Search Documents

By Satyajit A. Vaidya

This paper presents a case-study in the design and construction of deep foundation element supported mats for two residential towers on an18,000-square-foot site in Brooklyn, New York. Based on site sub-surface conditions, conventional mat foundations bearing on medium dense sand, having an allowable bearing capacity of 3 tsf, were originally anticipated for the 16 and 25-story towers. However, when the tower shear walls were relocated to the edges of the mat foundations due to architectural revisions, the significantly increased mat edge contact stresses applied to the soil subgrade resulted in calculated settlements of a magnitude that would adversely impact the proposed structures and the neighboring/bordering lot-line building and rail transit subway structures. To address this issue, deep foundation element supported mats were designed for the towers. The design was performed as an iterative process involving structural SAFE and geotechnical Plaxis finite element computer analysis to develop a coordinated geo-structural model of the foundation system. Initial presumptive design values of 45 pci and 445 kips/inch were used for the modulus of subgrade reaction and minimum deep foundation element stiffness, respectively. The designed foundation system consisted of 40 and 60-inch-thick mat foundations for the 16 and 25 story towers, respectively. Initially, the deep foundation elements were designed as 50-foot-long, 14-inch-diameter elements installed to sustain a maximum individual compressive load of 250 tons. The final deep foundation element design was subsequently refined to consist of a 48-foot-long, drilled and grouted IBO Titan 103/51 element designed to sustain a maximum load of 167 tons. Subsequent field load tests on the deep foundation elements confirmed element stiffness ranging from 1,040 to 1,530 kips/inch, with measured mobilized side shear of about 29 psi. The mat foundation reinforcement was adjusted for the pile stiffness values determined in the field load tests, and the deep foundation supported mats were constructed. The two towers were subsequently constructed, and have performed successfully.

Jan 1, 2010

By Lorie M. Dilley

Alaska Village Electric Cooperative (AVEC), an electric utility cooperative providing power to 51 Alaska villages, has made a concerted effort to install wind turbines in the villages they serve in an effort to mitigate the growing costs of electrical power generation. The subsurface soils in several of these villages consist of sands and silts with ground temperatures of between 30°F and 32°F. The presence of warm, degrading permafrost in three of the villages has required innovative foundation designs, including the use of helical piers and piles to support steel and concrete wind turbine foundations. The design of the deep foundations had to account for the effects of degrading permafrost likely resulting from observed climate change patterns. Uplift forces imposed on the foundations were approximately 100 kips per pile. Uplift pile load testing was conducted on the installed piers and piles in order to determine the actual working load that each pier or pile could sustain. In addition, pile driving analyzer testing was conducted on several piles installed in the permafrost and compared to pile load tests. Results indicated that the installed piers and piles achieved the necessary capacity with sufficient factors of safety. Thermosyphons were installed near the foundations in order to limit the effects of climate change on the permafrost. The two to four wind turbines in each of the three villages are currently operational. Refinement of the design based on the pile testing from the first village to the third has decreased the cost of the tower foundations and improved our understanding of designing for warm, degrading permafrost.

Jan 1, 2010

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 Bastian Hoffmann, Christian Moormann

The paper presents results of an experimental study on the axial load bearing behavior of vibratory driven full displacement piles in comparison with impact driven and cyclic quasi-static installed piles in dense sand. The test setup and the measurement devices used to this end are explained. Subsequently, the results of the axial loading like load settlement curves are shown and the impact of the installation method is interpreted. The results presented in this work are mainly based on three installation methods: test series one investigates axial behavior of vibratory driven piles, test series two describe the same cyclic pile installation process but without dynamic influence wherein a special test setup developed to install the piles cyclic quasi-static in the soil was used. A third test series carried out using the conventional impact pile driving method served the purpose of not only comparing the results against vibratory driving, but also aided in isolating the effects of dynamics inherent to the vibratory driving process.

