DOCSLIB.ORG

Static Load Test – a Comparison of Ultimate Load Between Statnamic and Maintained Load Test

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Static Load Test – a Comparison of Ultimate Load Between Statnamic and Maintained Load Test STATIC LOAD TEST – A COMPARISON OF ULTIMATE LOAD BETWEEN STATNAMIC AND MAINTAINED LOAD TEST MASTURA BINTI AZMI A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of Master of Engineering (Civil-Geotechnic) Faculty of Civil Engineering Universiti Teknologi Malaysia MEI 2005 To everybody, thank you so much ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Through my preparation for this project, I have met several people that gave a lot of contribution towards this study. Many thanks to Dr. Khairul Anuar b Kassim who has been supervised me throughout this study and thank you for all the knowledge that you gave to me. I would also like to forward my thought to Mr. Tan Hui Hock of Geonamics Sdn. Bhd. who has been providing me with the necessary information for this study. I would also like to express my appreciation to Mr. Liu Chong Yew of SPYTL who has been a great mentor to me. Without the support from these people the thesis would not finish as this. My sincere appreciation should also go to the people’s incharge of the projects that I went to get my data and information. All the information are valuable for this thesis and many thanks to you. I would also like to thank all the people involve directly or indirectly in this thesis. Not to forget my family and friends. ABSTRACT This study is conducted to give a good comparison of the ultimate load between the statnamic load test and the maintained load test. The study was done using three methods to predict the ultimate load of statnamic load test. The three methods are the Unloading Point Method, Matsumoto method and Simultaneous Equation method. The statnamic and maintained load test was done on two types of bored pile that are bored pile cast on limestone rock and bored pile cast on granite rock. The result shown in the study gave a different outcome. From the settlement-load curves derived, the result for the comparison of statnamic and maintained load test for bored pile cast on limestone gave an almost similar result. Thus, it can be said that the result for both statnamic and maintained load test can be used to determine the ultimate capacity of the pile. Where else, the result for bored pile cast on granite rock gave a very large difference due to large difference of length for the two bored pile. Therefore, it can be conclude that the result for this study on comparison of statnamic load test and maintained load test for bored pile cast on granite can not be used. ABSTRAK Projek ini dijalankan untuk memcari perbandingan kekuatan maksima di antara ujian beban statnamic dan ujian beban tertahan. Projek ini dijalankan menggunakan 3 kaedah berbeza bagi menentukan beban maksima dari ujian beban statnamic. 3 kaedah itu adalah kaedah pembebanan titik, kaedah Matsumoto dan kaedah penyelesaian persamaan serentak. Ujian statnamic dan beban tertahan telah dilakukan ke atas dua jenis bored pile iaitu cerucuk yang ditanam di atas batuan kapur dan di atas batuan granit. Ujian telah memberikan keputusan yang berbeza. Bagi keputusan ujian statnamic dan beban tertahan ke atas cerucuk di atas batuan kapur memberikan hasil yang lebih kurang sama tetapi bagi cerucuk yang terletak di atas batuan granit tidak. Ini berkemungkinan di sebabkan oleh perbezaan kedalaman yang sangat ketara. Oleh itu, bolehlah dikatakan bahawa perbandingan bagi ujian statnamic dan ujian beban tertahan bagi cerucuk yang dikorek di atas batuan granit bagi projek adalah gagal dan tidak boleh dibandingkan. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER TITLE PAGE ORGANISATION OF THESIS Thesis Status Declaration Declaration Supervisor’s declaration Declaration of originality ii Dedication iii Acknowledgement iv Abstract v Abstrak vi Table of Content vii List of Tables xi List of Figures xii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Objectives 2 1.2 Scopes 2 1.3 Problem Statement 3 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5 2.1 Site Investigation 6 2.1.1 Planning 6 2.1.2 Depth of Exploration 7 2.1.3 Groundwater Condition 7 2.1.4 Sampling, in-situ testing and lab testing 8 2.2 Basic Piling Methods 10 2.2.1 Pile Types 10 2.2.1.1 Non-displacement piles 11 2.2.1.1.1 Bored cast-in-place 12 2.2.1.1.2 Small-diameter Percussion bored-cast- In-situ piles 13 2.2.1.1.3 Large-diameter Percussion bored pile 14 2.2.1.1.4 Rotary bored cast-in -place pile 15 2.2.1.2 Pile formation with rotary Boring equipment 17 2.2.1.3 Boring and Concreting 18 2.2.2 Concrete mixes for bored piles 19 2.2.3 Reinforcement for bored piles 21 2.2.4 Excavation using a bentonite suspension 21 2.3 Pile Testing 22 2.3.1 Introduction 22 2.4 Load Testing of Piles 24 2.4.1 General 24 2.4.2 Test equipment 25 2.4.3 Load application and measurement 26 2.4.3.1 Measurement of settlement 27 2.5 Pile Load Test Procedure 27 2.5.1 Maintained load test 28 2.6 Interpretation of the results 29 2.6.1 Load-settlement curves 29 2.6.2 Estimation of ultimate load 30 2.6.3 Settlement criteria 30 2.7 Statnamic test 31 2.7.1 Introduction 31 2.7.2 Development