DOCSLIB.ORG

Guide to Trench Excavations (Shoring Support and Drainage Measures)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guide to Trench Excavations (Shoring Support and Drainage Measures) GUIDE TO TRENCH EXCAVATIONS (SHORING SUPPORT AND DRAINAGE MEASURES) Utilities Technical Liaison Committee HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT and Geotechnical Engineering Office CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION February 2003 GUIDE TO TRENCH EXCAVATIONS (SHORING SUPPORT AND DRAINAGE MEASURES) Utilities Technical Liaison Committee HIGHWAYS DEPARTMENT and Geotechnical Engineering Office CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THE GOVERNMENT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION February 2003 2 FOREWORD Trench excavations are carried out principally to allow installation or repair of public utilities, drains and sewers to serve populated areas. The Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of the Civil Engineering Department (CED) recently undertook a study on failures of trench excavations in Hong Kong. The study found that between 1986 and 2000, there were at least 10 deaths and 4 injuries caused by the failures of trench excavations. The study also found that a number of landslides resulting in significant social disruption in recent years were related to trench excavations adjacent to slopes. Therefore, the study concluded that the risk from trench excavations is not low and some improvement measures should be done to enhance the safety standards of trench excavations in Hong Kong. The findings of the study with recommendations on enhancement of the safety of trench excavations were presented to the Standing Committee on Slope Safety (SCOSS) of Environment, Transport & Works Bureau (ETWB). It was decided by the SCOSS that a Working Group should be formed under the Utilities Technical Liaison Committee (UTLC) of Highways Department to take the recommendations forward, including the preparation of a technical guide to trench excavations, and GEO/CED should provide technical assistance to the UTLC to prepare the guide. The Working Group, composed of the major utility undertakings, representatives from Hong Kong Construction Association, the Association of Consulting Engineers of Hong Kong, Highways Department, Water Supplies Department, Drainage Services Department and Labour Department, in conjunction with GEO/CED prepared this Guide on good practice of shoring support and drainage measures for trench excavations. As part of the Government’s continuing effort to promote a safe and healthy working environment, it is the intention of this Guide that the safety of the personnel involved in the works and also the general public who may be affected by trench collapses or failures can be enhanced. (C. K. WONG) Chairman Utilities Technical Liaison Committee Highways Department February 2003 3 CONTENTS Page No. Title Page 1 FOREWORD 2 CONTENTS 3 1.0 INTRODUCTION 5 2.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE 6 3.0 PLANNING STAGE 7 3.1 Desk Study 7 3.2 Timing and Location 7 3.3 Statutory Requirements 8 4.0 DESIGN STAGE 9 4.1 Temporary Support Design 9 4.2 Design Considerations 10 4.2.1 Loading 10 4.2.2 Drainage 10 4.2.3 Groundwater Control 11 4.2.4 Existing Man-Made Slope Features 11 5.0 CONSTRUCTION STAGE 12 5.1 Installation of Support 12 5.2 Special Drainage Provisions in the Wet Season 12 5.3 Backfilling of Trench and Reinstatement 13 5.4 Precaution in Use of Machinery 13 5.5 Other Considerations 14 4 6.0 SITE SUPERVISION AND SITE SAFETY INSPECTION 15 6.1 Site Supervision 15 6.2 Site Safety Inspection 16 6.3 Safety Checklist for Supervisors 16 6.3.1 Drainage Provisions 17 7.0 REFERENCES 19 APPENDIX A : TYPICAL ARRANGEMENT OF SHORING 21 DETAILS APPENDIX B: RECOMMENDED DRAINAGE MEASURES 34 5 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Geotechnical Engineering Office (GEO) of the Civil Engineering Department (CED) recently carried out a study on failures of trench excavations in Hong Kong. The study included a review of known past failures of trench excavations, and also the current technical standards and statutory requirements for trench excavations. The study has revealed that, between 1986 and 2000, fifteen reported failures associated with trench excavations resulted in 10 deaths and 4 injuries. In a very serious single incident in 1966, a retaining wall collapsed killing 6 people and injuring 16 others. Trench excavation at the toe of the wall was found to be the main cause of the collapse. The study also