Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

CHAPTER 8.

Conclusions and reccomendations

8.1. Conclusions
The present geotechnical study was carried out within the project "Extension of the
Wastewater Treatment Plant and Construction of the Mine Incinerator Glina, Ilfov County" with the
aim of providing the specialists with the geotechnical data needed to establish the design conception
of the proposed objectives for the extension of the treatment plant.

In order to achieve the proposed objective, pre-existing documentation was analyzed and the
following works were executed in the field:
- geotechnical mapping
- 4 (four) geotechnical drillings with depth between 10,0 and 25,0 m
- 5 (five) heavy dynamic penetration with depth between 15,0 and 16,0 m
- non-destructive (geophysical) georadar investigations
- 3 static plate tests (IP)
- geophysical (electrometric) measurements located on 3 ERI profiles
- cross-hole geophysical (seismic) measurements (including 1 drill of 21 m deep)

Based on the geotechnical research it was found that the studied perimeter is situated on an
old meanders of Dambovita river which makes the deposits from that area to be represented
through alternation, discontinue horizontally and vertically, of cohesive soils (muddy clays, silty
clays, sandy clays, clayey sands, silty sandy clay) and non cohesive (sands and silty sand) with
lateral effillations and interlining between layers with different lithology, this stratigraphic type
being characteristic of the meadow areas of the plain rivers.
Currently the land to be expanded for Glina treatment plant is flat but with obvious traces of
anthropogenic interventions.
From a geomechanical point of view, the soils intercepted during drillings are generally in
the "soft plastic - consistent plastic" consistency in the case of cohesive soils or in the domain of
loose indentation or with moderate indentation in the case of non-cohesive lands.
From the compressibility point of view, the values of the M2-3 oedometric deformation
module are in the range of [3241 KPa <M2-3 <8734 KPa] representing the "very high - high
compressibility" range, according to STAS 1243/88.
From the analysis of the results of the heavy dynamic penetration it was found that over the
whole area studied there is, on the depth range ~ 1,0 - 5,0 m, a very low bearing capacity layer
(padm <100 KPa) and, in accordance with the depth of ~ 10,0 - 12,0 m, the "specific allowable
pressure" values rise above 200KPa.
From the point of view of the permeability of the cohesive deposits, the k value is between
k = 9.201-07 - 1.293-06 [cm / sec]
The analysis of the non-cohesive soil liquefaction indicated that the non-cohesive deposits in
the studied site area of a "slightly liquefiable - liquefiable" character.
Underground water was intercepted in all the executed drillings, in the form of hydrostatic
level cantonated in non-cohesive deposits located under the depth of 4.70 - 4.90m, but the
dependence of the groundwater level on the environment (Dambovita river) makes it possible to
vary over time.

Pag 1 / 8
The analysis on water and soil samples collected from drillings indicated that the
underground environment does not exhibit chemical aggressiveness against concrete and reinforced
concrete and is corrosive and slightly corrosive to metals.
Based on the results obtained from the geotechnical research, at the request of the
Beneficiary, through the design theme, settlement analysis were made in various assumptions and
for different purposes.
This analysis, presented in detail in the annexes, are indicative and do not in any way
subtract/substitute the necessary calculations for the design of the future geotechnical
structures, being made in order to mathematically model the geotechnical information obtained
from the soil research and to identify the most unfavorable limit state to which the foundation
ground can be compared to future structures.
The settlement analysis presented were performed for two structures of the ESP / Electro
filter building, respectively the incinerator building.
The settlement analysis was performed by the method "Calculation of absolute settlement by
elementary stratum summation method" according to Annex H of NP112-2014 respectively -
Calculation of probable settlement of a foundation on pilots with the method based on the
conventional foundation scheme Annex D of NP 123- 2011 "For each of the two structures were
analyzed two calculation assumptions: direct foundation and foundation on piles.
On the basis of these, we can say that these estimative settlement calculations points out the
existence of the differentiated settlements given by each object in the case of direct foundations and
their reduction in the field of "admissible settlements" in the case of indirect foundations,
The indicative nature of the settlement analysis requires that the designer of the geotechnical
structures analyze each case taking into account the provisions of the European and national
regulations and the local conditions of the site.
According to the normative document NP 074/2014 "Normative Geotechnical Documentation
for Construction"", the studied perimeter was, from the point of view of the relationship of the
future geotechnical structures with the foundation ground, in the geotechnical category 3.
corresponding to a major geotechnical risk.
The analysis of the factors that induce the major geotechnical risk indicates that it is
generated by the presence of "difficult terrain", the building's importance class and the seismic risk.

