ben46a
Senior Member
Im not really liking how thats looking either, I was thinking 6 inch minus crusher run. Clay may lead to problems down the line.
-
Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!
3000 yrds leaving the building....
- Thread starter D4's D5
- Start date
D4's D5
Active Member
I just got through talking to the man that owns the excavating company, he said they dug the mud out and got to hardpan that was dry, and the engineer and him both felt like crushed stone wasn't needed on this application.
Time will tell
Kirk
Time will tell
Kirk
Cat287B
Well-Known Member
How do you get in and out of the hole? Whats stopping the dumptruck from backing in?
D4's D5
Active Member
Right now it is just a big rectangular hole in the ground with straight sides.
I'm guessing that when they get everything on grade, they will either lift out the equipment with a forklift, or add some extra dirt to drive everything out and then use the excavator to remove the final dirt. The hole will only be 7 feet deep when they get to final grade.
I'm guessing that when they get everything on grade, they will either lift out the equipment with a forklift, or add some extra dirt to drive everything out and then use the excavator to remove the final dirt. The hole will only be 7 feet deep when they get to final grade.
Last edited:
CM1995
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 13,418
- Location
- Alabama
- Occupation
- Running what I brung and taking what I win
It seems like overkill to have two dozers working the fill in such a confined area.:beatsme
No, that is not correct, at least around my neck of the woods. I have built many projects with structural fill, 98-100% compaction requirements, with clay type on-site soil that would definetely not be classified as porous. The dirt doc gets a proctor of the fill material and sets the specs for compaction, the fill could be on-site material or borrow pit material.
I have worked with some fat clays that had a very tight moisture tolerance that was a pain in the rear-end to meet compaction.:Banghead However, the compaction specs were met. To import gravel or other porous fill was not an option due to the cost.
No, that is not correct, at least around my neck of the woods. I have built many projects with structural fill, 98-100% compaction requirements, with clay type on-site soil that would definetely not be classified as porous. The dirt doc gets a proctor of the fill material and sets the specs for compaction, the fill could be on-site material or borrow pit material.
I have worked with some fat clays that had a very tight moisture tolerance that was a pain in the rear-end to meet compaction.:Banghead However, the compaction specs were met. To import gravel or other porous fill was not an option due to the cost.
Last edited:
Burnout
Senior Member
I agree with CM on this one. We do structural fill like that all the time. If you find a nice wet spot down there we normally blast in a good first lift to seal the wet stuff down there. Usually end up around 18"-24" thick. We then static pack that lift and then continue with our standard backfill of 16" lifts so that once they are compacted with the vibratory sheepsfoot its 12" thick.
Granted we don't normally do this in buildings, but we have done it on large building pads, roads, yards and parking lots. I'd say that looks like quite the fun little project though. Reminds me of a road I dug up last year. Was supposed to be 3' of topsoil under the gravel.... 3' turned into 14' in some places.
Granted we don't normally do this in buildings, but we have done it on large building pads, roads, yards and parking lots. I'd say that looks like quite the fun little project though. Reminds me of a road I dug up last year. Was supposed to be 3' of topsoil under the gravel.... 3' turned into 14' in some places.
Reuben
Senior Member
UMMMM.............brakes maybe..........just guessing....thats how our drivers stop anyway.......:falldownlaugh
cat 385
Senior Member
your trucks have brakes rueben
Reuben
Senior Member
your trucks have brakes rueben
hell ya...........and we use them also.Its pretty neat....we push the middle pedal thingy on the floor and SHA-BAM!!!we stop. That option came standard with all of our trucks.
Dirtman2007
Senior Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,202
- Location
- Raleigh, North Carolina
- Occupation
- Heavy Equipment Operator
My truck drivers just back up till the hit something.... usually resulting in the loss of a few grade stakes:stirthepot
that does look like quite the operation. I will agree, that's alot of equipment in a small hole. But it's needed it looks like. That would be stange working in a building with a excavator that big
ointhead
Cat287B
Well-Known Member
I was kinda looking at it as tho it was trench for pipe where you have to have ladders for the crew to get in and out.
special tool
Senior Member
Structural fill over a high water table will not be clay, especially when it is a very heavy (potentially vibrating) piece of industrial equipment.
At least I would never do it, because who is going to pay when it fails?? The engineer??LOL:roll
Here is what the engineer will say,
"Well, it appears as though my foundation system plan has been deviated from"
What kind of load is this footing going to receive (capacity) and what will it be used for (machinery, vibration)? Also in pic #19 is that the pier footing sticking out the side of the cut? How much deeper are you then existing bottom of footings? No shoring or underpinning for existing footings?
Last edited:
digger242j
Administrator
I was going to ask about the depth of the existing footings as well, until I saw that one sticking out of the side of the cut. Now I have to ask why the water wasn't an issue in the original construction?
special tool
Senior Member
I must have mis-understood such a broad statement.
You are right, I should have clarified.
I don't because my work is almost exclusively related to building/bridge footing construction.
That clay makes me cringe.
D4's D5
Active Member
No, that is an old floor chain drive enclosure, that has been filled with concrete, years ago. They have a brand new Cat 420 backhoe with hammer here today to bust it out so they can form up the wall in that area.
I don't know how deep the other footings are. I also don't know if there was water present when this was originally built in 1964. There have been lots of changes in this area since then.
The I don't know the weight of the curing presses that will be installed here either, but I know the floor gets two mats of rebar on 12'' centers.
They are almost finished compacting the clay, somewhere in the area of 400 yrds, left.
I'm glad its Friday. Saturday and Sunday I can tend to my own toys and :drinkup
Attachments
special tool
Senior Member
I can tell that you and I come from similar backgrounds.
These are the things that strike me most looking at these pictures.
The excavation plan seems excellent, but no way I am ever signing off on clay being used under a building or any kind of HD industrial machine.
And undermining of adjacent footings with no ammendments, NO WAY, Jose.
Turbo21835
Senior Member
This depends on your location. In my area, Sand is prevelant as fill. Most building pads have sand under concrete. I used to work around Columbus Oh. Sand was a dirty word down there. If we got into a sand seam, we had to stretch it out in a fill as far and thin as we could. All their concrete is on stone. In some cases its even on clay.
This project, im assuming it is local material. Soils tech is down there testing it, so it must work for their application, as im sure they are the ones that suggested a plan of action for this fill. Ive done fills over wet areas. In fact, areas so wet we could not run adts or scrapers through. We dumped along side of the area, and pushed a 2 and a half foot thick lift over the area with a dozer. Then compacted it with a non vibratory sheeps foot. Four years later, no cracks in the concrete, so it must have worked just fine.
Personally, in this situation, I would lean towards stabilization. Adding portland of lime would help out a lot. Then again, im going to guess, the plan of action may be to use more concrete than planned. So that will help support the equipment that is going to be set there.