Foundation System For The Preliminary Treatment Facilities

Consortium Themeliodomi S.A.
Passavant-Roediger Anlagenbau GmbH

for the Contract A of the Constanta sewerage and wastewater treatment rehabilitation project
CONSTANTA NORTH WWTP
FOUNDATION SYSTEM FOR THE
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT FACILITIES
CONTRACTOR
Themeliodomi S.A.
Dr. Ing. K. Xanthopoulos
DESIGN COLLABORATOR
Prof. Dr. Ing. V. Ianuli
TECHNICAL AUDITOR LAW Nr.10
Prof. Ing. V. G. Breaban
FOUNDATION SYSTEM FOR THE
PRELIMINARY TREATMENT FACILITIES
00 08 04 04 First edition GEOGNOSI S.A.
Rev. Date Description Edit. Appr. Page: 1 of 38
No: 2923-CA-13-11
2923-FM-CA-01.DOT / p1
Consortium Themeliodomi S.A. Passavant-Roediger Anlagenbau GmbH
C O N T E N T S
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 3
1.1 Scope of the work ............................................................................................. 3
1.2 Structural data ................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Geological, seismological and geotechnical data ............................................. 3
2. SUBSURFACE GROUND CONDITIONS - SOIL STRATIGRAPHY..................4
3. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS........................................................................... 6
3.1 Shallow foundations without improvement........................................................ 6
3.1.1 Bearing capacity - Allowable pressure................................................... 6
3.1.2 Settlements estimation......................................................................... 14
3.2 Shallow foundation with soil improvement (stonecolumns).............................. 18
3.2.1 Soil improvement - Stonecolumns....................................................... 18
3.2.2 Soil improvement design.......................................................................23
3.2.3 Bearing capacity - Allowable pressure................................................. 26
3.2.4 Settlements estimation..........................................................................31
4. CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................. 34
182811587.doc / Page 2 of 38
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Scope of the work
The purpose of this work is to present the proposed foundation system concerning the
preliminary treatment facilities of the Constanta Sewerage and Wastewater treatment rehabilitation
project.
1.2 Structural data
The preliminary treatment facilities could be divided into three distinct areas according the
dimensions, the loads and the foundation level of each structure.
The first one is in the inlet pumping station coarse screen, a structure with a very low
foundation level and medium working loads. The second one is the fine screening station with the
storm water tank founded on the free surface having medium working loads and finally the grit and
grease removal chamber, with medium loads also. The last one will be founded on an embankment.
1.3 Geological, seismological and geotechnical data
All the necessary geological seismological and geotechnical data, concerning the area of the
Constanta Sewerage and Wastewater treatment rehabilitation area, were presented in the
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND GEOSTATICAL COMPUTATIONS report, prepared by
GEOGNOSI S.A., during March 2003.
182811587.doc / Page 3 of 38
2. SUBSURFACE GROUND CONDITIONS - SOIL STRATIGRAPHY
According to the afore mentioned report, five distinguished soil layers were recorded, at the
area under consideration which are the following :
Layer FILL : This landfill layer with concrete blocks, bricks, woods and glass has an average
thickness of about 1,0m (CH).
Layer S : Layer S is a grey, loose to medium, sand-silty sand, poorly graded with a depth
range between 5,0m to 8,0m (SP, SM).
Layer C : Layer C is a grey, soft to firm clay with low plasticity and a variable percentage of
sand. Its thickness varies between 2,0m to 8,0m (CL).
Layer C1 : This layer is a brown firm to stiff clay to sandy clay, with low plasticity and
calcareous concretions. In places sublayers of dense sand were found. Its
thickness varies between 4,0m to 10,0m (CL, CH).
Layer D : This layer consists of boulders of white to yellowish weathered limestone with stiff
to very stiff low plasticity marly clay. Also, in places was found very dense clayey
sand of low plasticity.
For the design analysis, a typical design section was established. In figure 1 the typical design
section for the preliminary treatment facilities area, is being presented.
182811587.doc / Page 4 of 38
Figure 1. Typical design section of the preliminary treatment facilities
Altitude (m) Ground level Altitude (m)
+2.75 0.00
FILL: Concrete blocks, bricks, woods and glass (CH)
W=22,2 e0,678
19,4 =25
d16,0 s=3
+1.00 1.75
S : Grey, loose to medium, sand - silty sand, poorly graded (SP, SM)
G.W.L. 0.75 SPT21 W=25,0 e0,560 =32 G.W.L. 2.00
=21,4
d=16,8 s=15
-4.50 7.25
C : Grey, soft to firm clay low plasticity, variable percentage of sand (CL)
SPT10 W=26,8 e0,805 =14 Cc=0,211
WL=35,3 =19,4 c=20 Cr=0,022
WP=16,1 d=15,1

