NUS/GeoSS Seminar Soft Ground Improvement with Preloading

13 May 2011 and Prefabricated Vertical Drain (PVD)

Prof. DENNES T. BERGADO

Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Program
School of Civil Engineering
Asian Institute of Technology
Bangkok, Thailand

1
Selection Flow of Shallow Ground Improvement
Technique

2
Selection Flow of Deep Ground Improvement
Technique Soft Clay Deposit along Bangkok-Chonburi

SOFT CLAY

MEDIUM CLAY
STIFF CLAY

3
Failure of Embankment on Soft Ground Problem of Bridge Approach on Subsiding Ground

4
 Basal Reinforced Piled Embankments Methods of Mixing

p
Transition between non-piled and p
piled ¾ Two methods of mixing: (i) mechanical mixing with
metallic blades, (ii) pressurized/jet mixing.
foundations

5
Mechanism of Soil-Cement Stabilization

Hydration: C3S + H2O = C3S2Hx (hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2

(Primary cementing products) (Hydrated lime)

Hydrolysis: Ca(OH)2 = Ca++ + 2(OH)-

Fundamental Behavior of High Water
Rise of pH (base), hence dissolves the soil silica Content Cement-Admixed Clay
and alumina (acidic) from the clay minerals and
amorphous materials on the surface of clay

Ion Exchange and Flocculation

Definition of high water content clay:
Ca++ + Clay Æ Ca++ exchanged with monovalent ions (K+, Na+)
Pozzolanic reactions: A clay that has a natural water content equal to
with soil silica: Ca++ + 2(OH)- + SiO2 (soil silica) = CSH
(secondary cementing product)
or greater than its liquid limit (LL), or a clay that has
been remolded to a water content equal to or greater
with soil alumina: Ca++ + 2(OH)- + Al2O3 (soil alumina) = CAH th it
than its LL
LL.
(secondary cementing product)

When pH< 12.6, then the following reaction occurs:

C3S2Hx = C3S2Hx (hydrated gel) + Ca(OH)2

6
Why mixing at higher water content? Properties of the Base Clay (Bangkok clay)

Properties Characteristics values

Liquid limit, LL (%) 103
Plastic limit, PL (%) 43
Plasticity index, PI (%) 60
Water content, w (%) 76-84
Liquidity index, LI 0.62
Grain size distribution
Clay (%) 69
Silt (%) 28
Sand (%) 3
Total unit weight (kN/m3) 14.3
Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 7.73
Initial void ratio, eo 2.31
(1) Positioning (2) Penetration (3) Completion (4) Feeding of (5) Completion Color Dark Gray
(Remolding; of penetration cementing Activity 0.87 (Normal)
water added) agent-slurry
(withdrawal) Sensitivity 7.4

7
Unconfined Compression Tests qu versus Cw/Aw Ratio
28 days curing 1000 Curing
A
qu =
1200 * 1200 28 days
Note: = remolding water content 14 days curing 900
1100 14 days
1100 +
1000
= cement content
100-20
UC strenngth, q u (kPa)
1000 800
7 days
BC w / A w
U C strenngth, q u (kPa)

100-15 900
900

gth, qu(kPa)
100-10 700
800 100-5 800 A = f (time, clay
700 130-20 700 600 type, etc.)
130-15 600
600 30% 130-10
500 500 500 = intercept
i t t

UC streng
130-5
400 160-20 400 Δw=30%
400
300 160-15 300 B = f (clay type,
160-10 300
200 160-5 200 etc.) = slope
100 Base clay 100 200
0 0 Cw=ω*+(W/C)Aw
100
00
0.0 05
0.5 10
1.0 15
1.5 20
2.0 25
2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 ω*=remolding
0 water content
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%) 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34
Total clay water/cement content ratio, Cw/Aw

8
 qu versus eot/Aw Ratio 5.5 Remolding
Symbol water content (%) 5.5
5.0 250
Laboratory samples: 5.0
10000 ⎛e ⎞ 4.5 200
7 days curing B⎜⎜ ot ⎟⎟ 160 4.5
Unconfined compresssive strength, qu(kPa)

4.0

V o id r a t io , e
14 days curing ⎝ Aw ⎠
q u = Apa e
130
4.0

V oid ratio, e
28 days curing 100
3.5 Undisturbed
1000 Field samples: 3.5
Intrinsic
28 days curing 3.0
Generated post 3.0
A = intercept (type of 2.5 yield compression line
2.5
admixture) = 10.33 2.0
100 (dimensionless) 2.0
1.5 1.5
B = f (clay type, 1.0 1.0
mineralogy.) = slope
10
qu= exp(-0.046 *eot/Aw) * 1046.46 = -0.046 (Bangkok) 10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
2
R = 0.88 (dimensionless) Effective stress, σv' (kPa) Effective stress, σv' (kPa)
U

1 pa = atmospheric a) 5% Cement content; b) 10% Cement content;

pressure (kPa)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Post-Yield Compression Lines (5% and 10% cement)
Ratio of after-curing void ratio to cement content, eot/Aw (measured values vs. predicted values)

9
 5.5 Remolding
ymbol water content (%)
5.0 250 3.0 ¾ Normalizing parameter
Symbol Cement content
200
4.5 15%

ed void index, I vnc

160
130 2.5 10% Ivnc = (et - et,1600)/Cct
4.0
Void ratio, e

100 8%
3.5 Undisturbed 2.0 5%
Intrinsic where:
3%
3.0 Generated post 1.5 Intrinsic et = void ratio of treated sample at
yield compression line
Fitting curve certain effective stress, σ’v;
2.5 1.0 et1600 = void ratio of treated
2.0 sample at effective stress
0.5 of 1600 kPa for certain
15
1.5

Modifie
cementt content;
t t
0.0 Cct = mean slope of the post-
1.0
-0.5 yield compression line for
10 100 1000 10000 certain cement content.
-1.0 ¾ Fitted curve
Effective stress, σv' (kPa)
10 100 1000 10000 Ivnc= -0.06(logσ'v)3 +0.59(logσ'v)2
c) 15% Cement content; – 2.76(logσ
2 76(logσ’v) + 4.74;
4 74;
100% to 200% remolding water content Effective stress, σv' (kPa)
in similar form of ICL of Burland (1990).
Post-Yield Compression Lines (15% cement) Normalized Post-Yield
(measured values vs. predicted values)
Compression Curves

10
Schematic Diagram for Predicting Compression Line of
Cement Treated Clay (curing time: at least one month) Coefficient of Permeability and Consolidation
¾ eot = initial void ratio
5.5 σvy,1
vy 1
after curing; 6.0 Symbol
y Cement content
6 Symbol
y Cement content
¾ σvy = predicted vertical 5.5 15% 5.5
5.0 10% C=2.5
σvy,2
C=1.5 Undisturbed
yield stress. 5.0 8% 5
eot,1 5%
4.5 ¾ Pre-yield compression 4.5 5% 4.5
8%

oid ratio, e
Intrinsic
4.0

Void ratio, e
4
Void ratio, e

4.0 index Undisturbed 10%

eot,2
3.5 3.5 15%
5.5 e = 0.25Log(Cv) + 3.75
3.5 5.0
3.0 3
Void ratio after curing, eot 25
2.5 25
2.5
30
3.0

Vo

V
45
4.5 e = 2.0Log(C
2 0L (Cv) + 2.0
20
4.0 2.0 2
2.5 3.5 1.5
e = 1.2Log(k) + 2.0
1.5
Post-yield compression 3.0 1.0 e = 1.2Log(k) + C
2.0 line for particular cement Note: k x 10-10 m/s 1
2.5 Increasing 0.5 0.5
1.5 content 2.0 20%
1.5 Aw 15%
10% 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 0.1 1 10 100 1000
1.0 1.0
5%
Cement content,
content Aw Permeability kv (x10-10m/s)
Permeability, 2
0.5 Coeff. of consolidation, Cv (m /yr)
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000

