Rammed Aggregate Pier Subgrade Reinforcement: Geopier Foundation Company, Inc

Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.
Design Submittal for:

Rammed Aggregate Pier® Subgrade
Reinforcement
For:
SR 25
Cass County, Indiana
Project Number:
PGL-00988
Prepared for FSC
October 5, 2010
“The Intermediate Foundation® Leader”
October 5, 2010
Mr. Doug Clark, P.E.

FSC
P.O. Box 120
Hudson, Iowa 50643
Re: Design Submittal for Rammed Aggregate Pier® Subgrade Reinforcement

SR-25
GFC Project No.: PGL-00988
Dear Mr. Clark,
Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. has completed the Rammed Aggregate Pier® foundation
design for the SR-25 project in Cass County, Indiana. The design is based on geotechnical
information provided by Earth Exploration Services. Structural design is as provided by
American Structurepoint.
Design calculations and construction drawings are included in this submittal. This design has
been reviewed and accepted by Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.
We are pleased to have provided you with our design services. If you have any questions,
please contact this office.
Sincerely,
Geopier Foundation Company
Jim Bullard, P.E.

Regional Engineer
Attachments: RAP Design Calculations

RAP Modulus Test Schedule
RAP Schedule
Appendix I – QC Package
RAP Construction Shop Drawings
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER® DESIGN
CALCULATIONS
GEOPIER® Foundation Company, INC.
“The Intermediate Foundation System”
Settlement
Magnitude
Aggregate pier designs for settlement control are based on a two-layer settlement
analysis approach as described by Lawton et al. (1994) and in the Geopier Reference
Manual (Fox and Cowell 1998). Settlement within the upper zone of soil (zone of
soil reinforced with rammed aggregate piers) is estimated using conventional
settlement calculations as shown in the following equation (Terzaghi et al. 1996):
qI σ H
s= , (1)
E comp
where q is the average bearing pressure, Iσ is the influence factor at depths within the
compressible layer, H is the thickness of the compressible layer, and Ecomp is the
composite elastic modulus value within the aggregate pier-reinforced zone. For large
area fills supported full width with Rammed Aggregate Piers, the influence factor is
conservatively assumed to be unity within the aggregate pier-reinforced zone. For
this project the width of 70% of the wall height was used to determine the wall width
and corresponding influence factor. The thickness of the zone (H) is equal to the shaft
length. The composite elastic modulus value is computed based on a weighted
average of the elastic modulus values of the rammed aggregate pier elements and
matrix soil using the following relationship:
E comp = E g Ra + E m (1 − Ra ) , (2)
where Ra is the area replacement ratio, Eg is the elastic modulus value of the
aggregate pier, and Em is the elastic modulus value of the matrix soil. A conservative
elastic modulus value of the aggregate pier may be calculated as the product of the
shaft length and the stiffness modulus of the pier (Wissmann et al. 2002). The elastic
modulus value of the matrix soil is often estimated using correlations with undrained
shear strength, Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts, Cone Penetration Test
(CPT) tip resistances or determined from consolidation test results.
Settlement within the lower zone (zone below the aggregate pier-reinforced zone) is
also computed using Equation 1, using the matrix soil elastic modulus value in lieu of
the composite elastic modulus value. Please note that consolidation relationships
may be used to determine the equivalent value of the elastic modulus for long-term
drained conditions.
www.geopiers.com Page 1
150 Fairview Road, Suite 335, Mooresville, NC 24060 Tel: (704) 799-3185 Fax: (704) 799-3235
Global Stability
Stability analyses were performed using the computer program GSLOPE to evaluate the
factors of safety against global instability of the MSE retaining walls. The parameter
values used in the analyses are based on laboratory test results presented on the boring
logs, correlations with matrix soil characteristics including plasticity index, and values
obtained from experience. The parameter values used for the analysis of each wall
section are included.
The walls were analyzed assuming the MSE wall reinforcement length is approximately
70% of the wall height. In order to account for failure surfaces that may pass near the
rear portions of the reinforced mass, the reinforcement length was reduced by 20%.
The installation of rammed aggregate piers increases the composite shear strength
parameter values within the aggregate pier-reinforced zones. The composite shear
