Tech Standard Japan Deep Mixing Menthod

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN
[5] Consideration of Pile Group Action
(1) When piles are used as a pile group, the effect of pile group action on the behavior of individual piles is necessary
to be considered.
(2) When the center interval of driven piles exceeds the values in Table 2.4.10, the action of the pile group on lateral
resistance may be ignored.
Table 2.4.10 Center Intervals of Piles
Transverse Pile diameter x 1.5

Sandy soil
Longitudinal Pile diameter x 2.5
Transverse Pile diameter x 3.0
Cohesive soil
Longitudinal Pile diameter x 4.0
[6] Lateral Bearing Capacity of Coupled Piles
(1) The lateral bearing capacity of a foundation of the structure with coupled piles is necessary to be determined as
appropriate in view of structural characteristics of the foundation.
(2) Distribution of Horizontal Force in Foundation with a Combination of Vertical and Coupled Piles
When a horizontal force acts on a foundation with a combination of vertical and coupled piles, the force borne by
vertical piles is far smaller than that borne by coupled piles under the condition of equal horizontal displacement.
It may generally be assumed that all of the horizontal force is borne by the coupled piles.
(3) Lateral Bearing Capacity of Coupled Piles
There are two calculation methods for the lateral bearing capacity of coupled piles. The first method only
takes account of the resistance of the axial bearing capacity of each pile. The second method takes account
of the resistance of the axial bearing capacity of each pile as well as the lateral bearing capacity of each pile in
consideration of the bending resistance of piles.
(4) Case when Only Axial Resistance of Individual Piles is Considered as Resisting Horizontal Force
When only the axial resistance is considered as resistance, as shown in Fig. 2.4.19, the vertical and horizontal
actions acting on the head of a pair of coupled piles shall be divided into the axial force of each pile. The coupled
piles shall be designed in a way that the axial force on each pile is less than the design values of the axial resistance
or design values of the axial pulling resistance of the respective piles. The axial force can be calculated using
equation (2.4.46) or a graphic solution (see Fig. 2.4.19)
(2.4.46)
where
P1, P2 : pushing force acting on each pile or pulling force when the value is negative (kN)
θ1, θ2 : inclination angle of each pile (º)
Vi : vertical force acting on coupled piles (kN)
Hi : horizontal force acting on coupled piles (kN)
– 466 –
PART III FACILITIES, CHAPTER 2 ITEMS COMMON TO FACILITIES SUBJECT TO TECHNICAL STANDARDS
Vi
Hi
P1
Vi
θ1 θ2
P2
Hi
P2
P1
Fig. 2.4.19 Axial Forces of Coupled Piles
(5) Method of Calculating Horizontal Resistance of Coupled Piles Considering Lateral Resistance of individual
Piles
Various methods of calculating the horizontal resistance of coupled piles by considering the lateral resistance of
individual piles are available. For example;
① Method of solution based on a condition whereby the displacement of each pile is always the same at the
intersection of the coupled piles, on the assumption that the spring characteristics of the pile head in the axial
and lateral directions are elastic.
② Method of obtaining the ultimate resistance of the coupled piles on the assumption that the axial and lateral
resistances of the piles show elasto-plastic properties.
③ Method of calculating the load and displacement at the pile heads, or the settlement and the upward displacement
of piles by pulling in the case of (b) on the basis of empirical equations.110)
④ Method of using the results of loading tests on single piles.111)
⑤ Method of solution assuming that the yield state of each pile will occur successively and the resistance of each
member to greater forces will be constant until the resistance of the coupled piles reaches the ultimate bearing
capacity.
The following presents an outline of method ①.
The method ① above is to calculate the distribution of horizontal force to each pile on the assumption that the
axial and lateral resistances of a pile have elastic properties 112)
In the coupled piles shown in Fig.2.4.20, the settlement of each pile at the pile head is proportional to the axial
force acting on that pile and also the lateral displacement is proportional to the lateral force acting on that pile.
On this assumption, the axial and lateral forces acting on each pile of the coupled piles can be calculated using
equation (2.4.47), derived from the conditions of force equilibrium and compatibility of displacements.
– 467 –
(2.4.47)
Vertical and horizontal displacements of the pile head can be calculated by equation (2.4.48)
(2.4.48)
where
N1, N2 : axial force acting on each pile, compressive force is indicated by positive value (kN)
H1, H2 : lateral force acting on each pile (kN)
V : vertical load per pair of coupled piles (kN)
H : horizontal load per a pair of coupled piles (kN)
θ1, θ2 : inclination angle to vertical line of each pile (°)
ω1, ω2 : axial spring constant of each pile head (kN/m)
µ1, µ 2 : lateral spring constant of each pile head (kN/m)
δ'1, δ'2 : vertical displacement of each pile head (m)
η'1, η'2 : horizontal displacement of each pile head (m)
The subscript numbers attached to the symbols, as shown in Fig. 2.4.20, are “1” for the pushed pile and “2”
for the pulled pile if only a horizontal load acts.
The values listed in Table 2.4.11 may be used for the spring constants of pile head. The symbols used in
Table 2.4.11are defined below
(2.4.49)
where
 : penetration length of piles (m)
λ : exposed length of piles (m)
E : Young’s modulus of pile material (kN/m 2)
A : pile section area (m 2)
I : moment of inertia of pile (m4)
Es : elastic modulus of subsoil (kN/m 2) Es =kCH B
B : pile width (m)
κCH : coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (kN/m3)
The coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction kCH may be calculated by multiplying the value of kCH obtained
– 468 –
in [4] Estimation of Pile Behavior using Analytical Methods, (5) ② Chang’s Method by the factor obtained
from Fig. 2.4.17, in accordance with the inclination of piles.
N1 V N2 δ2
δ1 η1 η2 H2
δ'1 H
δ'2
H1
λ1 η'1 η'2 λ2
θ1 θ2
l1 l2
(Out-batter pile) (In-batter pile)
Fig. 2.4.20 Coupled Piles Considering Pile Bending and Soil Resistance due to Deflection
Table 2.4.11 Spring Constants of Pile Head
End Bearing piles
Axial spring constant of pile head

