GROUND IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP JUNE 2010 PERTH, AUSTRALIA. CHAIRMAN OF T.C. Ground Improvement

Similar documents
BRASIL MAY 2010

Chapter (11) Pile Foundations

Boreholes. Implementation. Boring. Boreholes may be excavated by one of these methods: 1. Auger Boring 2. Wash Boring 3.

EN Eurocode 7. Section 3 Geotechnical Data Section 6 Spread Foundations. Trevor L.L. Orr Trinity College Dublin Ireland.

OP-13. PROCEDURES FOR DESIGN OF EMBANKMENT

Theory of Shear Strength

SI Planning & Laboratory Testing for Hill-Site Development

Liquefaction and Foundations

Chapter 12 Subsurface Exploration

Cavity Expansion Methods in Geomechanics

Chapter (12) Instructor : Dr. Jehad Hamad

APPENDIX F CORRELATION EQUATIONS. F 1 In-Situ Tests

Theory of Shear Strength

Ch 4a Stress, Strain and Shearing

Class Principles of Foundation Engineering CEE430/530

Engineeringmanuals. Part2

Central Queensland Coal Project Appendix 4b Geotechnical Assessment. Environmental Impact Statement

1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION 1.5 STRESS-PATH METHOD OF SETTLEMENT CALCULATION

Date: April 2, 2014 Project No.: Prepared For: Mr. Adam Kates CLASSIC COMMUNITIES 1068 E. Meadow Circle Palo Alto, California 94303

Shear Strength of. Charles Aubeny. Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University

Table 3. Empirical Coefficients for BS 8002 equation. A (degrees) Rounded Sub-angular. 2 Angular. B (degrees) Uniform Moderate grading.

Expressway Embankment Landslide Treatment Technology for Peat Subgrade

Drawing up of a geotechnical dossier for the stabilization of historical quay walls along the river Scheldt in Antwerp

Field and Laboratory Testing of Soil for Surcharge Design

A. V T = 1 B. Ms = 1 C. Vs = 1 D. Vv = 1

Geology and Soil Mechanics /1A ( ) Mark the best answer on the multiple choice answer sheet.

SOME OBSERVATIONS RELATED TO LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SILTY SOILS

Landslide FE Stability Analysis

SOME GEOTECHNICAL PROPERTIES OF KLANG CLAY

vulcanhammer.net This document downloaded from

INTRODUCTION TO STATIC ANALYSIS PDPI 2013

The Bearing Capacity of Soils. Dr Omar Al Hattamleh

SOIL SHEAR STRENGTH. Prepared by: Dr. Hetty Muhammad Azril Fauziah Kassim Norafida

Seabed instability and 3D FE jack-up soil-structure interaction analysis

HKIE-GD Workshop on Foundation Engineering 7 May Shallow Foundations. Dr Limin Zhang Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

INTI COLLEGE MALAYSIA

D1. A normally consolidated clay has the following void ratio e versus effective stress σ relationship obtained in an oedometer test.

Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering 1.1 Geotechnical Engineering 1.2 The Unique Nature of Soil and Rock Materials

Calculation of 1-D Consolidation Settlement

Hazard-Mitigation of Civil Infrastructure through. Dynamic Compaction. Kameron Kaine Raburn

TC211 Workshop CALIBRATION OF RIGID INCLUSION PARAMETERS BASED ON. Jérôme Racinais. September 15, 2015 PRESSUMETER TEST RESULTS

Reinforced Soil Structures Reinforced Soil Walls. Prof K. Rajagopal Department of Civil Engineering IIT Madras, Chennai

Design of Shallow Foundations for a Large Polysilicon Plant in China

Chapter 5 Shear Strength of Soil

Predicting Settlement and Stability of Wet Coal Ash Impoundments using Dilatometer Tests

Chapter (5) Allowable Bearing Capacity and Settlement

Prof. B V S Viswanadham, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay

Rock Berm Restraint of an Untrenched Pipeline on Soft Clay

Effects of Slope Stability Evaluation on Highway Bridge Design

3-BEARING CAPACITY OF SOILS

Geotechnical Parameters for Retaining Wall Design

The attitude he maintains in his relation to the engineer is very well stated in his own words:

YOUR HW MUST BE STAPLED YOU MUST USE A PENCIL (no pens)

Cyclic Triaxial Testing of Water-Pluviated Fly Ash Specimens

PRINCIPLES OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

CHARACTERIZATION OF SOFT CLAY- A CASE STUDY AT CRANEY ISLAND

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS)

