DOCSLIB.ORG

Soils and Foundations Handbook 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soils and Foundations Handbook 2016 Soils and Foundations Handbook 2016 State Materials Office Gainesville, Florida This page is intentionally blank. i Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................ xii List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xiv Chapter 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Geotechnical Tasks in Typical Highway Projects.................................................. 1 1.1.1 Planning, Development, and Engineering Phase ...................................... 1 1.1.2 Project Design Phase ................................................................................. 2 1.1.3 Construction Phase .................................................................................... 2 1.1.4 Post-Construction Phase ............................................................................ 2 Chapter 2 2 Subsurface Investigation Procedures ........................................................................ 4 2.1 Review of Project Requirements ..................................................................... 4 2.2 Review of Available Data................................................................................ 4 2.2.1 Topographic Maps..................................................................................... 4 2.2.2 Aerial Photographs .................................................................................... 5 2.2.3 Geological Maps and Reports ................................................................... 5 2.2.4 Natural Resources Conservation Service Surveys .................................... 5 2.2.5 Potentiometric Surface Map ...................................................................... 5 2.2.6 Adjacent Projects....................................................................................... 5 2.3 Field Reconnaissance ...................................................................................... 5 2.4 Field Exploration Methods .............................................................................. 6 2.4.1 Test Pits and Trenches............................................................................... 6 2.4.2 Boreholes ................................................................................................... 6 2.4.2.1 Auger Borings ..................................................................................... 7 2.4.2.2 Hollow-Stem Auger Borings .............................................................. 7 2.4.2.3 Wash Borings ...................................................................................... 7 2.4.2.4 Coring ................................................................................................. 7 2.4.3 Soundings .................................................................................................. 7 2.4.4 Geophysical Methods ................................................................................ 7 2.4.4.1 Seismic Refraction and Reflection...................................................... 8 2.4.4.2 Resistivity ........................................................................................... 8 2.4.4.3 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) ....................................................... 8 2.4.5 Soil Sampling ............................................................................................ 8 2.4.5.1 Bag Bulk Samples ............................................................................... 9 2.4.5.2 Split-Barrel .......................................................................................... 9 2.4.5.3 Shelby Tube ........................................................................................ 9 2.4.5.4 Piston Samplers ................................................................................... 9 2.4.5.4.1 Stationary ...................................................................................... 9 2.4.5.4.2 Floating ....................................................................................... 10 ii 2.4.5.4.3 Retractable .................................................................................. 10 2.4.5.5 Rock Core Sampling ......................................................................... 10 2.4.5.5.1 Double Tube Core Barrel ........................................................... 10 2.4.5.5.2 Triple Tube Core Barrel ............................................................. 11 2.5 References ..................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Specifications and Standards ......................................................................... 14 Chapter 3 3 Subsurface Investigation Guidelines for Highways and Related Structures ........... 16 3.1 General Requirements ................................................................................... 16 3.2 Guidelines for Minimum Explorations .......................................................... 17 3.2.1 Roadway Soil Surveys and Rails to Trails/Multi-use Trail Projects ....... 18 3.2.2 Structures ................................................................................................. 20 3.2.2.1 Bridges .............................................................................................. 20 3.2.2.2 Approach Embankments ................................................................... 23 3.2.2.3 Retaining Walls ................................................................................. 24 3.2.2.4 Sound Walls ...................................................................................... 