Cohesive soil
(ω)
Friction piles
Sandy soil
Without exposed section

(λ=0)
Pile head hinged
With exposed section
Lateral axial spring constant of pile (λ≠0)
head
(µ) Without exposed section
(λ=0)
Pile head fixed
With exposed section
(λ≠0)
2.4.6 General Considerations of Performance Verification of Pile Foundations

Performance verification of pile foundations can be conducted as follows.
[1] Load Sharing
(1) Vertical loads are considered to be supported by piles alone. In general, no bearing capacity shall be expected
for the ground in contact with the bottom of the superstructure. Even if the ground under the bottom slab of
the superstructure which is supported by the piles is in contact with the bottom of the slab when construction is
completed, voids under the slab will appear over time; therefore, from the viewpoint of safety, it is preferable to
ignore the bearing capacity of the ground under the slab.
(2) Horizontal actions are generally supported by piles alone. However, if passive earth pressure resistance at the
front of the embedded part of the superstructure can be expected, this resistance may also be included. However,
it is generally difficult to calculate the resistance due to passive earth pressure in this case. It is not necessarily
possible to determine whether the passive earth pressure of the ground reaches its ultimate value in response
– 469 –
to the pile head displacement corresponding to the static maximum lateral resistance of the piles. When the
superstructure is displaced until the passive earth pressure reaches the value obtained using Coulomb’s equation,
there is a danger of the pile undergoing bending failure. Therefore, when considering inclusion of the passive
earth pressure resistance at the front of this embedded section, it shall not be included in calculations without
adequate examination of these facts.
(3) For structural types in which settlement of facilities is controlled by employing piles as friction piles, for example,
piled-raft foundations, 122) or soft landing moundless structures with piles, there are cases in which it is reasonable
to consider the bearing capacity under the slab bottom.
In case of the performance verification of the facilities above, it is necessary to confirm sufficiently the
behavior characteristics of the facilities.
(4) Procedure of performance verification for pile foundations
It is generally preferable that performance verification of pile foundations be conducted by the procedure shown
in Fig. 2.4.21.
Assumptions : Type of piles

Shape of piles
Dimensions of piles
Arrangement of piles
Estimation of bearing capacity of piles Soil conditions

Loading tests Load conditions
Static bearing capacity formulas Allowable displacement
Axial bearing capacity

Axial pulling force
Displacement of single pile Displacement of pile group
Horizontal resistance
Negative skin friction
Ultimate bearing capacity of single pile Ultimate bearing capacity of pile group Buckling
Joint efficiency
Vibration and earthquake
Allowable bearing capacity of single pile Allowable bearing capacity of pile group
Stress generated in piles Stress generated in piles
Determination : Type of piles

Shape of piles
Dimensions of piles
(diameter, wall thickness, and length)
Arrangement of piles
Number of piles
Pile driving angle
Economy
End
Fig. 2.4.21 Example of Procedure of Performance Verification Procedure
[2] Distance between Centers of Piles

When determining the distance between the centers of piles to be driven, the workability, deformation behavior of
surrounding ground, and behavior as a pile group is necessary to be taken into account.
[3] Performance Verification of Pile Foundations during Construction
(1) Examination of Loads during Construction

① In performance verification of piles, it is preferable to examine not only the loads acting after completion of
construction but also those during transportation, positioning, and driving.
– 470 –
② Driving suspension control by pile driving formulas

