introduction to geopier system
TRANSCRIPT
INTRODUCTION TOGEOPIER®SYSTEM
Mr. Gerry Kehler, PE (Georgia)Mr. Tommy WilliamsonApril 14, 2010
OUTLINE
1. History of Foundation Support
2. Geopier System Construction
3. Engineering Basics
4. Different soil types
5. Limitations
6. Industrial Applications
7. Case study
Two choices:
History of foundation systems
1. Shallow 2. Deep
Good soil
BadsoilGood
soil
OK soil
In early 1990’s a third choice emerged:Intermediate Foundation® systems
1. Shallow 2. Deep 3. Intermediate
Good soils
OK soil
Badsoil
Good soil
OK soil
History of foundation systems
The Geopier® Systems are made up of Rammed Aggregate Pier® elements.
With time, the Geopier System gained popularity with cost and schedule benefits.
History of foundation systems
1. Created by forming a cavity
Rammed Aggregate Pier Construction
2. Adding thin lifts of Aggregate, and
Rammed Aggregate Pier Construction
3. Vertically RAMMING the thin lifts of aggregate
Rammed Aggregate Pier Construction
Rammed Aggregate Pier Construction
Temporary casing used to stabilize caving soils
Rammed Aggregate Pier Construction
Displacement Construction
Displacement Construction
Then, as hollow
mandrel is
raised, stone
flows from
hopper down
through mandrel.
Impact
hammer
After
driven
to full
depth,
mandrel
is raised
up 3 ft
Then
driven
back
down 2
ft
Dense,
1 ft lifts
Crowd pressure
from rig weight
and hydraulics
First, mandrel
is driven to
full depth,
with sacrificial
cap covering
tamper foot.
Footing Construction
• Excavate for footings• Compact footing bed• Place steel• Pour concrete
Types of Foundations Supported
• Isolated Spread footings
• Continuous footings
• Retaining Walls
• Lightly loaded slabs
• Heavily loaded slabs
• Uplift Anchors
Flexible Continuous Footings
The keys to success are:
1. Vertical RAMMING (to achieve very low void ratio) and
2. Increase in lateral effective stress from the beveled tamper foot
Geopier System Features
Beveled tamper
Geopier System Features
• High allowable bearing capacity
• Control settlement
• Uplift resistance
• Lateral load resistance
How do RAP systems work?
Engineering basics
Push down on footing, the stiff element (pier) takes more of the load
How do RAP systems work?
The strength and stiffness of the pier determined using a Modulus Test which gives you a spring constant
Engineering basics
• Deflection = 0.25-inch• kg = stress / deflection = 500 pci
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
0 10 20 30 40
Top deflection
RAP Stress (ksf)
Deflection (in)
Telltale deflection
Design(a)
(b)
Uplift anchors required to resist tensile loads
Steel Plate
Cylindrical shearingsurface
Threaded rods
Uplift Resistance
Load Test Uplift Element at UC Davis Production Uplift Elements
Uplift Resistance
Lateral Resistance
RAP and Soil Types
• Sand, silty/clayey sand, gravel
(SP, SW, SM, SC, GW, GP)
• Clays and silts
(CL, ML)
• Peats and organics
(PT, OL)
• Undocumented fill
GEOPIER LIMITATIONS
• Extreme loads on extremely soft soils
• Sinkholes
• Expansive / swelling clay
• Obstructions during drilling
Economics:
Often provide a 20% to 40% cost savings in comparison with Deep Foundations when:
• High capacity > 75 tons and length > 30 feet
• Moderate capacity > 40 to 60 tons and length > 20 feet
• Low capacity < 40 tons and any length
Pile length
Pile capacity
RAP provides MORE economy
RAP provides LESS economy
When To Consider RAP Systems
Economics:
Often provide a 20% to 40% cost savings in comparison with over-excavation and replacement when:
• The depth of overexcavation exceeds 5 - 8 feet.
When To Consider RAP Systems
Geopier SystemApplications
Building Foundation Support
Industrial & Tank Support
Floor Slab Support Transportation
• Five story parking deck
• 63,000 sf footprint
• 77 columns with loads
ranging from
200 to 1220 kips
• Foundation options for
RAPs and auger cast
piles
CASE STUDY
VICTORYLAND PARKING DECKSHORTER, ALABAMA
SUBSURFACE PROFILE
LOWER ZONE
1220 KIPS
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000
Applied Geopier Stress (psf)
Deflection (inches)
Bottom of Geopier
Top of Geopier
Unload
Modulus test results
VICTORYLAND PARKING DECK
Measured Upper Zone Settlement = 0.3”
Estimated Lower Zone Settlement = 0.2”
Total Settlement = 0.5”
530 RAP elements installed in 11 days!
VICTORYLAND PARKING DECK
Elements reinforce soft and compressible soils for support of relatively thin floor slabs.
Replace structural floor slabs on piles.
