Search Documents

By Tom A. Armour

Different variations of soil nailing techniques have been used in the United States since the late 1970's. Such techniques owe their origins to French developments, which began in the early 1970's as a spin-off from European tunneling excavation support practice. The growing demands of urban infrastructure development and rehabilitation and environmental protection have created an active and expanding soil nailing market demand for earth retention and slope stabilization in the United States since its early developmental years. There is a clear need for a fundamental review of the large number of soil nailing techniques that are currently being used in the United States. Following a brief summary tracing the historical development of soil nailing and a generic classification of applications, this paper provides a review of the different recent advances in the design and construction of soil nailed systems. Discussion topics include nail design advances, permanent "top-down", structure support/underpinning, alternative face stability measures, composite systems, hollow bar and fiberglass nails and architectural reinforced concrete/shotcrete facings. Case histories will be presented to illustrate each of these advances.

Jan 1, 2003

By Adam Gerondale, David Hemstreet, Lisheng Shao, Kenji Yamasaki

"Foundation soils of a proposed single-span bridge over a busy railroad in Anchorage, Alaska included a layer of sensitive, non-plastic to low-plasticity silt. Slope stability analyses showed that, without ground improvement, the proposed abutments would not be stable immediately following the design earthquake due to the liquefaction of the sensitive silt. Wet soil mixing was selected to mitigate the liquefiable soils and assure abutment stability because: (i) it is a non-vibratory method and can be used for areas adjacent to the railroad tracks and underground utilities, as well as in areas not sensitive to vibration; and (ii) preand post-ground improvement testing, such as SPT or CPT, is not required. Eliminating the liquefaction hazard at the site also allowed for the abutments to be economically supported on shallow spread footings. A total of 511 soil-cement columns were constructed at the two abutments, each with a diameter of 8 feet (2.4 m) and an average length of 20 feet (6.1 m), extending from about 30 to 10 feet (9.1 to 3.0 m) below finished ground elevation. The columns were laid out in a shear wall pattern (in the longitudinal direction of the bridge) to increase stability under the loading by approach embankments.INTRODUCTIONAlaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (Alaska DOT&PF) is currently constructing West Dowling Road Overcrossing in Anchorage Alaska. It will be a single-span, steel box girder bridge approximately 200 feet (61 m) long and 100 feet (30 m) wide. It will have approach embankments, about 40 feet (12 m) high, on both sides. It will carry the new extension of West Dowling Road over double tracks of Alaska Railroad and Arctic Blvd. Foundation soils of the abutments consist of surficial fill and peat layer underlain by soft silt which is likely to liquefy and lose strength under shaking by a design earthquake. Both deep and shallow foundations were considered to support the bridge abutments. The design team pursued the option of improving the foundation soils and using shallow footings. Several ground improvement methods were evaluated, out of which wet soil mixing was selected as the best option.In situ wet soil mixing (hereinafter simply soil mixing) is mechanical mixing of soil in its location with cement slurry and produces soil-cement (soilcrete) columns that are stronger, less permeable, and less compressible than the original soil. Soil mixing is used for various applications including reinforcement of soft soils, excavation support, liquefaction mitigation, cutoff walls, etc. This paper presents a case history of soil mixing successfully used to improve foundation soils of bridge abutments to allow the use of spread footings."

Jan 1, 2015

By Garland Likins, Gray Mullins, George Piscsalko

"Quality control of drilled shafts is greatly dependent upon the practices of the site personnel. For drilled shafts cast under slurry, inspection of the hole prior to concreting is very difficult or impossible. There are numerous non-destructive test (NDT) methods currently available to assess the integrity of drilled shafts. This paper will discuss the theory and use of an emerging NDT technology known as Thermal Integrity Profiling (TIP). The Thermal Integrity Profiling method measures the elevated concrete temperatures that occur during the hydration process. These temperature measurements are made along the length of the pile and can determine the integrity over 100% of the pile cross section, both inside and outside the reinforcing cage. With the known shaft volume information, TIP can evaluate the effective shaft radius at each measurement location. With the increased use of TIP on highway projects, there is a need to have standard criteria for shaft acceptance. Shaft acceptance criteria can be based upon thermal measurements and subsequent analysis of the data to determine the average shaft radius, local concrete cover, and cage alignment. With this additional information obtained via the thermal testing method, acceptance methods based upon concrete cover can be developed. In this paper the Thermal Integrity Profiling method will be described, results from a case history will be discussed, and an acceptance criteria based upon concrete cover will be proposed.INTRODUCTIONDrilled shafts are an attractive foundation element in many applications due to their large axial and lateral capacities. When drilled shafts are cast in a dry hole, it is possible to inspect the hole prior to casting, allowing for very basic level of quality control, although the shape of the completed element is still unknown without some form of post construction testing. When drilled shafts are installed where soil conditions are unstable, the shafts will often be cast under slurry to support the surrounding soils during the construction process. When casting a drilled shaft under slurry, it is very difficult to impossible to accurately and efficiently inspect the hole prior to casting concrete and it is equally difficult or impossible to inspect the shaft during the casting process"

