Search Documents

By Frank Rausche

Since the early 1980s, when the Road Construction Authority of Victoria authorized the dynamic proof testing of roughly 100 drilled shafts of 1.5 m diameter and typically 60 m length in Melbourne Australia, dynamic load testing has been applied worldwide for quality control of drilled shafts. Today, test capacities of 4000 tons or more are not unusual. On numerous occasions the authors have been involved in similar tests in the United States and test engineers from other countries have reported on experiences in many different countries. Without doubt, generating high test loads is most economically accomplished by dynamic load testing and this method is particularly well suited for testing piles founded in rock because of the rocks low energy dissipation. However, deep foundation professionals have on occasion expressed reservations about subjecting a drilled shaft to impact loadings fearing, for example, a degradation of the shaft ? rock interface properties or potential error sources due to uncertain concrete properties or shaft geometry. This paper will present numerous case studies, demonstrating the performance of rock socketed drilled shafts under dynamic loads. It will discuss the mechanics of the dynamic tests and the method of data interpretation, addressing the concerns stated above and investigating the limitations of the test method. The paper will formulate a set of recommendations for the design and execution of these tests.

Jan 1, 2006

By George Aristorenas, Carlos Englert, Jesús Gómez

"Laboratory test data of strain softening soils exhibit the development of a maximum (peak) shear strength followed by a decrease in the strength with continued straining. The rate of strength loss decreases such that an asymptotic minimum value, known as the residual strength, is approached. This paper presents an investigation of the evolution of strength degradation in excavation supported soils that exhibit strain softening behavior. The paper presents a numerical investigation of excavation support of slicken-sided clay, and results of shear testing on materials with similar strain softening behavior. A strain softening constitutive law is presented that can be used with the finite element computer software Plaxis for analysis of excavation support. A typical design section of a deep excavation support in stiff, fissured clay is presented that illustrates the limitations and conservatism of the residual strength approach for excavation support design. Finally, a discussion is presented on the impact of stiffer walls such as diaphragm walls, compared to less stiff systems such as sheet piles, on the design parameters.INTRODUCTIONIn the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the Potomac Formation is generally composed of stiff, fissured clays. Geotechnical engineers often associate the presence of slicken-sided planes within the formation as evidence that the soil cannot develop its peak strength. Although it is unclear how old and continuous these slicken-sided planes are, their occurrence, persistence and orientation appear to be somewhat random. Due to this uncertainty, the design of open cut slopes in these materials is often conservatively performed assuming residual shear strength values. This design approach may be justified for long-term open cuts when there is limited amount of geotechnical information and in view of back stability analyses of past slope failures. Furthermore, the lack of confinement in open cuts allows relatively high shear strains near the surface and toe throughout their existence, which promote mobilization of post-peak strength values and the ensuing progressive failure. Indeed, such behavior has been discussed in the past (Skempton, 1970; Schnabel et. al., 1982; Derrenbacher, 1998). A thorough study by Mesri et. al. (2003) of numerous slope failures concludes that the lower bound strength for stability analysis of non-failed slopes is the fully softened strength, which is intermediate between the peak and residual strengths, but that part of the slip surface may be in a residual condition prior to failure."

Jan 1, 2015

By Martin D. Larisch

The construction of diaphragm walls and most large-diameter bored piles (piers) is often carried out under drilling support fluids to temporarily stabilise the excavation prior to concrete placement. In most cases such fluids are either mineral-based slurries (bentonite) or polymer support fluids. The working mechanisms of these two fluid types are fundamentally different. Designers need to consider possible fluid-related impacts on the permanent design performance of the project-specific deep foundations as well as for the temporary excavation stage during construction. Robust design methods for bentonite slurry-supported excavations have been developed in the last few decades and the working principles and associated risks of such mineral-based slurries are understood reasonably well. However, such meth-ods have not been developed in detail for polymer-based drilling fluids. This document provides a brief overview of the main characteristics of bentonite- and polymer-based drilling fluids as a guide for construction practitioners and design engineers alike. The paper also high-lights some common construction risks related to casing installation and the selection of suitable fluid systems for different ground conditions. Typical defects caused by the incorrect application of drilling support fluids, and their pro-active mitigation, are discussed, too. In addition, the basic concepts of sta-bility calculations for bentonite fluid-supported deep excavations are briefly introduced and their ap-plicability for other fluid types such as polymer-based support fluids or water are reviewed.

