Search Documents

By Jim Bruce

No answer required. From the drilling equipment suppliers, but the specifications must be tailored to be project-specific. Yes, the sonic technique is very interesting as we said, and it is not so much as an issue of the magnitude of power, it's about the efficient use of the power. The efficiency of the machine is not necessarily related to size so it is best to talk to the two contractors that supply the service about that. I think it can be scaled down but it is quite a big head, so therefore there are practical limitations on the size of the door it can walk through and also the size of the casings and rods that it can use. You might defeat the economic advantages if you were to use too short casing lengths. Boart Longyear have a low head room machine that can work within an 8 foot verical clearance.

Feb 10, 2003

By Peter Yen

This session consists of five papers. Three involved research on the properties of grout materials, specifically ultrafine cements and polyurethane grouts. Two papers present the development of soil grouting technology and monitoring methods. Of great interest are the papers on ultrafine grout penetrability testing focusing on the pressure filtration effects encountered in permeation grouting applications (Ericksson, Stille and Mittag, Savidis). The comparison testing of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polyurethane grouts submitted by Vrignaud, Ballivy, Perret and Fernagu assessed the long-term performance of these materials for repairing saturated cracks in concrete, subject to thermal expansion and contraction. Two very practical papers present the development of soil grouting, where permeation, fracture, replacement, jetting and other grouting techniques are utilized. The papers by Lees with Chuaqui and Warner present experience with ultrafine and other commonly used grout materials. Methods to measure and monitor the injection process and verify production progress are discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Bengt H. Fellenius

The design of pile foundations is much more commonly verified by means of a full-scale test, than is the design of other foundation units. The reason is not that our knowledge of pile behavior is more uncertain than our knowledge of other foundation types making the verification necessary, but more that the loads in a structure are more concentrated to single foundations in a structure founded on piles as opposed to structures on footings or mats. Therefore, should a pile cap fail or move, the adverse consequence of this is often drastic, as the piled structure has little freedom to transfer its need for support to other foundation units. Consequently, it becomes important to assure the design of piled foundations. In many, maybe in most instances, the static pile loading test is routine and geared toward determining an at least capacity, only. However, in these times there is an ever increasing liability of the professional, demands for increased economy of the foundation, and frequent lack of the involvement in the test of the experienced old-timer exercising good judgment. Furthermore, modern pile design is leaving the single, simple concept of capacity and requires more information from the test to assist in determining aspects of long-term behavior and settlement. Therefore, even the straight forward, routine static loading test requires improved planning, execution, and analysis.

Jan 1, 1990

By Jeffrey C. Schuh, Logan Bloemer, Daniel P. Dietzler

Over the past 30 years, the authors have encountered numerous projects where recognizing the geology, soil properties and groundwater conditions, and considering alternative construction techniques have promoted efficient and cost-saving construction. The construction documents for these projects, produced by various engineering firms, provided basic information on geotechnical conditions. The authors became involved in each project either because there was a problem during design or construction or, as a contractor, won the project because they saw a value engineering opportunity to take advantage of the geologic setting of the project to design and build alternatives to what the designer depicted. Understanding the geologic setting is critical before planning and designing begins. Being able to work with the geology and the materials on site is preferred before specifying more costly and complex solutions, which often require the importing of materials and adherence to unnecessary and/or inappropriate specifications. Failing to understand the geology or not knowing all the techniques available for construction can lead designers to develop solutions that could be inappropriate. This paper presents several examples of value engineering and project performance enhancements developed through knowledge of basic soil mechanics and implementing innovative solutions. History and Background Most people attend DFI meetings, present their experiences, listen to others, and read articles and papers with the hope they can learn from others. Geotechnical engineers and contractors often interface with others in the execution of projects who have, at best, a rudimentary knowledge of geology and soil mechanics. Of course, there is a need for architects, bankers, and regulators, etc., but they typically do not have much interest in the nuances of geotechnical engineering, which relies on both art and science. Thus, significant time is spent educating counterparts in the need for comprehensive subsurface investigation programs and the intricacies of construction in the “dirt,” as they typically refer to soil and rock.