of statnamic 33 2.7.3 Basic concept of statnamic 33 2.7.4 Application of statnamic test 35 2.7.5 Statnamic theory 36 2.7.5.1 Load duration 36 2.8 Stress Wave Analysis 37 2.9 Pyrotechnics 38 2.10 Data Acquisition 40 2.11 Statnamic Assembly 41 2.12 The Result 43 2.13 Statnamic compared to dynamic and static loading 43 2.13.1 Dynamic testing 43 2.13.2 Static Testing 44 2.14 Soil Types 44 2.14.1 Elementary rock classification 44 3.14.2 Stratigraphy 48 3.14.2 Hardness 48 3.14.3 Defects in rock 49 2.14.4 Uniaxial compressive strength 50 2.14.5 Rock mass classification 51 3 METHODOLOGY 52 3.1 Statnamic test 52 3.2 Assembly of statnamic test equipment 53 3.3 Data Acquisition 63 4 DATA ANALYSIS 64 4.1 Interpretation of statnamic pile load test results 64 4.1.1 Unloading point method 67 4.1.2 Matsumoto method 68 4.1.3 Simultaneous equation method 69 4.2 Interpretation of maintained load test data 70 5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 71 5.1 Results for bored pile on limestone rock 71 5.2 Results for bored pile on granite rock 78 5.3 Conclusions 85 REFERENCES 86 APPENDICES Appendix 1 89 Appendix 2 91 Appendix 3 93 Appendix 4 100 Appendix 5 114 Appendix 6 128 Appendix 7 135 Appendix 8 142 Appendix 9 157 Appendix 10 172 LIST OF TABLES TABLES NO TITLE PAGE 2.1 Typical in-situ tests and their application to pile design 9 2.2 Recommended concrete slumps for cast- in- place pile 20 2.3 Schematic classification of igneous rock 45 2.4 Schematic classification of sedimentary rocks 47 2.5 Rock quality 51 5.1 Results for the statnamic test and maintained load test for bored pile cast on limestone rock 72 5.2 Results for the statnamic test and maintained load test for bored pile cast on granite rock 78 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES TITLE PAGE NO 2.1 The unloading-point model 38 2.2 Statnamic devices assembly 42 3.1 Installation of piston and oil application 54 3.2 Piston and oil installation 54 3.3 Ignition system 55 3.4 Fuel cage 55 3.5 Loading of statnamic fuel 56 3.6 Closing of the piston 56 3.7 Installation of base plate 57 3.8 Installation of cylinder 57 3.9 Installation of cylinder 58 3.10 Installation of weight 58 3.11 Installation of weight 59 3.12 Installation of weight 59 3.13 After installation of weight mass 60 3.14 Placing the gravel structure non-supporting panels 60 3.15 Closing of the structure panels and installation of gravel 61 3.16 Portable computer and data logging device 61 3.17 Cell laser source 62 3.18 After testing 62 4.1 Modelling of pie and soil during statnamic loading 5.1 Results for statnamic test using Unloading Point method for Limestone rock 73 5.2 Results for statnamic test using Matsumoto method for Limestone rock 74 5.3 Results for statnamic test using Simultaneous Equation method for Limestone rock 75 5.4 Results for maintained load test for Limestone rock 76 5.5 Results for statnamic test using 3 methods and maintained load test (3 rd cycle) for Limestone rock 77 5.6 Results for statnamic test using Unloading Point method for Granite rock 80 5.7 Results for statnamic test using Matsumoto method for Granite rock 81 5.8 Results for statnamic test using Simultaneous Equation method for Granite rock 82 5.9 Results for maintained load test for Granite rock 83 5.10 Results for statnamic test using 3 methods and maintained load test (2 nd cycle) for Granite rock 84 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURES TITLE PAGE NO 2.1 The unloading-point model 38 2.2 Statnamic devices assembly 42 3.1 Installation of piston and oil application 54 3.2 Piston and oil installation 54 3.3 Ignition system 55 3.4 Fuel cage 55 3.5 Loading of statnamic fuel 56 3.6 Closing of the piston 56 3.7 Installation of base plate 57 3.8 Installation of cylinder 57 3.9 Installation of cylinder 58 3.10 Installation of weight 58 3.11 Installation of weight 59 3.12 Installation of weight 59 3.13 After installation of weight mass 60 3.14 Placing the gravel structure non-supporting panels 60 3.15 Closing of the structure panels and installation of gravel 61 3.16 Portable computer and data logging device 61 3.17 Cell laser source 62 3.18 After testing 62 4.1 Modelling of pie and soil during statnamic loading 5.1 Results for statnamic test using Unloading Point method for Limestone rock 73 5.4 Results for statnamic test using Matsumoto method for Limestone rock 74 5.5 Results for statnamic test using Simultaneous Equation method for Limestone rock 75 5.4 Results for maintained load test for Limestone rock 76 5.5 Results for statnamic test using 3 methods and maintained load test (3 rd cycle) for Limestone rock 77 5.9 Results for statnamic test using Unloading Point method for Granite rock 80 5.10 Results for statnamic test using Matsumoto method for Granite rock 81 5.11 Results for statnamic test using Simultaneous Equation method for Granite rock 82 5.9 Results for maintained load test for Granite rock 83 5.10 Results for statnamic test using 3 methods and maintained load test (2 nd cycle) for Granite rock 84 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In every construction, foundation is one of the vital component that need a lot of attention whether in design or in construction.
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]