24 3.2.2.5 Buildings ........................................................................................... 24 3.2.2.6 Drainage Structures ........................................................................... 24 3.2.2.7 High Mast Lighting, and Overhead Sign Structures ......................... 25 3.2.2.8 Mast Arms Assemblies and Strain Poles .......................................... 25 3.2.2.9 CCTV Poles ...................................................................................... 26 3.2.2.10 Cable Barriers ................................................................................. 26 3.2.2.11 Tunnels ............................................................................................ 27 3.2.2.12 Other Structures .............................................................................. 27 3.2.3 Borrow Areas .......................................................................................... 27 3.2.4 Open Retention Ponds ............................................................................. 27 3.2.5 Closed Retention Ponds .......................................................................... 28 3.2.6 Exfiltration Trenches/French Drains ....................................................... 28 3.3 References ..................................................................................................... 32 3.4 Specifications and Standards ......................................................................... 32 Chapter 4 4 In-situ Testing ......................................................................................................... 33 4.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ................................................................... 33 4.2 Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) ...................................................................... 34 4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test ................................................................. 35 4.4 Dilatometer Test (DMT) ................................................................................ 36 4.5 Pressuremeter Test (PMT) ............................................................................. 36 4.6 Field Vane Test .............................................................................................. 37 4.7 Percolation Test ............................................................................................. 37 4.8 Infiltration Test .............................................................................................. 37 4.9 Permeability Test ........................................................................................... 38 4.10 Environmental Corrosion Tests ................................................................... 39 iii 4.10.1 pH of Soils ............................................................................................. 39 4.10.2 pH of Water ........................................................................................... 39 4.10.3 Chloride Ion in Water ............................................................................ 39 4.10.4 Chloride Ion in Soil ............................................................................... 40 4.10.5 Sulfate Ion in Brackish Water ............................................................... 40 4.10.6 Sulfates in Soil ...................................................................................... 40 4.10.7 Electrical Resistance of Water .............................................................. 40 4.10.8 Electrical Resistance of Soil .................................................................. 40 4.11 Grout Plug
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Engineering Bulletin 07-009
    To: New York State Department of EB Transportation ENGINEERING 07-009 BULLETIN Expires one year after issue unless replaced sooner Title: HIGHWAY DESIGN MANUAL (HDM) REVISION NO. 52 CHAPTER 9 - SOILS, WALLS, AND FOUNDATIONS CHAPTER 20.00 –CANTILEVER AND GRAVITY WALLS Distribution: Approved: Manufacturers (18) Surveyors (33) Local Govt. (31) Consultants (34) Agencies (32) Contractors (39) /s/Daniel D’Angelo________________ 3/2/07____ ____________( ) Daniel D’Angelo, P.E. Date Deputy Chief Engineer, Design ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION: Effective Date: This Engineering Bulletin (EB) is effective upon signature. Superseded Issuance(s): No Engineering Instructions or EBs are superseded by this EB. PURPOSE: To announce the availability of Revision No. 52 to the HDM and to rescind HDM Chapter 20.00 –Cantilever and Gravity Walls. TECHNICAL INFORMATION: Chapter 9. HDM users should replace their entire existing Chapter 9 dated June 7, 1995, and revised July 9, 2004, with the updated version dated March 2, 2007. Chapter 9 has been revised to clarify, update, and add material. Although the entire chapter is being issued, not all material has been revised. Noteworthy changes are as follows: . Section 9.3 “Soil and Foundation Considerations” was expanded to include the following: “Embankment Foundation.” This subsection combines previous subsections including “Unsuitable Material” and “Unstable Material.” “Water Quality.” This subsection replaces the previous “Erosion and Sedimentation” subsection. “Excavation Protection and Support.” This subsection replaces the previous “Trench, Culvert, and Structure Excavation” subsection. “Controlled Low-Strength Material (CLSM).” This is a new subsection. “Contract Information” was moved from Section 9.4 to Section 9.7 and Section 9.4 is retitled “Retaining Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes and Walls.” This section incorporates the former HDM Chapter 20.00 “Cantilever and Gravity Walls.” .