found that a number of significant landslides in recent years, which resulted in injuries and serious social disruption, were related to trench excavations adjacent to slopes. The details and findings of the study are documented in the Special Project Report SPR 2/2001, GEO (2001). The GEO/CED study concluded that the risk from trench excavations is not low. A Working Group was therefore formed under the Utilities Technical Liaison Committee (UTLC) of Highways Department to prepare guidelines to promote safe practice for trench excavations. This document presents the recommendations of the Working Group as part of the Government’s continuing effort to promote a safe and healthy working environment for all personnel in construction sites and others who may be affected by the works. 6 2.0 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE Trench excavations are carried out principally to allow installation or repair of public utilities, drains and sewers to serve populated areas. The purpose of this Guide is to provide recommendations on good practice of shoring support and drainage measures for trench excavations in order to enhance the safety of the people who may be affected by the excavation works or their collapses. Before a trench is excavated, the designer should bear in mind that the trench support system and associated precautionary measures should be required to serve two purposes: (i) stability of the trench itself, and (ii) avoidance of any adverse effect on the stability of adjacent slopes and in turn the safety of the public. (“Slopes” in this Guide should be taken to mean man-made slopes, retaining walls or sloping natural ground.) As determined by the GEO/CED study (GEO, 2001), the collapse of trenches is attributed to inadequate shoring, largely due to non-compliance with contract specifications and statutory requirements. However, one of the major contributory factors in the case of trench-related slope failures was found to be inadequate drainage provisions. In view of the above, this Guide emphasizes the deficiencies identified by the GEO/CED study, i.e. the need for adequate shoring support and drainage measures, and the need to comply strictly with site supervision requirements and site safety inspections. Therefore, the users of this Guide should refer to the relevant documents on other aspects related to the construction safety of trench excavation which are not covered (e.g. confined spaces, electricity supply lines protection, gas safety, site traffic management, etc.). It must also be stressed that the guidelines given in this Guide are in no way exhaustive, and professional judgement must be exercised in all cases. The Guide is intended to be used by all personnel who are involved in the planning, design, construction and supervision of trench excavation works, including contractors, utility companies, consultants, government departments and any other parties concerned. 7 3.0 PLANNING STAGE 3.1 Desk Study When a trench excavation is being planned for any purpose, a thorough search should be made for information about any existing utilities adjacent to or crossing the line of the planned trench, including their sizes, locations and alignments. Most of the underground utilities are live systems, such as electricity, water, sewer and gas, and can be dangerous to workers when damaged or fractured. Particularly for gas, water mains and sewage rising mains, ground movement resulting from excavation may be sufficient to cause these mains to fracture. If the planned trench is located near slopes, special attention should be paid to the presence of any pressurized water mains as any damage to the pipes could lead to slope failures. It is important to search the Slope Information System via the Hong Kong Slope Safety website (http://hkss.ced.gov.hk) to identify any relevant slope information, such as past instability, substandard slopes with outstanding Dangerous Hillside Orders and slopes under the Landslip Preventive Measures Programme. Water Supplies Department (WSD) in their publication on “Guidelines for Excavation near Water Mains” (WSD, 2000) sets out procedures and practices for safe working near water mains. In addition, as required under HyD’s “Conditions of Permit”, utility companies should be consulted for locations of their existing installations in the vicinity of the planned trench prior to commencement of excavation. Other site conditions should also be assessed. They include traffic loads, vibration of construction plant, condition and stability of adjacent structures, visible evidence of slope instability, groundwater table, any need for special excavation techniques such as dewatering, possibility of flooding by surface run-off, and flooding conditions in the vicinity of the site, etc. Detailed information on flooding blackspots in Hong Kong can be viewed via the Drainage Services Department (DSD) homepage (www.info.gov.hk/dsd). The permit holders, designers and contractors should familiarize themselves with the relevant Ordinances, Regulations, Codes of Practice and Guides before opening up a trench. A list of useful references is provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2. 