Search Documents

By Lawrence F. Johnsen

Six case histories are presented in which tall, slender high rises are supported on high capacity minicaissons. The recent development of a high strength rebar cage has resulted in compressive loads of up to 3400 kips on 24 inch diameter minicaissons. Provisions in the pending NYC building code will allow borehole video inspection in lieu of load testing. The ?new? technology results from the marriage of several well established methods: rotary duplex well drilling, high capacity micropiles and high capacity reinforced concrete building columns.

Jan 1, 2007

By Caciola Jr. Joseph J., Nidal M. AbiSaab

"Thanks in great part to the geology of the New York City Metropolitan area, mini-caissons are a popular choice for deep foundations. These drilled elements are readily available, easy to install with minimal impact on adjacent structures, and can be designed with large compressive and tensile capacities. Despite the frequency with which they are employed, the engineering design community is divided over several of the underlying principles governing the design of mini-caissons. This paper seeks to draw attention to several of these issues in an effort to encourage further research and discussion, namely: (1) how the allowable stresses have changed for the NYC Building Code over time, (2) the inconsistent load transfer mechanisms considered for geotechnical capacity, and (3) the role of the permanent steel casing towards structural capacities of mini-caissons.INTRODUCTIONIn the local construction nomenclature, mini-caissons are drilled deep foundation elements which derive their capacity from a socket in rock. A permanent steel casing (commonly between 7- and 24-inches in diameter) aides the drilling through overburden soils to the top of bedrock. Afterwards, an uncased rock socket is drilled into the bedrock and the inside of the casing and rock socket is inspected by means of portable video equipment. After inspection, the interior of the socket and casing is filled with steel reinforcement and concrete or grout. The casing-soil interface is generally ignored for axial design purposes and the full geotechnical compressive or tensile capacity is assumed to be generated in the rock socket. Figure 1 shows a typical mini-caisson cross section.Mini-caissons have been used for decades in the New York City area for a number of reasons. They have historically been proven to develop high axial capacities in the city’s metamorphic rock (Tamaro et. al. 2000), often exceeding 300- to 500-tons. Additionally, their method of installation (drilling) is generally able to bypass layers of dense Glacial Till, boulders, and manmade fill which would interfere with the installation of other pile types (e.g. driven piles, auger cast piles). Further they are able to extend to depths exceeding 50-ft to reach bedrock underlying a site, making them a useful tool in areas where rock is relatively deep or varied in elevation. Drilled casing installation also results in fewer vibrations and disturbances to adjacent structures and can occur in areas of restricted access (a constant concern for any project in a dense urban environment such as NYC)."

Jan 1, 2016

By J. E. De Waele, J. J. Lee, M. J. Mulheron, Luke R. Deamer

There is increasing demand for geotechnical contractors to commit to carbon reduction, net zero or science based targets. A lot of focus has therefore been placed on using low carbon materials and low emission rigs. However, whilst these are ways to help reduce carbon, there is a need to look beyond just substituting materials and fuels to meet net zero. Using the IEMA carbon hierarchy, there is a need to first look at eliminating and reducing emissions, before considering substitute materials. For example, in geotechnical designs, this may mean considering using ground improvement or reducing the number of piles, before considering using low carbon cements. Equally, for remaining emissions, this hierarchy means considering carbon negative products to offset emissions, such as ground source heat pumps. This hierarchy can also be applied throughout geotechnical contractor organisations. For example, considering video conferencing for meetings, before considering public transport or using an electric vehicle. This article explores the carbon hierarchy and how it can be applied to all areas of a geotechnical contractor’s business. Only through embedding this hierarchy across the business can geotechnical contractors achieve the step change required to meet net zero.

May 1, 2022

By William M. Dalrymple, William P. Owen, Benjamin S. Rivers

For the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), geophysical applications have played an important role as part of a successful multidisciplinary approach to subsurface characterization for the design of high value structures. Since at least the 1950’s, geophysical methods have been deployed to guide the exploration drilling program and to maximize the return on drilling investment by increasing the amount of data obtained from test borings. Geophysical applications saw increased use beginning in the 1990’s, during the seismic retrofit of the state’s toll bridges and the replacement of the west span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge. Over the intervening years, increases in computing power and increasingly sophisticated commercial off-the-shelf software applications have allowed Caltrans to leverage advancements and perform geophysical investigations of increasing complexity and scale. Ultimately, the goal of these efforts is to maximize return on investment, whereby increased investigation costs at the design phase are offset by reduced uncertainty regarding subsurface conditions, leading to reduced cost overruns related to change orders and unforeseen site conditions during construction. These objectives are consistent with the recent Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative to incorporate Advanced Geotechnical Methods in Exploration (A-GaME) into routine engineering practice. Caltrans is an implementation partner of the A-GaME initiative, and Caltrans’ practices represent a model toward the institutionalized geophysical site characterization practices for other transportation organizations. The authors provide a retrospective on 70 years of experience with geophysical applications for transportation infrastructure, with examples and observations on potential future direction of the industry.