Nov 1, 2022

By Joram M. Amir

During recent years, the integrity testing of piles has made considerable progress. With the availability of portable and powerful computers, practically all integrity testing equipment is now digital. Using sophisticated software for data acquisition and analysis, today's testing systems can provide owners with important information regarding both the length and integrity of piles and drilled shafts. This sophistication carries a price: Very few clients, including experienced engineers, do understand the strange-looking graphs adorning the reports they get. In fact, most of them will never ask, some because they are too busy to care and others because they are ashamed to show their ignorance. This situation is well exploited by a few shrewd operators of test equipment. Facing strong competition and falling revenues, they simplify their task and cut their expenses by the following means: 1. Using old equipment until it falls apart, and then some, 2. Hiring under-qualified personnel, 3. Staying on site as little as possible, 4. Eliminating the analysis and evaluation stage altogether, 5. Confirming as-made lengths and reporting no defects.

Jan 1, 1999

Jan 1, 2001

Jan 1, 1987

"Guideline Augered Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Pile Specification and Commentary11.0 GENERAL1.1 SCOPEThe Pile Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment necessary for furnishing, installing and testing Augered Cast-in-Place (ACIP) piles as shown on the Contract Drawings and as specified herein.ACIP piles are commonly referred to by several other names. Some of them are trademarks or service marks owned by Foundation Contractors and some are names that try to describe the installation process. The term “cast-inplace” is sometimes replaced with “cast-in-situ,” especially in Europe. Some common names are Auger Cast Piles, Intruded Mortar Piles, Augerpress Piles, Augered Pressure Grouted Piles, AugerPile Foundations, Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) Piles, Grouted Bored Piles, Augered Grout-Injected Piles, Drilled or Augered Uncased Piles, and Uncased Cast-in-Place Concrete Piles. To avoid confusion, ACIP pile will be used exclusively herein.1.2 PILE CONTRACTOR QUALIFICATIONSThe ACIP piles shall be installed by an experienced Pile Contractor who upon request of the Engineer shall submit evidence of successful ACIP pile installation under similar job and subsurface conditions, including a job supervisor who shall have a minimum of five years of method specific experience.The proper installation of the ACIP piles is dependent upon the procedures used by the Pile Contractor’s field representatives and equipment provided. The Pile Contractor’s personnel responsible for the installation should have relevant experience with the auguring and pumping equipment, experience placing piles under similar site conditions (including restricted headroom if appropriate), in similar subsurface conditions, as well as experience handling the special grout mixes, admixtures, etc."

Jan 1, 2016

By Brian FitzPatrick, Michael J. Weaver

Everyone has a role in site safety, even consultants. This paper presents a summary of how a geotechnical and environmental consulting firm, with field staff on construction and subsurface explorations sites, engaged their staff and leveraged relationships with contractors to assess the construction related risks to which its staff members are exposed. These findings were then integrated into their technical training materials for both new staff and those needing a refresher, so that safety is discussed at the same time as the technical work and not treated as a separate topic. The paper outlines the process of identifying and evaluating the construction related risks that staff members face and presents examples of how the consultant can engage contractors in the process. By doing this, knowledge can be shared and there is a better mutual understanding of the risks associated with common construction and exploration related field tasks. The work resulted in an increase in staff engagement in safety, a better understanding of the true risks that staff face in the field, better relationships with contractors, and lower safety metrics. HISTORY At Haley & Aldrich, Inc., we renewed our safety journey in May 2012. Like many others, we had concerns over injuries our staff experienced in the three previous years, and a potentially significant utility strike we experienced while excavating a trench. In 2009, 2010 and 2011 we experienced an increase in recordable injuries, including two significant injuries, which caused our Experience Modification Rate (EMR) (see note below), Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR), and Days Away-Restricted, and Transferred Rate (DART) to rise significantly. See Fig. 1 for details. This caused us to step back and review our approach to safety, and our “safety culture”. The rise in reportable incidents and injuries also corresponded to the beginning of a growth period for the company.