Cu=30 Cv=3,310
-3
PI=19,2 IC=0,4 Eu=20 s=10
-6.50 9.25
C1: Brown, firm to stiff clay to sandy clay, low plasticity, calcareous concretions
(CL CH)
SPT>26 W=23,9 e0,750 =18 Cc=0,185
WL=45,8 =19,5 c=32 Cr=0,027
WP=17,6 d=15,9 Cu=60 Cv=1,310
-3
PI=28,1 IC=0,8 Eu=35 s=10
-10.50 13.25
D : Boulders of white to yellowish weathered limestone with stiff to very stiff low
plasticity marly clay, in places very dense clayey sand of low plasticity
SPT50 W=19,8 e0,790
WL=33,7 =19,5
WP=15,1 d=16,4 Cu=150
PI=18,6 IC=0,8 s=100
<-22.00 >24.75
Abbreviations
G.W.L.: Ground watertable level (m)
NSPT : Standard penetration test (blows/30cm)
WL : Liquid limit (%)
WP : Plastic limit (%)
PI : Plasticity index
W : Natural water content (%)
IC : Consistency index = (WL-W)/(WL-WP)
: Bulk density (kN/m
3
)
d : Dry density (kN/m
3
)
e : Void ratio
Cu : Undrained cohesion (kN/m
2
)
' : Friction angle (effective value) - UU Triaxial compression test (Deg)
c' : Friction cohesion (effective value) - UU Triaxial compression test (kN/m
2
)
182811587.doc / Page 5 of 38
: Angle of friction - UU Triaxial compression test (Deg)
c : Cohesion - UU Triaxial compression test (kN/m
2
)
Cc : Compressibility index
Cv : Consolidation coefficient (cm
2
/s)
Es : Compressibility modulus (MN/m
2
)
u : Compressibility modulus in unloading conditions (MN/m
2
)
182811587.doc / Page 6 of 38
3. GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
3.1 Shallow foundations without improvement
3.1.1 Bearing capacity - Allowable pressure
A raft foundation was considered for the structures of the preliminary treatment facilities.
Bearing design resistance, d, is estimated in accordance with Eurocode 7 - case C standards and
specifications. Each distinct structure of the preliminary treatment facilities presents differences as
far as concerns the foundation level, the working loads and the dimensions. The following table 1
presents the characteristic values of each distinct structure of the preliminary treatment facilities.
Tablel 1. Characteristic values concerning the structures of the preliminary treatment facilities
Dimensions
Object number
in drawing 24
Foundation
altitude (m)
Length (m) Width (m) L/B
Working load
(kN/m
2
)
Inlet pumping
station - coarse
screen
1 -2.70 17.35 15.30 1.13 90
Fine screening
station - storm
water tank
2+13 +2.60 44.15 28.10 1.57 93*
Grit and grease
removal
chamber
3 +3.85 37.25 28.10 1.33 108*
The working loads includes also the loads from the necessary embankments, creating the foundation level
for these structures.
Bearing design resistance, d, is calculated, using the typical soil profile of figure 1 (see
paragraph 2). Furthermore, due to the material texture of the first layer shown in the typical design
section (FILL), is considered to be replaced by a (sand gravel) layer up to an altitude at +2.0m and
thus creating the necessary working level. This replacement layer (SG) is considered to cover the
preliminary treatment facilities area, except area of the inlet pumping station coarse screen.
182811587.doc / Page 7 of 38
Two cases are examined concerning the design bearing resistance d :
- Assuming undrained subsoil conditions with value of friction 28 for layer S. Methodology
and results for static loading conditions are shown in figures 2a, 2b and 2c respectively for
each structure. Bearing design resistance (allowable pressure against soil failure) under
undrained static conditions is calculated greater than d1.000kPa, for only vertical loading,
while smaller values of d must be considered when horizontal loads are acting upon
simultaneously (see figure 2a, 2b and 2c).
- Assuming drained conditions with value of friction =32 for layer S. Methodology and results
of d are presented in figures 3a to 3c respectively for each structure. Based on figures 2 and
3, it is proved that the corresponding resulting value of d under drained conditions is higher
than the value of d under undrained conditions, assuming that only vertical loading is applied.
Once again, lower values of d must be considered when horizontal loads are acting upon
simultaneously, as figures 3a to 3c indicates.
In the following table 2, the results from the bearing capacity analysis are being presented,
concerning each structure of the preliminary treatment facilities.
Tablel 2. Bearing capacity concerning the preliminary treatment facilities structures
Bearing capacity (kN/m
2
)
Undrained conditions Drained conditions
Value Figure Value Figure
Inlet pumping station - coarse screen 1.527 2a 1.687 3a
Fine screening station - stormwater tank 1.087 2b 1.227 3b
Grit and grease removal chamber 1.040 2c 1.175 3c
As far as the method of design is concerned with respect to bearing capacity, the pressure on
soil due to factorized load combinations according to Eurocodes 2 and 3 should be calculated. The
calculated applied soil pressure should include the self weight of the foundation as well as the self
weight of the backfilling material. Moreover, the eccentricities and the reduction of soil bearing
resistance due to horizontal loading at foundation level should be also taken into account, although
these loadings are expected to be not significant.
182811587.doc / Page 8 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 9 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 10 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 11 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 12 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 13 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 14 of 38
3.1.2 Settlements estimation
In this case, approximate parametric settlement analyses for the three areas of the preliminary
treatment facilities is carried out, assuming foundation levels for each structure, loads, and
dimensions according to the table 1.
For the purpose of settlement analyses, the typical soil profile of figure 1 was used, assuming
that the level of -35,0m corresponds to an incompressible layer. The settlement calculations of the
foundations are performed using the Boussinesq stress distribution. Furthermore, the assumption of
a rigid base was considered and one mean value of settlement was obtained. Results of the
parametric settlement analyses are presented in figures 4a, 4b and 4c.
The results from these calculations are being presented in table 3 for the anticipated working
loads.
Table 3. Results of settlements for the preliminary treatment facilities.
No Structure
Applied load
(kN/m
2
)
Settlements (cm) Figure
1 Inlet Pumping station - coarse screen 90 2.48* 4a
2 Fine screening station - storm water tank 93 7.86 4b
3 Grit and grease removal chamber 108 8.83 4c
* Conservatively was considered that the ground water table level reaches the excavation level.
Based on these results, the settlements for the preliminary treatment facilities are pretty high,
except the inlet pumping station - coarse screen structure. Thus a soil reinforcement method should
be utilized.
The average value of the modulus of subgrade reaction K for the inlet pumping station - coarse
screen structure was estimated as follows :
K= 4.500-5.500kN/m
3
(L/B=1.13 and B=15,0m)
The aforementioned K values correspond to static conditions. For earthquake, K values should be
taken at least two times higher than these for static conditions.
182811587.doc / Page 15 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 16 of 38