The San Jacinto Monument Case History

water proofing will relatively long time fully completed) be provided 10 storey building (15x25m) original GWT position 1 sat = 20 kn/m 3

ENCE 3610 Soil Mechanics. Site Exploration and Characterisation Field Exploration Methods

Developing a more accurate description of soil-pipe interaction for the design of high temperature pipelines

8.1. What is meant by the shear strength of soils? Solution 8.1 Shear strength of a soil is its internal resistance to shearing stresses.

both an analytical approach and the pole method, determine: (a) the direction of the

Shear Strength of Soils

PERFORMANCE OF BITUMINOUS COATS IN REDUCING NEGATIVE SKIN

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Martin Achmus Institute of Soil Mechanics, Foundation Engineering and Waterpower Engineering. Offshore subsoil investigations

Chapter 7 GEOMECHANICS

(C) Global Journal of Engineering Science and Research Management

The CPT in unsaturated soils

Following are the results of four drained direct shear tests on an overconsolidated clay: Diameter of specimen 50 mm Height of specimen 25 mm

Analysis of shear strength of armourstone based on 1 m 3 direct shear tests

Analysis of Load-Settlement Relationship for Unpaved Road Reinforced with Geogrid

EAS 664/4 Principle Structural Design

Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation

Geotechnical Aspects of the Seismic Update to the ODOT Bridge Design Manual. Stuart Edwards, P.E Geotechnical Consultant Workshop

BEARING CAPACITY SHALLOW AND DEEP FOUNDATIONS

Modified Dry Mixing (MDM) a new possibility in Deep Mixing

Collapsible Soils Definitions

The Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Research & Development Executive Summary Report

Pressuremeter for Design and Acceptance of Challenging Ground Improvement Works

ISC 5 SELF-BORING PRESSUREMETER TESTS AT THE NATIONAL FIELD TESTING FACILITY, BALLINA 5 9 SEPT 2016

STUDY ON CONSOLIDATION OF ALLUVIAL CLAY IN NORTHERN QUEENSLAND

Shear strength model for sediment-infilled rock discontinuities and field applications

B-1 BORE LOCATION PLAN. EXHIBIT Drawn By: 115G BROOKS VETERINARY CLINIC CITY BASE LANDING AND GOLIAD ROAD SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS.

GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT

CPT Guide 5 th Edition. CPT Applications - Deep Foundations. Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. Dr. Peter K. Robertson Webinar # /2/2013

SHEAR STRENGTH OF SOIL

SITE INVESTIGATION 1

Introduction to Soil Mechanics Geotechnical Engineering-II

Soil type identification and fines content estimation using the Screw Driving Sounding (SDS) data

Geotechnical Investigation and Monitoring Results of a Landslide Failure at Southern Peninsular Malaysia (Part 1: Investigating Causes of Failure)

FUNDAMENTALS SOIL MECHANICS. Isao Ishibashi Hemanta Hazarika. >C\ CRC Press J Taylor & Francis Group. Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

CHARACTERISTICS OF VACUUM CONSOLIDATION COMPARING WITH SURCHARGE LOAD INDUCED CONSOLIDATION

Session 3 Mohr-Coulomb Soil Model & Design (Part 2)

Foundation Engineering Prof. Dr. N. K. Samadhiya Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee

ROCK EXCAVATION (GRADING) OPSS 206 INDEX

Geotechnical verification of impact compaction


Foundation Analysis LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE

A Comparative Study on Bearing Capacity of Shallow Foundations in Sand from N and /

Transcription:

GROUND IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP 11-12 JUNE 2010 PERTH, AUSTRALIA GROUND IMPROVEMENT IN EXTREME GROUND CONDITIONS Presented by Serge VARAKSIN CHAIRMAN OF T.C. Ground Improvement

EPEC Bang Bo: Works Procedure Gulf of Thailand Construction ti of a 2-km road embankment, 1.33m thick 2

Ground Conditions Layer 1: Weathered crust (OC clay) ~ 1-2m thick Layer 2: Soft Bangkok clay (NC clay) ~ 20m thick Layer 3: Firm / stiff clay (overlying alt. sand layers) > 25m 3

Engineering Properties Layer 1 C u /σ = 0.2 Layer 2 C u /σ = 0.3 Soft layer 1: 0 10m highly plastic very soft Bangkok clay (av. C r ~ 0.35; av. C v ~ 0.5 1 m 2 /y) Soft layer 2: 10 20m soft to medium firm clay 4

