Location
St. Louis, Missouri
Date
03 Jun 1993, 10:30 am - 12:30 pm
Abstract
An “unconventional” earth retaining system consisting of drilled underpinning piers, was used successfully to underpin a four- story building in Redwood City, California. Considerations to other conventional underpinning systems and their feasibility at the subject site are also examined. An in-depth discussion of the "unconventional" underpinning system selected for the project is presented with details of the construction sequence and difficulties encountered. Post-construction performance of the underpinning system and the relative costs of the “unconventional” underpinning system are also presented.
Department(s)
Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering
Meeting Name
3rd Conference of the International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering
Publisher
University of Missouri--Rolla
Document Version
Final Version
Rights
© 1993 University of Missouri--Rolla, All rights reserved.
Creative Commons Licensing
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.
Document Type
Article - Conference proceedings
File Type
text
Language
English
Recommended Citation
Lim, Robin M. and Majchrzak, Michael, ""Unconventional" Drilled Pier Underpinning" (1993). International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. 29.
https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/3icchge/3icchge-session05/29
"Unconventional" Drilled Pier Underpinning
St. Louis, Missouri
An “unconventional” earth retaining system consisting of drilled underpinning piers, was used successfully to underpin a four- story building in Redwood City, California. Considerations to other conventional underpinning systems and their feasibility at the subject site are also examined. An in-depth discussion of the "unconventional" underpinning system selected for the project is presented with details of the construction sequence and difficulties encountered. Post-construction performance of the underpinning system and the relative costs of the “unconventional” underpinning system are also presented.
