DOCSLIB.ORG

Soils and Foundation Handbook, 2002

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soils and Foundation Handbook, 2002 Soils and Foundations Handbook 2012 State Materials Office Gainesville, Florida ii 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 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 Percussion Drilling.............................................................................. 7 2.4.2.5 Rotary Drilling .................................................................................... 7 2.4.2.6 Coring ................................................................................................. 7 2.4.3 Soundings .................................................................................................. 8 2.4.4 Geophysical Methods ................................................................................ 8 2.4.4.1 Seismic Refraction and Reflection...................................................... 8 2.4.4.2 Resistivity ........................................................................................... 8 2.4.4.3 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) ....................................................... 9 2.4.5 Soil Sampling ............................................................................................ 9 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 ................................................................................. 10 ii 2.4.5.4.1 Stationary .................................................................................... 10 2.4.5.4.2 Floating ....................................................................................... 10 2.4.5.4.3 Retractable .................................................................................. 10 2.4.5.5 Rock Core Sampling ......................................................................... 11 2.4.5.5.1 Double Tube Core Barrel ........................................................... 11 2.4.5.5.2 Triple Tube Core Barrel ............................................................. 11 2.5 References ..................................................................................................... 14 2.6 Specifications and Standards ......................................................................... 14 Chapter 3 ....................................................................................................................... 16 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 ............................................................................ 17 3.2.2 Structures ................................................................................................. 19 3.2.2.1 Bridges .............................................................................................. 19 3.2.2.2 Approach Embankments ................................................................... 21 3.2.2.3 Retaining Walls ................................................................................. 22 3.2.2.4 Sound Walls ...................................................................................... 22 3.2.2.5 Buildings ........................................................................................... 22 3.2.2.6 Drainage Structures ........................................................................... 22 3.2.2.7 High Mast Lighting, and Overhead Sign Structures ......................... 23 3.2.2.8 Mast Arms Assemblies and Strain Poles .......................................... 23 3.2.2.9 CCTV Poles ...................................................................................... 23 3.2.2.10 Cable Barriers ................................................................................. 23 3.2.2.11 Tunnels ............................................................................................ 24 3.2.2.12 Other Structures .............................................................................. 24 3.2.3 Borrow Areas .......................................................................................... 24 3.2.4 Open Retention Ponds ............................................................................. 24 3.2.5 Closed Retention Ponds .......................................................................... 25 3.2.6 Exfiltration Trenches ............................................................................... 25 3.3 References ..................................................................................................... 29 3.4 Specifications and Standards ......................................................................... 29 Chapter 4 ....................................................................................................................... 30 4 In-situ Testing ......................................................................................................... 30 4.1 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) ................................................................... 30 4.2 Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) ...................................................................... 31 4.3 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer Test ................................................................. 32 4.4 Dilatometer Test (DMT) ................................................................................ 33 4.5 Pressuremeter Test (PMT) ............................................................................. 33 4.6 Field Vane Test .............................................................................................. 34 4.7 Percolation Test ............................................................................................. 34 4.8 Infiltration Test .............................................................................................. 34 iii 4.9 Permeability Test ........................................................................................... 35 4.10 Environmental Corrosion Tests ................................................................... 36 4.10.1 pH of Soils ............................................................................................. 36 4.10.2 pH of Water ..........................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • CPT-Geoenviron-Guide-2Nd-Edition
