Search Documents

By John P. Turner, Benjamin J. Turner

"This report describes a research project for evaluating the applicability of the widely accepted 80 percent criterion for elongation of ground anchors to anchors with unbonded lengths exceeding 100 feet. This issue is driven by several recent projects involving ground anchors for landslide stabilization in which a significant percentage of the anchors did not meet the criterion that requires measured elongation during proof load testing of at least 80 percent of the theoretical elastic elongation. The projects involved anchor unbonded lengths in the range of 85 to 220 feet, which is outside the range traditionally used in practice, although anchors of this length are being used more frequently for landslide stabilization. The principal objective of this research is to address whether the widely accepted criterion of 80 percent elongation is applicable for such applications, and whether other factors affect the ability of anchors to meet the criterion.Analytical methods for predicting transfer of load along the length of steel strand due to friction loss are used routinely in the prestressed concrete industry. These analytical expressions provide a rational framework for quantifying changes in load due to friction along the length of a ground anchor in terms of a ‘wobble coefficient’ (K) as defined in Aalami (2004). Values of the wobble coefficient for ground anchors can only be determined by back-calculating from load tests, i.e., fit the value of K to the appropriate analytical expression based on the known test load and measured percent elongation. The analytical basis is first developed and shown to provide a tool for evaluating results of anchor load tests to determine the magnitude of expected elongation as a function of unbonded length. Next, a database of anchor load tests is used to back-calculate values of K for anchors with unbonded lengths in the range typically used in geotechnical applications (< 100 feet). These values of K are then used to calculate expected friction loss for anchors with high unbonded lengths (100 to 250 feet) to evaluate whether the 80 percent criterion is reasonable."

Jan 1, 2017

By Joel Moskowitz, Jan Cermak

"New York City has unique geologic conditions which must be considered when designing pile foundations. Where shallow foundations are not feasible, the City's subsurface conditions require a variety of deep foundation systems, ranging from high capacity rock socketed piles, to piles end-bearing on bedrock, to friction piles bearing in alluvial or glacial deposits. Pile load testing is essential in confirming pile capacities as pile analyses include assumptions on soil and soil-pile response, and pile driving equipment. Load test results must be interpreted to estimate the long-term pile behavior. Except for lightly loaded driven piles, the New York City Building Code (the Code) requires that pile capacities be confirmed by static load testing. The Code provides the number of static load tests required, test procedures, and acceptance criteria. In the last few decades, methods other than static load testing have been developed including dynamic and rapid (pseudo-static) load tests. Recently, those methods have also been employed on several projects in New York City. The traditional approach to pile load testing in New York City is discussed herein including engineering involved in the analyses of test data with examples. In addition, several projects which included non-static load testing are discussed INTRODUCTIONPile load testing complements the subsurface information and pile design by providing further data on pile-soil interaction for the selected pile type and installation method. Traditional approaches to pile load testing in New York City involve static load tests to verify the design capacity of the piles for a given minimum factor of safety.In the late 1950's, Dr. Phillip C. Rutledge summarized his views on the philosophy of pile foundations in an unpublished, in-house document. He viewed pile foundations as good illustrations of pertinent and impertinent aspects of geotechnical engineering. In the analyses of piles he divided engineering into four general types:(a) Theoretical engineering in which decisions are made based on theoretical analyses. This represents ideal engineering, in which all factors affecting the pile design are well established or, at least, few simplifying assumptions with known effects on the analyses are made."

Jan 1, 2005

By Clayton A. Signor

Abstract: Expansive soils cause more damage to structures annually than a combination of other major natural disasters. Because of the cost to our society, all means and methods need to be fully explored to mitigate the problems associated with expansive soils. This study will present a foundation design approach that is underutilized in this application, driven piles. The main objective of the study is to present pile test results and analysis from four driven pile project sites in three types of expansive soils found in central Texas: Del Rio formation, Taylor/Navarro formation, and expansive alluvium. High strain dynamic pile tests were conducted on each of the four studies with rigorous signal matching analysis from the CAse Pile Wave Analysis Program (CAPWAP). Ultimate pile capacities ranged from 73 to 311 kips with an average of 61% of the total capacity coming from the pile shaft and were two to six times the structural capacity needed. Allowable loads calculated from Modified Gates dynamic formula best modeled allowable test results. Average unit skin frictions ranged from 0.50 to 4.71 ksf. Restrike pile tests of 1 to 17 days after initial driving reported 30 to 100% shaft capacity gain. All open-ended pipe piles driven produced soil plugs ranging from 4 to 14 feet thick. Small diameter, thick-walled, open-ended pipe piles reached penetration of twice the depth of designated zone of seasonal moisture change without problem. The observed production rate of the driven piles was on average 8 minutes, which implied daily production of 15 to 40 piles. Predrills or augered holes should be specified for underground obstructions found in soil investigation.