Starting from the results of geotechnical research we can do the following:

8.2. Reccomendations

8.2.1. External sewerage networks, drinking and industrial water


All excavations for laying the pipes and those for the foundations over the network, are to be
executed in conformity with the dispositions of the Norm NP 133/1-2/2011, from which we specify
the following:
a) excavation works - is always attacked from downstream to upstream to allow infiltration
water and rainwater to withdraw. The land resulting from the excavation is to be usually discharged
in the means of the transport. If this is not possible, the ground is to be deposited on a single part of
the excavation, leaving a safety deposit of at least 50cm in width, in order to drain the rainwater, to
avoid flooding. On
the connections between the tubes, the excavation is to beincreased to allow the seal to be executed
and to prevent the tube from resting only on the pipe jack.;
Pag 2 / 8
b) dewaterings- in the event of their need for sewage works, will be carried out only on the
basis of a specialized project which must establish the methods for removing the water from the
excavation, depending on the consistency and permeability of the soil, taking into account the
following aspects:
= the underground water must remain at least one meter below the bottom of the excavation;
= not to yeld the excavation slopes and undercutting under already existing constructions;
c) ensuring the excavation stability
The excavation can be carried out with unstrutted walls and strutted walls according to the
physical and mechanical characteristics of the terrain, as well as the foundation depth, the
groundwater level, which must comply with the provisions of Normative NP 133/2/2014, Chapter 3
(Subchapters 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4).
For constructions in closed enclosures of pipes with 400mm, the strutting should be
made with metallic pilesto stuck under the level of excavation of at least - of the strutted
height.

Pipe laying is to be made according to SR 4163-1 / 1995, NP 133 / 1-2 / 2011, with the
following specifications:
a) Pipe laying will only be done in a dry environment;
- the water supply pipes shall be laid at a depth of at least 0.90 m and the sewerage at higher
depths with corresponding slopes to ensure a gravitational flow and self-washing;
- for all potable water piping laid in the contractile soil layer, the ground under the pipe will
be replaced on approx. 30 40 cm with appropriate ground, well compacted in layers of about 20
cm thick and on both sides of the pipeline will be provided spaces with a width of at least pipe
diameter, filled with compacted granular material.
Also, according to NP 126/2010, the pipes entering and leaving the buildings will be
provided with elastic and sealed connections.
b) Execution of backfillings around pipes;
- for backfillings around water supply and sewerage pipes, materials from natural mineral
aggregates (ballast) will be used. Before the backfilling material is laid, where possible, the walls
will be padded with geotextile for the separation and filtration function;
- the backfilling is to be done in two phases:
= Phase I - fill the trench until, except for the joints, the bed and the pipe are covered with a
layer that will exceed 30 cm the upper generator. The backfilling will be done in layers of 10
15cm compacted by hand or mechanically, at a compaction level of D = (90 95)%;
= phase II execution of the pressure and sealing tests for the water supply lines and sealing
testss for the sewage pipelines, covering with material and compaction.
Next, filling and subsequent compaction are to be performed in layers of 10 15cm
thickness up to the final level, achieving a compaction degree of 96 98%. For water supply pipes
on the last 25 30cm, a waterproof layer of clay will be made, which after compaction should have
a coefficient of permeability of K 10-8cm / s.

The foundation of constructions on the network will be based on the dimensions provided in
the designand with the following conditions to be respected:
- the excavations will only be carried out on dry condition;
- the excavations will stop by 20cm 30cm above the final elevation and will becompulsory
completed immediately before casting the equalizing concrete;

Pag 3 / 8
- due to the weak characteristics of the foundation soil, consolidation measures are required,
and foundations need to be reinforced to take over the eventual different settlements;
- The underground works on the network that are below groundwater level (sewers, vats,
pumping stations, reservoirs, etc.) must be inspected as for the floating in accordance with
Eurocode 7, Part I, Chapter 10 "Hydraulic Release", subchapter. 10.2 "Global hydraulic lifting
failure due to archimedic pressure".