Jan 1, 2016

By Bret N. Lingwall, Byron Foster

The problem of reliable extreme event modeling of large diameter piles under enormous structural or kinematic loads has gained more attention in recent years. In particular, the soil response around the foundation and impacts to buried adjacent infrastructure has gained interest. One of the principal shortcomings with analysis of large diameter pile foundations under extreme event lateral loading is the reliance on conventional beam on elastic foundation methods, which do not model the soil field response around the pile. These methods are limited for large displacement problems, and for large diameter piles. However, the fundamental interactions between steel and concrete, and structure to soil are difficult to constrain, especially in large strain problems where the structural elements become inelastic. The non-linear interaction of the structural materials and soil is desirable so that assessment of stress changes in the field and effects on adjacent facilities can be modeled. A numerical modeling methodology that addresses these shortcomings has been developed. This method utilizes the interaction of brittle concrete with discrete steel reinforcing and casing in a robust manner capturing inelastic non-linearity in both soil and structure. This paper presents a comparison study of the method, wherein three different validation studies were made to data from full scale laterally loaded pile testing. INTRODUCTION Extreme event lateral loading of deep foundations comes in many forms including earthquakes, landsliding, tsunamis, hurricanes, surface fault rupture, liquefaction induced lateral spreads and many more. These extreme events induce loads on foundations far greater than service or strength loads. Perhaps the most dangerous extreme event loads are those of large soil displacements such as landslides, lateral spreads, and surface fault rupture, wherein the soil surrounding the foundations can move laterally 100 mm to 3 m! In these extreme event loading scenarios, small diameter foundations are pushed past their limits and many engineers prefer large diameter deep foundations for these situations. These deep foundations of diameter 900 mm or greater may be auger cast in place piles, cast in drilled hole piles, cast in steel shell piles, cased or uncased drilled shafts, bored precast piles, etc. For convenience in this paper, large diameter deep foundations will be referred to as Large Diameter Shafts (LDS). In LDS, steel may or may not used as a shell around the perimeter of the concrete and/or as internal tensile reinforcement. The interaction between brittle concrete and ductile steel within and/or along the perimeter of the LDS is critical to understanding the non-linear inelastic behavior of LDS for problems of large lateral displacements from extreme events.

Jan 1, 2018

By Francis B. Gularte

The Dalles Dam is located 192 miles upstream from the Columbia River?s mouth. As part of an effort to increase survival rates for young salmon migrating downstream to the Pacific Ocean, a river spillwall was constructed to guide the young salmon into the thalway and out of the reach of predators. The spillwall consisted of 43 large precast concrete cells constructed onsite. The 120-ton cells are positioned on the bedrock riverbed to form the 830-foot-long spillwall. Large capacity post-tensioned strand anchors extend through ducts in the precast units, anchoring the wall to the basalt. One hundred seventy-eight tie-down anchors consisting of 30, 32, or 40 strands were installed and post-tensioned to secure the cells. The logistic and technical challenges presented by positioning, installing, and stressing the precast cells in the tailrace of a large dam required a high level of cooperation and planning between the owner, general contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers in order to finish the project within the allotted in-water work windows to minimize impacts on seasonal salmon migration.

Jan 1, 2010

By Bengt H. Fellenius

THIS PAPER deals with the analysis of results from axial testing of vertical single piles, i.e. the most common field test per-formed. Despite the numerous tests which have been carried out and the many Papers which have reported on such tests and the analysis thereof, the understanding of pile test loading in current engineering practice leaves much to be de-sired. The reason for this is that the engineers have concerned themselves with mainly only one question: "Does the pile have a certain least capacity?", finding little of practical value in analysing the actual capacity and the pile-soil interaction. This Paper aims to show that engineering value can be gained from elaborating on a pile test ? during the actual testing in the Held, as well as in the analysis of the results. The first portion of the notes make use of an earlier Paper by the author (Fellenius. 1975). However, additional views and recent literature have been incorporated.

