Construction issues that are presented include pile heave and the heave of an adjacent building during pile driving. Mitigation measures, including the installation
59 pages
89 KB – 59 Pages
PAGE – 2 ============
FOREWORD The purpose of this report is to document the is sues related to the design and construction of driven pile foundations at the Central Artery/T unnel project. Construction issues that are presented include pile heave and the heave of an adjacent building during pile driving. Mitigation measures, including the installation of wick drains and the use of preaugering, proved to be ineffective. The results of 15 dynamic and st atic load tests are also presented and suggest that the piles have more capacity than what they were designed for. The information presented in this report will be of interest to geotechnical engineers working with driven pile foundation systems. Gary L. Henderson Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorshi p of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no lia bility for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse produc ts or manufacturer s. Trademarks or manufacturers™ names appear in this report only because they are consid ered essential to the objective of the document. QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) pr ovides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner th at promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issu es and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.
PAGE – 3 ============
Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. FHWA-HRT-05-159 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient™s Catalog No. 5. Report Date June 2006 4. Title and Subtitle Design and Construction of Driven Pile FoundationsŠ Lessons Learned on the Central Artery/Tunnel Project 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) Aaron S. Bradshaw and Christopher D.P. Baxter 8. Performing Organization Report No. 10. Work Unit No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address University of Rhode Island Narragansett, RI 02882 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-03-P-00174 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report January 2003ŒAugust 2003 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Federal Highway Administration 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes Contracting Officer™s Technical Representative (COTR): Carl Ealy, HRDS-06 16. Abstract Five contracts from the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) proj ect in Boston, MA, were reviewed to document issues related to design and construction of dr iven pile foundations. Given the soft and compressible marine clays in the Boston area, driven pile foundations were selected to support specific structures, including retaining walls, abutments, roadway slabs, transition structures, and ramps. This report presents the results of a study to assess the lessons learned from pile driving on the CA/T. This study fo cused on an evaluation of static and dynamic load test data and a case study of significant movement of an adj acent building during pile driving. The load test results showed that the piles have more capacity than what they were designed for. At the site of significant movement of an adjacent building, installation of wick drains and pr eaugering to mitigate additional movement proved to be ineffective. Detailed settlement, inclinometer, and piezometer data are presented. 17. Key Words Driven piles, heave, CAPWAP, static load test, Boston tunnel 18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. 19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified 20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified 21. No. of Pages 58 22. Price Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of co mpleted page authorized
PAGE – 4 ============
ii SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km AREA in2square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm 2ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m 2yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m 2acacres0.405hectaresha mi2square miles 2.59 square kilometerskm 2VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liters L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m 3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m 3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m 3MASS ozounces28.35gramsg lbpounds 0.454kilogramskg T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or “metric ton”) Mg (or “t”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC or (F-32) /1.8 ILLUMINATION fcfoot-candles10.76luxlx flfoot-Lamberts3.426candela/m 2 cd/m 2FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N lbf/in 2poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You KnowMultiply ByTo Find Symbol LENGTHmm millimeters 0.039 inches in m meters 3.28 feet ft m meters 1.09 yardsyd km kilometers0.621 miles mi AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in 2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft 2 m2 square meters1.195square yards yd 2 ha hectares 2.47acresac km2 square kilometers0.386 square miles mi 2 VOLUME mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz L liters 0.264 gallons gal m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft 3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd 3 MASS ggrams0.035ouncesoz kgkilograms2.202poundslb Mg (or “t”) megagrams (or “metric ton”) 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF ILLUMINATION lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc cd/m 2candela/m 20.2919 foot-Lambertsfl FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in 2*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Approp riate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E 380. e(Revised March 2003 )
