1、Case Histories and Lessons LearnedIFCEE 2018Papers from Sessions of the International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo 2018Orlando, Florida March 510, 2018Edited byMuhannad T. Suleiman, Ph.D. Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D. Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E.GSP 298GEOTECHNICAL SPECIAL PUBLICATION NO. 298 I
2、FCEE 2018 CASE HISTORIES AND LESSONS LEARNED 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 Institute Pile Driving Contractors Association T
3、he Geo-Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY Muhannad T. Suleiman, Ph.D. Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D. Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E. Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20
4、191-4382 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 reference made in this publication to any specific
5、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 purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, st
6、atutes, 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 publication, and assumes no liability therefor. T
7、he 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 use, including but not limited to infringement of
8、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 to permissionsasce.org or by locating a title in
9、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/10.1061/9780784481615 Copyright 2018 by the American Society of Civil Engineers. All Rights Reserved. ISBN 978-0-784
10、4-8161-5 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America. Preface This is the fifth volume of six Geotechnical Special Publications (GSPs) and one Geotechnical Practice Publication (GPP) containing papers from the 2018 International Foundations Congress and Equipment Expo (IFCEE18) held in Orland
11、o, 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 practices. The IFCEE conference series is a one of a ki
12、nd 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 of Foundation Drilling (ADSC), the Pile Driving
13、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 organizations joined together for a single and sing
14、ular 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 including engineers, contractors, academicians, e
15、quipment 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 meetings in the IFCEE conference series. Many individu
16、als 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 were presented in 47 sessions, in addition to in
17、vited 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 reviewers. The Editors would like to express their appre
18、ciation 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 for many years to come. The Editors, Muhannad T.
19、 Suleiman, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, M.DFI, Lehigh University Anne Lemnitzer, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE, M.DFI, University of California, Irvine Armin W. Stuedlein, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, M.DFI, Oregon State University ,) Elizabeth M. Smith, P.E., G.E., D.GE, Terracon Consultants, Inc.; James W. Niehoff, P.E., M.ASCE, G
20、EI 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 ,) Thomas W. Pennington, P.E., M.ASCE, Jacobs Associ
21、ates 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 Ground Improvement: Treatment Case Studies Christia
22、n 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, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE, Bechtel Corp. Stone Column
23、s/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 Design and Construction Sam Sternberg, III, P.E., M.AS
24、CE, 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, Ph.D., G.E., P.E., M.ASCE, CH2M HILL QA/QC for De
25、ep 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, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, Case Western University Oth
26、er 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, University of Central Florida Shallow Foundatio
27、ns 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 University, Fullerton; Beena Ajmera, Ph.D., A.M.
28、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., P.E., M.ASCE, Braun Intertec; Kam Weng Ng, Ph.D
29、., 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 L. Sebastian Bryson2; and Jorge Romana Giraldo3 1Project Man
30、ager, Richard Goettle, Inc., 12071 Hamilton Ave., Cincinnati, OH 45231. E-mail: 2Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Kentucky, 161 Raymond Bldg., Lexington, KY 40506. E-mail: sebastian.brysonuky.edu 3Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Kentucky, L
31、exington, KY 40506. E-mail: jorge.romanauky.edu Abstract The Fargo water treatment plant improvement project is a $104 million plant addition located in Fargo, ND. The original foundation design for the addition consisted of 346 each 42-in. diameter drilled piers; similar to the existing plant found
32、ations. A value engineering (VE) alternate foundation system was proposed that consisted of a 1-for-1 replacement of the drilled piers with auger cast-in place (ACIP) piles of equivalent capacity. The VE alternate proposal saved approximately $4 million and 15 weeks in the construction schedule. The
