Search Documents

By Craig M. Shillaber

On any given day, a simple check of the news will turn up stories related to sustainability, resiliency, climate, or human or natural disaster. In recent years, the winter power grid failure in Texas, the Surfside Condo collapse, unsafe drinking water in Flint, Michi- gan, the Oroville Dam spillway failure, wildfires and flooding (to name a few) have appeared in the U.S. news cycle. As a result, young people are aware of the problems and challenges facing the nation and the world and want to be part of creating sustainable solutions for society. Many choose to major in civil engineering because of a desire to make a difference, address climate change, and develop sustainable and resilient infrastructure for the future. Sustainability is at the core of modern civil engineering practice. In its Policy Statement 418, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) explains sustainability is a set of conditions where human society can indefinitely keep and enhance quality of life without deteriorating economic, environmental and social resources. Sustainability is an integral part of the technical outcomes identified in the ASCE Body of Knowledge and features prominently in the ethical responsi- bilities of engineers based on the latest version of the ASCE Code of Ethics. Thus, to prepare graduates for successful and ethical engineering practice, civil engineering programs must provide instruction in how to account for social, environmental and economic con- straints in design. Since the deep foundations industry is integral to the broader civil engineering and construc- tion fields and is responsible for supporting critical infrastructure on which human society depends, sustainability should be a key con- sideration in foundations projects. Given the importance of sustainability within civil, geotechnical and foundation engineering, it is worthwhile for the deep foundations industry to consider where and how engineers are trained in sustainability topics through higher education at the undergraduate and graduate level, and what is driving sustainability content in civil and geotechnical engineering curricula.

Nov 1, 2022

By George G. Goble

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

Jan 1, 1995

By Cory McElprang, Enamul Hoque, Aaron Thomas, Scott A. Jacobs

Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) only evaluates concrete on the inside of reinforcing cages leaving the outside unevaluated unless other types of testing are performed such as Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL). While there have been some reports of PSL testing having accurately identified anomalies (e.g. Samtani et al 2005), experience by Case Foundation Company has indicated otherwise where false positives were determined with subsequent coring. Numerous cases of PSL false positives are presented as well as a study where a shaft was installed with both inside and outside tubes, and CSL and PSL data were compared. To date, there is very limited data published on perimeter sonic logging, or Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL) with tubes on the exterior of drilled shafts. Several cases will be presented where false positives were experienced where PSL testing was performed. In addition, a direct comparison will also be presented where a shaft was installed with both tubes on the inside and outside where CSL and PSL data is compared. BRIEF HISTORY – CSL TESTING AND TUBES ON INSIDE The general procedure of Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing includes attaching tubes to the reinforcing cage to be able to send a transmitter in one tube and a receiver in another tube with which a sonic pulse is emitted from the transmitter and received in another tube. The time taken for the sonic pulse to travel between the tubes is measured and compared to expected values for the known distance between the tubes. Any increase in time from expected values indicates the sonic pulse traveled through a media other than homogeneous concrete such as objects in the path (spacer wheels, steel bracing, etc.), tube spacing, or soil inclusions. However, variations in arrival time can also result from differences in concrete density. The tubes have traditionally been placed on the interior of the reinforcing cage which protects them during hoisting and placement of the cage and reduces wave refraction caused by modulus of elasticity differences between steel and concrete. This allows the concrete within the interior of the reinforcing cage to be evaluated, but the concrete outside of the cage is excluded from traditional CSL testing. As a result, alternative integrity testing has been developed to not only provide different ways to evaluate the integrity of drilled shafts but to also address the issue of evaluating the concrete outside of the reinforcing cage. These alternative testing methods include Gamma-Gamma Logging (GGL), Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP testing) and Perimeter Sonic Logging (PSL) which is similar to CSL testing but instead of the tubes placed inside the reinforcing cage, the tubes are placed on the outside of the reinforcing cage as shown in Fig. 1.