PAGE – 5 ============
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 ROLE OF DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATIONS ON THE CA/T PROJECT. 1 OBJECTIVES 3 SCOPE.. 3 CHAPTER 2. DRIVEN PILE DESIGN CRITERIA AND SPECIFICATIONS.. 5 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS.. 5 DESIGN CRITERIA AND SPECIFICATIONS. 9 Pile Types.. 9 Preaugering Criteria 10 Pile Driving Criteria.. 10 Axial Load and Pile Load Test Criteria 13 CHAPTER 3. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND METHODS 15 EQUIPMENT AND METHODS. 15 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ISSUES.. 19 Pile Heave 19 Soil Heave 21 Summary.. 27 CHAPTER 4. DYNAMIC AND STATIC PILE LOAD TEST DATA. 29 LOAD TEST METHODS.29 Dynamic Load Test Methods. 29 Static Load Test Methods 30 LOAD TEST RESULTS 33 Dynamic Results and Interpretation.. 35 Comparison of CAPWAP Data 38 Static Load Test Data. 39 Comparison of Dynamic and Static Load Test Data. 41 CHAPTER 5. COST DATA OF DRIVEN PILES. 43 CHAPTER 6. LESSONS LEARNED 45 REFERENCES .47
PAGE – 6 ============
iv LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Locations of selected contracts from the CA/T project 2 Figure 2. Soil profile at the contract C07D1 site as encountered in Boring EB3-5 6 Figure 3. Soil profile at the contract C07D2 site as encountered in Boring EB2-149.. 7 Figure 4. Soil profile at the contract C08A1 site as encountered in Boring EB6-37. 7 Figure 5. Soil profile at the contract C09A4 site as encountered in Boring IC10-13. . 8 Figure 6. Soil profile at the contract C19B1 site as encountered in Boring AN3-101. 8 Figure 7. Typical pile details for a 30-cm-diameter PPC pile 11 Figure 8. Typical pile details for a 41-cm-diameter PPC pile with stinger. 12 Figure 9. Single-acting diesel hammer.. 16 Figure 10. Double-acting diesel hammer.. 17 Figure 11. Single-acting hydraulic hammer. 17 Figure 12. Typical pile driving record.. .18 Figure 13. Site plan, piling layout for th e arrivals tunnel at Logan Airport 19 Figure 14. Site plan showing locations of p iles, building footprint, and geotechnical instrumentation. .22 Figure 15. Settlement data obtained dur ing first phase of pile driving.. 23 Figure 16. Settlement data obtained dur ing second phase of pile driving 25 Figure 17. Multipoint heave gauge data obtaine d during second phase of pile driving 25 Figure 18. Pore pressure data obtained during second phase of pile driving. 26 Figure 19. Inclinometer data obtained dur ing second phase of pile driving 27 Figure 20. Example of CAPWAP signa l matching, test pile 16A1-1. 30 Figure 21. Typical static load test ar rangement showing instrumentation.. 31 Figure 22. Load-displacement curves fo r pile toe, test pile 16A1-1 37 Figure 23. CAPWAP capacities at end of initial driving (EOD) and beginning of restrike (BOR).. 39 Figure 24. Deflection of pile head during static load testing of pile 12A1-1. 40 Figure 25. Distribution of load in pile 12A1-1.. 40 Figure 26. Deflection of pile head during static load testing of pile 14.40 Figure 27. Distribution of load in pile 14. 40 Figure 28. Deflection of pile head during static load testing of pile IPW 41 Figure 29. Distribution of load in pile IPW. 41
PAGE – 9 ============
1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Pile foundations are used extensively for the support of buildings, bridges, and other structures to safely transfer structural loads to the ground and to avoid excess settlement or lateral movement. They are very effective in transferring structur al loads through weak or compressible soil layers into the more competent soils and rocks below. A fidriven pile foundationfl is a specific type of pile foundation where structural elements are driven into the ground using a large hammer. They are commonly constructed of timber, precast pres tressed concrete (PPC), and steel (H-sections and pipes). Historically, piles have been used extensively for the support of structures in Boston, MA. This is mostly a result of the need to transfer lo ads through the loose fill and compressible marine clays that are common in the Boston area. Driven piles, in particular, have been a preferred foundation system because of their relative ease of installation and low cost. They have played an important role in the Centra l Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project. ROLE OF DRIVEN PILE FOUNDATIO NS ON THE CA/T PROJECT The CA/T project is recognized as one of the largest and most complex highway projects in the United States. The project involved the replacemen t of Boston™s deteriorating six-lane, elevated central artery (Interstate (I) 93) with an underground highway; construction of two new bridges over the Charles River (the Leverett Circle Connector Bridge and the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge); and the extension of IŒ90 to Boston™s Logan International Airport and Route 1A. The project has been under construction since late 1991 and is scheduled to be completed in 2005.