Case Study: Contending with Weak Soils in Underpass Construction

Bernard H. Hertlein STS Consultants, Ltd. 750, Corporate Woods Parkway Vernon Hills, Illinois 60061 Telephone (847) 279-2500 Fax (847) 279-2510

Jeff Greider Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc. 7808 South 207th Court Kent, Washington 98032 Telephone (253) 395-3300 Fax (253) 395-3312

Abstract The design of a highway underpass beneath a busy mainline near Seattle included secant pile walls to act as both retaining walls and bridge abutments.

The geotechnical investigation revealed layers of weak alluvial soils. Soil improvement by deep soil mixing with cement was required for the secant wall deep foundations. Variations in soil conditions caused unexpected variations in the effectiveness of the soil improvement procedure. In some zones the soil/cement mix became so hard that rock coring equipment was required instead of soil augers.

Groundwater from a buried river channel was expected in certain areas and the drilling contractor was prepared for placement of concrete both in the dry and in the wet. The project specification called for integrity testing of any shaft constructed under wet conditions by crosshole sonic logging (CSL).

The unexpectedly hard cemented layers changed the groundwater conditions locally, creating almost artesian conditions in some shafts, making expected dry holes wet. Some minor irregularities were identified in the CSL tests, mostly attributed to either minor inclusions of slurry or laitance or variability in the concrete setting rate.

Of 374 shafts, only one exhibited significant defects. The drilling subcontractor was able to reconstruct this shaft.

This project demonstrates the successful completion of dual-purpose secant walls at a site with unsuitable soils, and how a well-prepared drilling contractor coupled to an effective inspection and testing program can provide the owner with a quality product with virtually no impact on rail traffic.

Case Study: Contending with Weak Soils in Underpass Construction

Introduction

The design of a highway underpass beneath a busy mainline railroad near Seattle included secant pile walls to act as both retaining walls and bridge abutments. The geotechnical investigation revealed layers of weak alluvial soils. Soil improvement by deep soil mixing with cement was specified to provide a suitably stable environment for the secant wall deep foundation design. Variations in soil conditions caused unexpected variations in the effectiveness of the soil improvement procedure, which in turn changed the groundwater conditions locally, creating almost artesian conditions in some shafts, making expected dry holes wet and making extraction of temporary casing extremely difficult.

Of 374 shafts constructed under these conditions, integrity testing showed that only two contained significant anomalies. The drilling subcontractor was able to repair those shafts satisfactorily. One additional shaft had to be replaced after it was found that the tremie pipe had separated during concrete placement, resulting in contamination of the concrete with drilling slurry. This project demonstrates how a well-prepared drilling contractor supported by an effective inspection and testing program can provide the owner a reliable quality product with virtually no impact on rail traffic, despite unforeseen ground conditions.

Project Overview

The main West Coast rail lines run south from Seattle, Washington, through the busy industrial suburbs of Tukwila and Kent. Where the tracks cross 180th Street on the Kent/Tukwila border is in the heart of one of the busiest industrial and commercial areas, with a high volume of truck traffic using the grade-level crossing on 180th Street. There are five tracks at this crossing, with a combination of local switching traffic, heavy freight, long-distance Amtrak and local Sounder commuter trains passing through at the rate of approximately 60 trains per working day.

Traffic safety concerns prompted the City of Tukwila to replace the existing grade-level crossing with an under or overpass. The layout of local streets and businesses effectively precluded construction of an overpass bridge, so the underpass alternative was designed as a cut-and-cover structure, with secant pile walls that doubled as soil retaining walls and abutments for the railroad bridge. A cut-and-cover structure is typically built by constructing the soil retaining walls first, using drilled shafts or driven piles. The soil is then excavated as an open cut. The support for the bridge portion, or cover, may be combined with the soil retaining walls, or may be built separately after the cut excavation is complete. Finally the bridge portion, or cover, is placed on the support structure.

