COLUMN TILTS

0.025

1982

1983

Figure 16. Footing tilts: 1982-1988.

Figure 17. Footing tilt trends.

Analysis of the data for these two parameters as

ern corners (A4 and A2), with the rear truss system

well as their rates of increase leads to the hypoth-

(the A4 system) the more heavily loaded. This ulti-

esis that the footings settled in a manner such that

mately affects the base level stress factors.

they were causing the structure to lean roughly

Footing tilts correlated remarkably well with

from A4 to N2 in the N2 direction.

the settlement data at DYE-2. Table 4 contains re-

sultants and directions for the footing tilt data for

the years 1982 through 1988 for each column.

COLUMN TILTS

Also included are the averages for all columns

for each year. This is depicted graphically in Figure

Column tilt measurements were only taken for

16. Comparing Figure 13 to the data in Table 4 and

two years: 1987 and 1988. No data are available

Figure 16 shows that the footings are tilting in

for the original column tilts after the relocation of

almost the same direction with the same magni-

the DYE-2 site. During the period from May 1987,

tude as the columns: in a direction of 313 with a

prior to the column bases being jacked and leveled,

magnitude of approximately 0.015 radians.

and August 1988, four complete sets of measure-

These values are too close to be coincidental. The

ments and one partial set of measurements were

rates of change are also very similar, approxi-

taken. The data are presented in Table 5.

mately 0.0025 radians per year. Statistical analy-

Measurements were taken inside the north

sis of the resultant averages shows a very high

flange between column pairs, where possible. Be-

degree of linearity in the tilt progression: >0.997.

cause of interference problems, each measure-

Figure 17 shows trends for the average tilt and

ment consists of three parts: within the building,

direction for the footings. These should be com-

between the building and the column enclosures,

pared to the footing settlement trends in Figure 14.

and inside the column enclosures. The sum of the

13