Effective stress, σv' (kPa) Vertical yield stress, σvy (kPa)

11
Correlations between σvy and qu of Cement-Treated Summary:
Bangkok Clay and Ariake Clay Prediction of Strength and Compressibility
2000 σvy= 1.4qu(kPa) R2= 0.9849 10000

Unconfined ccompressive strength, q u,,t(kPa)

1800
Bangkok clay, 28 days curing
5.5
σvy,1
Lorenzo and Bergado (2005) 50
5.0
σvy,2
Vertical yield stress, σvy' (kPa)

4.5 eot,1
1600 1000

Void ratio, e
4.0 eot,2
1400
3.5
1200 100
3.0
1000 2.5
Lab. samples
Lab Post-yield compression
10 20
2.0
800 σvy= 1.27qu(kPa) Field samples line for particular cement
Kamon and Bergado (1991) qu= exp(-0.046 *eot/Aw) * 1046.46 1.5 content
600 Ariake clay 2
R = 0.88 1.0
1
400 10 100 1000 1
0 20 40 60 80 100
200 Test data, 28 days
Ratio of void ratio after curing to cement content, eot/Aw Effective stress, σv' (kPa
0 Unconfined compression 1-Dimensional compression
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Two parameters: (1) after-curing void ratio, eot,
Unconfined compressive strength, qu(kPa)
(2) cement content, Aw

12
Method of predicting after-curing void ratio, eot Empirical relationship of after-curing void ratio, eot

⎡ ⎛ ⎛ 100 ⎞⎛ A ⎞
0.0807 ⎞⎤

(1 + ω t )G s,t γ w ⎢⎛⎜ 1 + Cw G ⎞⎟⎜ ⎜⎜

⎢⎜ 100 so ⎟⎜ ⎝ Cw
− 0.012Aw − 0.012Log(t ) + 0.99⎟⎟⎜1 − w ⎟
⎠⎝ 100 ⎠
⎟⎥
⎟⎥
e ot = −1 eot = ⎢
⎜ 100
⎢⎜
⎟⎜
+ 1 ⎟⎜
0.0025Aw + 0.01Log(t ) + 1.008
⎟⎥ −1
⎟⎥
γt ⎢⎝ Cw
⎣
⎠⎜⎝ ⎟⎥
⎠⎦

ωt = after-curing water content of treated soil after

Parameters needed:
‘t‘ curing time (in decimal);
Gs,t = after-curing specific gravity of the treated soil 1) Specific gravity of the base clay, Gso
(dimensionless); 2) Cement content, Aw (%)
γt = after-curingg unit weight
g of the treated soil
(kN/m3); 3) Total mixing water content, Cw (%)
γw = unit weight of water (kN/m3). 4) Curing time, t (days)

13
Predicted vs. Measured After-Curing Void Ratio, eot
(data obtained from the succeeding tests) Consolidated-Undrained Test (p’c=100 kPa)

4 1400 CIU (p'c= 100 kPa) eot/Aw 250 CIU (p'c= 100 kPa) eot/Aw
1300

a)
28 days curing 28 days curing 9

water pressure, ue(kPa

D
Data 1200
9
20
200 20
22
1100 22

Deviattor stress, q (kPa)

45-degree line 23
3.5 1000 23 150 32
32 33
900 33
100 37
800 37 46
46 47
Predictted eot

3 700 47 50 50
600 50
Base
Base

Excess porew
500 0 clay
clay
400
-50
2.5 300
200
-100
100
0 -150
2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Shear strain (%) Shear strain (%)

1.5 Deviator stress Excess porewater pressure

1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Characterization of behavior by eot/Aw ratio
Measured eot

14
 Effect of Mixing Clay Water Content on the
Optimum Mixing Water Content Unconfined Compression

kPa)
kPa)
Optimum mixing water content (Cw,opt) is the 1200 1200

Unconfined comprressive strength, qu(k

essive strength, qu(k

28 days curing Clay Water Content 28 days
d curing
i Clay Water Content
1100 10% cement content Remolding Total 1100 15 cement content Remolding Total
total clay water content (or mixing water 1000 100
130
106%
136%
1000 100
130
109%
139%
900 900
content) of the clay-water-cement mixture that 800
160
80
166%
83% 800
160
80
169%
84%
corresponds to the highest possible 700 700
600 600
improvement in strength of cured cement
cement-

Unconfined compre
500 500
admixed clay at a given cement content. 400
300
400
300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Axial strain (%) Axial strain (%)

10% Cement content 15% Cement content

15
Effect of Mixing Clay Water Content on the
1-Dimensional Compression Conceptual diagram of optimum water content

4.0 28 days
y curing
g Clay Water Content 4.0 28 days
y curing
g Clay Water Content
10% cement content 15% cement content
Boundary of P
Pozzolanic
l i products
d t Unmixed cement
Remolding Total Remolding Total double layer water Water Air space
3.5 160 166% 3.5 160 169% Air space
130 136% 130 139% Water
100 106% 100 109% clay
3.0 80 83% 3.0 80 84%
Vo id ratio, e

Vo id ratio, e

mineral Clay
mineral clay Clay Clay
2.5 2.5 mineral clay mineral mineral
mineral

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5
clay clay
mineral mineral Clay mineral
1.0 1.0
10 100 1000 10000 10 100 1000 10000
stress σv' (kPa)
Effective stress, Effective
Eff ti stress,
t σv' (kPa)
(kP ) c) Optimum water
a) Untreated clay b) High water content d) Low water content
(cement-admixed) content (cement-admixed)
(10% Cement) (15% Cement) (cement-admixed)

16
 Full-Scale Embankment on DMM Piles
Strength Curve and Optimum Mixing Water Content (Jet mixing method)
All data points corresponding to
Cw/LL=0.8 are extracted from
Uddin (1995) Why y Cw/LL?
Cw/LL =1.0 To account for the
1100
THE SITE
nfined compression sttrength, qu (kPa)

Cw/LL =1.10
effect of varying
1000 Cement liquid limits from
900 content different types of
10%
800 15% clay.
20%
700 20%, data from
600 Soralump (1996)

500
400
300
Uncon

200
28 days curing time
100
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Ratio of total clay water content to liquid limit of base clay, Cw/LL

17
 Soil Profile at the Site (Improved by DMM)
3
Jet Mixing Machine
Unit weight (kN/m )
12 14 16 18 20
0
Clay backfill
-1

-2 Weathered clay

-3

-4
Depth (m)

-5
Soft clay
-6

-7

-8

-9 P'o P'max
PL wN LL
Unit weight
¾ Jet pressure = 200 Bars = 20 MPa
-10 Medium stiff clay Gs

-11
2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 20 40 60 80 100120 0 20 40 60 80 0 50 100 150 200 0
Gs PL, wN, LL Corrected Su(kPa) P' oand P'max (kPa)
0.2 0.4
CR
0.6 0 0.04
RR
0.08 ¾ Water flow rate (forward) = 110 liters/min
from Vane Sheat Test
¾ Cement content = 150 kg/(m3 of soil)

