Combining Soil Stabilization with Pier Solutions

Combining Soil Stabilization with Pier Solutions

Overview of different types of foundation cracks and their severity levels.

Understanding the causes of foundation issues in residential properties


Understanding the causes of foundation issues in residential properties is crucial for effectively combining soil stabilization with pier solutions. French drains redirect water away from homes to prevent foundation damage foundation repair service market township of Pennsylvania. Foundation problems can arise from various factors, often interconnected, leading to significant structural concerns if not addressed promptly.

One primary cause of foundation issues is soil movement. Soil can expand or contract due to changes in moisture content, temperature fluctuations, or poor drainage. Expansive soils, which swell when they absorb water and shrink as they dry, are particularly notorious for causing foundation problems. This movement can lead to uneven settling, cracks, and shifts in the foundation, compromising the stability of the entire structure.

Another significant factor is inadequate soil compaction during the construction phase. If the soil beneath a foundation is not properly compacted, it may settle over time, leading to foundation instability. This settling can be uneven, exacerbating the problem and leading to more severe structural issues.

Poor drainage around the property can also contribute to foundation problems. When water accumulates near the foundation, it can saturate the soil, causing it to expand and exert pressure on the foundation walls. Conversely, during dry periods, the soil may shrink, leading to gaps and further instability.

Additionally, natural events such as earthquakes or soil erosion can cause sudden shifts in the soil, directly impacting the foundation. In areas prone to such events, the risk of foundation damage is heightened, necessitating robust solutions to maintain structural integrity.

Combining soil stabilization with pier solutions offers a comprehensive approach to addressing these causes. Soil stabilization techniques, such as chemical treatment or mechanical compaction, aim to improve the soil's load-bearing capacity and reduce its susceptibility to movement. This stabilization creates a more uniform and reliable foundation base.

Pier solutions, including helical piers and push piers, provide additional support by transferring the structural load to more stable soil layers deeper underground. These piers help to lift and stabilize the foundation, counteracting the effects of soil movement and settling.

By integrating soil stabilization with pier solutions, homeowners can effectively mitigate the underlying causes of foundation issues. This combined approach not only addresses immediate concerns but also enhances the long-term stability and durability of the residential property, ensuring a safer and more secure living environment.

Overview of soil stabilization techniques and their benefits


Soil stabilization is a crucial technique in civil engineering aimed at improving the properties of soil to enhance its performance in supporting structures. This process is particularly beneficial when combined with pier solutions, as it ensures a stable foundation for various construction projects. Here, we will explore several soil stabilization techniques and highlight their benefits.

One common method of soil stabilization is mechanical stabilization, which involves physically altering the soil structure. This can be achieved through compaction, which increases the density of the soil, thereby improving its load-bearing capacity. Another mechanical approach is the use of geosynthetics, such as geogrids or geotextiles, which reinforce the soil and prevent it from shifting or settling.

Chemical stabilization is another effective technique, where additives are mixed with the soil to alter its chemical composition. Lime stabilization, for instance, involves adding lime to clayey soils to reduce their plasticity and increase their strength. Similarly, cement stabilization enhances the soil's compressive strength and durability. These chemical methods are particularly useful in areas where the native soil is weak or expansive.

Thermal stabilization, though less common, uses heat to modify the soil properties. This method can be employed in cold regions where freezing and thawing cycles affect soil stability. By applying heat, the soil can be stabilized to prevent frost heave and ensure consistent performance.

The benefits of combining soil stabilization with pier solutions are manifold. Firstly, it significantly enhances the load-bearing capacity of the soil, allowing for the construction of heavier structures. Secondly, it reduces the risk of settlement and differential movement, which can lead to structural damage over time. Additionally, stabilized soil provides better support for pier foundations, ensuring they remain stable and secure.

In conclusion, soil stabilization techniques play a vital role in modern construction practices. By improving soil properties through mechanical, chemical, or thermal methods, engineers can create a robust foundation that, when combined with pier solutions, ensures the longevity and safety of structures. This integrated approach not only enhances project outcomes but also contributes to sustainable and resilient infrastructure development.

