Ground Improvement Method of

Rammed Aggregate Pier® Systems for

Compressible Soils
INTERMEDIATE FOUNDATIONS
Geopier Foundation Company

C.H. Wang, Ph.D.

 HISTORY of foundation systems
Two choices:

1. Shallow 2. Deep

Good soil

Bad
OK
Good soil
soil
soil
 Rammed Aggregate Pier®

Excavate Open-graded Tamp bottom bulb

cavity stone
 Rammed Aggregate Pier®

Well-graded/Open- Beveled tamper increases

graded/Recycled Materials lateral pressure
tamped in thin lifts
 RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION
Direct Results

Creation of stiff Rammed

Aggregate Pier within
matrix soils.

Undulated shape
 RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION
300
800
GW q = 0.7496 (p) + 19.79
2
250 GP 700 R = 0.96

600 φ = 48.5 degrees SM (0.66)

q = ((σ1 - σ3)/2 (kPa)

Shear Stress (kPa)

200 φ = 52 degrees c = 30 kPa SM (0.66)

GP (0.62)

φ = 49 degrees 500 GP (0.89)

GP (0.56)
150 GP (0.39)
400 GW (0.56)
GW (0.54)
SP (0.45)
100 300 SP (0.85)
GW (0.92)
GM (0.37)
50
200 GM (0.37)
GP-GM (0.30)
GP-GM (0.30)
100
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0
Normal Stress (kPa) 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
(a) p = (σ1 + σ3)/2 (kPa)

Full-scale top-of-pier direct

shear test results Laboratory triaxial shear tests
(White et al 2002)
(Fox and Cowell 1998)
Friction angle = 48 degrees (o/g stone)
= 52 degrees (w/g stone)
RESULTS OF CONSTRUCTION
Stiffness of Rammed Aggregate Pier is
typically 10 to 40 times stiffer than original
native soil.
40 45

40

Ratio of 35
30
aggregate 25

pier stiffness 20

to matrix soil 15

10
stiffness 5

0
1 2 3

Pressure plate
 HISTORY of foundation systems
In early 1990’s a third choice emerged:
INTERMEDIATE Foundation® systems (aka “Geopier”)

1. Shallow 2. Deep 3. Intermediate

Good soils

Bad
Good OK
soil
soil soil
OK
soil
Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.
• Over 20 Years of Foundation Support Experience
• ~ 3,000 Projects Completed
• Projects in > 48 States and > 8 Countries
• Design/build Team at > 25 Locations in U.S.
• Designed by In-house P.E.s
• Internal Peer Review Process on Every Project
• Signed/sealed Drawings Backed by E&O
Asian-Pacific Licensees

1. S. Korea
2. China
3. Taiwan
4. Bangladesh
5. Malaysia
6. Philippines
7. Indonesia
8. Australia
RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER®
SYSTEMS
Geopier® Impact®
System System

+ Further R&D Development

GEOPIER® CONSTRUCTION

• Mobile crew (4 people, 3 machines)

• Rapid installations (30 – 50 per day)
• Replacement Method
 SANDY SOILS
w/ GROUND WATER

Temporary Casing to
Prevent Cave-in
IMPACT® PIER

Displacement Method
 DISPLACEMENT Crowd pressure
High-
RAP METHOD FrequencyI from rig weight
and hydraulics
mpact
hammer
After First, mandrel
driven is driven to full
to full Then Then, as hollow depth, with
depth, driven mandrel is raised, sacrificial cap
mandrel back stone flows from covering
is raised down 2 Dense, hopper down tamper foot.
up 3 ft ft 1 ft lifts through mandrel.
APPLICATIONS

• Foundation Settlement Control

• Floor Slab Support
• Slope Stabilization
• Embankment and Wall Support
• Tank Foundation Support
• Seismic Resistance
• Seismic Site Classification
• Liquefaction Mitigation
• Wind Turbine Foundation
 GEOPIER® CONSTRUCTION

