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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

105Settlement (mm)024681012Applied stress at top of pier (kPa)0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500RAPRAP w/cem.bulbRAP w/cem top0.1 m.Loess+fiberLoess+cementLoess+fiber+cementI+KI+K+NS7I+NS7SandLoess14(a)0Applied stress at top of pier (kPa)0 500 1000 1500 2000 250024Settlement (mm)68101214Figure 70: Overall stress-settlement test results for all (a) 305 mm and (b) 610 mm longsingle piers of various composition(b)
106The stress-settlement plots constructed in Figure 59 through Figure 70 were used to obtainpier stiffness, stiffness and top and bottom displacement information provided in Table 24.Table 24: Stress, stiffness and deflection comparison measurements for load test resultsfor single piers of various mixesPier type 2Aggregate PierLength(mm)k at δ top =2 mm(kPa/mm)σ at δ top= 2 mm(kPa)σ at δ top =5 mm(kPa)σ at δ top =10 mm(kPa)δ tell-tale atδ top = 10mm (mm)Ratio δ tell-tale/ δ top at δ top =10 mm305 222 443 774 1,044 0.75 0.08Truncated Cone 610 247 494 789 1,028 0.08 0.01Aggregate Pier 305 246 491 732 960 0.22 0.02w/cem. bulb 610 170 341 904 1,304 1.90 0.19Aggregate Pier 305 254 509 958 1,385 2.00 0.20w/ cem. top 610 370 740 1,341 1,726 0.76 0.08Loess 100mm. + fiber305 105 211 475 667 0.70 0.07610 125 251 496 771 0.00 0.00Loess + cement305 364 729 1,258 1,570 6.46 0.65610 576 1,153 1,436 1,467 0.74 0.07Loess + fiber + 305 241 483 794 1,062 7.85 0.79cement 610 259 518 1,491 1,804 2.03 1 0.20C(1) + C(K)305 227 453 960 1,363 6.03 0.60610 488 975 1,974 2,393 4.61 0.46C(1) + C(K) + 305 333 667 1,028 1,200 10.13 1.01NS7 610 624 1,247 1,749 1,944 6.49 0.65C(1) + NS7305 261 523 1,044 1,327 9.31 0.93610 565 1,130 1,611 1,765 6.38 0.64Sand305 353 707 902 998 0.73 0.07610 356 712 1,103 1,295 0.20 0.02Loess — 173 347 521 689 — —Legend:1 no 10 mm reading, maximum top of pier deflection 9.13 mm2 all scaled piers were constructed using truncated cone beveled tamper headk - stiffness modulus (kPa/mm)δ top - deflection at the top of the pier (mm)δ tell-tale - deflection at the bottom of the pier (mm)σ – stiffness of the pier (kPa)Ratio δ top / δ tell-tale = 10mm / δ tell-taleCon<strong>version</strong>s:1 m = 3.3 ft1 mm = 0.0394 in1 kPa = 0.145 psi1 kg/m 3 = 0.0624 pcfEvaluation of the information collected from the stress-settlement plots was performed on thebasis of service and ultimate load conditions. The displacement at the top of the pier at 2 mmand 5 mm was assumed to represent the service load conditions, while 10 mm displacementwas treated as a maximum or ultimate amount of settlement. The piers that were not loaded
Page 1:
Engineering behavior of small-scale
Page 6 and 7:
viLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Concept
Page 8 and 9:
viiiFigure 62: Stress-settlement te
Page 10 and 11:
xLIST OF TABLESTable 1: Stiffness m
Page 12 and 13:
xiiLIST OF EQUATIONSEquation 1: Ult
Page 14 and 15:
xivSymbol Description Unitsγ dry l
Page 16 and 17:
1CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTIONIndustry Pr
Page 22 and 23:
7MAKECAVITYPLACESTONE ATBOTTOM OFCA
Page 24 and 25:
9Normal Stress, kPaShear Stress. kP
Page 26 and 27:
11pier element for a maximum of 25
Page 28 and 29:
13savings provided by the system (A
Page 30 and 31:
15The bearing capacity accredited t
Page 32 and 33:
17Equation 12: Load resistance prov
Page 34 and 35:
19Soil conditions at the site were
Page 36 and 37:
Settlement (mm)Settlement (mm)10202
Page 38 and 39:
23Site soil conditions were describ
Page 40 and 41:
25Article#ReferenceTable 2: Case st
Page 42 and 43:
27Article#7ReferenceHughes andWithe
Page 44 and 45:
29replaced with method of freezing
Page 46 and 47:
UNREINFORCED COLUMNNO COLUMNREINFOR
Page 48 and 49:
33The load carrying capacity was fo