Potential Problems Final embankment height = 1.33m Fill to compensate settlement = 3m Total fill to be placed = 4.33m 2m Surcharge? Layer 1 (0 10m) C u ~ 4 10 kpa Contract t period of 12 months including consolidation and pavement works. 5

Criteria / Concerns LONG TERM CRITERIA Post construction performance ( t = 25 years ): Differential settlement < 1:750 Residual settlement < 40cm Stability : Factor of safety > 1.5 SHORT TERM CONCERNS Stability during construction (most critical) Handover date for turbine & other heavy structures (time constraint) Inadequate local source of fill materials and high price (reduce or eliminate surcharge?) 6

Preparation of Working Platform Encounter slip failures and lateral flows! 7

Design Scheme & Field Implementation Double drain grid design for layer 1 and layer 2 soft clay. Vacuum depressurization at 60 kpa for 7 months Primary Grid : 1 drain per m 2 ISOTROPIC CONSOLIDATION Secondary Grid :1 drain per 2m 2 8

Initial Conditions 9

Pre Engineering Tests 10

Horizontal Drains Connection 11

Installation of Geotechnical Instruments 12

Initial Depressurization Initial depressurization of 0.3 bar (30 kpa) achieved in 3-5 days. Then, proceed with embankment construction. 13

Advanced Stage of Consolidation 14

Settlement Results Settlement: Mean (40) = 2.63m Most critical was embankment remained STABLE! vacuum pumping δs/δt < 0.5mm/day 15

Post Treatment Strength After Before Design 16

Another Proven Record Before Menard Vacuum 1m fill : FS < 1 During Menard Vacuum 4m fill : FS > 1.5 17

1 st Successful Vacuum Project in Thailand Client: EPEC / Consultant: SEATEC / M.Contractor: ABB Alstom 18

1 st Successful Vacuum Project in Thailand Total area treated t by MV: 30,000 000 m2 Drains: Total length of drains: Equipment: Working time: 600,000 m (V+H drains) 4rigs+2vibro 3 months Vacuum: Pumping equipment: Pumping duration: Average total settlement: 15 pumps 7 months 2.65 m Total working time: 10 months 19

Soil Profile 21

Future Caisson Stability Analysis 22

Exhibited Design 23

As built conditions 24

Proposed solution Layer I 15% rock (φ = 45 ) + 85% clay (C u = 50 kpa) Layer II 25

Shear strength mobilised in exhibited design The upper layer I consists of compacted sand fill of 1.3m thick (ϕ = 35 o ; C = 0) and the lower layer II consists of natural undisturbed clay of 1.5m thick (ϕ = 0 o ; C = 250 kn/m 2 ). Assuming an overburden effective stress (σ ) of 275 kn/m 2, we have the following: Layer I: τ = C + σ tan φ = 275 * tan(35 o ) = 192kN / m 2 Layer II: τ = C + σ tan φ = 250kN / m 2 26

Shear strength mobilised for proposed solution The upper layer I consists of compacted rock mat of 1.3m thick with 30% of rock size 150mm to 200mm and 70% of rock size 200mm to 300mm (ϕ = 45 o ; C = 0) and the lower layer II consists of composite rock-clay soil layer of 1.5m thick with an area replacement ratio m = 15%. The rock inclusions with similar grading as above has ϕ r = 45 o (C r = 0) and the surrounding clay soil has C s = 50 kn/m 2 (ϕ s = 0 o ). Taking the same overburden effective stress (σ ) of 275 kn/m 2, we have the following: Case 1: Without considering consolidation effect with no gain in shear strength Layer I: ϕ = 45 o ; C = 0 Layer II: Computation for composite ϕ and C Using equation (7): C = C ( m) + C (1 m) = 50(1 0.15) 42.5kN / m r s = 2 Using equation (10): σ r σ s o tan φ = m tan φ r + (1 m) tan φs = 0.15(2.04) tan 45 + 0 σ σ tan φ = 0.306 ϕ = 17 o (for σ s /σ = 2.04 see calculation on page 8 below) Layer I: Layer II: o τ = C + σ tan φ = 275* tan(45 ) = 275kN / m τ = C + σ tan φ = 42.5 + 275 tan17 o 2 = 127kN / m 2 27

Total shear strength for exhibited design and proposed solution 28

Criteria retained for pounder design A - 35 tons submerged - 175X175 1.75 1.75 meter DR section B Design a stabilisation part that will rest on the side of print and guarantee penetration until stabilising part hits the crater side C Final design with final objective, -penetrating part 1.7 x 1.7 -length of penetration 1.7 m -stabilising part 2.4 x 2.4 m -ironing i i or compaction by turning over the pounder 29

