No video :(

Pile Static Load Test FAIL - Concrete blocks collapse in Singapore

Подписаться 428

Просмотров 27 тыс.

50% 1

Sun, Jan 16, 2011 in Singapore at Gilstead Road
A pile static load test went awry in Singapore when a pyramid of dozens of concrete blocks used for the reaction force toppled over into Gilstead Road. The force of the collapse caused a gas main to rupture but there were no reports of injuries.
news.asiaone.co...

Опубликовано:

26 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 9

@jameschang2369 9 лет назад

The people should be glad that it was just concrete blocks as this was a load test. If it wasn't tested, and they had continued with construction, no one knows what would've collapsed then. Just glad no ones got injured. Civil Engineering rep!

@witengineer6377 5 лет назад

This is ancient technology to test pile capacity. They should have used an o-cell which is bi-directional load testing using hydraulic jacks rated up to 4,000 ton!

@marshmelows 5 лет назад

And you'll be paying for it :/

@witengineer6377 5 лет назад

Whoever paid for this test in the video didn't do their homework. The ocell has been in use since 1985. That is the point of a bi-directional test is to be cheaper, safer and more reliable. The patent is up so you could even make your own jack if your that cheap.

@marshmelows 5 лет назад

@@witengineer6377 Of course, choosing the cheapest and most dangerous method should envolve more safety calculations that weren't done unfortunately :/

@juliansandoval8022 3 года назад

@@witengineer6377 Reaction piles can also work and cheaper than o-cell. Yes, O-cell is nice, i understand, but gotta consider the cost. Im sure Fugro would have been pleased to provide the o-cell service

@justinstgeorge715 3 года назад

@@juliansandoval8022 BDSLT becomes cost effective at around the 2000T mark, where the $/T reduces significantly thereafter. This kentledge test looked to be well over 2000T, so BDSLT could have been considered. However, hindsight is always 20/20 as they say