Pile driving formulas, designed to calculate the static maximum bearing capacity of piles from dynamic
penetration resistance, are difficult to make good use in principle. Although estimations of the static maximum
bearing capacity using pile driving formulas have the advantage of being very simple, the problem lies in their
accuracy. In Fig. 2.4.22 by Sawaguchi, 23) the static maximum bearing capacity obtained from the pile driving
formula for steel piles is compared with the results of loading tests in a form of the ratio of the former to the
latter. The figure reveals major discrepancy and dispersion between the two. In clayey soil, soil is disturbed
during pile driving and skin friction temporarily decreases. Therefore, the static maximum bearing capacity
cannot be estimated by pile driving formulas. In sandy soil, pile driving formulas are said to be inaccurate
for estimating the bearing capacity of friction piles. The limits of applicability of pile driving formulas are
discussed in reference 24).
Nevertheless, when driving a large number of piles into almost identical ground, pile driving formulas can
be used as a reference for estimating the relative differences in bearing capacity per each driven pile. Thus, the
application of these formulas should be restricted to construction management purposes.
However, they may also be used as reference to confirm variation in the bearing capacity of each pile or to
finish the driving of each pile so that they are all governed by the same condition.
It has become possible to separate the resistance of the pile shaft and resistance at the end of the pile by
performing an dynamic pile loading test; more accurate driving suspension control can be expected than by
depending solely on pile driving formulas.
Hiley’s equation
Weisbach’s equation
Janbu’s equation
Denmark’s equation
Smith’s equation
10 20 40 60 100 200 400 600 1,000%
Fig. 2.4.22 Distribution of Results of Pile Driving Formulas and Loading Tests
(a) Hiley’s equation

Hiley’s equation is the most common pile driving formula and is expressed by equations (2.4.50) and (2.4.51).
Energy required Loss due to elastic (2.4.50)

Impulsive Loss due to elastic Loss due to
for penetration deformation of
loss deformation of pile cushion
of pile ground
(2.4.51)
– 471 –
where
Rdu : ultimate pile-driving resistance; i.e., dynamic maximum bearing capacity (kN)
WH : weight of hammer (kN)
WP : weight of pile including pile head attachments (kN)
F : impact energy (kJ)
ef : efficiency of hammer, ranging from 0.6 to 1.0, depending on the type of hammer126)
e : rebound coefficient (e = 1 if completely elastic, and e = 0 if completely non-elastic)
S : final settlement of pile (m)
C1 : elastic deformation of pile (m)
C2 : elastic deformation of ground (m)
C3 : elastic deformation of pile head cushion (m)
Most pile driving formulas are obtained by replacing C1, C2, C3, ef, e, etc. in equation (2.4.51) with appropriate
values. Equation (2.4.52) is considered relatively well-suited to steel piles. Assuming the impact between
hammer and pile to be elastic, i.e., e = 1, the following is derived:
(2.4.52)
The term C1 + C2 + C3 in the above is the sum of elastic deformation of ground, pile, and pile head cushion.
Of these, the term C1 + C2 are equal to the rebound K measured at the pile head in pile driving tests (see
Fig. 2.4.23). With steel piles, elastic deformation C1 is dominant, while C3 is generally smaller. Thus, if C3 is
neglected, the following can be assumed:
(2.4.53)
thus,
(2.4.54)
where
Rdu : dynamic maximum bearing capacity of pile (kN)
ef : efficiency of hammer, set at 0.5 in case of equation (2.4.54)
S : settlement of pile (m)
drop hammers : mean settlement per blow for the final 5 –10 strikes (m)
other hammers : mean settlement per blow for the final 10– 20 strikes (m)
K : value of rebound (m)
F : impact energy (kN·m)
drop hammer:
F=WH H
Single action steam hammer:
double action steam hammer: F=(ap+WH ) H
diesel hammer: F=2 WH H
H : drop height of hammer (m)
WH : weight of hammer (kN)
a : cross-sectional area of cylinder (m2)
p : steam pressure or air pressure (kN/m 2)
The design value of axial resistance Rdad is obtained by multiplying Rdu by the partial factor γ. Here, a partial
factor γ of 0.33 can generally be used.
(2.4.55)
– 472 –
Pile
Elastic compression of pile and ground (K)
Metal clamp
Pencil
Pencil
Penetration of pile (s)
(a) (b)
Fig. 2.4.23 Rebound Measurement
[4] Joints of Piles
(1) Joints of piles shall be sufficiently safe against actions after completion as well as during construction.
(2) Joints shall be placed at the position where there is a sufficient margin in cross-sectional strength and relatively
free from corrosion.
(3) Depending on the position of joints, the forces acting on joints after completion of a structure are sometimes
far smaller than the strength of the piles. However, considerations should be taken to ensure the safety of joints
against the pile-driving stress during construction, load increases in future, and unexpected stresses arising within
the cross section of joints.
(4) Position of Joints
Execution of joint parts is necessarily accompanied by work at the construction site. Therefore, unlike fabrication
in a factory, supervision of construction work tends to be inadequate. Accordingly, in performance verification
of joints, care different from that for the pile proper is necessary. Even in deep sections which are not affected by
bending stress under ordinary conditions, there are examples of buckling of piles at joints and at points where the
pile wall thickness changes below a joint. Thus, adequate examination is necessary.
In determining the position of joints, it is necessary to select the joint position based on a good understanding
of the joint structure, considering all of the factors of bending, shear, compression, and tension. A position where
the flexural moment is small shall be selected if the joint structure is weak against bending, and a position where
shear is small shall be selected if the structure is weak against shear.
The durability of joints is considered to be small in comparison with the pile. For example, in steel piles,
various kinds of corrosion control treatment are considered to cause a reduction of functions due to welding at this
part. Therefore, joint positions where corrosion is slight shall be selected, and in particular, positions which are
subject to repeated wetting and drying due to changing water levels shall be avoided.
The length allotted to elements in one pile is determined by the position of joints. Limitations related to
transportation, construction equipment, and work space factors shall be considered in determining the length of
the element. It is considered advantageous to reduce the number of joints to the minimum and use long elements
as much as possible. Given the present transportation conditions, the maximum lengths that can be transported
are 13m by road and 20m by rail.
(5) Joints in Steel Piles
In steel piles, arc welded joints should generally be used, as this is the most reliable type of joint. However,
because gas-pressure welding and other new methods are being developed, when sufficient safety is confirmed by
the responsible engineer based on adequate study by testing, these other methods may also be used.
(6) Wood Pile Joints
It is not preferable to use the wooden joints when horizontal force or pulling force does not act.
(7) Reinforced Concrete Pile Joints and Prestressed Concrete Pile Joints
When reinforced concrete pile and prestressed concrete pile are used to the structure where horizontal force or
pulling force acts, joint structure which has been confirmed with high reliability shall be selected.
[5] Change of Plate Thickness or Material Type of Steel Pipe Piles
(1) When changing plate thickness or material type of steel pipe piles, all due considerations shall be given to the
workability and the distribution of section force on piles.
– 473 –
(2) The section force of steel pipe piles varies with depth, generally decreasing as the depth becomes large. Therefore,
plate thickness or material type of steel pipe piles is sometimes changed over the total length from the economical
point of view.
(3) When changing plate thickness or material type of steel pipe piles, the position of the change should be at the depth
where the section force arising in the piles does not increase. Caution is also required because such a change may
not be allowed if a large negative skin friction is active.
(4) Jointing piles with different thickness and material type should be done by shop circular welding. The shape of
the welded section should comply with JIS A 5525.
[6] Other Notes regarding Performance Verification
(1) Steel Piles