Explanation of pier solutions and their role in stabilizing residential foundations


When it comes to ensuring the stability and longevity of residential foundations, one effective strategy is the combination of soil stabilization with pier solutions. This approach addresses foundational issues at their root, providing a robust and lasting solution.

Soil stabilization refers to the process of improving the properties of soil to enhance its strength and durability. This can be achieved through various methods, including chemical additives, mechanical compaction, or the introduction of stabilizing agents. The goal is to create a more uniform and reliable soil structure that can better support the weight and stresses imposed by a residential foundation.

Pier solutions, on the other hand, involve the installation of structural supports, known as piers, which extend deep into the ground to reach stable soil or bedrock. These piers transfer the load of the foundation away from unstable or weak soil layers to more competent strata. There are different types of piers, such as helical piers, push piers, and concrete piers, each suited to specific soil conditions and foundational needs.

When soil stabilization and pier solutions are combined, the results can be particularly effective. Soil stabilization prepares the ground, making it more uniform and capable of bearing loads. This creates a better environment for the installation of piers. The piers, in turn, provide additional support and stability to the foundation, ensuring that it remains level and secure over time.

This combined approach is especially beneficial in areas where the soil is prone to shifting, settling, or expanding. For instance, in regions with expansive clay soils, the ground can move significantly with changes in moisture content, leading to foundational cracks and uneven settling. By stabilizing the soil first, you minimize these movements, and then the piers offer extra support to counteract any remaining shifts.

Moreover, this method is less invasive than traditional foundation repair methods, such as underpinning, which involves excavating and replacing portions of the foundation. The combination of soil stabilization and pier solutions allows for a more targeted and efficient repair, often with minimal disruption to the home and its occupants.

In conclusion, the integration of soil stabilization with pier solutions offers a comprehensive and effective way to address foundational issues in residential properties. By improving the soil's properties and providing additional structural support, this approach ensures a stable and durable foundation, safeguarding the home for years to come.

Case studies showcasing successful combinations of soil stabilization and pier solutions


In the realm of civil engineering, the integration of soil stabilization and pier solutions has proven to be a game-changer in addressing complex geotechnical challenges. This approach not only enhances the structural integrity of foundations but also ensures long-term stability and durability. Several case studies exemplify the successful application of these combined techniques, demonstrating their effectiveness across various environments and project scales.

One notable case study involves a high-rise building project in a seismically active region. The site was characterized by loose, silty soils that posed significant risks for liquefaction during earthquakes. To mitigate these risks, engineers employed a dual strategy: soil stabilization using cement deep mixing (CDM) and the installation of driven precast concrete piers. The CDM process involved mixing cement with the native soil to a depth of 30 feet, significantly increasing its strength and reducing its susceptibility to liquefaction. Complementing this, precast concrete piers were driven to a depth of 60 feet, providing a robust foundation that transferred loads to more stable soil layers. The combination of these techniques ensured the building's stability, even in the face of potential seismic events.

Another compelling example is the rehabilitation of an aging bridge in a region with expansive clays. The bridge's foundation had suffered from differential settlement due to soil swelling and shrinking with seasonal moisture changes. To address this, engineers opted for a soil stabilization method known as lime-cement columns, which involved the injection of a lime-cement mixture into the soil to a depth of 25 feet. This treatment effectively reduced the soil's expansive properties and increased its load-bearing capacity. In conjunction with this, micropiles were installed to a depth of 40 feet, providing additional support and preventing further settlement. The integrated approach not only stabilized the existing foundation but also extended the bridge's service life by several decades.

A third case study highlights the construction of a large recreational facility on a site with substantial organic soils. The high compressibility and low bearing capacity of these soils necessitated a comprehensive solution. Engineers employed a technique called jet grouting for soil stabilization, which involved injecting a grout mixture into the soil under high pressure to create a network of hardened columns. This method significantly improved the soil's strength and reduced its settlement potential. To further enhance stability, helical piers were installed to a depth of 50 feet, transferring loads to more competent soil layers. The combined use of jet grouting and helical piers ensured a stable and durable foundation for the facility, accommodating the heavy loads and dynamic forces associated with its use.

