Advertisement

Ground Reinforcement and Rehabilitation of Foundations Systems for Their Reuse

  • A. Viana da Fonseca
  • A. Pinto
Chapter
Part of the Building Pathology and Rehabilitation book series (BUILDING, volume 9)

Abstract

The reuse of foundations for a second superstructure is technically feasible and is increasingly becoming part of standard practice. For refurbishment projects, reuse of old foundations and structures is the norm. For foundation reuse to be viable, the following conditions need to be satisfied: (i) there should be compatibility between the locations of the applied loads and the existing foundations, which should have sufficient bearing capacity to carry the new loads; (ii) sufficient verification should be carried out so that the old foundations are shown to be as reliable as new ones; (iii) there should be an expectation that the foundation performance over the range of expected loads will be acceptable, and that they will fulfil those functions reliably over the planned design life of the building; (iv) the project team needs to agree that all parties accept the risks associated with foundation reuse; (v) adequate insurance cover is available for the design team and client; (vi) regulatory approval is possible from the necessary authorities. Currently old foundations tend only be reused in a redevelopment, if there is a particular constraint that acts as a driver: (i) the ground beneath the building has already been filled; (ii) there are archaeological remains that can be preserved by foundation reuse. One of the main inhibitors to foundation reuse is uncertainty: unless records have been kept that indicate the foundation locations, sizes and capacities with a high degree of reliability, it can be difficult to reuse them reliably or efficiently. Therefore one important issue to maximize the future ability to reuse foundations is the collection and safe preservation of construction and maintenance records. When the risk to full trust on the original foundations is high, ground improvement techniques are advisable, mainly versatile and small diameter drilling techniques as jet grouting and micropiles.

Keywords

Ground reinforcement Foundations rehabilitation Microplies Jet grouting 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Part of this work reports to research financially supported by Project POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007457—CONSTRUCT—Institute of R&D in Structures and Construction, funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI) and by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT). The authors wish to thank the contributions from the responsibles for the rehabilitionof the “Rivoli” Theatre (for the project and execution, Baldomiro Xavier and José Figueira, Teixeira Duarte, S.A., and Luís Neto, for the owner, Porto 2001 European Capital of Culture) and the rehabilitation of “Bom Sucesso” Market (for the project and execution, Hipólito Sousa and and José Filinto Trigo, Sopsec, S.A., and the owner Mercado Urbano—Gestão Imobiliária, S.A.).