strength parameter values are estimated using the following equations (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983, Mitchell et al. 1981, FitzPatrick and Wissmann 2002):
⎡⎛ Rs ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎤
⎟⎟(1 − Ra ) tan φ m ⎥
1
φ comp = arctan ⎢⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ Ra tan φ g + ⎜⎜ (6)
⎣⎝ Rs Ra − Ra + 1 ⎠ ⎝ R s Ra − Ra + 1 ⎠ ⎦
⎡⎛ ⎞ ⎤
⎟⎟(1 − Ra )c m ⎥
1
ccomp = ⎢⎜⎜ (7)
⎣⎝ Rs Ra − Ra + 1 ⎠ ⎦
where Rs is the stress concentration factor, Ra is the area replacement ratio, φg is the
friction angle of the rammed aggregate pier, φm is the friction angle of the matrix soil, and
cm is the matrix soil cohesion.
If stress concentration is neglected in the analysis, the equations reduce to:
φ comp = arctan[Ra tan φ g + (1 − Ra ) tan φ m ] (8)
ccomp = (1 − Ra )c m (9)
Bearing Capacity
The bearing pressures imposed on the foundation soil by the construction of the MSE
walls are analyzed using the following method. The method estimates the maximum
applied bearing pressure as the sum of the static uniform bearing pressure from gravity
loads and an increase in toe bearing pressures resulting from lateral pressure exerted on
the wall. Bearing pressure calculations for the varying wall heights are performed to
arrive at the maximum design bearing pressure for each wall height. A traffic surcharge
of 250 psf was assumed in the calculations.
For unreinforced conditions, the allowable soil bearing capacity was calculated using
Terzaghi’s bearing capacity approach:
cN c
q all = , (10)
FS
where c is the undrained shear strength, Nc is the bearing capacity factor for cohesion
(approximately 5.0), and FS is the factor of safety (Terzaghi et al. 1996). The
undrained shear strength parameter values determined for design and presented in the
appendices were used in the calculations along with the specified factor of safety of 2.5.
The results of the analyses indicate that for all design wall heights, the applied bearing
pressures exceed the allowable bearing pressure, resulting in the need for soil
reinforcement.
The installation of rammed aggregate piers provides an increase in the allowable bearing
pressure of the reinforced zone by increasing the shear resistance along the critical
bearing capacity failure planes. The increase in the allowable bearing pressure is
analyzed by evaluating the composite parameter values using Equations 6 and 7 (above)
for the aggregate pier-reinforced zone, calculating the bearing capacity using Terzaghi’s
lower bound bearing capacity approach, and applying a conversion factor to estimate the
upper bound bearing capacity (Hall et al. 2002). This method is equivalent to the method
used for historical stone column design (Barksdale and Bachus 1983).
In order to develop a bearing capacity design that results in acceptable factors of safety,
the rammed aggregate pier area replacement ratio is increased until the adequate factor of
safety is achieved. The calculations conservatively incorporate a small stress
concentration factor ranging from 1 to 3 (note that measured stress concentration factors
range between 2 and 5 in the field). The bearing capacity analyses for the aggregate pier-
reinforced zones are provided.
REFERENCES
Barksdale, R.D. and Bachus, R.C. (1983). “Design and Construction of Stone Columns,
Vol. I.” Report No. 1 FHWA/RD 83/026, Federal Highway Administration,
210 pp.
FitzPatrick, B.T. and Wissmann, K.J. (2002). “Technical Bulletin No. 5 – Geopier Shear
Reinforcement for Global Stability and Slope Stability.” Geopier Foundation
Company, Inc. Blacksburg, Virginia.
Fox, N.S. and Cowell, M.J. (1998). Geopier® Foundation and Soil Reinforcement
Manual, Geopier® Foundation Company, Inc., Scottsdale, Arizona.
Hall, K.M., Wissmann, K.J., Caskey, J.M., and FitzPatrick, B.T. (2002) “Soil
reinforcement used to arrest bearing capacity failure at a steel mill.” Proceedings,
4th International Conference on Ground Improvement. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
26 – 28 March.
Han J. and Ye, S.L. (2001). “Simplified Method for Consolidated Rate of Stone Column
Reinforced Foundations.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. Vol. 127, No. 7
Lawton, E.C., N.S. Fox, and Handy, R.L. (1994). “Control of settlement and uplift
of structures using short aggregate piers.” In-Situ Deep Soil Improvement, Proc.
ASCE National Convention, Atlanta, Georgia. 121-132.
Mitchell, J.K. (1981). “Soil Improvement: State of the Art.” Tenth International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering. Session 12.
Stockholm, Sweden. June 15 – 19.
NAVFAC (1982). “Soil Mechanics Design Manual 7.1”. Department of the Navy, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R.B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Texas Department of Transportation (2000). “Geotechnical Manual”. Texas Department