By Brandon Buschmeier, Frederic Masse

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

Jan 1, 2015

By Patrick J. Hannigan, William H. Walton, Ryan C. Rusk, Van E. Komurka

"The project consists of a 33-story building with two levels of below-grade parking across the entire building footprint. Timely and cooperative teamwork among the owner/developer, geotechnical engineer, testing agency, structural engineer, construction manager, and pile-driving contractor resulted in an efficient, costeffective, high-capacity driven-pile foundation on a constrained urban site with significantly variable subsurface conditions. Design objectives included utilizing the highest allowable pile loads reasonably installed from a drivability perspective, using readily available equipment. A pre-production test program was performed on 16-inch-diameter (406-mm-diameter) steel pipe piles, driven closed-ended and subsequently filled with concrete. The test program included dynamic monitoring of 10 piles during installation, and of select piles during long-term restrike testing with a drop hammer, with one instrumented static load test. CAPWAP® analyses were performed on both end-of-initial-drive and beginning-of-restrike dynamic test records. The site exhibited significant soil set-up, even after relatively short wait times. Testprogram objectives included characterizing set-up profiles. A design set-up profile was used to develop depth-variable driving criteria for both 500- and 600-kip (2,224- and 2,669-kN) allowable load piles. Test program results permitted more-accurate reduced capacities to be assigned to damaged piles, and to piles which experienced practical refusal. These more-accurate assigned reduced capacities decreased the number of replacement piles required by 50 percent, saving both time and cost.PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe project, located in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA consists of a 33-story mixed-use residential building with two levels of below-grade parking across the entire site footprint. Column service loads range from 1,400 to 4,200 kips (6,228 to 18,683 kN). The project is located immediately adjacent to an existing two-story masonry retail building with a partial basement, supported on shallow spread-footing foundations.Subsurface Conditions – The generalized soil conditions are presented in Fig. 1. Site grades were relatively level, with a ground-surface elevation of approximately +53 feet (16 m), Milwaukee City Datum (“MCD”). Fill material from previous construction was encountered to approximate Elev. +33 feet (10 m). Below the fill, medium dense silty sand, to silt with sand, was encountered to approximate Elev. +23 feet (7 m). Underlying deposits consisted of lean clay, with undrained shear strengths ranging from approximately 1,000 to 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (48 to 144 kPa). Silty sand, to silt with sand, exhibiting increasing relative density with depth, was found below the lean clay to approximate Elev. -92 feet (-28 m), where hard lean clay (glacial till) with undrained shear strengths in excess of 5,000 psf (239 kPa) was encountered. Borings did not extend below Elev. -103 feet (-31 m)."

Jan 1, 2017

This Section describes four alternative methods for load testing of drilled shafts: high strain dynamic test (HSDT), rapid load test, static load test, and bottom load test. Until recently, static load tests were the only method available for verifying the capacity of a drilled shaft. However, because many drilled shafts carry very high design loads, the static load test was prohibitively expensive. The alternative methods, HSDT, rapid load testing, and bottom load testing are gaining acceptance because of their lower cost and faster implementation. However, these different methods do not necessarily yield the same results. This section describes the load testing methods and the differences that may occur when interpreting the test results.

Jan 1, 2004

This specification, along with the drawings, encompasses all designs, materials, products, accessories, tools, equipment, services, transportation, labor and supervision, installation techniques, and testing procedures required for the installation of soil nail excavation support or earth retention systems. This is a Guide Specification designed to assist in the development of project specifications for soil nail excavation support and earth retention systems. This Model Specification is based on generally accepted industry standards but may require modification by the specification writer to accommodate unusual and/or unforeseen site and subsurface conditions and the particular circumstances of the project. Care must be taken to avoid internal inconsistencies. It contains language allowing for a Contractor-Designed Soil Nail Wall, which would be removed if the design is provided by the Owner (e.g. See Sections 1.2 and 4.1).