References

  1. 1.
    Butcher AP, Powel JJ, Skinner HD. Reuse of foundations for urban sites. A best practice handbook. Bracknell: IHS BRE Press; 2006. ISBN: 978-1-86081-938-4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chapman T, Anderson S, Windle J. Reuse of foundations. London: CIRIA C653; 2007. ISBN: 978-086017-653-4.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lunne T, Robertson P, Powell J. Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice. London: Blackie Academic. EF Spon/Routledge Publishers; 1997.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayne PW, Christopher, DeJong J. Manual on subsurface investigations. Publication No. FHWA NHI-01-031. Washington, DC: National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schnaid F. In-situ testing in geomechanics: the main test. London: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. ISBN: 9780415433860.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Foti S., Lai CG, Rix GJ, Strobbia C. Surface wave methods for near-surface site characterization. London: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2014. ISBN: 9780415678766.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Monnet J. In situ tests in geotechnical engineering. Wiley-ISTE; 2015. ISBN: 978–1-84821-849-9.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Robertson PK, Cabal KL. Cone penetration testing for geotechnical engineering. Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc.; 2015. http://www.cpt-robertson.com/doc/view?docid=xnhqTpmrnRdPTvYHHRSr6hcNdKJLWy.
  9. 9.
    Lacasse S, Nadim F, Rahi A, Guttormsen TR. Statistical description of characteristic soil properties. In: OTC-19117, Houston. 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    EN1997-1. Eurocode 7: geotechnical design—general rules. 2004.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Viana da Fonseca A, Buttling S, Coutinho RQ. Foundations: shallow and deep foundations, unsaturated conditions, heave and collapse, monitoring and proof testing. In: BBK Huat, DG Toll, A Prasad, editors. A handbook of tropical residual soil engineering. A.A. Balkema Book, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group; 2012. p. 283–412. ISBN: 978‐0‐415‐45731‐6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Militinksy J, Schnaid F, Consoli N. Pathologies of foundations. São Paulo: Oficina de Textos; 2009. ISBN: 139788579751820 (in Portuguese).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gambin M, Frank R. Direct design rules for piles using Ménard pressuremeter test. Contemporary topics in in situ testing, analysis, and reliability of foundations. In: Iskander M, DF Laefer, MH Hussein, editors. Proceedings of the international foundation congress and equipment Expo’09 (IFCEE’09), 15–19 March, Orlando, Florida, vol 186. Reston: ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication; 2009. p. 111–8.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burlon S, Frank R, Baguelin M, Habert J, Legrand S. Model factor for the bearing capacity of piles from pressuremeter test results—Eurocode 7 approach. Géotechnique. 2014;64(7):513–25. doi: 10.1680/geot.13.P.061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bullivant RA, Bradbury HW. Underpinning—a practical guide. Oxford, Blackwell Science; 1996. ISBN: 0632040041/97806324040049.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jamiolkowski MB. The leaning tower of Pisa: end of an Odyssey, Terzaghi Oration. In: Proceedings of the XVICSMGE Istanbul, vol. 4. 2001. p. 2979–96.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marchi M, Butterfield R, Gottardi G, Lancellotta R. Stability and strength analysis of leaning towers. Géotechnique. 2011;61(12):1069–79. doi: 10.1680/geot.9.P.054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Burghignoli A, Jamiolkowski M, Viggianni C. Geotechnics for the preservation of historic cities and monuments: components of a multidisciplinary approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium geotechnical engineering for the preservation of monuments and historic sites, Naples. CRC, Taylor & Francis; 2013. p. 751–60.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Macchi G, Macchi S, Jamiolkowski M, Pastore V, Vanni D. Strengthening of the San Marco bell tower foundation in Venice. Geotechn Herit. 2013. doi: 10.1201/b14965-12.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vanni D, Macchi S, Pastore V. Deep soil mixing to help the restoration of Venice San Marco Bell Tower. In: 4th International conference on grouting and deep mixing. New Orleans: Deep Foundation Institute; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vanni D, Siepi M, Macchi S, Pastore V. Deep soil mixing to help the restoration of Venice San Marco Bell Tower. Grouting Deep Mix. 2012. doi: 10.1061/9780784412350.0060.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ovando-Shelley E, Santoyo E. Underexcavation for levelling buildings in Mexico City: case of the Metropolitan Cathedral and the Sagrario Church. J Archit Eng. 2001;7:61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Burland JB, Jamiolkowski M, Viggiani C. The stabilisation of the leaning tower of Pisa. Soils Found. 2003;43(5):63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bustamante M, Gianeselli L, Leoloux JL. Underpinning of the Bordeaux Pont-de-Pierre: a First Empire masonry. In: Viggiani C, editors. Geotechnical engineering for the preservation of monuments and historic sites. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1997. p. 551–9.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bustamante M, Doix B. Une méthode pour le calcul des tirants et des micropieux injectés. Bull Liasion Lab Ponts Chass. 1985;140:75–92 (in French).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Falcão J, Pinto A, Pinto F. Case histories and work performance of vertical jet grouting solutions. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on ground improvement, geosystems, Helsinki, June 7–9. Building Information Ltd.; 2001. p. 165–71.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenwood D. Underpinning by grouting. Ground Eng. 1987;4:21–30.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kutzner C. Grouting of rock and soil. Rotterdam: Balkema; 1996.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Viana da Fonseca A. Characterising and deriving engineering properties of a saprolitic soil from granite, from Porto. In: Tan TS, Phoon KK, Hight D, Leroueil S, editors. Characterisation and engineering properties of natural soils, vol. 2. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 2003. p. 1341–78. ISBN: 90 5809 537 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CONSTRUCT—GEO, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  2. 2.JETsj Geotecnia LdaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.Instituto Superior Técnico, Civil Engineering DepartmentTechnical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations