Search Documents

By Sara Anderson, Rachel Nicholls, Tim Chapman, Janice Windle

"In city center sites around the world, and in particular in London, foundation reuse is becoming increasingly widespread as the ground is filled with detritus from previous developments. This paper sets out a systematic framework to consider the need for and benefits of foundation reuse and key issues to be resolved for foundation reuse to be successfully adopted on redevelopment projects. Once foundation reuse has been identified as a potential foundation solution there are several key stages in the design and construction process where the decision to reuse foundations needs to be assessed. The paper concludes by emphasising the importance of ensuring that the foundations being installed now can more easily be reused in the future.INTRODUCTIONThe concept of re-using foundations is not new, and has been adopted on an isolated project-byproject basis for many years. However, over the past decade, interest in the potential of reusing existing piles and caissons within Europe has increased significantly, with a growing interest in the United States of America and Japan. The need has been driven by necessity: on many urban sites the space available for new foundations diminishes with each new set of piles, and these problems can only grow in the future.Initiatives such as the European Union's RuFUS (Re-use of Foundations for Urban Sites) research project have resulted in identification of the key issues for technical viability and risk that have previously hampered potential foundation reuse projects.There is a need to define a systematic approach to the reuse of foundations so that the risks associated with reuse can be identified, managed and mitigated. This requires improvements in knowledge to provide confidence in the long term behaviour of the foundation support and address the risks involved in reusing existing foundations to overcome perceived obstacles in making foundation reuse a realistic option for many sites."

Jan 1, 2005

By Marcus Daubner, Karsten Beckhaus, Florian Bauer

The construction industry can and needs to contribute to a more sustainable world. Accordingly, geotechnical works potentially have a significant share. In this context, Bauer understands “sustainable products for geotechnical works” as those that may cause less emissions and increase the sustainability of construction activities. In order to structure the efforts and systematically pursue sustainable targets in the construction sector, and in the specialist foundation industry, the “17 sustainability goals” presented by the United Nations in their AGENDA 2030, can be used for general guidance and for continuous improvement. Benchmarks for relevant economic and social objectives, mainly with environmental aspects, are inevitable. The key parameter to sustainable products for geotechnical works in the focus of this paper is the optimisation of processes on site needed to fulfill the client’s building task, including the selection of technologies and construction methods with minimum environmental impact and minimum carbon footprint.

May 1, 2022

By Keithe J. Merl, Brendan FitzPatrick, Gregg Piazza

Urban and industrial construction projects commonly involve interior work within buildings, warehouses and manufacturing facilities. Renovations of these existing structures must address both structural and geotechnical engineering challenges while also balancing the practicality of implementing solutions within site constraints including limited site access, overhead clearance restrictions, vibration tolerances and uninterrupted facility operations. This paper highlights two projects for an international shipping company where mezzanine level additions within active shipping facilities required construction of new foundations. Construction requirements included low vibration levels, as well as rapid and clean installation to limit impacts on the active shipping operations. The selected system also needed to adjust to both variable ground conditions and differing overhead clearances. This paper describes the installation, design and performance of Ductile Iron Piles used to meet the project challenges. The low vibration, driven pile system offered the ability to work within restricted overhead environments while successfully delivering working compression capacities ranging from 45 to 75 tons (41 to 68 tonnes) as well as lateral and tension resistance. The paper also presents the results of site-specific load testing (and pile capacity) for various termination criteria. INTRODUCTION Urban and industrial construction projects commonly involve interior work within buildings, warehouses and manufacturing facilities. Renovations of these existing structures must address both structural and geotechnical engineering challenges associated with the new construction. Foundation solutions must also balance the need to achieve design requirements with the practicality to be installed within the particular site constraints including limited site access, overhead clearance restrictions, vibration tolerances and uninterrupted facility operations.

