Search Documents

By Paul M. Schuman, Alessandro Bertero, Giuliana A. Zelada, Sharon G. Cranston

Many jet grouted columns were recently installed to create a jet grout-treated soil foundation for an earthen embankment used in a large shoreline stabilization project in the Mystic River in Charlestown, MA. A physical test program was used to determine whether the jet grouting parameters the Contractor selected would meet the design requirements given the local soil variability, including soft river sediments and organic soils. The presence of hydrocarbons encountered in the marine sediments during the test program caused concern that the design strength could not be achieved. The published literature discusses the environmental aspects of jet grouting with hydrocarbons. The literature did not include many studies of the effect on jet grout-treated soil strength for the types and concentration of hydrocarbons encountered on this project. The grout mix, air pressure, and number of passes of jet grouting were varied in a second field test program to determine jet grouting parameters needed to achieve the design strength of columns with hydrocarbons. A geo-probe study was performed to identify the type and concentration of hydrocarbons on the site. With few exceptions, the quality control core samples from the production columns met the design requirements with many strength values far exceeding the design strength. This paper presents the data, and reviews the lessons learned. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Charlestown Bus Garage, located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is a Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) bus maintenance facility located on the Mystic River. The site was home to a coal gasification facility before it was developed by the MBTA as a bus garage in 1978. A deadman-anchored steel sheet pile bulkhead wall installed along the Mystic river on the east side of the site supports the site grade at about El. 11 ft (NAVD 1988) (Figure 1).

Jan 1, 2019

By Patrick J. Hannigan, Alex Ryberg, Rozbeh B. Moghaddam

Driven piles are widely used for foundation support. In the vast majority of cases, an increase in pile capacity occurs with time which is referred to as “set-up.” However, in a very limited number of cases, a decrease in capacity with time can occur. This phenomenon is referred to as “relaxation.” This paper will provide a brief review of the relaxation phenomenon, as well as pile driving information and dynamic test data on cases where relaxation has occurred. The pile types in the presented relaxation cases include H-piles, open-end and closed-end pipe piles, prestressed concrete piles, and prestressed concrete piles with H-pile stingers. The soil conditions where relaxation occurred includes dense to very dense fine sands, heavily over consolidated clays, and weak laminated rocks. Relaxation information from 36 piles at 26 sites is assessed. The collected data will assist foundation designers by identifying the subsurface conditions where relaxation has occurred, as well as by documenting the corresponding relaxation magnitude. One method of addressing relaxation when it is encountered is to drive the foundation piles to a greater end of initial driving capacity than required long-term. Hence, the identification and quantification of the relaxation magnitude will be beneficial to foundation designers installing similar pile types in similar subsurface conditions. The paper will also present pertinent observations and recommendations on mitigating relaxation when encountered. INTRODUCTION One of the earliest observations of a decrease in redriving resistance following initial driving was reported by Miller (1937). He reported that piles driven into a saturated, coarse grained soil could lose 40 to 50% of their resistance when redriven 24 hours after initial driving. Yang (1956) similarly reported that after a break in driving, a decrease in driving resistance could be encountered for piles driven in dense fine sand, inorganic silt, or stiff fissured clay. Parsons (1966) in his paper that described piling difficulties in the New York City metropolitan area termed this phenomenon “relaxation”. In this time period, pile capacity was most often evaluated from a pile driving formula frequently checked by a static load test. Hence, the true magnitude of the capacity decrease on a given pile was often poorly quantified. Furthermore, dynamic measurements that could determine what influence driving system performance variation had on the observed redriving resistance were not yet readily available.