These case studies underscore the efficacy of combining soil stabilization with pier solutions in tackling diverse geotechnical challenges. By leveraging the strengths of both techniques, engineers can achieve optimal foundation performance, ensuring safety, durability, and cost-effectiveness in a wide range of construction projects. As the demand for resilient infrastructure continues to grow, the integration of these methods will likely become increasingly prevalent, setting new standards for foundation engineering.

Factors to consider when choosing between soil stabilization and pier solutions


When faced with the decision between soil stabilization and pier solutions for foundational support, several factors must be taken into consideration to ensure the most effective and long-lasting outcome. Both methods have their unique advantages and applications, and understanding these can help in making an informed choice.

Firstly, the type of soil on your property plays a crucial role. Soil stabilization is often more suitable for soils that are relatively uniform and have consistent properties, such as clay or silt. This method involves mixing the soil with additives to improve its strength and reduce its susceptibility to water damage. On the other hand, pier solutions, such as helical piers or push piers, are more versatile and can be used in a variety of soil conditions, including those with significant variations or where the soil is particularly weak.

The depth and extent of the foundation issues are also critical factors. Soil stabilization is generally more effective for shallow foundation problems, where the soil close to the surface needs improvement. Pier solutions, however, are better suited for deeper issues, where the foundation has settled significantly or where there are signs of severe structural damage. Piers can transfer the load of the structure to more stable soil layers deep underground, providing a more permanent solution.

Budget constraints are another important consideration. Soil stabilization can be less expensive initially, as it involves surface-level work and the use of materials that are often readily available. Pier solutions, while more costly upfront due to the labor and materials required for deep installation, may offer greater long-term value by providing a more durable and reliable foundation support.

The time frame for completion is also a factor to consider. Soil stabilization projects can typically be completed more quickly, as they involve less invasive work. Pier installations, however, require more time due to the need for precise drilling and installation procedures.

Lastly, consider the environmental impact of each method. Soil stabilization can be more environmentally friendly, as it involves minimal disturbance to the surrounding area. Pier solutions, while more invasive, can be designed to minimize environmental impact through careful planning and execution.

In conclusion, choosing between soil stabilization and pier solutions depends on a variety of factors including soil type, the extent of foundation issues, budget, time constraints, and environmental considerations. A thorough assessment of these factors, possibly with the help of a professional geotechnical engineer, will lead to the most appropriate solution for your specific situation.

Maintenance and long-term effectiveness of combined soil stabilization and pier solutions


Ensuring the maintenance and long-term effectiveness of combined soil stabilization with pier solutions is crucial for the durability and safety of structures. This integrated approach, which combines soil stabilization techniques with the installation of piers, aims to enhance the load-bearing capacity of the soil and mitigate settlement issues.

Regular maintenance is essential to monitor the condition of both the soil stabilization elements and the piers. This includes periodic inspections to check for signs of wear, corrosion, or shifting. Maintenance activities may involve repairing or replacing damaged components, ensuring that the soil remains compacted and stable, and verifying that the piers continue to provide the necessary support.

Long-term effectiveness depends on several factors. Firstly, the quality of the initial installation plays a significant role. Proper design and execution of both soil stabilization and pier installation are critical to ensure that they work synergistically. Secondly, environmental conditions must be considered. Factors such as moisture levels, temperature fluctuations, and seismic activity can impact the performance of both soil stabilization and piers over time.

Additionally, the choice of materials used in both processes is vital. Durable, high-quality materials resistant to environmental degradation will contribute to the longevity of the stabilization efforts. Regular monitoring and data collection can help identify potential issues early, allowing for timely interventions that prevent more significant problems down the line.

In conclusion, the maintenance and long-term effectiveness of combined soil stabilization with pier solutions require a proactive approach. Regular inspections, timely repairs, and consideration of environmental factors are all essential components in ensuring that these methods continue to provide stable and reliable support for structures over their lifespan.



 

Boston's Big Dig presented geotechnical challenges in an urban environment.
Precast concrete retaining wall
A typical cross-section of a slope used in two-dimensional analyzes.

Geotechnical engineering, also known as geotechnics, is the branch of civil engineering concerned with the engineering behavior of earth materials. It uses the principles of soil mechanics and rock mechanics to solve its engineering problems. It also relies on knowledge of geology, hydrology, geophysics, and other related sciences.