By Frank J. Arland

Augered-Cast-in-Place piles have been used successfully for many deep foundation applications. The four case studies discussed herein describe ACIP pile projects where problems developed during ACIP pile installation requiring changes to the method or sequence of installation. The case studies illustrate the importance of understanding existing subsurface conditions and project constraints when considering the use of this pile type. Ground loosening and over-excavation of soil during the augering process, a significant concern for fine to medium sands and non-plastic silts below the water table, can significantly impact adjacent structures. This risk needs to be evaluated during the pile selection process and generally can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by requiring the use of piling equipment with high torque and slow auger rotation speed to advance the auger with minimum amount of rotation. In some applications where high lateral stresses in the soil are present such as at the base of retaining structures, the use of ACIP piles may not be appropriate if structure movement is unacceptable. On the other hand, ACIP piles have been successfully used to support deep foundations in preconsolidated varved deposits where the new structure was designed to accommodate recompression settlement.

Jan 1, 2004

By Satyajit Vaidya, Rudolph Frizzi, Luis Berroteran

This paper presents design and construction challenges associated with a high-capacity rock-socketed drilled pile foundation system for a 60-story building recently constructed in an urban environment. The site is in very close proximity to surrounding 1-to-6-story buildings and a commuter rail subway tunnel structure. High compression, uplift, and lateral loads imposed by the tall, slender tower constructed over a relatively small site footprint posed a significant design challenge due to the close proximity of the subway tunnel and other structures. Construction challenges included those associated with advancing the drilled pile casings through overburden materials using internal flush method mandated by the Transit Agency, advancing the casings through very dense glacial till materials encountered above top of rock, and drilling rock sockets in variable rock conditions. This paper provides a brief overview of the site and subsurface conditions, and discusses the resulting design and construction challenges for the drilled pile foundation system and how they were addressed. SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The 8,350-square-foot site is located in a busy neighborhood in downtown New York City (NYC). Buildings neighboring the site are supported on shallow foundations, and their basements extend about 15 feet below the sidewalk level. A NYC-Landmarked building is located within a NYC Department of Buildings (DOB)-designated 90-foot influence limit from the Project site. NYC Transit Authority (NYCTA) subway tunnel and station structures are located in close proximity to the Project site. The subway tunnel structure extends about 50 to 55 feet below the sidewalk level. Although the upper portion of the tunnel structure is about 13.5 feet away from the site property line, the lower portion is only about 1 foot away from the property line. A site location plan is presented as Fig. 1. Geotechnical borings revealed subsurface conditions generally consisting of successive strata of surficial fill, sandy and silty soils, and glacial till (predominantly consisting of cobbles and boulders) overlying mica schist bedrock. A generalized subsurface profile is presented in Fig. 2. The surficial fill stratum was about 10 to 23 feet thick, and generally consisted of loose to medium dense sandy soils with varying proportions of silt, gravel, and miscellaneous debris such as brick. The underlying sandy and silty soil stratum was about 60 to 79 feet thick and generally consisted of loose to medium dense inter-bedded layers of fine to coarse sand, silty fine sand, and silt. The underlying glacial till stratum was about 26 to 70 feet thick and generally consisted of cobbles and boulders embedded in a very dense soil matrix. Top of bedrock was encountered in the borings about 110 to 150 feet below sidewalk level. Groundwater level was measured at about 30 feet below sidewalk level.

Jan 1, 2018

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 A. Rod Kern, Michael A. McNicholas, Yaser Taheri