Jan 1, 2019

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

"Limit states design (LSD), or load and resistance factor design (LRFD), is a method to account for the uncertainty in loads and resistance through a reliability calibration that requires all applicable limit states (strength, service and extreme) to be checked during foundation design. LRFD has been in use internationally for several decades; however it wasn’t until recently that engineers working on highway projects were required to use the method for the design of highway bridges and other appurtenances. Although the bridge community has been using a form of limit states design for structural components since the early 1970s, the design of foundations for bridges, walls and other geotechnical features had long been performed using allowable stress design (ASD), whereby all uncertainty in loads and material resistance is combined in a single factor of safety. While the move to LRFD was viewed as a more rational approach for the design of bridges and structures, the transition to its use for geotechnical engineering has been met by many with confusion and difficulties in application. This article will revisit the history of transition from ASD to LRFD for geotechnical engineering, summarize the status of the transition and issues with its use, and briefly discuss some emerging research opportunities for improving and advancing the design platform.Background and HistoryUntil about a decade ago, foundations and substructures for bridges were traditionally designed using ASD, while the superstructure was designed using load factor design (LFD), a precursor to LRFD that incorporated factored design loads but no risk assessment. This combination led to uncertain and incompatible safety margins in design for the various bridge components. In 1986, the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures (SCOBS) concluded that the standard bridge specifications in use at the time for U.S. transportation projects had significant inconsistencies and gaps, wasn’t up to date with emerging technology and that the development of new specifications was warranted. The proposed solution by the subcommittee was to transition to a more coherent method of design where applicable failure and serviceability conditions could be evaluated considering the uncertainties associated with loads and resistance."

Jan 1, 2015

By Sumantra Sengupta

"Northeast Frontier Railway (NF Railway) intends to connect Imphal, the capital of Manipur (bordering Myanmar) with Assam by railway link. They have planned a 125km long railway line that passes through steep rolling hills of Patkai region, eastern trail of Himalaya, and as a result large number of tunnels and bridges need to be designed. While the high mountains are penetrated by tunnel, the deep gorges between the mountain ridges are connected by tall bridges. The tallest of such bridges connects a gorge at about 140m above its bed level with an overall length about 700m at rail level. In all, five such bridges with tall piers are now under construction. With extensive study on possible alternate arrangement of the bridges considering the effect of high seismicity of the area, moderately to highly weathered siltstone/ sandstone as ground bed material, slope of the hills etc it was decided that bridge will be founded on 1.5m diameter bored cast in situ piles with length varying from 20m to 30m depending on the location. The substructures are RCC hollow pier and superstructures are steel open web through type girder of 103.5m span. Considering absence of any major construction work in the vicinity, it was decided that prior to design work, Site-specific spectrum study will be carried out and design will be carried out considering the varying stiffness of the tall piers, each of different height. Interesting results were obtained regarding behavior of piles under lateral loads generated by high seismic conditions. The paper discusses in detail the design of Pile foundations and the effect of bed material along the steep slope on which the piles are being constructed.INTRODUCTIONIndian Railway has undertaken the construction work of connecting the North-Eastern states of India through railway line. The major stretches of the area passes through hilly terrain and as a result the line passes through tunnels and bridges in succession. The tall mountains are being penetrated with tunnels and immediate after deep gorges are crossed with high level bridges. The entire area is under high seismically active zone. The bed material below the ground level of the sloped hill is 4 to 10 meter of mixed soil of sand, gravel, pebbles etc underlain by moderately to highly weathered sandstone, siltstone at the higher level and moderately weathered sandstone, siltstone at lower level. Considering all the aspects like constructability, maintainability, geological and geotechnical aspect, seismicity, stability, safety, functional aspect and cost it was finally decided that the bridges will be simply supported structure with open web through type steel superstructure of maximum span 103.5m and hollow cylindrical discretely varying RCC substructure with 1.5m diameter group of piles as foundation. The paper discusses on the design aspect of the pile foundation in the rocky strata in the hill slope. The codes and standards that have been followed for design are IRS (Indian Railway Standard), IS (Indian Standard), IRC (Indian Road Congress), AREMA (American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association), UIC (International Union of Railway) provisions."