View of pounder construction 33

Caisson construction yard 34

Pontoon PMT Testing 35

View of pounder ready to work 36

GPS Positionning system and grids 37

Quality control screen Liebherr 895 38

Depth of penetration versus number of blows Penetration Vs Blows 2 Penetratio on, m 1.5 Q2 P3 O4 Q4 Q3 P4 1 O6 Q6 Q5 P6 O5 P5 0.5 O3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Blows 39

Danger of offshore pounding V max of pounder measured by radar 8 m/sec V effective reached after 6 m drop 6 m/sec Weight below water 35 tons V = 2gh 36 = 20 h Equivalent drop height 2 m Equivalent Energy: 70 Tm Compaction Depth According to Classical Formula D = 83m 8,3 If δ = 0,5 D = 4,15 m!!! 40

General Set up 43

Testing pontoon 44

View on staff system 45

Self bored slotted tube : first experiment of Menard RETROJET SYSTEM S 46

Actual staff systems 47

Staff dulling equipment 48

Sequences of self boring staff system 49

Actual method for drilling PMT in rock mound (100 mm 300 mm) 51

Empirical determination of friction angle by PMT (Yee & Varaksin method) 2.5 4 28 2 2 * = = C P C P m L m L l l φ φ φ φ 4 24 5 * 2 2 φ P = 7 40 4 * 2 φ P L 2 log log = m C P C L φ l φ = 4 40 * 2 2.12 φ P L = 4 2.5 * 2 P L 52

Reminder of technical solution SITE CONDITION SITE CONDITION Compacted sand fill Compacted ϕ = 35 ο sand fill ϕ = 35 ο undisturbed soil Variance 15% rock thickness (φ = 45 ) soften + soil 15% rock (φ = 45 ) + undisturbed soil Variance 85% 15% clay (C rock thickness u = (C50 u (φ = kpa) 50= soften kpa) 45 ) soil 85% + 15% clay rock (C u (φ = 50= kpa) 45 ) + 85% clay (C u = (C 50 u = kpa) 50 kpa) 85% clay (C u = 50 kpa) Natural undisturbed soil Natural undisturbed soil Natural undisturbed soil Natural undisturbed soil Natural undisturbed soil Natural undisturbed soil Layer I Layer II 53

Preliminary concept Original rock surface before compaction 1.3m φ=45 degree, Ar=15%, C=0kPa, Column Diameter=1.7m 15m 1.5m Cu=50kPa Cu=50kPa Cu=250kPa 54

After compaction actual results Original rock surface before compaction 0.2m 1.3m 1.3m φ=48 degree Ar=22% C=0kPa Column Dia=2.4m φ=40 degree φ=48 degree φ=40 degree Ar=22% Cu=50kPa C=0kPa Column Dia=2.4m Cu=50kPa φ=48 degree Ar=22% C=0kPa Column Dia=2.4m Cu=250kPa 55

Strength of layer I In summary, layer I and layer II shall have the following characteristics. o Layer I : ϕ = 49 o (harmonic mean value); C = 0, m=0.22 (22% of total area) For column Layer I: ϕ = 40 o ; C = 0, m=0.78 (78% of total t area) For in-between bt columns assuming lowest internal friction angle of 40 o. Layer I: Computation for composite ϕ and C C=0 tanφ comp = m tanφ c + (1 m) tanφ oc = 0.22 tan 49 o + 0.78 tan 40 φ comp = 42.2 56

Strength of layer II and total share strength Layer II: Computation for composite ϕ and C C = C ( m ) + C (1 m ) = 50(1 0.22) 39 kn / m r s = 2 σ r σ s o tan φ = m tanφr + (1 m) tanφs = 0.22(1.88) tan 49 + 0 σ σ tan φ = 0.48 ϕ = 25.4 o (for σ s /σ = 1.88) Hence, layer I and layer II shall have the shear strength as below: Layer I: τ = C + σ tanφ = concept =275kN/m 2 ) 275* tan(42.2 o ) = 249kN / m 2 (compared with proposed Layer II: τ = C + σ tanφ = 39 + 275tan 25.4 2 concept = 127kN/m 2 ) o = 170kN / m 2 (compared with proposed 57

Layout of CPT in sand area 59

Results of CPT in sand fill after DC Before Dynamic Compaction After Dynamic Compaction 60

GROUND IMPROVEMENT WORKSHOP 11-12 JUNE 2010 PERTH, AUSTRALIA