Geotechnical engineering has applications in military engineering, mining engineering, petroleum engineering, coastal engineering, and offshore construction. The fields of geotechnical engineering and engineering geology have overlapping knowledge areas. However, while geotechnical engineering is a specialty of civil engineering, engineering geology is a specialty of geology.

History

[edit]

Humans have historically used soil as a material for flood control, irrigation purposes, burial sites, building foundations, and construction materials for buildings. Dykes, dams, and canals dating back to at least 2000 BCE—found in parts of ancient Egypt, ancient Mesopotamia, the Fertile Crescent, and the early settlements of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa in the Indus valley—provide evidence for early activities linked to irrigation and flood control. As cities expanded, structures were erected and supported by formalized foundations. The ancient Greeks notably constructed pad footings and strip-and-raft foundations. Until the 18th century, however, no theoretical basis for soil design had been developed, and the discipline was more of an art than a science, relying on experience.[1]

Several foundation-related engineering problems, such as the Leaning Tower of Pisa, prompted scientists to begin taking a more scientific-based approach to examining the subsurface. The earliest advances occurred in the development of earth pressure theories for the construction of retaining walls. Henri Gautier, a French royal engineer, recognized the "natural slope" of different soils in 1717, an idea later known as the soil's angle of repose. Around the same time, a rudimentary soil classification system was also developed based on a material's unit weight, which is no longer considered a good indication of soil type.[1][2]

The application of the principles of mechanics to soils was documented as early as 1773 when Charles Coulomb, a physicist and engineer, developed improved methods to determine the earth pressures against military ramparts. Coulomb observed that, at failure, a distinct slip plane would form behind a sliding retaining wall and suggested that the maximum shear stress on the slip plane, for design purposes, was the sum of the soil cohesion, , and friction , where is the normal stress on the slip plane and is the friction angle of the soil. By combining Coulomb's theory with Christian Otto Mohr's 2D stress state, the theory became known as Mohr-Coulomb theory. Although it is now recognized that precise determination of cohesion is impossible because is not a fundamental soil property, the Mohr-Coulomb theory is still used in practice today.[3]

In the 19th century, Henry Darcy developed what is now known as Darcy's Law, describing the flow of fluids in a porous media. Joseph Boussinesq, a mathematician and physicist, developed theories of stress distribution in elastic solids that proved useful for estimating stresses at depth in the ground. William Rankine, an engineer and physicist, developed an alternative to Coulomb's earth pressure theory. Albert Atterberg developed the clay consistency indices that are still used today for soil classification.[1][2] In 1885, Osborne Reynolds recognized that shearing causes volumetric dilation of dense materials and contraction of loose granular materials.

Modern geotechnical engineering is said to have begun in 1925 with the publication of Erdbaumechanik by Karl von Terzaghi, a mechanical engineer and geologist. Considered by many to be the father of modern soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Terzaghi developed the principle of effective stress, and demonstrated that the shear strength of soil is controlled by effective stress.[4] Terzaghi also developed the framework for theories of bearing capacity of foundations, and the theory for prediction of the rate of settlement of clay layers due to consolidation.[1][3][5] Afterwards, Maurice Biot fully developed the three-dimensional soil consolidation theory, extending the one-dimensional model previously developed by Terzaghi to more general hypotheses and introducing the set of basic equations of Poroelasticity.

In his 1948 book, Donald Taylor recognized that the interlocking and dilation of densely packed particles contributed to the peak strength of the soil. Roscoe, Schofield, and Wroth, with the publication of On the Yielding of Soils in 1958, established the interrelationships between the volume change behavior (dilation, contraction, and consolidation) and shearing behavior with the theory of plasticity using critical state soil mechanics. Critical state soil mechanics is the basis for many contemporary advanced constitutive models describing the behavior of soil.[6]

In 1960, Alec Skempton carried out an extensive review of the available formulations and experimental data in the literature about the effective stress validity in soil, concrete, and rock in order to reject some of these expressions, as well as clarify what expressions were appropriate according to several working hypotheses, such as stress-strain or strength behavior, saturated or non-saturated media, and rock, concrete or soil behavior.

Roles

[edit]

Geotechnical investigation

[edit]
Main article: Geotechnical investigation

Geotechnical engineers investigate and determine the properties of subsurface conditions and materials. They also design corresponding earthworks and retaining structures, tunnels, and structure foundations, and may supervise and evaluate sites, which may further involve site monitoring as well as the risk assessment and mitigation of natural hazards.[7][8]

Geotechnical engineers and engineering geologists perform geotechnical investigations to obtain information on the physical properties of soil and rock underlying and adjacent to a site to design earthworks and foundations for proposed structures and for the repair of distress to earthworks and structures caused by subsurface conditions. Geotechnical investigations involve surface and subsurface exploration of a site, often including subsurface sampling and laboratory testing of retrieved soil samples. Sometimes, geophysical methods are also used to obtain data, which include measurement of seismic waves (pressure, shear, and Rayleigh waves), surface-wave methods and downhole methods, and electromagnetic surveys (magnetometer, resistivity, and ground-penetrating radar). Electrical tomography can be used to survey soil and rock properties and existing underground infrastructure in construction projects.[9]

Surface exploration can include on-foot surveys, geologic mapping, geophysical methods, and photogrammetry. Geologic mapping and interpretation of geomorphology are typically completed in consultation with a geologist or engineering geologist. Subsurface exploration usually involves in-situ testing (for example, the standard penetration test and cone penetration test). The digging of test pits and trenching (particularly for locating faults and slide planes) may also be used to learn about soil conditions at depth. Large-diameter borings are rarely used due to safety concerns and expense. Still, they are sometimes used to allow a geologist or engineer to be lowered into the borehole for direct visual and manual examination of the soil and rock stratigraphy.

Various soil samplers exist to meet the needs of different engineering projects. The standard penetration test, which uses a thick-walled split spoon sampler, is the most common way to collect disturbed samples. Piston samplers, employing a thin-walled tube, are most commonly used to collect less disturbed samples. More advanced methods, such as the Sherbrooke block sampler, are superior but expensive. Coring frozen ground provides high-quality undisturbed samples from ground conditions, such as fill, sand, moraine, and rock fracture zones.[10]

Geotechnical centrifuge modeling is another method of testing physical-scale models of geotechnical problems. The use of a centrifuge enhances the similarity of the scale model tests involving soil because soil's strength and stiffness are susceptible to the confining pressure. The centrifugal acceleration allows a researcher to obtain large (prototype-scale) stresses in small physical models.

Foundation design

[edit]
Main article: Foundation (engineering)

The foundation of a structure's infrastructure transmits loads from the structure to the earth. Geotechnical engineers design foundations based on the load characteristics of the structure and the properties of the soils and bedrock at the site. Generally, geotechnical engineers first estimate the magnitude and location of loads to be supported before developing an investigation plan to explore the subsurface and determine the necessary soil parameters through field and lab testing. Following this, they may begin the design of an engineering foundation. The primary considerations for a geotechnical engineer in foundation design are bearing capacity, settlement, and ground movement beneath the foundations.[11]

Earthworks

[edit]
A compactor/roller operated by U.S. Navy Seabees
See also: Earthworks (engineering)

Geotechnical engineers are also involved in the planning and execution of earthworks, which include ground improvement,[11] slope stabilization, and slope stability analysis.

Ground improvement

[edit]

Various geotechnical engineering methods can be used for ground improvement, including reinforcement geosynthetics such as geocells and geogrids, which disperse loads over a larger area, increasing the soil's load-bearing capacity. Through these methods, geotechnical engineers can reduce direct and long-term costs.[12]

Slope stabilization

[edit]
Simple slope slip section.
Main article: Slope stability

Geotechnical engineers can analyze and improve slope stability using engineering methods. Slope stability is determined by the balance of shear stress and shear strength. A previously stable slope may be initially affected by various factors, making it unstable. Nonetheless, geotechnical engineers can design and implement engineered slopes to increase stability.