Jan 1, 2019

By R. B. King

This document was prepared by the DFI International Grouting Committee with the intent to provide a summary of main Standards and Guidelines available for the North America and Europe grouting industry. This document highlights the different approaches, methods and tools used internationally. The DFI International Grouting Committee comprises all parties involved on a grouting project: Owners, regulators, engineers, contractors, and manufacturers (equipment and materials). This document is not intended to cover every conceivable application or requirement of grouting. However, it does provide standard practice requirements for qualifications, materials, equipment, testing, and production procedures for the professional engineer to incorporate into their project specific requirements.

Jan 1, 2021

By Joshua C. Adams, Les Chernauskas, Edward L. Hajduk

"Drilled shafts are increasingly being used to support bridge and building foundations. Because these foundations usually carry very high design loads and often serve as non-redundant, single load carrying units, these foundation systems need a high level of quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) during construction. One such method for providing QC/QA is crosshole sonic logging (CSL) testing, in which ultrasonic signals sent across the drilled shaft concrete assess concrete quality.CSL testing is an effective tool to evaluate the integrity of the in-place drilled shaft concrete. While typically used to evaluate drilled shaft concrete after construction, CSL testing can also be used to evaluate drilled shaft repairs. This application can be difficult, given the variability of repair methods and material properties. CSL testing can also be adversely affected by the condition of the concrete/access tube bond, leading to false anomaly detection and/or inability to evaluate concrete integrity effectively. This phenomenon, called access tube debonding, is often located in upper portions of the drilled shafts where large changes in groundwater occur, such as within tidal zones.Two case histories showcase innovative uses of CSL testing to deal with consistent access tube debonding and to evaluate drilled shaft repairs.CSL OverviewCSL testing involves placing ultrasonic transmitters and receivers in access tubes installed in the drilled shafts prior to concrete placement. Concrete quality is assessed by examining the First Arrival Time (FAT) and relative energy of the signal sent between the transducers. If the distance between the access tubes is known, an apparent signal velocity (i.e., wave speed of the ultrasonic signal through the concrete) can also be determined and used to assess concrete quality.Common CSL testing practice consists of simultaneously raising the ultrasonic transmitter and receiver and recording the ultrasonic signals with respect to depth. This results in a 2D examination of the"

Jan 1, 2009

By Thomas C. Anderson

Tiedback walls are now recognized and accepted as a good solution for a variety of structural problems: ? Retaining Walls and Bridge Abutments in cut situations ? Landslide stabilization ? Repair/support of existing walls Acceptable techniques have been developed for anchoring in cohesive and granular soils and in any kind of rock. Methods have been developed for adequately protecting tieback tendons against corrosion and for testing every tieback to verify its long-term load-carrying capacity. However, the major problem that the industry faces today is how do we get constructable and economical tiedback walls contracted for and built with minimal claims. This paper will explore the issue of "constructability" through a look at specific problems from actual projects. From a research report from the Construction Industry Institute, Austin, Texas (1986), constructability is defined "as the optimum use of construction knowledge and experience in planning, design, procurement and field/operations to achieve overall project objectives." Maximum benefits occur when people with construction knowledge and experience become involved at the very beginning of the project." The design and installation of tiebacks has been developed primarily by specialty contractors; each contractor has evolved its own methods of performing the work, and consequently, many of the techniques are patented and proprietary. The real question is, how do we make effective use of this knowledge and experience during the design phase of the project?