May 1, 2022

By Dr Karsten Galipp, Kai-Julian I. Hendler, Prof. Manuel G. Pinheiro, Dr Peter J. Bourne-Webb

With a share of approximately 11% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the construction industry contributes significantly towards climate change. This is why construction projects should not only be assessed on costs and technical solutions, but also on their carbon emissions. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool which can quantify the environmental impacts of a construction project over its entire lifetime. The objective of this study was to determine the carbon footprint of three types of quay wall structures, namely sheet pile combi-walls, open piled decks and caissons using an LCA approach. Each of these quay walls were studied under the same boundary conditions, such as design life, ground conditions, dimensions, location and so on. The analysis showed that the sheet pile wall has the lowest carbon footprint whereas the open piled structure has the highest. Furthermore, it could be shown that the largest share of greenhouse gases (approximately 80%) is emitted during the production of construction materials. The transportation of materials and construction activities each contributed under 12% to total emissions. The sensitivity analysis showed that with innovative approaches, such as adapting the concrete mix design, the carbon footprint could be reduced by 26% to 40%.

May 1, 2022

By João Veludo, Eduardo Júlio, Helen D. Robinson, Jesús E. Gómez

"Utilization of micropiles for structural retrofit requires connection of the micropiles to the footings of the existing structure. Almost ten years ago, an experimental research effort was carried out in the US to investigate the magnitude and mechanism of development of the bond strength between micropiles and existing concrete. The study resulted in important conclusions on the mechanism of connection capacity development and provided specific recommendations for practical design of micropile-to-footing connections. In the last five years, the original study was complemented by an intensive experimental effort in Portugal aimed at answering many of the questions still remaining on this topic. This paper is a summary of the knowledge that is presently available on the capacity of micropile-to-existing footing connections. It presents the results and observations of model tests performed in the US and Portugal, as well as some tests from actual construction sites. The paper presents clear evidence that friction may be the most important component of connection capacity. It also presents a clear correlation between confinement and connection capacity.IntroductionUtilization of micropiles for structural retrofit requires connection of the micropiles to the footings of the existing structure. This is often accomplished by drilling through the footing and developing the connection by direct bond between the micropile grout and the existing concrete. Almost ten years ago, an experimental research effort was carried out in the US to investigate the magnitude and mechanism of development of the bond strength between micropiles and existing concrete. Smooth and textured micropile inserts of varying lengths were tested to failure inside pre-drilled holes of varying diameters. That investigation led to several publications (Gomez et al. 2005, Wilder et al. 2005, Cadden 2009) on the mechanism of development of bond strength between micropiles and concrete, which included a chart for preliminary bond value selection depending on the diameter of the hole and texture of the micropile.An intensive testing program was carried out in Portugal in the last five years. The program focused on answering questions posed by the original investigation and on finding the relationship between connection capacity and level of confinement. Both investigations, and especially the testing performed in Portugal, provided an invaluable amount of information on the mechanisms of failure of micropile-to-footing connections. This information should be the basis for development of design procedures that, until now, were not available."

Jan 1, 2015

By Kevin P. Gleckler, Steven C. Highfill

"Escalators to access platforms for the Second Avenue Subway Station at 72nd Street in Manhattan are to be installed in the basement of an existing 19-Story residential building. The escalators, which extend below the existing building foundations, require excavation of an inclined rock cavern up to 80-feet deep. Underpinning of columns within the 19-story building as well as a stone masonry party wall and columns for an adjacent 5-story building was completed prior to excavation of the rock cavern to ensure structural stability.This paper will discuss the analysis and design of the underpinning system, the installation and load transfer procedures and the cavern excavation immediately below. The underpinning system was subject to very strict deformation limits and to electronic monitoring prior to and throughout the load transfer and construction process. Key details such as the load transfer mechanism between the reinforced concrete column and the temporary structural steel underpinning frame will be discussed. The challenging rock excavation process will be described which utilized conventional equipment and pattern drilling with Damite rock splitting mortar.INTRODUCTIONPhase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway is being built by MTA Capital Construction (MTACC) to improve subway service on the east side of Manhattan. Entrance 1 for the 72nd Street Station of the Second Avenue Subway is located on the east side of 2nd Avenue at the corner of E 69th Street in New York City. Access to the station mezzanine, approximately 80-feet below grade, is designed to be routed through the basement of an existing 19-story residential building. From the sidewalk, stairs and escalators within the width of sidewalk connect the riding public to a basement level mezzanine, which turns into the building at roughly 16 feet below grade (Fig. 1). Riders then connect to three long escalators to arrive at the station mezzanine. The escalators are to be installed within an inclined and arched cast-in-place (CIP) concrete lined rock cavern (Fig. 2). Construction of both the entrance into the basement and the escalator cavern require the transfer of columns within the 19-story building. Excavation of the escalator cavern also impacts the foundation support for columns and a load bearing party wall for the 5-story residential building immediately to the north. Two stages of load transfer were used at each location. The Stage 1 transfer used a temporary underpinning system to unload the current structure which allowed for construction of the permanent transfer girders. Stage 2 transferred the load from the temporary system to the permanent transfer girders."