Jan 1, 2019

By J. A. Hayes

For over a decade the Osterberg Load Cell has been successfully used to determine the shear capacities of drilled shafts. Since the test method measures side shear directly, analytical complications due to the influence of end bearing resistance are removed. The data suggest that the side shear component of a drilled shaft's capacity is often more significant than end bearing. Given the interest in the use of side shear in drilled shaft design in compressible materials, it is important to examine factors that can influence capacity. We have found that some factors widely believed to influence capacity, such as slurry type, are not as important as commonly thought in most materials. Factors that are not usually considered as important, such as casing use, hoop spacing, concrete slump, concrete additives, spacers and rebar clear cover, seem to be more influential with respect to side shear capacity. For example, substantially lower than predicted shear resistance can occur when the rebar clear cover is small with respect to the cage diameter. We observe this most often in fine-grained cohesive soils. This effect can be exaggerated if the rebar cage has tight hoop spacing, if the concrete has low slump and if the hole is not straight. We have also noted that improper use of temporary casing can have a dramatic effect on side shear resistance. In some cases we have observed tested shear capacities reduced to less than 5% of either predicted or available shear values.

Jan 1, 2003

By Richard W. Hanford

The geotechnical construction industry generally considers soil mixing to be defined as an in situ ground improvement or treatment method by which a dry or wet reagent is introduced into the ground and is blended with the soil by mechanical or rotary mixing tools. This results in relatively homogenous mixtures whose engineering properties are improved and are greater than the soil properties before mixing. Reagents usually include cement, but may also include processed clay such as bentonite, when a reduction in hydraulic conductivity is desired, or other proprietary chemicals when chemical stabilization is the objective. Mixing may be either shallow or deep. Shallow Mixing is the term arbitrarily used for treatment of soils within the upper 30 feet; Deep Mixing denotes treatment below 30 feet to the depth limits of the equipment. Mixing equipment may consist of single or multiple-shaft tools having cutting and mixing blades of many different configurations. To avoid using proprietary nomenclature, reference to Shallow Mixing Methods (SMM) and Deep Mixing Methods (DMM) are the preferred terms. Although originally developed and patented in the United States in 1956, in situ construction using various soil mixing methods is more prevalent in Japan and the Scandinavian countries. Reintroduced into the United States from Japan in 1986 for ground improvement and liquefaction mitigation at Jackson Lake Dam, Wyoming, acceptance of soil mixing methods has been gradual but slow. Applications typically include:

Jan 1, 2001

By Jorj O. Osterberg

The Osterberg (O-Cell) Method makes it possible to separate the side shear resistance (skin friction) from end bearing. The O-Cell is placed on or near the bottom of a drilled shaft and after the concrete is poured and cured, an equal upward and downward pressure is applied. From the test, the load-upward deflection curve in side shear and the load-downward deflection curve in end bearing are drawn. Typical curves are shown where the ultimate load in side-shear is reached and where the ultimate load in end bearing is reached. Several examples of tests in which the test load reached ultimate loads far in excess of what was expected are shown. The side shear in rock sockets is shown to be much larger than generally estimated. Examples are given of where side shear is smaller than expected and the reasons discussed. Disturbance of the sides of drilled holes due to poor construction techniques and ways to avoid these conditions are considered. Examples of bottom hole disturbance are given and ways to prevent the disturbance are discussed. A graph showing the actual measured capacity of drilled shafts compared to the estimated capacity as a function of the hardness and strength of the soil or rock is presented.

Jan 1, 1999

By Ryan T. Smith, Anthony Sahj, Alexander T. Darnell

Every second can count when trying to board a departing flight or catch a ride-share to your final destination. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is in the midst of a project that aims to cut about 13 seconds between automated people mover trains (Plane Train) that move passengers between the terminals and concourses. The project involves extending the Plane Train tunnel west from its existing terminus under the domestic terminal. Working from inside non-public areas of the terminal, Keller North America, Inc. (Keller) incorporated systems of micropile-supported steel beams and grillage to both underpin existing columns prior to tunneling and support open-cut excavation at the tie-in of the new to the existing tunnel. Dewatering aided in mining a challenging section at the start of the drive of the mixedface, sequentially excavated tunnel and an automated instrumentation system monitored the performance of the construction and its impact to the terminal. Cut and cover egress and ventilation tunnels required braced support of excavation.