3.2 Timing and Location Trench excavations without proper drainage provisions that are carried out adjacent to slopes can cause landslides in heavy rain. The Geotechnical Manual for Slopes (GEO, 1984) advises that “… trenches at the slope crests should not be opened up during the wet season unless unavoidable. If such trenches are to be excavated during the wet season, the trench should be protected against the ingress of runoff from the surface in which the trench is excavated…”. The required drainage protective measures are discussed in Sections 4.2.2 and 5.2 below. 8 If the trench excavation is for new utilities, the routing of the utilities should be kept as far away from the crest or toe of a man-made slope as possible.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sloping and Benching Systems
    Trenching and Excavation Operations SLOPING AND BENCHING SYSTEMS OBJECTIVES Upon the completion of this section, the participant should be able to: 1. Describe the difference between maximum allowable slope and actual slope. 2. Observe how the angle of various sloped systems varies with soil type. 3. Evaluate layered systems to determine the proper trench slope. 4. Illustrate how shield systems and sloping systems interface in combination systems. ©HMTRI 2000 Page 42 Trenching REV­1 Trenching and Excavation Operations SLOPING SYSTEMS If enough surface room is available, sloping or benching the trench walls will offer excellent protection without any additional equipment. Cutting the slope of the excavation back to its prescribed angle will allow the forces of cohesion (if present) and internal friction to hold the soil together and keep it from flowing downs the face of the trench. The soil type primarily determines the excavation angle. Sloping a method of protecting employees from cave­ins by excavating to form sides of an excavation that are inclined away from the excavations so as to prevent cave­ins. In practice, it may be difficult to accurately determine these sloping angles. Most of the time, the depth of the trench is known or can easily be determined. Based on the vertical depth, the amount of cutback on each side of the trench can be calculated. A formula to calculate these cutback distances will be included with each slope diagram. NOTE: Remember, the beginning of the cutback distance begins at the toe of the slope, not the center of the trench. Accordingly, the cutback distance will be the same regardless of how wide the trench is at the bottom.
    [Show full text]
  • Division 31: Earthworks
    FACILITIES MANAGEMENT – DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION EDITION: APRIL 29, 2020 4202 E. FOWLER AVENUE, OPM 100 | TAMPA, FLORIDA 33620-7550 PHONE: (813) 974-2845 | WEBSITE: usf.edu/fm-dc DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES DIVISION 31 EARTHWORKS DIVISION 31 EARTHWORK SECTION 31 05 00 EARTHWORK ............................................................................................................ 2 SECTION 31 10 00 SITE CLEARING ........................................................................................................ 5 SECTION 31 60 00 FOUNDATION ............................................................................................................ 6 DIVISION 31 EARTHWORKS PAGE 1 OF 7 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES SECTION 31 05 00 EARTHWORK 1.1 SITE GRADING A. Rough Grading: Slopes shall not be steeper than one (1) vertical to five (5) horizontal in general open lawn and other grassed areas. Steeper slopes will be permitted only on a case-by-case basis where special need warrants. Tops and bottoms of banks and other break points shall be rounded to provide smooth and graceful transitions. In areas of walks without ramps, slopes shall not be steeper than one (1) vertical to twenty (20) horizontal. Ensure ramped areas comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA) and Florida Accessibility Code, and meet the intent of the FBC, Chapter 468. B. Finish Grading: This operation shall consist of the final dressing to provide a uniform layer of the topsoil and/or nutrients required
