Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
Tolunay-Wong Engineers Inc., 10710 South Sam Houston Pkw W, Ste.100, Houston, TX 77031
MOchoa@tweinc.com
ABSTRACT Foundation designs benefit from correlation to well-documented case histories. However, for the design of
wide tanks storing liquids, in particular those requiring piled foundations, only few well-documented case histories exist. The
authors have found five papers reporting settlement of wide tanks or large groups and have reanalyzed the records. The
reanalyzes show that a wide piled foundation can be modeled as a flexible raft placed at the pile toe level with the foundation
load distributed according to Boussinesq stress distribution, and that the capacity of an individual pile is not relevant to the
foundation performance. The findings are used to address the analysis of a hypothetical wide piled foundation for an 84 m
diameter LNG tank at a site with a 60 m thick soil profile, consisting of clay, sand, and clay deposited over competent dense
gravel. The differential settlement between the perimeter and interior piles and the effect of drag force and downdrag are
discussed. The limitation of drag force as affected by the pile spacing and the weight of the soil in between the interior piles is
addressed.
KEYWORDS Wide storage tanks, piled foundations, settlement analysis
INTRODUCTION
Large tanks storing liquids, e.g., Liquid Natural Gas, LNG,
typically have diameters ranging from about 60 m through
80 m. The loads are large, often necessitating placing the
settlement-sensitive tanks on piled foundations, which then
invariably require a very large number of piles; up to and in
excess of 1,000 piles. The wide tank diameters cause
difference in response between interior and perimeter, as well
as between the main pile group and smaller groups of piles
located adjacent to the tank to support connecting pipe racks
and similar structures.
LNG tanks are often placed in coastal or near-shore
areas with soil profiles containing thick layers of
compressible soils, where site drainage and site preparation
requirements frequently make it necessary to raise the area by
placing a fill under and around the tanks. The fill causes the
ground to settle, which develops drag force on the piles and
downdrag (settlement) for the piled foundation. Depending
on pile spacing, the drag force developing for the interior
piles may be quite different to that for perimeter piles and
piles outside or away from the tank.
Well-documented case histories reporting settlement
observations on wide foundations are scarce. Only a handful
are available that deal with wide tank foundations and,
specifically, include results of settlement measurements
across the tank footprint. This paper presents analyses of a
few available case histories, verifying the use of conventional
analytical methods for design that considers the observed
settlements. The design of a typical large piled foundation,
such as for an LNG tank, is then discussed in the light of the
results of analysis of the case history foundations.
CALCULATION OF PILE GROUP SETTLEMENT
The settlement response of piles and piled foundations can be
separated to three components.
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
CASE HISTORIES
Case 1 QIT Plant, Quebec
0
Nov. 1951
Aug. 1952
SETTLEMENT (mm)
20
Jan. 1962
60
VALUE USED
FOR BACKCALCULATION
80
YEARS
0
1950
1955
YEARS
1965
1960
10
10
40
50
South Side
60
North Side
70
Center
Center
Furnaces
20
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
20
30
40
50
South Side
60
70
North Side
Center
2nd from South Side
1951
80
1953
1955
1960 1965
1970
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
BM 2
BM 2A
BM 3
30 m
-5
BM 4
Measured and
calculated at the
benchmarks
SETTLEMENT (mm)
50
100
10
15
20
150
200
250
DEPTH (m)
GW
Calculated
at center
line
Calculated
value fitted to
measured
300
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
SETTLEMENT (mm)
150
200
250
48 m
TANK TK-3000
TANK TK-3001
40
38 m
Hydrotest Level; 30 m
30
20
STRESS (KPa)
150
Actual and
approximated
load and
unloading
sequence
100
10
50
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
100
150
200
250
300
50
100
150
200
350
400
450
500
Measured
and Fitted at
Perimeter
FINISHED
UNLOADING
START
UNLOADING
300
250
1,200 KN
1,200 KN
AT FULL LOAD
200
40 50
100
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
150
30
10
10
100
-10
#2
16m
-20
#3
#4
#5
20
If no unloading
-30
Calculated
at Center
If no unloading
-40
550
45
-50
-20
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
The natural soil below 6 m depth consisted of dense coarsegrained soilto about 14 m depth at Tank TK-3001 and to
about 16 m at Tank TK-3000. Between this layer and a main
deposit of very dense coarse-grained soil (extending to at
least 50 m depth) was a layer of compressible, fine-grained
soil, about 4 m thick at Tank TK-3000 and about 6 m thick at
Tank TK-3001. The left side of Figure 9 shows conditions
for Tank TK-3000. The right side shows those for Tank
TK-3001. The figure also shows geometric details of the
excavation and back-filling volume and the extent of a
preloading surcharge of the tank area. Note that the
excavation and back-filling was essentially only carried out
under the tank footprints.