Slope stability analysis
[edit]
Main article: Slope stability analysis

Stability analysis is needed to design engineered slopes and estimate the risk of slope failure in natural or designed slopes by determining the conditions under which the topmost mass of soil will slip relative to the base of soil and lead to slope failure.[13] If the interface between the mass and the base of a slope has a complex geometry, slope stability analysis is difficult and numerical solution methods are required. Typically, the interface's exact geometry is unknown, and a simplified interface geometry is assumed. Finite slopes require three-dimensional models to be analyzed, so most slopes are analyzed assuming that they are infinitely wide and can be represented by two-dimensional models.

Sub-disciplines

[edit]

Geosynthetics

[edit]
Main article: Geosynthetics
A collage of geosynthetic products.

Geosynthetics are a type of plastic polymer products used in geotechnical engineering that improve engineering performance while reducing costs. This includes geotextiles, geogrids, geomembranes, geocells, and geocomposites. The synthetic nature of the products make them suitable for use in the ground where high levels of durability are required. Their main functions include drainage, filtration, reinforcement, separation, and containment.

Geosynthetics are available in a wide range of forms and materials, each to suit a slightly different end-use, although they are frequently used together. Some reinforcement geosynthetics, such as geogrids and more recently, cellular confinement systems, have shown to improve bearing capacity, modulus factors and soil stiffness and strength.[14] These products have a wide range of applications and are currently used in many civil and geotechnical engineering applications including roads, airfields, railroads, embankments, piled embankments, retaining structures, reservoirs, canals, dams, landfills, bank protection and coastal engineering.[15]

Offshore

[edit]
Main article: Offshore geotechnical engineering
Platforms offshore Mexico.

Offshore (or marine) geotechnical engineering is concerned with foundation design for human-made structures in the sea, away from the coastline (in opposition to onshore or nearshore engineering). Oil platforms, artificial islands and submarine pipelines are examples of such structures.[16]

There are a number of significant differences between onshore and offshore geotechnical engineering.[16][17] Notably, site investigation and ground improvement on the seabed are more expensive; the offshore structures are exposed to a wider range of geohazards; and the environmental and financial consequences are higher in case of failure. Offshore structures are exposed to various environmental loads, notably wind, waves and currents. These phenomena may affect the integrity or the serviceability of the structure and its foundation during its operational lifespan and need to be taken into account in offshore design.

In subsea geotechnical engineering, seabed materials are considered a two-phase material composed of rock or mineral particles and water.[18][19] Structures may be fixed in place in the seabed—as is the case for piers, jetties and fixed-bottom wind turbines—or may comprise a floating structure that remains roughly fixed relative to its geotechnical anchor point. Undersea mooring of human-engineered floating structures include a large number of offshore oil and gas platforms and, since 2008, a few floating wind turbines. Two common types of engineered design for anchoring floating structures include tension-leg and catenary loose mooring systems.[20]

Observational method

[edit]

First proposed by Karl Terzaghi and later discussed in a paper by Ralph B. Peck, the observational method is a managed process of construction control, monitoring, and review, which enables modifications to be incorporated during and after construction. The method aims to achieve a greater overall economy without compromising safety by creating designs based on the most probable conditions rather than the most unfavorable.[21] Using the observational method, gaps in available information are filled by measurements and investigation, which aid in assessing the behavior of the structure during construction, which in turn can be modified per the findings. The method was described by Peck as "learn-as-you-go".[22]

The observational method may be described as follows:[22]

  1. General exploration sufficient to establish the rough nature, pattern, and properties of deposits.
  2. Assessment of the most probable conditions and the most unfavorable conceivable deviations.
  3. Creating the design based on a working hypothesis of behavior anticipated under the most probable conditions.
  4. Selection of quantities to be observed as construction proceeds and calculating their anticipated values based on the working hypothesis under the most unfavorable conditions.
  5. Selection, in advance, of a course of action or design modification for every foreseeable significant deviation of the observational findings from those predicted.
  6. Measurement of quantities and evaluation of actual conditions.
  7. Design modification per actual conditions

The observational method is suitable for construction that has already begun when an unexpected development occurs or when a failure or accident looms or has already happened. It is unsuitable for projects whose design cannot be altered during construction.[22]