    Engineering Units Multiples Micro (P) = 10-6 Milli (m) = 10-3 Kilo (k) = 10+3 Mega (M) = 10+6 Imperial Units SI Units Length feet (ft) meter (m) Area square feet (ft2) square meter (m2) Force pounds (p) Newton (N) Pressure/Stress pounds/foot2 (psf) Pascal (Pa) = (N/m2) Multiple Units Length inches (in) millimeter (mm) Area square feet (ft2) square millimeter (mm2) Force ton (t) kilonewton (kN) Pressure/Stress pounds/inch2 (psi) kilonewton/meter2 kPa) tons/foot2 (tsf) meganewton/meter2 (MPa) Conversion Factors Force: 1 ton = 9.8 kN 1 kg = 9.8 N Pressure/Stress 1kg/cm2 = 100 kPa = 100 kN/m2 = 1 bar 1 tsf = 96 kPa (~100 kPa = 0.1 MPa) 1 t/m2 ~ 10 kPa 14.5 psi = 100 kPa 2.31 foot of water = 1 psi 1 meter of water = 10 kPa Derived Values from CPT Friction ratio: Rf = (fs/qt) x 100% Corrected cone resistance: qt = qc + u2(1-a) Net cone resistance: qn = qt – Vvo Excess pore pressure: 'u = u2 – u0 Pore pressure ratio: Bq = 'u / qn Normalized excess pore pressure: U = (ut – u0) / (ui – u0) where: ut is the pore pressure at time t in a dissipation test, and ui is the initial pore pressure at the start of the dissipation test Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geo-Environmental Engineering By P. K. Robertson and K.L. Cabal (Robertson) Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. 2nd Edition December 2008 Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Corporate Headquarters 2726 Walnut Avenue Signal Hill, California 90755 Telephone: (562) 427-6899 Fax: (562) 427-3314 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.greggdrilling.com The publisher and the author make no warranties or representations of any kind concerning the accuracy or suitability of the information contained in this guide for any purpose and cannot accept any legal responsibility for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation Slides
    Center for Accelerating Innovation Advanced Geotechnical Methods in Exploration (A-GaME) Tools for Enhanced, Effective Site Characterization 1 Center for Accelerating Innovation What are the Advanced Geotechnical Methods in Exploration? The A-GaME is a toolbox of underutilized subsurface exploration tools that will assist with: • Assessing risk and variability in site characterization • Optimizing subsurface exploration programs • Maximizing return on investment in project delivery 2 Center for Accelerating Innovation Why do you need to bring your A-GaME? • Because, in up to 50% of major infrastructure projects, schedule or costs will be significantly impacted by geotechnical issues!! • The majority of these issues will be directly or indirectly related to the scope and quality of subsurface investigation and site characterization work. 3 Center for Accelerating Innovation Presenters Silas Nichols Derrick Dasenbrock Ben Rivers Principal Bridge Geomechanics/LRFD Geotechnical Engineer – Engineer Engineer Geotechnical Minnesota DOT FHWA RC FHWA HQ 4 Center for Accelerating Innovation What is “Every Day Counts”(EDC)? State-based model to identify and rapidly deploy proven but underutilized innovations to: shorten the project delivery process enhance roadway safety reduce congestion improve environmental sustainability . EDC Rounds: two year cycles . Initiating 5th Round (2019-2020) - 10 innovations . To date: 4 Rounds, over 40 innovations For more information: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/ FAST Act, Sec.1444 5 Center for Accelerating Innovation Implementation Planning Team Practitioners l Geotechnical l Construction l Design l Risk l Geophysics l Site Variability l Public and Private Sectors l Industry Representation – ADSC, AEG, DFI, EEGS, GI and AASHTO COBS, COC, COMP Brian Collins – FHWA-WFL Michelle Mann – NMDOT Derrick Dasenbrock – MNDOT Marc Mastronardi - GDOT Mohammed Elias – FHWA-EFL Mike McVay – Univ.
    [Show full text]
  • Cone Penetration Test for Bearing Capacity Estimation
    The 2nd Join Conference of Utsunomiya University and Universitas Padjadjaran, Nov.24,2017 CONE PENETRATION TEST FOR BEARING CAPACITY ESTIMATION AND SOIL PROFILING, CASE STUDY: CONVEYOR BELT CONSTRUCTION IN A COAL MINING CONCESSION AREA IN LOA DURI, EAST KALIMANTAN, INDONESIA Ilham PRASETYA*1, Yuni FAIZAH*1, R. Irvan SOPHIAN1, Febri HIRNAWAN1 1Faculty of Geological Engineering, Universitas Padjadjaran Jln. Raya Bandung-Sumedang Km. 21, 45363, Jatinangor, Sumedang, Jawa Barat, Indonesia *Corresponding Authors: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract Cone Penetration Test (CPT) has been recognized as one of the most extensively used in situ tests. A series of empirical correlations developed over many years allow bearing capacity of a soil layer to be calculated directly from CPT’s data. Moreover, the ratio between end resistance of the cone and side friction of the sleeve has been prove to be useful in identifying the type of penetrated soils. The study was conducted in a coal mining concession area in Loa Duri, east Kalimantan, Indonesia. In this study the Begemann Friction Cone Mechanical Type Penetrometer with maximum push 2 capacity of 250 kg/cm was used to determine bearing layers for foundation of the conveyor belt at six different locations. The friction ratio (Rf) is used to classify the type of soils, and allowable bearing capacity of the bearing layers are calculated using Schmertmann method (1956) and LCPC method (1982). The result shows that the bearing layers in study area comprise of sands, and clay- sand mixture and silt. The allowable bearing capacity of shallow foundations range between 6-16 kg/cm2 whereas that of pile foundations are around 16-23 kg/cm2.
    [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]
  • Iso 4365:2005(E)
    This preview is downloaded from www.sis.se. Buy the entire standard via https://www.sis.se/std-905635 INTERNATIONAL ISO STANDARD 4365 Second edition 2005-02-01 Liquid flow in open channels — Sediment in streams and canals — Determination of concentration, particle size distribution and relative density Mesure de débit des liquides dans les canaux découverts — Sédiments dans les cours d'eau et dans les canaux — Détermination de la concentration, de la distribution granulométrique et de la densité relative Reference number ISO 4365:2005(E) © ISO 2005 This preview is downloaded from www.sis.se. Buy the entire standard via https://www.sis.se/std-905635 ISO 4365:2005(E) PDF disclaimer This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but shall not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to and installed on the computer performing the editing. In downloading this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat accepts no liability in this area. Adobe is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated. Details of the software products used to create this PDF file can be found in the General Info relative to the file; the PDF-creation parameters were optimized for printing. Every care has been taken to ensure that the file is suitable for use by ISO member bodies. In the unlikely event that a problem relating to it is found, please inform the Central Secretariat at the address given below. © ISO 2005 All rights reserved.