Secant pile walls are constructed by first drilling a line of un-reinforced primary shafts spaced approximately half a diameter apart. The concrete in those shafts is typically designed to be slowmaturing and/or have a relatively low strength, so that it will be easy to drill. While the concrete in those shafts is still relatively young, the secondary shafts are drilled between the primary shafts. Typically the secondary shafts are the same diameter as the primary shafts, thus they cut into the primary shafts to form an interlocking wall. The secondary shafts contain reinforcing steel and are constructed of normal quality concrete to provide the vertical and horizontal load-bearing capacity of the structure.

Primary Piles

Secondary piles with reinforcing steel Figure 1: Cross-section of secant pile wall

In order to minimize disruption of rail traffic, the project was constructed in several phases, which included temporary relocation of the rails. Initially the rails were relocated about 200 feet west of the original alignment while the east portion of the underpass structure was completed. When the cut-and-cover

portion of the underpass was in place, some of the railroad tracks were relocated in the original alignment, and the western portion of the underpass was completed.

An esthetically pleasing finish was applied to the exposed faces of the secant piles using Shotcrete, a fine-aggregate concrete mix that is sprayed on.

Geotechnical Challenges

The site is located on the historic floodplain of the Green River. The geotechnical exploration of the site revealed relatively weak alluvial soils. In addition, groundwater from a buried river channel was expected in certain areas and the drilling contractor was prepared for placement of concrete both in the dry and in the wet. For quality assurance, the project specification called for integrity testing of any shaft constructed under wet conditions by crosshole sonic logging (CSL).

Deep soil mixing with cement grout was specified to improve the soil conditions and make the secant wall design viable. The soil mixing was performed by Ratio, Inc, of San Leandro, CA. Foundation drilling was performed by Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc., (MDCI) of Kent, WA. As drilling of the secant piles began, it became evident that the effect of the soil mixing was highly variable, largely due to variations in the quality of the natural soil that was being treated. In some zones the soil/cement mix became so hard that rock coring equipment was required instead of soil augers.

The unexpectedly hard cemented layers were not only difficult to drill through, but also changed the groundwater behavior locally. Shafts that were expected to be dry turned out to be wet, and in some cases near-artesian conditions occurred, with water flowing rapidly up to the surface or into the drilled shaft excavations.

Logistical Challenges

Typically the foundation contractors team is one of the first on site, and usually has much of the site accessible for the set-up and tear-down of equipment, storage of equipment and materials, and

fabrication of reinforcing cages. On this site, however, the linear aspects of the site and the need to maintain proper safe clearance from both the railroad lines and overhead power lines severely restricted the access and maneuvering space for the contractor. Handling of large items such as casings and reinforcing cages had to be carefully planned and choreographed to ensure that the right equipment was in the right place, in the right order, at the right time. The logistics challenge of such a restricted site can make or break the project schedule.

Adding to the logistical complexity was the fact that major activities of the phased project overlapped. Normally, the foundation contractor can work relatively unencumbered, and the rest of the project is designed to follow along as the foundations are completed. In this case, however, the need to complete one half of the bridge and relocate some of the railroad lines before the second half could be started meant that, at times, virtually all major geotechnical and construction activities were proceeding in parallel, requiring very careful planning, and a great deal of cooperation and communication between the various project teams and the railroads.

Crosshole Sonic Log Testing

Crosshole sonic log (CSL) testing was performed by STS Consultants, Ltd, of Vernon Hills, Illinois. CSL requires the placement of steel or PVC access tubes in the foundation. Typically the tubes are attached to the reinforcing steel, and placed in the excavation before concrete is placed. For this project, four steel tubes were placed in each secondary shaft, attached to the inside of the reinforcing cage, and equally spaced around the shaft perimeter. In most CSL applications steel tubes are preferred to PVC because the steel remains bonded to the concrete longer than the PVC, thus providing a much larger time window for scheduling the tests, thus allowing more efficient coordination with other construction activities.