Oct 1, 2022

By Jorj Osterberg

550 load tests of up to 150 MN have been completed on driven and bored piles using the Osterberg Load Cell. Because the test measures side shear and end bearing separately, much can be learned about the forces on the pile as it is loaded to ultimate capacity. At working loads side shear almost always far exceeds end bearing, with the distribution of shear and bearing greatly affected by disturbance occurring during drilling operations. Since much less movement is required to mobilize side shear than end bearing, most of the bearing develops after the working load is exceeded. Thus with insufficient bottom cleaning, safety against excessive settlement can be considerably reduced. Improved methods of drilling, hole cleaning, rebar cage installation and concrete placement are discussed. For rock socket piles it has been found that the ultimate test load far exceeds the working loads in most cases. This is almost always due to greater penetration into the rock than is required for adequate safety against excessive settlement. Factors affecting rock socket capacity are discussed. Increase of side shear and ultimate capacity with time is discussed. Case histories for driven and bored piles in soil and rock sockets are described.

Jan 1, 2001

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

By Marcelo Chuaqui

We certainly have the data to back calculate it. I must admit that I haven't, at the moment my priority is not on what is the stiffness of the jet grout but is making sure that the jet grout is really there. It's a bit like what Stuart Littlejohn was talking about this morning in terms of grouting on the dams a small window causes a big problem so it's having the jet grouting there at all, at the moment must have been my focus rather than just what is the stiffness once you've got it there.

Feb 10, 2003

By R. Paul De Bruyn

A. Crane Check List -- Make -- Model -- Year of Manufacture -- Where is load chart? Is it for this crane? -- Boom style and length -- Boom tip drawing (sketch) for fixed lead connection. Has the crane manufacturer been consulted on the point of attachment? -- How many drums; diameter and length of wire rope. -- Is the single part line pull enough to lift pile or hammer on single part line? -- What is the effective weight of the whole driving system - leads, pile, hammer, etc? -- Are there any auxilliary hydraulic systems? Are the line pulls on these adequate to lift the pile or hammer? -- What is the anticipated working radius? Will the spotter collapse to that length? -- Nature of foundation under crane - barge, marsh, unstable sand, etc. -- Does the crane meet OSAH and state regulations -current certification. Note - the operator is responsible for compliance with regulations. -- Is there any extra weight added to counterweight by compressors or hydraulic systems? What does crane manufacturer say? Consult factory before adding.

Jan 1, 1990

By Les R. Chernauskas

? What is Integrity Testing? ? Cross-Hole Sonic Logging (CSL) ? Single-Hole Sonic Logging (SSL) ? Typical Specifications ? Case Histories ? Observations and Conclusions WHAT IS INTEGRITY TESTING? General Definition ? Process in which the condition or structural makeup of an object can be evaluated with respect to defects such as a reduction in cross section (void or crack) or reduction in material strength (water, slurry, soil mixed with concrete). ? If the defect is severe enough, it can reduce or alter the load carrying ability of the object.