• 0.8m diameter
• 2m to 8m deep
• qall: 240 to 480 kPa
• Uplift: 140 to 270 kN
• Places footing steel,
pours footing
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT
Floor load (p)

o
45

Thickness
New Fill (t)

Soft, compressible
soils RAP
element

d "competent"
soils
spacing (s)
SLOPE, EMBANKMENT, WALL
Global stability improvements

Shear reinforcement in RAP zone

 SEISMIC DESIGN
Resistance to Lateral Loads
Mechanisms identical to INERTIAL LOADS

conventional spread
footings: DISPLACED
FOUNDATION

1. Passive earth pressure PASSIVE

EARTH
PRESSURE
SLIDING

adjacent to footing.
RESISTANCE
MATRIX SOIL
BEARING
GEOPIER PRESSURE
BEARING
PRESSURE
UPLIFT

2. High normal load & GEOPIER

ANCHOR

ELEMENT

high frictional resistance

at the base of footing.
 Liquefaction Mitigation

1 - Short drainage path

2 - Sidewall pre-stressing

High shear modulus ZONE OF
HORIZONTAL
STRESS INCREASE

High seismic resistance GEOPIER

ELEMENT

3 - Reduce cyclic shear MATRIX SOIL

SHEAR STRESS
RESISTANCE
GEOPIER SHEAR
STRESS RESISTANCE

stresses in matrix soil APPLIED

SHEAR STRESS

Figure 3. Reduction of Liquefaction Potential

significantly
Project Examples
 SETTLEMENT CONTROL - EXAMPLE
6-STORY PARKING GARAGE
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

• Typical column loads = 3.7 MN

• Max column loads = 8 MN at shear walls

• Uplift loads = 3 MN
 SETTLEMENT CONTROL - EXAMPLE

D+L=357 kips
D+L=138 kips
D+L=421 kips
D+L=710 kips D+L=710

shearwall
BLOCK 224 D+L=1200 kips each
PARKING STRUCTURE end
SACRAMENTO, CA
D+L=835 kips D+L=510 kips D+L=379 kips
shearwall

D+L=1800 kips
D+L=210 kips each end D+L=210 kips

Surveys by KASL Consulting Engineers

Monuments set by KASL
(916) 722-1800
SETTLEMENT CONTROL - EXAMPLE
Foundation options
Driven Rammed
concrete N-value Aggregate
piles 0 10 20 Piers

CL, ML 4m

9m
0.8 m diameter
SP, SC
• 3 to 4 m below footing
• Uplift harnesses

23 m
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT - EXAMPLE

33.5 kPa pressure Floor Slab

1.5 m fill to get out of floodplain

Soft Clay

Dense Sand and Silty Sand

FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT - EXAMPLE
Subsurface conditions
N-values, M%
0 10 20 30 40

CH & CL, Su = 24 kPa

3m
SP, SM
FLOOR SLAB SUPPORT - EXAMPLE
Value engineering proposal
Rammed Aggregate Pier Floor Slab
stabilized zone

Pier spacing = 4 m

Dense Sands and

Silty Sands
 RAP Supported
Sienna Parkway MSE Wall
Site Plan

Boring
Locations

Proposed
MSE Walls
 Sienna Parkway MSE Wall

Rammed Aggregate Pier Solution

FS = 1.3

31 ft
c = 180 psf
φ = 18°°

16 ft
c = 200 psf
φ = 20°°
 Sienna Parkway MSE Wall

Rammed Aggregate Pier Solution

CASE HISTORY:
HOUSTON FUEL OIL TERMINAL
Area 14 Tank Farm

10 new aboveground storage tanks needed

 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Su (ksf)
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0 ft
Variable Clay Fill

15 ft
Clay / Sandy Clay
DESIGN SOLUTION

100

Tank
3
Granular
2
Pad Fill Pad

RAP Reinforced Zone

17
in
Variable Clayey Fill Soils
Natural Clay
WIND TOWER SUPPORT
Proven performance in Europe & U.S.

• Hundreds of towers
supported in
Europe & U.S.