Jan 1, 1991

By Kevin Kuhl

With the destruction of the US-90 Bridge spanning St. Louis Bay by Hurricane Katrina, the State of Mississippi awarded its first major design-build contract in order to have a completed four-lane bridge in a period of less than two years. The structure consists of 76 pre-cast concrete beam spans with a total bridge length from Bent 1 to Bent 77 of 11,124 ft (2.1 miles). All 77 bents are founded on pre-cast, pre-stressed concrete piles and consist of two foundation types: pile bents and water line footings. A total of 53 pile bents were utilized where the deck is less than 52 ft above the water. Further divided, 10 pile bents, supported by 24 in. square, solid piles, are located on land. The remainder of the pile bents are located within St. Louis Bay and supported by 36 in. square, voided piles. All the waterline footings are supported by 30 in. square, voided piles. In total, 138 -24 in., 437 -30 in., and 463 -36 in. piles support the structure. Production pile design was based upon information gathered from the subsurface investigation, design soil profile and 23 out-of-position test piles. Verification of the design was established by monitoring the first production pile driven at each bent using the Pile Driving Analyzer. Particular challenges included highly variable coastal deposits, loads in excess of 1600 kips per pile and a compressed construction schedule. Initial drive capacity of a portion of the production test piles was less than expected resulting in a minimum 14 day setup. Following the setup period, restrikes were necessary to verify capacity. Project production piles ranging from 50 ft in length to in excess of 160 ft in length were used to achieve the required resistance. This paper includes a brief overview of the foundation design and indicator test pile program. The main objective is to provide a summary of the quality control procedures including establishing the driving criteria for each bent and to present issues that arose during production pile driving and the solutions that followed.

May 11, 2007

By Jun Ohbayashi, Yoshiyuki Yagiura, Hiroaki Miyatake, Masuo Kondoh, Naotoshi Shinkawa

"Reducing the improvement ratio of ground improvement is an extremely efficient way to reduce the construction cost and construction period of mitigation measures for soft ground. The Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column (ALiCC Method) is one method for this, and it is being increasingly applied to sites. This method enables us to rationally evaluate the embankment loads that are acting on cement improved soil columns and unimproved ground, by considering the arch action generated in the embankments and from there thusly allocate improved soil columns in spans of a greater distance than those needed for conventional methods. As a result, it serves to reduce construction costs and the construction period, while also minimizing the settling of the embankment and differential settlement, by placing numerous improved soil columns in the ground immediately beneath the embankment at equidistant intervals. In this report, we give a basic overview of the ALiCC Method, report typical construction results from real life cases that have been carried out, and make comparisons with other construction methods in order to report on the effectiveness of this design method.OVERVIEW OF ARCH ACTION LOW IMPROVEMENT RATIO CEMENT COLUMN (ALiCC) METHODIn the area of mitigation measures for soft ground, a significant role is played by ground improvements using improved materials such as cement. For this reason, a reduction in construction costs and construction period required for ground improvements has become of greater importance. The Public Works Research Institute carried out joint research with Kiso-Jiban Consultants Co. Ltd., Kitac Co. Ltd., and Fudo Tetra Co. Ltd. over a period from 1998 through 2002, and, from that, developed the ""Arch Action Low Improvement Ratio Cement Column Method"" (hereinafter referred to as the ""ALiCC Method"") that enables ground improvement with a lower improvement ratio (the improved area ratio is approx. 10% to 30%) than is required for conventional methods, while also ensuring stabilization and minimizing the settling of embankments.In the area of mitigation methods for soft ground by deep mixing, the dominant method until now has been that (50% or more of improvement ratio) shown in Fig. 1. This method comprehensively improves the area under the face of the slopes of both sides of the embankment. This is based on the calculated stability against rotational slip, which states, ""the most effective way to ensure the stabilization of the embankment environment is to carry out improvements of the area under the face of the slope."" Therefore, for the area under the face of the slope, ground improvement by deep mixing was done, and for the soft ground in the area under the middle part of the embankment, accelerated consolidation methods (hereinafter referred to as ""conventional method"") such as sand draining method and paper draining method were used. Mitigation measures that combine these improvement methods have also been mainstream for a long period of time and are used to prevent side deformation around the embankment. However, there have been some problems that have occurred, such as a situation where consolidation settling occurs in the center area under the embankment where no improvement had been carried out. This phenomenon leads to a situation in which the improved soil columns in the area under the face the of slope are pushed to the outside, which results in side deformation occurring around the area of the embankment, and additionally the occurrence of a step due to a situation of differential settlement between the improved ground and the consolidation advancing part, which results in cracks in the embankment."