    [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]
  • Probabilistic Analysis of Immersed Tunnel Settlement Using CPT and MASW
    Probabilistic analysis of immersed tunnel settlement using CPT and MASW Bob van Amsterdam January 16, 2019 Version: Final report Probabilistic analysis of immersed tunnel settlement using CPT and MASW Bob van Amsterdam Thesis committee: Prof. Dr. ir. K.G. Gavin Geo-engineering TU Delft Assoc. prof. Dr. ir. W. Broere Geo-engineering TU Delft Ir. K.J. Reinders Hydraulic engineering TU Delft Dr. ir. C. Reale Geo-engineering TU Delft January 16, 2019 Abstract Settlement data of the Kiltunnel and the Heinenoordtunnel show that immersed tunnels in the Netherlands have been experiencing much larger settlement than expected when designing the tunnels causing cracks in the concrete and leakages in the joints. Settlements of 8 - 70 mm have been measured at the Kiltunnel and of 7 - 30 mm at the Heinenoordtunnel while settlements in the range of 0 - 1 mm were expected. Both sites are investigated through non-invasive geophysical site investigation method MASW (Multichannel Analysis of Surface Waves) for each 2.5 meter along the length of the tunnel and invasive site characterisation method CPT’s (Cone Penetration Tests). The settlement of immersed tunnels is similar to that of a shallow foundation. It can be modelled using the Mayne equation which uses the small strain shear stiffness and the degradation of secant stiffness based on the load compared to the ultimate bearing resistance. A way of characterising the site is determining the small strain stiffness directly from the shear wave velocity using the uncertainties in the relationship between shear wave velocity and cone penetration resistance and correlating the cone penetration resistance to this value.
    [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]
  • Geotechnical Investigations for Tunneling
    Breakthroughs in Tunneling September 12, 2016 Geotechnical Site Investigations For Tunneling Greg Raines, PE Objective To develop a conceptual model adequate to estimate the range of ground conditions and behavior for excavation, support, and groundwater control. support Typical Phases of Subsurface Investigation Phase 1: Planning Phase – Desk Top Study/Review Phase 2: Preliminary/Feasibility Design – Initial Field Investigations Phase 3: Final Design – Additional/Follow-Up Field Investigations Final Phase: Construction – Continued characterization of site Typical Phases of Subsurface Investigation Phase 1: Planning Phase – Desk Top Study/Review Review: Geologic maps Previous reports/investigations Aerial photos Case histories Develop conceptual geologic/geotechnical model (cross sections), preliminarily identify technical constraints/issues for the project. Plan subsurface investigation program. Identify/Collect Available Geotechnical Data in the Project Area Bridge or control Information can include: structure • Geologic maps • Data from previous reports • Drill hole data • Preliminary mapping Compile available local data into a database for further evaluation. Roads or Residential Canals Area Geologic Profiles – Understand Geologic Setting and Collect Specific Data Bedrock Surface Elevation Maps Aerial Photo / LiDAR Interpretation Aerial Photo Diversion Tunnel Use digital imagery/LiDAR to map local features prior to field mapping. Dam LiDAR Field Geologic Mapping Field Geologic Mapping Structural Data Collection (faults, folds,
    [Show full text]
  • LNG CUSTODY TRANSFER HANDBOOK 5Th Edition: 2017 GIIGNL Document Status and Purpose
    LNG CUSTODY TRANSFER HANDBOOK 5th Edition: 2017 GIIGNL Document status and purpose This fifth (2017) edition of the GIIGNL LNG transfer and LNG transfer from an onshore This latest version replaces all previous editions Custody Transfer Handbook reflects GIIGNL’s terminal to small scale LNG carriers. More than of the custody transfer handbook. Please always understanding of best current practice at the pointing at the differences and highlighting the consult the GIIGNL website www.giignl.org to time of publication. points of attention when dealing with these new check for the latest version of this handbook, operations, this fifth version provides answers esp. when referring to a pdf download or a The purpose of this handbook is to serve as a and solutions for setting up (slightly) altered or printout of this handbook reference manual to assist readers to new custody transfer procedures. As a reminder, understand the procedures and equipment (Photo front cover : © Fluxys Belgium – P. Henderyckx) it is not specifically intended to work out available to and used by the members of GIIGNL procedures for overland LNG custody transfer to determine the energy quantity of LNG operations involving LNG trucks, containers or transferred between LNG ships and LNG trains, or for small scale LNG transfer such as terminals. It is neither a standard nor a bunkering or refueling of ships and trucks. For specification. these, kind reference is made to the GIIGNL This handbook is not intended to provide the Retail LNG / LNG as a fuel handbook. reader with a detailed LNG ship-shore custody No proprietary procedure, nor particular transfer procedure as such, but sets out the manufacture of equipment, is recommended or practical issues and requirements to guide and implied suitable for any specific purpose in this facilitate a skilled operator team to work out a handbook.
    [Show full text]