Jan 1, 2019

By Kevin Cunningham

"Litigation resulting from neighboring structures with settlement and/or lateral movement or improper pile design and faulty soils engineering analysis, are a multi-faceted opportunity for law firms. These types of claim scenarios are an attorney’s dream, and can obliterate a Deep Foundation Contractors profit and more importantly, can be avoided with a progressive approach to risk management in design and project management.The following (4) case studies will be examined and dissected to discern certain lessons learned for risk management solutions to avoid these deep foundation related challenges in the future.1) Pipe Flotation – Soil Conditions Not Anticipated in Specifications or Contract2) Easement Encroachment – Easement Dimensions Not Recognized Until Completion of Project3) Subjacent Lateral Support – Neighboring Structure Wooden Pile Unprotected Causing Structure to Settle4) Improper Pile Placement - Construction & Design Caused Retail Store to SettleSpecific Deep Foundation project challenges involving: buoyancy calculations regarding subsurface soil characteristics, design factors taking existing subsurface sewer line easements into account, structural instability as result of excavation causing exposure/heavy rainfall to existing wooden piles supporting adjoining building and improper pile location resulting from faulty pile design will be described with risk management recommendations to avoid these challenges in the future.From the very start of construction on any project deep foundation and excavating work poses numerous engineering and technical challenges for developers, contractors and engineers. Dealing with changing or hidden conditions is one of the most difficult challenges facing any contractor or engineer on a project. Relying on incomplete or inaccurate engineering reports is another common problem. Other challenges include dealing with technical errors or oversights that are deeply embedded in the project specifications or bid process.No matter what is the origin of the problem or how it manifests, deep foundation contractors, design professionals and engineers should be ever-mindful of good risk management practices that can prevent serious disputes that can result in costly litigation."

Jan 1, 2015

By Peter Cali

There is one organization in Sweden, The Swedish Deep Stabilization Research Centre, which has been working with these questions and there is also a project, Eurosoilstab, within European Union to take a manual for deep stabilization.

Feb 10, 2003

By Evangelia Ieronymaki

Civil engineering education relies on traditional methods of teaching, comprising mostly of deductive instruction by presenting the theory, followed by applications. This paper presents an alternative way for teaching foundation design to senior students, introducing a more inductive approach. The students are presented with a project/game adapted to a real-world problem at the beginning of the course. They are asked to identify the correct steps and methods throughout the lectures, for reaching an appropriate solution that they document and present at the end of the course. To make the project more enjoyable, the project has the format of a game where the students compete with each other on completing the task faster and more efficiently. The goal of this teaching approach is to enhance the ability of the students for problem solving and the engineering way of thinking, while playing a game. In the end, the students were requested to respond to a survey regarding the efficiency of this project/game on their learning. The results showed that students prefer more inductive methods for a design course, feeling that this project made them think more like engineers, while the ‘game’ twist of it made the whole course more fun. INTRODUCTION Most civil engineering courses are taught in 2019 the same way they used to be taught 40 years ago in the 80s. Classic methods are mostly deductive, where the instructor presents the theory first and then applications of that theory follow. Little or no attention is given initially to why the theory was developed or what are the problems it solves. The applications of the theory, and thus the purpose it serves, come only in the end and after methodologies have been presented, leading the students to show low interest in the material. As Albanese and Mitchell (1993) have reported, people are mostly motivated to learn things when they clearly see the need to know them. This explains the students’ little motivation that, if any, comes mainly from the fact that the material may be useful either in other courses or in their future careers. On the other hand, there are alternative inductive methods of teaching, where the role of the students is more active. A lot of researchers have highlighted the benefits of inductive methods in teaching engineering courses. Based on Prince and Fedler (2006), inductive methods include; a) inquiry-learning, b) discovery learning, c) problem and project-based learning (PBL), d) case-based teaching, and e) just-in-time learning. Inquiry-learning is maybe the most traditional method of inductive teaching/learning methods, where the instructor asks questions or poses problems and the students need to apply the theory they have learnt in order to find the solution (Bateman 1990; Prince 2004; Lee 2012). Similar to inquire-learning is the discovery learning, where students have to find the solution to a problem or answer to a question, while the instructor simply provides feedback to the students without guiding their efforts (Leonard 1988; Westbrook and Rogers 1994).

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1988

By Steven M. Henderson, Zachary D. Jones

The risk of allocation in construction contracts is a primary concern for all parties. For contracts involving subsurface construction the allocation of site condition risk is critical. In the past one hundred years technological advances fundamentally changed how that risk is allocated; yet another shift in this risk allocation may lie just over the horizon due to advances in geotechnical data management. Around the world initiatives are underway to make geotechnical datasets more open and accessible. In the United States some states like Kentucky have already made geotechnical data readily accessible. This proliferation of geotechnical data in the U.S. may impact the allocation of subsurface risk in construction contracts. Many construction contracts contain a differing site condition clause. That clause allows for a modification of the contract price or schedule if the ground conditions encountered by the contractor differ materially from either what was indicated in the contract documents or would be reasonably expected. A contractor, however, is typically not entitled to that modification if the contractor knew or should have known of the adverse conditions encountered. Courts have interpreted the “should have known” language as requiring contractors to make a reasonable site investigation prior to bidding the project. If geotechnical data is available and accessible and reveals the adverse condition the contractor encounters, courts could find that the contractor should have known of the condition and thus will not be entitled to a modification based on the differing site condition clause. Accordingly, the U.S. could be on the threshold of significant shifts in how the risk of differing site conditions is allocated in construction contracts.

