G MS THESIS_final version_Maxim Prokudin.pdf - Digital Repository ...

xLIST OF TABLESTable 1: Stiffness modulus for small and large scale aggregate piers ...........................................24Table 2: Case studies 1-3 for reduced scale columns ....................................................................25Table 3: Case studies 4-6 for reduced scale columns ....................................................................26Table 4: Case 7 for reduced scale columns ....................................................................................27Table 4: DCPI and CBR average values for matrix soil of single piers compacted viadifferent beveled heads ......................................................................................................49Table 6: DCPI and CBR average values for matrix soil of various mix single piers ....................50Table 7: DCPI and CBR average values for matrix soil of group aggregate piers ........................50Table 8: DCPI and CBR average values for matrix soil of group cement type I and Kcomposition piers ...............................................................................................................51Table 9: UC loess sample γ dry and w% for single piers compacted via various beveled heads .....55Table 10: Top UC loess sample C u for single piers compacted via various beveled heads ..........55Table 11: Top nuclear density gauge loess γ dry and w% for single piers mixes ............................55Table 12: Top and bottom UC loess sample γ dry and w% for single pier mixes ............................56Table 13: Top and bottom UC loess sample C u for single pier mixes ...........................................56Table 14: Top and bottom UC loess sample γ dry and w% for group of aggregate piers ................57Table 15: Top and bottom UC loess sample C u for group of aggregate piers ...............................57Table 16: Top and bottom UC loess sample γ dry and w% for group C(I) + C(K) piers .................58Table 17: Top and bottom UC loess sample C u for group C(I) + C(K) piers ................................58Table 18: Average C u , w% and γ dry for 305 mm and 610 mm loess samples ................................78Table 18: Pier mix proportions, compressive strengths, and pier construction details ..................79Table 20: Full-scale and 1/10 th scale aggregate pier dimensions ...................................................80Table 21: 1/10 th scale aggregate pier mix proportions ...................................................................81Table 22: Direct shear test initial density and void ratio of scaled aggregate pier material ..........82Table 23: Stress and stiffness comparison measurements for simulated aggregate piersconstructed via different shape tamper heads ....................................................................92Table 24: Stress, stiffness and deflection comparison measurements for load test results forsingle piers of various mixes............................................................................................106Table 25: Ultimate bearing capacity due to bulging failure for single piers ...............................108Table 26: Ultimate bearing capacity due to plunging failure for single piers .............................109Table 27: Stress, stiffness and deflection comparison measurements for aggregate pier groupload test results and group efficiency in comparison to a single pier ..............................120Table 28: Stress, stiffness and deflection comparison measurements for aggregate pier groupload test results and group efficiency in comparison to a unit cell pier ...........................121Table 29: Group efficiency comparison measurements for small and full-scale aggregatepiers ..................................................................................................................................122Table 30: Stiffness modulus for small and full-scale aggregate piers .........................................122Table 31: Measured ultimate bearing capacity ............................................................................123Table 32: Stress, stiffness and deflection comparison measurements for C(I) + C(K) groupload test results .................................................................................................................132Table 33: Group efficiency comparison measurements for small and full-scale piles ................133Table 34: Ultimate bearing capacity for a single pier within C(I) + C(K) group ........................133