The effect of the dynamic consolidation at Tank
TK-3000 of the replacement sand and gravel was investigated
by means of two SPT-borings and two CPTU soundings.
Figure 10 shows the SPT N-Indices to about 5 m depth
(through the replacement soil layer) before and after the
dynamic consolidation (tamping).
Figure 11 shows the cone stress, qt, of a CPTUsounding pushed through the replacement soil and about 4 m
into the coarse-grained soil before and after the dynamic
consolidation. The figure also shows a diagram of the soil
compressibility (Janbu virgin modulus numbers) calculated
from the cone stress values according to Massarsch (1994)
and Fellenius (2015). The diagrams indicate that the tamping
was successful in densifying the replacement soil.
After the dynamic consolidation treatment and before
the construction of the two LNG tanks, both areas were
subjected to a preloading during 110 days (Tank TK-3000)
and 250 days (Tank TK-3001). The preloading consisted of
placing a 14 m high fill over the footprint of the tanks and
about 20 m beyond the tank footprints.
During the preloading, settlements were monitored
along the perimeter and center of each tank as well as at the
edge of each fill. Figure 12 shows the measured settlements
versus time (days) in linear scale for the ground level of the
two tanks at tank centers, perimeters, and outer edges of fill.
20
30
40
50
10
10
DEPTH (m)
Before Tamping
5
After Tamping
6
20
30
40
Modulus Number, m
0
50
10
12
DEPTH (m)
BEFORE
10
AFTER
qt -- unfiltered
qt -- unfiltered
qt -- filtered
qt -- filtered
qt -- adjusted
qt --- adjusted
12
100
200
300
400
500
30
20
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
10
10
Before
Tamping
12
After
Tamping
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
20
15
10
5
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
20
15
10
5
0
120
50
100
150
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Calculated for
tank perimeter
300
50
100
150
200
250
300
400
200
Tank
perimeter
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
200
Edge
of Fill
600
Center
800
1,000
400
Tank perimeter
800
1,000
1,200
1,200
-25
25
50
75
100
-25
125
24 days
400
30 days
200
35 days
108 days
600
89 days
SETTLEMENT (mm)
200
1,000
400
25
50
75
100
125
50 days
1,000
1,400
1,200
10
5
0
10
100
1,000
25 days
800
1,400
20
600
1,200
15
800
Edge of Fill
Tank Center
1,400
1,400
SETTLEMENT (mm)
250
200
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
290 days
210 days
20
15
10
5
0
10
100
1,000
DAYS (--)
DAYS (--)
10
DAYS (--)
100
1,000
10
100
1,000
Tank
perimeter
Edge of
Fill
400
600
800
1,000
Center
55 days
End of
Consolidation
1,200
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
200
400
600
1,000
1,200
Tank
perimeter
800
120 days
Edge of Fill
Tank Center
?
End of
Consolidation
1,400
mi
mir
100
40
200
100
200
1,000
400
2,000
600
2,000
Consolidation
m
mr
80
cv (m2/year
40
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
37.6 m diameter
liquid storage tank
20
10
Norht-South
15
5
0
Pile 16
-5
Pile 11
-10
Pile 7
-15
-20
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
East-West
20
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
20
15
10
5
10
15
20
25
30
SETTLEMENT (mm)
5
10
15
Pile 7
20
Pile 11
Pile 16
25
30
35
Fig. 19
10
15
20
25
30
35
SETTLEMENT (mm)
0
10
20
Best-fit point
30
40
40
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
Pile
Shortening
Pile
Head
2,500
Of f set Limit
2,300 KN
LOAD (kN)
2,000
Pile Toe
Mvmnt vs.
Load at Toe
1,500
Pile
Shaf t
vs Mvmnt
at Head
1,000
500
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
MOVEMENT (mm)
Qd
5
Test
Condition
CLAY
10
DEPTH (m)
15
20
25
Test at
Long-term
Condition
SAND
30
35
CLAY
40
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
LOAD (kN)
0
1,000
2,000
SETTLEMENT (mm)
3,000
4,000
25
50
75
100
125
Qd
Pile
Long-term
10
10
FILL
150
CLAY
Soil
Neutral Plane
20
30
DEPTH (m)
DEPTH (m)
20
"q"
40
SAND
30
"z"
CLAY
40
50
50
60
60
GRAVEL
70
70
10
15
20
25
30
35
TIME (years)
20
15
10
20
30
40
50
10
5
0
DAYS
0
10
15
20
HYDRO TEST
25
30
35
0
20
40
60
80
SETTLEMENT (mm)
SETTLEMENT (mm)
0
25
Only Fill;
Away from the tank
100
Tank Perimeter
200
300
Tank Center
400
500
Fig. 24
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828
Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS & AGSSEA Vol. 47 No. 1 March 2016 ISSN 0046-5828