① Radial buckling of steel pipe piles
When using closed ended piles and when using open ended piles from which the soil is to be removed for filling
with concrete, if the wall thickness of the pile is extremely thin relative to the pile diameter or penetration
length is extremely large, there is a danger of buckling in the radial direction due to the earth pressure and water
pressure acting on the pile surface. Therefore, caution is necessary.
The external pressure at which buckling occurs when a steel pipe is subjected to uniform external pressure
can generally be expressed as shown in equation (2.4.56).
(2.4.56)
where
pk : external pressure causing buckling (kN/m 2)
E : modulus of elasticity of steel (kN/m 2) E = 2.1 x 108 kN/m 2
v : Poisson’s ratio of steel v = 0.3
t : wall thickness of cylinder (mm)
r : radius of cylinder (mm)
② Axial buckling of steel pipe piles
In steel pipe piles which have a thin wall thickness relative to the pile diameter, as in large diameter piles, there
is a danger of local buckling due to axial loading.
There is no danger that buckling will occur during pile driving provided the impact stress is less than the
yield stress of the steel pile.134) Kishida and Takano proposed equation (2.4.57) to express the effect of wall
thickness on yield stress.
(2.4.57)
where
σpy : yield stress of steel pile considering effect of wall thickness (kN/m 2)
σy : yield stress of steel pile against static load (kN/m 2)
– 474 –
2.5 Settlement of Foundations