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION A-A NTS 2" Grade Board Notches
    Figure 4.1 – Alternative Flow Dispersal Trench NOTES: 1. This trench shall be constructed to prevent point discharge 1' - 6" min galvanized bolts and /or erosion. *20% max 2. Trenches may be placed no closer than 50 feet to one *20% max 2" x 12" another (100 feet along flowline). pressure 3. Trench and grade board must be treated grade level. Align to follow contours of board site. 4" x 4" support 4. Support post spacing as post required by soil conditions to 2" x 2" notches ensure grade board remains 18" O.C. 36" max 12" min. clean (< 5% fines) level. 3 1 4" - 1 2" washed rock filter fabric *15% max for flow control/water quality 18" O.C. treatment in rural areas 2" SECTION A-A NTS 2" grade board notches Figure 4.2 – Pipe Compaction Design and Backfill O.D. O.D. limits of pipe W (see note 4) 3' max. 3' max. compaction limit of pipe zone 1' - 0" bedding material for flexible 1' - 0" pipe (see 0.15 O.D. min. note 6) B O.D. limits of pipe compaction 0.65 O.D. min. foundation level A* gravel backfill gravel backfill for for pipe bedding foundations when specified * A = 4" min., 27" I.D. and under 6" min., over 27" I.D. A. Metal and Concrete Pipe Bedding for Flexible Pipe span span span 3' max Flexible Pipe NOTES: 3' max 3' max 1. Provide uniform support under barrels. 1'-0" 2. Hand tamp under haunches. 3. Compact bedding material to 95% max.
    [Show full text]
  • Corrosion Evaluation of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
    Research Report KTC-05-28/SPR 239-02-1F KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER College of Engineering CORROSION EVALUATION OF MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS Our Mission We provide services to the transportation community through research, technology transfer and education. We create and participate in partnerships to promote safe and effective transportation systems. We Value... Teamwork -- Listening and Communicating, Along with Courtesy and Respect for Others Honesty and Ethical Behavior Delivering the Highest Quality Products and Services Continuous Improvement in All That We Do For more information or a complete publication list, contact us KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER 176 Raymond Building University of Kentucky Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 (859) 257-4513 (859) 257-1815 (FAX) 1-800-432-0719 www.ktc.uky.edu [email protected] The University of Kentucky is an Equal Opportunity Organization Research Report KTC-05-28/SPR – 239-02-1F Corrosion Evaluation of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls Research Report KTC-05-28/SPR – 239-02-1F Corrosion Evaluation of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls By Tony L. Beckham Leicheng Sun Tommy C. Hopkins Research Geologist Research Engineer Program Manager Kentucky Transportation Center College of Engineering University of Kentucky in cooperation with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet The Commonwealth of Kentucky and Federal Highway Administration The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the University of Kentucky, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, nor the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Tunnels & Earthworks (Cuts & Embankments) of the Comarnic
    Tender Designs of Major Infrastructure Highway Projects Tunnels & Earthworks (Cuts & Embankments) of the Comarnic – Brasov Motorway Romania Project Tunnels, cuts and embankments of the Comarnic – Brasov Motorway, Romania. Construction Cost Total Cost: approx. €. 1.5bn. Project Schdlhedule Tender Design: 2013 Construction: 2014 - Project Description • Sinaia, Busteni & Predeal Twin Bore Highway Tunnels Sinaia length: 5.890m Busteni length: 6.200m Predeal length: 7.500m Excavation cross section: 84m2 -132m2 Effective cross section: 66m2 -81m2 Excavation Method NATM – Mechanical excavation, drilling and blasting Final Lining Reinforced concrete • Highway Cuts and Embankments (Section from Typical tunnels cross section Ch. 110+600-168+600) Embankments: Ltotal = 26.0km Cuts: Ltotal = 11.0km Geology • Alluvial deposits, limestones, flysch, marbles, schist and conglomerates • Groundwater • Max. overburden at the tunnels: 195m – 340m Our Services Tender design and preparation of the technical offer