    [Show full text]
  • Post Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips Phase I
    Post Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips Phase I Principal Investigator: Gray Mullins Graduate Students: S. Dapp, E. Frederick, V. Wagner Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering December 2001 DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. ii CONVERSION FACTORS, US CUSTOMARY TO METRIC UNITS Multiply by to obtain inch 25.4 mm foot 0.3048 meter square inches 645 square mm cubic yard 0.765 cubic meter pound (lb) 4.448 Newtons kip (1000 lb) 4.448 kiloNewton (kN) Newton 0.2248 pound kip/ft 14.59 kN/meter pound/in2 0.0069 MPa kip/in2 6.895 MPa MPa 0.145 ksi kip-ft 1.356 kN-m kip-in 0.113 kN-m kN-m .7375 kip-ft iii PREFACE The investigation reported was funded by a contract awarded to the University of South Florida, Tampa by the Florida Department of Transportation. Mr. Peter Lai was the Project Manager. It is a pleasure to acknowledge his contribution to this study. The full-scale tests required by this study were carried out in part at Coastal Caisson’s Clearwater location. We are indebted to Mr. Bud Khouri, Mr Richard Walsh, and staff for providing this site and also for making available lifting, moving, and excavating equipment that was essential for this study. We thank Mr. Ron Broderick, Earth Tech, Tampa for donating his time, equipment and grout materials necessary for grouting shafts at Site I and II. We are indebted to Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Reuse for Highway Bridges
    Publication No. FHWA-HIF-18-055 Infrastructure Office of Bridges and Structures November 2018 Foundation Reuse for Highway Bridges Existing New Ground Improvement Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center U.S. Department of Transportation 6300 Georgetown Pike Federal Highway Administration McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD Given the high percentage of deteriorated or obsolete bridges in the national bridge inventory, the reuse of bridge foundations may be a viable option that can present a significant cost savings in bridge replacement and rehabilitation efforts. The potential time savings associated with foundation reuse can, in turn, reduce mobility impacts and increase the economic viability and sustainability of a project. However, existing foundations may have uncertain material properties, geometry, or details that impact the risks associated with reuse. Unlike a new foundation, an existing foundation may have been damaged, may not have sufficient capacity, and may have limited remaining service life due to deterioration. Assessment of these issues as well as foundation strengthening and repair measures and innovative approaches to optimize loading are discussed in this report. To better demonstrate the engineering assessment of key integrity, durability and load carrying capacity issues, the report contains fifteen (15) case examples where foundation was reused by the owner agencies. On new construction, the report looks ahead and includes discussions on foundation design with consideration for reuse. Cheryl Allen Richter, P.E., Ph.D. Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.
    [Show full text]
  • NCHRP Report 461: Static and Dynamic Lateral Loading of Pile Groups
    NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH NCHRP PROGRAM REPORT 461 Static and Dynamic Lateral Loading of Pile Groups TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2001 OFFICERS Chair: John M. Samuels, Senior Vice President-Operations Planning & Support, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA Vice Chair: E. Dean Carlson, Secretary of Transportation, Kansas DOT Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS WILLIAM D. ANKNER, Director, Rhode Island DOT THOMAS F. BARRY, JR., Secretary of Transportation, Florida DOT JACK E. BUFFINGTON, Associate Director and Research Professor, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center, University of Arkansas SARAH C. CAMPBELL, President, TransManagement, Inc., Washington, DC JOANNE F. CASEY, President, Intermodal Association of North America JAMES C. CODELL III, Secretary, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads ROBERT A. FROSCH, Senior Research Fellow, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University GORMAN GILBERT, Director, Oklahoma Transportation Center, Oklahoma State University GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles LESTER A. HOEL, L. A. Lacy Distinguished Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia H. THOMAS KORNEGAY, Executive Director, Port of Houston Authority BRADLEY L. MALLORY, Secretary of Transportation, Pennsylvania DOT MICHAEL
    [Show full text]
  • A Qljarter Century of Geotechnical Researcll
