Methodology on foundation failure and remediation in construction

Introduction

The foundation's contribution as a ground structure that offers stability and support is
inextricably linked to a building's overall performance over time. The loads from the
superstructure are absorbed by the foundation, which then transfers the loads over a large enough
region to maximize soil resistance. All loads and pressures applied to the underlying soil will
cause movement, which is acceptable. The foundation will crumble if it has been subjected to
greater movement than it can withstand. The failure has resulted in distortion and damage to the
superstructure. Remedial measures will help to solve the problem and improve the structure's
performance, preventing further failure. Causes of foundation failure is the topic of this research.
The research includes a site investigation to identify the current state of the site, the types and
reasons of foundation collapse, damage that has happened on site, and the sorts of remedial work
that has been done.

Methods of data collection

The following tasks were carried out in the data collection for the survey:

1. The number of dwellings was determined.

2. I determined how often foundation problems occur and how much they cost to rectify.
3. Creating a checklist of specialized facts, such as construction type, soil type, envelope
features, and cost information.
4. A characterization checklist for basement envelope failures was established, which
included detailed technical data on the failure mechanism, symptom, foundation
component, contributing loads, probable cause, and remedial procedures.

Method used for data collection

Field Investigation

The investigation of the site is a requirement for the construction of any civil engineering works
in order to determine the site's overall suitability for the planned new works and to enable the
preparation of a suitable economic design. This comprises learning about the current foundation
and construction practices and identifying the problems in the foundation. Direct observation
was used for this field investigation. The following factors were considered:

1. Ground/soil condition
2. Tree root presence
3. Ground water level
4. Underground water courses, old drains, pits, wells, old foundation, etc.
5. Presence of excessive sulphate or other hazardous compounds in the ground water and
soil

Results of the survey

Figure 1: Foundation on Rock Stratum

Figure 2: Foundation on poor soil (silt/clay)

Figure 3: Water logging during excavation

Figure 4: Presence of tree roots

Discussion and result

Foundation failures can be caused by a variety of circumstances, all of which have a significant
impact on the foundation's stability. They can be split into seven categories:

1. Fundamental errors in concept

2. Programming deficiencies
3. Site selection and site development errors
4. Design errors
5. Construction errors
6. Material deficiencies
7. Operational errors

Remedial Works

Underpinning works

The process of reinforcing an existing building foundation is known as underpinning. When the
old foundation is no longer strong enough to support the house, it must be replaced. This is
frequently caused by a change in the soil structure, which might be caused by the kind of soil or
an external effect. Continue reading for more information.
Pressure Grouting

The injection of a liquefied cementitious substance, under pressure, into massive gaps, void
spaces between soil particles, fissures, or even between subsurface bearing elements and an
existing structure is known as pressure grouting. As in floor or foundation leveling, this
technique is utilized to impose pressures on adjacent soil formations or building structures. The
grout must also gel or harden within the treated regions for the process to work. Compaction
grouting, curtain grouting, chemical grouting, permeation grouting, and any other application
where the grout material is installed under pressure are all examples of pressure grouting.

Conclusion

The analysis of current construction circumstances and the identification of foundation

difficulties that emerge during construction field activities were discussed in this research. The
study evaluated and discussed the many reasons of foundation failure as well as feasible
preventive/remedial approaches. Information on existing literature is supplied to aid in the early
detection of a potential foundation problem and the implementation of necessary and appropriate
mitigation measures.

Case study

1. The Transcona grain elevator

The Transcona Grain Elevator was built by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in North
Transcona, Canada, in 1911, about 7 miles northeast of Winnipeg and 230 miles north of Fargo,
North Dakota. The project was completed in September 1913. The elevator was made up of two
parts: a reinforced concrete workhouse and a bin house connected by a bridge and a conveyor
belt. A modest cupola at the top of the bin-house housed the conveyor belt. The workhouse was
21.3 meters wide, 29.3 meters long, and 54.9 meters tall, and it was built on a raft foundation
with a base that was 3.66 meters below ground level. The bin house contained five rows of 13
bins, was built on a reinforced-concrete raft foundation that was 23.5 m wide and 59.4 m long,
and the base was also set at a depth of 3.5 m.
3.66 meters This mat base was 0.6 meters thick. The bins had a height of 28.0 meters and a
diameter of 4.27 meters. The bin house was built with five rows of 13 bins on a 23.5-meter-wide
reinforced-concrete raft base and 59.4 m long, with a base that was also placed at a depth of 3.66
meters This mat base was 0.6 meters thick. The bins had a height of 28.0 meters and a diameter
of 4.27 meters.