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT OF FOOTINGS IN BASEMENT
- PROJECT: : 4a
L/B = 1,13 - Rigidity = 2
B
min
(m) = 14,00 k = 1
B
max
(m )= 16,00 -Position = 4
D (m) = 4,70 W (m) = 4,70

(kN/m
3
) = 19,4
D (kN/m
2
)= 91,18
u
D
(kN/m
2
)= 0
z
(m)= +2,0 I
zi
= Boussinesq (Hi*Ii/Es)
z
b
(m) z
i
(m) H
i
(m) E
s
(MPa)
E
s(oc )
(MPa)
(m)= 14,0 14,5 15,0 15,5 16,0
1 -4,5 -3,6 1,80 15,0 30,0 0,968 0,971 0,973 0,975 0,977
2 -6,5 -5,5 2,00 10,0 20,0 0,715 0,727 0,738 0,749 0,760
3 -10,5 -8,5 4,00 10,0 20,0 0,477 0,487 0,497 0,507 0,517
4 -35,0 -22,8 24,50 100,0 100,0 0,166 0,173 0,181 0,188 0,195
/ Settlement S (cm)
F.S=
/u
D
(kPa)
-u
D
(m)= 14,0 14,5 15,0 15,5 16,0
70 70 1,86 1,90 1,93 1,97 2,00
80 80 2,12 2,17 2,21 2,25 2,29
90 90 2,39 2,44 2,48 2,53 2,57
100 100 2,85 2,91 2,96 3,02 3,07
110 110 3,34 3,41 3,47 3,53 3,59

0,00
1,00
2,00
3,00
4,00
5,00
6,00
60 70 80 90 100 110 120
(kPa)

/

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

S

(
c
m
)
B= 16,0 m
B= 15,5 m
B= 15,0 m
B= 14,5 m
B= 14,0 m
1= - Flexible
2= - Rigid
1= - Center
2= - Corner
3= L - Middle of
Long side
4= - Average
z
b-1
D,
B
L
z
i
z
z
b
E
CONSTANTA SEWERAGE AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT
REHABILITATION PROJECT - Preliminary treatment -
without improvement - A area
D
E
) ( * ) 1 (
I H = S
D
E
) (
E
) (
I H =
i
i
i i
i
s
z i
1 = i
s s
z i
1 = i

>
,
_

o c
D D
n
D D
o c
D
n
u D k u
u D k u u D k
S
w
182811587.doc / Page 17 of 38
- PROJECT: Figure 4b
B
min
(m) = 27,00
B
max
(m) = 30,00 -Position = 4
D (m) = 0,00

(kN/m
3
) = 19,4
z
(m)= +2,0 /q - Boussinesq (cm)/
Layer z
b
(m) z
i
(m) H
i
(m) E
s
(MPa) (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00
1 +1,0 +1,5 1,00 50,0 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999
2 -4,5 -1,3 6,50 15,0 0,897 0,901 0,904 0,908 0,911 0,914 0,917
3 -6,5 -5,5 2,00 10,0 0,654 0,660 0,667 0,672 0,678 0,684 0,690
4 -10,5 -8,5 4,00 10,0 0,544 0,550 0,556 0,561 0,567 0,572 0,578
5 -35,0 -22,8 24,50 100,0 0,306 0,311 0,315 0,320 0,324 0,329 0,333
/ Settlement S (cm)
(kPa) q=
-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

80 80 6,66 6,71 6,76 6,81 6,85 6,90 6,94
87 87 7,20 7,25 7,31 7,36 7,41 7,46 7,51
93 93 7,74 7,80 7,86 7,91 7,97 8,02 8,07
100 100 8,28 8,34 8,41 8,47 8,52 8,58 8,64
106 106 8,82 8,89 8,95 9,02 9,08 9,14 9,20

PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS OF SETTLEMENT OF FOOTINGS
GEOGNOSI S.A. Geotechnical Engineering Consultants
P.O. Box 60480, 570 01, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Greece, Tel. +30.2310. 469169, Fax. +30.2310.469161, E-mail: geognosi@geognosi.gr
6,0
7,0
8,0
9,0
10,0
70 80 90 100 110
/Total applied stress (kPa)

/

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

S

(
c
m
)
B= 27,0 m
B= 27,5 m
B= 28,0 m
B= 28,5 m
B= 29,0 m
B= 29,5 m
B= 30,0 m
1= - Flexible
2= - Rigid
1= - Center
2= - Corner
3= L - Middle of Long side
4= - Average
S q H
E
q
s

without improvement - B area
z
b-1
D,
B
L
z
i
z
z
b
E
si
182811587.doc / Page 18 of 38
- PROJECT: Figure 4c
B
min
(m) = 27,00
B
max
(m) = 30,00 -Position = 4
D (m) = 0,00

(kN/m
3
) = 19,4
z
Layer z
b
(m) z
i
(m) H
i
(m) E
s
(MPa) (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00
1 +1,0 +1,5 1,00 50,0 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999
2 -4,5 -1,3 6,50 15,0 0,885 0,889 0,893 0,897 0,900 0,904 0,907
3 -6,5 -5,5 2,00 10,0 0,628 0,634 0,640 0,646 0,652 0,658 0,664
4 -10,5 -8,5 4,00 10,0 0,519 0,525 0,530 0,536 0,541 0,546 0,552
5 -35,0 -22,8 24,50 100,0 0,288 0,293 0,297 0,302 0,306 0,310 0,315
/ Settlement S (cm)
(kPa) q=
-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

80 80 6,46 6,51 6,56 6,61 6,66 6,70 6,75
89 89 7,20 7,26 7,32 7,37 7,42 7,48 7,53
99 99 7,95 8,01 8,08 8,14 8,19 8,25 8,31
108 108 8,70 8,77 8,83 8,90 8,96 9,03 9,09
117 117 9,44 9,52 9,59 9,66 9,73 9,80 9,87

6,0
6,5
7,0
7,5
8,0
8,5
9,0
9,5
10,0
10,5
70 80 90 100 110 120

/

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

S

(
c
m
)
B= 27,0 m
B= 27,5 m
B= 28,0 m
B= 28,5 m
B= 29,0 m
B= 29,5 m
B= 30,0 m
1= - Flexible
2= - Rigid
1= - Center
2= - Corner
4= - Average
S q H
E
q
s