Jan 1, 1988

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'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 'dynamic'/'static? load test correlations that can be obtained. b) to highlight the differences between the classical' methods and the 'SIMBAT' technique.

Jan 1, 1989

By Gray Mullins

A post grouted drilled shaft foundation system was successfully used in place of the specified driven pile foundation system as a Value Engineering Cost Proposal (VECP) for the new PGA Boulevard Grade Separation Project. Pressure grouting the cohesionless sandy soils at the drilled shaft base significantly increased the end bearing capacity and stiffness allowing drilled shafts to be the more cost effective foundation system. The post grouted drilled shaft option also provided other benefits including reducing owners risk normally associated with pile driving vibrations and offered a high level of quality assurance for the drilled shafts. This paper discusses the implementation of post grouted drilled shafts from design to completion of construction. A design procedure for post grouted drilled shafts developed by the University of South Florida was used for initial VECP evaluation. Prior to construction, two instrumented test shafts were installed and load tested, one of which was post grouted. Therein, the design procedure was calibrated, tip elevations for production shafts were refined, drilled shaft construction and grouting procedures were demonstrated, and a grouting criteria was developed for the project.

Jan 1, 2003

By Federico Pagliacci

"Many existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or pervious rocks or karst. Remedial works are necessary in order to install new cut-off walls to stop the water flow. In some cases the cut-off walls have to be executed at depths never reached so far, and difficult to reach with traditional foundation techniques. In many cases the Hydromill technology proved to be the best system to overpass rocky layers and ensure the required verticality. The maximum depth reached by the industry was in the range of 120-150 meters. This article describes the test performed to excavate and cast in place a 3.2x1.5 m panel to a depth of 250 m. The article will also describe the stratigraphy of the site down to 250 meters, as well as the technique adopted to achieve the said depth with deviations from verticality of 30 cm along the longitudinal axis (0.12%) and 20 cm along the transverse axis (0.10%), measured at the bottom of the excavation. The concreting of the panel, for about 1,100 m³, with plastic concrete in the lower portion and conventional concrete in the upper portion will be illustrated. Finally, the tests performed during the excavation and after concrete casting will be also described, with special attention to the continuous directional core drilling that was performed along the whole length of the panel to verify the results of the deviation from verticality, through the onboard instruments, and to control the quality of concrete at a depth never reached before. IntroductionMany existing dams are subject to underwater seepage due to subsoil conditions, like deep alluvial deposits or caves and cavities or acid solutions in the bedrock formations.Conventional remedial works generally consist in the construction of an additional cut-off wall throughout the dam body and the subsoil, in most cases being deeper than the original one. Today, many examples of successful remedial cut-off walls allow the engineers to design the most suitable solution according to the dam and subsoil characteristics and nature.The real difficulty stems from the depth at which the new cut-off wall has to be socketed in competent rock or soil, so as to eliminate underwater seepage. The maximum depth ever achieved with a cut-off wall is 122.5 m for the remedial work of Mud Mountain Dam, Washington, USA, in 1988-1990. This 0.85-1.0 m thick cut-off wall was realized by means of a Hydromill, by excavating single 2.8 m-wide secant panels."

Jan 1, 2017

By Daryl W. Wurster

The Liberty Bridge in Greenville, South Carolina is a curved, cable-stayed, pedestrian bridge with primary support provided by two towers. The bridge is part of the Falls Park redevelopment. The bridge was originally designed to be supported on drilled piers. Alternately, the bridge was supported on a combination of micropiles and anchor piles because of difficult access and subsurface conditions. The use of micropiles and anchor piles led to improved construction scheduling and reduced costs. Micropiles were used to resist compressive loads. Anchor piles were used to resist tensile forces and to eliminate excessive settlement of pile caps into underlying fill during pre-stressing. This paper describes the site history, bridge construction, site and subsurface conditions encountered, and the decisions that led to support of the bridge using micropiles and anchor piles and foundation construction.