2.5.1 Ground Stress
(1) It is preferable that the stress induced in a ground due to load on a foundation is estimated by assuming that the
ground is an elastic body. However, for uniformly distributed load, the stress in the ground may be estimated by
simply assuming that the stress disperses linearly with depth.
(2) When a structure built on the ground which has a sufficient margin of safety factor against shear failure, the
stress distribution in the ground can be rationally approximated by assuming the ground to be an elastic body.
The elastic solution obtained by Boussinesq is commonly used in calculation of stress distribution in a ground.
Boussinesq’s solution is based on the case that a vertical concentrated load acts on the surface of an isotropic
and homogeneous semi-infinite elastic body. By superposing this solution, it is possible to calculate the stress
distribution in the ground when a line load or spatially-distributed load acts on the ground surface. In addition
to this elastic solution, the Koegler method that assumes the stress to disperse linearly with depth can be used for
estimating the stress in the ground when a strip load or a rectangular load acts on the ground.137)
2.5.2 Immediate Settlement
(1) In estimation of immediate settlement, it is preferable to apply the theory of elasticity by appropriately setting the
modulus of elasticity of the ground.
(2) Immediate settlement, unlike consolidation settlement, which will be described in the following, is caused by
shear deformation and occurs simultaneously with loading. Because sandy ground does not undergo long-term
consolidation settlement like that in cohesive soil ground, immediate settlement in sandy ground, as described
here, can be considered to be total settlement. On the other hand, the immediate settlement of cohesive soil
ground is a phenomenon which is caused by settlement due to undrained shear deformation and plastic flow in the
lateral direction. In soft cohesive soil ground, there are cases in which immediate settlement may be ignored in
performance verification because it is smaller than the consolidation settlement described below.
In calculations of immediate settlement, the ground is usually assumed to be an elastic body, and the theory
of elasticity and the modulus of elasticity E and Poisson’s ratio v are used. As the modulus of elasticity of soil
varies greatly depending on the strain level, it is important to make calculations using a modulus of elasticity that
corresponds to the actual strain level. For example, the strain in soft ground with a small safety factor is on the
order of 0.5% to 1.5%, while that in excavation of hard ground and deformation of foundations is no more than
0.1%. The relationship between the strain level and the elastic modulus shall follow Part II, Chapter 3, 2.3.1
Elastic Constants.
2.5.3 Consolidation Settlement
(1) Settlements of foundations that are caused by consolidation of ground shall be examined in accordance with the
procedures described in Part II, Chapter 3,2.3.2 Compression and Consolidation Characteristics. Design
parameters for the ground is necessary to be determined by using an appropriate method based on the results of
consolidation tests.
(2) Calculations of settlements due to consolidation can be performed based on the results of consolidation tests on
undisturbed samples of cohesive soils. The final consolidation settlement, which is the amount of settlement
when consolidation caused by a load has finally completed, is determined by the compressibility properties of
the soil skeleton, and can be estimated directly from the results of consolidation tests. Time-dependent changes
in settlement up to the final consolidation settlement of a foundation are necessary to be calculated based on the
theory of consolidation.
(3) Calculation Methods of Final Consolidation Settlement of Foundation
Final consolidation settlement of foundation can be calculated by using the following equations described in
Part II, Chapter 3,2.3.2 Compression and Consolidation Characteristics.
① When using e-logp curve:
(2.5.1)
where
S : final consolidation settlement due to pressure increment Δp (m)
h : layer thickness (m)
Δe : change in void ratio for pressure increment Δp
– 475 –
e0 : initial void ratio
② When obtained from Cc:
Application of this method is limited mainly to the cases in which consolidation of the normal consolidation
area is considered.
(2.5.2)
where
Cc : compression index
e0 : initial void ratio
p0 : overburden pressure (kN/m 2)
Δp : pressure increment (kN/m 2)
③ when obtained from mv:
Application of this method is limited to cases in which the increment of consolidation pressure is sufficiently
small that mv can be considered constant.
(2.5.3)
where
mv : coefficient of volume compressibility when consolidation load is (m2/kN)
p0 : overburden pressure (kN/m 2)
Δp : pressure increment (kN/m 2)
(4) Calculation Method of Time-Settlement Relationship
The rate of consolidation settlement is calculated from the relationship between the average degree of consolidation
U and the time factor T that is obtained from Terzaghi’s consolidation theory, where the dissipation of excess
pore water pressure is expressed as a partial differential equation of thermal conductivity type. The amount of
settlement s(t) at a given time t can be calculated from the average degree of consolidation U(t) by the following
equation:
(2.5.4)
The finite element analysis with visco-elasto-plasticity model for cohesive soil can be utilized for accurate
analysis of the consolidation settlement that takes account of inhomogeneity on consolidation properties of the
ground, the effect of self weight of cohesive soil layer and time-related changes in consolidation load.
(5) Division of Cohesive Soil Layer subject to Consolidation
When calculating the final consolidation settlement, the cohesive soil layer is usually divided into a number
of sub-layers as shown in Fig. 2.5.1. This is because the consolidation pressure and the coefficient of volume
compressibility mv vary with depth. With the mv method, the final consolidation settlement of foundation may be
calculated using equation (2.5.5).
(2.5.5)
where
S0 : final consolidation settlement (m)
∆σz : increments of consolidation pressure at the center of a sub-layer (kN/m2)
mv : coefficient of volume compressibility for the consolidation pressure at the center of each sub-
layer equal to , (m2/kN)
where σz0 is the effective overburden pressure at the center of a sub-layer before consolidation
∆h : thickness of a sub-layer in the consolidated layer (m)
– 476 –
ΔσZ mv
Z1
Δh1
Z Z2
ΔσZ1 mv1
Z Z
Fig. 2.5.1 Calculation of Consolidation Settlement
Since mv and ∆σz generally decrease with depth, the compression in each sub-layer becomes smaller as the
depth increases. The thickness of sub-layer Δh is usually set at 3 to 5 m. It should be noted that the consolidation
settlement of soft cohesive soil will be underestimated when Δh is taken too large, because the value of mν of the
surface layer is very large and it governs the total settlement.
The increment of consolidation pressure ∆σz is calculated at the center of each sub-layer using the vertical stress
distribution with depth, which is described in 2.5.1 Ground Stress. The term ∆σz is the increment in vertical
stress due to loading. In the natural ground, it is usually assumed that consolidation due to the existing overburden
