Download
1 / 1
10 likes | 96 Views
This project evaluated various dam foundation improvement techniques for Lock and Dam No. 8, including cut-off walls, grouting, and their combination. Criteria such as cost, environmental impact, risk, and constructability were analyzed to design the most suitable improvement. The chosen design option was based on a CAD drawing and considered essential permits and practicality. Grout curtain and secant wall methods were explored, acknowledging the materials and pressure considerations. Cost was deemed the crucial criterion, leading to selecting Design Option 2 for its seepage reduction potential.
E N D
Foundation Improvement Evaluation Kentucky River Lock and Dam No. 8 Michael Kendall and Karyn Sutter Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Advised By: Suzanne LePageand Frederick Hart Abstract The goal of this project was to discuss and evaluate different dam foundation improvement techniques including two different positive cut-off walls, grouting, and a combination of these. These techniques were analyzed based on four different evaluation criteria: cost, environmental impacts, risk and constructability. Finally a schematic design was created based on the most suitable foundation improvement. • Methods/Process • Came up with three different design options • Applied four different evaluation criteria to design options: cost, environmental impacts, risks and constructability • Based on evaluation criteria, choose the best design option and completed capstone design by making a CAD drawing of the proposed foundation improvement Capstone Design Layout of Grout Holes and Secant Wall Background Profile View of Grout Holes and Secant Pile Wall • Results • Cost • Environmental Impacts • US Army Corps of Engineers 404 Section 10 Permit • Kentucky Division of Water 401 Permit • Risks • Seepage reduction crucial • Constructability • All designs practical Conclusions Cost was the most important of the evaluation criteria as the other three had similar if not the same effects on each design option. It was decided that Design Option 2 was the best choice for Lock and Dam No. 8. Although it was not the cheapest option for only a slightly higher cost it provided a better chance at reducing seepage. • Grout Curtain • Materials including portland cement and admixtures • Increased pressure with depth Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following people for their help and support during this project: Professor Suzanne LePage, Professor Frederick Hart, Daniel Gilbert, April Welshans, and Adam Hacker • Secant Wall • Overlapping shafts backfilled with concrete
