Underpinning and Temporary Earth Retention for the ReTRAC Trench in Reno

- Organization:
- Deep Foundations Institute
- Pages:
- 5
- File Size:
- 1153 KB
- Publication Date:
- Jan 1, 2006
Abstract
"In the spring of 2005 Schnabel Foundation Company completed a $15.2 million Design/Build subcontract to underpin 11 structures, and provide 202,800 square feet of earth retention for the Reno Transportation Rail Access Corridor (ReTRAC) project in Reno, Nevada. Schnabel’s work was part of a Design/Build contract to depress a railroad alignment through downtown Reno. The depressed section was 2.2 miles long, 54 ft wide, and up to 35 ft deep (3.5 km long, 16.5m wide and up to 10.7m deep). The trench structure was required to be watertight. SUBCONTRACT WORK OVERVIEWEleven buildings along the track alignment required underpinning. Three types of underpinning were used, designated Type 1, Type 2 and Type 3.At four buildings the trench retaining walls were to be located directly under the exterior footings. This alignment eliminated traditional underpinning and cut-off wall techniques that could normally be used to support structures. Type 1 underpinning was used at these buildings. This underpinning system consisted of a combination of permeation grouting, hand-dug piers, and permanent tiebacks. This underpinning system became the new watertight trench walls.Five buildings were located a few feet behind the trench walls, and their exterior walls were supported by continuous footings. Type 2 micropile/pile cap underpinning (patent pending) was used to support these buildings.The remaining two buildings were also located a few feet behind the trench walls, but they had column footings along the exterior walls. At these structures traditional micropile underpinning was provided through the existing footings. This is described as Type 3 underpinning.Temporary earth retention was required on both sides of the trench along most of the alignment. This shoring supported frontage roads, private property and surcharge from the temporary railroad shoofly running parallel to one side of the trench.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSThe soil along the trench alignment consisted of river outwash deposits. The top 2 to 18 feet (0.6m to 5.5m) generally consisted of flood plain silt and sand deposits, or fine-grained fills. These fine-grained soils are underlain by the Tahoe Outwash Formation which consists of interbedded layers of sand; sand and gravel; and sand, gravel, cobbles and boulders. Some of these layers encountered during construction consisted of 30 to 50 percent cobbles and boulders, with some boulders up to eight feet in diameter.A major challenge to the design and construction of the trench structures and the underpinning was the ground water table which was 10 feet (3m) above subgrade in the deepest portions of the trench. Based on specification restrictions, temporary and permanent dewatering was not feasible. As a result, the selected design and construction methods had to consider three water conditions: the anticipated groundwater level during construction (CGW), the groundwater level for permanent design (DGW), and an additional special design condition with water at street grade."
Citation
APA:
(2006) Underpinning and Temporary Earth Retention for the ReTRAC Trench in RenoMLA: Underpinning and Temporary Earth Retention for the ReTRAC Trench in Reno. Deep Foundations Institute, 2006.