8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
1/70
5101 9 5101 9 5101 9 5101 9
201
1
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
2/70
1
2 2
2
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
3/70
3
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
4/70
4
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
5/70
Depth, m
+2.5m RLSoil Description c (kPa) kh (m/sec)
+0.5 CrustYellowish brown mottled red CLAY withroots, root holes and laterite concretions
110 -
-5.6
Upper
Clay
Light greenish grey CLAY with a few shells,very thin discontinuous sand partings,occasional near vertical roots and somedecaying organic matter (
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
6/70
6
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
7/70
Drainage
Length, l
(m)
Drain
Spacing, s
(m)
Equivalent
Diameter, dw
(m)
Influence Zone
Diameter, de
(m)
Smeared Zone
Diameter, ds
(m)
18.0 1.3 0.07 1.365 0.4
7
Triangular Layout
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
8/70
8
Embankment constructed directly on thesubsoil
Fill compacted in 0.2m layers at a nominalrate of 0.4m per week until failure occurred
Coupled consolidation analysis was
performed
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
9/70
9
Fill(15 Layers)
Crust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)
Sandy Clay
80 m
20 m2 m
6.4 m
10 m
4.1 m
GWT at 1.75m below
ground surface
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
10/70
Material RL (m) sat(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o) * *
kh(m/day)
kv(m/day)
UpperClay
+0.5 -6.0
15.5 1 20 0.13 0.05 1.3E-4 6.9E-5 0.15
Lower
Clay
-6.0
-15.915.5 5 22 0.11 0.08 9.5E-5 6.0E-5 0.15
10
Soft Soil Model
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
11/70
Material RL (m) sat(kN/m3)
unsat(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o)
E
(kPa)
kh(m/day)
kv(m/day)
Fill - 20.5 20.5 19 26 5200 1.0 1.0 0.3
Crust+2.5
+0.516.5 14.5 20 26 14000 1.3E-4 6.9E-5 0.3
Sandy
Clay
-15.9
-20.0
16.0 16.0 10 22 2500 9.5E-5 6.0E-5 0.3
11
Mohr Coulomb Model
References include A.S. Balasubramaniam (1994) & B. Indraratna (2000)
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
12/70
12Plan View Elevation View
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
13/70
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thickness of Fill (m)
ExcessPorew
aterPressure(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
0
1
2
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thickness of Fill (m)
ExcessPorewaterPressure(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
13
Piezometer P2Piezometer P7
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
14/70
-13
-11
-9
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
0 2 4 6 8
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
ReducedLevel(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13
-11
-9
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
0 2 4 6 8 10
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
Reduce
dLevel(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13
-11
-9
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Excess Porewater Pressure (m)
Reduce
dLevel(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
14
Fill Height = 3mFill Height = 4mFill Height = 5m
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
15/70
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Thickness of Fill (m)
LateralDisplacement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-13
-11
-9
-7
-5
-3
-1
1
3
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Lateral Movement (m)
Reduce
dLevel(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
15
Inclinometer I3
At Failure Height
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
16/70
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
Vertical
Movement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
VerticalMovement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Distance from Centerline of Embankment (m)
VerticalM
ovement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
16
Fill Height = 3mFill Height = 4mFill Height = 5m
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
17/70
17
30m fromtoe
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
18/70
18
30 m
Upper Clay
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
19/70
19
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
20/70
StageFill Periods
(Days)
Fill Thickness
(m)
Rate of Filling
(m/day)
Rest Period
(days)
1 1 - 14 0.0 2.57 0.18 14 105
2 105 - 129 2.57 4.74 0.09 129 - present
20
Coupled Consolidation Analysis was performed
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
21/70
21
135 m
FillCrust
Upper Clay (OCR = 1.2)
Lower Clay (OCR = 1.2)
Sandy Clay
PVD Stabilized
Zone
2 m
6.4 m
10 m
4.1 m
36 m
20 m
43 m
Soil Parameters were the same as
that of the embankment constructedto failure. GWT at 1.75m belowground surface
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
22/70
(
)
22
w
h
r
h
q
klsk
k
s
n
3
2
4
3)ln()ln(
2
++= vv
h
e
ve kk
k
D
lk )
5.21( 2
2
+=
where l = Drainage lengthn =
w
e
d
d
de = Diameter of unit celldw = Diameter of drains =
w
s
d
d
ds = Diameter of smear zonekh = Horizontal permeability of natural soilkr = Horizontal permeability of smear zoneqw = Discharge capacity of PVDkv = Vertical permeability of natural soil
Verified by Tay, E.L
(2002)
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
23/70
23
r
h
k
k
General
5 12 12
Spacing (m) 1.3
H(m) 18
Configuration Triangular
Axisymmetric
Radial Flow
Material Crust Upper Clay Lower Clay
kv (m/day) 6.9E-5 6.9E-5 6.0E-5
qw (m3/yr) 100
dw (m) 0.07de (m) 1.365
n 19.5
dm (m) 0.2
ds (m) 0.4s 5.714
Equivalent
Flow
Material Crust Upper Clay Lower Clay
kve (m/day) 5.99E-3 2.66E-3 1.97E-3
qw (m3/yr) 100
kh/ kr
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
24/70
24
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
25/70
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)
