University of California, Davis Civil & Environmental Engineering ECI 284 Term Project

Study of Ground Improvement Techniques with an Emphasis on Deep Soil Mixing

Payum Vossoughi Instructor: Professor Boris Jeremic
March 2012

Presentation Outline
Introduction/Motivation Overview of available ground improvement techniques Emphasis on Deep Soil Mixing (DM)
Laboratory testing Numerical analysis Statistical analysis

Conclusion

Introduction/Motivation How do we keep our civil infrastructure safe from liquefaction?

Liquefaction mitigation strategies:

1.) Modify design reduce damage to acceptable levels 2.) Do nothing alternative accept risk 3.) Abandon project choose another site 4.) Ground improvement
Increased density of underlying soil deposits Reduced excess pore pressure build-up (maintain ru < 1.0)

Introduction/Motivation cont
How does a project engineering choose a ground improvement technique(s) to implement? Case studies Numerical & statistical analyses Laboratory tests on soil specimens (QA/QC) Benefit vs. cost analysis Constructability issues + engineering judgment Purpose: Increase confidence in ground improvement techniques to better protect civil engineering infrastructure from future natural disasters related to liquefaction

- NSPE Code of Ethics:

Engineers, in the fulfillment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public

Overview of Available Ground Improvement Techniques

Ground Improvement techniques based on soil characterization

Methods of Ground Improvement: Vibro Methods

Construction of a vibro-replacement stone column

Advantages Densifies soil Increases lateral stress Reinforces soil mass Provide drainage of excess pore Most effective technique for liquefiable soils that fall within the typical grain size range Widely used Economical Disadvantages Ineffective for soils with high fines content (>20%) Inefficient for liquefiable soils with a limited thickness at a significant depth Difficult to penetrate stiff strata (cemented, cobbles) Settlement of surrounding ground Vertical conduit for environmental contaminants (Idriss & Boulanger 2008)

Methods of Ground Improvement: Deep Dynamic Compaction

Crawler cranes can drop tamper masses weighing up to 33 tons from heights of 30 meters Advantages Disadvantages

Densifies soil Increases lateral stress Economical large areas Simple; no insertion required

Effective for only upper 10 meters Difficult to densify soil surrounding large cobbles/boulders Decreasing effectiveness with decreasing permeability (>20% fines) damping effect of generated dynamic shear stresses Disturbing to local structures + occupants
(Idriss & Boulanger 2008)

Methods of Ground Improvement: Compaction Grouting

Grout rods incrementally pulled up in stages bottom-up approach Advantages Densifies soil Increases lateral stress Reinforces soil mass Works well in low-overhead + constricted spaces Can target specific depth interval Effective with high fines soil (>20%) + large particles (cobbles, boulders) Disadvantages Ineffective for small depths (<6 meters) grout pressures can heave ground surface Grout bulbs are brittle = tendency to crack with earthquake shaking

(Idriss & Boulanger 2008)

Methods of Ground Improvement: Jet Grouting

High-pressure jets of air, water and/or grout overlapping soil-cement columns Advantages Disadvantages
Construction of overlapping soil-cement columns Hydraulic fracture (in-ground shear walls) Overlapping soil-cement Reduces earthquake-induced shear strains of columns are brittle = treated zones tendency to crack with Increases composite shear strength of treated earthquake shaking zones Prevents migration of excess pore between untreated and treated zones Works well in low overhead Can target specific depth interval Works well in high fines soil (large applicability range)

(Idriss & Boulanger 2008)

Other Ground Improvement Techniques Worth Mentioning

Drainage systems Coarse aggregates or geosynthetic composites Design goal: control max. ru levels Limited to high k soils Prevent void redistribution or water film generation at interfaces Low k high k interface drain system Permeation Grouting Reduces the potential for contraction during cyclic shearing Optimization and QC through computer automation Minimal disturbance; clean sands Generally expensive (special circumstances) Explosive Compaction Exposed soil bulbs resulting from permeation grouting Propagation of dynamic shear stresses Deep deposits; clean sands Non-uniform densification Permitting requirement (large disturbance) Removal and Replacement Excavate and replace with compacted fill High degree of confidence Sediment boils resulting from explosive compaction Practical for shallow liquefiable layers; (Idriss & Boulanger 2008) groundwater needs to be controlled

