Lab 4 - Instruction(1)

pdf

School

George Brown College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

BLDG2021

Subject

Civil Engineering

Date

Dec 6, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

3

Uploaded by ProfFog18002

Report
1 Construction Site Management, Supervision and Inspection BLDG 2045 Lab 4 - Individual Student’s Name Nicole Carvlaho S tudent’s ID No. 101398003 This Lab is worth 3.0% of the Lab mark Instructions, Answer the following 5 questions, using Deep Foundations Contractors Inc. Report for George Brown College New Campus in Toronto’s Waterfront. 1. Explain the history and geology of the proposed construction site. This proposed construction site sits over reclaimed land along Toronto s shoreline. In the 1950 s the City of Toronto extended the southern boundary of the city by constructing a seawall in Lake Ontario and backfilling the area with fill from various construction projects. The land was used as a port and industrial area for 30 years. 2. a. Explain why dewatering method was not viable for this project. b . Explain Method of Cut-off wall Installation which has been used for this project by Deep Foundation Contractors Inc. The dewatering method was not viable for this project because the site sits over reclaimed land along Toronto s shoreline. This resulted in some contaminated soil and any dewatering was considered costly to the overall project. Dewatering was deemed ineffective due to soil conditions; silty, clay, with fill, organics and some sand layers. The zone of influence was too small and the dewatering contactor could not guarantee that the soil would be dry or stable enough for equipment to work on it. Deep Foundation Contractors Inc used a new method, they began using the sectional casing method. This method uses hydraulic rotary drill rigs to both advance and drill casings without the need for vibration. First, rotating a casing into the ground with a large amount of torque, and then reaching over top of the casing with a high drill rotary and removing soil.
2 3. a. What is the average depth of piles socketed in to the bedrock? b. Indicate the number of Soldier piles, number of Filler piles, and type of Flange Beam used for this Project. The average height depth of piles socjeted into the bedrock was 15m (50ft). The design consisted of 132 soldier piles and 267 filler piles. The soldier piles were reinforced with W690X125 (W27X84) wide flange beams spaced at 2.25m (7.4ft) centres with two filler piles in between. 4. Discuss Quality of work for this project. What were the challenges to meet the schedule time line, and how was it resolved. The temporary cut off wall had to have water-tight joints between the secant piles, tieback connections and the interface between the underside of the pile and rock. Since the location was so close to Lake Ontario and the large hydrostatic pressures being exerted on the shoring system, there was no room for error. A continuous guide wall was constructed to ensure proper pile overlap and alignment prior to pile installation. The first step was great care and accurate layout during the construction of the guide wall to ensure quality SCW The guide wall was approximately 600mm (2 ft) thick using reinforced 20MPa (2900 psi) concrete. The temporary casings were installed through the guide wall and checked with digital levels after each section of casing was added. If the casings started to wander off vertical, they would be brought back to vertical using the guide wall as a fulcrum pivot point. With an aggressive schedule, the shoring and excavation work was being down in the winter months to facilitate concrete work on the structure in the spring. During the night, only one machine was being operated, allowing for maintenance crew to work on the other equipment. With the inclusion of a maintenance crew this minimized the amount of down time due to servicing the equipment and maximized daytime operation. 5. Explain Rock Anchor Installation and the technical data for rock anchor placement for this project. Rock anchors eliminated the potential for water leakage and tieback holes penetrating the secant wall below the water level by placing them 75.0m above lake level. The lower level of rock anchors were installed at elevation 68.4m (225 ft), approximately 7.0m (22 ft) below lake level. Grout bags were attached to the rock anchor tendons to seal the tieback hole in the secant wall. The rock anchors were installed using 150mm diameter (6”) casings, to lengths of 22m (72 ft) at the upper level and 12.5m (40 ft) at the lower level. The bond zone was in the sound shale bedrock. Klemm* and Hutte tieback drill
3 rigs, equipped with dual head drives, installed the anchors with a duplex procedure. The tieback machine working platform was 2m (5.5ft) below grade; however, the soil at this elevation was too loose and too wet to support any heavy equipment. A series of timber mats were constructed and tieback rigs and crews worked from these platforms during drilling. The anchor capacity was 1350KN (300 kips) which equates to a rock / grout bond stress of 700kPa (100 psi). Pre-production insitu load tests were performed on two rock anchors and tested to 200% to verify the design bond capacity. All other anchors were proof tested to 133% of design load Good luck!
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help