of Transportation.
White, D.J., Wissmann, K.J., Barnes, A.G., and Gaul, A.J. (2002). “Embankment
Support: A Comparison of Stone Column and Rammed Aggregate Pier Soil
Reinforcement.” Presented, Transportation Research Board. 81st Meeting,
Washington, D.C. January 13 – 17.
White, D.J., Suleiman, M.T., Pham, H.T., Bigelow, J. “Constitutive Equations for
Aggregates used in Geopier Foundation Construction.” Final Report. Iowa State
University. Department of Civil and Construction Engineering. September 2002.
Wissmann, K.J., FitzPatrick, B.T., White, D.J., and Lien, B.H. (2002). “Improving
global stability and controlling settlement with Geopier soil reinforcing
elements.” Proceedings, 4th International Conference on Ground Improvement.
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 26 – 28 March.
Settlement
PROJECT: SR 25 MSE Walls
NO: PGL-988
DATE: 10/1/2010
ENGINEER: JCH
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER ® DESIGN FOR SUPPORT OF MSE WALLS

Wall Height = 40 ft.
Wall Width 30.0 ft*** Rammed Aggregate Pier® Design:

Wall Height 40 ft
γ fill 130 pcf Ra Em Selected Eg Ecomp ΔP S* S p-c** Spacing
Pressure 5200 psf (ksf) (ksf)**** (ksf) (ksf) (inches) (inches) (feet o-c) * Assumes influence factor of 1.0
Dgw 5 ft 0.13 75 2000 318 5.2 1.6 0.4 5.0 ** Assumes 75% of settlement in Geopier zone occurs
γ soil 120 pcf during construction (d-c). To be selected by designer.
Hs 8 ft **** Note Estimated Eg value on far left. To be selected by designer.
Estimated Eg based on Eg = H(kg)/2, where H=8 ft.
UZ % Sett. d-c** 75 %
RAP Diameter 24 inches Selected for Design: 0.126 1.6 0.4 5.0
Ra UZ (in) UZ p-c (in) Spacing (ft)
Lower Zone:
Center Edge
#
Layer Soil Type Sett. d-c Esoil Cεr Cεc OCP Thickness z σ'v z/Beq Iσ∗∗∗ ΔP S (Center) Iσ∗∗∗ ΔP S (Edge)
% ksf ksf ft ft psf Center psf in Edge psf in
UZ GP-CL -- 15 7.5 1.6 1.6
1 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 17.5 1320 0.58 0.57 2964 0.5 0.40 2054 0.4
2 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 22.5 1608 0.75 0.47 2444 0.4 0.38 1976 0.3
3 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 27.5 1896 0.92 0.43 2236 0.3 0.36 1872 0.3
4 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 32.5 2184 1.08 0.37 1924 0.2 0.32 1638 0.2
5 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 37.5 2472 1.25 0.34 1768 0.2 0.30 1560 0.2
UZ (in) = 1.6 UZ (in) = 1.6

***Note: Wall width and lower zone settlement calculations are based on the reinforced width of the MSE wall. LZ (in) = 1.6 LZ (in) = 1.4
Consideration may be necessary to include the embankment width in addition to wall width. Influence factor for Total Center (in) = 3.2 Total Edge (in) = 3.0
embankment should be determined based on the width of embankment.
#
The percentage of settlement during construction should be entered based on soil type. Layer specific. Total Center p-c (in) = 1.6 Total Edge p-c (in) = 1.4
NO: PGL-988
DATE: 10/1/2010
ENGINEER: JCH


Wall Height 30 ft
UZ % Sett. d-c** 75 %
Lower Zone:
Center Edge
#
UZ GP-CL -- 15 7.5 1.5 1.5
1 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 17.5 1320 0.78 0.47 1833 0.3 0.38 1482 0.3
2 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 22.5 1608 1.00 0.38 1482 0.3 0.32 1248 0.2
3 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 27.5 1896 1.22 0.35 1365 0.2 0.31 1190 0.2
4 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 32.5 2184 1.44 0.31 1209 0.2 0.28 1073 0.2
5 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 37.5 2472 1.67 0.28 1092 0.1 0.24 936 0.1
UZ (in) = 1.5 UZ (in) = 1.5