on behalf of ViStrAda Nord Typical embankment cross section Client ViStrada Nord Consortium (VINCI S.A. - VINCI Construction Grand Projects S.A.S. - VINCI Construction Terrassement S.A.S. – STRABAG A.G. - STRABAG S.E. – AKTOR Concessions S.A. - AKTOR S.A.) 4, Thalias Str. & 109, Kimis Ave., P.C. 151 22, Maroussi, Athens Tel.: + 30 210 6837490, + 30 210 6897040, + 30 210 6835858 Fax: + 30 210 6837499, e-mail: [email protected], www.omikronkappa.gr Railway Project Consulting services, technical review and checking of designs and Panagopoula Railway Tunnel associated detailed designs Athens - Patras High Speed Railway Line, Section Rododafni – Psathopirgos Greece Project • Consulting services, technical review and checking of the designs of the project: “Construction of the New Double High Speed Railway Line at the section Rododafni – Psathopirgos from CH.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequency and Magnitude of Selected Historical Landslide Events in The
    Chapter 9 Frequency and Magnitude of Selected Historical Landslide Events in the Southern Appalachian Highlands of North Carolina and Virginia: Relationships to Rainfall, Geological and Ecohydrological Controls, and Effects Richard M. Wooten , Anne C. Witt , Chelcy F. Miniat , Tristram C. Hales , and Jennifer L. Aldred Abstract Landsliding is a recurring process in the southern Appalachian Highlands (SAH) region of the Central Hardwood Region. Debris fl ows, dominant among landslide processes in the SAH, are triggered when rainfall increases pore-water pressures in steep, soil-mantled slopes. Storms that trigger hundreds of debris fl ows occur about every 9 years and those that generate thousands occur about every 25 years. Rainfall from cyclonic storms triggered hundreds to thousands of debris R. M. Wooten (*) Geohazards and Engineering Geology , North Carolina Geological Survey , 2090 US Highway 70 , Swannanoa , NC 28778 , USA e-mail: [email protected] A. C. Witt Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy , Division of Geology and Mineral Resources , 900 Natural Resources Drive, Suite 500 , Charlottesville , VA 22903 , USA e-mail: [email protected] C. F. Miniat Coweeta Hydrologic Lab , Center for Forest Watershed Research, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station , 3160 Coweeta Lab Road , Otto , NC 28763 , USA e-mail: [email protected] T. C. Hales Hillslope Geomorphology , School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University , Main Building, Park Place , Cardiff CF10 3AT , UK e-mail: [email protected] J. L. Aldred Department of Geography and Earth Sciences , University of North Carolina at Charlotte , 9201 University City Blvd. , Charlotte , NC 28223 , USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 203 C.H.
    [Show full text]
  • Division 2 Earthwork
    Division 2 Earthwork 2-01 Clearing, Grubbing, and Roadside Cleanup 2-01.1 Description The Contractor shall clear, grub, and clean up those areas staked or described in the Special Provisions. This Work includes protecting from harm all trees, bushes, shrubs, or other objects selected to remain. “Clearing” means removing and disposing of all unwanted material from the surface, such as trees, brush, down timber, or other natural material. “Grubbing” means removing and disposing of all unwanted vegetative matter from underground, such as sod, stumps, roots, buried logs, or other debris. “Roadside cleanup”, whether inside or outside the staked area, means Work done to give the roadside an attractive, finished appearance. “Debris” means all unusable natural material produced by clearing, grubbing, or roadside cleanup. 2-01.2 Disposal of Usable Material and Debris The Contractor shall meet all requirements of state, county, and municipal regulations regarding health, safety, and public welfare in the disposal of all usable material and debris. The Contractor shall dispose of all debris by one or more of the disposal methods described below. 2-01.2(1) Disposal Method No. 1 – Open Burning The open burning of residue resulting from land clearing is restricted by Chapter 173-425 of the Washington Administrative Code (WAC). No commercial open burning shall be conducted without authorization from the Washington State Department of Ecology or the appropriate local air pollution control authority. All burning operations shall be strictly in accordance with these authorizations. 2-01.2(2) Disposal Method No. 2 – Waste Site Debris shall be hauled to a waste site obtained and provided by the Contractor in accordance with Section 2-03.3(7)C.