Jan 1, 2010

It is my great pleasure as mayor of the city of Amsterdam to welcome you today to Amsterdam, and to the 10th International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations. The history of Amsterdam has been connected intimately with your professions of geo-engineering and geotechnology, since its very first days. It is good to be aware that you are part of a very old tradition. The knowledge that we need today to build and renew the city has been gathered over a century long process so that we fortunately can stand on the shoulders of the giants before us. During the centuries people living in this part of the Netherlands have always struggled against the water. The same waters that brought the opportunity for a seafaring country to discover the world and to build an empire in the 17th century were a threat to the low lying Netherlands.

Jan 1, 2006

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

By Peter Faust, Jeremy Zorne, Timothy Siegel, Diane Fiorelli

Professional sport venue construction follows a very simple rule. Once the decision has been made to move the team to a new place, construction shall begin immediately, so that not more than one or two seasons pass by stuck in the old home. Such tight construction schedules require a different approach than traditional design-bid-build contracts. Design is mostly done on the fly, the construction schedule becomes a main risk factor and an early contractor involvement is desired. As specialty contractors become more and more sophisticated, owners, their construction managers or the general contractor have realized the value of ideas and modern technology they can bring to the table for a successful and fast project completion. Local knowledge and experience in a variety of solutions play a key role in the specialty contractor’s ability to provide added value to the project. This is also true for the specialty foundation contractor, who needs to understand the complexity of such modern structures from its integrate foundation, over the delicate concrete structure to a potentially fancy movable stadium roof. Not to mention all the modern high tech equipment which shall make such a place a great customer experience. His expertise shall enable him to propose the most suitable foundation element for the given ground condition and application. Rather to build what others have designed, his strength is to propose alternate concepts which will be faster and (hopefully) more cost effective. This paper highlights different value engineering (VE) input a specialty foundation contractor had on 3 major sports arena projects in California. Together with the entire team from owner to GC, including the Geotechnical (GEOR) and the Structural Engineer of Record (SEOR), the most efficient and best performing foundation solution can be found every time. But such an approach also requires the open mind of the owner to entertain last minute changes when the permit drawing set has already been submitted for approval.

Jan 1, 2018

By EFFC/DFI Concrete Task Group

Concrete technology continues to advance rapidly and modern mixes with five components – cement, additions, aggregates, (chemical) admixtures and water – often have characteristics which differ significantly from the older three component mixes – cement, aggregates and water. Recent trends have favoured higher strength classes and lower water/cement ratios, resulting in greater dependence on admixtures to compensate for reduced workability and to meet the (often competing) demands for workability in the fresh state and setting time. The application of testing methods which reflect the true rheological properties of the concrete has not developed at the same rate as the mixes themselves and it is still not uncommon for the slump or flow table test to be used as the only acceptance test for fresh concrete.A joint review of problems in bored piles (drilled shafts) and diaphragm walls cast using tremie methods by both the European Federation of Foundation Contractors (EFFC) and the Deep Foundations Institute in the United States (DFI) identified a common issue. The review determined that many of the problems were caused by (or in part due to) the use of inadequate concrete mixes with inadequate workability, or insufficient stability or robustness of the mixes. It further identified the primary causes as inadequate concrete specifications and inadequate testing procedures. The consequences of these problems are often significant and it has been recognised that spending more time and money on getting the concrete right is the most cost effective approach.A joint Concrete Task Group was set up by EFFC and DFI in 2014 to look at this issue and this guide is the output from that Task Group. A research and development project, funded by the Sponsors of this guide, is being carried out by the Technical University of Munich in conjunction with the Missouri University of Science and Technology. This project includes desk studies, laboratory testing, and onsite testing at worksites in Europe and the US. The research work will be completed during 2016.