#
NO: PGL-988
DATE: 10/1/2010
ENGINEER: JCH


Wall Height 20 ft
UZ % Sett. d-c** 75 %
Lower Zone:
Center Edge
#
UZ GP-CL -- 15 7.5 1.4 1.4
1 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 17.5 1320 1.17 0.36 936 0.2 0.31 806 0.2
2 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 22.5 1608 1.50 0.3 780 0.2 0.27 702 0.1
3 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 27.5 1896 1.83 0.25 650 0.1 0.22 559 0.1
4 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 32.5 2184 2.17 0.21 546 0.1 0.19 504 0.1
5 Till 25% N/A 0.015 0.15 3000 5 37.5 2472 2.50 0.18 468 0.1 0.16 416 0.1
UZ (in) = 1.4 UZ (in) = 1.4

#
Global Stability
Gamma C Phi Piezo Geopier Foundation Company
pcf psf deg Surf. PGL-988
Traffic 250 0 0 0 SR 25 MSE Walls
MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10/1/10
Backfill 120 0 28 0 Reinforced, Drained, Wall Ht. 40 ft.
Geopier Zone 122.5 0 31.84 1 GP3 Spacing at 5 ft. o.c.
Clay 125 0 24 1
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 F = 1.365 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250
10/1/2010 1:00:04 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\40_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.365

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10/1/10
Backfill 120 0 28 0 Reinforced, Undrained, Wall Ht. 40 ft.
Geopier Zone 122.5 750 16.4 1 GP3 Spacing at 5 ft. o.c.
Clay 125 1000 0 0
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 F = 1.299 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250
10/1/2010 1:02:43 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\40_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.299

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 122.1 0 30.74 1 GP3 Spacing at 5.5 ft o.c.
Clay 120 0 24 1
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 F = 1.387 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 122.1 775.5 14 1 GP3 Spacing at 5.5 ft o.c.
Clay 120 1000 0 0
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 F = 1.376 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 121.7 0 29.84 1 GP3 Spacing at 6 ft o.c.
Clay 120 0 24 1
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 F = 1.454 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 121.7 807.2 12.1 1 GP3 Spacing at 6 ft o.c.
Clay 120 1000 0 0
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 F = 1.512 140
130 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Clay 120 0 24 1
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 140
130 F = 1.443 130
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Clay 120 1000 0 0
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 140
130 130
F = 1.697
120 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 121.1 0 28 1 GP3 Spacing at 7.5 ft o.c., Rs = 2.5
Clay 120 0 24 1
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 140
130 130
120 F = 1.367 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 121.1 871 8.2 1 GP3 Spacing at 7.5 ft o.c., Rs = 2.5
Clay 120 1000 0 0
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 140
130 130
120 F = 1.810 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 120.8 0 26.9 1 GP3 Spacing at 9 ft o.c., Rs = 2.5
Clay 120 0 24 1
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 140
130 130
120 F = 1.362 120
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

MSE Zone 130 5000 0 0 10-1-10
Geopier Zone 120.8 908 5.8 1 GP3 Spacing at 9 ft o.c., Rs = 2.5
Clay 120 1000 0 0
Till 125 0 34 1
Rock 120 1000 34 1
140 140
130 130
120 120
F = 2.163
110 110
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
0 50 100 150 200 250

Bearing Capacity
Project: SR-25 MSE Walls
No. PGL-988
Date: 10/01/10
Engineer: JCH
moist  c Thickness  comp c comp  comp

Upper Layer (pcf) (degrees) (psf) (feet) Ra Rs (degrees) (psf) (pcf)
Clay 120 24 0 5 0.874
2.5 31.9 0.0 122.5
Geopier 140 48 0 5 0.126

Middle Layer (pcf) (degrees) (psf) (feet) Ra Rs (degrees) (psf) (pcf)
Clay 57.6 24 0 8.0 0.874
2.5 31.9 0.0 60.1
Geopier 77.6 48 0 8.0 0.126

