ALLOWABLE SETTLEMENT OF STRUCTURES: Problems in Proving Settlement.

One of the authors was asked to express opinions on two sites where the failure of foundations was questionable. Structural steel was being erected for a high-rise structure in the southern United States when the contractor noticed that the steel members were not fitting together properly. Even though the settlement survey was inconclusive, the drilled-shaft foundations were underpinned without delay. More than ordinary skill is required to make precise measurements of building settlement. Even though settlement was claimed, the proof was lacking and the ensuing lawsuit was expensive, timeconsuming, and perhaps unnecessary.

At a site in Hong Kong, a nearly horizontal crack was discovered in a thick pile cap during the erection of a reinforced-concrete warehouse. Settlement was postulated, even though no strong evidence was present from precise surveying. Coring of a multitude of bored piles was undertaken, and poor contact was found for some piles between their base and the founding stratum.

Such piles were judged to be defective, even though the area of the core was only a fraction of the total area of the base of the pile. Hand-dug piles were being installed in some places as part of a huge program of underpinning when the decision was made to test some of the piles below the cracked cap.

A slot was cut between a bored pile and the cap, flat jacks were installed, the height of the existing reinforced-concrete structure provided sufficient resistance, and load testing proceeded. Three piles were tested with the flat-jack method, and all showed ample capacity. Underpinning was discontinued, and the construction proceeded without a problem. Later, an investigation revealed that the crack in the pile cap was due to a cold joint resulting from a large concrete pour.

0 comments:

Post a Comment