Jan 1, 2015

By George W. Little, John Councilman

"The selection, evaluation, and modification of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers, completed by the slurry trench excavation method, can be one of the most critical and challenging tasks to ensure the cutoff wall meets the design performance criteria. Contractor mix designs should incorporate all available geotechnical data, including subsurface soil characteristics, groundwater information, and potential site contaminates. However, the pre-construction mix design can have limitations if subsurface data is limited or shows variability from initial investigations. Placement of the seepage barrier material needs to be evaluated during construction to identify in-situ performance. In one particular case study, the self-hardening cutoff wall mix design was evaluated over a one year period followed by a year and a half installation period, in which, a number of adjustments were made to the laboratory mix design during construction due to performance in the field. Installation for the selected mix was monitored on a real-time basis, using quality control data, as well as early strength and permeability results to determine if adjustments to the self-hardening mix were necessary. Evaluation of early results and relationships between strength and permeability were used to make adjustments prior to achieving the final test results for 28-day strength and permeability. Test results of the installed mix illustrated a direct correlation between strength and permeability. Achieving a minimum unconfined compressive strength was necessary to meet the minimum permeability of the seepage barrier. Other determinations conclude that the thorough development of a pre-construction mix design can have limitations even when all geotechnical data and site conditions are taken into account. Understanding early indicators and key strength and permeability relationships are necessary to determine seepage barrier performance and limitations.IntroductionThe evaluation of contractor mix designs for self-hardening seepage barriers was reviewed for one particular case study where a mix was developed using available geotechnical background information, including considerations for impacted groundwater. Following development of the laboratory mix design, the seepage barrier wall was installed over a one and a half year period, where the contractor mix design was evaluated and modified to accommodate field conditions affecting performance. The objective of the project was to cutoff and collect impacted groundwater and prevent the migration of contaminants to the creek running adjacent to the project. The self-hardening seepage barrier wall was installed using the slurry trench excavation method along 4700 ft of alignment and extended to depths ranging from 20 to 85 ft below ground surface, where it tied in with a low permeability stratum or competent bedrock."

Jan 1, 2016

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

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

By Juan M. Pestana-Nascimento, Robert G. Bea, Hamed Hamedifar, Emery M. Roe

The current State-of-the-Practice is grounded heavily on deterministic characterization and assessment of the performance of civil engineering infrastructure. In particular, flood defense systems, such as levees, have been evaluated within the context of the Factor-of-Safety where the computed capacity of the system is compared with the code specified demand forces. Uncertainties associated with the capacity and demand forces render deterministic modeling incomplete. In particular, two structures with the same Factor of Safety can have vastly different probabilities of failure. While efforts have been made to assess levee vulnerability, results from traditional engineering approaches omit important factors because they do not account for uncertainties included in analytical modeling, and natural variabilities, or human and organization factors. This paper utilizes risk assessment methods to advance methods for quantifying the contribution of uncertainties to engineering analyses, and thereby provide additional information to help assess sustainability of geotechnically engineered systems. The probability of failure of a geotechnically engineered system is directly impacted by how well the system is understood, and how uncertainties are incorporated in development of understanding of the system. This paper presents methods to evaluate two types of uncertainties for three potential failure modes of flood protection levees: underseepage, slope (or levee) instability, and overtopping/erosion. These analyses account for two types of uncertainty: 1) Type I – inherent uncertainty, 2) Type II – analytical modeling uncertainty. Human and organizational task performance and information development and utilization uncertainties are not included in these analyses. This paper focuses on the behavior of the flood protection levee system for Sherman Island, a western island in California’s Delta. Sherman Island is of critical importance to California because of the very important infrastructure systems that pass under, on, over, and adjacent to Sherman Island, including: natural gas pipelines, regional and interregional electricity transmission lines and telecommunication facilities, two deepwater shipping channels; and State Highway 160, a link between major transportation expressways. The work evaluates current (year 2010) and future conditions (year 2100) and incorporates variations in capacity and demand arising from projected human response activities and global climate change.