Jan 1, 2016

By William G. Ryan, David S. Graham, Dan A. Brown, Rich A. Lamb, Paul J. Axtell

"The St. Croix River Crossing project on the Minnesota-Wisconsin border has been in the process of planning and public debate for two decades, with several changes in alignment. During the course of the earlier planning process in 1995, a drilled shaft load test was performed to obtain preliminary design information. There were some difficulties in maintaining stability within the weak sandstone bearing formation, and the measured axial resistance was relatively low. Subsequent experience by the Minnesota Department of Transportation with similar weak sandstones on the I-35W project suggests that improved construction techniques using modern drilling fluids may offer opportunities for improved performance. During final design in 2012 a second load test program was performed of a full scale test shaft constructed using polymer drilling fluids. The stability of the socket excavation in the weak sandstone appeared to be greatly improved and the measured axial resistance significantly higher.This case history illustrates the excellent performance that drilled shafts can provide in even relatively weak sandstone bedrock as well as the profound influence on axial resistance associated with the construction techniques used. The improved resistance values obtained by the new load test with more recent construction technology allowed the foundation scheme to be substantially optimized with respect to the number and size of required drilled shafts, reducing the size, cost, and risk of the coffercells and footings.IntroductionThe Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has awarded the first phase of a bridge construction project that will cross the St. Croix River between Oak Park Heights, MN and St Joseph, WI. The first phase construction contract involves building the river pier substructures including groups of drilled shafts beneath each tower leg. A general location of the bridge project is provided in Figure 1.Prior to award of the construction contract, two separate design-phase axial load tests were performed on non-production drilled shafts with rock sockets. Both tests were static, bottom-up tests using the Osterberg Cell (O-cell). The first test was performed in 1995 when final design and construction was thought to be imminent. After years of public debate and literally, an act of Congress, design of the project was finally restarted and a second load test performed in 2012. The 1995 test was conducted on the Minnesota bank approximately 900 ft southwest of the St. Croix River bank. The 2012 test was conducted in the river about 2,100 ft northeast of the1995 test location. A plan-view of the project indicating the test program locations relative to the bridge alignment is provided in Figure 2."

Jan 1, 2015

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect project-specific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project. 1. SCOPE The work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, and testing helical piles used to support foundation loads (compression, tension and lateral), and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment and materials necessary to install the required piles. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows: • The Owner is the property owner. • The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to design and oversee the overall project. • The pile designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical piles. • Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical piles, and possibly tasks associated with the project. It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development. The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of pile performance if required by the Owner or the pile designer to confirm performance of the piles subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional piles if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2015

By Paul M. C. B. M. Cools, Martin Th. van Staveren

In 2010, the 5-years joint industry programme Geo-Impuls started in the Netherlands. The ambitious goal of this programme is to reduce geotechnical failures in our civil engineering projects by half in 2015. In the Geo-Impuls programme over 40 client organizations, engineering firms, contractors, research institutes, and universities are involved. In a risk-driven way, and based on top risks and dilemmas, the participants defined three central development themes. These themes are (1) contracts, for dealing with legal issues, (2) geo-engineering, for dealing with technical issues, and (3) communication, for paying attention to differences in risk perception by the human factor. In total 12 Working Groups contribute to these themes by producing one or more specific tools. These provide practical solutions for how to deal with contractual, geotechnical, and communication issues. The tools include working processes, guidelines, best practices, as well as some instruments. The development of these tools, as well as the available results, will be presented in this paper. From the start, Geo-Impuls embraced geotechnical risk management (GeoRM) as the risk-driven way of working for geotechnical engineering and construction. Over the past years, GeoRM and its supporting tools were already successfully applied in several projects. Therefore, the paper also describes also the GeoRM implementation process, including the quality assurance and control. Finally, the effectiveness of GeoRM will be discussed, by summarizing an analysis of all published geotechnical failures and accidents in construction projects in the Netherlands, which decreased substantially over the past 4 years.