If the suppression is critical, stabilization measures are required, namely:


= increasing the weight of the work;
= reducing water pressure under the work,by drainage and evacuation in the underlying
layers.

8.2.2. Criteria for choosing construction foundation solutions


In analyzing the criteria for choosing foundation solutions we will consider the following:
a. direct foundation - presents the advantage of possible low costs but has the following
main disadvantages:
- The presence at relatively large depths (~ 5.0 - 6.0 m) of vegetal remains in different stages
of carbonization makes it almost impossible to build heavy structure foundationss above this depth;
- The presence to depths of ~ 10.0 m of "difficult terrain" (according to NP 074/2014) leads
to the need to improve the foundation ground at least for this depth.
The solution proposed by the Beneficiary to achieve (for technological reasons) large
general rafts/slabs, which will transmit less effective pressures to the soil and which would be the
foundation solution for equipment groups, may have the following disadvantages:
- requires dedicated designs of making joints for these rafts/slabs;
- considering the inhomogeneity of the soil (in plan and in depth) and the non-uniform loads
distributed on the surface of the raft/slab, differentiated settlements can occur;
- the possible variation in time of the underground water level can induce some extra high
pressure in the base of the raft/slab;
- no evaluation over time of a possible "primary consolidation" can be made so that, after
making the rafts/slabs and after consuming the primary settlements the infrastructures are executed,
because the terrains up to the depth of 4.70 m are unsaturated and consequently suffer an
"immediate settlement", but this will be followed by a total, long-lasting settlement;
b. indirect foundation - on piles considered friction piles embedded into the layer of gray,
plastically stiff onctuous clay (> 20.0 m)
- has the advantage of reducing the settlements in within "admissible" domain
-makes possible the grouping, from technological reasons, of constructions and their
foundation on common rafts/slabs sustained by groups of piles;
However, it presents the following disadvantages:
- presence in depth of soft plastic layers, for which lateral friction on the surface of the pile
will be considered negative, can lead to large lengths of piles;
- the possible lithological variation of the terrain under the investigated depth correlated
with the necessity of making piles with lengths larger than the depth investigated leads to the
necessity of executing new drillings whose bottom will exceed at least 3 diameters the length of the
piles;

However, in order to respond to the Beneficiary's request to recommend foundation


solutions for each individual construction, we considered the following criteria:
a) geo-mechanical criterion - the nature and physical and mechanical characteristics of the
foundation soil under each construction;

Pag 4 / 8
b) Static and dynamic loads transmitted to the soil by each construction through foundation
solutions;
c) hydrostatic and piezometric level of groundwater (ascension and fluctuation character of
the underground water);
d) the height regime of the buildings or outdoor equipment.
e) connections between different equipment/constructions.

As a result of the analysis made for each criterion, we identified, on the situation plan, five
areas for which, for the constructions/equipment on them, we recommended, in table 10, foundation
solutions.
This grouping of constructions has, however, an orientation character, the structural designer, for
technological, constructive reasons or for any other reason, can modify it.
Also in Table 11 we presented the characteristic values of the main geotechnical indices
necessary for geotechnical design calculations.

8.2.3. Other recommendations:


Considering the site's major geotechnical risk, it is recommended that the method known as
the "observational method" according to SR EN 1997-1 be adopted both during the execution of the
works and post-execution. Eurocode 7; Geotechnical design. Part 1; General rules. Cap.2.7.
This requires the development of a monitoring plan that highlights the extent to which the
real behavior of the structures is within acceptable limits. Monitoring should clearly detect this at a
sufficiently early stage of the works and the frequency of the observations should be large enough
so that, on the basis of an intervention plan, actions can be taken successfully.
It is mandatory that when choosing a foundation solution for piles, the monitoring plan
should provide pile tests according to NP 045-2000. Normative on Terrain Testing of Specimen
Piles and Piles from Foundations.
The following may also be considered in the monitoring program:
- monitoring the groundwater level through piezometric drilling;
- monitoring of the settlements by topographical methods or by installing the tasometers, etc.

Pag 5 / 8
Table 11. Table with the recommended foundation type
Type of tasks
Surface of
transmitted to the The height regime
Object name and composition ground footprint Recommended foundation type
foundation ground and (m)
(mp)
their size
I RADIER 1
The mud storage and drying building (the building itself, S+P+E
static+dynamic
the building for electrical stations and the control room, h=20m+3.00m
1020 Gtotala=14400t indirect on pilots considered floating
mud bunker and sludge silos, underground crane basement
P=1.42kg/cm2
equipment), oil pumps, power station and upstairs
transformers.

