Need a book?
Engineering books recommendations...
Return to index:
Re: "Hydrovac" for pier construction
- To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
- Subject: Re: "Hydrovac" for pier construction
- From: Daryl Richardson <h.d.richardson(--nospam--at)shaw.ca>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 15:41:44 -0600
As I said in my last
posting - this is a job for your geotechnical engineer. I Can't help
H. Daryl Richardson
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 11:01
Subject: RE: "Hydrovac" for pier
Because of the degree of disturbance. In comparison to
traditional auger boring, the disturbance is more severe in hydrovac
method. Formulas, currently in use are based on field tests conducted by
FHWA's research program. In my opinion, the component of side friction in
vertical load capacity may be affected by the degree of disturbance.
The effect of underreaming is accounted for in FHWA formula.
One of the statements, I have seen, in construction specification is
"water jetting shall not be used to excavate hole within the bottom xx
feet of the bottom of the hole". This may be for minimizing the disturbance at
the bottom of the hole.
Padmanabhan Rajendran [mailto:rakamaka(--nospam--at)yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 7:46
Subject: Re: "Hydrovac" for pier
It appears that you have designed
hydrovac constructed piers. Do you have any insight in to the formulas for
determining vertical and lateral load capacities of such piers. Intuitively,
these piers should have lower capacities than traditionally drilled
necessarily accept your premise. In each case, youâ€™re boring a hole in the
earth, and then filling that hole with
â€œdisturbâ€ the surrounding soils. In fact, very often drilling fluids are
used in boring holes using an augur. Underreaming also does its share of
disturbing the soil.
Why do you think
that hydrovaccing would give â€œlower capacitiesâ€ than
Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.