ExcessPorewa
terPressure(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
PFEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)
ExcessPorewa
terPressure(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)
ExcessPorewaterPressure(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
25
Piezometer P2
Piezometer P3
Piezometer P6
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
26/70
23
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)
VericalMovement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)
VerticalMovement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
26
Ground Surface
5.5m Below Ground Surface
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
27/70
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from centerline (m)
VericalM
ovement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from centerline (m)
VerticalMo
vement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from centerline (m)
VerticalMo
vement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction (PVD)
FEM Prediction (W/O PVD)
27
45 Days
105 Days
413 Days
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
28/70
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
29/70
Located at Nong
Ngu Hao in theCentral Plain of
Thailand
Project area 8
km by 4 km
situated 25 km
east of Bangkok
MetropolisSoft clay strata
with low strength
and high
compressibility
Case 2 2nd BangkokInternational Airport
29
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
30/70
Weathered Clay
Very Soft Clay
Soft Clay
Medium Clay
Stiff Clay
Dense Sand
30
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
31/70
TEST EMBANKMENT TS3
31
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
32/70
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
32
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
33/70
Conditions for analysis
Vertical closed consolidation boundary
conditions were set at centre of
embankment and 60.0 m from centre of
embankmentOpen consolidation boundary conditions
were set at ground surface and sand
layer at 22 m below stiff clay layer
33
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
34/70
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
35/70
Method 1 Using interface element
Equivalent horizontal permeability of
soils, khpl, calculated
Different kh/ks ratio determined by thepermeabilities of different soil layers to
match instrumentation data
Method 2 Using an equivalent vertical
permeability
Treated as one-way drainage
Drainage length taken to be the length
of the vertical drain 35
FINITE ELEMENT MESH (METHOD 1)
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
36/70
Analysis
Number of elements used for method 1
was 1268 and 1117 for method 2
Each element has 6 nodes and 3 stress
points
Line refinement used at improved zone
by vertical drains to increase theaccuracy of solution
FINITE ELEMENT MESH (METHOD 1)
36
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
37/70
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (day)
Settlement(m)
FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)
Method 1
SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains
Consider Smear Effects Only
37
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
38/70
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (day)
Settlement(m
)
FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)
Method 1
SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 1 - Using Interface Element as Vertical Drains
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
38
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
39/70
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (day)
Settlement(m
)
FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)
Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)
Method 2
SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability
Consider Smear Effects Only
39
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
40/70
-2
-1.8
-1.6
-1.4
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (day)
Settlement(m
)
FEM (0-8m)
FEM (0-12m)
FEM (0-16m)Measured (0-8m)
Measured (0-12m)
Measured (0-16m)
Method 2
SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Method 2 - Using Equivalent Vertical Permeability
Consider Smear Effects and Well Resistance
40
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
41/70
-2
-1.6
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (day)
Settleme
nt(m)
0-8 m (Method 1)
0-12 m (Method 1)
0-16 m (Method 1)
0-8 m (Method 2)
0-12 m (Method 2)
0-16 m (Method 2)
SETTLEMENT GRAPHS
Consider Smear Effects Only
41
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
42/70
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
43/70
From the comparisons of settlementspredictions:
Difference in the 2 methods is large
when consider smear effects only, but forrealistic conditions of drain smearingand well resistance , difference is smaller
Difference between the two methods getslarger with increasing depths of
settlement measurements
43
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
44/70
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (day)
ExcessPorePre
ssure(kN/m2)
Method 1 (center of embankment, 8 m)
Method 2 (center of embankment, 8 m)
EXCESS PORE PRESSURE
44
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
45/70
45
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
46/70
:
46
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
47/70
47
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
48/70
48
Elevation view of a Typical Knoll
Zone A50 m
Zone C35 m
Zone B25 m
Zone B25 m
Zone C35 m
Reinforced Knoll
Sand Blanket
Geosynthetic Reinforcements
F il f K ll D8
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
49/70
49
Failure of Knoll D8
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
50/70
8
0
5
10
15
20
25
-145 -116 -87 -58 -29 0 29 58 87 116 145
Distance From Centerline (m)
Depth(m)