Jan 1, 2015

By Jim Slatter, Ben Collingwood

"It is well known that the adoption of an appropriate construction methodology is critical to quality outcomes for bored piles (drilled shafts). Many case studies have been published documenting quality issues that have arisen due to a range of causes involving ground conditions, ground support, drilling and cleaning techniques, groundwater, concrete properties and concreting methods, amongst other things. Despite the body of published information, pile defects remain common in practice. The authors share over 40 years’ experience in the Australian piling industry and have participated in many hundreds of projects involving bored piles in design, construction and testing roles. It is the authors’ experience that many defects are caused by conditions or practices that are known to be problematic, but that are often not recognised or addressed at the time of the works. This paper provides an overview of industry practices and key factors relevant to quality outcomes. The authors draw upon their own construction experience, published case studies and guidelines, and observations from independent pile testing activities they have been involved in across the Australian piling industry. The intent of the paper is to provide a consolidated review of typical industry practices and to highlight key areas in which construction quality can be enhanced.INTRODUCTIONThere are many published studies of cases where bored piles have been constructed and found to have concrete defects. The authors have had personal involvement in many cases where the outcomes and learnings are not publically available. The nature and cause of defects is always dependent on site and project specific factors, and therefore methodologies and materials that produce satisfactory outcomes in certain circumstances may be problematic elsewhere. The process of bored pile construction encompasses the following key areas:??excavation and ground support;??pile preparation and cleaning;??pile reinforcement and fitments.??concrete supply and mix performance;??concrete placement methodology;Each of these elements is equally important and can influence construction quality in completed piles. In the authors’ experience, it is often a combination of seemingly minor issues that leads to significant defects in piles. Conversely, attention to detail in all aspects of bored pile construction is required to produce outcomes of a consistently high standard."

Jan 1, 1900

By Paul Thurlow, Richard K. Lipscombe

The measurement of deflection of designed diaphragm walls is critical for near real time information to assess wall and soil behaviour as the internal area is excavated in a controlled manner. Data enables the site team and designers to check performance of the design, which is linked to safeguarding the site and the external stakeholders.This paper documents the use of Shape Accel Arrays at the Tottenham Court Road Western Ticket Hall during excavation and propping within the diaphragm wall for the Crossrail project. It shows how the data obtained was used within the site settlement management plan to assist in the control of the works and the information used for Value Engineering purposes that benefitted the project.The use of Shape Accel Arrays for measuring the deflection of retaining walls is not commonplace in the UK construction industry, with the Tottenham Court Road Western Ticket Hall being one of the first times they have been used in such a way. A detailed analysis of the data obtained from the instruments has been undertaken, and compared to the results obtained from the manual inclinometers that were read next to the SAAs. The advantages of the relatively new SAAs have been discussed, as well as other applications of the instrument.

