My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3500 TERMINAL AVE Geotech Report 2022-10-25
>
Address Records
>
TERMINAL AVE
>
3500
>
Geotech Report
>
3500 TERMINAL AVE Geotech Report 2022-10-25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/25/2022 2:11:00 PM
Creation date
8/25/2022 11:06:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Address Document
Street Name
TERMINAL AVE
Street Number
3500
Address Document Type
Geotech Report
Imported From Microfiche
No
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
69
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
20 I Port of Everett—South Terminal Wharf&Electrical Upgrades—Phase 2 <br /> charts are provided for pile types that may not exist in a given pile row(example—18-inch-diameter <br /> octagonal pile—Rows A to C),but were included for information and comparison purposes. <br /> In the charts,we provide allowable compressive resistance and allowable uplift resistance versus depth <br /> below mudline. Each figure includes resistance for both static and seismic(post-liquefied)conditions. <br /> Under seismic conditions,downdrag is the result of settlement within and above the bottom of lowest <br /> liquefiable soil layer.The soil movement relative to the pile causes downward forces on the pile, resulting <br /> in additional compressive loads.The post-liquefied plots neglect skin and tip soil resistance above the <br /> bottom of the lowest liquefied layer since this portion of the profile is likely contributing to downdrag. <br /> Downdrag loads are presented in the notes section of our figures and should be added to the compressive <br /> vertical load in the post-liquefied condition. Downdrag loads should not be applied in the uplift analysis, <br /> and are included as uplift resistance. <br /> Based on the CAPWAP results,24-inch-diameter piles installed in Rows F and G have very little unit shaft <br /> resistance in the upper 20 to 30 feet below the mudline. Meanwhile, 18-inch-diameter pipe piles quickly <br /> increase in unit shaft resistance in the upper 20 to 30 feet in Row B. Based on subsurface information in <br /> this area, unit shaft and toe resistance would be expected to be similar for both rows.One hypothesis to <br /> explain this disparity is that modified installation methods are necessary near the top of the slope(Rows F <br /> to H) in order to penetrate thicker riprap slope cover in this area.The observed reduction in shaft <br /> resistance could result from probing through the upper portion of pile prior to driving the production pile. <br /> If it is in fact related to construction methods,it is likely that similar methods would be necessary for pile <br /> installation in the future, resulting in similar unit shaft capacities. <br /> Group effects need not be considered for vertical capacity of pile groups embedded in sand. <br /> Vertical Load and Displacement of Piles <br /> Springs may be used to model the nonlinear behavior between the shaft and tip of the pile under the <br /> anticipated loads.As requested for modeling soil-structure-interaction,formulas to be used in calculating <br /> the t-z(shaft)and q-z(tip)springs are provided below: <br /> The equation for t-z springs is: <br /> s 1B <br /> F — fs *rtrg * � J *As <br /> Strg <br /> Where: <br /> F= Nominal shaft resistance per foot of pile in kips per foot, <br /> fs = Nominal unit shaft resistance in ksf, <br /> rtrg =target resistance= 100%(decimal), <br /> S=incremental movement variable, <br /> Strg =movement at rtrg, <br /> 8=an exponent,0<_0<_ 1,and <br /> As=Area per foot of pile in square feet. <br /> 19232-01 NW <br /> MN <br /> December 6,2017 <br /> HARTOZOWSER <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.