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
Design Considerations
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
Geotechnical (settlement, etc)
Structural (slab design, etc)
FLOOR SLABS - GEOTECHNICAL
Fill and floor slab support
d
spacing (s)
"competent"
soils
Soft, compressible
soils
Floor load (p)
New Fill
45o
Thickness
RAP
element
(t)
Arching transfers pressures to pier
FLOOR SLABS – STRUCTURAL
Steel Reinforcement
. . . . . May be required to resist tensile stresses within top of slaboverlying Geopier elements.
Need to:
-Work closely with structural engineer
- Perform finite element analysis
(project SE or GFC SE)
Results of analysis identify areas of higher bending stresses
Indicate whether added reinforcement or thicker slab is needed
Finite Element Analysis (FEA)
FLOOR SLABS – STRUCTURAL
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
Boeing Building 101, St. Louis, MODelta Marine, Seattle, WA
Costco Retail Store, Tacoma, WA Polaris Plant, Vermillion, SD
KRAFT CAPRI-SUN WAREHOUSE GRANITE CITY, ILLINOIS
Kraft Capri-Sun Warehouse
Granite City, Illinois
St. Louis, MO
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
Floor Slab700 psf pressure
5 ft fill to get out of floodplain
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
10 ft
CH & CL, Su = 500 psf
0 10 20 30 40
SP, SM
N-values, M%Subsurface conditions
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
Soft Clay
Dense Sand and Silty Sand
Soft ClayFloor Slab
•Winter construction
• Groundwater
Fill
Planned construction
10 ft
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
OPTIONS?
Rammed Aggregate Pier stabilized zone
Floor Slab
Dense Sands and Silty Sands
Value engineering proposal
Pier spacing = 14 ft
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
-2.50
-2.25
-2.00
-1.75
-1.50
-1.25
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0 4000 8000 12000 16000 20000 24000 28000
top of Geopiermiddle telltalebottom telltale
Geopier Stress (psf)
Deflection (in)
15
Modulus test
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
12/6/00
12/11/00
12/16/00
12/21/00
12/26/00
12/31/00
1/5/01
1/10
/01
1/15
/01
Settlement Monitoring
Settlement (in)
Time (days)
Pier = 0.5 in (0.6)
Soil = 0.6 in (0.6)
Differential = 0.1 in (0 in)
Differential settlement
FLOOR SLABS - EXAMPLE
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
• 360,000 sq. ft. manufacturing facility addition
• Floor slab pressures = 700 psf
• 2,100 Geopier elements installed in one month
Mirant Power Plants, MD
POWER GENERATION
Morgantown Plant
Mat foundation:91-ft x 357-ft
Absorber stacks and building
Design pressures:3 ksf at building6 ksf at stacks
Nanjemoy Formation (N > 30)
ML (N = 8 – 20 bpf)
SM (N = 3 – 15 bpf)
14’
Excavation
18’
~26’Impact RAPs:4 to 6 ft o-c
Est. settlements:~ 2.5 inches
Chalk Point Plant
Mat foundation:87-ft x 219-ft
Absorber stacks and building
Design pressures:3 ksf at building6 ksf at stacks
Impact RAPs:4 to 6 ft o-c
Est. settlement:~ 3.8 inches
Nanjemoy Formation (N > 30)
MH (N = 11 – 26 bpf)
SM (N = 5 – 11 bpf)
17’
40’
~26’
Excavation
TANK SUPPORT
Bearing Capacity
Unsuitable Soil
Competent Soil
DESIGN ISSUES
DESIGN ISSUES
Settlement
Unsuitable Soil
Competent Soil
DESIGN OPTIONS
Overexcavation and Replacement
Problems• High groundwater• Cost• Schedule
DESIGN OPTIONS
Pile-supported concrete pad
Problems• Cost• Schedule
DESIGN OPTIONS
Granular pad over Geopier reinforced zone
Geopier
Reinforcement Zone
SAMPLE INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
• Houston Fuel Oil Terminal Tank Support
• Kinder Morgan Tank 150-27 Repair
• Valero Refinery Tank TK-443
• Lyondell-Citgo Tank Repair
• Kinder Morgan Tank 150-44
• Valero Refinery Tank TK-231
• Industrial Zeolite Plant
• ExxonMobil Tank 2176 Repair
• ConocoPhillips Refinery
• New tank construction
• 125-foot diameter
• 48-ft tall
• Design pressure = 3 ksf
CASE HISTORY:VALERO REFINERY TANK TK-231HOUSTON, TX
4 ft
Su (ksf)
0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Clay Fill0 ft
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
4.0
V. Soft to Firm Clay
Firm to V. Stiff Clay
