Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mitchell 1985
Mitchell 1985
INTRODUCTION
T _ v r -T~V-\
-40 -35 -30 -Z5 -20 ^"
\ SECONDARY \ PRIMARY
\ D SEDIMENTATION SEDIMENTATIONl
\ "
\
100 t 2QO
206
SITE CONDITIONS
MOISTURE DRY
GE0L0SIC DEPTH ENGINEERING CONTENT 0ENSITY SPT
CLASSIFICATION UI.Km.)SYBBOL CLASSIFICATION
(%) (Ib./tuJl) V
ESTUARINE
DEPOSITS
m& SILTY SAND (SM)
SILTYCLAY ( C L l
AND
21
46
95
TO
9
3
CLAYEY S I L T l M L l
-5
'C'u^'if-':-
SANDY SILT IML) 33 85 6
Test from Instal- per design area, in Stone column diam- of stone of stone
num- lation to square load, in square spacing pattern, eter, in column, column,
ber load test feet inches feet In feet inches in feet in feet
(D (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1A 5 2,000 0.14 29.0 5X6 _ +6 -38
2A 8 1,540 0.33 38.7 6 x 6.5 +2.5 -37
3A 5 2,400 0.07 26.5 5x5 +7.5 -27
4A 9 1,580 0.17 32.6 5.5 x 6 +2.5 -34
5A 10 2,830 0.20 18.7 4 X 5.3 -0.5 -29
6A 12 1,220 0.15 47.8 7x7 42 +4.5 -33
7A 8 1,560 0.23 38.5 5.5 x 7 48 +4.0 -40
8A 5 1,670 0.48" 36.4 6x6 +1.5 -40
9A 11 1,200 0.24 38.2 6 x 6.5 40 -0.5 -42
10A 15 1,980 0.13 30.0 5.5 x 5.5 36 +4.5 -38
11A 11 2,400 0.25 25.5 5x5 40 -3.0 -36
12A 9 -1,250 0.24 47.8 radial pattern 38 -4.0 -40
13A iq -1,600 0.12 33.4 radial pattern 32 +4.5 -40
IB 13 2,000 0.11 29.7 5X6 +6.0 -38
2B 33 3,000 0.19 18.7 4X5 -0.5 -41
3B 33 1,540 0.13 38.2 6 x 6.5 47 -0.5 -41
4B 55 1,540 0.08 33.4 5.5 x 6 37 +2.5 -36
5B 30 1,540 0.11 33.4 5.5 x 6 40 +2.5 -34
6B 37 1,600 0.19 38.2 6 X 6.3 38 -1.0 -40
7B 17 1,200 0.07 38.2 6 X 6.5 38 -1.0 -42
8B 42 1,410 0.14 41.7 6.5 x 6.5 45 +4.5 -33
9B 42 2,600 0.12 22.5 4 x 5.75 41 -0.5 -26
10B 16 2,670 0.21 22.5 4.5 x 5 +6.0 -30
11B 26 1,220 0.10 47.8 7X7 +4.5 -38
12B 20 -3,800 0.22 15.6 radial pattern -4.0 -40
2C 5 1,540 0.44 38.7 6 X 6.5 +2.5 -37
8C 9 1,620 0.25 36.4 6X6 42 -1.0 -40
2E 5 1,540 0.19 32.6 5.5 X 6 +2.5 -36
a
Post test excavation disclosed organic, uncompacted trash fill under loading platform.
o.A
I
I? 0.4
210
4, do not account for all the settlement which could have developed for
each load step. Although most of the settlement under a load increment
had taken place by the time the criterion of less than 0.010 in./hr (0.25
mm/hr) settlement before addition of the next load increment was reached,
there was still additional settlement which could occur if each load in-
crement were of longer duration. For example, in Load Test 11B the final
40-ton loading was sustained for just over 113 hr. An additional 25%
settlement was measured after the settlement rate had dropped below
0.010 in./hr (13). The load changing criterion at a settlement rate of 0.010
in./hr or less was arbitrary and was selected to avoid unduly long test-
ing times.
211
FILL
COHESIONLESS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina State University on 12/17/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
. ESTUARINE
DEPOSITS
COHESIONLESS OLDER
MARINE
DEPOSITS
COHESIVE
4
mr A W/T
NOTE: 1 ft.= 0.305 m
t
(j! of Column
cessive rings, each removed 5.75 ft (1.75 m) away from the immediately
interior ring, have thicknesses calculated in a similar manner.