Lower Layer (pcf) (degrees) (psf) (feet) Ra Rs (degrees) (psf) (pcf)
Clay 57.6 34 0 30.3 1
1 34.0 0.0 57.6
Geopier 77.6 48 0 30.3 0
Lower layer thickness = (L'*tan(compWT /2)))-(Upper layer thickness 1) - (Middle layer thickness)
Use bouyant unit weight if below groundwater table for drained analysis only.
Unreinforced Geopier-reinforced
zone zone
Weighted (degrees) 31.2 33.4 compWT
Weighted (radians) 0.545 0.582 Iteration
Weighted c 0 0 43.3 = L'*tan(45+(compWT/2)), Total Depth, D
Weighted  65 66 Calculated
5.0 Upper Layer
8 0 Middle Layer
8.0
Wall Embedment, qs 150 + 30.3 Lower Layer
Width, L' 23.3 L' = 2*x = B-2e ok 43.3 Total Depth, D, Entered
v1 1552.2 qs + B/2tan(45+r/2)
h1 4889.2 v1*tan2(45+u/2) + 2c tan(45+u/2)
For equilibrium = h1 =h2
v2 16842 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'

Lower Bound qult (psf) 15424 v2 - B/2 * tan(45+r/2) MSE Wall
k 1.5 qultTUB/qultTLB
Upper Bound qult (psf) 22796
qmax (psf) 6,771

D
Factor of Safety 3.4
Geopier
Unreinforced Zone Reinforced
Zone
No. PGL-988
Date: 10/01/10
Engineer: JCH

Clay 120 0 1000 5 0.874
2.5 16.4 735.1 122.5
Geopier 140 48 0 5 0.126

Clay 120 0 1000 8.0 0.874
2.5 16.4 735.1 122.5
Geopier 140 48 0 8.0 0.126

Clay 120 34 0 26.4 1
1 34.0 0.0 120.0
Geopier 140 48 0 26.4 0
zone zone
5.0 Upper Layer
8 0 Middle Layer
8.0
v1 2514.0 qs + B/2tan(45+r/2)
h1 7057.2 v1*tan2(45+u/2) + 2c tan(45+u/2)
v2 20972 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'

qmax (psf) 6,771

D
Geopier
Zone
No. PGL-988
Date: 10/01/10
Engineer: JCH

Clay 120 24 0 5 0.913
2.5 29.8 0.0 121.7
Geopier 140 48 0 5 0.087

Clay 57.6 24 0 8.0 0.913
2.5 29.8 0.0 59.3
Geopier 77.6 48 0 8.0 0.087

Clay 57.6 34 0 18.8 1
1 34.0 0.0 57.6
Geopier 77.6 48 0 18.8 0
zone zone
5.0 Upper Layer
8 0 Middle Layer
8.0
v1 1220.8 qs + B/2tan(45+r/2)
h1 3684.1 v1*tan2(45+u/2) + 2c tan(45+u/2)
v2 12159 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'

qmax (psf) 6,076

D
Geopier
Zone
No. PGL-988
Date: 10/01/10
Engineer: JCH

Clay 120 0 1000 5 0.913
2.5 12.1 807.6 121.7
Geopier 140 48 0 5 0.087

Clay 120 0 1000 8.0 0.913
2.5 12.1 807.6 121.7
Geopier 140 48 0 8.0 0.087

Clay 120 34 0 14.2 1
1 34.0 0.0 120.0
Geopier 140 48 0 14.2 0
zone zone
5.0 Upper Layer
8 0 Middle Layer
8.0
v1 1779.0 qs + B/2tan(45+r/2)
h1 4898.5 v1*tan2(45+u/2) + 2c tan(45+u/2)
v2 13007 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'

qmax (psf) 6,076

D
Geopier
Zone
No. PGL-988
Date: 10/01/10
Engineer: JCH

Clay 120 24 0 5 0.944
2.5 28.0 0.0 121.1
Geopier 140 48 0 5 0.056

Clay 57.6 24 0 8.0 0.944
2.5 28.0 0.0 58.7
Geopier 77.6 48 0 8.0 0.056

Clay 57.6 34 0 7.3 1
1 34.0 0.0 57.6
Geopier 77.6 48 0 7.3 0
zone zone
5.0 Upper Layer
8 0 Middle Layer
8.0
v1 1040.1 qs + B/2tan(45+r/2)
h1 2860.5 v1*tan2(45+u/2) + 2c tan(45+u/2)
v2 8662 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'

qmax (psf) 3,623

D
Geopier
Zone
No. PGL-988
Date: 10/01/10
Engineer: JCH

Clay 120 0 1000 5 0.934
2.5 9.4 850.7 121.3
Geopier 140 48 0 5 0.066

Clay 120 0 1000 8.0 0.934
2.5 9.4 850.7 121.3
Geopier 140 48 0 8.0 0.066

Clay 120 34 0 1.5 1
1 34.0 0.0 120.0
Geopier 140 48 0 1.5 0
zone zone
5.0 Upper Layer
8 0 Middle Layer
8.0
v1 1168.8 qs + B/2tan(45+r/2)
h1 3266.2 v1*tan2(45+u/2) + 2c tan(45+u/2)
v2 6933 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'

qmax (psf) 3,623

D
Geopier
Zone
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER® MODULUS TEST
SCHEDULE
Project Name: SR-25