without improvement - C area
z
b-1
D,
B
L
z
i
z
z
b
E
si
182811587.doc / Page 19 of 38
3.2 Shallow foundation with soil improvement (stonecolumns)
The bearing capacity of the S layer can easily undertake the loads of the preliminary treatment
facilities, but the settlements due to working loads gave values of settlements which are high enough
for these structures (except the inlet pumping station coarse screen structure). In order to overco-
me the settlements problem, a soil improvement method (stonecolumns) is recommended and
presented herein.
3.2.1 Soil improvement - Stonecolumns
Stonecolumns constitute a soil improvement system by which vertical columns of compacted
gravel are installed in a soil. Stonecolumns serve a foundation in four ways:
1. The gravel column is much stiffer than the surrounding soil. Vertical stresses in the columns
are between 2 to 5 fold higher than in the surrounding soil. Thereby the total settlements are
reduced.
2. Differential settlements in a ground treated by stonecolumns can be assumed to be only in the
order of 15% to 20% of total settlements as compared to 50% to 100% for untreated soil. This
stems from the fact that columns are installed with a diameter varying over depth depending on
the soil strength and thus homogenizing the stiffness properties of the soil / column matrix.
3. The gravel column serves as a vertical drain and thus reduces excess pore pressures caused
by rapid loading or earthquake, allowing for a faster loading or making soil liquefaction less
likely.
4. The high friction angle of the gravel increases the composite shear strength of the column / soil
matrix and thus allows for a higher cyclic stress before liquefaction is triggered.
Accordingly the site conditions, a variety of vibro methods is used in order to achieve the best
results (wet top feed, dry bottom feed). In sites where high ground water conditions exist the wet top
feed method is used.
182811587.doc / Page 20 of 38
Stonecolumns have been used to improve a wide range of soils, from very soft clays and peat.
The stonecolumns are suitable for a wide range of soils as indicated on the attached grain size curve
(figure 5).
Figure 5. Relationship between particle size and available vibro techniques
182811587.doc / Page 21 of 38
Figure 6. Installation process of the stonecolumns
182811587.doc / Page 22 of 38
Stonecolumn construction
The installation process of the stonecolumn includes three stages (figure 6) which are the
following:
1. Penetration
Assisted by jetting water, the oscillating vibrator penetrates to the designed depth under its
own weight. Thereafter the water jets are adjusted in such a way that an annular space
remains open around the vibrator and its extension tube.
2. Replacement
Once at depth coarse grained backfill material is now filled into the hole down to the toe of the
vibrator. By moving the vibrator in small steps up and down and by the horizontal forces of the
machine itself, the supplied stones are pressed into the existing soil.
3. Finishing
With stones being added as required this process is repeated up to ground level, leaving on
completion a well compacted, tightly interlocked stonecolumn surrounded by soil of enhanced
density.
The stone shall consist of hard, durable, screened or washed, free from organic or other
deleterious material. The gradation of the stone shall be measured by ASTM D422 and shall con-
form to the following requirements :
- d5>0,1mm
- d30>40mm
- d100<160mm
(where d5, d30 and d100 is the maximum grain diameter corresponding to 5%, 30% and 100% of the
soil material respectivelly).
To permit estimating the in-situ diameter of the stonecolumn after construction the maximum
and minimum density of the stone following ASTM Method C29 before stonecolumn construction
begins, should be determined.
182811587.doc / Page 23 of 38
Important construction aspects
1. Inspection records should be carefully analyzed for differences in times from one column to the
next to both construct the hole and the stonecolumn. Any significant differences may indicate
(1) A change in construction technique, (2) a change in soil properties, or (3) collapse of the
hole.
2. During construction in soft ground, the probe should be left in the hole at all times and large
quantities of water used to help insure (1), stability of the hole (2), a clean stonecolumn due to
the removal of fines and organics. More water is required during jetting of the hole, with the
quantities of water decreasing as the column comes up.
3. The initial construction of a strong base at the bottom of the stonecolumn is important to insure
proper performance. Therefore, additional penetrations of the probe are desirable together with
extra care in construction during compaction of the first several increments of stonecolumn
backfill. When stone is first dumped down the hole some of it will probably penetrate into the
soil surrounding the hole near the surface. Therefore, the diameter of the column at the base
will not be as large as calculations indicate.
4. If organics such as peat are encountered caution should be exercised to flush this material out
of the hole; extra flushings are necessary to assure proper removal of the peat. These extra
flushings may enlarge the diameter of the hole in the peat and increase the stone take in this
area. The stonecolumn should be built as rapidly as possible in peat, silts and sensitive soils.
5. Stone may hang up in the hole before it gets to the bottom. To prevent this and to clean out
any soil which may have been knocked loose, the probe should be lifted and dropped (stroked)
2 to 3 m several times after the stone has been added.
6. When the power consumed by the vibrator motor reaches the specified value, this primarily
means that good contact exists between the probe and the stone. Reaching the specified
power consumption alone is therefore not a complete guarantee construction is satisfactory
and a high density has been achieved; it does not eliminate the need for carefully watching the
entire construction sequence. Power consumption as defined by ammeter reading is, however
a useful field control that can de continuously monitored.
7. As an important supplement to the ammeter reading, carefully watch the amount of repe-
netration of the probe after stone has been added to the hole the first repenetration should
182811587.doc / Page 24 of 38
extend through the newly placed stone with less penetration occurring on successive
repenetrations.
8. The presence of any obstructions shall be reported, and described in the daily documentation
reports. When obstructions prevent the advancement of the vibratory probe over an area of
multiple columns, one of the following must be done according the in-situ conditions:
a. Adjust the location or spacing of the treatment grid.
b. Place additional treatment points to bridge the obstruction.
c. Pre-auger through the obstruction.
d. Remove the obstruction and backfill the hole and then commence stonecolumn
construction at planned locations.
Quality control
In order to inspect the stonecolumns installation, a quality control program should be carried
out. This program should include the following items prior, during and afterwards the installation :
Stonecolumn location and characteristics. The center of the stonecolumn should be within
25cm of the plan location. The stonecolumn number, the data and time of the installation, the
time required to form the hole, the stonecolumn length and bottom tip elevation should be
recorded.
Resistance level as measured by amp meter (Vibrator draws more current indense soils) over
time and depth.
Quality of the stonecolumn material (the source of the backfill material as well as its
characteristics).
Quantity of the stone added (theoretical column diameter and length of the stonecolumn).
Stonecolumn acceptance tests. The probe is considered to be calibrated since a huge amount
of work (concerning stonecolumns installation) has been executed in the area. Furthermore, a
number of 4 tests Standard Penetration Tests (ASTM D-1586) should be performed to prove
the quality of the stonecolumns (stone column numbers 54, 60, 304 and 310 could be tested)
giving a minimum number of blows, recorded inside the column, 30.
182811587.doc / Page 25 of 38
3.2.2 Soil improvement design
The construction of the preliminary treatment facilities (except the inlet pumping station -
coarse screen structure), produce a significant amount of settlements. So, the design criteria for
these structures was to minimize the settlements. In order to achieve this objective, a system of soil
improvement, composed by stonecolumns, was drawn.
More specifically the soil improvement as well as the construction phases for the area of the
preliminary treatment facilities consist from the following stages (drawing 26).
Stages : (1) Removing the superficial layer FILL (up to an altitude of +1.0m)
(2) Creating a working level with sand gravel material up to an altidute of +2.0m
(3) Soil improvement with the stonecolumns.
(4) Raising the free ground surface from level +2,0m to the appropriate altitude of each
structure, in order to construct the foundations.
As far as concerns the stonecolumns installation the recommended pattern is the following:
1 Technology used : Vibroreplacement
2 Minimum diameter : D=0,90m
3 Average length : L = 12.00 13.50m
4 Installation grid : Triangular
5 Spacing : a = 2.50m
The materials used to raise the ground level in order to construct the foundation of the
preliminary treatment facilities (except the inlet pumping station - coarse screen structure) consists of
sand gravel material (A1a, A1b, A1c) having a compaction degree 95% according to AASHO T-
180D.
According to the aforementioned soil improvement, the mechanical properties of the soils are
changing, the new ones are calculated and being presented in figure 7 for each soil layer that the
stonecolumn penetrates.
Taking into account the improved soil properties, the typical design section is changing. The new one
is given in figure 8.
182811587.doc / Page 26 of 38
FIGURE: 7
PROJECT :
Layer '
s
(Deg) c'
s
(Kpa) Cu (Kpa) E (Mpa) Cc Cr Layer : (Layers that are being penetrated by the stonecolumns)
S 32,0 0 15,00
'
s
: (Friction angle of soil)
C 14,0 20 c'
s
: (Cohesion of soil)
C 30 10,00 0,211 0,022 Cu : (Undrained shear strength)
C1 18,0 32 E : (Soil compressibility modulus)
C1 60 10,00 0,185 0,027
d
w
(m) = 0,9
col
= 40
d
w
: Stonecolumns diameter
d (m) = 2,5 d : Dimension of the grid
p
: Soil replacement percentage
p
= 0,118
p
=d
2
w
/(2 d
2
) (Triangular grid)
A
c
(m
2
)= 0,63617
p
=d
2
w
/(4d
2
) (Rectangular grid)
A (m
2
)= 5,41
A
c
: Area of the stonecolumn surface
A
c
/A = 11,75% A : Foundation influence area. Assumed =
c
/
p
n = 11,81 According Schulze(1978) '
col
: Friction angle of the stonecolumn material.
n = 6,38 According Priebe (1976) '
cor
: Equivalent friction angle (Soil + Stonecolumn)
c'
cor
:
Equivalent cohesion (Soil + Stonecolumn)
Improvement Relations of the Mechanical Characteristics Cu
cor
: Equivalent undrained cohesion (Soil + Stonecolumn)
Effective Characteristics E
cor
: Equivalent compressibility modulus (Soil + Stonecolumn)
p
: Stonecolumn compressibility modulus
n=
1p
/
1s
=E
p
/E
c'
cor
=(1-
p
)c
s
Undrained conditions
'
s
=0
According Schulze(1978)
Cu
cor
=(1-
p
)Cu Where:
Mechanical Characteristics of Compression D
ext
=(4A/)
0.5
E
cor
=E(1-
p
)+E
p
p A
c
=(/4)d
2
w
where
p
=nE R
col
=(1/2)d
w
According Priebe (1976)
Layer '
col
(Deg) c'
cor
(Kpa) Cu
cor
(Kpa) E
cor
(Mpa) Cc cor Cr cor
S 37,1 0 34,05
C 31,4 18
C 27,2 26 22,70 0,093 0,010 where :
C1 32,6 28
C1 27,2 53 22,70 0,081 0,012 ' Poisson ratio (usually '=1/3=0.33)
' : 0,33 : 1,63
Valid n=1+(-1)/
p
Layer '
col
(Deg) c'
cor
(Kpa) Cu
cor
(Kpa) E
cor
(Mpa) Cc cor Cr cor
S 35,9 0 24,48
C 27,5 18
C 21,1 26 16,32 0,129 0,013
C1 29,3 28
C1 21,1 53 16,32 0,113 0,017
RESULTS
Equivalent Mechanical Soil Characteristics According to Priebe
(1976)
Equivalent Mechanical Soil Characteristics According to Shulze
(1978)
Stonecolumns characteristics
DATA
Calculation of n
1p
and
1s
the effective vertical stresses to the stonecolumn and to
the soil respectively.
Head Office: P.O. Box 60480, 570 01, Thermi, Thessaloniki, Tel. +30.2310. 469169, Fax. +30.2310.469161, E-mail: geognosi@geognosi.gr
SUBSOIL MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS IMPROVEMENT DUE TO
STONECOLUMNS INSTALLATION
Mechanical characteristics of soil
3
) / ( 2 1
) / 1 )( 2 1 (
2 1
1
) / , (
2
2
A
A

