Ramaswamy, S D and Pertusier, E M (1986) Construction of barrettes for high-rise foundations. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 112(4), pp. 455-462. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Barrettes are huge concrete piers, basically rectangular. The cross-sectional areas of barrettes have often been more than 75 sq ft (7 m2) and they have been used for depths exceeding 260 ft (80 m) facilitating heavy vertical loads of the order of 3,000 tons/barrette to be transmitted to the bearing layer. Barrettes are used also as Moscovite wall for deep basements of high-rise buildings to resist both vertical and lateral loads. The fact that a single barrette can replace a group of conventional piles results in a more compact, economical, and reliable foundation system. The installation technique of barrettes follows closely the method of constructing diaphragm wall using bentonite slurry, reinforcing cage, and tremie concreting with careful quality control. Although there are certain reservations for using barrettes instead of conventional piles and diaphragm walls, the inherent advantages and the confidence gained by experience have been responsible for their increased usage, especially as heavy load-bearing elements for high-rise foundations and basements.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Index terms: | lateral load, foundations, concreting, diaphragm wall, quality control, high-rise building |
| Subjects: | construction type, structural engineering, building construction, project delivery |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Quality Management, Engineering Principles, Construction Technology |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here