Jan 1, 2017

"1.0 INTRODUCTIONThese Guidelines reflect the state-of-the-practice of the Deep Mixing Method (DMM) in North America. DMM is an in situ mixing process that breaks down the soil structure; injects binders, fillers and reagents into the soil; and blends them with the soil. DMM is also commonly referred to as Soil Mixing. The final properties of the treated soil in situ are a function of the composition of the native soils and groundwater, the binders introduced, the mixing methods and energy, and the conditions and time of curing. Treated soils generally have increased strength and stiffness and/or reduced permeability relative to the native soils.This document addresses DMM performed by rotating single and multiple axis mixing tools, rotating cutter wheels at the end of a rigid kelly bar, or trench mixing using a rotating cutting/mixing chain around the perimeter of a rigid bar. Binder may be injected through low or high energy (velocity) jets.The treated soils created through wet DMM are heterogeneous mixtures of binder, water, soil, and groundwater. Treated soils produced by dry DMM techniques are a mixture of binder, soil, and the water already present in the native soil.DMM applications described in this document include•,Earth retention•,Liquefaction mitigation•,Groundwater seepage control and containment isolation•,Bearing capacity improvement•,Deep foundations•,Mass stabilization and contamination containment•,Embankment, levee and dam strengthening, and stabilization•,Casing replacementThis document was developed to address deep foundations applications. Use of deep mixing for seepage control is not specifically addressed. The reader is referred to documents prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for additional information. Shallow soil mixing and the use of DMM for stabilization/solidification of contaminated soils performed at depths less than 10 feet (3 m) are mentioned briefly. Jet grouting is not covered by these guidelines."

Jan 1, 2016

By Ruth McKeown, Gilson de F. N. Gitirana, Murray Fredlund, HaiHua Lu

The current design standards for the use of anchors in slopes is based on two-dimensional (2D) limit equilibrium analyses. Anchors are considered as discrete loads and the 2D anchor, factored based on the spacing distance, corresponds to extending anchors indefinitely in the third dimension. A three-dimensional (3D) analysis offers a more realistic representation of the problem, including the true discrete nature of the anchor point loads. This paper explores the typical differences between analyzing anchors in 2D and 3D, using four typical conceptual models. Slopes with constant cross sections were shown to be adequately represented by the traditional 2D approach. The maximum difference between 2D and 3D models was 21% and becomes negligible for lower anchor spacing values, as expected. A slope with an external load was analyzed to evaluate critical slip surfaces with lower aspect ratios. Slip surfaces with lower aspect ratios presented higher edge effects that contributed to the stability of the slope. The results indicate that optimum design requires the 3D evaluation of field conditions inducing low aspect ratios, such as concave and convex surfaces, weak layers, and external loads. INTRODUCTION Slopes may be stabilized using a variety of solutions, including anchors. When performing an analysis, geotechnical engineers often follow the traditional two-dimensional (2D), Limit Equilibrium Method (LEM). It is important to understand the consequences and limitations of the assumptions on which the 2D LEM is based. There are numerous studies on anchors that show the importance of considering the actual three-dimensional field conditions. Desai et al. (1986) proposed a three-dimensional procedure based on the Finite Element Method and considering elastoplastic behavior and interface elements, to account for stress and displacement distributions, the relative motion between the anchors and the soil mass, and nonlinear soil behavior. Several important stabilization mechanisms were explained. The role of grout injection was evaluated in terms of the produced normal stresses along the anchor-soil bounding surface. The approach was shown to reproduce adequately experimental tests on a sand, proving realistic stress distributions around the anchor. Nonlinear soil behavior influenced to a large extend relative interface motions. Michalowski (1989) applied an upper-bound limit analysis in 3D to slope stability analyses. Anchors were not specifically considered in this study, but the consideration of locally loaded conditions shed light on important modeling aspects. The manner how the slide mechanism becomes three- dimensional as the slope is locally loaded was demonstrated. This emphasizes the fact that anchors should produce field conditions that require 3D analysis approaches.