A f
c
c
c
+

) / ln( )
2
'
4
( tan
) / ln( 2 1
2
col ext
col ext
R D
R D
n
col
) 1 ( 1
tan tan ) 1 (
' tan
+
+
n
n
p
col p s p
cor
) 1 ( 1
tan
' tan
+
n
n
p
col p
cor
Constanta Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment Rehabilitation Project - Preliminary

treatment
1
1
1
1
]
1
+ 1
) / , ( )
2
'
4
( tan
) / , ( 2 / 1
1
2
A f
A f
c
col
c c
182811587.doc / Page 27 of 38
Figure 8. Typical design section (improved soil)
Altitude (m) Ground level Altitude (m)
+2.00 0.00
SG: Sand gravel material
21,5 >35 s=50
+1.00 1.00
S : Grey, loose to medium, sand - silty sand, poorly graded (SP, SM)
G.W.L. 0.75 SPT21 W=25,0 e0,560 =37,1 G.W.L. 2.00
=21,4
d=16,8 s=34,05
-4.50 6.50
C : Grey, soft to firm clay low plasticity, variable percentage of sand (CL)
SPT10 W=26,8 e0,805 =31,4 Cc=0,093
WL=35,3 =19,4 c=18 Cr=0,010
WP=16,1 d=15,1