Jan 1, 2019

By Gerald Verbeek, Erick Baziw

Stone columns are used in geotechnical site remediation to increase load-bearing capacity and reduce settlement of foundations. Stone columns also improve slope stability and increase the shear strength of a soil. A very challenging problem is to characterize the in-situ shear wave velocities from data acquired from Downhole Seismic Testing (DST) after the insertion of stone columns. DST is an important geotechnical testing tool for site characterization that provides low strain (<10-5) in-situ interval compression and shear wave velocity estimates, but the postanalysis of seismic data acquired from DST in the presence of stone columns is very challenging due to the resulting complicated in-situ soil conditions. To obtain the right results it is necessary to use an algorithm that incorporates source wave raypath refraction. Starting with the Normal Moveout Seismic Cone Tomographic Testing (NMO-SCTT) algorithm developed some years ago, this paper outlines the modifications and additions made to this NMO-SCTT algorithm to facilitate stone column site characterization. To dramatically reduce the optimal solution space for the estimated interval velocities the paper also described a priori conditions that are applied based on the unique nature of the stone column site conditions.

By John S. Civetta, Seth Martin, Marc J. Gallagher, Arthur J. Alzamora, Ronald Peralta

The Crown Building, built circa 1921, is a 26-story iconic building located at West 57th Street and Fifth Avenue in the heart of Manhattan. The paper highlights collaboration between the geotechnical engineer and foundation contractor to develop economical and practical solutions to foundation design and construction challenges associated with this complex redevelopment project. The project includes both below-grade and above-grade expansion of the occupied building, and required undermining the existing foundations, and essentially doubling the foundation loads. The below-grade expansion required surgical foundation work including drilling minicaissons, shoring columns, underpinning, and excavating 20 feet of rock.

By Rahul Wankhade, Sunil S. Baswankar, Aditya S. Kharatkar

Despite advances in pile design methodologies and piling techniques at site, difficulties and uncertainties still exists for design of piles particularly in coralline deposits and weak carbonate rocks. Such deposits are known to be heterogenous in nature, and occupy major stretches of earth, where piling experiences are probably very scanty. Such deposits are associated with low unit weights and usually consist of weakly cemented calcareous and carbonate soils interbedded with coral rocks containing cavities, which are completely void or filled with coral debris. Many of the studies indicate that conventional parametric relationships are may not apply to such sediments and rock formations. This paper intends to provide an appraisal of the available information that cautions against risks involved in conventional design practice and also serve as a guideline for pile design in such formations despite being a grey area of research. Contents of the paper is expected to provide a basis for the pile design and likely to serve as an eye-opener for research into this important soil-pile structure interaction problem.

Sep 1, 2022

By Emilie Lapointe, Fernando Famania

"A reliable determination of the in-placed cement factor, as defined by mass of cement over volume of final element of treated soil, allows the optimization of cement usage to achieve treated soil requirements. Cement determination tests were performed on soil-cement samples, both fresh (as per ASTM D5982) and hardened (as per ASTM C1084). This paper reviews the calibration work required for the D5982 determination of cement content by the heat of hydration method used on soil-cement samples obtained by wet-grabbing. Using the correlation curves in the field provides a rapid assessment of cement content hence optimizing the cement injection rate to match laboratory tests previously conducted. Cement determination tests on hardened soil-cement specimens from wet-grabs and cores were performed using the oxides method. Samples, both cored and wet-grabbed, were tested in a given cement-treated element, and in different soils to inform on the expected variation in cement content from field installation. Results indicate that both cement determination methods are valid for forensically determining cement contents and that they provide better assessment than the conventional field reporting methods. The methods can be used to optimise the cement usage as well as for Quality Assurance, especially when coring quality is poor.INTRODUCTIONThe degree of improvement, and inherent strength, which is attained in a deep-mixed soil is a function of many factors. The binder type, the existing soil, the mixing conditions and the curing conditions are the categories of factors influencing the strength of a given cement-treated soil as agreed by the deep mixing community and as summarized by the Coastal Development of Technology [CDIT] (2012). Given a site with existing soils and conditions requiring soil improvement using a given binder, the designer and/or contractor can control the mixing conditions. Mixing conditions are inclusive of the degree of mixing, mixing duration and the quantity of binder. Once a deep mixing method has been chosen to mix optimally the in-situ soil, the quantity of binder is the only remaining factor to be optimized. The quantity of binder, in the construction industry is commonly referred to as the field binder factor [ar] and defined by the mass of binder over the volume of soil treated with kg/m3 as unit. In research, the quantity of binder is referred to as the binder content [Cc] and expressed as a ratio of the mass of binder over the mass of dry soil mixed."