Jan 1, 2017

By Rohrbach

Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing is commonly used to verify the integrity, quality and ultimately the acceptability of the concrete in structural elements such as drilled shaft foundations, secant pile cutoff walls, and secant/tangent pile earth retention structures. Besides concrete quality, many factors can impact CSL test results (e.g. laitance, air temperature, access tube spacing, access tube debonding, etc.). Effective use of CSL testing requires fully informed qualified practitioners capable of distinguishing between abnormal readings unrelated to deficiencies in the drilled shaft concrete and similar readings indicating the presence or possible presence of drilled shaft defects. Based on data and experience gathered from CSL testing of thousands of drilled shafts across North America, this paper discusses such factors and other information useful when evaluating CSL test results, and provides practical recommendations intended to reduce the potential for incorrect test data interpretation. The CSL testing industry is lacking in a clear, universally accepted guideline for the interpretation of CSL data and acceptance criteria of these concrete elements. This paper proposes terminology and a streamlined process for use when atypical results are obtained. The proposed terminology and method are intended to simplify and expedite the submittal review and approval process. Because construction activities for these elements are often on the project?s critical path, the benefits obtained in terms of project savings and reducing costly delays are undoubtedly valuable.

By Michal Topolnicki

"Discussed is the use of wet Deep Soil Mixing, generally executed with single mixing tools 0.8 to 1.6m in diameter, employed in the foundation of viaduct supports. The applications involve economical patterns of ground improvement, covering in average about 40% of the foundation area or less, which contribute to the competitiveness of DSM solutions when compared to traditional piling. The focus is on selected aspects of the geotechnical design, applicable for geo-composite systems in which the interaction between the stabilised and the native soil should also be considered. Evaluation of settlement can be carried out with simplified methods, accounting for punching effects, or with more advanced FE models in case foundation tilt or differential settlements become important. Potential bending of DSM columns should be considered when evaluating column stresses, especially when dealing with deep deposits of soft soil and/or foundations loaded with overturning moments and/or high horizontal forces. Statistical evaluation of UCS data using lognormal distribution is recommended, and a new classification system for DSM application is proposed. Field investigations and monitoring data from completed projects are also presented.INTRODUCTIONThe first applications of wet Deep Soil Mixing in foundation of road viaducts constructed across and along the newly built A2-highway in Poland took place in 2002. Following detailed analyses, it was concluded that 39 viaducts, originally designed to rest upon large diameter piles in order to reduce excessive settlement of individual supports, could also be founded directly on the ground improved with DSM columns, fulfilling all relevant requirements of serviceability and ultimate limit states (SLS and ULS, respectively). It was also noticed that shorter construction times and lower costs of ground improvement with DSM contributed to substantial economical savings as compared to classical piling. Since then, more than 250 road and railway viaducts have been successfully founded on DSM treated ground in Poland, and wet soil mixing is now seen as a reliable and widely accepted technology for this purpose. These applications, together with a parallel use of wet DSM for foundation of buildings, industrial halls and wind turbines, have drawn international attention to the state of practice of wet DSM in Poland for foundation of engineering objects. What follows is an attempt to summarise experience gained during planning and execution of DSM works for foundation of the majority of road and railway viaducts constructed in the last 13 years, with emphasis on selected design aspects and evaluation of collected data and observed performance.The design process of DSM treatment is iterative, as described e.g. in Annex B of EN 14679, and typically involves two main steps, i.e., the selection of the design strength of cemented soil, called soil-mix design, and the adoption of suitable column pattern, referred to as geotechnical design. Soil-mix design was initially based on purposely arranged simple laboratory tests, involving mixing of soil specimen with different cement types and dosages and subsequent strength testing. However, with a growing number of completed projects the accumulated field strength data of different stabilised soils have been more and more frequently used, reducing the need for preceding laboratory testing of soil-mix to special projects only. Information on cement factors utilised in Poland and the range of recommended compressive strengths for different stabilised soils, as well as on mixing tools and characteristics of the wet method applied, can be found in Topolnicki (2008). Consequently, soil-mix design is not further discussed herein. Selected aspects of the geotechnical design are the main focus."