18
Plan View and Layout of DMM Piles Front Elevation and DMM Pile Penetration

19
 Section thru Center Line
17m 6m 6m 6m 14.5m 2m 1.5m Strength Properties of DMM Piles
4m 0
HEXAGONAL WIRE
DUMMY REINFORCEMENT FOR
Clay backfill
MESH REINFORCEMENT -1
FIELD PULL
PULL-OUT
OUT TEST
EXTENSOMETER WIRES -2 Weathered clay
VERTICAL PRE-CAST
CONCRETE FACING WELL COMPACTED -3 Typical
AYUTHAYA SAND
6m

deep mixing pile

BACKFILL -4
EXTENSOMETER

pth (m)
PIEZOMETERS SETTLEMENT
REFERENCE PIEZOMETER SUPPORT -5
BOARD REFERENCE
Soft clay
y

Dep
S5/S1 S6/S2 S7/S3 S8/S4 -6
1.5m CLAY BACKFILL
3m

P6 P7 P8
1m WEATHERED CRUST -7
3m
P1-P5 DS1 DS2 DS3
-8
3m
9m

P6 P7 P8 -9
6m SOFT CLAY
P1-P5 DS6 DS7 DS8
-10 Medium stiff clay
8m P6 P7 P8
P1-P5 -11
NOTE: PLEASE SEE THE 6 @ 1.5m = 9m 2m 1m MEDIUM STIFF CLAY 300 600 900 1200 1500 40000 60000 80000 100000
PLAN VIEW FOR DETAILS Unconfined compression strength, qu Modulus of elasticity, Eu50,p
OF THE LOCATION OF OTHER 0.5 m DIAMETER SOIL- CEMENT
INTRUMENTATION POINTS PILES AT 1.5 m SPACING (kPa) (kPa)
IN SQUARE PATTERN
15 m depth

20
Properties of DMM Piles (cont’d) The Finished 6m High Reinforced Embankment

¾ After-curing wet unit weight = 1.30 t/m3

¾ After-curing dry unit weight = 0.50 t/m3
¾ After-curing specific gravity = 2.65
¾ Therefore,
z after-curing water content = 160%
z After-curing void ratio = 4.0 (almost twice that of the base
clay)
¾ Coef. of permeability, kv = 150~200x10-10m/sec (15 to 20
times that of base clay)
¾ C
Coef.
f off consolidation,
lid ti 200 400 m2/yr
cv = 200~400 / (100~200
(100 200
times that of base clay)

21
 Surface Settlement
(hollow symbol= “on clay”; solid = “on pile”) Measured Lateral Displacement Profiles
374227 122 63 30 15
Fill height (m)

Time (days) 6
8
5
6
4 4 REINFORCED EMBANKMENT
(SEE DETAIL)
2 3
0 2
3
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 1
Unit weight (kN/m )
12 14 16 18 20
Time (Days) 0 0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 300 200 100 0 -1 -1
Clay backfill

0 Lateral movement (mm)

-2 -2 Weathered clay
S1 S2
50 S5 S6 -3 -3
S10 S11 -4 -4
ement (mm)

100 S14 S15

Depth (m)
-5 -5
Soft clay
150
-6 -6
200 -7 -7
Settle

250 Sp (ave.) =325mm -8 -8

300 (improved ground) -9 -9

Unit weight
PL wN LL
-10 -10 Medium stiff clay Gs
350
Sp =1200mm -11 -11
400 (Untreated ground) 2.6 2.65 2.7 2.75 2.8 20 40 60 80 100120 0 20 40 60 80
Gs PL, wN, LL Corrected Su(kPa)
Compression and Consolidation Mechanisms of DM Improved Ground from Vane Sheat Test
5/20/2011 44

22
Steel-Grid MSE Embankment on Unimproved Soft Steel-Grid Reinforced Embankment on
Clay Foundation Unimproved Ground

Soil Profile at the Site

23
Comparison of Lateral Displacement Profiles Comparison of Surface Settlements
(with and without jet grouted piles) (with and without jet grouted piles)
Wall face
6
5
4
EMBANKMENT
3
2 Lateral movement (mm) 0
1 0 100 200 300 400 500 100
200
0 300

mm)
-1 Backfill/
400

urface settlement (m
Weathered clay
y
-2
2 500
Depth (m)

-3 600
-4 700
-5 Soft clay 800
-6 900
1000
-7
1100
-8 1200 With deep mixing piles (TEDM), after construction

Su
-9
9 1300 With deep mixing piles (TEDM), 1 year after construction
-10 Medium to Stiff Clay 1400 No improvement (TEU), after construction
-11 1500 No improvement (TEU), 1 year after construction
With deep mixing piles (TEDM), after construction 1600
-12
With deep mixing piles (TEDM), 7 months after construction
-13
No improvement (TEU), after construction 0 5 10 15 20
-14 No improvement (TEU), 7 months after construction
Horizontal distance (m)

24
Analytical Model of Deep Mixing Improved Ground
S S
deep mixing piles
Typical Unit Cell of DMM Pile

er than "B"
This side is assume
Pore pressure, u
S Unit cell

to be longe
S

ZONE 1 zo
B
q (average applied load) Lneg
O
Load transfer unit Initial pore pressure, u ((kPa)) Lp DMM
pile
il

Lneg- zo
Zone 1 zo
ZONE 2 Lp- zo

Actual piezom
O Neutral line
Lp
Unit cell Δσvdd,neu
Actuall peizom

Hyd

Zone 2

z etric pressure
Δσvdd,bot
rosta
Depth, z (m)

tic p

De
etric

1
e ssr

Hyd
Zone of high stress concentration Zone 3a zbot
pressure

zbot 2 Δσvdd,3
ure

ZONE 3

Depth, z
Relatively Compressible Layer

rost
Zone 3b
Zone average applied loading governs

atic
Compression and Consolidation Mechanisms of DM Improved Ground
Considered Incompressible Layer 5/20/2011
Harder Stratum 50

25
 Interaction Mechanism - Short term
q (average)
Δσp Immediate Settlement
Δ hi,p
Δ h1
Δσs Δh 1 mr
q(m r ) =
Δσ p = ⎛ q ⎞ a (m r ) + (1 − a )
a (m r ) + (1 − a ) Lp ⎜ ⎟
⎜ E u ,p ⎟
Lp Soil DMM Soil Soil DMM Soil ⎝ ⎠
Pile Pile 2
Δσs =
q ⎛ ⎞
a (m r ) + (1 − a ) ⎜ ⎟
⎜ 1 ⎟
,
E u ,p 1+ mr ⎜ ⎟
Δ h2
mr = ⎜ ⎛
1 bot ⎟ ⎟
z ⎞
⎜⎜ 1 + ⎜⎜
zbot Compressible
E u ,s ⎟
Δh 2 ⎝ 2 ⎝ d p ⎟⎠ ⎟⎠
2 =
⎛ dp
a = ⎜⎜
⎞
⎟ ⎛ q ⎞ a (m r ) + (1 − a )
⎟ z bot ⎜ ⎟
⎝ De ⎠ ⎜E ⎟
dp
dp
⎝ u ,bot ⎠
De De

Initial condition After immediate settlement

26
 Longterm Settlement of Single DMM Pile
Interaction Mechanism - Longterm Average applied loading, q
Δσp Original ground level
After immediate settlement
Δhi,p
δp,bot
Δσs Pore pressure, u
δp,t δp,σ Probable settlement (initial/ after consolidation)
δp,σn δp,pn profile
δp,dd
z

z Fnz
Lneg<= Lp ZONE 1 zo

Lp dz
O
DMM
Fnz pile
Neutral line Fnz+ d(Fnz)
ZONE 2 Lp- zo

Normal stress on DMM

pile induced by
p y the Top surface of Zone 3

Ac

Hydro
ctual piezometric pressure
1
2 down-drag force of the Top surface of Zone 3