Deep foundations were required for construction of an 18,000 ft2 (1,672 m2) 4-story office building and an adjacent 23,750 ft2 (2,206 m2) 5-story parking garage in Queens, New York due to an existing uncontrolled fill layer ranging from 15-20 ft (4.6 - 6.1 m) in thickness beneath the building footprint. The geotechnical engineers for the project initially selected auger cast-in-place (ACIP) piles over driven piles to limit the impact of noise and vibrations on the surrounding neighborhood. Ultimately, drilled displacement piles (DDP) were installed since this method offered a more economical solution that would generate the required pile capacity with shorter drill depths and would also mitigate spoils volume. During installation of test piles by the geotechnical contractor retained for the foundation work, multiple unanticipated soil conditions were encountered that would adversely affect the constructability of the piles. The existing fill contained significantly more natural and manmade obstructions than expected and the underlying glacial soil became too dense to penetrate at shallower depths than anticipated. This paper discusses how these issues were overcome through pre-drilling and the use of detailed instrumented test pile data coupled with in-house engineering capability to proactively re-evaluate minimum pile lengths at any given location and keep the project on track. INTRODUCTION Geotechnical work in the New York City market presents soil conditions that can be highly variable and challenging due to the presence of uncontrolled urban fill placed over the native soils. Construction in this area can therefore pose many unforeseen challenges, even with detailed geotechnical analysis being performed at project sites. A case in point is a construction site in Queens, New York. The proposed site development consisted of construction of a 4-story office building with a footprint of 18,000 ft2 (1672 m2) and a stand-alone 5-level parking garage with a footprint of 23,750 ft2 (2206 m2), together with associated new pavements and utilities. The site is bordered by a mix of commercial buildings and residential properties on all sides. Depth of the uncontrolled nature of the fill extended up to 20 ft (6.1 m) below street grade. Given the significant cost associated with removal and replacement, deep foundations were recommended to bypass the unsuitable soils and support the structures at depth where good bearing material existed.

Jan 1, 2019

By Athena C. Denivo, Pablo V. Lopez, Michael McMaster, Sissy Nikolaou, Alfred H. Brand

"The paper presents the history of development of the United States Tennis Association (USTA) site, focusing on geotechnical, geoseismic, and foundation engineering challenges associated with it. The site is located at the Flushing Meadows Corona Park area of Queens, New York. Now home to the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center (BJKNTC), the site used to be a biologically rich, tidal salt marsh that extended south from Flushing Bay and overlaid an ancient buried valley. In early 20th century, Brooklyn Ash Co. was contracted to fill the marshland with cinders and furnace ashes. F. Scott Fitzgerald describes the “Valley of Ashes” as “a fantastic farm where ashes grow like wheat into ridges and hills and grotesque gardens; where ashes take the forms of houses and chimneys and rising smoke, and finally, with a transcendent effort, of ash-gray men who move dimly and already crumbling through the powdery air.” In 1939 the site was leveled and filled to host the World’s Fair and refilled again for the 1964 World’s Fair.The USTA moved to the site in 1978 and in mid-1990’s constructed the 23,000-seat Arthur Ashe Stadium (AAS). Currently, USTA has a Strategic Vision Plan venue with several interconnected construction projects including buildings, infrastructure upgrades and improvements to site circulation. In addition to a historical walkthrough, the authors will discuss technical challenges of supporting these developments through layers of fill, thick organic silty plastic clays and regional varved soils with bedrock found 300 to 400 feet deep. The subsurface is not only a weak foundation medium, but is susceptible to large amplification of seismic waves propagating from the bedrock during earthquakes. The developments are usually founded on project-specific pile foundations that carry static loads in deeper layers and accommodate lateral demands and performance objectives. Engineering innovations from the most recent development, the roof structure over AAS, will be discussed."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 1991

Jan 1, 2004

By George J. Tamaro

The design and construction of foundations in the New York City area are usually dictated by the widely varying geologic conditions encountered in the five boroughs, particularly along the spine of Manhattan Island. Rock extends well above sea level at the northern reaches and falls to depths in excess of 250 m at the barrier islands at the southern extremities. These highly variable geologic conditions, significantly affected by glacial activity, dictate different design and construction approaches throughout the five boroughs of New York City. Extensive rock removal is required at the north while long piling is dictated in the south. Similar changes can occur within a project site on Manhattan Island. This paper will describe these conditions in general, will identify the various solutions used to solve these problems and will summarize various foundation types used in the New York City area.

Jan 1, 2000

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, 1997

By Dharmil S. Patel, Zoyav S. Benyaminov, Cassandra A. Wetzel

Rehabilitation of the Henry Hudson Bridge is nearing completion, connecting Spuyten Duyvil in the Bronx to Inwood Hill in Manhattan, New York. Constructed in 1936, the Henry Hudson Bridge spans 840 feet over the Hudson River. Challenging geotechnical aspects of this Project required a team of innovators to overcome. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge involved the replacement of sixteen bent pedestal substructures, two abutment pilasters and installation of new deep foundations at the skewbacks. However, the Bridge, roadways, adjacent Metro-North Railroad (MNR) structures and New York City (NYC) Parks land were to remain open to the public for use, with minimal disturbance. In addition to physical constraints, geologic site conditions varied widely across both sides of the River, with varying bedrock quality and depth, greatly impacting the proposed design and construction. Extensive analysis of bedrock conditions was conducted to locate areas of potential wedge failure. The implementation of anchors was used to reinforce rock stability where pedestals and pilasters were replaced. This paper describes several challenging technical and natural aspects overcome in the rehabilitation of the Henry Hudson bridge foundations, including varying geologic site conditions, access restrictions, construction limitations, project specifications and design requirements.