Methods of Ground Improvement: Deep Soil Mixing

Cementitious materials/grout are injected through auger stems and mixed with native soils Advantages
Construction of overlapping soil-cement columns (in-ground shear walls) Reduces earthquake-induced shear strains of treated zones Increases composite shear strength of treated zones Prevents migration of excess pore between untreated and treated zones Works well in high fines soil (large applicability range)

Disadvantages
Requires overhead clearance Stiff strata can impede augers Inefficient for liquefiable soils with a limited thickness at a significant depth Overlapping soil-cement columns are brittle = tendency to crack with earthquake shaking

(Idriss & Boulanger 2008)

Additional Information Regarding Deep Soil Mixing

DM was put into practice in Japan in the middle of 1970s to improve soft marine deposits, and then spread into China, South East Asia, and recently to the other parts of the world.
The maximum improvement depth on land is typically 30 meters in comparison to 50 meters for off-shore applications The 2 principal hardening agents used in DM are cement and lime The curing process for cement-treated soils is much longer for cohesive soils (approx. 56 90 days) compared to non-cohesive soils (approx. 28 days). The strengths achieved in non-cohesive soils are larger. Cement powders can achieve higher strengths than cement slurries when used to treat clayey soils. Cement powders have lower water contents Typically SPT N-values of soils to be treated: Cohesive: N < 4 blows (heavier equipment --- N < 10 blows) Granular: N < 10 blows (heavier equipment --- N < 30 blows) Alternative approach: dry jet mixing Minimizing of hardening agent (cement or lime) Minimizing waste slurry and spoil Reducing resources consumed/project expenses + increased sustainability Markets for DM: 1.) Roads and Railways 2.) Water/sewage treatment works 3.) Tunneling

4.) Foundation support 5.) Temporary works 6.) Seismic engineering

Emphasis on Deep Soil Mixing

Laboratory Testing on DM Stabilized Soil

Laboratory Testing on Stabilized Soil QA/QC

Kaolin clay stabilized with ordinary Portland cement. 4 moulding techniques ,4 binder contents -- 160 total specimens obtained
28 days curing - unconfined compression test (axial strain rate =1%/min); Wet density also measured
(Kitazume 2012)

Laboratory Testing on Stabilized Soil cont

Tapping technique Most uniform Densest Highest shear strength Most correlated Minimal pockets/cavities Static Compaction Least uniform Loosest Lowest shear strength Least correlated Maximum pockets/cavities Strength increases approx. linearly with increasing wet density (regardless of moulding technique)

Wet Density Parameter

Unconfined Compressive Strength Parameter

Future Research: Perform similar studies using Different soils Different laboratories
(Kitazume 2012)

Emphasis on Deep Soil Mixing

Numerical Analysis of Lattice Shaped Ground Improvement in Japan

Numerical Analysis: Case Study

Oreintal Hotel in Kobe, Japan Hyogo-Ken Nanbu earthquake 1995 Dimensions: 134 m x 59m (plan) & 60m tall Liquefaction potential in the upper loose fill Lattice shaped ground improvement (16 m) Treatment area ratio* = 20% Unconfined compressive strength after curing (6 weeks) = 4 6 MPa. Aftermath: minimal damage to the cast-inplace pile foundation and superstructure due to implemented DM walls
* Treatment area ratio is defined as the ratio of the improved soil area to the
whole site area

(Namikawa 2007)

Numerical Analysis: Important Aspects to the Model

3-D FE Analysis

Mesh = 8 node isoparametric elements

Two-phase u-U formulation (excess pore) Distribution in stress (Tensile --- cracking)