Jan 1, 2017

By Christian Hoyme, Jochen Maurer

Most of the current foundation projects are suffering from disconnected information silos. In the first silo there is the planning of the project with corresponding data, presented by paper or digital drawings. Here will Building Information Modeling (BIM) be one of the trends for the future. We will see more and more projects leaving the “old way” of 2D drawings and moving into 3D planning including metadata of the foundations. But even with a perfect BIM model of a jobsite, we are not at final end of digitalization. While execution of the project at the jobsite, a second data silo is evolving. Data collected directly from construction equipment and manual measurements is currently undervalued in most projects. Paper is passed to the equipment operator and major data from measurements on site are noted on paper and digitized afterwards. Automatically collected data is not be used to create site progress reports or similar report. So, the real “data” just flows around without connection to any other data already existing in projects. And then the third silo arises: The documentation of the project. Data collected on paper es reentered to create some basic documentation of the work handed over to the client. Spreadsheet software is still the “tool-to-be-used” to create at least some documentation. Finally, the documentation is not connected to the data created while planning and not connected to the automatically collected data from the jobsite. A connected jobsite in the foundation industry must link these information silos and have to create a full data-workflow from the design through the execution to the as-built documentation. INTRODUCTION Building information modelling (BIM) is currently the most popular term of construction business in Germany and probably all over the world. But as often there are many different definitions out there and everyone has his own definition or at least understanding what BIM is about. But for sure it is the most relevant for the construction industry in the near future. Most popular is the digital twin for the upper structure of a building. In most cases the BIM models just shows the building itself, but there is more to be implemented. For example: projects where a special foundation is needed, BIM should include also the foundation elements with meta data. There are several advantages. Not only the clash detection of anchors, but also the possibilities to check the interaction with neighbor constructions, power lines and so on are a use case. For sure most of the special foundation elements are not relevant for the whole lifecycle of a building. But during construction and later the demolition the information about the hidden elements is important and gives a benefit to all stakeholders. In the future there will be not the question: “What is already in the ground?”. The risk for following construction projects on the same ground will be minimized.

Jan 1, 2019

By Laurel E. Blackman

The DFI Project Information Management Systems (PIMS) Committee cooperated with the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to develop a specification for PIMS used on USACE projects. Once completed the Committee developed a more generic version of this specification for general use, which is contained in this document. This first edition has simply removed the USACE-related requirements from the document. The committee will continue to work on this specification to enhance the content and also incorporate recent technological development for these systems. It is the Committee's intention that a second edition will be issued in 2022.

Jan 1, 2021

By Dennis Wrixon

It was a little bit exceeded. The decision was the uniform settlement is measured at each one corner and the highest one corner is the important one. And in addition there is a differential settlement of 2.1 mm allowed. So we reached about 7.8 or 7.9 mm with the highest corner and in addition 2.1 so it was a little too much. But behind there is a very difficult calculation of the authorities where all of the displacements are combined together and there are of course some more factors of safety in these settlements.

Feb 10, 2003

By Gary T. Brill

In the presentation, the development and new applications of the jet grouting technique in the North America are briefly introduced at first and followed by the outline and advantages of Jet Grouting. Several recent projects for jet grouting are presented in which the applications to underpinning and excavation support, foundation, groundwater barrier and seismic stabilization are briefly discussed.

Feb 10, 2003

By Richard Berry

The spacing of grout injections is typically about 2 to 2 V½ meters if the purpose of the grouting is densification of the in-situ soils. Hole spacing will vary with the in-situ soil properties and the grout injection rate; faster rates requiring closer hole spacing.

Feb 10, 2003

By Lois G. Schwarz

I did a project (Sungai Piah) as a consultant to your firm in Malaysia, where we were faced with a similar situation as sketched out in your question. The following is what we did for the grouting of the primary holes, which were both located upstream of the plug as well as downstream: We used a hydrophobic MDI based semi-rigid polyurethane prepolymer in the first phase of the grouting operation when grouting under water flow conditions. Then in the second phase and also for the contact grouting we used a two component water compatible polyurethane elastomer. And then for deeper formation grouting, when all the water flow had been stemmed in the vicinity of the plug, we used a regular (balanced stable) cement based grout. So it may not exactly answer your question, but we first used hydrophobic grout because it is very efficient to grout a formation through which water flows. We didn't stop all the leaks day-lighting downstream of the plug or all water running through the formation near the plug, but the flow of water through the rock formation adjacent to the plug was reduced by 99.9%, after completing the urethane grouting. This facilitated the placement of cement based suspension grouts without wash-out.