Cu=26 Cv=3,310
-3
PI=19,2 IC=0,4 Eu=20 s=22,7
-6.50 8.50
C1: Brown, firm to stiff clay to sandy clay, low plasticity, calcareous concretions
(CL CH)
SPT>26 W=23,9 e0,750 =29,3 Cc=0,081
WL=45,8 =19,5 c=28 Cr=0,012
WP=17,6 d=15,9 Cu=53 Cv=1,310
-3
PI=28,1 IC=0,8 Eu=35 s=22,7 S.B.L
-10.50 12.50
D : Boulders of white to yellowish weathered limestone with stiff to very stiff low
plasticity marly clay, in places very dense clayey sand of low plasticity
SPT50 W=19,8 e0,790
WL=33,7 =19,5
WP=15,1 d=16,4 Cu=150
PI=18,6 IC=0,8 s=100
<-22.00 >24.00
Abbreviations
G.W.L.: Ground watertable level (m)
S.B.L. : Stonecolumns base level (m)
NSPT : Standard penetration test (blows/30cm)
WL : Liquid limit (%)
WP : Plastic limit (%)
PI : Plasticity index
W : Natural water content (%)
IC : Consistency index = (WL-W)/(WL-WP)
: Bulk density (kN/m
3
)
d : Dry density (kN/m
3
)
e : Void ratio
Cu : Undrained cohesion (kN/m
2
)
' : Friction angle (effective value) - UU Triaxial compression test (Deg)
c' : Friction cohesion (effective value) - UU Triaxial compression test (kN/m
2
)
: Angle of friction - UU Triaxial compression test (Deg)
c : Cohesion - UU Triaxial compression test (kN/m
2
)
Cc : Compressibility index
182811587.doc / Page 28 of 38
Cv : Consolidation coefficient (cm
2
/s)
Es : Compressibility modulus (MN/m
2
)
u : Compressibility modulus in unloading conditions (MN/m
2
)
182811587.doc / Page 29 of 38
3.2.3 Bearing capacity - Allowable pressure
The bearing design resistance, d, is estimated in accordance with Eurocode 7 - case C
standards and specifications, the same way as in paragraph 3.1.1.
Two cases were examined concerning the bearing design resistance d for the structures of
the fine screening station - storm water tank and the grit and grease removal chamber:
- Assuming undrained subsoil conditions with value of friction 32,5 for layer S. Methodology
and results for static loading conditions are shown in figure 9a and 9b respectively for each
structure. Bearing design resistance (allowable pressure against soil failure) under undrained
static conditions is calculated greater than d>2.000 MPa, for only vertical loading, while small-
er values of d must be considered when horizontal loads are acting upon simultaneously (see
figures 9a and 9b).
- Assuming drained conditions with value of friction =37,1 for layer S. Methodology and re-
sults of d are presented in figures 10a and 10b respectively for each structure. Based on figu-
res 9 and 10 it is proved that the corresponding resulting value of d under drained conditions is
higher than the value of d under undrained conditions, assuming that only vertical loading is
applied. Once again, lower values of d must be considered when horizontal loads are acting
upon simultaneously as figures 10a and 10b indicates.
As far as the method of design is concerned with respect to bearing capacity, the pressure on
soil due to factored load combinations according to Eurocodes 2 and 3 should be calculated. The
calculated applied soil pressure should include the self weight of the foundation as well as the self
weight of the backfilling material. Moreover, the eccentricities and the reduction of soil bearing
resistance due to horizontal loading at foundation level should be also taken into account, although
these loadings are expected to be not significant.
182811587.doc / Page 30 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 31 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 32 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 33 of 38
182811587.doc / Page 34 of 38
3.2.4 Settlements estimation
In this case, approximate parametric settlement analyses for the two areas of the preliminary
treatment facilities is carried out, assuming foundation levels for each structure, loads, and
dimensions according to the table 1.
For the purpose of settlement analyses, the typical soil profile of figure 8 was used, assuming
that the level of -35,0m corresponds to an incompressible layer. The settlement calculations of the
foundations are performed using the Boussinesq stress distribution. Furthermore, the assumption of
a rigid base was considered and one mean value of settlement was obtained. Results of the
parametric settlement analyses are presented in figures 11a and 11b.
The results from these calculations are being presented in table 4 for the anticipated working
loads.
Table 4. Results of settlements for the preliminary treatment facilities.
No Structure
Applied load
(kN/m
2
)
Settlements (cm) Figure
1 Fine screening station - storm water tank 93 3.97 11a
2 Grit and grease removal chamber 108 4.45 11b
Based on these results, the settlements for the preliminary treatment facilities are satisfactory
and acceptable.
The average value of the modulus of subgrade reaction K for these structures was estimated
as follows :
K= 2.000-3.000kN/m
3

The aforementioned K values correspond to static conditions. For earthquake, K values should be
taken at least two times higher than these for static conditions.
182811587.doc / Page 35 of 38
- PROJECT: Figure 11a
B
min
(m) = 27,00
B
max
(m) = 30,00 -Position = 1
D (m) = 0,00