Boundary conditions: cyclic, viscous, undrained

Elastic and Elasto-Plastic Model Accounts for partial damage Can not simulate cyclic mobility after the initial liquefaction Rayleigh Damping (solid phase) Saturated sand densification model (Mohr Coulomb)

Distribution in the number of Gauss points that reach failure (Namikawa 2007)

Numerical Analysis: Cases/Results

2 varying parameters in the analysis of the improved soil

Without ground improvement

Representative of case study

(Namikawa 2007)

Numerical Analysis: Concluding Remarks

Improved soil in Case 1 satisfies both the liquefaction potential & internal stability criteria Partial Failures (as witnessed in cases 2 & 3) do not greatly affect potential of liquefaction mitigation. Note, however, that internal stabilities are not satisfied for cases 2 & 3. Primary factors affecting the potential of liquefaction mitigation: A.) Treatment area ratio B.) Elastic modulus of the improved soil What if the site experiences another earthquake (of equivalent energy/shaking)? If the induced failure region from the 1st earthquake is small (represented by a small damage volume ratio), the potential of liquefaction mitigation remains approximately the same for the 2nd earthquake. Future Research Topics: 1.) Investigate the influence of input wave characteristics 2.)Expand the numerical model to account for plastic deformations (nonlinear behavior)

(Namikawa 2007)

Emphasis on Deep Soil Mixing

Statistical analysis of DM implementation in Singapore

Statistical Analysis: Case Studies

Marina Bay Financial Centre (MBFC)
Soil deposition: primarily marine clay & some sand with seashell fragment. The design UCS is 0.8MPa. Sampling conducted after 2 months of DM installations QA/QC

Nicoll Highway MRT Station (NCHS)

Soil deposition: thick layer of marine clay, thinner layers of estuarine clay, fluvial sand cohesionless soil & layer of land reclamation fill (ground surface). The design UCS is 0.9MPa. Sampling conducted after 2 months of the DM installations QA/QC

Site layout MBFC project

Site layout NCHS project (Chen 2011)

Statistical Analysis: Results from MBFC Project

97 Samples 156 Samples 73 Samples 75 Samples 84 Samples

Total = 485

Improvement in the uniformity of the mixing as the project proceeds. Phase 4 has the smallest COV, corresponding to the greatest uniformity Operating parameters play a significant role in DM statistical analysis Small pockets of high strength can significantly skew mean UCS upward COV values fit within the expected range: 0.20 0.60 (Chen 2011)

Statistical Analysis: Results from NCHS Project

112 Samples
28 Samples 16 Samples 17 Samples 51 Samples

COV range is lower for NCHS compared to MBFC project Histograms are left-skewed with high mean values --modified DM approach = Jet Mechanical Mixing (JMM) Ignoring the fill layer, the naturally-occurring soil deposit with the lowest mean UCS and poorest mixing quality is the M layer (or high plasticity clay) The F1 layer (a sandy deposit) shows the best improvement (Chen 2011)

Statistical Analysis: Concluding Remarks

MBFC strength < NCHS strength Increasing cement content increases strength (operating parameter) MBFC COV > NCHS COV Increasing presence of marine clay deposit increases COV (geologic condition) MBFC blade rotation number < NCHS blade rotation number Increasing penetration and withdrawal rates decreases mixing quality, and UCS (operating parameter) Constructed (actual) strength > design (target) strength for all phases/layers; both projects High conservatism observed in construction Lack of understanding regarding strength variability in DM columns Future Research: Improvements to DM construction method to effectively treat Singapore marine clay Acquire better understanding of strength variability in DM columns

MBFC - DM

NCHS JMM (mod. DM)

(Chen 2011)

Conclusion
Engineers must be aware of the capabilities and limitations of available liquefaction remediation ground improvement techniques and how better understanding of the physical phenomena associated with each technique will help improve the current state of practice regarding quality control and construction.