s
zbot/2

tatic p
σp,bot (ave) surrounding soil after compression
zbot

Depth, z

res
De

sure
σpb zbot/2 ZONE 3

Harder Stratum

27
Consolidation Settlements Consolidation Settlements (cont’d)
1. From applied loading and down-drag force 3. From the effect of piezometric drawdown
due to local differential settlement a) Overestimation of consolidation settlement
⎡ ⎛ ΔH i ⎞ ⎤ due to underestimation of initial overburden
⎢ Δσ pi + 4β i ⎜ ⎟(σ' vo,i + Δσ s )⎥
n ⎛ C rp ⎞ ⎢ ⎜ dp ⎟ ⎥ effective stress (Log function always negative).
δ p,σn = ∑ ⎜⎜ ⎟(ΔH i )Log ⎢1 + ⎝ ⎠
⎥
(δp,dd )Δσ = ⎛⎜⎜ 1 +Crpe ⎞⎟⎟(Lp − z o )Log⎢ (σσ''vo (+σΔ'voσ+)Δ(σσ'vdd+,aveΔσ+ Δσp ))⎥
+ ⎟ σ
i =1 ⎝ 1 e ot ⎠ ⎢ ' vo p ,i ⎥ ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎝ ot ⎠ ⎢⎣ vo p vo vdd ,ave ⎦⎥
2. From the compression of bottom soil
b) Increment of consolidation settlement due to
⎛ z ⎞⎡ ⎛ σ' vf ,bot ⎞⎤
δ p,bot = ⎜ bot ⎟⎢Cr,bot Log⎜ ⎟⎥ for σ’vf, bot ≤ σ’v,max ( increment of effective stress (downdrag force)
⎜1+ e ⎟ ⎜ σ' ⎟
⎝ o,bot ⎠⎢⎣ ⎝ vo,ave ⎠⎥⎦ ⎡ 2β ave
⎢ (
(Δσ vdd,neu ) L neg − z o )⎤⎥
⎛ C rp ⎞
⎛ z ⎞⎡ ⎛ σ' ⎞ ⎛ σ' vf ,bot ⎞⎤ (δ p,dd )neg = ⎜⎜ ⎟ (
⎟ L neg ) ⎢
− z o Log 1 +
⎢
dp
⎥
⎥
δ p,bot = ⎜ bot ⎟⎢Cr,bot Log⎜ v max ⎟ + Cc,bot Log⎜⎜ ⎟⎟⎥ for σ’vf, bot > σ’v,max ⎝ 1 + e ot ⎠ 1
σ' vo,neu + Δσ vdd,neu
⎜1+ e ⎟ ⎜ σ' ⎟ ⎢ ⎥
⎝ o,bot ⎠⎣⎢ ⎝ vo,ave ⎠ ⎝ σ' v max ⎠⎦⎥ ⎣ 2 ⎦

28
Governing Equation for the Consolidation of Deep Time Factors for DMM Improved Ground
Mixing Improved Ground (Lorenzo and Bergado, 2003) (after Lorenzo and Bergado, 2003)
Equal stress condition:
⎡⎛ ∂ u up ⎞ ⎛ m ⎞⎛ C ⎞ ⎛ ∂ u ⎞⎤
⎢⎜⎜
∂
( ⎜ ⎟
) ∂
⎛ ∂ 2 u up ⎞
⎟⎟ + n 2 − 1 ⎜ v,c ⎟⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟ ⎜⎜ c ⎟⎟⎥ = c v,p ⎜
⎜ ∂ 2 ⎟
⎟ ⎛
⎜ ⎛ m v,p
⎜
⎞
⎟
⎞
⎟
⎣⎢⎝ ⎠ ⎝ v,p ⎠⎝ s ⎠ p ⎝ ⎠⎥⎦
t m C t ⎝ z ⎠ ⎜ ⎜m ⎟ ⎟ ⎛ c v,p t ⎞
T v, σ =⎜ ⎝ v,c ⎠ ⎟⎜ ⎟
⎜ ⎛ m v,p ⎞ ⎟ ⎜⎝ H p 2 ⎟
(Cc/Cs)p = is the ratio of the compression and swelling indices
of the pile at loading condition; ⎜⎜ ⎜⎜ ⎟
( ⎛
⎟ + n2 −1 ⎜ Cc
⎜ ) ⎞
⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
⎠
k v, p
m vc
⎝ ⎝ v,c ⎠ ⎝ Cs ⎠p ⎠
m v, p = = coefficient of volume change of the pile;
c v, p γ w Equal strain condition:
⎛ ⎞
k h ,c k v, c ⎜ ⎟
m v, c = ≈ = coeff. of volume change of adjacent clay; ⎜ ⎟ ⎛ c v,p ⎞
ch ,c γ w c v, c γ w vp t
⎟⎜ ⎟
1
T v, ε = ⎜
⎟ ⎜⎝ H p ⎟
( )⎛⎜⎜ CC ⎞ 2
cv,p ; cv,c= coefficient of consolidation of the pile and clay, respectively; ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎠
⎜1+ n −1
2 c
kv,p ; kv,c= coefficient of permeability of the pile and clay, respectively; ⎟
n = De/dp ⎝ ⎝ s ⎠p ⎠

29
 Projection of Elastic and Consolidation Settlements and
Calculation of Settlement vs. Time Plot Back-Calculation of Consolidation Properties

During staged construction: 0 0.4 0.8 1.2

⎛ Δh ⎞ ⎛ ΔH ⎞ 0
St i +1 = St i + Se ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + Sc ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ (α σ U σ + α ε U ε )Δt = t − > t
i +1
⎝ H total ⎠ t i − > t i +1 ⎝ H total ⎠ t i +1
i
100

200 too low Sc, too high Cv

After the end of staged construction:
[ ( )]
St = St =end + Sc − St =end − Se (ασUσ + αε Uε )Δt =from end 300 good Sc and Cv
400
¾ Se = elastic settlement; Sc = consolidation 500
settlement. These are to be adjusted by trial good Sc; too high Cv
until good agreement between the measured 600
and projected settlement time plot is obtained. too high Sc; to low Cv

30
Back-analysis of Wangnoi Embankment Back-analysis of Wangnoi Embankment:
Surface Settlement (S1 vs. S5) Deep Settlement at 3.0m Depth
8 Measured paramaters: 8 Measured paramaters:

Fill heigght (m)

Fill heigght (m)

6 Clay: 6 Clay:
4 ¾ Cvc = 1~3
1 3 m2/yr
/ 4 ¾ Cvc = 1~3 m2/yr
2 ¾ Kvc = 3~6 x 10-10 m/s 2 ¾ Kvc = 3~6 x 10-10 m/s
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 DMM: 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 DMM:
¾ Cvp(lab)=200-400 m2/yr ¾ Cvp(lab)=200-400 m2/yr
Time (Years) ¾ Kvp (lab) =150-200 x Time (Years)
¾ Kvp (lab) =150-200 x
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
10-10 m/s 10-10 m/s
0 0
Immediate (mm) = 112 (S1); 158 (S5) Immediate (mm) = 83
100 Consolidation (mm) = 285 (S1); 328 (S5) Back-analyzed: 100 Consolidation (mm) = 220 Back-analyzed:
¾ Cvp, back = 800 m2/yr ¾ Cvp, back = 800 m2/yr
Settlement (mm)

200

Settlement (mm)
300 ¾ Kv,p/Kvc =40 200 ¾ Kv,p/Kvc =40
400 (mv,p/mvc =0.10) 300
(mv,p/mvc =0.10)
Field monitoring, S5, on clay
500 Field monitoring, S1, on pile ¾ Best fit: 80% equal ¾ Best fit: 80% equal
Sand drain technique, on pile strain; 20% equal stress. 400 Field monitoring, DS2 strain; 20% equal
600 Hansbo technique
technique,on
on pile Field
e d monitoring,
o to g, DS5 S5 at 3 m depth
stress
stress.
700 Lorenzo and Bergado (2003), on pile S5 S1 500 Hansbo technique DS2 DS5
Lorenzo and Bergado (2003), on clay Lorenzo and Bergado (2003)
800
600
Immediate (mm) = 112 (S1); 158 (S5)
Consolidation (mm) = 285 (S1); 328 (S5)

31
Back-analysis of Wangnoi Embankment
Deep Settlement at 6.0m Depth
Measured paramaters:
Total Settlement and Downdrag Skin
8
ht (m)

6 Clay:
Friction
Fill heigh

4 ¾ Cvc = 1~3 m2/yr

2 ¾ Kvc = 3~6 x 10-10 m/s
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
DMM:
¾ Cvp(lab)=200-400 m2/yr
Time (Years) ¾ Kvp (lab) =150-200 x
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 10-10 m/s Back-Analysis of:
0
Immediate (mm) = 31
Consolidation (mm) = 76
Back-analyzed: z Elastic Modulus, Eup, Eus
50 ¾ Cvp, back = 800 m2/yr
z Negative Skin Friction Parameter, β
Settlement (mm)