Jan 1, 2001

By B. Philip Shull, Allen W. Cadden, Johanna M. Simon, Michael S. Senior

A 670 linear meter (2,200 linear foot) large-diameter sanitary sewer interceptor installation at depths ranging from 3 to 10 m (10 to 30 ft) below existing grade in an area with a high water table requires careful attention to design and performance of the system during construction. Highly variable soil and rock conditions at the site necessitated the design and construction of various excavation support systems along the alignment. In addition to the subsurface condition challenges faced at this site, the proposed sewer pipe was to be installed between an existing active combined sewer main and a high pressure gas main feeding the nearby city. What better way is there to monitor performance of the system than to require a detailed instrumentation system? Instrumentation system specifications and designs are becoming more commonplace in the industry, but it is always important to sit back and take a look at the whole picture. What are you looking to gain from your monitoring? What pieces of information are useful? What interpretations can you derive from the instrumentation you have selected? This paper will address the instrumentation system used to monitor the 670 m (2,200 ft) excavation from the specification requirements to the implementation and interpretation. This case history will delve into the challenges faced and methods used to overcome those challenges on this particular support of excavation (SOE) project. A combination of soldier pile, lagging and sheeting, and shoring systems was used to achieve the necessary excavation support. In designing the systems, attention was given to the configuration of the bracing system to allow the sections of largediameter pipe to feasibly be installed in the excavation while maintaining the SOE system.

By Frank Rausche

Why testing What tests can be done Dynamic load testing Loading device Measurements Analysis Examples

Jan 1, 2001

By Dawn Shuttle

In trying to find a grout, or some kind of stabilizer that would work in this application, we established some performance criteria. Of those, what I controlled the most was viscosity, then I had a whole list of other criteria. I needed a long, controllable gel time, durability and the ability to set and stabilize the soil. So I looked through a lot of different stabilizers, some really crazy ones and also the typical chemical grouts that are used. The typical chemical grouts were eliminated because of long-term durability concerns, the need for having extended gel times, and several other concerns. I would be happy to discuss that with you further after the talk if you're interested. But, generally it was based on viscosity, gel time, and the need for extended gel time. In terms of the relative density of the sand many other grouts could have been used. But the main issue was trying to develop this way to do low pressure grouting that would not cause invasive disruption of the site. We couldn't go in and grout it, put centers, so most of the other grouts wouldn't work for various reasons. The forty percent relative density samples were prepared by plubiation. That was both during the cyclic testing stage of the research, which happened a few years back, and also during the box model and the laminar box models at RPI. In terms of what criteria were used to determine the success of the grouting, when I initially started this work what I did was take the grouted samples and I subjected them to cyclic triaxial testing. What I did was take a look at the cyclic deformation resistance of different concentrations of grouted colloidal silica treated sand. I looked first at 20% concentration because I wanted something that I knew worked and then I gradually decreased to 15%, 10%, and 5%. What I was most concerned with was that it did not liquefy and that it was able to hold together it and experience some deformation. But most importantly it needed to not liquefy. So, that was the biggest issue in determining the success of the grouting. In terms of the centrifuge modeling it was done by looking at several components: from looking at the pictures of the bending moments, looking at the acceleration records and how the acceleration records were transferred through the soil, looking at the reduction in the lateral displacement and those kinds of issues. So let me show you the difference.

Feb 10, 2003

By Georgette Hlepas

How often phrases like these have been made by project managers and project teams trying to explain why there has been cost growth, project delays and differing site conditions claims. But does it really take x-ray vision? Do we really approach geotechnical construction projects unprepared for the subsurface that may be encountered because we can't get the answer? Too often our industry seems to think the answer is, "yes." However, this is not because we can't understand the subsurface. All too frequently it is because a choice is made to save money or time by foregoing or shortchanging upfront subsurface investigations. This is accepting a risk at the beginning of the process and realizing it during construction. Case histories have proven time and time again that upfront investment in site exploration and constructing a ground model mitigates risk in design and construction. But how much do we prepare? What level of investigation (or investment) is appropriate? The answer of course, is it depends; how much risk are you willing to take for your project and what are the potential consequences?