pressure has completely finished.
Although the distribution of subgrade reaction at the bottom of foundation is not the same as that of the acting
load due to the rigidity of foundation, the rigid foundation settles unifomly and the stress distribution of subsoil at
a certain depth becomes irrelevant to the distribution of reaction immediately below the foundation bottom.
(6) Vertical Coefficient of Consolidation cv and Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation ch
When pore water of ground flows vertically during consolidation, the vertical coefficient of consolidation cv is
used. But when vertical drains are installed, drained water of ground flows mainly to the horizontal direction and
the horizontal coefficient of consolidation ch should be used. The value of ch obtained from experiments on the
clay in Japanese port areas ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 times the value of cv.140) However, in performance verification ch
≒ cv is acceptable when considering a decrease in ch due to disturbance caused by installation of vertical drains,
inhomogeneous consolidation properties in the ground, and others.
(7) Coefficient of Consolidation cv of Overconsolidated Clay 141)
The coefficient of consolidation of cohesive soil in overcosolidated state is generally larger than that in normally
consolidated state. When the cohesive soil seems to be clearly in over consolidated state, the value of cv used
for performance verification should be the one at the mean consolidation pressure between the existing effective
overburden pressure and the final pressure after consolidation. However, rather than simply calculating cv at
the mean consolidation pressure, it would be better to determine a weighted mean value of cv considering the
settlement.
(8) Rate of Consolidation Settlement in Inhomogeneous Ground
When the ground consists of alternate layers with different cv values, the rate of consolidation settlement is
analyzed using the equivalent-thickness method 142) or numerical analysis such as the finite difference method 143)
or the finite element method.144), 145), 146) The equivalent-thickness method is used as a simplified method, but
it sometimes yields significant errors. When the ground is inhomogenous to a large extent or when accurate
estimation is required, it is recommended to use the finite element method.
(9) Settlement due to Secondary Consolidation
The shape of the settlement - time curve in long-term consolidation tests on cohesive soil is consistent with
Terzaghi’s consolidation theory up to the degree of consolidation of around 80%. When the consolidation passes
this level, the settlement increases linearly with logarithm of time. This is due to the secondary consolidation
that arises with the time-dependent properties of soil skeleton under consolidation load, beside the primary
consolidation that causes the settlement accompanying dissipation of excess pore water pressure induced in the
cohesive soil due to consolidation load.
The settlement due to secondary consolidation is particularly significant in peat and other organic soils. In
ordinary alluvial clay layers, the consolidation pressure caused by loading is often several times greater than the
consolidation yield stress of the subsoil. Under such conditions, the settlement due to secondary consolidation is
smaller than that due to the primary consolidation, and is not significant in the performance verification. But when
the consolidation pressure acting on the ground due to loading does not greatly exceed consolidation yield stress,
the settlement due to secondary consolidation tends to continue over a long time, even though the settlement due
to primary consolidation may be small. In this case, the secondary consolidation settlement must be fully taken
into account in the performance verification.
– 477 –
The settlement due to secondary consolidation may be generally calculated using the following equation:
(2.5.6)
where
Ss : settlement due to secondary consolidation (m)
Cα : coefficient of secondary compression
t : time (d)
t0 : start time of secondary consolidation (d)
h : clay layer thickness (m)
The coefficient of secondary compression is obtained from conventional consolidation tests. It can also be
estimated from the relationship between and the compression index Cc that is generally expressed in the following
equation 147)
(2.5.7)
2.5.4 Lateral Displacement
(1) In quaywalls or seawalls constructed on soft cohesive ground, countermeasures are preferable when lateral
displacements due to shear deformation of the ground have an adverse effect on structures.
(2) In quaywalls or seawalls on soft ground, there are cases in which it is necessary to estimate lateral displacements
caused by shear deformation of the ground. Lateral displacements include displacement accompanying immediate
settlement occurring immediately after loading, and displacement which occurs continuously over time thereafter.
In cases where the imposed load is significantly smaller than the ultimate resistance of the ground, lateral
displacement accompanying immediate settlement can be predicted by analyzing the ground as an elastic body.
(3) A frequent problem with soft ground is lateral displacements occurring as a combination of consolidation and
creep deformation due to shear when the ratio of the resistance of the ground as a whole to the moment due to
actions is low, being on the order of 1.3. A method of predicting whether this kind of lateral displacement will
occur or not using a simple constant based on past experience has been proposed.148) When making a more
detailed analysis, computer programs which obtain changes over time in settlement and lateral displacement
by finite element analysis are widely used, applying an elasto-plastic model or an elasto-viscoplastic model to
cohesive soil ground. Because the importance of lateral displacement differs greatly depending on the functions
of the facilities, it is necessary to select an appropriate calculation method considering these functions.
2.5.5 Differential Settlements
(1) When constructing structures on a soft cohesive ground, uneven settlements of the ground shall be taken into
account and appropriate countermeasures are preferable when uneven settlements have an adverse effect on
structures.
(2) A simplified method is proposed for estimating uneven settlement in reclaimed land in port areas. This method
classifies the ground of reclaimed land into the following four types;
① Extremely inhomogeneous ground
② Inhomogeneous ground
③ Ordinary ground
④ Homogeneous ground
Fig. 2.5.2 shows the mean uneven settlement ratios for each type of ground. The uneven settlement ratio
means the ratio of the difference in the average settlement occurring between two arbitrary points to the total
settlement. For example, because the mean uneven settlement ratio for two points separated by a distance of 50m
in ground of type (b) is 0.11, when settlement of x cm occurs from a certain reference time, the average uneven
settlement occurring in the distance of 50m can be calculated as 0.11x. When applying this method to actual
problems, it is preferable to correct the values in Fig. 2.5.2 for the reference time and the depth of the ground
which is the object to settlement.150), 151)
– 478 –
0.5 Extremely inhomogeneous ground