100 ¾ Kv,p/Kvc =40

(mv,p/mvc =0.10)
150
¾ Best fit: 80% equal z Netral Axis Location
200
Field monitoring, DS7 strain; 20% equal
Field monitoring,
monitoring DS10 at 6 m depth
stress
stress.
S

Hansbo technique DS7 DS10

250
Lorenzo and Bergado (2003)
300

32
Back-Calculation of Elastic Modulus of DMM Pile Back-Calculation of Negative Skin Friction
and of Clay (cont’d) Parameter β and Neutral Axis Location

Elastic settlement
Settlement (m) Settlement (m) Total settlement, DMM pile
0 02
0.2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8 0 0.2
0 2 04
0.4 06
0.6 08
0.8
Total settlement, clay Total settlement, clay
0 0
Eclay=trial; Epile=high
1 Eclay=trial; Epile= low
1 DMM pile settlement, βave=0
2 Eclay=trial; Epile= good 2
DMM pile settlement, low βave
3 Increase Eclay (trial); reduce Epile
3
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
DMM pile settlement, good
4 4 βave
Good Eclay and Epile
5 5
reduce Eclay (trial); increase Epile DMM pile settlement, high βave
6 6
7 DMM pile 7 DMM pile
8 On pile, measured 8 On pile, measured

9 On clay, measured 9 On clay, measured

10 10

33
Settlement w/ Depth without and with Downdrag Numerical Study: Effect of DMM pile spacing on
Skin Friction (S2 vs. S6) the mobilized negative skin friction

Settlement (m) Settlement (m) Stress (kPa)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
0
0 0
Spacing β
1 1 1
(m)
2 2
2 1.5 0.10
3 3
3
m)
m)

4 4
Depth (m
Depth (m

1 75
1.75 0 13
0.13
5 5

Depth (m)
4
S6 S2

6 6 2.0 0.15
5
7 DMM pile 7 DMM pile
Adjacent soil Adjacent soil 6
8 8
On pile, measured On pile, measured
9 9 7
O clay,
On l measured d O clay,
On l measured d
10 10
8
a) β = 0 b) β = 0.101
9
Back-analyzed: Eup = 75,000 kPa; Eus = 3,600 kPa 1.5 m spacing 1.75 m spacing 2.0 m spacing
β=0.101; Neutral line = 4.0m

34
Suggested Scheme of Deep Mixing Installation for
Bridge Approach Embankment on Soft Clay Ground Problems in DCM Pile
Effective length of improved section, Le

Lc= Le/2 Ls= Le/2

Approach slab Design crown level

Vertical crest curve
Bridge Anticipated total settlement
PVC
of the improved section
G1
S1 Vertical sag curve
S2 Existing ground level
PRVC
Variability of shear strength
Estimated crown level after
20 years, for no soil improvement So
EMBANKMENT Shear strength
g is not uniform
Anticipated crown level after primary G2
PVT
consolidation (with soil improvement) P3 Many weak zones such as joints
Weathered Crust

0.5m diameter DMM piles

Spacing:
Low strength and stiffness
S=0.50m The unexpected failure modes often happened
S=1.0m
S=1.5m SOFT CLAY y g capacity
Lower carrying p y and excessive settlement.
P2 Parabolic curve
The failure of DCM pile usually occurs before its shaft
resistance and tip resistance are fully mobilized
P1
x Ls/2 = Le/4 MEDIUM STIFF CLAY
5/20/2011 Lc=Compression
Le/2 Compression
and Consolidation
mechanism
Mechanisms
of deep mixing
of DM Improved
pile ... Ground 69

35
 Field Pile Load Test of DCM Piles in Soft Clay

Petchgate et al. (2003) Expected Su ≥ 30 t/m2 (soil failure)

Cement = 225kg/m3 Qu(pile fail) = 14 tons
Qu(soil fail) = 10 tons (controls)
W/C=1.1/1

0.0
Undrained Shear Strength
1.0 Backfill Clay
0
2
20 (t/m ) 40 60 16
Piles fail Soil fail
0
max. load in case of ppile failure
Weathered Clay 14
PL1
2.5 PL2 12 measured max. load

L o a d (to n )
PL3
10
1 PL4
PL5 8
PL6
6
Soft Clay 2
4
2
Su = 1.6 t/m2

Deptth (m)
0
DCM pile ∅0.5m 1 2 3 4 5 6
Fig 1 Low quality of DCM piles on Soft Bangkok Clay (Petchgate et al
Fig. al., 2003)
3

6.0
4 Bearing
9.0
capacity
5

Medium Stiff Clay

6

36
 The Suwanaphum
Application of DCM Pile as Retaining Wall Drainage Canal
DCM pile can maintain compressive stress and resist
shear stress but cannot resist flexural stress
DCM pile has low flexural and tensile strength

Large movement
Excavation

+9.00 Project area

+3.50 Reservoir

+1.00

37
 The Suwanaphum Drainage Canal
Aim to solve the flood problem in this area.
SCC has a diameter 0.60 m.

FLOW
To collect flood water to the sea

Composed of 9 SCC columns reinforce of road, 1.75x1.50 spacing in

square pattern and group of 7 columns at toe of the slope

38
Soil mass slumped down in unimproved 9 August 2007
area ระดับ +1.0 รทก.

ระดับ -3.3 รทก.

5
ม.

ระดับ +2.2
ระดับ +1.0 รทก.
ระดับ -1.8 ระดับ -2.3 รทก.
ระดับ -3.3
ระดบ
รทก. 33 รทก.
รทก.

39
DCM and SDCM Construction of Deep Mixing Piles
DCM Pile ADCM Acore 2.0 m spacing
p g in square
q p
pattern
Variability
V i bilit off shear
h strength
t th a jet pressure of 22 MPa
Low strength and stiffness DDCM = 0.6 m, LDCM=7.0 m.
Aw = 150 kg/m3of soil
SDCM Pile
Composite pile

Lcore
Insertion of a precast concrete
LDCM
-1.0 Excavation Weathered crust

core pile -2.0

Increase bearing capacity Ø0.6m-SDCM pile Ø0.6m-DCM pile

Increase lateral resistance Prestressed concrete

pile varying section
Soft clay
areas and d llengths
th

Reduce deformation
DCM SDCM -8.0 -8.0
Area ratio = Acore/ADCM Medium stiff clay
-10.0
Length ratio = Lcore/LDCM Stiff clay

40
Construction of SDCM Piles Full Scale Load Test

Insertion of p
prestressed concrete p
pile.
No pushing force due to very low fiction 0.18

Curing time in-situ for 80 days. Concrete fc’=35MPa

8–Ø4mm stands
fy=1750 MPa
Ø3mm stirrups
spacing varied

0.22

Concrete fc = 35MPa

8–Ø4mm stands
fy=1750 MPa

Ø3mm stirrups
spacing varied

41
Arrangement of Full Scale Pile Load Test
(Shinwuttiwong, 2007; Jamsawang, 2008) Full Scale Test
0
Weathered crust
6.00 m 4.00 m 6 00 m
6.00 4 00 m
4.00 1

DCM pile
4

epth(m)
5 Soft clay

D
De
6

0.22 m. Core 0.18 m. Core 7

8
10 piles for Compression test Coring-1 Coring-1
Coring-2
9 Medium stiff clay Coring-2
10 p
piles for Lateral load test Coring-3 Coring-3
10
3 piles for coring 0 1000 2000 0 100000 200000
Diameter = 0.60 m Unconfined compressive Modulus of elasticity
strength, qu(kPa) E50(kPa)