Jan 1, 2015

By Mark A. Rohrbach, Timothy R. Kovacs, PhD Saidin

"Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) testing is commonly used to verify the integrity, quality and ultimately the acceptability of the concrete in structural elements such as drilled shaft foundations, secant pile cutoff walls, and secant/tangent pile earth retention structures. Besides concrete quality, many factors can impact CSL test results (e.g. laitance, air temperature, access tube spacing, access tube debonding, etc.). Effective use of CSL testing requires fully informed qualified practitioners capable of distinguishing between abnormal readings unrelated to deficiencies in the drilled shaft concrete and similar readings indicating the presence or possible presence of drilled shaft defects. Based on data and experience gathered from CSL testing of thousands of drilled shafts across North America, this paper discusses such factors and other information useful when evaluating CSL test results, and provides practical recommendations intended to reduce the potential for incorrect test data interpretation. The CSL testing industry is lacking in a clear, universally accepted guideline for the interpretation of CSL data and acceptance criteria of these concrete elements. This paper proposes terminology and a streamlined process for use when atypical results are obtained. The proposed terminology and method are intended to simplify and expedite the submittal review and approval process. Because construction activities for these elements are often on the project’s critical path, the benefits obtained in terms of project savings and reducing costly delays areundoubtedly valuable.1. INTRODUCTIONCSL testing is used extensively throughout the world on many projects to verify the quality of concrete used for drilled shaft foundations, secant pile walls, diaphragm walls, etc. In this paper, these structural elements will be referred to as “drilled shafts,” as they are the most common subject of this test method. In the United States, CSL testing is frequently specified by state and regional transportation agencies, ports, design builders, and others. Although other methods are currently available such as Gamma-Gamma Logging and low-strain Impulse-Echo or Sonic-Echo testing, and new methods are under development such as the Thermal Integrity testing, CSL testing is likely to remain one of the most useful tools for evaluating the acceptability of constructed drilled shafts for quite some time. The popularity of CSL as a testing method can be attributed to two main factors: 1) there is no depth limitation to the method and 2) the apparent ease of interpreting the results. A third advantage of CSL testing is that, when correctly interpreted and with adequate test coverage, it is unlikely to misrepresent a defective profile resulting in acceptance of a defective or inadequate drilled shaft. In other words, CSL testing is very likely to underestimate concrete quality/drilled shaft acceptability within its area of coverage."

Jan 1, 2017

Jan 1, 2003

By T. Jason Hardell

The Victory Bridge project was contracted by the New Jersey Department of Transportation. The project included the construction of two 4000-ft precast segmental concrete bridges to replace the existing Victory Bridge that was built in the 1920's. The existing bridge was a swing span bridge that was in desperate need of replacement. The project was considered high priority due to the large maintenance costs to keep the swing span operating over the busy navigational channel. In March of 2003 construction began on the first bridge and by April of 2005 all of the segments were set for the second bridge. On September 5 of 2005 the second bridge was open to traffic. The total cost of the project was $110-million. The two new bridges required the construction of 24-eight foot and 32-six foot diameter-drilled shafts with rock sockets. All of the shafts were constructed in the tidal Raritan River working from barges. What will follow is a description of the construction techniques that were used to build these drilled shafts, the anticipated and unanticipated challenges that were encountered during the project, and the lessons learned.

Jan 1, 2005

By C. M. Haberfield

"1 INTRODUCTION Around the world, there is a demand for larger structures, tall buildings and large bridges. While good footing design is important for all structures, it is even more important in the case of large structures. Recent experience with footing design for tall buildings (e.g. Burj Al Alam development and Nakheel Tower in Dubai, the Gate of Kuwait in Kuwait, the City Centre Project in Bahrain and Eureka Tower and Freshwater Place in Melbourne) has shown the benefits of investing in footing planning, design and construction (Haberfield, 2011, Poulos and Bunce, 2007). The footing systems for most of these projects include the use of deep bored piles or barrettes (piles of rectangular cross-section). Many use piled rafts where the piles, while acting to support the load, are primarily used to reduce settlements. A clear understanding of the factors controlling the behaviour of the footing system is needed to enable a good engineering design to be achieved. This starts with a sound understanding of the ground characteristics and individual pile performance, including adequate collection of data and testing. The best footing solution can then be found using recent improvements in data collection and analytical techniques, complex and highly capable computer-based models and the availability of high speed computers. This paper focuses on the axial performance of deep bored piles socketed into rock – both their individual performance and their performance as part of a larger footing system. Recent research and construction practice is discussed. In practically all cases, serviceability conditions control the behaviour of the footings. Methods of establishing the parameters for input into sophisticated computer programs are described. Application of the methods to case studies is included and it is shown that the behaviour of individual piles can be closely predicted. These developments lead to lower construction costs, better constructability and shortened construction time because of the better understanding of footing behaviour. 2 FACTORS AFFECTING PERFORMANCE OF FOOTINGS ON ROCK For a typical pile-supported footing, it is necessary to consider both individual pile, pile group and raft performance. These require consideration of the behaviour of the ground immediately beneath the surface raft or footing, along the pile shaft, and at and beneath the pile toe (Figure 1). Immediately beneath the surface raft or footing, the important factors are strength for bearing capacity and stiffness for settlement and interaction effects. Along the pile shaft, of most interest are strength for bearing, excavatability and stability; stiffness for settlement and interaction effects; geology and permeability for pile stability and, most importantly, pile shaft resistance. At the pile toe all the above factors for the pile shaft are present and in addition the pile end bearing is of interest. Below the toe, stiffness for pile settlement is important to at least a depth of twice the building width."