Jan 1, 2016

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016

Jan 1, 2002

Jan 1, 2001

By John S. Pack

The last 25 years have seen rapid expansion in the use of helical screw pile foundations and tiebacks for new and retrofit construction of buildings and earth retention structures. An estimated $100 million was spent in 2002 on helical foundations and tiebacks in the United States alone. While design information is available in the literature, information regarding quality control, inspection and performance monitoring is lacking. Recognition of at least one manufacturer&apos;s helical foundation material by the Uniform Building Code, Standard Building Code, and BOCA (all three codes now combined into the ICC International Building Code) has given added urgency to the dissemination of reliable and practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures. This paper describes a set of such procedures that have been followed for 17 years by engineers experienced in the industry who have directly installed or been involved in the installation of over 140,000 helical foundations and tiebacks in divers soil conditions for various types of structures, including earth retention structures. Topics covered include design responsibility, building code listings and requirements, manufacturer ISO certification, manufacturing process, material and installation specifications, installation contractor certification, field placement, installation procedures, field inspection, building code inspection and performance monitoring. The paper concludes with a step by step example of practical quality control, inspection and performance monitoring procedures on a typical helical foundation project.

Jan 1, 2003

By Julie Shang, Tim Evans, Michael McDonald, Yu Guo, Bingfeng Xue

Effective chemical grouting represents a technical and economic solution to many challenges related to soil stabilization and blocking the flow of water. Chemical grouts are facing increasing demands in durability, environmental impact and value. To better meet these challenges, a novel and cost effective process was developed to produce a sodium silicate that increases the ratio (i.e. silica to alkali) beyond what has been used in traditional silicate-based grouts. The move to a lower sodium form of silicate was anticipated to have two desirable performance enhancements; a reduction in leachable sodium and improvement in the durability of the silicate grout. An in-depth study was performed at the University of Western Ontario Geotechnical Research Centre to quantify improvement in durability as well as other performance properties such as compressive strength. The study began by first modelling the gelation time and reaction kinetics of the high ratio sodium silicate over a range of silicate concentrations using two different setting agents as well as with/without a hardener. As expected, reducing the level of sodium produced a much more water resistant grout. These same formulations also showed a four order magnitude reduction in permeability. Somewhat surprising, test results showed the higher ratio silicate having much higher compressive strength. At the time of this abstract, the high ratio silicate was moving to the trial stage for geotechnical applications while the petroleum industry was further along with several successful field trials for water blocking as well as cement remediation. This paper will review the chemistry, testing and features of this next generation form of sodium silicate. Introduction Sodium silicate based grouts have been used for decades for soil stabilization and water control. Over the years, several silicate-based systems have been tailored for specific application conditions to maximize performance and reduce cost. Past research has also focused on the selection of setting agents and hardeners for silicate grouts. A constant in the development effort has been the grade of sodium silicate. The vast majority of chemical grouts have been formulated using a ~3.2 ratio sodium silicate. As a very brief overview on the meaning of “ratio” and why it is so important to performance properties. The ratio describes the proportion of sand to alkali or SiO2:Na2O used to make different grades of sodium silicate. Comparing a 2.2 ratio to a 3.2 ratio, it is easier to polymerize and set the 3.2 ratio. Upon setting and forming a silica gel, the system has higher compressive strength values and improved durability with a reduced level of syneresis (i.e. shrinkage). This leads to the question if 3.2 is better than 2.2 why not go to 4.2 or higher?