Engineering properties of DCM coring

42
 UC Test results of Cement-Admixed Clay Axial compression piles

1000 10000 Curing time Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete

28 Cases
7 days ( Lorenzo and Bergado, 2004) boxes boxes boxes boxes boxes
14 days ( Lorenzo and Bergado, 2004)
900
Different core size:
Unconfined compreessive strength (kPa)

Unconfined compresssive strength, qu (kPa) 28 days ( Lorenzo and Bergado, 2004)

28 days (This study)
800 Aw=20%

700
Aw=15%
Aw=10%
1000 Steel sheets
0.18, 0.22, 0.26, 0.30
600 m.
500 100 U
Upper cross b
beams

400 Support beams Reaction beam Support beams Different length:

Lower cross beams
300
10
q u = exp(-0.046*eot/Aw )*1046.46
Concrete box
supports GL.
Ball bearing
Proving ring
Concrete box
supports
1.00, 2.00, 3.00, 4.00,
200
Hydraulic jack
Dial gage
5.00, 6.00, 7.00 m.
100 Reference
beam
Steel test plate
0 1

0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 Prestressed concrete pile

Axial strain (%) Ratio of after-curing void ration to cement content, e ot/Aw Test SDCM pile

Effects of cement content on unconfined compressive strength. Based on the tangent

method by Butler and
Hoy (1977).

43
Axial compression piles Full Scale Load Test

Axial compression load (kN)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0

10

20

1.00
0
Settlement (mm)

0.00 Qu
30 -1.00

1.00
Weathered SDCM-C1(0.22x0.22x6.0)
-2.00 crust SDCM-C2(0.22x0.22x6.0)
SDCM-C3(0.18x0.18x6.0)
SDCM-C4(0.18x0.18x6.0)
40 SDCM-C5(0.22x0.22x4.0)

00
y
Soft clay SDCM-C6(0.22x0.22x4.0)

1.0
SDCM-C7(0.18x0.18x4.0)
SDCM-C8(0.18x0.18x4.0)
DCM-C1
50
DCM-C2
-8.00
Medium stiff clay
-10.00
Stiff clay
60

Pull out test

44
 Full Scale-Pullout Test Results
Full Scale Pile Load Test
Number Concrete core pile Maximum Interface shear
2.5 Size L Surface area tensile strength
0.00
Tu (mxm) (m) (m2) load (kPa)
(kN)
-1.00 P1 0.22x0.22 1.0 0.88 165 188
Excavated
ement (mm)

2 -2.00 level P2 0.22x0.22 1.0 0.88 155 176

-3.00 P3 0.18x0.18 1.0 0.72 135 188
P4 0.18x0.18 1.0 0.72 120 167
Soft clay
1.5 300

= τinterface(average)/csoil
Vertical displace

Pullout load

Rinter Dead load

250

ear strength, τinter (kPa)

-8.00 =179/450 DCM pile
1 Medium stiff clay Concrete
-10.00 = 0.40 is within the range of 200 core

100 mm

τinter
Stiff clay
pullout interface test results in 17

SDCM-P1 lab. 150

0.5 SDCM-P2

Interfce she
D core
100
SDCM-P3 DDCM

SDCM-P4
50
0 Acore/ADCM=0.12
Acore/ADCM=0.03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Axial tensile load (kN) Undrained shear strength, cu (kPa)

45
 Full Scale Test 3D Finite Element Simulation
Unit weight: kN/m3
14 16 18 20
Soil Profile Soil model-Parameters
0

1 Weathered clay

2 Materials Model γ Material E′ref ν′ λ* κ* c′ φ′ OCR

(kN/m3 behavior (kPa) (kPa) (deg)
3 )
Subsoil Depth(m)
4 W h d crust
Weathered 0 20
0-2.0 MCM 17 U d i d
Undrained 2500 0 25
0.25 10 23
D e p th : m

Soft clay 2.0-8.0 SSM 15 Undrained 0.15 0.03 4 23 1.5

5 Soft clay Medium stiff clay 8.0-10.0 MCM 18 Undrained 5000 0.25 10 25
Stiff clay 10.0-30.0 MCM 19 Undrained 9000 0.25 30 26
6 Foundation
Concrete core pile MCM 24 Drained 2.8x107 0.15 8000 40
7 DCM pile MCM 15 Undrained 30000- 0.33 200- 30
PP'o PP'max ((with interface elements, 60000 300
8 Rinter= 0.4)
9 Medium stiff clay Unit weight PL WN LL
Gs
10
2.6 2.65 2.7 0 40 80 120 0 20 40 60 0 50 100 150 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gs PL, WN, LL Corrected Su (kPa) P'o and P'max OCR
from vane shear test

46
Model of compression test
Finite element discretization

The geometry is divided into

15 node wedge elements.

These elements are

composed of the 6 node
triangular faces in the
workplanes, as generated by
the 2D mesh generation, and
8 node quadrilateral faces in
y-direction.

47
Interface Element Back-Calculated of Axial Compression pile
Axial compression load (kN)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0

Interface elements
are different from the
8-node quadrilaterals
in the sense that they
h
have pairs
i off nodes
d 10

Settlement (mm)
instead of single
nodes

τ = σ n tan ϕ i + ci 20
SDCM 0.22x6-Observed
0.18x6-Observed
SDCM 0.22x6-R
0 22x6
18x6 Rinter=1.0
0.18x6-R =1
10
SDCM 0.22x6-R
0.18x6-Rinter=0.8
SDCM 0.22x6-R
0.18x6-Rinter=0.4

ci = Rin csoil and ϕi = Rinϕ soil SDCM 0.22x6-R

0.18x6-Rinter=0.2

30

48
Back-Calculated of Axial Compression pile Axial Compression pile
Axialcompression
Axial
Axial compression load
compression (kN)
load (kN)
load (kN)
Axial compression
compressionload
load(kN)
(kN) 0000 100
100
100
100 200
200
200
200 300
300
300
300 400
400
400
400 500
500
500
500
000 50
50
50 100
100
100 150
150
150 200
200
200 250
250
250 300
300
300 350
350
350 400
400
400 0000
Concrete
Concrete core
Concretecore pile
corepile
pile
000 Concrete core pile
square section
squaresection
square section
square section
width(m)-length(m)
width(m)-length(m)
width(m)-length(m)
5555 width(m)-length(m)
DCM-C1 26-7
22-7
30-7
18-7
c'DCM = 300 kPa 26-6
22-6
30-6
18-6
26-5
22-5
E'DCM = 60,000 kPa 30-5
18-5
10
10
10 10
10
10
10
26-4
22-4
30-4
18-4
26-3
22-3
30-3
18-3
DCM-C2 26-2
22-2
30-2
18-2
26-1
c'DCM = 200 kPa 15
15
15
15 22-1
30-1
18-1

)
(mm)))
Settlement (mm)
20 E'DCM = 40,000
40 000 kPa
kP

(mm
(mm
20
20
(mm)
Settlement (mm)
(mm)

20
20
20
20

Settlement
Settlement
Settlement
Settlement
Settlement

c'DCM = 200 kPa DCM-C1 Observed

30
30
30 DCM-C2 Observed 25
25
25
E'DCM = 30,000 kPa 25
c'DCM = 200 kPa DCM-C1 Simulated
Rinter = 0.4
E'DCM = 30,000 kPa DCM-C2 Simulated
30
30
30
30
Rinter = 0.4
40
40
40 SDCM 0.22x6-Observed
0 22x6-Observed
SDCM 0.22x4-Observed 35
35
35
35
SDCM 0.18x6-Observed
SDCM 0.22x6-Simulated
50
50
50 SDCM 0.18x4-Observed
SDCM 0.22x4-Simulated 40
40
40
40
SDCM 0.18x6-Simulated
SDCM 0.18x4-Simulated
45
45
45
45
60
60
60

49
 Axial Compression pile Effect of Length
Axial compression load
Axial load (kN)
(kN)
00 50
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 400
0

mate bearing capacityy of SDCM pile (kN)