• Track record over

last decade in wind
industry
WIND TURBINE FOUNDATIONS –
EXAMPLE

• 58 wind towers - 78-meter tall

P = 587 k
• 55-foot wide octagonal mat foundations
V = 154 k
• Rotational stiffness = 5.13 x 107 KNm/rad
• Dynamic stiffness = 1000 KN/mm
M = 38,567 k-ft

Overburden

~ 10 – 15 ft Soft clay

Stiff clay (glacial till)

Project Examples
Especially on
Soft Ground
RAIL Embankment PROJECT

EMBANKMENT TYPICAL CROSS SECTION (NARROW GAUGE)

SOFT GROUND
Very Soft Ground

TYPICAL EMBANKMENT SECTION

RAIL Embankment PROJECT

PGA Geopier
PGA Geopier Philippines Inc.
 RAIL Embankment PROJECT

IMPACT PIER SUPPORTED

EMBANKMENT
WITH GEOGRID REINFORCED TOE
WALL
 PROJECT SUMMARY
Tabango Shell Refinery, Bitumen Import Facilities
Batangas City, Philippines
Support of three tanks and ancillary
facilities including a warehouse,
control station, truck loading/gantry
and pipe bridge.
Maximum column loads of 430 KN
and an uplift load of 500 KN
loose to medium dense silty sand
and silt to depths up to 15 meters.
Groundwater was encountered at
1.5 to 2.5 meters below grade.

Geopier® system for the superior

liquefaction mitigation approach, schedule,
and providing an economical solution.
Bogazici Shipyard
Altinova, Turkey

• 250,000 square meter new shipyard

• Floor slab pressure of 150 kN/m2

• Required to resist a peak ground

acceleration of 0.8 g and preclude
ground liquefaction.

Owner: Bogazici Turkey

Geotechnical Engineer: Professor Orhan Erol,
University of Ankara
Bogazici Shipyard
Altinova, Turkey

• up to 20 m, very soft to stiff clays

intermittent sand & soft silty sands

• 48,000 RAP elements were installed

RAP depths ranged from 8 meters
to 18 meters below ground.
 Liquefaction Mitigation - Example
Riverside Center, Lacrosse, WI

• Fill (0 - 4.5 m):

Loose to med. dense SP
• GWT near 3 m
• Alluvium:
Loose to med. dense SP
below 4.5 m
• Med. dense SP below 9 m
Liquefaction Mitigation - Example
Riverside Center, Lacrosse, WI
Pre- and Post-installation Testing

Pre-installation

Post-installation

Pre-installation

Post-installation
Liquefaction Mitigation - Example
Riverside Center, Lacrosse, WI
CPT Test Results

Penetration refusal
between piers!
Liquefaction Mitigation - Example
Riverside Center, Lacrosse, WI
SPT Test Results
WHY CONSIDER RAP SYSTEMS?
Economics:

Often provide a 20% to 40% cost savings

compared to deep foundations

RAP provides
MORE economy
WHY CONSIDER RAP SYSTEMS?

Construction benefits:
• Easy maintain clean/dry construction site
• Reduce or eliminate spoils (contamination)
• Eliminate dewatering systems
• Eliminate shoring / tie-backs near structures
WHY CONSIDER RAP SYSTEMS?
Schedule:

• Rapid installations – typically 30 – 50 per day

• Highly-mobile equipment for difficult access
• Little schedule delay (unlike pile set-up)
• Work in inclement weather
• Less construction schedule risk
WHY CONSIDER RAP SYSTEMS?
Performance:

• Higher bearing capacity 240 kPa to 480 kPa

• Provides strength, stiffness & drainage

(compared to only drainage with wick drains)
• Stiffer and stronger than other ground
improvement systems
• HITEC Evaluation-documented performance
 Ground Improvement Method of
Rammed Aggregate Pier® Systems for
Compressible Soils
INTERMEDIATE FOUNDATIONS
Geopier Foundation Company

Thank You for

Your Attention