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

151pier group efficiency values were found to be greater than one. Therefore, one maindifference observed in the behavior of tested groups can be made that the performance of asingle cement type I and K pier within the group of piers couldn’t achieve efficiency of anisolated pier efficiency, while a pier within group of aggregate piers behaved at efficiencysignificantly exceeding 1.0.The group efficiency values obtained for cementitious composition groups of piers were alsofound tot be consistent with field observation and results obtained by other researchers(Table 33).Aggregate Piers vs. C(I) + C(K) - Load-settlementHaving evaluated information for groups of aggregate piers and cement type I and Kcomposition piers on the individual basis, a side by side comparison can be made betweenthe stiffness values for aggregate piers and cement type I and K. The results are outlined inTable 39 through Table 41.Table 39: Stiffness comparison at 2 mm displacement between groups of aggregatepiers and C(I)+C(K)Pier typeLength(mm)σ aggregate pier at δ top = 2mm (kPa)Pier typeσ I+K at δ top = 2mm (kPa)n. stiffnessratioAggregate PierUnit CellAggregate PierSingle PierAggregate PierGroup of 2Aggregate PierGroup of 4Aggregate PierGroup of 5Aggregate PierGroup of 6305 348 C(I) + C(K) 640 1.8610 894 Unit Cell794 0.9305 129 C(I) + C(K) 908 7.0610 352 Single Pier 1,083 3.1305 483 C(I) + C(K) 1,266 2.6610 1,260 Group of 2 1,542 1.2305 867 C(I) + C(K) 1,921 2.2610 1,596 Group of 4 N/A N/A305 1,529 C(I) + C(K) 2,377 1.6610 3,511 Group of 5 3,148 0.9305 3,073 C(I) + C(K) 3,355 1.1610 3,134 Group of 6 2,896 0.9