1、Advances in Geomaterial Modeling and Site CharacterizationIFCEE 2018Papers from Sessions of the International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo 2018Orlando, Florida March 510, 2018Edited byArmin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E. Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D. Muhannad T. Suleiman, Ph.D.GSP 295GEOTECHNICAL SPECI
2、AL PUBLICATION NO. 295 IFCEE 2018 ADVANCES IN GEOMATERIAL MODELING AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION SELECTED PAPERS FROM SESSIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION CONGRESS AND EQUIPMENT EXPO 2018 March 510, 2018 Orlando, Florida SPONSORED BY International Association of Foundation Drilling Deep Foundations
3、Institute Pile Driving Contractors Association The Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E. Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D. Muhannad T. Suleiman, Ph.D. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers Published by American Society of Civil Engineer
4、s 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382 www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein. No ref
5、erence made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in pur
6、chase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document. ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this p
7、ublication, and assumes no liability therefor. The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such us
8、e, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents. ASCE and American Society of Civil EngineersRegistered in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an e-mail t
9、o permissionsasce.org or by locating a title in ASCEs Civil Engineering Database (http:/cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library (http:/ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link. Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https:/doi.org/10.1061/9780784481585 Copyright 2018 by the American Society of Civi
10、l Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-7844-8158-5 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America. Preface This is the second volume of six Geotechnical Special Publications (GSPs) and one Geotechnical Practice Publication (GPP) containing papers from the 2018 International Foundations Con
11、gress and Equipment Expo (IFCEE18) held in Orlando, Florida on March 510, 2018. The IFCEE conference series combines a technical conference and equipment show dedicated to the design and construction of foundation systems, using the latest geo-engineering and geo-construction technologies and practi
12、ces. The IFCEE conference series is a one of a kind event that attracts attendees from around the world for the worlds largest equipment exposition dedicated solely to the deep foundations industry. This Congress combined the 2018 annual meetings of ASCEs Geo-Institute, the International Association
13、 of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), the Pile Driving Contractors Association (PDCA) and the Deep Foundations Institute (DFI). This event was the third Congress in the IFCEE conference series, following the successful 2009 and 2015 meetings, in which these leading geotechnical and geotechnical-related or
14、ganizations joined together for a single and singular annual congress. IFCEE18 provided an international forum to discuss technological advances, case histories, and present challenges related to geotechnical and foundation engineering. The Congress was attended by a wide range of geo-professionals
15、including engineers, contractors, academicians, equipment manufacturers, geo-technologists, researchers, and service, material and tooling suppliers. This publication culminates two years of effort by the technical planning committee whose focus has been to continue the success of the previous meeti
16、ngs in the IFCEE conference series. Many individuals are responsible for the content of this volume, all of whom served in the efforts to maintain the standard set by previous proceedings. An international call for papers and a rigorous peer review process yielded 280 accepted technical papers, that
17、 were presented in 47 sessions, in addition to invited keynote presentations. Papers were reviewed in accordance with ASCE GSP standards. Accordingly, each paper was subjected to technical review by two or more independent peer reviewers. Publication requires concurrence by at least two peer reviewe
18、rs. The Editors would like to express their appreciation for having been provided the opportunity to be a part of this Congress organization, their sincere thanks to the numerous session chairs and reviewers, and we hope that these proceedings will be of use to the geotechnical engineering community
19、 for many years to come. The Editors, Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, M.DFI, Oregon State University Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, M.DFI, University of California, Irvine Muhannad T. Suleiman, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, M.DFI, Lehigh University ,) Elizabeth M. Smith, P.E., G.E., D.GE, Terracon Con