The layering of soil types within the sediments was modeled by al-
ternating horizontal layers of cohesive and cohesionless soils. Although
the thickness of actual soil layers in these deposits varied from a few
inches to several feet across the site, the analysis was done assuming
layers with thicknesses of 3-6 ft (1-2 m) in the estuarine deposits,, and
3-8 ft (1-2.4 m) in the older marine deposits. The relative proportions
of cohesive and cohesionless soil types in the estuarine deposits were
determined during subsurface exploration to be approximately equal;
whereas, the older marine deposits contained approximately 60% more
cohesionless soil than cohesive.
To represent uniform loading across a large area reinforced with stone
columns, the material properties of the concrete loading platform and
212
/ ,_**! ,l6
2J-I5.75I1.)
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
o
o s ? S 1 1
5 d c(
100 s E Z z
C9
g i
N : ' '
"^ :
:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina State University on 12/17/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
i f 80
1:
t r Pi
3=70
>- :
m
60 ; :
j:
EC
Uj50
; i
;
H 40 |:| ; t? ^
F V * '.'?>
' - ^
UJ
H r &.
,"'vl ^ ' 1* !
..'A
:?; ^ P
llj
;gg
,
3 !^ * PI
V'<:
-' ?"- '<^;;:^22J
:
"pss^.i
3C 0 1001 : 10 : 1.0 ' 0.1 i 0.01 0.0133
| GRAIN-SIZE IN MILLIMETERS:
i GRAVEL i SAND
CO SILT
| COARSE j FINE ;C0ARSE: MEDIUM : FINE j
results were used to define soil strength and deformation parameters for
the short-term load test; whereas, the drained test results were used to
estimate long-term settlements under the structural loads.
Consolidated, drained triaxial compression tests were performed on
12-in. (305-m) diameter specimens reconstituted from the gravel used for
the stone columns. The angular to rounded gravel, which was obtained
from the alluvial valleys of the Santa Ynez and Ventura Rivers, had the
range of grain size distributions shown in Fig. 7. Shown also in Fig. 7
are the results of gradation tests done on samples taken from stone col-
umns after construction. The fines were concentrated in annulus at the
perimeter of the column. The strength and stress-deformation charac-
teristics of both gradations were comparable.
Space limitations preclude inclusion of the detailed test results herein;
however, the nonlinear behavior of the in-situ soils and stone column
gravels was approximated well by hyperbolic stress-strain and volume
change parameters determined using the methods of Duncan and Chang
(3). A summary of the properties and deformation parameters for each
of the five soil types is presented in Table 2. The soil parameters listed
in this table were obtained by averaging the results of several triaxial
compression tests for each soil. They are in agreement with parameters
for similar soils published by others (8,14).
214
Dry den-
sity, in Cohesion,
Soil pounds in pounds Friction Plas-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina State University on 12/17/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Undrained Tests
Estuarine
cohesive
Older ma-
rine cohe-
sive 19 31 10 315 0.90
Drained Tests, Stone Column Material
Sandy
gravel 116 390 0.59
(<n - 0-3)/
Failure ratio, Rf. Rf -
( i - *3)uit
In addition to the soil parameters listed in Table 2, a value for the at-
rest earth pressure coefficient, K0, was needed for the finite element
analysis. For the estuarine deposits between stone columns, and for the
stone columns themselves, K0 was assumed to equal 1.0. This relatively
high value was used in consideration of the vibro-compaction stone col-
umn construction process which increases lateral pressures above the
natural in-situ values which existed prior to construction. The at-rest
coefficient was taken as K0 = 0.5 for the older marine deposits, since
stone column construction did not affect these deposits.
215
ment curves from Fig. 4 for these same three spacings are also shown.
The settlements calculated by the finite element analysis generally
overestimate the actual load test settlements somewhat; however, the
agreement is reasonably good. One reason could be that some of the
soil labeled as cohesionless for the finite element analysis, and therefore,
tested under drained conditions in the laboratory testing program, could
have contained enough silt or clay or both to prohibit it from draining
freely during the short-lived field load tests. Another reason could be
the load test procedure which provided for increasing loads once the
settlement rate under a given load had decreased to 0.010 in./hr (0.25
mm/hr). Had longer load increment durations been used, greater set-
tlements would have been recorded.
