DOCSLIB.ORG

Statnamic Hoefsloot 270110

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Statnamic Hoefsloot 270110 Statnamic Pile Load Testing Flip Hoefsloot, Fugro The Netherlands January 2010 Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Contents Menu Load Testing Methods Description Statnamic Video of Test Application Interpretation Guidelines Conclusion Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Load Testing Methods STATIC HighHigh 100 % pressurepressure gasgas Load Displacement STATNAMIC DYNAMIC 5-10% 1-2 % Strain Load Acceleration Displacement Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Description Stanamic A = Pile B = Load cell C = Cylinder D = Piston with chamber E = Platform F = Silencer 1 2 G = Reaction mass H = Gravel Container I = Gravel J = Laser K = Laser beam L = Laser sensor 3 4 Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Description Stanamic Fugro Profound Clients Knowledge and experience Word wide Statnamic (Peter Middendorp) Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Description Stanamic Hydraulic Catching Mechanism Containers filled with local material (gravel or equivalent) 4 test a day Simple inspection ignition system Transport on one trailer Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Description Stanamic Equipment: 80 tons reaction mass 7 trailers for transport 2 to 3 days a test one cycle of testing Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Video of Test Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Application, Static Load Test Advantages: •Static behaviour •Separation of: •End Bearing •Shaft Friction Disadvantages: •Cost •Selection of Test Piles Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Application, Dynamic Load Test Advantages: •Low Cost •Test on all Piles Disadvantages: •Dynamic Pile-Soil behaviour •High stresses in Pile •Requires advanced analyzing Techniques •Applicable only for Steel Pipe Piles Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Application, Statnamic Load Test Advantages: Relatively low Cost Free selection of test Piles Disadvantages: Difficult to determine Bearing Capacity Difficult to distinguish between End Bearing and Shaft Friction Application: Re-use of existing Piles Load-Settlement behaviour Condition: T Duration of rapid load Tf f 10 ≤ ≤1000 L pile length c stress wave velocity test pile L/cp p Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Fstn Fstn = statnamic force, measured Fst = static resistance u = displacement, measured M v = du/dt u a = d 2u/dt 2 F stn m = pile mass C = damping coefficient m k C = + ⋅ + ⋅ Fstn (t) Fst (t) m a(t) C v(t) Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Time [ms] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 20 15 Load Cell 10 Load[MN] 5 0 Time [ms] 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 10 20 30 Laser Sensor 40 Accelerometer 50 Displacement[mm] 60 Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Load [MN] 0 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 Fstn(t) Displacement [mm] . Displacement[mm] 50 Fstatic(t) UP 60 = − ⋅ − ⋅ Fst (t) Fstn (t) m a(t) C v(t) Estimated damping parameter C (hyperbolic curve) Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Dynamic Analysis, PLAXIS Simplified input of dynamics boundary conditions with Microsoft notepad Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Dynamic Analysis, PLAXIS Calibration model with static behaviour Average damping parameter selected based on hyperbolic curve Statnamic Test Numerical Simulation PLAXIS Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Load [MN] 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 Extrapolation according to 20 Middendorp and Bakker 40 60 Correction for “rate effects”: 80 Undrained behaviour Fy [kN/rad] 100 -5000 Undrained analysis 120 -4000 Displacement [mm] . Displacement[mm] -3000 “Rate effect ” 140 Fstn(t) -2000 160 Drained analysis Fu(t) -1000 180 Hyperbolic F=u/(p+q.u) 0 Hyperbolic F=Fref(u/uref)^0.5 0 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 200 |U| [m] Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Interpretation Bochum, Pfahl 57 STN Cyclic Load Displacement Diagram 0 Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 5 Bochum, Pfahl 57 STN Static Cyclic Load Displacement Diagram Cycle 1 Cycle 2 Cycle 3 Hyp. Appr. Static Quick 10 0 Hyp. Appr. Static Long Term 15 5 Displacement [mm] 20 10 25 15 30 Displacement [mm] [mm] Displacement 20 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Load [MN] 25 30 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Load [MN] Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Guidelines The Netherlands CUR-comittee H410 “Rapid load tests” goal: preparation European Codes Fugro is member (Maarten Profittlich) European Codes Draft standard Rapid Load Testing procedure Working group 4 of TC 341 (Testing of geotechnical structures; Testing of piles: rapid load testing (reference EN-ISO 22477-# version: 3.3, 23 April 2008) Guideline on the interpretation of Rapid Load test on piles 7 November 2008 Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Conclusion Statnamic provides alternative in case Static load tests are not feasible Re-use of existing Piles Determine Load-Settlement behaviour Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr Thank You Date www.fugro.com www.fugro.fr.