20、sultants, Inc.; James W. Niehoff, P.E., M.ASCE, GEI Consultants, Inc. Field Testing: Axial/Lateral I Gerald Verbeek, M.ASCE, Verbeek Management Services; John P. Turner, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, M.ASCE, Dan Brown and Associates, PC; Murad Y. Abu-Farsakh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Louisiana State University ,)
21、Thomas W. Pennington, P.E., M.ASCE, Jacobs Associates Ground Improvement Jason DeJong, Ph.D., University of California, Davis; Kenichi Soga, Ph.D., FREng, FICE, M.ASCE, University of California, Berkeley Geosynthetic/Fiber Reinforcement Ben A. Leshchinsky, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Oregon State University Gr
22、ound Improvement: Treatment Case Studies Christian B. Woods, P.E., D.GE, G.E., M.ASCE, Densification, Inc. Liquefaction and Densification Menzer Pehlivan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, CH2M HILL Retaining and Cutoff Wall Design and Construction Kenneth L. Fishman, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, McMahon Nasser Massoudi
23、, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Bechtel Corp. Stone Columns/Piers/Grouting I Kord J. Wissmann, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, M.ASCE, Geopier Foundation Company; Jie Han, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, The University of Kansas ,) John S. McCartney, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of California, San Diego Bridges: Foundation Desig
24、n and Construction Sam Sternberg, III, P.E., M.ASCE, Thompson Engineering Characterizing the Behavior of Soils Cumaraswamy (Vipu) Vipulanandan, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Houston; Yazen Khasawneh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, NTH Consultants, Ltd. Liquefaction: Analysis and Design C. Yoga Chandran,
25、Ph.D., G.E., P.E., M.ASCE, CH2M HILL QA/QC for Deep Foundations Anna Sellountou, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, Pile Dynamics, Inc. Rock Mechanics Ingrid Tomac, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, University of California, San Diego; Ehsan Ghazanfari, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Vermont Site Characterization Xiong (Bill) Yu,
26、 Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, Case Western University Other Topics in Geotechnical Engineering Constitutive Modeling Usama S. El Shamy, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Southern Methodist University; Seung Jae Lee, Ph.D., Aff.M.ASCE, Florida International University Pavements and Subgrades Boo Hyun Nam, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE
27、, University of Central Florida Shallow Foundations Xiong Zhang, Ph.D., P.E., A.M.ASCE, Missouri University of Science and Technology Slopes, Dams, Embankments Timothy D. Stark, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Binod Tiwari, Ph.E., P.E., M.ASCE, California State
28、 University, Fullerton; Beena Ajmera, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, California State University, Fullerton ,) Rifat Bulut, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Oklahoma State University Selected Other Topics in Geotechnical Engineering Matteo Montesi, P.E., M.ASCE, WSP USA; Curt R. Basnett, P.E., M.ASCE. CH2M HILL; Morgan Race, Ph.D.
29、, P.E., M.ASCE, Braun Intertec; Kam Weng Ng, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, University of Wyoming; Lori A. Simpson, G.E., P.E., M.ASCE, Langan Treadwell Rollo Case Histories, Lessons Learned and General Practice ACIP Piles: Case Histories and Lessons Learned W. Morgan NeSmith, P.E., M.ASCE, Berkel and Christo
30、pher L. Meehan, F.ASCE21Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Delaware, 301 DuPont Hall, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: bakerwiludel.edu 2Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Delaware, 301 DuPont Hall, Newark, DE 19716. E-mail: cme
31、ehanudel.edu Abstract The determination of in-place unit weight and moisture content is a critical component of earthwork construction quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). Direct measurement methods such as the drive cylinder test, sand cone test, or rubber balloon test can be utilized to
32、determine a soils in-place unit weight and moisture content, and have a long history of use in geotechnical engineering. However, these direct measurement methods are destructive in nature and the tests are time consuming to conduct in the field. As a result, nuclear density gauge testing has emerge
33、d as the dominant approach for QA/QC of soil compaction in the United States, as this device allows for relatively nondestructive testing (only a small hole in needed to run the test), and quicker testing, which allows for better coverage of a compacted soil area in the field. Conventional nuclear d