See also

[edit]
  • Civil engineering
  • Deep Foundations Institute
  • Earthquake engineering
  • Earth structure
  • Effective stress
  • Engineering geology
  • Geological Engineering
  • Geoprofessions
  • Hydrogeology
  • International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering
  • Karl von Terzaghi
  • Land reclamation
  • Landfill
  • Mechanically stabilized earth
  • Offshore geotechnical engineering
  • Rock mass classifications
  • Sediment control
  • Seismology
  • Soil mechanics
  • Soil physics
  • Soil science

 

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d Das, Braja (2006). Principles of Geotechnical Engineering. Thomson Learning.
  2. ^ a b Budhu, Muni (2007). Soil Mechanics and Foundations. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-0-471-43117-6.
  3. ^ a b Disturbed soil properties and geotechnical design, Schofield, Andrew N., Thomas Telford, 2006. ISBN 0-7277-2982-9
  4. ^ Guerriero V., Mazzoli S. (2021). "Theory of Effective Stress in Soil and Rock and Implications for Fracturing Processes: A Review". Geosciences. 11 (3): 119. Bibcode:2021Geosc..11..119G. doi:10.3390/geosciences11030119.
  5. ^ Soil Mechanics, Lambe, T.William and Whitman, Robert V., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, John Wiley & Sons., 1969. ISBN 0-471-51192-7
  6. ^ Soil Behavior and Critical State Soil Mechanics, Wood, David Muir, Cambridge University Press, 1990. ISBN 0-521-33782-8
  7. ^ Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B. and Mesri, G. (1996), Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 0-471-08658-4
  8. ^ Holtz, R. and Kovacs, W. (1981), An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc. ISBN 0-13-484394-0
  9. ^ Deep Scan Tech (2023): Deep Scan Tech uncovers hidden structures at the site of Denmark's tallest building.
  10. ^ "Geofrost Coring". GEOFROST. Retrieved 20 November 2020.
  11. ^ a b Han, Jie (2015). Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement. Wiley. ISBN 9781118421307.
  12. ^ RAJU, V. R. (2010). Ground Improvement Technologies and Case Histories. Singapore: Research Publishing Services. p. 809. ISBN 978-981-08-3124-0. Ground Improvement – Principles And Applications In Asia.
  13. ^ Pariseau, William G. (2011). Design analysis in rock mechanics. CRC Press.
  14. ^ Hegde, A.M. and Palsule P.S. (2020), Performance of Geosynthetics Reinforced Subgrade Subjected to Repeated Vehicle Loads: Experimental and Numerical Studies. Front. Built Environ. 6:15. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2020.00015/full.
  15. ^ Koerner, Robert M. (2012). Designing with Geosynthetics (6th Edition, Vol. 1 ed.). Xlibris. ISBN 9781462882892.
  16. ^ a b Dean, E.T.R. (2010). Offshore Geotechnical Engineering – Principles and Practice. Thomas Telford, Reston, VA, 520 p.
  17. ^ Randolph, M. and Gourvenec, S., 2011. Offshore geotechnical engineering. Spon Press, N.Y., 550 p.
  18. ^ Das, B.M., 2010. Principles of geotechnical engineering. Cengage Learning, Stamford, 666 p.
  19. ^ Atkinson, J., 2007. The mechanics of soils and foundations. Taylor & Francis, N.Y., 442 p.
  20. ^ Floating Offshore Wind Turbines: Responses in a Sea state – Pareto Optimal Designs and Economic Assessment, P. Sclavounos et al., October 2007.
  21. ^ Nicholson, D, Tse, C and Penny, C. (1999). The Observational Method in ground engineering – principles and applications. Report 185, CIRIA, London.
  22. ^ a b c Peck, R.B (1969). Advantages and limitations of the observational method in applied soil mechanics, Geotechnique, 19, No. 1, pp. 171-187.

