Improving design phase evaluations for high pile rebound sites : final report.
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Improving design phase evaluations for high pile rebound sites : final report.

Filetype[PDF-62.58 MB]


Select the Download button to view the document
This document is over 5mb in size and cannot be previewed
  • English

  • Details:

    • Corporate Contributors:
    • Resource Type:
    • Edition:
      Final report
    • Abstract:
      A testing program performed to help determine typical soils properties encountered during pile installation when high rebound

      occurs produced a decision matrix for geotechnical engineers. High pile rebound (HPR) occurred at numerous sites in Florida.

      Samples from standard penetration test (SPT) borings and thin-walled tube sample borings were used in addition to cone

      penetrometer with pore pressure (CPTu) data to determine soil properties trends.

      Relationships between rebound and (a) SPT blow counts (N), (b) CPTu pore water pressure, and (c) fines content (FC) from

      previous studies were evaluated. Based on a large number of data points, weak correlations exist between inspector’s rebound based

      and N, with rebound decreasing as N increased. There could be a relationship between rebound and FC up to about 35%; however,

      beyond this threshold, there is no clear relationship. A weak correlation exists between CPTu pore water pressure and rebound.

      FDOT Specification 455-5.10.3 based 0.25-inch rebound criterion was originally used but produced inclusive

      comparisons; therefore 0.5 inch rebound was used to yield these results. Grain size data show that rebound may be a

      function of certain grain sizes, implying that engineers could inexpensively locate HPR soils. The dry unit weights of the cohesive

      HPR soils are much lower than expected, with many values being less than the density of water. Although there was no difference in

      the Unified Soils Classification System or American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Classifications

      between HPR or non-HPR soils, as both classified as SM or A-4/A-2-4, the following differences were observed: (a) The average silt

      content for the HPR soils is more than twice as high as non-HPR soils, while both D30 and D60 are three times higher in the HPR soils

      than in the non-HPR soils; (b) the Atterberg limits of the HPR cohesive soils produced an average plastic index nearly twice that of

      the soils that displayed low to non-HPR problems; (c) the presence of silts significantly affects HPR; (d) clay content of cohesionless

      soils may be an effective index for predicting HPR; and (e) the Atterberg limits PI and clay content clearly showed differences

      between HPR and non-HPR soils. FC in the 30 to 40 % range could be an indicator of rebound greater than 0.5 inches. Sands with

      fines from 12 to 50% showed the greatest rebound potential.

      Permeability of HPR soils was one or two orders of magnitude lower than the non-HPR soils. Cyclic triaxial testing indicated

      that HPR soils are much more resilient than non-HPR soils. HPR and non-HPR soils plotted in somewhat distinct regions on soil

      behavior type charts. The rebound soils plotted as cemented silty fine sand with trace phosphate and shell or as cemented clayey fine

      sand with fines. Rebound soils are dilative while non-rebound soils are contractive.

    • Format:
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • File Type:

    Supporting Files

    • No Additional Files

    More +

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at rosap.ntl.bts.gov

    Version 3.20