Jan 1, 2006

By Michael Frawley, Deana Ruud, Jessica Turner

Technology is allowing for new ways to mitigate risk associated with subsurface exploration and unanticipated subsurface conditions during construction. Unanticipated subsurface conditions have the potential to force delays and cost overruns on even the best-managed and well-executed projects. For more than a century, geotechnical professionals have documented the location and conditions encountered in hundreds of thousands of subsurface borings. Utilizing processes for compiling and managing data, owners can streamline site selection and receive access to a conceptual geotechnical model before field exploration takes place. Digitizing historical subsurface information allows for creation of an interactive, web-based platform combining publicly available information and culminating with the opinion of a local, experienced geotechnical engineer. This connectivity aids in the reduction of risks associated with unknown conditions on prospective project sites. Through this conceptual project study, we demonstrate how a project owner would be able to use a comprehensive desktop study to review the expected conditions prior to making a purchasing decision. Following the purchase, the expected conditions would be confirmed through traditional methods, confirming potentially problematic site conditions and the associated risks. INTRODUCTION Preliminary project planning is often based on assumptions made by the design team with regards to site suitability. After due diligence, site development is traditionally initiated by the owner or the owner’s representative when engaging a geotechnical engineer to perform a thorough subsurface exploration at a site. The data generated by the geotechnical engineer’s analysis of the site is required to design foundations, pavements and earth retaining structures and move the project from concept into design. This necessary, subsurface exploration can be time consuming, intrusive, and require significant resources, often when resources during construction seasons when resources are most limited. By leveraging historical data generated from previous subsurface exploration, a more thorough analysis of project risk can be developed prior to mobilizing a drill rig. Ultimately, preliminary budgets and designs are more accurate and geotechnical field exploration is more strategic. The geotechnical engineer’s role transforms from raw exploration and analysis to confirmation of anticipated conditions.

Jan 1, 2019

By Brian H. Greene

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pittsburgh District, is in the final phases of modernizing the locks and dams on the Monongahela River. One facet of this modernization is to replace the existing Locks 4 located on the Monongahela River approximately 40 river miles upstream from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The existing locks consist of a 56-foot x 720-foot main chamber and a riverside 56-foot x 360-foot auxiliary chamber built in the 1930s. Two new lock chambers, each 84-foot wide by 720-foot long, will be constructed at the location of existing Locks 4 and will be named Charleroi Locks. The purpose of the new project is to facilitate navigation on the lower Monongahela River. Pittsburgh is currently the second largest inland waterway port in the nation, and the new locks will be an important component of the navigational infrastructure. The existing lock walls are of mass concrete construction and are founded on wooden timber piles driven to rock through alluvial sands and gravels. The new lock walls were designed to be supported by approximately 300 reinforced concrete drilled shafts, varying in diameter from 4 to 6 feet. To handle axial loads, the drilled shafts were designed for end bearing, with some skin friction. The tips of the shafts will be founded within competent rock. Since the walls will undergo lateral loads, the drilled shaft design also had to consider this loading condition. Some of the drilled shafts will be installed within coffer boxes, which will incorporate a tremie concrete seal down to top of rock. Complicating the design even further was the fact that some portions of the new walls will be supported by shafts that extend some 9 feet above top of rock through alluvial soils, producing a cantilever effect. The first phase of the new lock construction was initiated in the summer of 2005 with a contract awarded to replace the river wall. This required shutting down the existing riverside lock chamber and diverting all river traffic to the longer existing land chamber. The foundation of the new river wall will use 144 drilled shafts. To optimize the design embedment of drilled shafts in rock for the river wall, an exploratory drilling program was conducted by the contractor in July and August, 2005. Based on the quality of the sedimentary bedrock, the shafts will be embedded in rock from 31 to 38 feet. To achieve adequate end bearing resistance, the tips of each shaft will extend through predominantly claystones into a more competent siltstone unit for a minimum embedment of one foot. The contractor also performed an exploratory pile driving program to aid in the construction of the drilled shaft casing and the cut off walls that will encapsulate the river wall. Two demonstration drilled shafts located outside the footprint of the new river wall, will be constructed prior to the drilling of any production shafts. The demonstration drilled shafts will verify that the contractor is able to meet the design criteria and quality requirements of the contract. The river wall contract is currently underway and is scheduled to be completed in 2010.

Jan 1, 2006

By Braxton P. Erbe, Douglas C. Brunot

A variety of systems and techniques exist to support deep excavations where sloping is not feasible. This paper will explore an example project involving the use of pre-engineered hydraulic bracing systems to support sheet pile walls. Challenges on site that drove the final design include a high water table, irregular excavation geometry, and underground obstructions. The hydraulic system, connected by pins and not requiring welds, allowed for quick deployment and the modularity to change as required due to unforeseen site conditions.

