DOCSLIB.ORG

DEPARTMENT of the ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CECW-CE Washington, DC 20314-1000 ETL 1110-2-565

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DEPARTMENT of the ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CECW-CE Washington, DC 20314-1000 ETL 1110-2-565 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CECW-CE Washington, DC 20314-1000 ETL 1110-2-565 Engineer Technical Letter No. 1110-2-565 30 September 2006 Engineering and Design FOUNDATION ENGINEERING: IN-THE-WET DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CIVIL WORKS PROJECTS 1. Purpose. This engineer technical letter (ETL) provides guidance for planning, design and construction of foundations constructed in-the-wet for civil works structures. This ETL concentrates on successful methods and potential problems. Case histories are provided. 2. Applicability. This ETL applies to HQUSACE elements, major subordinate commands, districts, laboratories, and separate field operating activities having responsibilities for the planning, design, and construction of civil works projects. 3. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 4. References. References are listed in Appendix A. 5. Background/Discussion. a. Traditionally, marine structures have been constructed in-the-dry within a cofferdam using a dewatering system. An alternative method, with potential cost savings, is in-the-wet construction. To extend foundation preparation and construction technology to in-the-wet conditions introduces a new level of difficulty. b. This ETL will furnish guidance for the planning, design, and construction of foundations constructed in-the-wet for civil works structures. This document covers foundation types, subgrade preparation methods, test programs, positioning systems, installation techniques, quality control procedures, tolerances, case histories, and lessons learned. ETL 1110-2-565 30 Sep 06 Table of Contents Subject Paragraph Page Background A-1 A-1 Design Considerations A-2 A-2 Introduction A-2a A-2 Tolerances A-2b A-3 Interfacing with Existing Structures A-2c A-4 Structure–Foundation Connections A-2d A-6 Contingency—(Installation Considerations). A-2e A-9 Heave A-2f A-11 Settlement Around Piles A-2g A-11 Liquefaction of Saturated Sands During Pile Installation A-2h A-11 Obtaining High Quality Concrete in Drilled Shafts A-2i A-11 Buoyancy and Hydrostatic Pressure A-2j A-11 Need for Extensive Subsurface Investigation A-2k A-12 Environmental Impacts A-2l A-12 Non-Traditional Construction Methods A-2m A-13 Adjustments to Design Criteria to Mitigate Risk A-2n A-13 Environmental Considerations A-2o A-13 Limited Construction Periods Due to Environmental Issues A-2p A-14 Specialized Equipment A-2q A-14 Decreased Ability for QC A-2r A-14 Risk Mitigation, Repair A-2s A-15 Summary of In-the-Wet Foundation Types A-3 A-15 Introduction A-3a A-15 Driven Piles A-3b A-16 Drilled Elements A-3c A-21 Gravity Base A-3d A-25 Site Exploration A-4 A-37 Increased Need Due to Inability to Visually Inspect Foundation A-4a A-37 Evaluation of Aquifers—Artesian Aquifers A-4b A-37 Geophysical Methods for Broad Evaluation of Discontinuities A-4c A-38 Specialized In-situ Investigation Tools A-4d A-39 Subgrade Preparation and Improvement A-5 A-40 Soil and Rock Foundation Preparation A-5a A-40 Placement of Select Backfill A-5b A-44 Scour Protection A-5c A-45 Deposition, Maintenance Dredging During Construction A-5d A-46 Soil Replacement A-5e A-48 Admixture Stabilization A-5f A-48 Roller Compacted Concrete A-5g A-48 Deep Dynamic Compaction A-5h A-48 Vibro-Compaction A-5i A-48 Stone Columns (Vibro-Replacement) A-5j A-49 Gravel Drains A-5k A-49 Sand and Gravel Compaction Piles A-5l A-49 Explosive Compaction A-5m A-49 Permeation Grouting and Compaction Grouting A-5n A-49 i ETL 1110-2-565 30 Sep 06 Subject Paragraph Page Jet Grouting A-5o A-49 Deep Soil Mixing A-5p A-49 Mini-Piles A-5q A-50 Prefabricated Vertical Drains A-5r A-50 Electro-Osmosis A-5s A-50 Buttress Fills (Surcharge) A-5t A-50 Biotechnical Stabilization and Soil Bioengineering A-5u A-51 Location and Positioning Methods A-6 A-51 Introduction A-6a A-51 Global Positioning System (GPS) A-6b A-51 Templates A-6c A-52 Guides A-6d A-52 Optical Surveys A-6e A-53 Sonic Transponders A-6f A-53 Installation and Construction Methods A-7 A-53 Staging—Temporary Works A-7a A-53 Drilling Methods A-7b A-57 Driving Methods A-7c A-62 Self-Excavating Caissons (Open Caissons). A-7d A-68 Underbase Grouting, Tremie Concrete, Grout Bags, Seal, Load Transfer A-7e A-69 Cut-offs and Splicing A-7f A-72 Test Programs A-8 A-72 Load Test A-8a A-72 Model Test/Numerical Test A-8b A-77 Verification (Continuity) Tests A-8c A-77 Quality Control/ Quality Assurance A-9 A-78 Introduction A-9a A-78 Procedures—More Unknowns Require More Diligence A-9b A-79 CSL (Cross-Hole Sonic Logging) A-9c A-79 Gamma-Gamma Tests A-9d A-80 ROV/AUV (Remotely Operated Vehicle/Autonomous Underwater Vehicles) A-9e A-80 Acoustic