Shear Reinforcement

Effects of Discrete
Columns and Soilcrete
Grids for Liquefaction
Mitigation
DFI Soil Mixing Seminar
San Francisco, CA
Oct 24~25, 2013

Lisheng Shao
Ph.D, PE, GE

www.HaywardBaker.com

Outline
Liquefaction Evaluation & Liquefaction
Mitigation Methods

Verification of the Mitigation Effectiveness

Densification
Reinforcement

Research of Shear Reinforcement Effects

Discrete Columns
Soilcrete Grid

Liquefaction Ingredients
Saturated ground.
Loose granular and other non-plastic soils.
Strong ground motion.
Shear strains transfer forces to pore water.
Excess pore water pressure cannot dissipate fast
enough.
Effective stress is reduced to zero
After shaking stops pore water pressures dissipate

Liquefaction Evaluation
NCEER 97
California SP 117
Robertson & Wang 2004
Boulanger and Idriss 2004, 2007
Baez and Martin 1993, 1995
Boulanger et al 2012

SPT Based Approaches

CPT Based Approaches

Reinforcement

Densification

Approach to Mitigate Liquefaction

1. Remove and replace with nonliquefiable soil

2. Densify loose granular soil
3. Modify cohesive properties of soil
4. Deep Foundations piles or piers
5. Reinforced Shallow Foundations grade beams,
combined footings, rigid raft foundations,

6. Design to accommodate settlement, loss of strength

Methods of Liquefaction Mitigation

Densification Methods
Deep Dynamic
Compaction (DDC)
Vibro Displacement
(STONE COLUMNS)
Compaction Grouting

Methods of Liquefaction Mitigation

Improvement of
Cohesive Properties
Deep Mixing
Jet Grouting
Permeation Grouting

Verification of LQ Mitigation Effectiveness

Densification Verification (in sands, below water table)

SPT
CPT
Shear Wave Velocity
Modulus/Plate Load Test?
Void Reduction vs Volume Intake?

Reinforcement
CSR Reduction

Verification of Reinforcement Effect

Discrete Columns

Aggregate/Sand Columns
Soil Mixing/Jet Grouting Columns
Auger Displacement Piles
Compaction Grouting Columns
Rigid Inclusion Columns

Cellular Structures
Soil Mixing/Jet Grouting Panels

Failure Modes
Aggregate does not have tensile strength
Soilcrete is a brittle material
Failure strain <1%
Very low residual strength
No tensile strength

Discreet columns may fail in bending

Cellular configuration fail in shear

Liquefaction Mitigation-Reinforcement
Reduce cyclic shear stress

applied to liquefiable soil by

installing stiffer elements
within soil matrix that attract
stress.
Can be used in non-densifiable
soils (silts, silty sands).
Not verifiable

soil

col

soil

Post-installation CPT or SPT

results will not differ from preinstallation.
Vertical load testing of elements is
not applicable.

Reinforcement Analysis

Reinforcement Analysis

Liquefaction Mitigation-Reinforcement
Design Methodology
Shear stress reduction factor (KG) (Baez and Martin, 1993):

KG

1
G

1 ARR INC 1
GSoil

GINC=Inclusion shear modulus

GSoil=Soil shear modulus
ARR=Ainclusion/Atotal
Strain compatibility and force equilibrium
CSRapplied to soil = KG * CSRearthquake

18

10

Stiffness Values

Can a column be too stiff?

Strain Compatibility?
Failure mechanism of column
Bending
Shear

Shear Reinforcement for Liquefaction

Mitigation Research Team

PI: Dr. Ross Boulenger, UC Davis

Thang V. Nguyen

Dr. Ahmed Elgamal, UCSD

Dr. Jinchi Lu

Dr. Scott A. Ashford, OSU

Deepak Rayamajhi

Dr. Lisheng Shao, Hayward Baker, Inc

22

11

Scope of research

Illustration analyses
Literature research
Run 3-D unit cell by FEM(Opensees) in linear elastic
and checking the column strength limits
Run 30+ earthquake time histories
Shear modulus ratio = 3, 5, 10, 45, 150,

Generalization analysis and design charts

Run more cases (parametric study) over item 1
Using non-linear soil and column model, may also
include soil liquefaction model
Develop design charts for aggregate and soilcrete
column reinforcement factor, find out design
boundary