Jan 1, 2018

By Nuno Cruz, Saúl Rodríguez

"When executing offshore bored piles there are several specific factors and problems to consider in order to guarantee excavation stability. One of the methods employed to carry out this type of work consists in setting up a floating work platform, typically a barge, and implementing a soil stabilization system that combines a partial steel guiding casing with third generation polymeric drilling fluids. The main aspects to take into consideration when performing offshore pile boring works are soil stabilization, project design, work methodology and operational aspects. An example of a work methodology problem arises before any pile boring work takes place as the steel guiding casing contains water, sometimes salt water. What to do with this water in order to replace it by an adequate polymer fluid will determine the stabilization capacity as soon as the shaft advances below the protection of the casing. Another example of operational problem may derive from barge movements while executing boring activities. This study is the result of extensive field data collection and concrete logging analysis from marine projects using polymers in different continents. The bored pile stability target was set ranging between 2% to 15% of concrete overbreak. Values above 15% or below 2% mean that there is a stability problem. Then the off-target pile’s data is collected, analyzed and classified under categories. Thus, a direct correlation is established between the problem category and the final results. Modifying steps in the pre-established construction methods or operational variables guarantees target results without the need to replace the approved construction methods. As a general conclusion, the worldwide experience in large diameter marine works, allows to provide truthful information and solutions for these problems. In knowing how to follow a logical sequence of work and applying adequate work methodology will be the key for success.GENERALBackgroundTo carry out the drilling process of offshore bored piles there are two main options to take into consideration: drilling the pile by using full guiding casing until final depth; or using a combined system of partial steel guiding casing and support drilling fluids.The knowledge and situations described in this paper come from the experience acquired in different projects where the second method was employed. This construction method consists in installing a steel guiding casing by vibration and thus covering the water table and further stabilizing the soil below it with polymeric fluids until reaching the pile’s final depth. The Fig. 1 schematic shows an example of this method where H corresponds to the length of the steel guiding casing whereas the remainder of the shaft’s length is stabilized by polymer fluid. The entire bored length is full of slurry up to top of casing.In most cases this kind of civil works results from the need to build a bridge or executing port structures in places where the creation of temporary artificial peninsulas with fill material is impracticable or not allowed. Hence the need to use floating work platforms, commonly referred to as barges."

Jan 1, 2017

By Feng Yongxuan

Anchored sheep pile is normally used in deep excavations, many of which only require stability in accordance with Terzaghi theory. In this paper, based on the experience, new lateral earth pressure method is adopted taking account into interaction among soil, anchors and sheet piles so that a group for the project under very difficult conditions and very severe requirments, especially, for the displacements are determined according to that mentioned above. During and after construction, displacements monitoring were carried out for about four months, which was proved that there was a little difference between calculation and practice.

Jan 1, 1991

By R. T. Stain

Dynamic methods of load testing piles using a drop hammer to generate the input force have been in use for many years. These systems are based on the wave equations developed at the Case Institute of Technology, Cleveland, Ohio in the late 1960&apos;s and are well documented. Such tests are generally restricted to preformed driven piles, the driving hammer being a convenient means of generating large input forces. In 1979 the CEBTP (France) was sponsored by the FNTP (Fédération Nationale des Travaux Publics) to undertake research into existing classical methods and to develop a test that would be equally applicable to bored cast in place piles. The result of this research programme is a methodology known as SIMBAT, and which was included in a series of class A prediction trials in Belgium in 1987 (Refs 1 & 2, Paquet 1987, 1988). The purpose of this paper is: a) to examine the type of &apos;dynamic&apos;/&apos;static? load test correlations that can be obtained. b) to highlight the differences between the classical&apos; methods and the &apos;SIMBAT&apos; technique.

Jan 1, 1989

By Wolfgang G. Brunner

A 3800 m long temporary water-retaining dike has been constructed under extreme conditions in the harsh northern climate to enable two of the kimberiite pipes at the Diavik Diamond Project reserve to be mined using open pits. The Diavik Diamond Project is located on East Island at Lac de Gras in Canada&apos;s Northwest Territories, approximately 200 kilometres south of the Arctic Circle. The dike which has been constructed in up to 25 m deep water from crushed granite quarried from the site projects into Lac de Gras encircles the first two of the kimberiite pipes to be mined. An 800 mm wide diaphragm cut­off wall constructed of bentonite, cement and crushed rock, totalling 33,000 m2, and a two-phase jet grouted curtain wail at its base, totalling 8,400 m2, have been installed through the dike and underlying till foundation into bedrock. The cut-off is designed to minimise water seepage from Lac de Gras through the dike. In order to ensure that the dike had adequate internal stability and diaphragm wall construction could proceed safely, the crushed rock fill material dumped into the lake was first compacted by TR 75 deep vibrators. In 2000, Bauer Maschinen GmbH of Schrobenhausen, Germany were awarded the contract for the supply of all specialist foundation equipment required on site and for providing technical support to the Canadian main contractor Lac-de-Gras-Construction throughout the construction of the cut-off walls during 2001 and 2002. Installation of the cut-off walls was completed in July 2002, three weeks ahead of schedule, and dewatering of the inner dike areas commenced just 5 days later and has continued throughout August and September. After completion of extensive testing of the diamond recovery plant, the mine is scheduled to go into full open pit production in February 2003.

Jan 1, 2003