Concrete core pile
Concrete core pile
square
square section
section
width(m)-length(m)
width(m)-length(m)
5
0.30-7
0.30-4
0.30-1
0.30-5
0.30-2
0.30-3
0.30-6
0.26-7
0.26-4
0.26-1
0.26-2
0.26-3
0.26-5
0.26-6 300
0.22-7
0.22-4
0.22-1
0.22-5
0.22-2
0.22-3
0.22-6
10 0.18-7
0.18-4
0.18-1
0.18-2
0.18-3
0.18-5
0.18-6
m)

15
Settlement (mm

200
Settlement

20

25 Concrete core square section

100 core 0.30 m
core 0.26 m

Ultim
30
core 0.22 m
core 0.18 m
35
0

40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Length (m)

50
Load Transfer Effect of Length
Axial compressionload(kN)
Axial compression load(kN) QQ
00 50 50
50 100 100
100150
150 150
200200
250250 200
300
300 350
1
1 DCM 1
¾Top=
Top=90
90

e pile/Ultimate Load
Weathered %
0.9
Weathered clay 400
clay Core pile size
2 30-Top
2 350 26-Top
0.8

Axial load in concrete core pile(kN)

22-Top
18-Top 0.7
300
3 30-Tip
3 26-Tip 0.6
¾Tip=
Tip=52
p 5
52%%

Axial load in concrete core

22-Tip
22xx4
22 250
18-Tip 0.5 Core pile size
Depth(m)

30-Top
4
Depth(m)

4 200
0.4
26-Top
22-Top
150 0.3
18-Top
5
5 Soft clay
Soft clay 30-Tip
0.2
26-Tip
100
22-Tip
Axial load, Q 0.1
18-Tip
6 Axial load, 50kN
Q 50

Ax
6 50kN100kN 22xx6
22 0
Axial load,
100kNQ 0
150kN 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
50150kN
kN
7
7 200kN 0 1 2 3 4 5
Length of concrete core pile (m)
6 7
Length of concrete core pile (m)
100200kN
kN 250kN
250kN
150 kN 315kN(failure) 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

8
8 200275kN (Failure)
kN(Failure) Length Ratio
Medium stiff
Medium stiffclay
clay

51
 Failure Mode
Failure Mode

1. The Plastic points are the stress points in a plastic state.

(Brinkgreve and Broere, 2006)

2. The relative shear stress gives an indication of the proximity of

the stress point to the failure envelope. (Brinkgreve and
Broere, 2006)

The relative shear stress is defined as: τ rel = ττ *

max

52
 Failure Mode Failure Mode

Elev +0.00

Weather Crust

Elev -2.00

Soft Clay

Elev -8.00

Medium Clay

DCM 2.00 m. 4.00 m. 6.00 m. 7.00 m.

DCM pile Soil Failure

Failure

53
Lateral piles Lateral piles
50
0.00

Hu -1.20
1.20
45 -1.50
Weathered
-2.00 crust
40
Soft clay
35

28 Cases
-8.00

d (kN)
30 Medium stiff clay
-10.00

Lateral load
Stiff clay
l

Different core size: 25

0.18, 0.22, 0.26, 20

SDCM-L1(0.22x6)

0.30 m.
SDCM-L2(0.22x6)
SDCM-L3(0.22x4)
15 SDCM-L4(0.22x4)

Different length: SDCM-L5(0.18x6)

SDCM-L6(0.18x6)
10
1 00 2.00,
1.00, 2 00 3.00,
3 00
SDCM-L7(0.18x4)
S C (0 8 )
SDCM-L8(0.18x4)

4.00, 5.00, 6.00,

DCM-L1
5
DCM-L2

7.00 m. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Lateral displacement(mm)

54
Lateral Load Test Results Model of lateral load test

55
Back-Analysis of Lateral pile
simulations (DCM) Back-Analysis of Lateral pile
simulations (DCM)
5
c'DCM = 200 kPa
E'DCM = 30000 kPa 50 50

4
40 40
Lateral load ((kN)

Lateral load (kN)

Lateral load (kN)
30 30
3

20 20
TDCM = 50 kPa Tcore =5000 kPa
SDCM-0.22x0.22x5.5-Observed
2 SDCM -0.22x0.22x5.5-observed
Tcore = 6000 kPa
10 TDCM =100 kPa
10 Tcore = 5000 kPa
TDCM = 50 kPa
Tcore = 4000 kPa
TDCM = 25 kPa
DCM-L2-Observed 0
1 0
Tensile = 50 kPa 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Tensile = 25 kPa Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)
Tensile = 0 kPa
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Lateral displacement (mm)

56
Lateral pile simulations (DCM) Lateral pile simulations (DCM)
60
50
40
80
80

70
70
50
40
30
60
60
40
ad (kN)

50

d (kN)
30 50
Concrete core pile
square section

Lateral load
Lateral loa

width(m)-embeded length(m)
30
40
20
40 0.30-0.5
0.26-0.5
20 0.22-0.5
30 SDCM pile 0.18-0.5
30
20 0.26-6.5
0.18-6.5
0.22-6.5
0.26-5.5
0.18-5.5
0.22-5.5
SDCM pile
20
10 0.26-4.5
0.18-4.50.30-6.5
0.22-4.5 Concrete
Concretecore
corepile
pile
0.26-3.5
0.18-3.50.30-5.5
0.22-3.5
20 square
squaresection
section
10 width(m)-embeded
width(m)-embededlength(m)
length(m)
10 00.22-2.5
0.26
26-2
2.5
18-2
22-2 50.30-4.5
0.18-2.5 0 30 4 5 0 0.30-4.5
0.30-1.5
30 1 5
0.30-2.5
0.30-3.5
10 0.26-1.5
0.18-1.50.30-3.5
0.22-1.5 0.26-1.5
0.26-2.5
0.26-3.5
0.26-4.5
0.26-0.5
0.18-0.50.30-2.5
0.22-0.5 10
0.22-1.5
0.22-2.5
0.22-3.5
0.22-4.5
0.30-1.5 0.18-1.5
0.18-2.5
0.18-3.5
0.18-4.5
0 0.30-0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Lateral displacement (mm) Lateral displacement (mm)

57
Soil reaction and bending moment
distribution for free - headed pile (Broms, 1964) Lateral pile simulations (DCM)
80

of SDCM pile (kN)

60

Ultimate lateral load o

40

Concrete core square section

20 0.30x0.30
0.26x0.26

U
0.22x0.22
0.18x0.18
0
¾ Short Piles ¾ Long Piles 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Length (m)

58
 Failure Mode Failure Mode
Elev +0.00

Weather Crust Pile Failure

B
Base – 1.50
1 50
Elev +0.00
Elev -2.00
Weather Crust Base – 1.50

Elev -2.00

Short Pile
Elev--3.50
Elev
Soft Clay

Long Pile
Soft Clay

Elev -8.00

Medium Clay

0 50 m.
0.50 m 1 50 m.
1.50 m 2 50 m.
2.50 m 3 50 m.
3.50 m 5 50 m.
5.50 m 6.50 m.
El -8.00
Elev 8 00

Medium Clay

0.50 m. 1.50 m. 2.50 m. 3.50 m. 5.50 m. 6.50 m.