Jan 1, 2019

Jan 1, 1993

By Brandon T. Buschmeier, Sonia S. Swift, Michael P. Walker, Frederic Masse

"Ground improvement has undoubtedly become a cost-efficient and effective solution to support the development of poor soil sites. Ground improvement elements, such as Controlled Modulus Columns (CMCs), replace piles by improving the subsurface soils and reducing settlement. As ground improvement becomes more popular, the applications become more creative and ground improvement is being used to control settlements under large structures with tight settlement tolerances.In this paper, we will discuss the use of CMCs to support two (2) large industrial warehouses where soil conditions would normally lead to the use of deep foundations and a structural slab, grade beams, and hung utilities to prevent excess settlement. Each of the sites we will discuss had poor soil conditions in the form of very soft or compressible soil, heterogeneous fill of varying thickness, and environmental contamination. At each site, we developed a design that would allow for the use of Controlled Modulus Columns (CMCs) with a Load Transfer Platform (LTP) in place of the previously-proposed deep foundations. The use of the CMCs also allowed for the use of spread footings and slab on grade construction. The benefits of this value-engineering approach include economy in the foundation system, risk mitigation by not disturbing contaminated soils requiring expensive removal, and ease of access for future sub-slab upgrades with new tenants. Additionally, the use of recycled concrete aggregate as an LTP is more environmentally friendly than placing structural slabs with heavy steel reinforcement.Designing for the settlement of large warehouses is challenging because it requires changing how we typically perform our designs. For most structures, the slab loads are relatively light when compared to the footing loads, whereas for warehouses, the slab is heavily loaded compared to the relatively light footing loads. Thus, it becomes essential to perform three-dimensional analyses to confirm that the proposed CMC layout will provide uniform support of the slab and footing across a variety of loading scenarios (loaded bays vs unloaded or travel bays). The complexity of the designs for these warehouses generated interest in conducting large area load tests over a grid of multiple columns. The performance of the area load tests provided invaluable information on the effectiveness of the LTP and CMC spacing. In this paper, we present a general description of CMC ground improvement, the differences between ground improvement and traditional pile foundations, our typical design methodology for CMC design, and the modifications to that methodology for warehouses."

Jan 1, 2017

By Alper Turan, Hesham El Naggar

"The use of aggregate pier foundation systems has become widespread as the engineering practice moves towards cost-effective ground improvement solutions that provide accelerated construction schedules. Increased bearing capacity, effective settlement control and potential for liquefaction mitigation are commonly acknowledged benefits of aggregate piers. This paper studies the mechanisms by which aggregate piers interact with each other and with the surrounding ground when excited by seismic loads. A particular emphasis was placed on the response of a raft foundation supported on a site improved using aggregate piers. Three-dimensional nonlinear finite element analyses were conducted using commercial software package, ABAQUS. Non-linear soil behaviour is modelled using a three-dimensional total stress-based bounding surface plasticity model, which is able to simulate stiffness degradation and damping increase in the soil. The soil stratigraphy considered in this study was a 30 m deep soil deposit that comprised a very stiff base layer and a shallow soft surficial clay layer. Ricker Wavelet time histories with different frequency contents are used as the excitation force in the analyses. Various area replacement ratios (ARR) for aggregate piers are studied for a square plan layout. The results presented in this study are considered to be of interest to researchers and designers in evaluating the seismic ground response of the sites improved using aggregate piers. INTRODUCTIONThe schedule and cost limitations imposed by the traditional over-excavation and replacement method for the stabilization and settlement control for poor soils resulted are underlying factors for the significant increase in the use of aggregate pier foundation system, particularly in the last two decades. Various well known advantages of aggregate pier systems including increased bearing resistance, settlement reduction, and increased uplift capacity have been studied by various authors. The use of aggregate pier systems for settlement control in soft soil deposits was studied by various researchers including Lawton and Fox (1994), Lawton et al. (1994) and Wissmann et al. (2001). Lien and Fox (2001) studied the behaviour of aggregate pier systems supporting embankments and retaining walls. The stabilization of slopes by means of aggregate piers was studied by Lien and Fox (2001), Wissmann et al. (2002). Thompson et al. (2009) reported on a performance monitoring study of aggregate pier systems supporting MSE walls. The interaction mechanism between the aggregate pier system and the surrounding soil attracted attention of various researchers. Handy and White (2006a) and (2006b) studied the changes that occur less than 2 m from centers of the piers, and further away, respectively. The support mechanism of aggregate pier systems subjected to compressive loading were studied experimentally and numerically by White et al. (2007) and Pham and White (2007), respectively."

Jan 1, 2017