Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 3

    Uploaded by

    jj
    8 views10 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    8 views10 pages

    3

    Uploaded by

    jj

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 10
    15 7 Concrete bund wall — Foundation and in-situ mass ground improvement design The following section summarises the design and analysis completed for the concrete bund wall geotechnical design and ground improvement. A detailed design calculation sheet is provided in Appendix E, 7a Design objective The purpose of the precast concrete bund wall is to provide a secondary containment function in the event of a potential tank leakage. The following design cases have been identified as being relevant to the bund wall design in order for the bund to achieve adequate performance: © Case 1: Static case, + Case 2: Static case with diesel containment to 1.8 m height. © Case 3: Seismic (liquefied). + Case 4: Seismic (liquefied) with diesel containment to 1.8 m height. The above cases have been discussed with Logicamms and the bund wall is considered to be required to perform in all cases, including Case 4. The static design (Case 1 and 2) for the precast concrete bund wall has been proven to be satisfactory in the T#T geotechnical assessment report’. However, the seismic case (liquefied) showed that the ground conditions were not adequate in terms of bearing capacity and the swale drain on the southern boundary may cause lateral spreading damage to the foundation, Therefore, the objective of this bund wall design calculation is to determine the geotechnical design requirements to provide containment function during and following a seismic event (Case 3 and 4). There are two main areas which affect the design of the precast concrete bund wall (in green) as, shown in Figure 7.1 below. © Area 1: The southern boundary portion of the bund (running east to west), which is in close proximity (<2 m) to the existing swale drain (1.4 m in height, maximum), ‘= Area 2: The eastern, northern and western portion of the bund, which is not considered to be affected by lateral spreading, however iti affected by liquefaction bearing capacity. ‘A workshop was conducted with Logicamms on 13 November 2018, where several concept designs were discussed, It was agreed by T+T and Logicamms that Area 1 would adopt a design of a widened foundation to improve bearing capacity and mitigate settlement effects. Area 2 would adopt an In- situ mass stabilised block to mitigate lateral spread effects. The following required assessment for each area: 1 Aread: a Determination of required foundation width and non-liquefied crust to prevent liquefaction bearing failure, b Determination of required foundation dimensions (width and depth) to prevent sliding during a liquefied case, with 1.8 m of diesel containment. © Determination of settlement of bund wall during and following liquefaction. Tein yore vecnaos 16 2 Area2: a Design as per item 1 to 3 above, with the additional requirement to design ground improvernent to limit lateral displacement effects on the concrete bund wall Figure 7.1: Layout of bund Wall (green) and Area 2 bund wall (green with black dashed line) 7.2 Concrete bund details “The weight of the bund is determined based on a concrete density of 24 kN/m?. The density of diesel is modelled as 8.3 kN/m’. Figure 7.2 shows the bund that have been determined from the analysis. The stabilised block for ‘Area 2 has been taken as 2.8 m depth below existing ground level and 4 m in width. {tend ogc sen ep stn Cl anna Sai seo 08 v7 Figure 7.2: Concrete bund wall detoils 7.3 Design method For the bund wall design the following design method has been adopted 1 Complete assessment of liquefied bearing capacity assessment during a ULS seismic event using the two layered bearing capacity check (non-liquefied crust overlying liquefied material). 2 Complete assessment of liquefied sliding of the bund taking into account applied horizontal pressure from diesel, passive resistance and frictional resistance from the foundation footing, 3 Complete assessment and design for lateral spread effects on the southern boundary (Area 2) bund wall using a pseudo-static FOS calculation in Plaxis. Determine the yield acceleration and movement of the sliding block with Jibson (2007)°, Then design in-situ cement mass stabilised ground improvement to mitigate this. 4 Assess settlement of the bund wall in Area 1 and 2. 7.4 Design analysis 7.4.1 Liquefied bearing capacity to determine foundation width ‘A two layered bearing capacity check has been completed using Meyerhof (1980). Table 7.1 below summarises the results for the critical case which considers the upper sand (1m depth) to be liquefied and the bund in operation (full with 1.8m of diesel). The static geotechnical ultimate bearing capacity is considered to be 1000 kPa and not critical to the design of the bund wall The 7 kPa liquefied undrained shear strength adopted is based on the average shear strength through the potential failure zone (or zone of influence under the foundation) as the shear strength is expected to increase with depth using using Idriss and Boulanger (2008)) * son, RW. 2007. Regression models for estimating co-sismiclandside dsplacement. Engineering Geology 91 (2]:209- 238, Tein yore vecnaos 18 Table 7.1: Seismic case (liquefied) - geotechnical design parameters for perimeter bund wall Shallow foundation design parameters Description or design recommendations Bearing material ‘Compacted hardfill (300 mm underlying footing) Effective friction angle of harafill, & 0" Effective friction angle of subgrade, 4° 30° Liquefied strength of subgrade, Sr 7 ka (average through the zone of influence of the foundation using Iariss and Boulanger (2008)") Effective cohesion, & kPa Ultimate lateral resistance beneath foundations and a footings ~ sliding coefficient (tan 8”) or SE Foundation | Dimensions (m) | ,Uauefied Uiimate | saximum ULS design pressure (KPa), Gas (y= tne TeaLed)” | Beetechnical bearing nee capacity, que (kPa) ™ Strip 4.0x6.0%0.4 cokra 30 kPa 5 Assumes concrete castin place "1 Vertically and concentrically loaded The applied bearing pressure of the foundation is estimated to be around 25 kPa (with diesel pressure). Under extreme case conditions with a lower bound shear strength of and full diese! weight, the FOS against bearing failure is considered to be 1.4 (35/25). This suggests that even if the post-liquefaction strength of the subgrade is half of the strength predicted by the Idriss and Boulanger (2008) method the bund wall is not expected to undergo a bearing failure. The structure is considered generally satisfactory in terms of bearing capacity. However, Logicamms ‘must check and confirm the weight of the bund wall to ensure adequate bearing capacity 7.4.2 Sliding and overturning 7A241 Areat For the Area 1 bund wall (not subject to large lateral spread effects) a sliding and overturning check hhas been completed and summarised in Table 7.2 below. The calculation assumes a minimum foundation embedment of 400 mm. Table 7.2: Seismic case (liquefied) ~ sliding check (reduction factors included) Design case | Driving force | Resisting force | Satisfactory? Static kN 35kN/m ves Liquefied 13 kN/m 1akN/m Yes AA strength reduction factor of 0.5 has been used for bearing and passive resistance. A strength reduction factor of 0.8 has been used for sliding resistance. COverturning of the bund wall is not considered critical to the design due to the substantial foundation width of 4 m. 1 iss and Boulanger, 2008, Soll iquefation during earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering Institute, Figure 90, Page 131 Tota Tord 19 7A22 © Aread The bund wall on the southern boundary (Area 2) is considered to be a risk of lateral spread effects due to a 1.4m high (maximum height) swale drain on the southern boundary of the site. The sliding block analysis has been completed using Jibson (2007)° to determine the amount of displacement of the sliding block. Because the wall is sitting at the crest of the slope, lateral stretch of the bund wall hhas not been considered and lateral displacement is considered to be critical, The results of the analysis are summarised below in Table 7.3 below. Table 7.3: Results of lateral spreading effects on Area 2 Bund Wall Horizontal displacement Design case Design PGA Yield PGA’ aerated toa Precimprovement - Liquefied aoe 034g 0.028 180 to 1000 mm Improvement to 2.8 m= 0.344 0.085 1010.80 mm Liquefied + PGA 6 8 Weld PGA s defined asthe Peak Ground Aeceleravion at which the FOS ofthe bck i equal 91.0, 2. Tre estimated settlement i provided a the upper and lower ound with 1 standard deviation a per ibson (2007) The estimates of displacement are considered an appropriately conservative compared to what, might be the actual horizontal displacement as the analysis assumes that full shaking (PGA) occurs when the layer is fully iquefied, However, due to the uncertainty in these methods it is considered {an appropriate representation and analysis method for design purposes. ‘As can be seen in the above table, the pre-improvement case (without ground improvernent) is. expected cause large lateral displacements in the order or 150 mm to 1.0m, Once in-situ mass stabilising improvement is implemented to 2.8 m depth, lateral displacements are using this expected to be in the order of 10 to 80 mm during a ULS seismic event, 7.4.3. Settlement analysis — Area 1 and 2 The settlement for the Area 1 and 2 wall has been estimated using Plaxis with the ground conditions and material parameters in within the calculation sheet in Appendix E. The following results (Table 7.4) have been determined for static (Case 1 and 2) and seismic liquefied cases (Case 3 and 4), The settlements provided below are cumulative forall stages (they include the settlement from previous stages). Table 7.4: Cumulative settlement of bund wall ‘Area? ifferential settlement Differential settlement cose Total over 4m width Total over 4m width Case 1: Static 10%0.20mm 10mm <5 mm <10mm (Case 2: Static + 10t0.20mm <10mm <5mm <10mm diesel at 1.8m o%070 ° 5 ° Case :tiquefied | 20t040 mm 101015 mm 200 40 mm 10%015 mm Case 4: Liquefied + 10:0 60 mm 101015 mm 10 t0 60 mm 10:015 mm diesel at 1.8m Boros i Soros Tein yore vecnaos 20 7.5 Design conclusions The following design conclusions (Table 7.5) and estimated movernents have been determined for each area of the bund wall Table 7.5: Design conclusion Tein yore taumated | extimated sundarea | vesen | 8 | Sterental_— | hortonal | Speieation settement | movement Real any sting fil Beneath he somwieangaa | <25mm foundetonte pear | _™éeepconcrete | static |

    You might also like