After the construction was completed, activities began; the grain was distributed evenly across
the bins. The settlement of the bin home was first noted on October 18, 1913. (Allaire, 1916). At
the time, the elevator had 875,000 bushels of wheat in it, equating to a load of 231,400 kN.
When this 231,400 kN are added to the structure's dead weight, a total load of 409,400 kN is
applied at the raft's base. The applied load on the mat foundation may be approximated as 293
kPa if these loads were spread uniformly over the raft foundation.

Within an hour of starting to settle, it had climbed gradually but slowly to around 0.30 m. The
structure then slanted westward for the next 24 hours, reaching a lean of 26 degrees, 53 minutes
from vertical. Except for the south side, where the work house was placed, a 7.5-9.0 m wide strip
of earth on the east side of the bin-house bulged up about 1.2-1.5 m, while the west side sunk as
much as 9 m below its original level.

The subsoil beneath the elevator's foundation was composed of a homogenous deposit of clay
that had formed as a result of sedimentation in glacial Lake Aggassiz's waters. The clay was a
varved, slick-sided, extremely flexible material that ranged in depth from 9 to 15 meters (30 to
50 feet). It covered limestone bedrock with glacial till. The clay had a firm consistency from the
ground surface to a depth of about 9 m (30 ft), which gradually diminished with depth. At a
depth of roughly 9 m, a water table was discovered (30 ft). The elevator foundation fell due to a
bearing failure in the underlying clay, according to a complete geotechnical assessment
conducted in 1951.

Lessons learned

Following the Transcona failure, soil mechanics advanced to the point where it could be used to
calculate a soil's ultimate bearing capacity. As a result, the Transcona failure was later
recognized as a "full-scale" verification of the veracity of such computations. In retrospect, the
failure could have been avoided if the Transcona engineers had access to soil mechanics theory.

2. SCHOHARIE CREEK BRIDGE (1987)

The Schoharie Creek Bridge was built in 1953 to cross the Schoharie Creek and carry the New
York State throughway. It was made up of five simply supported spans with a total distance of
165 meters (540 feet) between the abutments (Figure 1-2). The bridge, which was approximately
24 meters (80 feet) above the creek bed, held two lanes of traffic in each direction (Figure 1-3).
The bridge fell on April 5, 1987, after the greatest flooding in years (Figure 1-4). As a result,
four cars, a truck, and ten lives were lost. The highway's abrupt rerouting interrupted traffic on
both sides of the creek and brought attention to the collapse of an otherwise unremarkable
structure. The principal cause of failure, according to investigations, was pier scour. The
Schoharie Creek Bridge's principal defense against scour was the use of dry rip-rap. This was
made up of a wide field of quarry stones formed like correct rectangular prisms to keep
floodwaters from rolling over them. Vertical fissures were discovered in the pier plinths in early
1955. In 1957, a 0.9 m (3 ft) thick strongly reinforced concrete piece was cast on top of each
plinth to prevent additional cracking. Inspections were carried out in 1983 and 1986, however
high water on the second occasion hindered extensive inspections of the piers' bottoms.

The support from the southern portion of the plinth was destroyed during the April 1987 flood
scour, causing tensile bending stresses in the top of the plinth, eventually leading to fracture
through the plinth and cross footing that connected the two support columns (Figure 1-5).
Between spans 3 and 4, an instant loss of support was unavoidable.

Lessons learned

The failure of this bridge due to scour highlights the importance of ensuring that bridge footings
are deep enough to prevent the loss of support capacity caused by scour around the foundation.
The 1986 inspection was hampered by flood waters, which prevented a full examination of the
bridge. In retrospect, it appears that those involved were reckless in not re-inspecting after the
flood had subsided and it would have been possible to conduct a more thorough investigation of
the column footings. The problem of scour causing bridge collapses has sparked interest in better
underwater inspection technology.
Lessons learned

It's critical to precisely forecast the effects of scour and design bridges that can withstand them.
The following are some of the lessons learned:

1. Properly selecting a key storm for the design of bridges crossing water.

2. The requirement for routine inspections of the bridge's superstructure, substructure, and
underwater elements.

3. The significance of effective erosion protection around scour-prone piers and abutments.
References

Bhat, A. (2021, June 10). What is Field Research: Definition, Methods, Examples and

Advantages. QuestionPro. https://www.questionpro.com/blog/field-research/

Civil Engineering (CE). (1988). “Lessons from Schoharie Creek,” (1988), CE, 58(5), 46-49.

Delatte, Norbert J. (2009). Beyond Failure: Forensic Case Studies for Civil Engineers, ASCE
Press, Reston, VA, 277-287

Foundation Repair | Pressure Grouting | Stuart, FL. (n.d.). Browniecompanies. Retrieved July

20, 2021, from https://www.browniecompanies.com/foundation-repair

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). (1988). Collapse of New York Thruway (1-90)
Bridge over the Schoharie Creek, near Amsterdam, New York, April 5, 1987, Highway Accident
Report: NTSB/HAR-88/02, Washington, DC