Jan 1, 2015

By Ricardo Dobry, Alain Pecker, George E. Leventis, Ralph B. Peck

"This year’s DFI Outstanding Project Award is for the design and construction of the foundation scheme for the largest cable-stayed bridge in the world. In 1993, Gefyra, SA (a French/Greek consortium led by VINCI of Paris, France) was awarded a €750 million ($1billion+ USD) Concession Contract to design, build, fi nance, operate and maintain a three-span cable-stayed suspension bridge connecting the Peloponnese, Greece’s southernmost peninsula, with the mainland across the Gulf of Corinth. The contract extends over a 42-year period, 7 years for design and construction and 35 years for operation. The project was fi nanced through a combination of public funds, private equity and bank loans. Alternative foundation concepts that were considered included traditional driven piles, deeply embedded caissons and soil improvement. PROJECT CHALLENGESThe extreme technical challenges faced included:??Weak foundation soils composed of soft alluvial deposits consisting of interbedded layers of granular and cohesive materials with thin layers and lenses of gravel and liquefi able sand pockets; rock is believed to be at a depth of 1,000 m (3,500 ft) or more.??A very deep seabed exceeding 60 m (200 ft).??The requirement to withstand the collision of 180,000-ton tankers traveling at 16 knots.??Maximum wind forces of 250 km/hour (155 mi/hour).??Design seismic forces corresponding to Richter magnitudes of 7.0+ with peak ground accelerations of 0.48 g at seabed.??Design tectonic movements of 2 m (7 ft) in any direction between any two adjacent bridge pier foundations/pylons.Considering subsurface conditions and local seismicity and water depths, foundation design and construction methods were the key drivers for this project. In large part, the success of the project is owed to the unprecedented partnering and collaboration between all partners involved fostered under the leadership of Jean Paul Teyssandier and Gilles De Maublanc of VINCI Group (France) who served as lead Concessionaire and General Contractor. The joint venture’s lead Greek partners were Elliniki Technodomiki/AKTOR and J&P/AVAX. Alain Pecker of Geodynamique et Structure (France) served as lead Geotechnical Consultant/ Designer while Buckland and Taylor (Canada) served as Design Checkers with Ralph Peck and Ricardo Dobry (U.S.) as Special Advisors on foundation issues, Langan International/Langan Engineering and Environmental Services P.C. (George E. Leventis, Gregory Biesiadecki and Diane Fiorelli) served as Technical Advisor on geotechnical, geodynamic and foundation/marine construction issues."

Jan 1, 2007

By George Filz, Peter R. Cali

"Unnecessarily restrictive specifications could be limiting the cost effectiveness of deep mixing (DM) applications and therefore limiting use of DM on projects where there are other options. Excessively restrictive standards demanded for strength and permeability certainly increase contractors’ bid prices, and costing the owners and, in the case of Government projects, the taxpayers more than necessary. Yet, lax or ineffective specifications often exist for some vital components of the quality assurance and quality control. In this paper, specifications for key elements of DM design and construction are examined. Recommendations are made to improve and streamline DM specifications to better serve the common objective of constructing a safe and cost effective ground improvement project.INTRODUCTIONSpecifications should, at their best, convey the project design requirements and provide clear direction to the contractor regarding requirements for submittals, materials, execution, measurement, schedule, and other aspects as necessary. The specifications should not be overly conservative, restrictive or ambiguous, and they absolutely should not be deficient in measurement of quality. Guide specifications or recycled sections from previous projects often form the template for new project specifications. But standards that appear in guide specifications or from former successful construction should be critically scrutinized by the designer for relevance before using the copy/paste functions of the specifications writer’s keyboard. Because work does not always go as smoothly as planned, specifications for remediation of non-compliant construction should be clearly stated and enforced. Often, non-compliancy is reviewed after-the-fact and deemed to have met the design intent, indicating that either the specifications were too restrictive or the enforcement too weak.The Federal Highway Administration Design Manual: Deep Mixing for Embankment and Foundation Support, October 2013, was written by a panel of DM expert design practitioners and contractors. Guide specifications are included as Appendix C of the FHWA manual. Those guide specifications have been updated in the deep mixing section of the www.GeoTechTools.org website, and the updated specifications represent the most complete and authoritative compilation published to date. Although the specifications for DM at www.GeoTechTools.org are current and complete, and they portray the state-ofthe- practice, they too must be modified to fit specific DM applications, project needs, and site conditions. The keys to a good set of specifications are to prescribe construction only to the level that is required to meet the design intent, to require appropriate quality control and quality assurance (QC/ QA) activities, and to clearly address remedial measures required for non-compliant work."