Inhomogeneous ground
Ordinary ground
0.4
Mean uneven settlement ratio

Homogeneous ground
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 20 50 100
Distance between 2 points
Fig. 2.5.2 Relationship between Distance and Uneven Settlement Ratio in Reclaimed Land
References
1) Architectural Institute of Japan: Guideline for design of architectural foundation, p.108, 2001
2) Davis, E.H. and Booker :The effect of increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays, Geotechnique, Vol.23,
No,4, 1973
3) Nakase, A.: Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on clay of strength increasing linearly with depth, Soil and Foundations,
Vol. 21, No.4, pp.101-108, 1981
4) Yamaguchi, K.: Soil Mechanics (Fully revised Edition), Chapter 9 Bearing strength, Giho-do Publishing, pp.273-274, 1985
5) Kobayashi, M., M. Terashi, K. Takahashi and K. Nakajima: A New Method for Calculating the Bearing Capacity of Rubble
Mounds, Rept. of PHRI Vol.26, No.2, 1987
6) Shoji, Y.: Study on shearing Properties of Rubbles with Large Scale Triaxial Compression Test, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 22,
No,4,1983
7) Minakami, J. and M. Kobayashi: Soil Strength Characteristics of Rubble by Large Scale Triaxial Compression Test, Rept. of
PHRI No.699, 1991
8) Japan Road Association: Specifications and commentary of highway bridges, Part IV Substructures, pp.231-273, 1996
9) Railway Technical Research Institute: Design standards for railway structures and commentary, Foundation structures, Soil
pressure resistance structure, pp.175-178, 1997
10) A.W. Skempton: The bearing capacity of clays, Proc. Building Research Congress, Div.1, pp.180-189, 1951
11) G.G. Meyerhof : The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Geotechnique Vol. 2, No, 4, pp.301-332, 1951
12) Takahashi, K. and M. Sawaguchi: Experimental Study on the Lateral Resistance of a Well, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 16 No.4, pp.3-
34, 1977
13) Japan Geothechnical Society Edition: Vertical loading tests of Geothechnical Society’s Standard vertical pile, and
commentary- First revised Edition-, p.271, 2002
14) Yamagata, K. and K. Nagai: Examination of bearing strength of open end steel piles (Part 2), Proceedings of Architectural
Institute of Japan, No.213, pp.39-44, 1973
15) Kitajima, S., S. Kakizaki, Y. Hanaki and H. Tahara: On the Axially Bearing Capacity of Single Piles, Technical Note of PHRI
No.36,pp.1-66,1967
16) Japan Geothechnical Society Edition: Vertical loading tests of Geothechnical Society’s Standard vertical pile, and
commentary- First revised Edition
17) Kusakabe, O. and T. Matumoto: Rapid loading testing (Stanamic test)method and examples of tests, Soil and Foundation, Vol.
43, No. 5, pp.19-21, 1995
18) Katayama, T., S. Nishimura, T. Wakiya, M. Hayashi, Y. Yoshizawa and A. Shibata
19) Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science Edition: Design method for pile foundation and commentary,
20) G.G. Meyerhof: Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soi1, Proc. A.S.C.E., Vol. 82, S.M. 1, pp.1-10, 1956
22) Railway Technical Research Institute: Design standards for railway structures and commentary, Foundation tructures, Soil
pressure resistance structure, SI Units version, pp.227-232, 2000
– 479 –
23) Architectural Institute of Japan: Guidelines for architectural foundation, pp.229-230, 2001
24) Takahashi, K.: Behavior of Single Piles in Subsiding Ground, Rept. of PHRI No. 533, p.17, 1985
25) Yamaguchi, T.: Soil Mechanics (Fully revised Edition), Giho-do Publishing, pp.281-282, 1984
26) Yasuyuki, N., H. Ochiai and S. Oono: Practical evaluation equation of point bearing capacity of piles considering
compressibility and its application, Soil and Foundation, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.12-15, 2001.
27) Ando, N. H. Ochiai and S. Ono: Geotechnical Engineering estimation of vertical bearing capacity of piles applying in-
situ tests and its application, Japan Geothechnical Society, Proceedings of 45th Symposium on Geothecnical Engineering,
pp,163-167, 2000.
28) Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Substructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp.333-363, 2002
29) M.J. Tomilinson: Foundation Design and Construction, Fifth Edition, Skin friction on pile shaft, Longman Scientific &
Technical, pp.415-419, 1986