Feb 10, 2003

By Gerald Verbeek

There are certain concepts that seem to invite responses from some, including some in the foundation industry and even some within DFI, that are at best surprising. Business owners and their employees share the desire that their company does well and continues to operate. Maybe company growth is not always realistic but maintaining the current level of activity is in the least what they hope for. In other words, they hope that their company is sustainable, and they are fully behind that notion. But when the concept of sustainability is raised, there is, at least with some, suddenly doubt that that is a good thing. And yet, that concept only aims to achieve at a grander scale what the owners and employees desire for their company. There are many definitions of the term sustainability, but probably the most commonly used description is that framed by the United Nations in 1987. It states that sustainability is the concept of meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Arguably that definition is too abstract and does not provide the type of specific goals and targets we are used to. To help with that, to some extent, in 2015 the United Nations formulated 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), to provide "a shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future." And undoubtedly those SDGs are fodder for those that question the concept of sustainability in the foundation industry. How can our industry, they wonder, ensure that there is no poverty or hunger (SDG 1 and 2), and the climate action goal (SDG 13) immediately leads to the hot button topic of global warming. And maybe this is where advocates lose (some of) the sceptics of the sustainability concept, but hopefully they will continue to read this article that lays out why sustainability simply makes sense, also for the foundation industry and especially for DFI.

Nov 1, 2022

By Waddah Akili

This paper describes the steps taken in planning, developing, and executing a case study/ case history course in geotechnical/ foundation engineering at an international university. The paper sheds light on: how a “workable” format for the course was arrived at; the organization of the course; and the results of evaluating the effectiveness of this approach versus traditional lecturing. Problems and challenges that could arise when offering the course for the first time are also addressed. Embedded in this experience and its related protocols are: the emphases on engineering design and the practice, teamwork and leadership development, organizational management, and oral and written communication skills. The paper concludes by confirming that discussions, through an open forum, are judged to be superior to traditional lectures in improving critical thinking, cultivating desirable personal attributes, and acquiring problem-solving skills.

By James P. Chivilo, Gregory R. Meeder, Scott J. DiFiore, Matthew H. Johnson

New construction in metropolitan areas has direct impacts on immediate neighbors and abutters. While noise and dust are generally nuisance concerns, demolition, vibrations, excavation, and dewatering can cause structural damage to adjacent structures. Different cities, states, or jurisdictions have different regulations that dictate requirements, roles, or responsibilities for varying parties during construction. The authors will introduce and discuss risks of new construction adjacent to existing structures, and the legal framework in Illinois which requires the owner of the new construction project to provide adequate protections for adjacent existing structures. The authors, who are engineers and attorneys, will discuss technical and legal concerns, and will highlight the importance of early and frequent communication among project participants to manage risks, despite whether or not any local regulations exist to drive the process. RISKS IN ADJACENT CONSTRUCTION New construction in metropolitan areas inherently involves some combination of noise, dust, ground-borne vibrations, earth excavation, and subgrade dewatering. These issues have potential to directly and adversely affect abutters and their property. Noise and dust can be nuisance concerns, while vibrations, excavation, and dewatering can result in damage to abutters’ structures. Noise and dust are unlikely to lead to physical damage to abutters’ property, and can be controlled with limited work hours and good housekeeping practices. Vibrations and excavations, however, if not well understood, planned for, and mitigated, can result in serious damage to abutters’ structures. In turn, this damage introduces additional and often significant costs and schedule delays.

Jan 1, 2019

By Edmund J. Cardoza

WELCOME TO THE DEEP FOUNDATIONS INSTITUTE 26TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND WELCOME ESPECIALLY TO THIS SEMINAR ON NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFTS, PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF THE DFI DRILLED SHAFT COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS ED CARDOZA; I AM A VICE PRESIDENT WITH THE MILLGARD CORPORATION, A DRILLED SHAFT CONSTRUCTOR FOCUSING PRIMARLY IN THE EASTERN HALF OF THE UNITED STATES.

Jan 1, 2001

By Timothy Flaherty

We observed the boiling in the water very close to the water adjacent to where we were drilling. That only happened at the very beginning before it was switched to water flushing. Yes, it was performed with water flush.

Feb 10, 2003