Sep 8, 2021

By Thomas Trochalides

Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in Brooklyn, NY is the largest of 14 Water Pollution Control Plants in New York City. It services over 1 million people with a current processing capacity of 310 million gallons daily. Upgrades to the plant have been underway since 1998. This paper details the foundation elements installed in three separate contracts during 2009: NC-41F, NC-36G, and NC-47G. The elements are Concrete-Filled Pipe Piles, H-Piles, Steel Sheet Piling, Secant Walls, Drilled Caissons, and High Capacity Micropiles. Soils on the site consist of fill over organic silty clay and silty sand. Beneath the organic layers lie lake sand and varved silt and clay, sitting atop glacial till and rock. Due to Federal Mandates, certain plant capacity and secondary treatment requirements had to be met by specific dates. Failure to meet the requirements would have an adverse affect on the NYC areas being serviced. Further complicating the project, the existing plant operations had to be maintained throughout the entire construction phase. To accommodate the constraints of the project, new specialty equipment and several key redesigns were used to maintain construction schedules

Jan 1, 2010

By Justin Lukens, Di Stasim Jeffrey, Frank Di Salvo

Columbia University’s Manhattanville Campus expansion includes the construction of two new business school buildings. The new buildings require development of an entire city block bound by 12th Avenue, W 131st Street, W 130th Street and Broadway in Upper Manhattan. A support of excavation (SOE) package was first released, followed by a foundation package. The SOE package consisted of approximately 100 soldier piles and 280 anchors, up to 215’ long, to support a cut anywhere from 30’- 50’ below street level. The foundation package alone included approximately 1600 drilled micropiles. Given the breadth of the work scope, Hayward Baker Inc and Moretrench joint ventured on these two projects to bring sufficient knowledge and work resources to complete the work in an efficient and timely manner. This included working with the Owner/Engineer to propose different means and methods for construction to significantly reduce the schedule while meeting the design intent, such as large diameter (36” diameter) augercast piles in place of conventionally drilled soldier piles and large hollow-bar micropiles (103/51 bars) in lieu of pressure-grouted micropiles. The anchors, ranging from 3 to 22 strands, were used for earth retention through both soldier pile and lagging walls and existing slurry walls. These anchors were complicated based not only on their size and length, but also the need to drill some of them under the historic Studebaker building. The overall magnitude of the project with considerations to resource management and material lead times will be addressed, highlighting critical strengths provided by the Contractor to ensure project success. The scope of work discussed in this paper was executed under two separate competitive bid contracts. The first contract included the support of excavation work and the second contract included the foundation package. The support of excavation comprised of drilled soldier piles (performed by Case Foundation as a subcontractor to the JV), driven soldier piles, driven sheet piles, hollow bar tiebacks, multi-strand tieback anchors and micropile soldier piles. The foundation package consisted of drilled micropiles. Due to the large scope of work and critical schedule requirements of the project, the JV had to think outside the box and present value engineered alternates to expedite installation durations.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1986

Jan 1, 1987

By Andrew J. Ciancia

The construction of the Pennsylvania Station in Manhattan, the Beaux-Arts masterpiece, was completed in 1910. In financial ruin, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company sold the station in the 1960?s and the new Madison Square Garden and the Penn Plaza complex were constructed at the site. The demolition of Pennsylvania Station brought public awareness and outcry to protect historic structures and the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) was subsequently established in 1965. In the 1960?s relatively little engineering data was available on the performance of historic structures during adjacent construction and thus, no published criteria were established by the LPC on allowable movements and vibrations. During the late 1970?s a commercial tower was planned adjacent to the landmark Fraunces Tavern Block (FTB) in lower Manhattan. Through negotiations between the LPC and the developer, Dr. M. I. Esrig and the author were retained to monitor the historic block during foundation construction. The monitoring data and building performance compiled from the project formed the basis of the published 1981 ASCE technical paper by Esrig and Ciancia entitled ?The Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures Resulting from Adjacent Construction?. Based on the ASCE paper, the NYC Department of Buildings adopted Technical Policy and Procedure Notice #10/88 entitled ?Procedures for the Avoidance of Damage to Historic Structures Resulting from Adjacent Construction When Subject to Controlled Inspection by Section 27-724 and for Any Existing Structure Designated by the Commissioner?, June 1988. This paper describes the author?s recent experience during the installation of deep foundations within, or adjacent to, three Manhattan landmark structures. Discussions are provided on the foundation construction, monitoring programs and performances of the three structures.

Jan 1, 2008