25.12.2012 Views

Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fifth edition

Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fifth edition

Pile Design and Construction Practice, Fifth edition

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The durability of piled foundations 489<br />

continue into permeable soil deposits which are not naturally sulphate-bearing. An account<br />

of the distribution of sulphates in various ground conditions in Great Britain is given by<br />

Bessey <strong>and</strong> Lea (10.8) . Methods of analysis to determine the sulphate content <strong>and</strong> pH-value of<br />

soils <strong>and</strong> ground waters are set out in BS 1377 <strong>and</strong> by Bowley (10.9) in BRE Report 279 <strong>and</strong><br />

are critically reviewed by Eglinton (10.6) .<br />

A dense, well-compacted concrete provides the best protection against the attack by<br />

sulphates on concrete piles, pile caps <strong>and</strong> ground beams. The low permeability of dense<br />

concrete prevents or greatly restricts the entry of the sulphates into the pore spaces of<br />

the concrete. For this reason high-strength precast concrete piles are the most favourable<br />

type to use. However, for the reasons explained in Chapter 2, precast concrete piles are not<br />

suitable for all site conditions <strong>and</strong> the mixes used for the alternatives of bored <strong>and</strong> castin-place<br />

or driven <strong>and</strong> cast-in-place piles must be designed to achieve the required degree of<br />

impermeability <strong>and</strong> resistance to aggressive action.<br />

In British practice recommendations for the types of cement <strong>and</strong> the mix proportions are<br />

given in BRE Special Digest 1: 2005 (2.6) . There are several significant changes compared<br />

with the previous BRE recommendations, mainly designed to harmonize with the new<br />

British <strong>and</strong> European st<strong>and</strong>ards <strong>and</strong> to take account of research into combating the thaumasite<br />

form of sulphate attack on concrete. The five classes of severity of attack (‘<strong>Design</strong> Sulphate’<br />

classes DS1 to 5) have been retained from which are derived the new ‘Aggressive Chemical<br />

Environment for Concrete’ (ACEC) classes (AC1 to 5) for natural ground <strong>and</strong> brownfield<br />

sites, subject to certain conditions (e.g. pH should be greater than 2.5). The AC classes<br />

provide for adjustment from one DS class to another depending on the conditions of<br />

exposure, the pH <strong>and</strong> mobility of groundwater, <strong>and</strong> other environmental conditions. For a<br />

given AC class a ‘<strong>Design</strong> Chemical’ (DC) class is derived for the intended working life,<br />

either 50 or 100 years, together with recommended ‘additional protective measures’ specific<br />

to highly aggressive ground types. Concrete mixes are then tabulated to suit the DC class<br />

giving a wide selection of free-water/cement ratios <strong>and</strong> aggregate sizes down to 10 mm <strong>and</strong><br />

the appropriate cement <strong>and</strong> cement combinations in accordance with BS EN 197-1 <strong>and</strong><br />

BS 8500-2. The use of sulphate-resisting Portl<strong>and</strong> cement is covered in BS 4027.<br />

The workability of the BRE suggested cast in-situ concrete mixes may in some cases be<br />

too low for placing for bored <strong>and</strong> driven small diameter cast-in-place piles. Slightly modified<br />

mixes are given for certain precast products, including surface-carbonated precast concrete,<br />

which would be suitable for precast piles. As it is not possible to cover in this text the<br />

various comments <strong>and</strong> qualifications to the recommendations given in Special Digest 1, it is<br />

important to follow the step by step approach to determine the appropriate concrete quality<br />

for a particular assessment of ground conditions. It should be noted that the Digest does not<br />

purport to assess <strong>and</strong> advise on the use of s<strong>and</strong>–cement grouts in minipiles <strong>and</strong> around<br />

the permanent sleeves to piles.<br />

Mixes suitable for concrete in pile caps, ground beams <strong>and</strong> blinding concrete depend on<br />

the size shape <strong>and</strong> amount of reinforcement of the members which govern the workability<br />

requirements. Footnotes to the Special Digest 1, Table D1, provide for modifications to the<br />

DC class depending on the size of a structural member.<br />

Generally, no additional protection measures (APMs) are necessary where the groundwater<br />

is considered ‘static’, but other conditions may over-ride this (e.g. thickness of<br />

concrete section). When in doubt the ‘mobile’ groundwater condition should be used. For<br />

example, it would be unwise to assume a static groundwater table at a shallow depth for castin-place<br />

concrete piles where the concrete may be weaker than in the body of the pile due

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!