Settlements Without Stone Columns.To estimate the settlement of
an unimproved site, a finite element analysis was performed on a load
test model similar to the one depicted in Fig. 5, but without stone col-
umns. This was accomplished by changing the material properties of the
stone column elements to correspond to the unreinforced cohesive and
cohesionless native soil layers.
To simulate the native soil conditions existing prior to stone column
placement, a few changes were required in the soil parameters used in
the finite element analysis. Since the density of the cohesionless soils
present in the estuarine deposits increased with the installation of stone
columns, the cohesionless soils had less strength in the native condition
than they had after the stone columns had been placed. This lower
strength was modeled by lowering the modulus number, K, for the
cohesionless estuarine soil from 260 to 220. As there were no undis-
turbed soil samples obtained prior to stone column placement available
for laboratory testing, this reduction in the modulus number was esti-
mated based on a correlation with values for similar soil types presented
^^
N
fc^ N. SS. ^ f H \ \ \ \ V > t > i z - ^
kl 0.2
- ^fii
v*^*^W\r N
Vsr--Nrfi \ \ \ \ \
,20 ft. per stone cotunn
^^5r\\\\\ //ZV// -
s
y^=^3^\\\
% vvv/s^' '%wS
: , -
Y\ ^ww
W/^
0.4 1
33 fir per stone column
Predicted Curve
Predicted Settlement Under Design Load
0.6 i i . i 1 I i 1 I I
216
FIG. 9.Predicted Load-Settlement Behavior for Load Test With and Without Stone
Columns
217
load test, a finite element analysis was done using a K value for the
gravel of 600. The other parameters were kept the same.
The load versus settlement curve calculated with the higher stone col- I
umn modulus is shown on Fig. 10. As can be seen by examining Fig.
10, the effect of increasing the stiffness of the stone column gravel by a
little more than 50% (K increased from 390 to 600), resulted in a reduc-
tion in calculated settlements of approximately 10%. This suggests that
the results are relatively insensitive to the value of K used for the com-
pacted stone, which means that, in practice, it need not be measured to
great precision.
218
220 was used for cohesionless soil in the estuarine deposits, and the at-
rest pressure coefficient was reduced from 1.0 to 0.5. The load versus
settlement curves calculated for uniform loading on the unimproved site
and for the improved stone column foundations are compared in Fig.
12. Both the curves shown were obtained using drained cohesive soil
properties. The settlements with stone columns equal approximately 30%
of the settlements calculated for uniform loading on the unimproved
site. The predicted settlements of uniformly loaded unimproved ground
using the finite element analysis agreed well with the settlement esti-
mates made using conventional settlement analysis methods.
Vertical Stress Distribution.The distribution of vertical stresses among
the stone columns and native soil on horizontal planes beneath the sur-
face was calculated for uniform surface loading on a stone column foun-
dation and drained soil properties. Within the stone column-native soil
system, the vertical stresses from uniform foundation loads are redis-
tributed approximately according to the ratio between the elastic moduli
of the stone column and of the native soil. The resultant ratio between
the vertical stress in the stone column and the vertical stress in the na-
tive soil is called the stress concentration ratio, n.
In the finite element model used in this analysis, the first layer of
elements located beneath the distribution blanket assumed cohesionless
soil. The stress concentration ratio in this layer is approximately 2. The
layer immediately beneath this was modeled as cohesive, and the stress
concentration here is approximately 3. The stress concentration ratios
did not vary appreciably with depth for a given soil type. The difference
15.0
219
MEASURED SETTLEMENTS
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by North Carolina State University on 12/17/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
2.6 1.9
l.0
40.8
"~| 2.4
1.8 < > RECORDED SETTLEMENTS
1976 TO DEC. 1982 (INCHES)
220
same factors.
As noted earlier, K. Engelhardt (personal communication) predicted
from observations on previous projects that the settlement of large loaded
area should be about 10 times greater than that measured under the
design load in a single column load test. As the single column load test
settlements were limited to 0.25 in. (6 mm), a settlement of 2.5 in. (64
mm) would be predicted. ,
Elastic Theory.A pile group/analysis was made based on the elastic
theory approach developed by Poulos (11). This method proceeds from
the condition of an incompressible pile in a homogeneous elastic me-
dium through a series of corrections to account for pile compressibility,
a firmer bearing stratum under the pile, consolidation of the soft soil,
and group effects. This approach led to the prediction that the settle-
ment of a large loaded area should be about 5 to 10 times greater than
that of a loaded single column in a group. When applied to single col-
umn load test results, this gives values of 1.2-2.5 in. (32 to 64 mm).