    A QlJarter Century of Geotechnical Researcll PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-98-139 FEBRUARY 1999 1111111111111111111111111111111 PB99-147365 \c-c.J/t).:.. L~.i' . u.s. D~~~~~~~Co~~~~~erce~ Natronal_Tec~nical Information Service u.s. DepartillCi"li of Transportation Spnngfleld, Virginia 22161 Research, Development & Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike McLean, VA 22101-2296 FOREWORD This report summarizes Federal Highway Administration (FHW!\) geotechnical research and development activities during the past 25 years. The report incl!Jde~: significant accomplishments in the areas of bridge foundations, ground improvenl::::nt, and soil and rock behavior. A fourth category included important miscellaneous efrorts tl'12t did not fit the areas mentioned. The report vlill be useful to re~earchers and praGtitior,c:;rs in geotechnology. --------:"--; /~ /1 I~t(./l- /-~~:r\ .. T. Paul Teng (j Director, Office of Infrastructure Research, Development. and Technologv NOTiCE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States G~)\fernm8nt assumes no liahillty for its contt?!nts or use thereof. Thir. report dor~s not constiil)tl":: a standard, specification, or regu!p,tion. The; United States Government does not endorse products or n18;1ufaGturers, Traderrlc,rks or nianufacturers' narl1es appear in thi;-, report only bec:8'I)Se they arc considered essential to tile object of the document. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-RD-98-139 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date A Quarter Century of Geotechnical Research February 1999 6. Performing Organization Code ).
    [Show full text]
  • Soils and Foundation Handbook”, a Minimum Core Barrel Size of 61 Mm (2.4”) I.D
    Soils and Foundations Handbook April 2004 State Materials Office Gainesville, Florida This page is intentionally blank. i Table of Contents Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... ii List of Figures ............................................................................................................. xi List of Tables.............................................................................................................xiii Chapter 1 ......................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Geotechnical Tasks in Typical Highway Projects.................................................. 2 1.1.1 Planning, Development, and Engineering Phase ...................................... 2 1.1.2 Project Design Phase................................................................................. 2 1.1.3 Construction Phase.................................................................................... 2 1.1.4 Post-Construction Phase............................................................................ 3 Chapter 2 ......................................................................................................................... 4 2 Subsurface Investigation Procedures ........................................................................ 4 2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Capacity of Helical Piles in Clay Tills Using Pile Load Tests
    Evaluating the Capacity of Helical Piles in Clay Tills Using Pile Load Tests Ivanna Montani Stantec Consulting Ltd, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada ABSTRACT This thesis analyzes seven static load tests conducted on helical piles installed in clay till at a site in Northern Manitoba, Canada. Four methods, the Davisson Offset Limit, the Hansen Ultimate Load, the Chin-Kondner Extrapolation, and the Decourt Extrapolation are used to determine the ultimate capacity using the pile load test results. The ultimate capacities obtained were then used to determine the empirical parameter Kt for helical piles in clay tills, this parameter relates the pile capacity of helical piles to the installation torque of the pile. The Davisson Offset Limit and the Hansen Ultimate Load provided consistent and conservative ultimate capacities based on the pile load test results and showed lesser variability in results compared with the Chin-Kondner Extrapolation and Decourt Extrapolation methods. The ultimate loads based from the Hansen and Davisson methods were used to calculate a Kt value. It was determined that a Kt value ranging from 9 m-1 to 11 m-1 is appropriate for evaluating the capacity of a helical pile in clay tills using the installation torque of the pile. RÉSUMÉ Cette thèse fait l’analyse de sept essais de mise en charge statique effectués sur des pieux vissés installés dans une formation de moraine (till) argileuse dans le nord du Manitoba, au Canada. Quatre méthodes ont été utilisées pour la détermination de la capacité ultime utilisant les résultats des essais de mise en charge : la méthode de la charge limite décalée (Davisson), la méthode de la charge ultime (Hansen), ainsi que les méthodes d’extrapolation de Chin-Kondner et de Decourt.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE)
    INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR SOIL MECHANICS AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING This paper was downloaded from the Online Library of the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE). The library is available here: https://www.issmge.org/publications/online-library This is an open-access database that archives thousands of papers published under the Auspices of the ISSMGE and maintained by the Innovation and Development Committee of ISSMGE. Reliability of statnamic load testing of rock socketed end bearing bored piles Fiabilité d’un essai de charge Statnamic sur un pieu résistant à la pointe foré dans de la roche H. S. Thilakasiri Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. ABSTRACT The pile load testing methods could be broadly classified into three categories: static, rapid and dynamic depending on the rate of loading. In this paper, the rapid load testing method referred to as the Statnamic test is discussed. The commonly used analysis method of the statnamic testing referred to as the Unloading Point (UP) method is used successfully for the floating piles but validity of some of the assumptions of the unloading point method to end bearing bored piles is questionable. Due to this problem, other analytical methods such as: Modified Unloading Point (MUP) method, Segmental Unloading Point (SUP) method and other signal matching techniques are introduced by some researches. Therefore, the validity of the unloading point method to rock socketed end bearing bored piles in Sri Lanka is investigated in this paper. This investigation is carried out using the commonly used wave number. Furthermore, the wave equation method, commonly used numerical procedure to model dynamic behavior of piles, is used by the author to investigate the validity of the assumptions associated with the unloading point method to rock socketed end bearing bored piles.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Procedures & Commentary for Shaft 1-2-3
    APPENDIX A PROCEDURES & COMMENTARY FOR SHAFT 1-2-3 Nomenclature %R = percent recovery of rock coring (%) a = adhesion factor applied to Su (DIM) b = coefficient relating the vertical stress and the unit skin friction of a drilled shaft (DIM) bm = SPT N corrected coefficient relating the vertical stress and the unit skin friction of a drilled shaft (DIM) D = diameter of drilled shaft (FT) Db = depth of embedment of drilled shaft into a bearing stratum (FT) Dp = diameter of the tip of a drilled shaft (FT) f, ff = angle of internal friction of soil (DEG) fss , q = nominal unit shear resistance (TSF) g = unit weight (pcf) k = empirical bearing capacity coefficient (DIM) K = load transfer factor N = average (uncorrected) Standard Penetration Test blow count, SPT N (Blows/FT) Nc = bearing capacity factor (DIM) Ncorr = corrected SPT blow count qs = average splitting tensile strength of the rock core (TSF) qu = average unconfined compressive strength of the rock core (TSF) Su = undrained shear strength (TSF) s'v = vertical effective stress (TSF) A-1 Appendix A (continued) Procedures Commentary SECURITY NOTE: Microsoft XP users must set Security Level in Macro Security to Medium. This is done in Tools - Options - Macro Security - Security Level. General Worksheet Enter Job Name Job Name must be entered before analysis is run. Enter Job Location Job Location is optional. Enter Engineer Engineer is optional. Enter Boring Log Information The Boring Log worksheet can be displayed by clicking the Boring Log button or clicking on the Boring Log sheet tab at the bottom of Excel (see Procedures & Commentary for Boring Log Worksheet below).
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of the Pile Load Tests at the Us 68/Ky 80 Bridge Over Kentucky Lake
    University of Kentucky UKnowledge Theses and Dissertations--Civil Engineering Civil Engineering 2019 ANALYSIS OF THE PILE LOAD TESTS AT THE US 68/KY 80 BRIDGE OVER KENTUCKY LAKE Edward Lawson University of Kentucky, [email protected] Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.13023/etd.2019.248 Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Lawson, Edward, "ANALYSIS OF THE PILE LOAD TESTS AT THE US 68/KY 80 BRIDGE OVER KENTUCKY LAKE" (2019). Theses and Dissertations--Civil Engineering. 86. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/ce_etds/86 This Master's Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Civil Engineering at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations--Civil Engineering by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STUDENT AGREEMENT: I represent that my thesis or dissertation and abstract are my original work. Proper attribution has been given to all outside sources. I understand that I am solely responsible for obtaining any needed copyright permissions. I have obtained needed written permission statement(s) from the owner(s) of each third-party copyrighted matter to be included in my work, allowing electronic distribution (if such use is not permitted by the fair use doctrine) which will be submitted to UKnowledge as Additional File. I hereby grant to The University of Kentucky and its agents the irrevocable, non-exclusive, and royalty-free license to archive and make accessible my work in whole or in part in all forms of media, now or hereafter known.