Jan 1, 2017

By Ground Improvement Committee

The evaluation of earthquake-induced liquefaction has become a routine part of geotechnical engineering design. For a given project, if an analysis identifies a potential for liquefaction and the consequences of liquefaction are deemed unacceptable, then some form of hazard mitigation is required. Mitigation efforts may consist of removing the liquefiable soils, bypassing the liquefiable soils with deep foundations, structurally accommodating the deformations or strength loss caused by liquefaction, or preventing the onset of liquefaction through ground improvement. The fundamental ground improvement mechanisms for liquefaction mitigation include densification, drainage, and reinforcement. When evaluating, recommending and specifying various ground improvement methods for liquefaction mitigation, practitioners should understand the fundamental mechanics involved and applicability and limitations of the various methods. The DFI Ground Improvement Committee offers a review of the fundamental mechanics and commentary on the applicability and limitations of each method to provide clarity and guidance on the issues related to ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation.

Aug 1, 2013

By Sara Moshfeghi, Seyyed Majdeddin Mir Mohammad Hosseini, Abolfazl Eslami

"Due to variety of current pile bearing capacity methods based on the cone penetration test (CPT), for optimum design, it is necessary to evaluate the performance of such methods in different geotechnical conditions. Geotechnical databases including piling and in-situ testing records have been recognized as useful tools for analysis, design and economical construction. In order to evaluate pile bearing capacity methods, AUT-CPT&Pile database has been compiled including 450 full scale pile load tests and CPT sounding records. This database consists of different pile types with a relatively wide range of geometries and various soil conditions. Forty three records of piles driven in sand deposits were then employed to evaluate effects of ultimate capacity interpretation criteria from load displacement diagrams. The Davisson offset limit criterion, the Brinch Hansen 80% criterion and the load at the displacement of 10% of the pile diameter were compared to estimated capacities from ten CPT based design methods currently used in practice. The Brinch Hansen 80% criterion and the load at the displacement of 10% of the pile diameter lead to reasonable results, the Brinch Hansen 80% criterion showed less scatter. For evaluating the accuracy and the precision of CPT-based methods, the results were compared to estimated capacities. Results of comparison indicate that the CPT-based methods mainly predict the pile capacity withreasonable accuracy.INTRODUCTIONAmong the different approaches of estimating the pile bearing capacity, in-situ tests, especially, the cone penetration test (CPT) are favored due to the cone similarities with piles in modes of installation as well as fast and continuous profiling. This trend is practically well established where deep foundations are to be constructed in soft to medium subsoil deposits (Eslami and Fellenius, 1997; Mayne and Niazi, 2009).Employing different design methods results in a wide range of values which complicates the selection of an appropriate one to determine the pile bearing capacity. Several studies by Briuad and Tucker (1988), Eslami and Fellenius (1997), Abu Farsakh and Titi (2004), Schneider et al. (2008) and Eslami et al. (2011) confirm disparity of different design methods predictions. Thus, for optimum design, it is necessary to evaluate and compare the performance of current methods.Geotechnical databases are known as helpful tools in research and practical applications for optimizing analysis and design and are mainly used for management and interpretation of data, evaluation of design methods, calibrating LRFD or ASD design factors, etc. Pile lateral and axial load tests are examples of databases in geotechnical engineering. A summary of several CPT and pile load test databases is presented in Table 1."