Reduced Stress Methods.Methods proposed by Priebe (12) and
Aboshi, et al. (1) [summarized by Mitchell, (9)], are based on the concept
that vertical stress concentrations on the stone columns give a reduced
average stress on the soft soil. Important parameters in estimates by
these methods are the stress concentration factor and the stone column
replacement ratio. From field measurement on several projects it has
been determined that the ratio of vertical stress in the stone to that in
the soft ground, is typically in the range of 2-6, with values of 3-4 usual.
Priebe and Aboshi, et al. also present methods for determination of this
factor based on column properties and spacing.
When these methods are applied to the Santa Barbara conditions, it
is found that the settlement of the treated ground should be about one-
third that of the untreated ground, by Priebe's method; whereas, the
Aboshi et al., method should predict 40-50% of the untreated ground
value, depending on the column spacing.
Summary.From the settlement predictions made by the various
methods, including the finite element analysis, it may be seen that the
variation among values predicted is quite small. On the average, it would
appear that a settlement of about 2.4 in. (60 mm) would be anticipated
for areas loaded to the full design value where the soft sediments are
of the order 32-35 ft (10-11 m) thick. This compares with actual values
of 1.0-2.4 in. (25-60 mm) at the site.
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
APPENDIX.REFERENCES
1. Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Harada, K., and Emoki, M., "The Compozer: a
Method to Improve Characteristics of Soft Clays by Inclusion of Large Di-
ameter Sand Column," Collogue Inter, sur le Reinforcement des Sols,
E.N.P.C, Paris, France, 1974, pp. 211-216.
2. Barksdale, R. D., and Bachus, R. C , "Design and Construction of Stone Col-
umns, Volume I," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway
Administration Report No. FHWA/RD-83/026, 1983, p. 210.
3. Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C-Y., "Nonlinear Analysis of Stress and Strain
in Soils," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96,
No. SM5, Sept., 1970.
4. Engelhardt, K., and Golding, H. C , "Field Testing to Evaluate Stone Col-
umn Performance in a Seismic Area," Geotechnique, Vol. 25, No. 1, Mar.,
1975.
5. Greenwood, D. A., "Mechanical Improvement of Soils Below Ground Sur-
face," Proceedings of Conference on Ground Engineering, Institute of Civil En-
gineers, London, 1970, pp. 11-12.
6. Greenwood, D. A., and Kirsch, K., "Specialist Ground Treatment by Vibra-
tory and Dynamic MethodsState of the Art," Advances in Piling and Ground
Treatment for Foundations, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England,
1983.
7. Huber, T. R., "Finite Element Analysis of the Load-Deformation Behavior of
A Vibro-Replacement Stone Column Foundation," thesis presented to the
University of California, at Los Angeles, Calif., in 1978, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Engineering.
8. Kulhawy, F. H., Duncan, J. M., and Seed, H. B., "Finite Element Analysis
of Stresses and Movements in Embankments During Construction,' Report
No. TE 69-4, Office of Research Services, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif., 1969.
9. Mitchell, J. K., "Soil Improvement," State of the Art Report, Proceedings of
the Tenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, Sweden, Vol. 4, 1981, pp. 509-565.
10. Mitchell, J. K., and Huber, T. R., "Stone Column Foundations for a Waste-
water Treatment PlantA Case History," Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 14,
1983, pp. 165-185.
11. Poulos, H. G., "Load Settlement Predictions for Piles and Piers," Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SMD, 1972,
pp. 879-897.
12. Priebe, H., "Abschatung des Stezungoverhaltens eares durch Stopfver-
dichrung vergessenten Baugrundis," Die Bautechnik, 53, H.5.S., 1976, pp. 160-
162.
13. Staal, I., and Engelhardt, K., "Discussion, Ground Treatment by Deep Com-
paction," Institution of Civil Engineers, London, England, 1976, pp. 128-
133.
14. Wong, K. S., and Duncan J. M., "Hyperbolic Stress-Strain Parameters for
Nonlinear Finite Element Analyses of Stress and Movements in Soil Masses,"
Department of Civil Engineering, Institute of Transportation and Traffic En-
gineering, University of California at Berkeley, July, 1974.
223