May 1, 2022

By Mary Ellen Bruce

Let me first address the issue of the wet grab samples. The wet grab samples that were attempted to take on the Central Artery were hindered by the fact that the way the mixing was being done was only by injecting grout on the way out, during withdrawal of the mixing tools. They would auger down to the required depth (usually with some water being injected), which took anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour, and then when coming out, the grout would be injected with grout. That was leaving a column of grout in the center where the shaft had been (i.e. inside of the blades of the mixing tools), which would end up being something like a foot in diameter because the pipe that was used for the drill shaft was a foot in diameter. So we had 10 inches to a foot of almost pure grout in the middle of our column and then we had 2 feet on either side that was mixed soil cement. So when they went down with the wet grab sampler not knowing where that was in the column sometimes they/we were getting strengths of 1500 psi, and sometimes they/we were getting strength of 500 psi or 100 psi. So what was it that we were taking into the wet grab sampler? In those cases you don't really know, but it wasn't representative of the core samples we were taking. We were purposely not coring in the center because we knew that was going to be high cement content, almost pure grout. So the issue of wet grab sampling particularly on this project, the Central Artery Project, was that we didn't really know what we were sampling. What becomes an issue with wet grab sampling in other projects is that you have to have another device (machine) in most cases, a cherry picker crane or something similar that can raise and lower with a beam that is used to forces the sampler down into the freshly mixed soil-cement. And regarding economics, is it more economical to have that crane standing by with its operator or to have a drill rig to come along later and do the coring and take the material out that's fairly identical to what you're finding in situ? The complaint of micro-fracturing in the core samples as you're taking the cores was raised by Seiko as causing large strength reductions. But, if you're doing it carefully, then I don't think that's much of an issue anymore, on research basis perhaps but not on a practical level.

Feb 10, 2003

By Michael D. Justason

...a global perspective... In March of 2000, the Japanese Geotechnical Society added "Rapid Load Testing" to their national standard for pile testing. In the year 2000. it is estimated that there will be more than 500 "Rapid Load Tests" on foundations around the world. ...so what is a "Rapid Load Test", and why is it gaining acceptance and popularity?

Jan 1, 2001

By Reda Mikhail, M. Birkan Bayrak

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) State Route (SR) 167/70th Avenue East Vicinity Bridge Replacement Design-Build project is located in Fife, Washington. This $40 million project consists of replacing the existing 70th Avenue Bridge over Interstate 5 (I-5) with a single-span bridge of about 220 feet long with approach embankments. The subsurface conditions along the new bridge alignment generally consists of alluvial deposits with high potential of liquefaction overlying glacially overridden deposits. In the early stages of the project, drilled shafts were considered as the deep foundation system; however, after an additional subsurface investigation is completed at the site, driven pipe piles were selected as the deep foundation system. Bridge abutments are supported by 24-inch diameter, 80-foot-long open-end driven steel pipe piles. The pile length was determined to bypass a relatively thick liquefiable zone and to tip the piles above what could be compressible soils. The use of advanced seismic analysis was instrumental in optimizing the pile length. The dynamic testing performed on numerous piles indicated what could be unique soil setup factors compared to those measured in local projects as well as those reported in national design manuals. Detailed discussions of the pile foundations design and construction is presented in this paper.

Sep 8, 2021

By Bryan Bet

Retaining wall systems of soldier pile ground anchors (SPGAs) have been used for many decades to stabilize landslide activity. Due to successful use of these walls to address slope instability on the California state highway system, their use has expanded to include larger, more complex landslide mitigations. The increase in size and scope of SPGA wall applications, combined with more stringent seismic design standards, have created new and unique challenges for design and construction. Constructability issues are revealing themselves in real time in Northern California, where the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recently completed two large SPGA wall projects on state highways: the Peregrine Slide Project in inland Mendocino County, and the Westport Slide Complex located along coastal Highway 1. Each presented unique construction challenges that needed to be overcome quickly to make the projects successful. This article highlights some construction difficulties encountered on these projects, in greater depth, than what I covered last summer at DFI's S3: Slopes, Slides and Stabiliza- tion conference in San Francisco. Also covered are what steps were taken to overcome these difficulties, and mitigation advice for future wall designs. Specifically, ground anchor installation interference, ground anchor elongation variance, and difficulties with large diameter ground anchor drilled holes will be discussed.

Jul 1, 2022