Jan 1, 1900

"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

Jan 1, 1992

By Drew Floyd

Five full-scale pile load tests were performed on pairs of PZ-22 sheet piles installed with a vibratory pile driving hammer. The sheet piling was installed in several locations in soil generally consisting of miscellaneous granular fills overlying soft organic silts, inorganic silt interbedded with sands and gravels, very dense glacial till and shale bedrock. The test program also included the use of tip tell tales to determine what capacity could be attributed to tip resistance and skin friction. During the design phase of the project, it was assumed that the capacity of the sheet piles driven with the vibratory hammer could be correlated with the rate of penetration. The correlation between vertical capacity and rate of penetration would be used as a basis for determination of a driving criteria from driving the production sheet piling. The sheet piling load tests demonstrated that it was not possible to correlate the capacity of sheet piling driven with a vibratory hammer and the rate of penetration. It was also demonstrated that the capacity of the sheet piles was directly related to the density of the soil at or just below the tip. The results also tend to agree with empirical equations provided by Meyerhof (1976).

Jan 1, 1989

By Ray Schmahl

The Glenwood Canyon is a 13 mile long river gorge formed by the Colorado River approximately 2 miles East of Glenwood Springs, Colorado and approximately 150 miles West of Denver Colorado, (See Drawing #1). The canyon walls rise some 800 feet from the river elevation on either side of the river. The South-side river bank is occupied by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad. The Northside is currently occupied by completed sections of Interstate 70 and US Highway 6. The railroad was built in the late 1800's and a hydroelectric power generating station was built in about the center of the canyon in the early 1900's. The Highway 6 platform was completed in the 1930's. The design and alignment for Interstate 70 thru Glenwood Canyon began in the early 1970's. The Highway thru Glenwood Canyon was designated a scenic Highway by the United States Congress, thereby allowing certain deviations from standard Interstate requirements. Environmentalists objections to the construction of Interstate Highways thru Glenwood Canyon resulted in especially careful design to avoid adverse environmental impacts. As a result, in many areas the new Highways will have restored the canyon to its more native configuration than what was the case in the building of the US 6 Highway platform.

Jan 1, 1990

By Maurice Bottiau

It is a quite challenging objective to aim at covering in one paper the most recent evolution in piling and deep foundations technologies. This report has to be understood within the limits of the session 2b. It will therefore concentrate on the technological evolution of deep foundation techniques, addressing design issues only when directly related to execution aspects. For the same reason, it will not address the related codes, as a separate session of this conference is specifically dedicated to this topic. Monitoring and deep excavations being covered in other sessions, they will only be addressed when clearly relevant. We will try to show, from a practical viewpoint what are the main changes and the most exciting or critical issues over the last years, as they appear from the topics addressed in the literature or in the papers published in this session of the conference. As the paper mostly intends to explain trends and critical topics, it cannot be exhaustive, neither can it give the full description of the case studies. The author invites the reader to read the full papers, for a more complete description. We have divided our report in three main topics: Piling, soil improvement and treatment and retaining walls. Anchors and tie-backs will not be treated, neither tunneling.

Jan 1, 2006

Jan 1, 1996