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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....................................................................................
    [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]
  • Item #0702768 Statnamic Axial Load Testing of Drilled Shaft
    Rev 4/09 ITEM #0702768 STATNAMIC AXIAL LOAD TESTING OF DRILLED SHAFT Description: This work shall consist of furnishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary for conducting a Statnamic Load Test and reporting the results. The Contractor shall supply all material and labor as hereinafter specified and include prior to, during and after the load test. The test shaft shall be constructed at the location shown on the site plan and in accordance with the requirements of these special provisions and also as outlined elsewhere in project plans and/or contract documents. Materials: The Contractor shall furnish all materials required to install the Statnamic testing apparatus, conduct the load test, and remove the load test apparatus as required. The Statnamic testing apparatus to be provided shall have a load capacity as called for in the project plans and/or contract documents and shall be equipped with all necessary equipment, materials and instrumentation. Construction Methods: 1. Qualification of Stanamic Load Testing Personnel and Submittals: The Contractor shall employ a qualified Professional Engineer registered in the State of Connecticut and experienced in the conducting and reporting of a Statnamic load test to design, setup, perform and prepare a report of the Statnamic load test. The qualifications of the testing personnel shall be submitted to the Engineer for review and approval. The testing personnel shall have successfully completed and submit the names of no less than three (3) Stanamic load tests on drilled shafts of similar dimensions and capacities in the past three (3) years. The list of projects shall contain names and phone numbers of owner's representatives who can verify the testing personnel participation on those projects.
    [Show full text]
  • A.1 Statnamic the Statnamic Load Test
    A.1 Statnamic The Statnamic Load Test (STN) has been developed by TNO and Berminghammer Foundation Equipment. The principle of the test is based on the launching of a reaction mass by burning fuel in a closed pressure chamber. This reaction mass is only 5% of the weight needed for a static load test. Loading is perfectly axial. Figure A1-1 represents the successive stages of a Statnamic load test. Phase I is the situation just before launching. A cylinder with pressure chamber has been connected to the pile head and the reaction mass has been placed over the piston. In phase II the solid fuel propellant is ignited inside the pressure chamber, generating high-pressure gases and accelerating the reaction mass. At this stage the actual loading of the pile takes place, as an equal and opposite reaction force gently loads the pile. The applied pile force, displacement and acceleration are directly monitored. The upward movement of the reaction mass results in space, which is filled by the gravel (phase III). Gravity causes the gravel to flow over the pile head as a layer, catching the reaction mass and transferring impact forces to the subsoil (phase IV). Available device loads are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16, 20, 30, and 40 MN. The testing range is between 25% and 100% of the device load. Devices of 100MN are under design and will be manufactured.. During the test the reaction mass reaches a height between 2-3 m and then falls back. For high loads of 5-30 MN, gravel is used to catch the reaction mass.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida Department of Transportation District VI DESIGN-BUILD
    Florida Department of Transportation District VI DESIGN-BUILD REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL for SR 90 (Tamiami Trail) 2.6 mile Bridging From East of Osceola Camp to West of Airboat Association of Florida Financial Projects Number(s): 434922-1-52-01 Federal Aid Project Number(s): Contract Number: E6J69 DRAFT Request for Proposal (DRAFT) SR 90 (Tamiami Trail) 2.6 mile Bridging From East of Osceola Camp to West of Airboat Association of Florida July 20, 2015 Table of Contents I. Introduction. .......................................................................................................................1 A. Design-Build Responsibility....................................................................................... 