EVALUATIONOFDEFECTSINDEEPMIXING

METHODCOLUMNSUSEDFORSTRUCTURAL
FOUNDATIONSUPPORT
PaulSabatini

October17,2012
GeosyntecConsultants
OakBrook,IL

ProjectOverview
Some 6,000, 23m long DMM elements
were installed to support 124 LNG process
train mats
During early phases of construction, coring
revealed clay inclusions and unmixed zones
Owner
requested
analyses
and
assessments to confirm a fitforpurpose
foundation system

ProjectOverview(Cont.)
We reviewed available DMM core data
Contractors QA/QC coring program should
be increased
Site activities and investigations proposed
to provide reliable physical data
Contractor declined to implement our
investigative proposals

DMMCoreReview

AsBuiltDMMElements

SummaryofCoreEvaluation
Summarized results of 182 cores using
Contractor field observations of full
diameter poor quality core (PQC)
Information used to define defect scenarios
for 3D numerical modeling
Design Defect Length = 1 m
Worst Case Defect length = 2m

NumericalModeling
3D finite element analyses of DMM columns
(with defects) and foundation mats
Use Zone 5 foundation with lowest DMM
replacement ratio (i.e., on the order of 0.35)
because drag loads would be largest
Drag loads from longterm settlements in the
Unit II clays
Seventeen (17) cases without downdrag and
five additional cases with downdrag

AnalysisModel

LoadedAreasofMats

EntireMat

A50Partial

Checkerboard(CB)

A load of 50 kPa is applied over the shaded areas.

The self-weight of the mat, 18 kPa, is applied over the remainder
area of the mat.

HorizontalDistributionofDefectRegions

RegionA

RegionB

RegionC

RegionD

RegionE

RegionF

HorizontalDistributionofDefectRegions(Cont.)

RegionAModified

RegionBModified1

RegionFModified

RegionCBIn

RegionBModified2

RegionCBOut

VerticalDistributionofDMMColumnDefects
Bottom of Mat

Unit I
Layer
Unit II
Layer

+2.73 m LAT
+2.23 m LAT

0.5 m Defect

0 m LAT
-0.5 m LAT

0.5 m Defect

-5 m LAT
-6 m LAT

1.0 m Defect

Unit IIIA-1
Layer

2mDefectDistribution

Bottom of Mat

Unit I
Layer
Unit II
Layer

0 m LAT
-0.5 m LAT

-5 m LAT
-5.5 m LAT

0.5 m Defect

0.5 m Defect

Unit IIIA-1
Layer

1mDefectDistribution

ResultsforPerfectDMMCase
Soil Layers

Settlement
(mm)

Layer
Thickness
(m)

Unit I

1.1

3.98

Unit II

6.7

Unit IIIA-1

10.4

11

Unit IIIB-1

3.2

Unit IIIB-2

4.3

12

Unit V

4.3

Unit VI

3.5

36

Sum

33.4

78.98

ResultsforA50Case

Min.S22=2130kPa
Max.S22=1950kPa

MaxSettlement=36.3mm

ResultsforB50Case

Min.S22=3210kPa
Max.S22=2970kPa

MaxSettlement=43.9mm

EffectsofDefects
Case

Settlement
(mm)

MatStress
(%ofDesign
Allowable)

MatStress
(%of
Ultimate)

Perfect

33.4

85

52

A50

36.3

104

64

B50

43.9

157

96

B50 Modified1

34.6

82

51

B50 Modified2

36.0

83

51

Pressure=50kPa
DefectLength=2m

Summary DefectsOnly
Even for perfect DMM elements, 85
percent of the allowable design stresses
are mobilized
Partial defects on the edges or in interior
DMM island elements are not critical and
result in computed stresses very similar to
those where no defects exist
Defects are critical if they are continuous
across multiple DMM elements

Downdrag,NonUniformLoadingand
DMMElementswithDefects
Address effects of downdrag settlements on
mat supported by perfect DMM elements and
those with defects
Downdrag settlements result from secondary
compression settlements of the Unit II clays
Analyses are conducted for a 3m thick and 6m
thick Unit II clay layer
Nonuniform (i.e., checkerboard) loading also
considered

CriticalDowndrag Scenario
BottomofMat

2Defects

UnitI
Layer
0mLAT
0.5mLAT

0.5mDefect

8Defects

UnitII
Layer
5mLAT
5.5mLAT

0.5mDefect

UnitIIIA 1
Layer

DistributionofDMMColumnDefects,DefectRegionsandLoadingArea
15cm

UnitII

5cm
0cm

SecondaryCompressionSettlementsoftheUnitIIsoillayer

EffectsofDefectsandDowndrag
DefectAssessment

Case

Settlement
(mm)

MatStress
(%ofDesign
Allowable)

Downdrag Assessment

MatStress
(%of
Ultimate)

Downdrag
Settlement
(cm)

Settlement
(mm)

MatStress
(%ofDesign
Allowable)

MatStress
(%of
Ultimate)

Perfect

33.4

85

52

10/5

49.4

104

64

A50Modified
1m

34.1

84

52

10/5

50.7

103

64

CBPerfect

32.6

104

64

15/5

51.1

122

75

CBInside
Modified1m

33.8

119

73

15/5

52.9

141

87

10

Summary
Downdrag settlements result in significant
increases in DMM and mat stresses
For Case A50Modified1m, computed mat stresses
are very similar to those for the Perfect case
Even with nonuniform loading, continuous defects
up to 1m long, and the largest postulated
downdrag settlements, computed mat stresses for
Case CBInsideModified1m are less than the
equivalent ultimate concrete stress for the mat

ProjectSpecificConclusionson
FoundationFitnessforPurpose

Foundation mats with three (3) interior DMM island

elements or more are fitfor purpose
Mats with only one interior DMM island element are most
prone to adverse performance if defects exist in that
element
The assumption of defects (or completely unmixed zones)
occurring at specific elevations and which penetrate across
the entire width of a DMM element is conservative
Most of the dead load for each mat has been applied and
measured total settlements range from less than 2 mm to
10 mm.

11