34、ensity gauges utilize radioactive sources to determine a soils in-place unit weight and moisture content, which can be hazardous to the user and others nearby if proper safety protocols are not followed. A new density gauge has recently been developed (the “EGauge”), which uses the same general prin
35、ciples as the nuclear density gauge to measure in-place unit weight and moisture content of soils, with relatively low emission radioactive sources being utilized in the device compared to more traditional devices (allowing for safer testing). This paper describes the results from a study that was c
36、arried out to examine the relative differences between in situ unit weight and moisture content measurements made with a drive cylinder, nuclear density gauge, and EGauge. All testing was performed on an active project site, on soil areas that had been well compacted. After calibrating the EGauge fo
37、r moisture content, it was observed that all three test approaches were generally in good agreement with one another for the wet and dry soil unit weight and the soil moisture content. The nuclear density gauge consistently underestimated moisture content and consequently overestimated dry unit weig
38、ht values relative to the drive cylinder measurements. Overall, the EGauge measurements were in better agreement with measurements made by the drive cylinder than they were with the nuclear density gauge test results. INTRODUCTION During earthwork construction soils are subjected to compaction-induc
39、ed densification to improve their overall strength and stability, and to reduce their compressibility under load (e.g., DAppolonia et al. 1969). “End product” specifications are utilized to ensure soils in the field are sufficiently compacted to ensure adequate engineering performance (e.g., DelDOT
40、2001). In situ ,) however, in this study a smaller (3 inch diameter) cylinder was used, which tended to yield gravel-induced voids along the wall of the cylinder during driving, producing lower unit weight readings. Nuclear-based testing devices (e.g., ASTM D6938-17, AASHTO T238-97) are currently th
41、e most commonly used tool in the United States for measuring in situ soil unit weight and moisture content; this is not surprising, given that the tests are relatively nondestructive in nature and tests can be conducted relatively quickly (Berney and Kyzar 2012, Meehan et al. 2012). However, these d
42、evices have numerous “logistical” issues which stem from the presence of a radioactive emission source in the device (Meehan and Hertz 2013). There are numerous procedures that must be followed surrounding the transportation, handling, use and storage of the device to ensure both personnel and the p
43、ublic are protected from the radioactive material. There are also strict regulations and reporting requirements regarding how the device must be used, stored, and transported, which are overseen by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In response to these issues, a new density gauge, the EGauge, has r
44、ecently been developed (Troxler 2016). This density gauge uses the same principal measurement methodology as a traditional nuclear density gauge, but with nuclear sources that have a much lower level of radioactivity. This device is consequently safer to use in the field, with fewer requirements for
45、 safety training of field personnel, and without the complexities of NRC reporting requirements. The object of this paper is to compare in situ unit weight and moisture content measurements taken from a Drive Cylinder, a traditional Nuclear Density Gauge and the EGauge on an active ,) this calculate
46、d moisture content was then used to determine the samples dry unit weight. The Nuclear Density Gauge testing conducted in this study was performed in accordance with ASTM D6938-17. The Nuclear Density Gauge uses gamma-ray transmission to determine the in-place unit weight of a given soil, and therma
47、lization of neutrons to determine the soils in-place moisture content. Gamma rays that are emitted are produced using a cesium isotope source. The gamma rays pass through the soil that is being tested and are measured by detectors in the gauge. Interaction with the soil particles causes the gamma ra
48、ys (photons) to become scattered, reducing the number of photons the reach the detector within a given period. The number of photons that are measured by the detector over a fixed period of exposure time correlates well with the moist unit weight of the material (Troxler 2009). Neutrons that are emi
49、tted are produced using an americium-isotope/beryllium source. Neutron transmission is used to infer the amount of hydrogen that is present in the soil through a process called thermalization. During thermalization, neutrons that are emitted by the source are slowed down due to collisions with hydrogen molecules that are located between the source and the detector (i.e., in the soil that is being tested). The Nuclear Density Gauge uses detectors to measure the number of neutrons that have been thermalized over a given period, which has been shown to be