Page 50 and 51:
35Case 5 - Bachus and Barksdale, 19
Page 52 and 53:
37full depth of the consolidated la
Page 54 and 55:
39CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGYCr
Page 56 and 57:
41itself was designed to be support
Page 58 and 59:
43While it is obvious that the chan
Page 60 and 61:
45To perform all the required testi
Page 62 and 63:
47In the areas where access was lim
Page 64 and 65:
49CBR from DCPThe California Bearin
Page 66 and 67:
305 mm610 mm305 mm610 mm305 mm610 m
Page 68 and 69:
53The process of using the Shelby t
Page 70 and 71: 15881556144815591597154915271586158
Page 72 and 73: 57Table 14: Top and bottom UC loess
Page 74 and 75: 59Data Collection and SensorsHaving
Page 76 and 77: 61Micro Epsilon displacement transd
Page 78 and 79: 63plate down the cavity through man
Page 80 and 81: 65Beveled Tamper HeadsThe other asp
Page 82 and 83: 67All, aggregate, cementitious and
Page 84 and 85: 69DAQ Data CollectionWhile performi
Page 86 and 87: 71space in the test bed (See Figure
Page 88 and 89: 73(a)(b)(c)Figure 42: Test bed grou
Page 90 and 91: 75CHAPTER 4: MATERIALSThe materials
Page 92 and 93: 7710080LL = 31PI = 7Pass. #200 = 98
Page 94 and 95: 79the second stage of testing. Mois
Page 96 and 97: 81Knowing the gradation characteris
Page 98 and 99: 83More importantly, the performed d
Page 100 and 101: 85Figure 49: Cement type I compound
Page 102 and 103: 87As the expansive and contractive
Page 104 and 105: 89Figure 55: 19 mm polypropylene fi
Page 106 and 107: 91CHAPTER 5: TEST RESULTS AND ANALY
Page 108 and 109: 93Applied stress at top of pier (kP
Page 110 and 111: 95Figure 60: Stress-settlement test
Page 116 and 117: 101Figure 66: Stress-settlement tes
Page 122 and 123: 107to the maximum displacement of 1
Page 124 and 125: 109The failure mechanism of other p
Page 126 and 127: 1113000Measured Bearing Capacity (k
Page 128 and 129: 113Applied stress at bottom of the
Page 134 and 135: 119Settlement (mm)0246810Applied st
Page 136 and 137: 121The group efficiency results wer
Page 138 and 139: 123Pier typeAggregate PierUnit Cell
Page 146 and 147: 131Applied stress at bottom of the
Page 148 and 149: 133Table 33: Group efficiency compa
Page 150 and 151: 135Having a limited amount of exper
Page 152 and 153: 137Stiffness, kPa/mm600500400300200
Page 154 and 155: 139In case with the piers consistin
Page 156 and 157: 141Table 36: Stiffness ratio calcul
Page 158 and 159: 143Some of the loess composition pi
Page 160 and 161: 145Pier typeAggregatePierSingle Pie
Page 162 and 163: 147Another observation was made, wh
Page 164 and 165: 149As previously outlined, the stif
Page 166 and 167: 151pier group efficiency values wer
Page 168 and 169: Stiffness Ratio1538Figure 91: Stiff
Page 170 and 171:
155CHAPTER 7: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIO
Page 172 and 173:
157MaterialsLoess-CementVery intrig
Page 174 and 175:
159Groups of PiersGroup of Aggregat
Page 176 and 177:
161CHAPTER 8: FUTURE RESEARCHThe fu
Page 178 and 179:
163Black, J.A., Sivakumar, V., Madh
Page 180 and 181:
165Hanlong, L., An, D., and Yang, S
Page 182 and 183:
167Randrup T.B., and Lichter, J.M.
Page 184 and 185:
169Yeh, Y.K., and Mo, Y.L. (2005).
Page 186 and 187:
171Group EfficiencyAggregate Pier G
Page 188 and 189:
173Aggregate Pier305mm Wedge HeadDC
Page 190 and 191:
175Loess + Fibers305mm Single PierD
Page 192 and 193:
177Sand305mm Single PierDCPI, mm/bl
Page 194 and 195:
179Aggregate Pier305mm Group of 4DC
Page 196 and 197:
181C(I) + C(K)305mm Group of 4DCPI,
Page 198 and 199:
183Aggregate Pier305mm Wedge HeadCB
Page 200 and 201:
185Loess + Fibers305mm Single PierC
Page 202 and 203:
187Sand305mm Single PierCBR, %0 2 4
Page 204 and 205:
189Aggregate Pier305mm Group of 4CB
Page 206 and 207:
191C(I) + C(K)305mm Group of 4CBR,
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?