Jan 1, 2015

"What can we do in ground engineering to reduce damage to the environment, to repair historic pollution, to reduce our demand on basic resources and to reduce the carbon footprint of our industry? Some developments in geotechnical engineering are already heading in the right direction. These include reductions of ground pollution from grouting, improved dewatering procedures and advances in mix-in-place processes, ground improvement and jet grouting.There is increased interest in certain promising technologies (for example, drilled partial or full displacement piles), but this approach remains for the moment somewhat avant-garde. These piles require substantially greater power to install, and the overall sustainability balance for general application has yet to be shown to be in their favour. They are particularly suited to polluted sites where the problem of dealing with spoil would be costly and where, in the past, driven cast in-situ piles would have been employed. Drilled displacement piles offer some environmental benefit over driven piles in that they cause far less drawdown of potentially contaminated near-surface ground into sensitive, underlying aquifers.There is also great interest in various means of increasing the frictional capacity of bored piles, both conventional auger and continuous flight auger (CFA) piles, by threading or ribbing the soil/pile interface. The increase in adhesion capacity allows reduction in the pile dimensions necessary for a specific load. This obviously leads to less construction waste, but also to less permanent material consumption in the piles and also in the pile caps.The role of ground improvement remains significant for brown land sites and lower capacity foundations. Information technology (IT) has improved the quality assurance of stone column construction, for example. From the sustainability point of view, this is a good news method; here is no cement, no pollution and little obstruction to future redevelopment. We now need to introduce recycled crushed materials instead of natural aggregate as general practice and the technique’s green credentials will be really compelling."

Jan 1, 2009

By Gilbert R. Tallard

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

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 1997

By Kevin Baumgartner, Steven Babcock

A landfill in Phoenix, AZ reached capacity and was graded over in the 1970s. The property was subdivided into lots in 2007 to create a business park. However, the challenging site conditions caused by the underlaying landfill put into question the feasibility of typical deep foundation systems. Several different foundation systems were evaluated to support the proposed development. The considered systems were: drilled concrete shaft, driven piles, drilled micropiles and helical piles. Soil stability, landfill decomposition, method of installation, flexibility of design, anticipated material, and equipment costs were considered. A system of helical piles with concrete pile caps and grade beams was selected. To mitigate unknown obstructions, holes were drilled through the landfill debris at pile locations and then backfilled with screened granular material. The helical piles were installed through these backfilled holes and advanced to bear in competent native material below the landfill. This method allowed for minimal disturbance of the landfill materials and provided a strong and adaptable foundation. Additional advantages of helical piles on this site include minimal installation vibration, no grout or concrete in the deep foundation, and capacity verification for each pile via torque correlation. Two load tests were performed to verify the design.

Sep 8, 2021

Jan 1, 2002

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&apos;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

"1 INTRODUCTIONThe use of nondestructive testing (NDT) methods to evaluate the integrity of Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) and Drilled Displacement (DD) piles has been a subject of significant debate among engineers, contractors and NDT practitioners. This guideline document will illustrate the importance of reviewing all available information in conjunction with the NDT records. ACIP and DD piles have unique properties that must be considered when using a specific NDT method. Any evaluation of the integrity of an ACIP or DD pile must also include a thorough review of the detailed pile installation records and the site specific soil conditions. Long or theoretical descriptions of the methods have not been included in this publication. More detailed information about these NDT methods including their theoretical and historical backgrounds can be found in DFI’s Manual for Non Destructive Testing and Evaluation of Drilled Shafts (2004). Additional information can also be found in the more comprehensive textbook Nondestructive Testing of Deep Foundations by Hertlein and Davis (2006).1.1 PurposeThe intent of this guideline is to provide practical guidance for the proper interpretation of NDT results on ACIP and DD piles. Short descriptions of the main integrity methods available are provided along with several examples of how to use all of the information available to make sound engineering judgments about the results. This publication is a state-of-the-practice guideline to promote accurate engineering evaluations.For engineers inexperienced with NDT, these guidelines provide sufficient background information on NDT methods to help understand the limitations of the testing, assess the results presented to them, and formulate appropriate questions. This is particularly important for engineers charged with the responsibility to determine from those results what, if any, consequences there may be on the performance of the structure under construction."

