Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSMGE
by
Serge VARAKSIN
Chairman T.C. Ground Improvement (TC 211)
1
State of the Art Report
Serge Varaksin
Menard, France
Ulrich Klotz
Zublin International GmbH, Germany
Patrick Mengé
Dredging International n.v., DEME, Belgium
Alexandria, Egypt
5-9 October 2009
σ=σ’+u
5 cm , PVC
Flat drain circular drain vertical drain + geotextile
CONCEPT PARAMETERS
CONCEPT PARAMETERS
PROJECT OVERVIEW
GEOLOGICAL PARAMETERS
Service Load:
Zone 1: 36kPa
Zone 2: 25kPa
VC4
Zone 3: 15kPa
Zone 4: 5kPa ROAD CORRIDOR
Vacuum depressure:
75.0 kPa
Secondary Settlement eo
Primary
Program uses a method based on Consolidation
(Pore Pressure
Bjerrum’s concept to calculate e1
Dissipation)
instantaneous and delayed
ΔH primary Cc ⎛ σ 'o + Δσ final ' ⎞
consolidation (Bjerrum, 1967). e2 =
1 + eo
log⎜⎜
σ 'o
⎟⎟
H ⎝ ⎠
t=1d
e3
t=To
Δe
t=To+20y
Void Ratio
Secondary Consolidation
(Long term Creep)
⎛ 20 years ⎞
Δe = Cα e log⎜ ⎟
⎜ T ⎟
⎝ p ⎠
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1ST
2ND SURCHARGE
SURCHARGE PLACEMENT
PLACEMENT
PERMEABL
E LAYER
SOIL BENTONITE
CUT-OFF WALL
VERTICAL
MEMBRANE
Impermeable Strata
Wheeled frame
Backfilling works
Two membrane
rolls - overlapping
Trench excavation
works under
bentonite slurry
Vacuum
Surcharge σ’1= 80kPa
p’ = σ’1 ; Ko = 1
p’ = 2/3 σ’1 Isotropic
Ko = 0.5 σ’1= 80kPa σ’2 = 80kPa
σ’3 = 80kPa
σ’3 = 40kPa
Deviatoric Stress
Active Zone
εh < 0
Surcharge Ko (εh = 0)
Deviation
Passive Zone
εh > 0
Vacuum Consolidation
CONCEPT PARAMETERS
FILL FILL+UNIFORM LOAD FILL+ LOAD
SBCσ’z SBCσ’z SBCσ’z - Age if fill saturated or not
GWT GWT GWT
2 -PL
4 80
6
% -Selfbearing level
50
8 % -∅
σ’
1
1
0 30% z -EP or EM
SB σ’z
2
FILL
Depth
FILL
Depth
FILL
Depth
-QC, FR,
(m) (m)
t
(m)
-N
(about 10 years)
DC : h(m) = C δ E
-R.D. (???)
1
90% (SBC)
C(menard) = 0.9-1 -Shear wave velocity
80% (SBC)
2
C(hydraulic) = 0.55
-Seismic parameters
3 60% (SBC) δ SBC = 0.9-1 (SILICA SAND) -Grain size
4 δ LOAD = 0.4-0.6 (SILICA SAND)
50% (SBC)
S (%) S.B.C. = Self Bearing Coefficient
30% (SBC)
S.B.C. = S(t)
S( ∞ )
¥
AREAS TO BE TREATED
SCHEDULE
• 8 month
150 TONS
Depth of footing = 0.8m
Below G.L.
Double
Drop Free Mechanical Hydraulic
Rig drop hydraulic
method drop winch winch
winch
The equation has been revised recently by Varaksin and Racinais (2009) as:
f −f
f (z ) = 2 2 1 (z − NGL)2 + f1
D
Where: f(z) is the improvement ratio at elevation (z); z is the depth in meters; NGL is the
natural ground level; D is the depth of influence of dynamic consolidation; f1 is the maximum
improvement ratio observed at ground surface and it is dimensionless. The value may be taken
as f1 = 0.008E and E is the energy in tons-meter/m2; and f2 is the improvement ratio at the
maximum depth of influence that can be achieved.
DR (Dynamic
Design
> 2,80
WPL
Replacement)
Working Platform NGL
GWT
HDR (High
Energy
Soil Conditions
Dynamic
> 4,50
Replacement)
+ surcharge
BSL (variable)
+4 SITE ≅ 1,5 km
+3
LAGOON FILLED BY SABKAH +3
+2
+1
RED
c e
-1
-2
SEA e c 4
-3
CORAL
-4
BARRIER 2
-5
-6
-7
-8 4
-9
-10
Qc PL EP
LAYER USC w % % fines N FR %
BARS BARS BARS
4 - LOOSE TO MED DENSE SAND SM - 12-37 3-18 15-80 0,5-1,8 4-12 28-85
PARAMETERS
1.2
I = 6,25 •PL – Po = pressuremeter limit pressure
20%
1
SI = 2,3 •kJ/m3 = Energy per m3 (E)
With t1/tf 0.009 0.037 0.083 0.148 0.231 0.337 0.474 0.669 1.00
⎡ du ⎤ t’1/tf 0.901 0.807 0.725 0.659 0.615 0.602 0.632 0.735 1.00
C' V = C V ⎢1 + ⎥
⎢⎣ Δσ(1 − U1) ⎥⎦
Supposing primary consolidation
completed
The following equation allows to
compare the respective times of U = 0.9 or T = 0.848 if du=U1Δσ,
consolidation being : then t’f = U1t1 + (1-U1)tf
t’f with impact
tf without impact The optimal effectiveness occurs around
du Δσ(1− U1 ) U1 = 60%.
t' f = t1 + tf One can thus conclude that, theoretically
du + Δσ(1− U1 ) du + Δσ(1− U1 )
the consolidation time is reduced by 20%
to 50%, what is for practical purpose
insufficient.
BGA Touring lectures 2010
Dynamic surcharge
Amplitude
28 – 48mm
EARLY WORKS
600 M
RESUME / QUANTITIES
DYNAMIC COMPACTION
POUNDER WEIGHT 25 TON / 23 METERS HIGH DROP 5.0M X 5.0M GRID / 3 PHASES – 10 BLOWS
RESULTS
CONCEPT PARAMETERS
-Thickness of less than 6 meters -or PL, EP, µ of soil, column and
Stone Columns
bottom feed to 22 m
depth
CONCEPT PARAMETERS
-Arching layer available -or PL, EP, µ of soil, column and arching
layers, grid
Grout
flow
Soft soil
SOIL INCLUSION
Transition Stress
layer concentration
Residual stress
Arch effect between the
CMC
CMC
columns
Negative skin
friction
Neutral
point
Soil
Positive skin
friction
Column
Depth
Global axisymetric
calculation by modelising
Complex Soil + CMC with
the improved ground by improved characteristics
material having an
improved stiffness
Calculation principle
R
i
δ
Ti
ic
Method of densification σc
Injected mortar used to displace and ρf
compact the soil around the injection
point
Successive injection according to a
regular grid induce a global compaction
of the soil
Mesh and diameter designed so as to 2.r
achieve a given replacement ratio c
rp
Execution of Compaction
Grouting as per preanalysis
(replacement ratio => mesh
and diameter)
Execution of additional
Compaction Grouting in the
problematic layers
Key points
Quality of grout (grain size distribution, workability, consistancy)
Injection speed and successive phases
CONCEPT
Layer I
Layer II
15% rock (φ = 45°) + 85% clay (Cu = 50
kPa)
Cu=250kPa
95