By C. D. Thompson

Pile load test programs were carried out in 1984 and 1985 at Stelco's and Dofasco's Steel Making Plants in the Hamilton Bayfront area. 323.9 mm outside diameter by 9.5 mm wall thickness Grade 3 steel closed-end pipe piles were driven to practical refusal at depths of 21 to 30 m in very dense silt till with Delmag D30 open-end diesel hammers. Ultimate bearing capacities of up to 5330 kN were proved by dynamic monitoring and static load tests. Allowable bearing capacities of 1780 kN were achievable on production piles without undue difficulty. It was found that the impact stress at the top of the pile was controlled by the yield strength of the steel rather than a useable upper limit based on the modulus of elasticity. A bearing to impact stress ratio of 1.2 at practical refusal was observed to be reasonable but conservative at this site, and is felt to be generally applicable for piles driven to practical refusal elsewhere. Dynamic monitoring during production pile driving was able to show that apparent relaxation was caused by pre-ignition of the hammer when visual observations indicated that pile driving was proceeding satisfactorily.

Jan 1, 1987

By Frederic Masse

With widespread acceptance in the market place, many engineers are choosing ground improvement techniques to provide suitable foundation subgrade at sites that would have traditionally required deep foundations. This paper discusses the Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC) ground improvement technique and some case histories highlighting the use of this technique for retail development sites. CMC are a sustainable and cost-effective ground improvement technology that transmit load from the foundation to a lower bearing stratum through a composite CMC/soil matrix. The CMC installation is also an attractive option from an environmental perspective because it utilizes reverse flight augers, which displace the soil laterally. This installation technique achieves two goals: it densifies the soil around the CMC, which improves load transfer into the element and avoids spoil and its disposal. Through the introduction of two cases histories, we will present the key benefits of the CMC technology. Each case history will clearly illustrate how a CMC solution can reduce the overall cost of a project when compared to a more traditional type of deep foundations. They will also show how the use of CMCs has benefits that relate to the overall sustainability of the project. While CMCs are an attractive financial and sustainable option, they have also demonstrated that the performance of the system is comparable to that of deep pile foundations. Because CMCs are a relatively new technology many potential users are not aware of its benefits. While we discuss the use of CMCs to support buildings in this paper, CMCs also have been used for a variety of other applications including foundations for tanks, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls, and embankments

Jan 1, 2011

By D. Goossens

Quality control is a system which should guarantee that quality is achieved. It is the execution and verification of a project in an organised way, in order to obtain the maximum of certainty that the results meet the requirements. This concerns all stages of the project, from the soil investigation, over the design, to the execution. Quality control can and has been successfully realised for important projects by means of a quality plan. A quality plan is based on a number of general considerations, but should certainly be focussed on the particularities of a specific project. Practical examples of quality plans, which have been realised on sites in Belgium, are developed and the advantage of the system is shown by concrete case studies.

Jan 1, 1996

By Brandon Smith, William Bohlen

Riverbank erosion along the Brazos River has modified the structural support conditions for an existing bridge structure in Southeast Texas. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was completed in 1992 along Highway 99, a key corridor for the Houston area. Foundation support conditions have been altered due to natural, ongoing river morphology for three bents on the affected riverbank. Recent events include three storms within a three-year period that each exceeded the 500-year return probability. This resulted in accelerated erosion along the northern riverbank. Over forty vertical feet of soil has been removed in some locations. Drilled shaft foundations are now functioning as columns. This review considers the behavior of columns and deep foundation elements due to the modified support conditions. The review ultimately presents a rational methodology for the review of the present and anticipated future bridge configuration with respect to current strength, service, and extreme event limits, with corresponding safety factors for the design. Introduction and Background The Fort Bend Grand Parkway Toll Road Authority (Owner) oversees the State Highway 99 Judge Jodie Stavinoha Bridge over the Brazos River. The 8-span, 1,200-foot long bridge was originally designed with four southern approach spans of 115 feet; a three-span continuous river crossing with span lengths of 195 feet-235 feet-195 feet; and a single northern approach span of 115 feet. Figure 1 provides an overview of the northern portion of the bridge. Table 1 provides a summary of the original bridge substructure configuration. When the bridge was completed, the centerline of the Brazos River was located at midpsan of the main span and the northern high bank was originally located at Bent 7. Erosion process has forced the northern high bank to Abutment 9 (also called Bent 9), and the river centerline during normal flow conditions is located south of Bent 8. The overall estimated river excursion at present day is approximately 270 feet to the north from its original location. An erosion wall that was installed in 2017 limits further erosion of the north river bank within the 300-foot width of the roadway corridor right-of-way. This study was developed to better understand the existing conditions, and to forecast the need, nature, and criteria for potential future improvements.