References

[edit]
  • Bates and Jackson, 1980, Glossary of Geology: American Geological Institute.
  • Krynine and Judd, 1957, Principles of Engineering Geology and Geotechnics: McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Ventura, Pierfranco, 2019, Fondazioni, Volume 1, Modellazioni statiche e sismiche, Hoepli, Milano
[edit]
  • Worldwide Geotechnical Literature Database
 
 
 
 

 

Redirect to:

  • Structural integrity and failure
Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo

Things To Do in Cook County

Photo

Sand Ridge Nature Center

4.8 (96)
Photo

River Trail Nature Center

4.6 (235)
Photo

Palmisano (Henry) Park

4.7 (1262)

Driving Directions in Cook County

Driving Directions From Palmisano (Henry) Park to
Driving Directions From Lake Katherine Nature Center and Botanic Gardens to
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Navy+Pier/United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+Inc/@41.8918633,-87.6050944,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1sunknown!2m2!1d-87.6050944!2d41.8918633!1m5!1m1!1sChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U!2m2!1d-88.1396465!2d42.0637725!3e0

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Lake+Katherine+Nature+Center+and+Botanic+Gardens/United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+Inc/@41.6776048,-87.8010774,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1sunknown!2m2!1d-87.8010774!2d41.6776048!1m5!1m1!1sChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U!2m2!1d-88.1396465!2d42.0637725!3e2

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Palmisano+%28Henry%29+Park/United+Structural+Systems+of+Illinois%2C+Inc/@41.8429903,-87.6490151,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1sunknown!2m2!1d-87.6490151!2d41.8429903!1m5!1m1!1sChIJ-wSxDtinD4gRiv4kY3RRh9U!2m2!1d-88.1396465!2d42.0637725!3e1

Reviews for

Jeffery James

(5)

Very happy with my experience. They were prompt and followed through, and very helpful in fixing the crack in my foundation.

Sarah McNeily

(5)

USS was excellent. They are honest, straightforward, trustworthy, and conscientious. They thoughtfully removed the flowers and flower bulbs to dig where they needed in the yard, replanted said flowers and spread the extra dirt to fill in an area of the yard. We've had other services from different companies and our yard was really a mess after. They kept the job site meticulously clean. The crew was on time and friendly. I'd recommend them any day! Thanks to Jessie and crew.

Jim de Leon

(5)

It was a pleasure to work with Rick and his crew. From the beginning, Rick listened to my concerns and what I wished to accomplish. Out of the 6 contractors that quoted the project, Rick seemed the MOST willing to accommodate my wishes. His pricing was definitely more than fair as well. I had 10 push piers installed to stabilize and lift an addition of my house. The project commenced at the date that Rick had disclosed initially and it was completed within the same time period expected (based on Rick's original assessment). The crew was well informed, courteous, and hard working. They were not loud (even while equipment was being utilized) and were well spoken. My neighbors were very impressed on how polite they were when they entered / exited my property (saying hello or good morning each day when they crossed paths). You can tell they care about the customer concerns. They ensured that the property would be put back as clean as possible by placing MANY sheets of plywood down prior to excavating. They compacted the dirt back in the holes extremely well to avoid large stock piles of soils. All the while, the main office was calling me to discuss updates and expectations of completion. They provided waivers of lien, certificates of insurance, properly acquired permits, and JULIE locates. From a construction background, I can tell you that I did not see any flaws in the way they operated and this an extremely professional company. The pictures attached show the push piers added to the foundation (pictures 1, 2 & 3), the amount of excavation (picture 4), and the restoration after dirt was placed back in the pits and compacted (pictures 5, 6 & 7). Please notice that they also sealed two large cracks and steel plated these cracks from expanding further (which you can see under my sliding glass door). I, as well as my wife, are extremely happy that we chose United Structural Systems for our contractor. I would happily tell any of my friends and family to use this contractor should the opportunity arise!

Chris Abplanalp

(5)

USS did an amazing job on my underpinning on my house, they were also very courteous to the proximity of my property line next to my neighbor. They kept things in order with all the dirt/mud they had to excavate. They were done exactly in the timeframe they indicated, and the contract was very details oriented with drawings of what would be done. Only thing that would have been nice, is they left my concrete a little muddy with boot prints but again, all-in-all a great job

Dave Kari

(5)

What a fantastic experience! Owner Rick Thomas is a trustworthy professional. Nick and the crew are hard working, knowledgeable and experienced. I interviewed every company in the area, big and small. A homeowner never wants to hear that they have foundation issues. Out of every company, I trusted USS the most, and it paid off in the end. Highly recommend.

View GBP