Cameras A-9f A-81 Optical Surveys A-9g A-81 Divers A-9h A-82 Above Water Extensions/Tell-Tales/Survey Towers A-9i A-82 Coring/Verification/Cameras/Pressures Sensors A-9j A-82 Soundings/Hydrographic Surveys A-9k A-82 Geophysical Methods A-9l A-82 Test Procedures/Mockups A-9m A-82 Education/Training of Team—Knowledge Resources A-9n A-83 Instrumentation A-10 A-83 Considerations A-10a A-83 Instruments A-10b A-84 Select Case Histories and Lessons Learned A-11 A-85 Olmsted Approach Walls Foundations (Louisville District). A-11a A-85 Inner Harbor Navigation Canal (New Orleans District) A-11b A-98 New Braddock Dam Foundations (Pittsburgh District) A-11c A-99 Mississippi River Lock and Dam No. 24 A-11d A-120 ii ETL 1110-2-565 30 Sep 06 Subject Paragraph Page KY Lock Addition: Highway and Railroad Bridge Foundations (Nashville District) A-11e A-125 References A-12 A-132 Required Publications A-12a A-132 Related Publications A-12b A-132 iii ETL 1110-2-565 30 Sep 06 APPENDIX A Foundation Engineering: In-the-Wet Design and Construction of Civil Works Projects A-1. Background a. Constructing foundations in-the-wet has always presented challenges, uncertainties, and risks. Nevertheless, working in-the-wet presents not only difficulties, but also unique op- portunities. Man has been dealing with both these difficulties and opportunities to install struc- tural foundations in-the-wet since prehistoric times, and each new advance in foundation tech- nology has resulted in the construction of ever more demanding foundations built in-the-wet, while keeping the level of risk at, or below, the threshold of acceptance for each new era of building. b. The Neolithic lake-dweller culture, which peaked in 5000 B.C. in what is now Switzerland, utilized timber pile foundations driven in shallow water to support platforms for houses and other village buildings. When faced with difficult foundation conditions, this ancient culture often took advantage of marine transport to carry canoe loads of stone to dump around and to shore-up the timber piles. c. By 1500 B.C., the people of both northern India and Mesopotamia were excavating deep foundations for bridges to provide year-round transportation across seasonally flooding riv- ers. These Bronze Age cultures utilized technology learned from well construction to shore-up the holes with bricks and stones, and utilized divers and buckets to assist with underwater exca- vation. One of the great challenges for these early, over-water, bridge foundations came from scour during floods, which these people partially addressed by the use of scour stone, frequently facilitated by marine transport. d. By the Roman Era, engineers had developed crude crib-like cofferdams (two parallel walls of timber filled with clay) to enable the Romans to place pozzolanic concrete footings be- low water. Furthermore, the Romans made use of battened timber piles for the first time to resist lateral river forces. The Romans also used concrete placed underwater on a relatively massive scale in the construction of the breakwater for the Herodian artificial harbor in Israel. It appears that the Romans formed large concrete foundation blocks for the breakwater by sinking large timber forms with stone, and filling in the interstitial spaces between the stones with pozzolanic concrete placed by divers, with the forms and pozzolan being transported by water from Italy. e. By the beginning of the Modern Era, in the latter half of the 18th Century, engineers such as Eads and Roebling were using the pneumatic caisson method to build major marine bridge foundations, with these large caissons being floated into position prior to sinking. Other marine foundation advances of the early Modern Era include the use of tremie concrete, begin- ning around the time of the Civil War, and the open caisson method, which was used extensively for building foundations on the Mississippi River. f. In recent times engineers are minimizing risks: of delays, of cost over-runs, of claims, and of not being prepared to deal with changed subsurface conditions, by using advanced con- 1 ETL 1110-2-565 30 Sep 06 struction equipment and techniques, by minimizing the use of personnel, and by maximizing the use of prefabrication. Availability of large floating equipment has encouraged modern in-the-wet engineers to use large driven piles and drilled shafts (often socketed into rock). Indeed, offshore equipment has been used to install large diameter steel, concrete, and composite cylinder piles for major foundations in deep water and in difficult soils, safely, rapidly, and economically. g. Other modern in-the-wet foundation methods include the use of sunken prefabricated steel (and concrete) box caissons, in-the-wet slurry wall cofferdams (such as for the Kawasaki Ventilation Structure in Japan), and gravity base foundations.
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]
  • 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
    [Show full text]