33、 ACIP pile VE alternate was ultimately selected for the project. A pile load testing program was undertaken to verify design assumptions and optimize the design of the piles by determining the frictional resistance being developed along the length of the test pile within each subsurface layer. The l
34、oad testing program consisted of four reaction piles, and one sacrificial compression load test pile that was tested to a maximum test load of 704 kips. The pile load test was successful in verifying design assumptions, and verifying that the proposed ACIP pile was an appropriate deep foundation ele
35、ment for the project. INTRODUCTION Problem Description The “base bid” drilled pier foundation was identified as a cause for unnecessary cost and construction time for the project. The $4M in savings and the 15 week schedule reduction that the ACIP pile VE offered were reason enough for the project t
36、eam to proceed with the ACIP pile approach. The WTP is located in the southeast corner of the state, in Cass County. The location of the WTP relative to the State is shown in Figure 1. ,) (b) City of Fargo. Value Engineering The “base bid” foundation system for the Fargo Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
37、consisted of 346 drilled shafts of 42 in diameter, socketed a minimum of 9 ft in the glacial till. This came to an average drilled pier length of 95 feet to resist the 640 kip design load. A sacrificial Osterberg Cell (O-cell) test was to be included to verify end bearing capacities of the native so
38、ils. The value of this work was approximately $9 million, and the projected installation duration was 30 weeks. An initial Value Engineering (VE) alternate system was proposed that consisted of a one-for-one replacement of each drilled shaft with a Continuously Flight Auger (CFA) pile of equivalent
39、capacity (640 kips). The value of the VE proposal was $3.7 million, with a projected installation duration of 16 weeks. The project was awarded based on the VE deep foundation system. After initial discussions and engineering planning sessions, a further savings adjustment was observed by utilizing
40、a 2-for-1 replacement of Augered Cast-In-Place piles of roughly half the design capacity (320 kips). The span between piles was roughly cut in half. The 2-for-1 replacement system was ultimately selected, with the final deep foundation contract value awarded at a value of $3.2 million. Site Conditio
41、ns A plan view of the boring locations and the test location is shown in Figure 2. Undocumented fill was encountered at the surface of all of the borings except BV-1 (topsoil) and BV-7 (bituminous surfacing). The fill extended to depths of 5 to 16.5 ft. The fill was generally fat clay (CH) or lean c
42、lay (CL) with varying amounts of sand. In Boring BV-2 a layer of poorly graded sand (SP) fill (a )(b),) and dry densities (DD) ranging from 55 to 79 pcf. Atterberg limits tests (per ASTM D4318) indicated the natural clay soils tested had liquid limits (LL) ranging from 41 to 118 percent, plastic lim
43、its (PL) ranging from 17 to 31 percent, and plasticity indices (PI) ranging from 17 to 0204060801 0 01 2 00 20 40 60 80 1 0 0 1 2 0Depth (ft bgs)N a tura l M o i s tur e C o ntent (% )Mo i s t u re cont en t (w )L i q u i d Limi tPl as t i c Limi t0204060801 0 01 2 00 2 4 6 8 10Depth (ft bgs)Bl o w
44、C o unts (bpf)0204060801 0 01 2 00 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 8 0 0 0Depth (ft bgs)Shea r Str eng th (ps f)U n c o n fi n e dPo ck et Pe n et ro met er,) PI = plasticity index; qu = unconfined compression strength; qp = pocket penetrometer strength; su = undrained shear strength. ACIP PILE INSTALLATION
45、 PROCEDURES The ACIP piles were drilled with a crane and swinging leads. An APE 75 drill was mounted in the leads, powered by an APE 475 power unit. The hydraulic powered auger drive produced a minimum of 30,000 ft/lbs of rotational torque. It rotated an 18 in nominal diameter continuous flight holl
46、ow stem auger. The auger and leads were equipped with a traveling center guide and a bottom guide and the cranes were equipped with a torque converter to ensure a smooth auger withdrawal. The average penetration rates during drilling was 10 ft/min. Auger rotation speeds were 25 rpm at the low speed
47、setting and 50 rpm at the high speed setting. A majority of the pile profile was drilled in the high speed setting. Positive rotation was maintained as the auger was withdrawn and grout was placed. ,) (b) Lateral view. Strain gages were installed along the length of the pile to measured axial loads
48、and then quantify skin friction resistances that were mobilized in the pile. The strain gauges consisted of Geokon, Inc. Model 4911 “Sister Bars”, which were installed alongside the rebar cage. Figure 5 show a typical strain gage used for the load test. ,) (b) load transfer for all load increments.
49、The load at a specified point in the pile was determined from the strain gage data using the following equation: ppEAP (1) where P = computed load at strain gage level; = strain at the gage level; pA = cross sectional area of the pile = 254. 5 in2; pE = composite elastic modulus of the pile = 3,823,676 psi. From Figure 7 it is observed that at 99.5 percent of the Butler and Hoy (1977) ultimate capacity, 672 kips, the mobilized shaft resistance was 633.4 kips (94 percent) and the mobilized end bearing was 38.6 kips (6 percent
