Innovative Driven Pile Solution for the RIDOT Route 6/10 ...

Innovative Driven Pile Solution for the RIDOT Route 6/10 Interchange Project

Seth H. Hamblin, P.E.

Geosciences Testing and Research, Inc.

2019 Transportation Innovation Conference 2

Table of ContentsI. Pile Driving Safety

II. Project Information

III. Foundation Selection Considerations

IV. Design Phase Foundation Load Testing Program

V. Construction Phase Foundation Construction

VI. Conclusions and Lessons Learned


Pile Driving Safety• Keep a safe distance from the rig –

cranes usually have defined swing radius.

• Engineers should be positioned to the side of the pile/hammer if possible – to avoid falling debris, parts, or worse.

• Be aware of equipment or materials swinging overhead or behind –particularly between piles when you may be pre-occupied with paperwork.

• Ear protection – impact and sound

• Eye protection – debris, welding

• Marine conditions - work over water

• Weather hazards – ice, tripping, etc.


6/10 Interchange Location

Project Area


6/10 Interchange Layout

Route 6 and 10 Interchange Looking South

Route 10 Northbound & Southbound

Route 6 Eastbound & Westbound


6/10 Interchange History The 6/10 Interchange is very old, constructed in the 1950s

Links three major commuter roadways in Providence, RI

Current usage is well above capacity, > 100,000 vehicles daily

Nine (9) existing bridges, seven (7) are structurally deficient

The Viaducts, ramps and bridges have been segmentally repaired and rehabbed over many years

RIDOT has previously spent millions of dollars to keep the interchange open and safe for the traveling public


6/10 Interchange Current Conditions


6/10 Interchange Project Information

Barletta Heavy Division O&G Industries D.W. White Construction

Aetna Bridge Company AECOM

Owner: Rhode Island Department of Transportation

Project Team: 6/10 Constructors, JV


6/10 Interchange Project Information Project Objective: Reconstruct entire interchange within the

existing highway ROW, while replacing or removing seven structurally deficient bridges and creating a highway link from Rt. 10 NB to Rt. 6 WB

Cost Estimate: $410 Million

Project Delivery Method: Design-Build

Project Schedule: Early 2018 through late 2023


6/10 Connector Proposed Layout


Proposed Foundation Alternatives Evaluation Criteria

Subsurface Conditions – Depth to Bedrock ~200 ft. Critical Loading Conditions – Uplift, Lateral & Compression Installation Cost Installation Schedule Obstructions Potential Presence Of Contaminated Soils

Deep Foundation Options Pre-Bid Design - Drilled Micropiles

Driven Steel Tapertube Piles Post‐Bid Value Engineering Alternate


Drilled Micropile Foundations Pros

Effective in any subsurface condition Limited access situations – low

headroom/confined site Minimal noise and vibration High tension and compression pile

capacities in bedrock Smaller equipment

Cons Limited frictional capacities in soil Contaminated drilling fluid and spoils More expensive per LF than piles Installation time – flushing & grouting


Driven Pipe Pile Foundations Pros

Higher capacities than micropiles –w/ closed end

Shorter installation times No spoils or groundwater controls

Cons Piles in sands do not demonstrate

increased capacity with depth Require long piles – End Bearing on

Bedrock Require corrosion protection Increased Noise & Vibration Obstructions – Pre-Augering


Driven Tapertube Pile Foundations Pros

Higher capacities for shorter driven lengths

Can develop higher shaft resistance in granular soils

Greater wall thickness and higher durability at tip

Installed with conventional pile driving equipment

Short installation times

Cons Higher cost per LF than pipe piles Increased Noise & Vibration Obstructions – Pre-Augering


Design Phase Pile Load Test Program Pre-Construction Feasibility & Drivability Study Two Test Pile Sites – East & West of Amtrak ROW Two Pile Types

16” Dia. Steel Pipe Piles 16” Dia. Steel Tapertube Pile – 16” x 8” x 25’

Environmental Study – Noise, Vibration & Settlement Monitoring Dynamic Pile Testing Internal Instrumentation Static Pile Testing

Compression – ASTM D1143 Tension – ASTM D3689 Lateral – ASTM D3966


Design Phase Pile Load Test Program“East of Amtrak” Test Pile Site

Amtrak & MBCR ROW


Design Phase Pile Load Test Program“West of Amtrak” Test Pile Site

Amtrak & MBCR ROW


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramPre-Construction Driven Pile Feasibility & Drivability

Static Capacity Evaluation to Determine Pile Size Relied on limited data collected on prior local project Singular project in NE to attempt to use tapertubes

Wave Equation (WEAP) Analysis – Evaluate Hammer/Soil/Pile System

Drivability Analysis Equipment Recommendations


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramEnvironmental Study

Vibration & Noise Monitoring during pile driving Performed at 25 ft and 50 ft offset

Surface Deformation Monitoring 15 ft, 25 ft, and 50 ft offsets from test piles


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramVibration, Noise, and Settlement Monitoring Point Layout