    [Show full text]
  • Failure of Slopes and Embankments Under Static and Seismic Loading
    American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) ISSN (Print) 2313-4410, ISSN (Online) 2313-4402 © Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers http://asrjetsjournal.org/ Failure of Slopes and Embankments Under Static and Seismic Loading Nicolaos Alamanis* Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece, Civil engineer (National Technical University of Athens, D.E.A Ecole Centrale Paris) Email: [email protected] Summary The stability of slopes and embankments under the influence of static and seismic loads has been the subject of study for many researchers. This paper presents the mechanisms and causes of landslides as well as the forms of failure of slopes and embankments under static and seismic loading, with examples of failures from both Greek and international space. There is also mention to measures to protect and stabilize landslides, categories of slope stability analysis, and methods of seismic impact analysis. What follows is the determination of tolerable movements based on the caused damage on natural slopes, dams and embankments and an attempt is made to connect them with the vulnerability curves that are one of the key elements of stochastic seismic hazard. Particular importance is given to the statistical parameters of the mechanical characteristics of the sloping soil mass and to the simulation of random fields necessary for solving complex geotechnical works. Finally, we compare the simulation and description of random fields and the L.A.S. method is observed to be the most accurate of all simulation methods. The L.A.S. algorithm in conjunction with finite difference models can demonstrate the large fluctuations in the factor of safety values and the permanent seismic displacements of the slopes under the effect of seismic charges whose time histories are known.
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Design Consideration of These Potential Fail- Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines, Publication No
    ue to advantages in economics, constructability, and aesthetics, Lessons the construction of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls is Dnow commonplace. An MSE wall consists of Learned soil, reinforcement, and facing to retain earth and support overlying structures (Figure 1). Thirty- to forty-foot high walls are not uncom- problems and solutions mon. Reinforcement often consists of geogrids encountered by practicing or steel reinforcement strips, while the facing structural engineers commonly consists of segmental precast con- crete units, gabion baskets, metallic panels, or geosynthetic facing. There are many different MSE wall construction materials, making it more important for Contractors and design Engineers Figure 1: Typical MSE Wall Cross-Section. to understand how the products work with the ® remainder of the system. afterthought. The plans show a bold black line at For various reasons, some systems fail and require the property line to represent the retaining wall costly repair (Figure 2). Based on lessons learned with the label “retaining wall – to be designed by from case studies, the authors discuss common others,” with a 30-foot grade change from the top pitfalls of MSE wall design and construction, in to the bottom of the wall. The exposed side of Copyrightthe form of a hypothetical the wall will be visible from local neighborhoods case study. and a shopping center. The marsh is just outside Mechanically Stabilized the limit of the retaining wall. It’s Just a The Contractor submits a bid that utilizes an Earth Walls MSE wall, and engages a Fabricator who provides Retaining Wall… proprietary masonry blocks for MSE systems. The Pitfalls in Design Don’t Sweat It! Fabricator works with a design Engineer who is not local to the site, but regularly designs the proprietary and Construction An Owner selects an affordable but complex site MSE system.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Groundwork and Foundations
    P1: JZW/JZZ BY032-03 BY032-Emmitt BY032-v1.cls September 13, 2004 9:6 3 Groundwork and Foundations The foundation of a building is that part of walls, piers and columns in direct contact with, and transmitting loads to, the ground. The building founda- tion is sometimes referred to as the artificial foundation, and the ground on which it bears as the natural foundation. Early buildings were founded on rock or firm ground; it was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that concrete was increasingly used as a foundation base for walls. With the introduction of local and then national building regulations, standard forms of concrete foundations have become accepted practice in the UK, along with more rigorous investigation of the nature and bearing capacity of soils and bedrock. 3.1 Functional requirements The primary functional requirement of a foundation is strength and stability. Strength and stability The combined, dead, imposed and wind loads on a building must be transmit- ted to the ground safely, without causing deflection or deformation of the build- ing or movement of the ground that would impair the stability of the building and/or neighbouring structures. Foundations should also be designed and constructed to resist any movements of the subsoil. Foundations should be designed so that any settlement is both limited and uniform under the whole of the building. Some settlement of a building on a soil foundation is inevitable. As the building is erected the loads placed on the foundation increase and the soil is compressed. This settlement should be limited to avoid damage to service pipes and drains connected to the building.