(1) Driven pile foundations were used on the CA/T for the support of road and tunnel slabs, bridge abutments, egress ramps, retaining walls, and utiliti es. Because of the large scale of the project, the construction of the CA/T proj ect was actually bid under 73 separate contracts. Five of these contracts were selected for this study, where a large number of p iles were installed, and 15 pile load tests were performed. The locations of the individual contracts are shown in figure 1 and summarized in table 1. A description of the five contracts and associated pile-supported structures is also given below. 1. Contract C07D1 is located adjacent to Logan Airport in East Boston and included construction of a part of the IŒ90 Logan Airport Interchange roadway network. New roadways, an egress ramp, retained fill sections, a viaduct structure, and retaining walls were all constructed as part of the contract.(2) Driven piles were used primarily to support the egress ramp superstructure, abutments, roadway slabs, and retaining walls. 2. Contract C07D2 is located adjacent to Logan Airport in East Boston and included construction of a portion of the IŒ90 Logan Airport Interchange. Major new structures included highway sections, a viaduct structure, a reinforced concrete open depressed roadway (boat section), and at-grade approach roadways.(2) Driven piles were used to support the boat section, walls and abutment s, and portions of the viaduct.
PAGE – 10 ============
2 Figure 1. Locations of selected contracts from the CA/T project. (3) Table 1. Summary of selected contracts using driven pile foundations. Contract Location Description C07D1 Logan Airport IŒ90 Logan Airport Interchange C07D2 Logan Airport IŒ90 Logan Airport Interchange C08A1 Logan Airport IŒ90 and Route 1A Interchange C09A4 Downtown IŒ93/IŒ90 Interchange, I-93 Northbound C19B1 Charlestown IŒ93 Viaducts and Ramps North of the Charles River 3. Contract C08A1 is located just north of Logan Airport in East Boston and included construction of the IŒ90 and Route 1A interchange. This contract involved new roadways, retained fill structures, a viaduct, a boat section, and a new subway station.(2) Both vertical and inclined piles were used to support retaining walls and abutments. 4. Contract C09A4 is located just west of the Fort Point Channel in downtown Boston. The contract encompassed construction of the IŒ90 and IŒ93 interchange, and the northbound section of IŒ93. Major new structures included surface roads, boat sections, tunnel sections, viaducts, and a bridge.(2) Piles were used to support five approach structures that provide a transition from on-grade roadways to the viaduc t sections. Piles were also used to support utility pipelines. 5. Contract C19B1 is located just north of the Charles River in Charlestown. The contract included the construction of viaduct and ramp structures forming an interchange connecting Route 1, Storrow Drive, and IŒ93 roadways. Major new structures included roadway transition structures, boat sections, retaining walls, and a stormwater pump station. (2) Piles I-93 I-90 C19B1 C9A4 C7D1/D2 C8A1
PAGE – 11 ============
3 were used to support the ramp structures th at transition from on-grade roadways to the viaduct or boat sections. OBJECTIVES The overall objective of this report is to documen t the lessons learned from the installation of driven piles on the CA/T project. This includes review and analysis of pile design criteria and specifications, pile driving equipment and met hods, issues encountered during construction, dynamic and static load test data , and cost data for different pile types and site conditions. SCOPE This report consists of six chapters, the first of which presents introductory and background information about the contracts where significa nt pile driving occurred. The second chapter discusses the criteria and specifications used for pile design and construction on the CA/T project. The third chapter documents the equipm ent and methods used for pile driving. Major construction issues encountered during driving, such as pile and soil heave, are also discussed. The fourth chapter presents the results of pile lo ad tests performed on test piles using static and dynamic test methods, including a discussion of ax ial capacity, dynamic soil parameters, and pile driving criteria. The fifth chapter presents the uni t costs for pile driving and preaugering for the different pile types used, as identified in the original construction bids. Finally, the sixth chapter summarizes the important findings of this study.
89 KB – 59 Pages