Jan 1, 2019

By Silas C. Nichols, Jennifer E. Nicks

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

Jan 1, 2015

By John P. Turner, Steven S. Dapp, Dan A. Brown

"The Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) spanning the Arthur Kill Waterway between Elizabeth, NJ and Staten Island, NY is supported on over 200 drilled shaft foundations ranging in diameter from 4.5 ft to 10 ft and socketed into Passaic Formation siltstone. Four drilled shafts, two on each side of the bridge (NJ and NY), were load tested using the bi-directional axial load method. Axial test results demonstrate that RQD, taken by itself, is not necessarily a reliable indicator of side or base resistance. High recovery with low RQD can be a function of horizontally bedded siltstone and shale where the individual pieces of core do not exceed four inches, but may still provide very high side and base resistance. Axial testing was followed by a lateral rapid-load test (Statnamic) on each of the same four shafts. In addition, one of the shafts was subjected to a static lateral load test to validate the rapid-load method as being representative of static loading conditions. Results of the axial load tests provide the basis of unit side and unit base resistances used in the LRFD design of the rock sockets for axial loading, while results of the static and Statnamic lateral load tests were used to calibrate p-y curve parameters used for design under lateral and moment loading. This paper describes implementation of the load testing program and its role in the design process.INTRODUCTIONDesign of drilled shaft foundations for the Goethals Bridge Replacement (GBR) required load testing in order to validate the parameters used for calculating geotechnical axial and lateral resistances. The bridge, including foundations, was designed in accordance with the AASHTO LRFD design specifications, 6th Edition (2012). The bridge owner is the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). One of the PANYNJ project requirements was stated as follows:“Perform a minimum of two (2) separate axial compression load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology to verify the design assumptions and construction procedures. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.Conduct a minimum of two (2) lateral load tests (one [1] in New York and one [1] in New Jersey) for each demonstration shaft of different size and construction methodology. At a minimum, one (1) demonstration shaft is required to be representative of production shafts with a diameter within one (1) foot above or below the demonstration shaft diameter.”"

Jan 1, 2016

By Sebastian Fischer, Rolf Katzenbach, Steffen Leppla

"The risk management in the case of liquefaction is one of the most serious and also difficult issues in geotechnical engineering because failure caused by liquefaction is always a sudden failure without ahead indication. For that reason ground improvement technologies for the prevention of liquefaction are necessary. The paper explains the responsible and effective risk management. Methods for the risk management and stabilizing the soil sustainably are described in detail.1. INTRODUCTIONDue to population growing more and more settlement area is needed, which is often including improper regions (e.g. mountain and coast regions) with raised risk of various kinds of disasters. But also in densely populated areas the risk of disasters like landslides can occur. One reason for the raising of risk in densely populated regions can be the opencast mining for raw material production. An essential element of the opencast mining is the loose deposition of the removed overburden, the so-called “overburden dump”. When an opencast mining is running out of the raw material, an opencast hollow remains in landscape. The slope areas of these hollows mostly consist of loose bedded material of the overburden dump. Due to the end of groundwater conservation these loose bedded slope areas are flooded. In consequence the slopes are in extreme danger of becoming liquefied. The result of a liquefaction in these slopes will unavoidably be a slope slide. Such a slope slide can extend up to several hundred meters into the landscape and can move several million cubic meters of material. An upsetting example for such a landslide is the slope failure in the German city of Nachterstedt on July, 18th 2009, which made necessitate remedial measures and also prevention works for the further utilisation of the region. The phenomena of liquefaction is not limited of slopes in series of opencast mining. Especially in regions with a highly appearance of earthquakes the phenomena of liquefaction is well known.2. RISK MANAGEMENTAn essential part for the stability assessment of slope systems is the investigation of sensitivity against liquefaction. In the case of given sensitivity against liquefaction there is no calculation method according to soil mechanics to determine the factor of safety against slope failure. Just for the case that sensitivity against liquefaction is not met, a comparison of the load (effect) E and the resistance R which is the traditional verification of stability against slope failure, can be calculated (Figure 1)."

Jan 1, 2015