bridge foundations.

Jan 1, 2006

By EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group

Concrete technology continues to advance rapidly and modern mixes with five components – cement, additions, aggregates, (chemical) admixtures and water – often have characteristics which differ significantly from the older three component mixes – cement, aggregates and water. Recent trends have favoured higher strength classes and lower water/cement ratios, resulting in greater dependence on admixtures to compensate for reduced workability and to meet the (often competing) demands for workability in the fresh state and setting time. The application of testing methods which reflect the true rheological properties of the concrete has not developed at the same rate as the mixes themselves and it is still not uncommon for the slump or flow table test to be used as the only acceptance test for fresh concrete.A joint review of problems in bored piles (drilled shafts) and diaphragm walls cast using tremie methods by both the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and the Deep Foundations Institute in the United States (DFI) identified a common issue. The review determined that many of the problems were caused by (or in part due to) the use of inadequate concrete mixes with inadequate workability, or insufficient stability or robustness of the mixes. It further identified the primary causes as inadequate concrete specifications and inadequate testing procedures. The consequences of these problems are often significant and it has been recognised that spending more time and money on getting the concrete right is the most cost effective approach.A joint Concrete Task Group was set up by EFFC and DFI in 2014 to look at this issue and this guide is the output from that Task Group. A research and development project, funded by the Sponsors of this guide, is being carried out by the Technical University of Munich in conjunction with the Missouri University of Science and Technology. This project includes desk studies, laboratory testing, and onsite testing at worksites in Europe and the US. The research work will be completed during 2016.

Jan 1, 2016

This manual provides basic practical instruction on the inspection of driven piles. It covers the essential components of pile driving, such as the pile driving hammer, hammer accessories, the pile and soil, and frequently encountered test methods in an uncomplicated, yet knowledgeable, and practical manner. Insight is given into the methods of installing the foundation, dealing with the cranes which do the lifting, the hammers which do the driving, the leads that guide the hammer and pile, the compressors which provide the external power when required, and finally prevalent analysis tools and testing instrumentation and procedures which enable you, the Inspector, to do your job. This DFI Inspector's Manual for Pile Foundations will help the Pile Inspector who has limited knowledge of pile foundations. Perhaps this Inspector has been pressed into service at a moments notice; a few helpful hints and suggestions to him are desperately needed and he can look here for the basics. It is also useful for the experienced Pile Inspector as a reference guide. However, this manual is not a detailed check list of every possible scenario and detail which could ever be encountered. There are other sources available which give more detailed descriptions (and should be consulted by the Inspector when appropriate; a list of this additional reference material is provided and suggestions made in appropriate chapters of this text). The current manual is more a brief "textbook overview" with some of the more important aspects given at least some emphasis so that the Inspector has some direction and hopefully helps to produce a safe, yet economical, foundation.

Jan 1, 1997

By Shahid Islam, Lucian Bogdan

Deep and large diameter drilled shafts use mostly bundles of Grade 60 (415 MPa) reinforcing bars as longitudinal reinforcement with rebar splices to make it longer. Lower Grade steel requires large number of bars which result in rebar congestion and difficulty in placing concrete. This leads to increased labor cost for fabrication and installation. By utilizing larger size and higher strength threadbar, the congestion of rebar can be reduced significantly and bundling of bars can be avoided. The lap splices are replaced with simple threaded couplers and end hooks are replaced with end terminators. Threadbar conforms to ASTM A615-15 and can be epoxy coated if required for corrosion protection. This paper describes an attractive value engineering of replacing Grade 60 (415 MPa) bundle of rebars with larger diameter Grade 75 (515 MPa), Grade 80 (550 MPa) and Grade 100 (690 MPa) threaded bars and threaded couplers in some specific drilled shaft projects in the USA. INTRODUCTION A drilled shaft which may also be referred to as drilled piers, caissons, cast-in-drilled-hole piles and bored piles is the key element to the foundation of massive structure. They are used for tall buildings, bridges and foundations for other applications such as retaining walls, sound walls, signs, or high mast lighting. Drilled shaft foundations are typically 3 to 12 feet (0.9m to 3.7m) in diameter cast-in-place deep foundation elements constructed in a drilled hole that is stabilized to allow controlled placement of reinforcing steel and concrete. Drilled shafts for transportation structures are commonly used to depths of up to 200 ft (61m) in the USA. Drilled shafts can be installed in a variety of soil and rock profiles, and are most efficiently utilized where a strong bearing layer is present. The reinforcing cage is typically lowered into position within the hole and then concrete placed through the center of the shaft, flowing from bottom to top through the reinforcement to fill the hole.

Jan 1, 2018