Project Location: Cass County, Indiana RAP Modulus Test Schedule
Project Number: PGL-988
Maximum Design Geopier Design Stress: 21,100 psf Test Geopier Shaft Length: 10 ft
Geopier Diameter: 24 in. Concrete Cap Thickness: 2 ft
Design Modulus: 90 pci
Geopier Percent of
Ram Load, Stress, Design Minimum Maximum
Load No. (kips) (psf) Stress Duration Duration Remarks
3.31 1,055 5.0% N/A N/A seating load
1 11.05 3,517 16.7% 15 min 60 min
2 22.09 7,033 33.3% 15 min 60 min
3 33.14 10,550 50.0% 15 min 60 min
4 44.19 14,067 66.7% 15 min 60 min
5 55.24 17,583 83.3% 15 min 60 min
6 66.29 21,100 100.0% 15 min 60 min
7 77.32 24,611 116.6% 60 min 240 min
8 88.38 28,133 133.3% 15 min 60 min
9 99.43 31,650 150.0% 15 min 60 min
10 66.29 21,100 100.0% N/A N/A rebound, unload
Notes:
1 - The Geopier element to be used in the modulus load testing should be installed in a manner similar to production, at least 4 days prior
to testing, so that pore-pressures have adequate time to dissipate.
2 - The modulus load test shall be performed to a stress not less than 150% of the design maximum top-of-Geopier stress indicated in the
Geopier Design Calculations.
3 - The modulus load test Geopier shall be installed to a depth of 12 feet below the ground surface with a 2 foot thick unreinforced
concrete leveling pad.
4 - A telltale shall be installed in the bottom one-third of the tested Geopier. Telltale deflections shall be monitored concurrent with top of
RAP deflections during the modulus load test.
5 - The modulus load test setup shall be as shown on Geopier Construction Drawing GP0.1. Helical anchors should be installed in
accordance with manufacturers specifications.
6 - A representative of the owner's geotechnical consultant should be present to witness the load test.
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER® SCHEDULE
Project Name: SR-25

Project Location: Cass County, Indiana RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER ® (RAP) SCHEDULE
Top of
Shaft RAP
RAP Length (ft) Elevation
Number(s) (1) (ft) (2) Notes
Wall 2 1-560 10 0.00
Wall 1 561-756 10 0.00
NOTES: (1) Minimum shaft length. Piers must penetrate the fill and loose sand/soft clay.
(2) Assumes site is rough graded. RAPs to be constructed to grade.
page 1 of 1
APPENDIX I
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER® QUALITY

CONTROL PACKAGE
F TM
FSC
QUALITY CONTROL PACKAGE FOR GEOPIER FOUNDATIONS

(Copy to be provided to Owner’s QA Representative)
Project: SR-25
Geopier Designer: Jim Bullard, P.E.

Phone: 317 861-9361
Mobile: 317 407-0290
Fax: 317 861-9362
Geotechnical Engineer: Earth Exploration Services

Contact: Mr. Darren Pleiman
Phone: --
Structural Engineer: American Structurepoint

Referenced Drawings:
Date Of Drawings:
Anticipated Geotechnical Conditions:

The subsurface conditions generally consist of 10 to 12 feet of soft to stiff silty clay loam and very loose
to loose silty sandy load over stiff to hard clay. Groundwater should be anticipated at 3 to 10 feet.
Potential Anomalies:
None.
Material To Be Encountered At Bottom Of Shaft:

The piers shall fully penetrate the soft clay to tag stiff to very stiff clay load or medium dense sand. Drill
depths of up to 15 feet are anticpated.
Other Items:
ATTACHMENTS – GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION

RAP MODULUS TEST SCHEDULE
GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER® MODULUS TEST
SCHEDULE
Project Name: SR-25