Jan 1, 2017

By Anthony L. Reynolds, Clifford J. Wren

"The adoption of a significant pile testing regime, the use of Eurocode 7 as the design standard, the development of lean construction techniques, and lateral thinking in overcoming some considerable construction challenges allowed Stent Foundations to construct the foundations for the new Wembley Stadium, London, on time and within budget. In addition to the piling works for the main stadium, and after significant design development, a large number of extra piles were required to raise the new iconic roof Arch to its final position some 133 metres above the ground. A 1,400m long contiguous bored pile wall was also constructed to allow for excavation and formation of the new pitch. INTRODUCTIONHjstorjcal lntrodyctionWembley Stadium is the 'home of English football'. As long ago as the 1880's, Wembley Park leisure grounds had football pitches and running tracks.In 1918 the British Government began planning a British Empire Exhibition with a stadium as its centrepiece. The Exhibition area covered 219 acres and the area on which a former abandoned tower called Watkins Folly had stood was chosen as the site for the new stadium (http://www.wembleystadium.com).The Empire Stadium, as it was originally known, was designed by architects Sir John Simpson and Maxwell Ayerton and the engineer Sir Owen Williams. It took just 300 days to complete at a cost of £750,000 ($1.4m), and was built using 25,000 tons of ferro concrete, 1,000 tons of steel, and over half a million rivets.The Empire Exhibition was a remarkable event, containing fountains, lakes, gardens, and many pavilions, each representing the architectural style of the countries exhibiting. It was opened on 23rd April 1924 and the final attendance was over 27 million, with 4.5 million admissions to the Empire Stadium alone."

Jan 1, 2005

"This model specification includes sample text shown in normal font with commentary in italics. The commentary is intended to highlight project-specific items the specification writer should consider during development of the specification. In some sections, typical values are presented to indicate common practice, and these values may be changed to reflect projectspecific requirements. The commentary should be removed before using the specification for a project.1. SCOPEThe work consists of designing, furnishing, installing, post-tensioning and testing helical anchors used to support tension loads, and any ancillary materials (e.g., load transfer devices, etc.) according to the project plans provided and these specifications. Unless otherwise noted, the installing contractor shall provide all labor, tools, equipment, and materials necessary to accomplish the work. The parties referred to in this specification are as follows:• The Owner is the property owner.• The Owner’s representative is the individual or firm hired by the Owner to execute project tasks required for the successful design and construction of the overall project. Tasks could include construction management, design, oversight, etc.• The anchor designer is the individual or firm generally hired by the installing contractor to design the helical anchors.• Installing contractor installs and tests (if necessary) the helical anchors, and possibly other tasks associated with the project.It is important to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of every party on each project to promote good communication and reduce potential for contractual misunderstandings. Different types of contractual vehicles (design-build, value engineering, etc.) require different roles and responsibilities for the various parties, which should be considered in specification development.The Owner will provide suitable access to the construction site for the installing contractor’s personnel and equipment. Unless specifically noted otherwise in the contract documents, the Owner will remove and replace any structures, utilities, pavements, landscaping or other surficial improvements in the work area as necessary to facilitate the work. The Owner will be responsible for overall construction oversight to minimize potential for developing unsafe conditions. The work may include post-construction monitoring of anchor performance if required by the Owner or the anchor designer to confirm performance of the anchors subsequent to their installation. The work may also include installation of additional anchors if the initial installation does not meet specified capacity or performance requirements. Responsibility for providing subsurface investigation shall be addressed in the bid documents. The Owner is responsible for providing to the installing contractor all available subsurface soils, rock and groundwater information and geotechnical testing data."

Jan 1, 2016

By Dan Yang

Pile foundation designs are performed routinely based on geotechnical information available at the time of design, often with due consideration of large uncertainties inherent to soils and site conditions. These uncertainties frequently are the causes of piles being installed not the same as those designed, especially by factors beyond quality assurance and quality control. With a variety of both satisfactory and unsatisfactory pile test results from these nonconforming piles, the design engineers are required to examine the foundation performance as a whole against the project design requirements before signing off on them or calling for potentially costly remediation. Over the years, as-built analysis has been a consistent way of dealing with pile non-conformity and damage in our practice, avoiding many construction delays and it is an integral part of our pile foundation design. In this paper, the key elements of an as-built analysis along with several major bridge projects are presented.