10 ft
GEOPIER SOLUTION
Perimeter Differential Settlement Control
Fill
Soft Clay
Firm to V. Stiff Clay
GEOPIER SOLUTION
Bearing Capacity – Edge Instability
V. Soft to Firm Clay
Firm to V. Stiff Clay
Geopier
FS for Geopier-reinforced soil = 1.30
Modulus Load Test Results
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0 5 10 15 20
Top of Geopier
Telltale No. 1
Top of Geopier Stress (ksf)
Deflection (in)
Design Stress
Deflection
GEOPIER SOLUTION
Settlement = 0.5 in at design stress
• Installed 243 piers in 8 days (30 piers / day)
• Increased edge stability (FS = 1.3)
• Limited perimeter differential settlements
GEOPIER SOLUTION
• Duke Energy
• Ameren (UE)
• Motiva
• Lockheed
• ExxonMobil
• Valero
• Nucor Steel
• General Motors
• BNSF
• Kinder Morgan
• Boeing
• U.S. Food Services
Selected National Clients
• Certainteed
• Kraft
• John Deere
• Case New Holland
• Pfizer
•Wal-Mart
• Michelin
• Maybelline
• Pacific Bell
• Sara Lee
• Anheuser Busch
• General Mills
Shear reinforcement in Geopier zone
TRANSPORTATION APPLICATIONS
US-90 & SH-6 Intersection Upgrades, Sugarland, Texas Site Plan
SCOPE OF WORK
6.7 / 22107 / 353South Ramp
7.3 / 24107.6 / 353North Ramp
8.2 / 2769 / 227South
Abutment
7.3 / 2479 / 260North
Abutment
Max. Height
(m)/ [ft]
Length
(m)/[ft]
MSE Wall
Location
Typical Soil Conditions
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 w%
Depth (m)
GWT
CL
SM
SM, SW
φ' = 22°
c' = 4.8 kPa
φ' = 30°
c' = 0
cεc = 0.11 - 0.14
cεr = 0.03 - 0.05
φ' = 30°c' = 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
North Ramp South Ramp
North Abutment South Abutment
Su (kPa)
CL
SM
Geopier Installation
•Total Number of Piers = 1411 •Two Crews •20 to 25 RAPs•Cost ~ $1,000,000•Bid Through DOT letting•FHWA funded the geotechnical instrumentation
Modulus Test Results
-60-55-50-45-40-35-30-25-20-15-10-50
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Top-of-Rammed Aggregate Pier Stress (kPa)
deflection, (m
m)
North Abutment
South Abutment
South Ramp
South Ramp II
North Ramp
Design Stress < 18000 psf< ¾-in top vertical deflection
Geotechnical Instrumentation Layout
Near the Bridge Abutments at general locations of higher bearing pressure
MonitoringStation 1
MonitoringStation 2
East
West
Geotechnical InstrumentationHorizontal and Vertical Inclinometers
Vibrating Wire Piezometers
Sondex Settlement System
Instrumentation Installation
Vibrating Piezometer Cable
Horizontal InclinometerCasing w/Cable Return
ProtectiveInstrumentationBox
Instrumentation Monitoring Results
Horizontal and Vertical InclinometersPiezometer Nest
South Ramp Monitoring Station-1
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
11/29/05
12/27/05
1/24/06
2/21/06
3/21/06
4/18/06
5/16/06
6/13/06
7/11/06
8/8/06
9/5/06
10/3/06
10/31/06
11/28/06
12/26/06
Date
Pore Pressure (psi)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Fill Pressure (psi)
-15 ft
-20 ft
-24 ft
-30 ft
Fill
Spike Caused by Driving of Pile within 5 ft of Piezometers Gradual Rise in
Pore Pressure Caused by General Rise in Groundwater Elevation
Instrumentation Monitoring Results
Sondex Settlement System- South Ramp-West
-0.60-0.50-0.40-0.30-0.20-0.100.000.100.200.300.400.50
0 5 10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Depth-(ft)
Downward Movement (ft)
1/27/2006
1/25/2006
1/26/2006
2/1/2006
2/9/2006
2/20/2006
2/23/2006
3/2/2006
3/9/2006
4/6/2006
5/4/2006
7/12/2006
9/19/2006
10/24/2006
Avg
2.5-in (6.4-cm)
Instrumentation Monitoring ResultsVertical Inclinometers at North Ramp
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
-3.0 -2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Lateral Movement (in)
Depth (ft)
North Ramp-Sta.2-West
North Ramp Sta. 2 - East
North Ramp-Sta.1-West
North Ramp Sta. 1-East
11/2006 through 5/2007
Bottom of Retaining Wall Footing
2.54-cm
NORTH ABUTMENT
NORTH RAMP
SOUTH ABUTMENT
SOUTH RAMP
Conclusions
-Vertical Settlement 2.5 to 3-inches
-Horizontal Displacement < 1.5-inches
-Rapid Pore Water Pressure Dissipation
Afforded by Radial Drainage into RAPs
-Vertical Displacement < 2-inches
Post-Construction
- Complied with FHWA requirements
Questions?