23

Discrete Column

24

12

Discrete Column
CSRU

s ,U
a

0.65 max,U v rd ,U
'v
g 'v

CSRI

s,I
a

0.65 max, I v rd , I
'v
g 'v

RCSR

CSRI amax, I

CSRU amax,U

rd , I

rd ,U

Ra max Rrd

Ramax : ratio of peak ground accelerations,

Rrd :ratio of shear stress reduction coefficient for improved &unimproved case
25
r: ratio of shear strains in the discrete column relative to the surrounding soil

pseudo-static analysis
0.2g acceleration, Gr=10, Ar=20%

26

13

pseudo-static analysis
0.2g acceleration, Gr=10, Ar=20%

27

EARTHQUAKE TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

Cape Mendocino Earthquake (1992) at CDMG STATION
89324

28

14

Spatial distribution Rrd and r from earthquake time

history analysis with Ar=20% and Gr=10

29

Rrd was developed that includes adjustment

factors for the effects of discrete column
flexure and shear strain incompatibility

Rrd

1
Gr Ar r CG
1 Ar
Gr

CG : equivalent shear factor of the discrete column

CG = 1.0 for circular discrete columns

r is dependent on Gr and independent of Ar.

KG from Baez (1995) is equivalent to RCSR=(Rrd)(Ramax)
pseudo-static analyses, Ramax =1 & RCSR = Rrd

30

15

Comparison of Rrd

Typically, a 10%-15% reduction

Formoreindepthdiscussion:
Deepak Rayamajhi, Thang V. Nguyen, Scott A. Ashford, Ross W. Boulanger, Jinchi Lu, Ahmed Elgamal, and Lisheng
Shao. (2012). "Effect of discrete columns on shear stress distribution in liquefiable soil." Geo-Congress 2012: State of the
Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering

Page 31

Conclusions Discrete Columns

Current design practice
assumes discrete columns deforming in pure shear
shear strains compatible between columns & soil

3D FEM analyses
discrete columns deformed in both flexure & shear
flexural & rotational greatly diminished their ability to reduce
dynamic shear stresses in the surrounding soils.

Current design methods overestimate reduction in

dynamic shear stresses in soil

Revised design equation

accounts for column flexure & difference in shear strains between
column & surrounding soil
more reasonable estimates shear stress reduction provided by
32
discrete circular columns.

16

LINEAR ELASTIC ANALYSIS

OF DEEP SOIL STABILIZATION
GRIDS WITH OPENSEES PLATFORM

17

Linear Elastic FE DSM Model

Linear Elastic Soil Profile

DSM Half Unit Cell

Half DSM Unit Cell Mesh in
OpenSeesPL

18

Standard DSM Half Unit Cell Under Earthquake

Spatial Variation
EQ

Pseudo Static

Great similarity between Pseudo Static and Earthquake case was

observed which lead to the following proposed design equation.

19

Tensile Stress in DSM Wall

The upper 3 m of the DSM wall regardless whether it is

the side wall of back wall show the most tension ratio.

Proposed Design Relationships

ProposedEquation

StrainCompatibilityEquation

Typically, a 60%-70% reduction in CSR

Formoreindepthdiscussion:
TV.Nguyen,D.Rayamajhi,R.W.Boulanger,S.A.Ashford,J.Lu,A.Elgamal,andL.Shao,
DesignofDSMGridsforLiquefactionMitigation.JournalofGeotechnicaland 40
Geoenvironmental Engineering,November,2013

20

Conclusion Soilcrete Grid

DSM grids affect both:
seismic site response (e.g., amax)
seismic shear stress distributions (e.g. spatially averaged Rrd)

DSM grids on seismic site response can be significant and may

require site-specific FEM analyses

The reduction in seismic shear stresses by DSM grids can be

significantly over-estimated by current design methods that assume

shear strain compatibility.

A modified equation is proposed for estimating seismic shear stress

reduction effects. The modified equations account for noncompatible shear strains and flexure in some wall panels.

The top 2m-3m of DSM wall could potentially be the critical wall
section in term of tension development.

Design of DSM Grids for

Liquefaction Remediation
T V. Nguyen, D. Rayamajhi,
R. W. Boulanger, S. A.
Ashford, J. Lu, A. Elgamal,
and L. Shao
November , 2013

21

Commentary on the
Selection, Design and
Specification of Ground
Improvement for
Mitigation of EarthquakeInduced Liquefaction
Ground Improvement
Committee of DFI

Ground Improvement Committee of DFI

22

Thank You !

23