D8AL
SOFT CLAY
D8AR
STIFF CLAY
SAND
D8AC
50
Soil profile variedsignificantly
Obtained from CPTsresults and SoilClassification Chart
After Robertson and Campanella (1983)
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
51/70
Type of Reinforcement Tensile Strength (kN/m) Elongation at Failure (%)
Rock G55/30
(Basal Reinforcement)50 10
PEC 50 (Side
Slope Reinforcement)50 10
TS 80 (Side
Slope Reinforcement) 30 10
51
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
52/70
Zone DrainageLength (m)
DrainSpacing (m)
EquivalentDiameter (m)
InfluenceZone Diameter
(m)
Smeared ZoneDiameter (m)
A 15.0 1.25 0.0659 1.413 0.25
B 10.0 1.50 0.0659 1.695 0.25
C 5.0 1.50 0.0659 1.695 0.25
52
Equivalent Vertical Permeability was used to modelPVD stabilized foundation soil
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
53/70
8
0.0
3.5
7.0
10.5
14.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Time (Days)
HeightofKnoll(m)
53
Coupled Consolidation and Updated Mesh withPore Pressure Analysis was performed
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
54/70
8
54
Fill (40 Layers)
Sand
CounterBalance
Soft Clay (OCR = 1.2)
Stiff Clay
60 m
SandBlanket
5 m
50 m25 m35 m
GWT at 1m below
ground surface
25 m 35 m 60 m
10 m 10 m
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
55/70
Material sat(kN/m3)
unsat(kN/m3)
c(kPa)
(o)
E(kPa)
kh(m/day)
kv(m/day)
Backfill 22 22 3 30 7000 8.64E-2 8.64E-2 0.3
SandBlanket
22 22 6 30 7000 8.64E-1 8.64E-1 0.3
Sand 19 17 1 30 10000 8.64E-3 8.64E-3 0.3
Stiff Clay 20 18 15 30 10000 1.73E-3 8.64E-4 0.3
Material sat(kN/m3)
unsat(kN/m3)
c
(kPa)
(o) * *
kh(m/day)
kv(m/day)
ur
Soft Clay 16 16 1 16 0.187 0.019 3.46E-4 8.64E-5 0.15
55
Mohr Coulomb ModelSoft Soil Model
Reference from Tay (2002)
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
56/70
8
56
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
57/70
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
58/70
-0.050
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
140 190 240 290 340 390 440 490 540
Time (Days)
Settlement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-0.200
0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Time (Days)
Settle
ment(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-2.500
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-0.500
0.000
140 190 240 290 340 390 440 490 540
Time (Days)
Se
ttlement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
-2.500
-2.000
-1.500
-1.000
-0.500
0.000
140 190 240 290 340 390 440 490 540
Time (Days)
Settlement(m)
Field Measurement
FEM Prediction
58
SP1
SP7
SP3
SP5
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
59/70
8
59
Soft Clay
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
60/70
60
Side slope reinforcements were ignored
Half geometry was modeled
Influence of the strength and stiffness of basalreinforcement on the allowable rate of loading
Comparison between the allowable rate of
loading for partial penetration of PVD and fullpenetration of PVD through the soft clay layer
Soil properties were based on Knoll D8
Coupled consolidation and Updated mesh withpore pressure anaylsis was performed
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
61/70
61
Knoll Fill
(0.5m per layer)
Partial Penetration
of PVD
10 15 m
25 m 60 m35 m25 m
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
62/70
62
Knoll Fill
(0.5m per layer)
Full Penetration
of PVD
10 15 m
25 m 25 m
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
63/70
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
AverageLoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
Knoll 7 (Depth of Clay = 15m): Point of Failure
Knoll 8 (Depth of Clay = 17m): Point of Failure
Knoll 10 (Depth of Clay = 11m): Point of Failure
Knoll 12 (Depth of Clay = 10m): Point of Completion
63
Partial penetration of PVD and 50 kN/m Basal geogrid
(/) .
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
64/70
()
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
AverageLoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penentration: Depth of Clay = 10m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
Average
LoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Patial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
AverageL
oadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
Average
LoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
64
50 kN/m Basal Geogrid100 kN/m Basal Geogrid150 kN/m Basal Geogrid200 kN/m Basal Geogrid
(/) .
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
65/70
()
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
AverageLoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penentration: Depth of Clay = 10m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
AverageLoadingRa
te(m/wk)
(1) Patial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
Aver
ageLoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Height of Knoll (m)
Ave
rageLoadingRate(m/wk)
(1) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(2) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(3) Partial Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
(4) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 20m
(5) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 15m
(6) Full Penetration: Depth of Clay = 10m
65
50 kN/m Basal Geogrid 100 kN/m Basal Geogrid
150 kN/m Basal Geogrid 200 kN/m Basal Geogrid
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
66/70
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
67/70
67
Depth of Soft Clay = 10 m Depth of Soft Clay = 20 m
49 kN/m 50 kN/m
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
68/70
Strength of Geogrid
(kN/m)
Depth ofSoft Clay (m)
50 100 150 200
10 5.7m 7.2m 10.7m 17m
15 5.7m 6.9m 7.7m 8.5m
20 5.8m 6.7m 7.2m 7.3m
68
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
69/70
69
8/14/2019 CE5101 Lecture 9 - Case Histories and Consolidation Monitoring (OCT 2013) [Compatibility Mode]
70/70
,
70