Jan 1, 2016

By Tony Suckling

"As we head toward the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December, the environment and sustainability will become headline news for a while. Governments are expected to agree to a set of binding targets to reduce carbon emissions probably before 2020, and certainly before 2050. This will, in effect, initiate a low carbon economy in many parts of the world. Sustainability has mainly been rhetoric so far, the exceptions being projects for those looking to the long-term future and not for short-term financial gains.The probabilities and consequences of negative impacts on the environment and on society over the short term and in the long term can be assessed and mitigated, but mitigation often adds cost. Also, we cannot know what technologies will be available, say 1,000 years into the future, which is about 40 generations of our society. It is easier to have a connection with 100 years into the future, which is only about 4 generations. Individuals may have a different sense of sustainability, and place a different value on mitigation, its cost, its importance and its potential impacts.Sustainability means different things to different parties on a construction project. For example, a land developer is likely to have a different view on the design in terms of sustainability than that of the designer. The developer may also likely to be more interested in sustainabiliy if there are tangible economic benefits that might accrue. Achieving sustainability on any project, leads to conflict between competing interests or demands cooperation between the economic and technical sectors involved. The foundations for a building or bridge, by definition, need to interact with the ground whose behaviour cannot be dictated by man. The aims of sustainability are the same as for the building or bridge, both of which are constructed of manmade materials, but it is less clear how they should be achieved. An example is the driven pile that does not produce spoil waste, but is likely to be too noisy to be acceptable in an urban environment. This then begs the question, should the public accept the nuisance of short-term pile driving to achieve a more sustainable foundation? Additionally, the question has to be asked, can the deep foundations industry develop its techniques and products to help make them more acceptable and appropriate more often than is possible now?"

Jan 1, 2009

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

"Inclusions are a type of ground improvement that provide an improvement of a soil mass by insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. There are primarily two types of inclusions: “Soft” inclusions which are constructed of granular material (Stone Columns, Rammed Aggregate Piers, VibroPiers...), and “rigid” inclusions which are constructed of grout inserted with or without pressure (VibroConcrete Columns, Controlled Modulus Columns, Soil Mixing Columns).While the central principle of the inclusions is similar (i.e., overall improvement of characteristics of the soil mass below the structure), the load transfer mechanism is radically different for each technique. Therefore, the applicable design methodology is specific to the type of inclusions and there exists no universal method of design which spans across all inclusions.This paper will present an in-depth comparison between the standard design methods used for “soft” granular-type inclusions (Priebe modified, Balaam & Booker, Goughnour & Bayuk...) and the methods used for “rigid” inclusions which mainly rely on finite element analysis. The paper will explain why the design for soft inclusion methods cannot be applied to rigid inclusions and vice-versa. Each design method will be reviewed in detail to better emphasize its limitations and advantages.Two case histories will also be presented; one for each type of inclusions in order to illustrate the concepts developed in the first part of the paper.1 INTRODUCTION1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT WITH INCLUSIONSThe use of ground improvement methods to provide the appropriate amount of foundation support is a growing and constantly evolving industry. Traditional structural foundation methods including ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ foundations do not adequately address the wide range of settlement tolerances, soil conditions, and loading considerations inherent to each unique potential project. In some instances, ‘shallow’ foundation solutions are simply not feasible due to soil and loading constraints. Furthermore, ‘deep’ foundation solutions are used to ‘bridge’ the soft compressible soils, ensuring that the entirety of the load in the structure is transmitted through individual elements into competent layers below the ground surface (bedrock, dense residual soils). Highly concentrated structural loads are transferred into the individual elements by means of direct contact requiring the use of structurally rigid surficial components (structural slabs, grade beams, and pile caps).Ground improvement bridges the gap between these two traditional methods, offering adequate foundation support while using more costeffective techniques and design methodologies. Inclusions are a type of ground improvement used to provide a reinforcement of the soil mass through the vertical insertion of a material with better characteristics than the surrounding soils. Much like deep foundations, inclusions are installed through soil layers with high compressibility and/or low bearing capacity and terminated in a suitable bearing stratum. However, unlike deep foundations, ground improvement inclusions rely on a distribution of load between the soil and the inclusions. By doing so, some of the structural load is applied directly to the soil in a proportion equal to its bearing capacity and compressibility limits, while the rest of the load is shed into the vertical inclusions down to the bearing stratum. Load sharing is a critical aspect in the performance and design of the various ground improvement methods."

