DOCSLIB.ORG

REQUEST for PROPOSALS Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
REQUEST for PROPOSALS Final South Carolina Department of Transportation REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (FINAL) US Route 701 Bridge Replacements Over Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, and Great Pee Dee Overflow Project BR88(044) Proposal ID 5584230 P2S 0030684 A Design-Build Project Georgetown & Horry Counties South Carolina AUGUST 5, 2014 INDEX Replacement of US 701 Bridges over Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, and Great Pee Dee Overflow Design-Build Project Georgetown & Horry Counties Federal Aid Project No. BR88(044) Proposal ID 5584230 P2S 0030684 INDEX Request for Proposals Attachment A – Agreement Exhibit 1. Cost Proposal Bid Form Exhibit 2. Schedule of Values Exhibit 3. Scope of Work Exhibit 4. Project Design Criteria 4a. Roadway 4b. Structures 4c. Pavement 4d. Traffic Part 1 – Signing and Pavement Markings Part 2 – Work Zone Traffic Control 4e. Hydraulic 4f. Geotechnical Exhibit 5. Special Provisions Exhibit 6. Supplemental Specifications Exhibit 7. Federal-Aid Project Supplemental Specifications Exhibit 8. Environmental Information Exhibit 9. Escrow Documents Attachment B – Project Information Package REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS South Carolina Department of Transportation REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Final A DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT Federal Aid Project No. BR88(044) Proposal ID 5584230 P2S 0030684 US 701 Bridge Replacements Over Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, & Great Pee Dee Overflow Georgetown & Horry Counties, South Carolina August 5, 2014 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS US Route 701 Bridge Replacements Over Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, and Great Pee Dee Overflow P2S 0030684, Proposal ID 5584230, Federal Aid Project No. BR88(044) Georgetown & Horry Counties, South Carolina Page 1 of 27 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ................................................................. 3 II. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 3 PROJECT INFORMATION ............................................................................................................... 4 SCHEDULE AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ...................................................................................... 4 RFP COMMITTAL ......................................................................................................................... 4 DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES .................................................................................. 5 ON-THE-JOB TRAINING REQUIREMENT ....................................................................................... 5 III. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS ............................................................................................. 5 RFP FOR INDUSTRY REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 5 QUESTIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CONFIDENTIAL ONE-ON-ONE MEETINGS ............................ 5 ALTERNATIVE TECHNICAL CONCEPTS ......................................................................................... 6 STIPENDS ................................................................................................................................... 11 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL .............................................................................................................. 12 IV. PROJECT SCOPE.............................................................................................................. 12 V. PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT ........................................................................................ 12 TECHNICAL PROPOSAL ............................................................................................................... 13 COST PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................................ 15 CONFIDENTIALITY OF PROPOSALS ............................................................................................. 15 NONCOLLUSION AND EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY CERTIFICATION ............................. 15 VI. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS .................................................................................... 15 PROPOSAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ................................................................................................ 15 PROPOSAL REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 16 TECHNICAL EVALUATION .......................................................................................................... 16 PRESENTATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 17 CLARIFICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 17 OPENING OF COST PROPOSALS/BID OPENING MEETING ............................................................ 17 TOTAL ADJUSTED BID DETERMINATION .................................................................................... 18 VII. SELECTION OF CONTRACTOR ............................................................................... 19 VIII. GENERAL INFORMATION ........................................................................................ 19 XIV. MILESTONES ................................................................................................................ 21 XV. COST PROPOSAL BID FORM.................................................................................... 22 XVIII. STIPEND AGREEMENT .............................................................................................. 26 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS US Route 701 Bridge Replacements Over Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, and Great Pee Dee Overflow P2S 0030684, Proposal ID 5584230, Federal Aid Project No. BR88(044) Georgetown & Horry Counties, South Carolina Page 2 of 27 I. PURPOSE OF REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) seeks to replace the existing bridges along US Route 701 over the Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, and Great Pee Dee Overflow. The project will include all items detailed in Exhibit 3 (Scope of Work). The project will be procured and constructed using the Design-Build Procurement method. The purpose of this Request for Proposals (“RFP”) is to select a PROPOSER to perform the project services described in this RFP. SCDOT desires that this project be constructed in a very efficient and timely manner. The proposed project services are hereinafter referred to as the “Project”. “PROPOSER,” as used here, includes a firm or firms, consortia, partnerships, joint ventures, and other legal entities, which have been requested by SCDOT to submit a Proposal in response to this RFP. It is not the intention of the SCDOT to receive complete detailed project analysis and design prior to the selection of a PROPOSER and the later execution of an agreement. Rather, the response to this RFP shall provide sufficient information to be evaluated to determine if the proposal is in accordance with the specified process and criteria. The Proposal shall be specific enough on assumptions used in its preparation so as to provide the basis for determining a final agreement. The information obtained under this RFP will become the property of SCDOT without restriction or limitation on its use. With the exception of Alternative Technical Concepts (ATCs), SCDOT shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose, distribute, or otherwise use in whole or in part any reports, data, or other materials prepared under this RFP. SCDOT shall retain ownership of all plans, specifications, and related documents. II. OVERVIEW Project Description The purpose of this project is to replace three (3) existing bridges including roadway approach work. SCDOT intends to enter into a contract, for services as detailed in EXHIBIT 3 (Scope of Work): The PROPOSER shall be responsible for meeting all Project requirements, specifications, and other applicable criteria as set forth in “Attachments A and B”. If modifications to the plans produced by the PROPOSER are required by the PROPOSER, the PROPOSER shall be responsible for these modifications, any associated permit modifications, right-of-way, utility impacts, and cost thereof. All modifications must meet or exceed the Project requirements. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS US Route 701 Bridge Replacements Over Yauhannah Lake, Great Pee Dee River, and Great Pee Dee Overflow P2S 0030684, Proposal ID 5584230, Federal Aid Project No. BR88(044) Georgetown & Horry Counties, South Carolina Page 3 of 27 Project Information Project Information, containing electronic information applicable to the Project, will be posted on the SCDOT Design Build website. The Project Information Package will include information describing the work, which has been performed by SCDOT prior to entering into the contract for the Project. The Project Information Package is attached to this RFP as “Attachment B”. “Attachment B” may contain additional information not provided at the RFQ stage. Data, reports, plans, electronic files, and any other items supplied in Attachment B and/or posted on the SCDOT Design Build website are for information only. SCDOT shall not be liable for the reliability or accuracy of the information contained therein. Any changes to the
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]