To perform the test, a pair of transducers, one ultrasonic transmitter and one receiver, are placed at the bottom of an adjacent pair of tubes. The cables to the transducers pass over a measurement winch that contains a rotation sensor. As the transducers are slowly pulled up the tubes, the rotation sensor in the measurement winch emits a series of regularly spaced impulses, each one of which triggers an ultrasonic

pulse from the transmitter. A data acquisition device records the transmission, and monitors the receiver to determine when the signal is received. Thus a series of pulses is recorded over the full height of the foundation, creating a CSL profile for that tube pair. Since the velocity of an ultrasonic pulse through concrete is a function of the modulus and density of the material, it is a good indicator of concrete quality.

Impulse Generator and Data Recorder

Measurement Wheel with Rotation Sensor

Concrete Shaft

Access Tube

Transmitter

Receiver

Soil

Figure 2: Crosshole Sonic Log Schematic

The data can be plotted as a simple graph of first wave arrival time versus depth, or more completely by converting each impulse into a dashed line, where the dashes represent the positive peaks of the received signal, and the gaps represent the negative peaks. The dashed lines are stacked contiguously to show the test results as a vertical profile of the concrete between the two access tubes (Figure 3).

Triggered

Time

Received Raw Pulse Data D e p t h

Triggered

Anomaly Received Pulse data modulated to form a single line Modulated pulses stacked to form CSL profile

Figure 3: Schematic of CSL data reduction and profile compilation

If the CSL access tubes are assumed to be reasonably parallel and concrete quality is uniform, then the time measured between pulse transmission and reception should also be reasonably uniform over the full height of the shaft. If there are any significant soil inclusions or zones of reduced concrete quality, the transit time of the pulse will be increased in those zones, which will be readily visible when the data is plotted as a graph of transit time versus depth for that profile.

A significant advantage of this test over surface wave propagation/reflection methods is that the length of cable is measured at all times, thus the depth to any anomalies in the shaft can be determined very accurately.

CSL Test Results

On this project some minor irregularities were identified in the first few CSL tests, mostly attributed to either minor inclusions of slurry or laitance, or variability in the concrete setting rate due to the multiple admixtures used to achieve the concrete properties required by the project specifications. MDCI used the information from the CSL tests to optimize site procedures and equipment by small modifications, where appropriate, and more than 370 shafts were constructed with no significant anomalies or defects. Many of

these shafts were constructed in soil conditions that would formerly have been deemed marginal or unsuitable.

Only three shafts contained potentially significant anomalies. One shaft contained a zone of lower modulus material in the bottom 5 feet or so of the shaft, and one shaft contained a similar zone at a depth of about 6 feet below the top of the shaft. After engineer review, it was decided that the anomaly at the bottom of the shaft was inconsequential, and could be accepted. In the other shaft, the anomaly would be exposed when the top of the secant wall was excavated, and a repair was scheduled for that time. During construction of the third anomalous shaft it was found that the tremie pipe had separated during the concrete placement process. CSL testing confirmed that the bottom 30 feet or so of the shaft was composed of poor quality concrete as a result of free-falling through the slurry from the broken tremie pipe. MDCI opted to core drill over the whole shaft to remove and replace it. Subsequent CSL testing confirmed the success of the replacement procedure.

Conclusion

This project was challenging, both logistically and technically. Inclement weather was also a major obstacle, threatening to flood the partially completed excavation on several occasions. The project team of railroad personnel, consulting engineers, and contractors responded to the various challenges with appropriate changes in design, technique, or schedule, often at very short notice.

This project has demonstrated the versatility of drilled shafts, even under adverse soil conditions, when used as part of a carefully designed and executed geotechnical and structural engineering program. The project has also shown how the technical and logistical challenges presented by such a site can be met by teaming experienced engineers and skilled contractors with the railroads own personnel, supported by an appropriate testing and quality assurance program. The key to success on this project could be summed up as the three cs Coordination, Communication and Cooperation.

Figure 4: The completed underpass