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramDynamic Pile Testing

Performed during pile installation (EOD) Restrike Testing after 5 days (BOR) - time dependent capacity CAPWAP Analyses on EOD and BOR data


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramDynamic Pile Testing Results

Driven2 Maximum 4 Maximum 4 Maximum 5

Test Test Time of1 Date Depth Stroke 3 Transferred Comp. Stress Comp. Stress CAPWAP

Site Pile Driving Energy Pile Top Pile Tip RX7 Capacity

(feet) (feet) (kip-ft) (ksi) (ksi) (kips) (kips)

EOD 5/16/18 3 24.8 27.9 16.7 235 220

BOR 5/21/18 3.5 28.2 29.1 28.2 487 465

BOR 5/21/18 3 24.8 28.4 26.8 415 370

EOD 5/16/18 3 25.1 26.4 22.0 343 340

BOR 5/21/18 3.5 33.6 32.1 28.2 438 455

BOR 5/21/18 3.5 28.5 29.5 26.4 421 425

BOR 5/21/18 3.5 28.7 29.4 26.3 412 395

EOD 5/30/18 27.1 29.8 20.8 326 330

BOR 6/4/18 25.2 30.4 21.3 358 355

BOR 6/4/18 21.4 27.3 18.9 325 310

EOD 5/30/18 22.8 26.3 21.0 404 390

BOR 6/4/18 22.2 30.5 19.5 447 420

BOR 6/4/18 20.6 29.7 19.6 397 395

EORD 6/4/18 55.0 21.8 27.2 20.0 368 360

EOA

WOA

Case Metho

Capacity

PP-2 70.0 3

TTP-251.0

3

PP-1 113.0

TTP-1 113.0


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramTest Pile Instrumentation

Vibrating Wire Strain Gages Inclinometer Casing – Lateral Load Test


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramStatic Pile Testing

Compression Load Tests on four test piles Tension Load Tests on three test piles One Lateral Test at each test site


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramCompression Load Tests


Design Phase Pile Load Test Program


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramTension Load Tests


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramLateral Load Tests


Design Phase Pile Load Test ProgramLoad Test Program Summary Data Table

Dynamic Testing

1" 1.5"(kips) (kips)

PP-1 5/16/18 113 16 24.8 57 65* 165 350 465TTP-1 5/16/18 113 41 25.1 39 50 255 430 455PP-2 6/4/18 70 5,5,5,4 bpi 21.4 48 58 N/A 280 355TTP-2 6/4/18 55 26 bpf 21.8 54 70 270 560 420

Nominal Compression

Capacity (kips)

Nominal Resistance Capacity

(kips)

Measured Deflections

WOA

EOA

Static Load Testing

Test Site

Test Pile

Driven Date

Driven Depth

(ft)

Observed Blow Count

(bpf)

Measured Energy (k-ft)

Lateral Load at Nominal Tension Capacity

(kips)


Pile Load Test Program Results Tapertubes performed better than pipe piles

Blow Count Pile Capacity – Compression/Tension/Lateral

Static test data suggest ultimate compression capacities ~ 4x greater than assumed micropiles loads

Data was directly incorporated into final design Very low ground vibrations at 25 ft from pile driving - <0.25 IPS Pile Driving noise <100 dB at 50 ft from hammer No observable settlement or heave of adjacent surfaces

SUCCESSFUL TEST PILE PROGRAM


Construction Phase Pile Installation 17 substructures founded on 16” tapertube piles Performed dynamic testing on 1st pile in each substructure One (1) substructure supported on micropiles


Construction Phase Pile InstallationLogistical and Environmental Challenges

Unexpected variability in subsurface conditions at west end of site

Buried historic foundations - Obstructions Existing underground utilities Proximity to existing viaduct and live traffic Site Grade Elevations – Existing vs. Final Winter Conditions



Existing 340kV Duct Bank

Proposed Pile Location


Project Specific Results Tapertubes resulted in a 400% increase to the axial pile design

capacity compared to micropiles Tapertubes satisfied stringent lateral and uplift design

requirements Drive fit sleeve pile splices performed very well Reduced number of elements per substructure by >50% Schedule savings of ~1.5 months per foundation substructure

Estimated micropile pier construction time – 40-50 days Actual tapertube pile pier construction time – 2-4 days


Conclusions & Recommendations Tapertubes are a viable foundation solution in New England

Subsurface conditions – med. Dense sand with sand and gravel Increased Design Phase Testing Saves Time & Money Project delivery method provided opportunities for innovation Allow for technical flexibility in project Early Collaboration between Owner / Engineer/ Contractor /

Supplier leads to greater project value Test in Non-Production Locations with Robust Load Frames Incorporate Site Specific data into Final Design


QuestionsThank You For Your Attention!

Innovative Driven Pile Solution for the RIDOT Route 6/10 ...

Documents

Transcript of Innovative Driven Pile Solution for the RIDOT Route 6/10 ...