    [Show full text]
  • Post Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips Phase II
    Post Grouting Drilled Shaft Tips Phase II Principal Investigator: Gray Mullins Research Associate: Danny Winters Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering June 2004 DISCLAIMER The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the State of Florida Department of Transportation. ii CONVERSION FACTORS, US CUSTOMARY TO METRIC UNITS Multiply by to obtain inch 25.4 mm foot 0.3048 meter square inches 645 square mm cubic yard 0.765 cubic meter pound (lb) 4.448 Newtons kip (1000 lb) 4.448 kiloNewton (kN) Newton 0.2248 pound kip/ft 14.59 kN/meter pound/in2 0.0069 MPa kip/in2 6.895 MPa MPa 0.145 ksi kip-ft 1.356 kN-m kip-in 0.113 kN-m kN-m .7375 kip-ft iii PREFACE This research project was funded as a supplemental contract awarded to the University of South Florida, Tampa by the Florida Department of Transportation. Mr. Peter Lai was the Project Manager. Again, it is a pleasure to acknowledge his contribution to this study. This project was carried out in part with the cooperation and collaboration of Auburn University and the University of Houston. The contributions provided by these institutions are greatly appreciated with particular acknowledgment to Dr. Dan Brown and Dr. Michael O’Neill, respectively. Interest expressed by State and Federal Agencies such as Georgia DOT, Texas DOT, Mississippi DOT, South Carolina DOT, Arkansas DOT, Alabama DOT, Cal Trans, and the FHWA Eastern Federal Lands Bureau is sincerely appreciated. Likewise, the principal investigator is indebted to the vast interaction afforded by Applied Foundation Testing, Beck Foundation, and Trevi Icos South.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Manual Chapter 8, Static Pile Load Testing and Pile Dynamic
    CHAPTER 8 OCTOBER 2015 CHAPTER Static Pile Load Testing and Pile 8 Dynamic Analysis 8-1 Introduction Chapter 1, Foundation Investigations, of this Manual explained how Geotechnical Services performs a foundation investigation for all new structures, widenings, strengthening, or seismic retrofits. Under normal circumstances, the Geoprofessional assigned to perform the investigation is able to gather enough information to recommend a pile type and tip elevation that is capable of supporting the required loads on the recommended pile foundation. However, there are situations where subsurface strata are variable, unproven, or of such poor quality that additional information is needed in order to make solid pile foundation recommendations. In these situations, Static Pile Load Testing and/or Pile Dynamic Analysis (PDA) will be recommended. Information obtained from the testing and/or PDA will be used to verify design assumptions or modify foundation recommendations. Personnel from Geotechnical Services, Foundation Testing Branch, perform Static Load Testing and PDA on Caltrans projects. Once the testing is completed, written reports summarizing the findings are transmitted to the Engineer. Ideally, these tests would be performed in the Design Phase; however, they are often done in the Construction Phase. 8-2 Reasons for Static Load Testing and Pile Dynamic Analysis Static Load Tests measure the response of a pile under an applied load and are the most accurate method for determining pile capacities. They can determine the ultimate failure load of a foundation pile and determine its capacity to support the load without excessive or continuous displacement. The purpose of such tests is to verify that the load capacity in the constructed pile is greater than the nominal resistance (Compression, Tension, Lateral, etc.) used in the design.
    [Show full text]