4 B. Department Responsibility ........................................................................................ 4 II. Schedule of Events. .............................................................................................................5 III. Threshold Requirements. ..................................................................................................7 A. Qualifications .............................................................................................................. 7 B. Joint Venture Firm ..................................................................................................... 7 C. Price Proposal Guarantee .......................................................................................... 7 D. Pre-Proposal Meeting ................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • KL118 Case Study: Analysis of Different Bore Pile Testing Methods
    ctbuh.org/papers Title: KL118 Case Study: Analysis of Different Bore Pile Testing Methods Authors: Peter Ramstedt, Project Director, Turner International LLC David Terenzio, Design Manager, Turner International LLC Mathew Hennessy, Assistant Project Manager, Turner International LLC Chien Jou Chen, Project Manager, Turner International LLC Subjects: Building Case Study Structural Engineering Keywords: Belt Truss Concrete Foundation Mega Column Publication Date: 2016 Original Publication: Cities to Megacities: Shaping Dense Vertical Urbanism Paper Type: 1. Book chapter/Part chapter 2. Journal paper 3. Conference proceeding 4. Unpublished conference paper 5. Magazine article 6. Unpublished © Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat / Peter Ramstedt; David Terenzio; Mathew Hennessy; Chien Jou Chen KL118 Case Study: Analysis of Different Bore Pile Testing Methods | KL118 案例研究：不同基桩试验方法之采用分析 Abstract | 摘要 Peter Ramstedt Project Director | 项目总监 In the construction of tall towers a variety of pile testing methodologies are used. Piles can be Turner International LLC 特纳国际有限公司 tested for many purposes including the optimization of pile design, operational verification, and quality assurance of completed piles or perhaps for design verification. The paper will provide Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 吉隆坡，马来西亚 an overview of the three types of bore pile tests conducted for the KL118 tower. Because of the various desired test results and specific site conditions, this project has used three types of bore Peter Ramstedt is leading Turner’s Project Management Services for the Warisan Merdeka Development in Kuala pile testing methodologies: Statnamic, conducted on three of the 137 tower bore piles (each Lumpur, Malaysia which includes the iconic 118 story Merdeka pile being 2.2 meters in diameter, 60 meters deep) and four of the 427 car park bore piles; Bi- PNB118.
    [Show full text]
  • ANALYSIS of INSITU TEST DERIVED SOIL PROPERTIES with TRADITIONAL and FINITE ELEMENT METHODS by LANDY HARIVONY RAHELISON a DISSER
    ANALYSIS OF INSITU TEST DERIVED SOIL PROPERTIES WITH TRADITIONAL AND FINITE ELEMENT METHODS By LANDY HARIVONY RAHELISON A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2002 To my Father, and my Mother ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is most thankful to Dr. Frank Townsend for his guidance and support throughout this research, having worked with Dr. Townsend during these three years has brought the author very instructive experiences inside and outside the geotechnical area. The author also owes his greatest gratitude to the committee members: Dr. Joseph Tedesco for sacrificing his time and for his critical insights into the research, Dr. John Davidson for his ideal academic instructions and for being a role model in and out of the classroom, Dr. Paul Bullock for the invaluable assistance in the field testing and the extremely instructive discussions in his office, and Dr. Steven Detweiler for his contribution to this research by expressing different points of view. The author is also indebted to the personnel of the Florida Department of Transportation, especially the project coordinator Peter Lai, for their support and technical assistance. The author would like to express his gratitude to the personnel of Turner, Inc. at the University of South Florida site, the personnel of Applied Foundations Testing, Inc., especially Mike Muchard and Don Robertson, and the personnel of Pile Equipment, Inc. at the Green Cove Springs site. The author would like to thank all those at the University of Florida, especially Brian Anderson, Chris Kohlhof, Danny Brown, Bob Konz, Hubert Martin, and Tony Murphy who assisted in many ways throughout this work.
    [Show full text]