Project Location: Cass County, Indiana RAP Modulus Test Schedule
Maximum Design Geopier Design Stress: 21,100 psf Test Geopier Shaft Length: 10 ft
Geopier Diameter: 24 in. Concrete Cap Thickness: 2 ft
Design Modulus: 90 pci
Geopier Percent of
Ram Load, Stress, Design Minimum Maximum
Load No. (kips) (psf) Stress Duration Duration Remarks
3.31 1,055 5.0% N/A N/A seating load
1 11.05 3,517 16.7% 15 min 60 min
2 22.09 7,033 33.3% 15 min 60 min
3 33.14 10,550 50.0% 15 min 60 min
4 44.19 14,067 66.7% 15 min 60 min
5 55.24 17,583 83.3% 15 min 60 min
6 66.29 21,100 100.0% 15 min 60 min
7 77.32 24,611 116.6% 60 min 240 min
8 88.38 28,133 133.3% 15 min 60 min
9 99.43 31,650 150.0% 15 min 60 min
Notes:
1 - The Geopier element to be used in the modulus load testing should be installed in a manner similar to production, at least 4 days prior
to testing, so that pore-pressures have adequate time to dissipate.
2 - The modulus load test shall be performed to a stress not less than 150% of the design maximum top-of-Geopier stress indicated in the
Geopier Design Calculations.
3 - The modulus load test Geopier shall be installed to a depth of 12 feet below the ground surface with a 2 foot thick unreinforced
concrete leveling pad.
4 - A telltale shall be installed in the bottom one-third of the tested Geopier. Telltale deflections shall be monitored concurrent with top of
RAP deflections during the modulus load test.
5 - The modulus load test setup shall be as shown on Geopier Construction Drawing GP0.1. Helical anchors should be installed in
accordance with manufacturers specifications.
6 - A representative of the owner's geotechnical consultant should be present to witness the load test.

Rammed Aggregate Pier Subgrade Reinforcement: Geopier Foundation Company, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rammed Aggregate Pier Subgrade Reinforcement: Geopier Foundation Company, Inc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rammed Aggregate Pier Subgrade Reinforcement: Geopier Foundation Company, Inc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.

Design Submittal for:

Prepared for FSC

Mr. Doug Clark, P.E.

Re: Design Submittal for Rammed Aggregate Pier® Subgrade Reinforcement

Dear Mr. Clark,

Jim Bullard, P.E.

Attachments: RAP Design Calculations

If stress concentration is neglected in the analysis, the equations reduce to:

φ comp = arctan[Ra tan φ g + (1 − Ra ) tan φ m ] (8)

Texas Department of Transportation (2000). “Geotechnical Manual”. Texas Department

RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER ® DESIGN FOR SUPPORT OF MSE WALLS

Wall Width 30.0 ft*** Rammed Aggregate Pier® Design:

UZ (in) = 1.6 UZ (in) = 1.6

RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER ® DESIGN FOR SUPPORT OF MSE WALLS

Wall Width 22.5 ft*** Rammed Aggregate Pier® Design:

UZ (in) = 1.5 UZ (in) = 1.5

RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER ® DESIGN FOR SUPPORT OF MSE WALLS

Wall Width 15.0 ft*** Rammed Aggregate Pier® Design:

UZ (in) = 1.4 UZ (in) = 1.4

140 F = 1.365 140

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:00:04 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\40_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.365

140 F = 1.299 140

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:02:43 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\40_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.299

140 F = 1.387 140

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:04:43 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\35_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.387

140 F = 1.376 140

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:06:02 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\35_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.376

140 F = 1.454 140

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:08:26 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\30_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.454

140 F = 1.512 140

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:10:51 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\30_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.512

130 F = 1.443 130

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:13:07 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\25_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.443

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:14:18 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\25_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.697

120 F = 1.367 120

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:20:08 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\20_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.367

120 F = 1.810 120

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:21:28 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\20_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.810

120 F = 1.362 120

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:23:46 PM K:\calcs\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\15_DR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 1.362

0 50 100 150 200 250

10/1/2010 1:28:00 PM K:\CALCS\0-NORT~1\PGL\PGL-988\STABIL~1\15_UR24D.GSL Geopier Foundation Company F = 2.163

moist  c Thickness  comp c comp  comp

moist  c Thickness  comp c comp  comp

moist  c Thickness  comp c comp  comp

For equilibrium = h1 =h2

v2 16842 h1*tan2(45+r/2) + 2c tan(45+r/2) L'