II RADIER 2 static and possibly building, one floor


Incinerator building, heat exchangers, electrofilters, dynamic with 20m height,
800 indirect on pilots considered floating
reactors, bag filters, ash silos (pollutant ash, sodium Gtotala=14000t smoke chimneys of
bicarbonate, etc.), flue gas fans, chimneys. P=1.18kg/cm2 30.00m height

indirect on pilots considered floating


III RADIER 3
static and dynamic or direct on improved ground with
parter
254 Gtotala=2355t crash / ballast stone columns with
Organic RANKINE cycles building (ORC), equipment h=6.5m
P=1,18kg/cm2 effective diameter 0.80 m, max. 2.0 m
(crane)
and sheet> 7.0 m
static
basement + ground
Fuel Storage Tank 60 Gtotala=60t* without geotechnical investigations
h=6.0m
P=0.6 kg/cm2
static
basement
Emergency terminal oil drain tank 90 Gtotala=100t* without geotechnical investigations
h=3.0m
P=0,11kg/cm2

External technological platforms (two pieces of both static+dynamic


63+190 3.30m direct on improved ground
parts of the building 3.1.1). Storage and drying of mud

* Estimated values

Pag 6 / 8
Table 12. Table of characteristic values of the main geotechnical indices
Number Density in Angle of Static linear
Cohesion Coefficient of
of The drill in a natural internal deformation
proportionality
layers LAYER which it was state friction module
c m
on the encountered E
(kPa) (KN/m4)
profiles (g/cm3) (o) (kPa)
Brown, consistent plastic mixed with
1 F1; F2; F4 1,98 14 10 4500 4000
powdery clay, brown, silty sand clay;
Sandy silt with clay, gray, dusty, soft plastic,
1' F2 1,98 13 7 4000 2500
with calcareous concretions;
Brown, soft plastic with clayey dust lens,
2 F1 1,90 11 8 3800 2500
clayey silt;
Gray, chipped, slightly wet, silty sand; From F1;
3 1.85 14 0 3700 1500
5.70m saturated gray sand, F2;F3;F4
3' Gray, damp, dusty sand, silty sand; F2 1.92 15 0 7500 5500
4 Gray, damp, dusty sand, clayey sand; F1 1,95 12 0 5500 4200
Gray, consistency plastic, with sand and
5 F2;F3 2,00 13 30 5500 5200
small gravel silty clay;
6 Powdered clay, gray, plastically stiff F2;F3;F4 2,05 13 45 14000 6000
Sand with very rare gravel and very poor
F1;
7 dusty binder, gray, wet, medium 1,98 20 0 12000 7800
F2;F3;F4
decompaction
Dark brown clay, plastically stiff, with rusty
8 F2; F4 1,90 12 24 10000 5700
and rarely dust lenses

NOTE: No conventional pressures were recommended because it was assumed that no layer fulfills "bearing stratum" conditions as such.

pag 7 / 8
BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Enciclopedia Geografica a Romaniei - Editura Enciclopedica, Bucuresti, 1982

Geomorfologia Romniei: reliefuri, tipuri, genez, evoluie, regionare / Grigore Posea.


Ediia a II-a Bucureti, Editura Fundaiei Romnia de Mine, 2005

Harta geologica scara 1:200000 foaia Bucuresti, Institutul Geologic, Bucuresti, 1968

Anghel Stanciu, Irina Lungu s.a. - Fundatii. Vol.1, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, 2006

Anghel Stanciu, Irina Lungu s.a. - Fundatii. Vol.2, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, 2016

Ion Bancila, s.a. - Geologie inginereasca, vol. I and II, Editura Tehnica, Bucuresti, 1981

Mihaela Stanciucu - Investigatii geotehnice in situ, Bucuresti, 2010

Dan Stematiu1 and Dan Teodorescu2 - Raul Dambovita in Bucuresti - Sistemul de aparare
impotriva inundatiilor"

"Revista Constructiilor" Collection no. 134, 135 and 136 - 2017

1
Permanent Member of the Academy of Technical Sciences of Romania
2
Honorary Member of the Academy of Technical Sciences of Romania

pag 8 / 8