    [Show full text]
  • Simplified Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Residual Displacement of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls
    SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS Vol. 50, No. 5, 659–677, Oct. 2010 Japanese Geotechnical Society SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE TO EVALUATE EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED RESIDUAL DISPLACEMENT OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SOIL RETAINING WALLS SUSUMU NAKAJIMAi),JUNICHI KOSEKIii),KENJI WATANABEiii) and MASARU TATEYAMAiii) ABSTRACT Based on a series of shaking table model tests, it was found that the eŠects of 1) subsoil and backˆll deformation, 2) failure plane formation in backˆll, and 3) pullout resistance mobilized by the reinforcements on the seismic behaviors of the geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining walls (GRS walls) were signiˆcant. These eŠects cannot be taken into ac- count in the conventional pseudo-static based limit equilibrium analyses or Newmark's rigid sliding block analogy, which are usually adopted as the seismic design procedure. Therefore, this study attempts to develop a simpliˆed procedure to evaluate earthquake-induced residual displacement of GRS walls by re‰ecting the knowledge on the seis- mic behaviors of GRS walls obtained from the shaking table model tests. In the proposed method, 1) the deformation characteristics of subsoil and backˆll are modeled based on the model test results and 2) the eŠect of failure plane formation is considered by using residual soil strength after the failure plane formation while the peak soil strength is used before the failure plane formation, and 3) the eŠect of the pullout resistance mobilized by the reinforcement is also introduced by evaluating the pullout resistance based on the results from the pullout tests of the reinforcements. By using the proposed method, simulations were performed on the shak- ing table model test results conducted under a wide variety of testing conditions and good agreements between the cal- culated and measured displacements were observed.
    [Show full text]
  • Trench Blasting with DYNAMITE a TRADITION of INNOVATION
    Trench Blasting with DYNAMITE A TRADITION OF INNOVATION Dyno Nobel’s roots reach back to every significant in- novation in explosives safety and technology. Today, Dyno Nobel supplies a full line of explosives products and blasting services to mines, quarries and contractors in nearly every part of the world. DYNAMITE PRODUCT OF CHOICE FOR TRENCH BLASTING One explosive product has survived the test of time to become a true classic in the industry. DYNAMITE! The dynamite products manufactured today by Dyno Nobel are similar to Alfred Nobel’s original 1860s invention yet, in selected applications, they outperform any other commercial explosives on the market. The high energy, reliability and easy loading characteristics of dynamite make it the product of choice for difficult and demand- ing trench blasting jobs. Look to Unigel®, Dynomax Pro® and Unimax® to make trench blasting as effective and efficient as it can be. DISCLAIMER The information set forth herein is provided for informational purposes only. No representation or warranty is made or intended by DYNO NOBEL INC. or its affiliates as to the applicability of any procedures to any par- ticular situation or circumstance or as to the completeness or accuracy of any information contained herein. User assumes sole responsibility for all results and consequences. ® Cover photo depicts a trench blast using Primacord detonating cord, MS ® Connectors and Unimax dynamite. SAFE BLASTING REMINDERS Blasting safety is our first priority. Review these remind- ers frequently and make safety your first priority, too. • Dynamite products will provide higher energy value than alternate products used for trenching due to their superior energy, velocity and weight strength.
    [Show full text]