The Plastic points are the stress points in a plastic state. (Brinkgreve and
Broere, 2006)

59
 Embankment Embankment

DCM
SDCM

16 SDCM piles and 16 DCM piles

60
 Embankment Embankment
Time(days) Time(days)
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600 0 60 120 180 240 300 360 420 480 540 600
0
SDCM pile(observed-S10) Concrete core pile square section
SDCM pile(simulated) 20 width(m)-length(m)
50 DCM pile(observed-S11) 0.22-6(observed)
DCM pile(simulated) 40 0.30-7(simulated)
100 Unimproved clay(observed-S4) 0.22-7(simulated)
Unimproved clay(simulated) 60 0 30-6(simulated)
0.30 6(simulated)
Settlement(mm))

Settlement(mm))
150 0.22-6(simulated)
80 0.30-5(simulated)
200 100 0.22-5(simulated)
0.30-4(simulated)
250 120 0.22-4(simulated)

140
300
160
350
180
400
200

61
 Embankment Lateral movement
Lateral movement(mm) Lateral movement(mm)
Core pile
C il length,L
l h Lcore(m)
( ) 0 5 20
10 15 4020 25 60
30 35 80
40 0 20 15 20
5 10 40 25 30
60 35 40
80
100.00 Embankment Embankment
Embankment
1 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Weathered Weathered
Weathered
crust crust
0 90.00 2 2

3 3
Core size 0.22x0.22m 80.00

50 Core size 0.30x0.30m 4 4

pile (kN)

70.00
Soft clay Soft clay
5 5
m)
Settlement(m

m)
60.00

m)
Axial Load in core p

m)
Depth(m
Depth(m

Depth(m
100 6 6
50.00 7 7

150 40.00 8 8
TOP 0.30 m
TOP 0.22 m Medium Medium
9 After construction(observed) 9 After
After construction(observed)
construction(observed) stiff
30.00 TIP 0.22 m stiff clay stiff clay
clay
TIP 0.30 m 90 days(observed) 90 days(observed)
90 days(observed)
200 10 570 days(observed) 10 570
570 days(observed)
days(observed)
Stiff clay Stiff
Stiff clay
clay
20.00 After construction(simulated) After construction(simulated)
After construction(simulated)
11 90 days(simulated)
y ( ) 11 90
90 days(simulated)
days(simulated)
y ( )
570 days(simulated) 570 days(simulated)
570 days(simulated)
10.00
250 12 12

0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00
Length of core pile (m) SDCM
DCM Pile
Pile Surrounding
SurroundingSDCM
DCM

62
Lateral movement Lateral movement
Lateral movement(mm)
Lateral movement(mm) Lateral movement(mm)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1
1 1
Weathered
Weathered crust Weathered crust crust 4.00 m
2 2 2

3 3 3

4 4 4
5.00 m
5 5
Soft clay Soft clay 5 Soft clay
Depth(m)

Depth(m)

6 6

Depth(m)
6
7 7
7 6.00 m
8 8
8
9 Concrete core pile square section Medium stiff clay 9 Concrete core pile square section Medium stiff clay
width(m)-length(m) width(m)-length(m)
10 0.22-4(Simulated) 10
9 Concrete core pile square section Medium stiff clay
0.30-4(Simulated)
width(m)-length(m)
width(m) length(m)
0.22-5(Simulated)
0.22-6(Simulated)
0.30-5(Simulated) 7.00 m
11 0.30-6(Simulated) 10 0.22-7(Simulated)
0.22-4(Simulated)
0.22-5(Simulated)
0.22-6(Simulated)
Stiff clay 11 Stiff clay
0.22-7(Simulated) 0.30-7(Simulated) 0.30-4(Simulated)
0.30-5(Simulated)
0.30-6(Simulated)
0.30-7(Simulated)
12 12 11 Stiff clay

12

63
Lateral movement CONCLUSIONS
1. The fundamental parameters such as the ratio of after-
40 curingg void ratio (e
( ot) and cement content ((Aw) were found
movement(mm)

sufficient to characterize the strength and compressibility

of cement-admixed clay.
30 2. The ratio eot/Aw has combined together the influences of
mixing water content, cement content, curing time as well
as curing pressure.
mimate lateral m

20 3. A new concept of optimum mixing clay water content

(wopt) has been confirmed from the results of UC and
oedometer tests of cement-admixed clay.
Core pile size
10 0.22x0.22m 4. At wopt, only 10% cement content by weight is needed
0.30x0.30m instead of 17% in the conventional method to obtain a UC
ulm

strength of 650 kPa,

kPa with consequent 40% reduction of
cost of cement.
0
5. One year after embankment construction, the maximum surface
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 settlement of TEU was 1.0m while that of TEDM was only 0.325m.
Core pile length,Lcore(m) Therefore, the soil-cement pile installation in the soft foundation
has also effectively reduced the settlement by at least 70%.

64
CONCLUSIONS (cont’d) CONCLUSION
6) Elastic as well as consolidation and compressibility Axial Compression Pile:
parameters were obtained through
p g back-analyses
y of the
actual surface and deep settlements as follows:
¾ Eup = 105qu ¾ The cement-clay cohesion CDCM were 300 kPa
¾ Eus = 280Suv and 200 kPa for DCM C-1 and DCM C-2,
¾ qu, lab = 750 kPa; qu,field/qu,lab = 0.70 to 0.80 respectively.
¾ βave = 0.101 ¾ The cement-clay modulus, EDCM, were 60,000
¾ Neutral axis of the downdrag skin friction Î located at kPa and 40,000 kPa for DCM C-1 and DCM C-
the boundary between the upper and middle thirds of 2, respectively.
the soft clay layer.
¾ cv,p = 800 m2/yr
¾ The slightly different results reflect the
construction quality control in the field tests.
¾ cv,c = 2.0 m2/yr
¾ Compressibility ratio (mv,p/mv,c) = 0.10
0 10 ¾ For the SDCM p pile,, the corresponding
p g value
¾ Permeability ratio, kv,p/kv,c = 40 for CDCM and EDCM were 200 kPa and 30,000
¾ and weighting factors αε =80% and ασ = 20% kPa, respectively.
corresponding to “equal strain” and “equal stress”
conditions, respectively.

65
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
Axial Compression Pile: Lateral load simulations:

¾ Increasing the length ratio, Lcore/LDCM, has
dominant effect than increasing the sectional
area ratio, Acore/ADCM.
¾ For the DCM pile, the maximum load developed
at the top 1m and rapidly decreased until the
depth of 4m from the pile top and constant load
of 10% of the ultimate load until the tip of DCM
pile. Thus, the failure takes place at the top in the
case of DCM pile.
¾ The axial load at the top of SDCM comprised
90% off ultimate
lti t load
l d and d linearly
li l decreased
d d to
t increase the ultimate lateral load capacity
the tip to 70% and 30% of ultimate load
corresponding to 2m and 7m of concrete core
pile length, respectively.
¾ The TDCM obtained from the simulation of DCM
pile were 50 kPa and 25 kPa for DCM L-1 and
DCM L-2, respectively.
¾ For the SDCM pile, the corresponding values
for Tcore and TDCM obtained from the simulation
were 5000 kPa and 50 kPa, respectively.
¾ The ultimate lateral load of SDCM pile
increased with increasing sectional area
because it increased the stiffness of the pile
but the length of concrete core pile did not
when using the lengths longer than 3.5m.
¾ The TDCM obtained from the simulation of DCM
pile were 50 kPa and 25 kPa for DCM L-1 and
DCM L-2, respectively.

66
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
Lateral load simulations: Full scale embankment loading simulation:

¾ For the SDCM pile, the corresponding values ¾ The longer core pile can reduced the vertical
for Tcore and TDCM obtained from the simulation displacement of SDCM pile and the
were 5000 kPa and 50 kPa, respectively. surrounding soil.
¾ The ultimate lateral load of SDCM pile ¾ The settlement reduced linearly with
increased with increasing g sectional area increasingg lengths
g of concrete core p
piles from
because it increased the stiffness of the pile 4 to 6m but slightly reduced from 6 to 7m
but the length of concrete core pile did not core pile length.
increase the ultimate lateral load capacity ¾ The longer the lengths, the lower the lateral
when using the lengths longer than 3.5m. movements.
¾ For the SDCM pile with lengths longer than 3.5m, ¾ The bigger sectional areas also reduced the
the failure occurred by bending moment (long late al movements.
lateral mo ements
pile failure) while the short pile failed by
surrounding soil failure. ¾ The concrete core pile should be longer than 4
m in order to reduce the lateral movements of
the embankment.

67
68