Jan 1, 2010

By Rakam Lama Tamang, Michael J. Byle, Stephen Ernst

"For various reasons, dredging may become necessary in front of existing bulkhead walls, either for channel deepening or for environmental remediation of contaminated sediments. The removal of sediments at the base of bulkhead walls removes support for the toe of the wall that must be assessed. Evaluation of this impact can be problematic for aging bulkheads for which no design or construction records exist. This paper will address the steps that should be taken in investigation and analysis to assure proper assessment and means to address uncertainties and gaps in information. The steps include pre-investigation data review, field inspection, geotechnical and geophysical investigation tools, parametric analysis and design tools. Examples from several bulkhead assessment projects will be provided that include a variety of conditions and tools for application. The focus of the paper will be on the integration of technologies to assess bulkhead geometry, geotechnical properties and stability, structural safety and constructability issues with removal of support, and means of temporary and permanent stabilization for environmental applications.IntroductionBulkheads and quays have existed as long as there have been waterfront activities. Some of the earliest date back to 1200 B.C.E.(Raban, 1987), however in the United States few predate the eighteenth century. Most extant bulkhead structures, and all steel sheet pile bulkhead walls date from the early 20th century or later. These structures function to protect the shore from erosion, support landside activities, and serve as place to moor and offload vessels. Regardless of the age or usage of existing bulkheads, it is essential to assess and protect them if needed where removal of soils on the water side of the bulkheads is planned to dredging.Waterfront BulkheadsExisting bulkhead structures can be classified into two types: Cantilevered, and anchored. Cantilevered walls are completely supported by the soil on the water side, while anchored bulkheads are supported both by the soil on the water side and anchorage on the land side (Figure 1). Walls may be constructed of timber, steel, or concrete. Timber walls may be lagging with soldier piles, cribbing with soldier piles, or timber sheeted such as Wakefield walls (Figure 2). Steel bulkheads are most commonly constructed using sheet piling comprised of interlocking A or Z shapes, though some historic walls were constructed with flat sheets. Precast concrete sheet piling has also been used in construction of bulkhead walls. Anchorage may be provided by steel bars or tendons attached to deadmen, sheet piling, driven piles, or earth anchors."

Jan 1, 2017

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

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

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

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

Jan 1, 2016

By Alex Ryberg, Matthew L. Becker

Several integrity testing methods exist which may be used to evaluate drilled shafts. Each test method has advantages and limitations. On occasion, the results from different test methods may lead to conflicting conclusions, making it difficult to conclusively know which results more accurately represent the quality and integrity of a drilled shaft. This case study focuses on the integrity testing evaluation for two drilled shafts which were constructed using permanent casings and installed through flowing river water. Integrity testing was performed using Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP) and Crosshole Sonic Logging (CSL) on each shaft. During testing, the influence of flowing water and soil layering needed consideration in the collected TIP data. Similarly, concrete curing time influenced the CSL test results and required the CSL tests to be performed multiple times with additional wait times following concrete placement. To aid in the shaft integrity evaluations, Low Strain Integrity testing via the Pulse Echo Method (PEM) was performed on several shafts and concrete coring was also performed to help further assess the acceptance or rejection of the questionable shafts. This paper presents an overview of the testing methods that were applied, their basic methodology, as well as potential limitations that should be considered when evaluating their results.

Sep 8, 2021

By Theodore von Rosenvinge

Large diameter (2.4 meter) drilled shaft foundations were installed to depths of over 62 meters through soil into Arkose bedrock for Connecticut?s Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge (I-95 over New Haven Harbor). The project involved many ?firsts? including the first ?extradosed? cable-stayed bridge in the US, and for Connecticut, the deepest drilled shafts, the first use of a rotator to install shaft casing, and the first use of the Mini-Sid technology for rock socket bottom inspection. Design utilized both friction and end bearing for rock sockets. O-Cell testing was employed to maximize performance factors during design and to allow adjustments to socket lengths during construction. Favorable test results permitted a reduction in socket lengths and significant cost saving.

Jan 1, 2011