Jan 1, 2015

By Hennie F. T. Barnard

Where geotechnical designs are governed by settlement requirements, soil and rock moduli are important parameters for design. This paper reports on a method that was used to utilize dynamic modulus measurements in the field toward pile settlement designs for the proposed Square Kilometer Array (SKA) Project to be located near Carnarvon, South Africa. The project will comprise of over 3000 No. movement sensitive satellite dish structures. The method described in the paper utilizes strain-related modulus degradation across the complete ground profile, starting from measurements of peak particle velocity (and inference to dynamic modulus at small strain) as measured using Continuous Surface Wave (CSW) testing at individual dish positions. This is required due to the very small allowable foundation rotation of 5 arc seconds under the dishes? operational conditions. The strategy of analysis was to conduct an iterative process starting from the measured small strain modulus profile of the ground. The likely maximum pile force for a specific piled foundation option was estimated and a single pile finite element analysis was performed using Plaxis 2D (Version 2010) to estimate the expected ground strain developing along the length of the pile. By assuming the shape of the shear modulus degradation curve with increasing shear strain, the iteration process then converged on a likely degraded modulus profile associated with the single pile and maximum load assumed. This process enabled identifying the pile cap size, pile configuration, pile sizes and pile lengths that would meet the operational movement limits. The chosen pile group configuration was then analyzed using the Repute 1.5 pile group analysis software. The design process and typical results are discussed in this paper.

By Michael Hughes, Selva Selvamohan, Ray Costa

"Cutoff walls are commonly used to mitigate underseepage problems for levee remediation projects. At abrupt changes in seepage cutoff wall depths there is a potential for water to flow around the back of the deeper cutoff wall leading to elevated seepage pressures on the landside that could result in exit gradients exceeding design criteria. This condition is referred to as end-around-effects and is a complex problem that requires detailed and time consuming 3-D numerical modeling to represent accurately. This paper presents a simple approach for assessing end-around-effects using the results of 2- D seepage analysis to determine if lateral extension of the deeper portion of the cutoff wall is required. This simplified approach provides a pragmatic solution to a complex 3-D problem. The presented procedure was used as part of the Feather River West Levee Project in Yuba City, California, to assess end-around-effects at 26 locations. The results showed that wall extensions of up to 100 feet were needed at only 2 locations.INTRODUCTIONAs the lead geotechnical consultant for the Feather River West Levee Project, AECOM were responsible for designing levee remediation works for approximately 35 miles of levee protecting the area around Yuba City, California, and communities to the north and south. Due to land use constraints, seepage cutoff walls were the main remediation alternative selected to address underseepage issues for the project.As part of the design review process, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) requested AECOM to look at 26 locations along the levee alignment where the depth of cutoff wall changed abruptly from shallow to deep, or vice versa. At these locations there was the potential for seepage pressures to pass behind the deeper section of cutoff wall and stress the blanket layer landward of the cutoff wall. A condition referred to as end-around-effects.End-around-effects involve complex 3-D ground conditions that have traditionally been addressed by laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based solely on engineering judgment. In discussions with DWR, AECOM developed a simple procedure to provide a more objective assessment of end-around-effects without the need for detailed and time consuming analysis. This procedure allows the engineer to make an informed decision of whether end-around-effects are a problem at the location of a cutoff wall transition rather than laterally extending the deeper section of cutoff wall an arbitrary distance based on engineering judgment alone."

Jan 1, 2015