(kN/m
3
) = 19,4
z
Layer z
b
(m) z
i
(m) H
i
(m) E
s
(MPa) (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00
1 +1,0 +1,5 1,00 50,0 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999
2 -4,5 -1,3 6,50 34,1 0,897 0,901 0,904 0,908 0,911 0,914 0,917
3 -6,5 -5,5 2,00 22,7 0,654 0,660 0,667 0,672 0,678 0,684 0,690
4 -10,5 -8,5 4,00 22,7 0,544 0,550 0,556 0,561 0,567 0,572 0,578
5 -35,0 -22,8 24,50 100,0 0,306 0,311 0,315 0,320 0,324 0,329 0,333
/ Settlement S (cm)
(kPa) q=
-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

80 80 3,36 3,39 3,41 3,44 3,46 3,49 3,51
87 87 3,63 3,66 3,69 3,72 3,75 3,77 3,80
93 93 3,90 3,94 3,97 4,00 4,03 4,06 4,08
100 100 4,18 4,21 4,24 4,28 4,31 4,34 4,37
106 106 4,45 4,49 4,52 4,56 4,59 4,62 4,66

3,0
4,0
5,0
70 80 90 100 110

/

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

S

(
c
m
)
B= 27,0 m
B= 27,5 m
B= 28,0 m
B= 28,5 m
B= 29,0 m
B= 29,5 m
B= 30,0 m
1= - Flexible
2= - Rigid
1= - Center
2= - Corner
4= - Average
S q H
E
q
s

with improvement - B area
z
b-1
D,
B
L
z
i
z
z
b
E
si
182811587.doc / Page 36 of 38
- PROJECT: Figure 11b
B
min
(m) = 27,00
B
max
(m) = 30,00 -Position = 4
D (m) = 0,00

(kN/m
3
) = 19,4
z
Layer z
b
(m) z
i
(m) H
i
(m) E
s
(MPa) (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00
1 +1,0 +1,5 1,00 50,0 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999 0,999
2 -4,5 -1,3 6,50 34,1 0,885 0,889 0,893 0,897 0,900 0,904 0,907
3 -6,5 -5,5 2,00 22,7 0,628 0,634 0,640 0,646 0,652 0,658 0,664
4 -8,0 -7,3 1,50 22,7 0,559 0,564 0,570 0,576 0,582 0,587 0,593
5 -10,5 -9,3 2,50 22,7 0,498 0,504 0,509 0,514 0,520 0,525 0,530
6 -35,0 -22,8 24,50 100,0 0,288 0,293 0,297 0,302 0,306 0,310 0,315
1,5 / Settlement S (cm)
(kPa) q=
-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

80 80 3,25 3,28 3,31 3,33 3,36 3,38 3,41
89 89 3,63 3,66 3,69 3,72 3,75 3,78 3,80
99 99 4,01 4,04 4,07 4,10 4,14 4,17 4,20
108 108 4,38 4,42 4,45 4,49 4,52 4,56 4,59
117 117 4,76 4,80 4,84 4,88 4,91 4,95 4,99

2,0
2,5
3,0
3,5
4,0
4,5
5,0
5,5
70 80 90 100 110 120

/

S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

S

(
c
m
)
B= 27,0 m
B= 27,5 m
B= 28,0 m
B= 28,5 m
B= 29,0 m
B= 29,5 m
B= 30,0 m
1= - Flexible
2= - Rigid
1= - Center
2= - Corner
4= - Average
S q H
E
q
s

with improvement - C area
z
b-1
D,
B
L
z
i
z
z
b
E
si
182811587.doc / Page 37 of 38
4. CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the recommended foundation system for the preliminary treatment
facilities. Although the bearing capacity of the subsoil reveals high values the anticipated settleme-
nts are higher than the defined ones for this kind of structures (except the inlet pumping station
coarse screen structure). In order to construct the foundations of the inlet pumping station - coarse
screen structure a solution of a sheet pile wall could be utilized due to the geotechnical conditions
and the level of the ground water.
The solution to the problem of high settlements was given by improving the mechanical
characteristics of the subsoil utilizing the vibroreplacement (stonecolumns) method.
The configuration of the stonecolumns was, a triangular grid with spacing a=2.50m of columns
made by appropriate gravel material, having a minimum diameter of D=0,90m and length varying
from L=12.00 to 13.50m.
This soil improvement method results reduction of the settlements for the structures into
acceptable limits, faster rates concerning the construction matters, as well as a stable and secure
solution for the foundation of the preliminary treatment facilities.
182811587.doc / Page 38 of 38

Foundation System For The Preliminary Treatment Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Foundation System For The Preliminary Treatment Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consortium Themeliodomi S.A.

Passavant-Roediger Anlagenbau GmbH

(m)= +2,0 /q - Boussinesq (cm)/

-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

(m)= +2,0 /q - Boussinesq (cm)/

-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

Constanta Sewerage and Wastewater Treatment Rehabilitation Project - Preliminary

(m)= +2,0 /q - Boussinesq (cm)/

-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

(m)= +2,0 /q - Boussinesq (cm)/

-D (m)= 27,00 27,50 28,00 28,50 29,00 29,50 30,00

You might also like