30) Yamahara, H.: Structures of bearing capacity of steel piles, Soil and Foundation, Vol.l7, No.11, pp.19-27, 1969
31) Goto, H. and T. Katsumi: Fundamental studies on settlements of large diameter steel piles, Jour. JSCE No.138, pp.1-10, 1967
32) Aoki, M. and H. Kishida: Ultimate resistance capacity of sands filled within open ended piles, Proceedings of 14th Conference
of Soil Mechanics, pp.913-916, 1979
33) Katsumi, T. and N. Kitani: Fundamental studies ion the effect of blockade on open piles, Jour. JSCE Vol. 323, pp.133-139,
1982
34) Nishida, Y., H. Ohta, T. Matsumoto and K. Kurihara: Bearing capacity dur to plugged soil in open-ended pipe piles, Jour.
JSCE Vol. 364/III-4, pp.219-227, 1985
35) Nagai, O.: Examination of blockage effect of open ended steel piles, Proceedings of Soil Mechanics, Vo1.26, No.2, pp.113-
120, 1986
36) Komatu, M., K. Hijiguro and M. Tominaga: Some experiments on blockage of large diameter steel piles, Soil and Foundation,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.11-16, 1969
37) Kishida, H., Arihara and Hara: Behavior of sand filled within open ended piles, Proceedings of 9th Conference of Soil
Mechanics, pp. 549-552, 1974
38) Japan Association of Steel Pipe Piles: Steel piles- design and construction-, p.110, 2004
39) Kikuchi, Y., H. Sasaki, H. Shimoji, Y. Saimura and H. Yamashita: Vertical bearing capacity of large diameter steel pile,
Proceedings of Structural Engineering, Vol.51A, 2005.
40) Kusakabe, O., Y. Kikuchi and J. Fukui: Presentations of the results of loading tests of coastal roads of Tokyo Port, Proceedings
of 40th Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1669-1688, 2005.
pp.333-334, 2002
43) Railway Technical Research Institute: Design standards for railway structures and commentary, Foundation structures, Soil
pressure resistance structure, SI Units version, pp.227-232, 2000
44) A. Kezdi : Bearing capacity of piles and pile groups, Proc., 4th. Int. Conf. S. M. F. E., Vol.2, pp.50-51, 1957
45) K. Terzaghi, R. B. Peck, G. Mesri: Soil mechanics in engineering practice Third Edition, John Wiley, pp.435-436, 1995
46) R. B. Peck, W. E. Hanson, T. H. Thornburn: Foundation engineering, John Wiley, pp.260, 1953
47) Takahashi, K.: Behavior of Single Piles in Subsiding Ground, Rept. of PHRI No. 533, pp.8-11, 1985
48) Architectual Institute of Japan: Guidelines for architectural foundation, pp.229-230, 2001
50) Sawaguchi, M.:Approximate Calculation of Negative Skin Friction of a Pile, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 67-87, 1971
53) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.147-152, 1977
54) Nakase, A., T. Okumura and M. Sawaguchi: Easy-to-understand Foundation works, Kajima Publishing, p53, 1995
55) R. D. Chellis : Pile foundations, McGraw Hill, p.464, 1961 R.D.Che1Hs:Pilefbundations, McGrawHil1, p.464, 1961
56) K. Terzaghi, R. B. Peck, G. Mesri: Soil mechanics in engineering practice Third Edition, John Wiley, pp.436-444, 1995
57) R.B. Peck, W. E. Hanson, T. H. Thornburn: Foundation engineering, John Wiley, pp.238-239, pp.273-275, 1953
58) G.P. Tschebotarioff: Foundations, retaining and earth structures Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, pp.217-262, 1973
59) W.C. Teng: Foundation design, Prentice-Hall, pp.220-222, 1962
60) A.L. Little: Foundations, Arnold, pp.174-179, 1961
61) H.O. Ireland: Pulling tests on piles in sand, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., Vol.2, p.45, 1957
62) Architectural Institute of Japan: Standards and commentary for architectural steel pile foundation, p.55,1963
63) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, p.2, 1964
64) Yokoyama, Y.: Design of steel piles and construction, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.188-196,1963
65) Takeshita, J.: Calculation of group piles, Civil Engineering Technology, Vol. 19, No.8, pp.54-60, 1964,No.9,pp.75-80,1964,
No.10,pp.71-79,1964
66) Fujiwara, T. and K. Kubo: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 1), Technical Research Institute of
Transport, Vol. 11, No.6, pp.41-53, 1961
– 480 –
67) Kubo. K.: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 3), Technical Research Institute of Transport, Vol. 12,
No.2, pp.49-50, 1962
68) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, pp. 1-372, 1964
69) Y. L. Chang: Lateral pile loading tests, Trans., A.S.C.E, Vol.102, pp.273-276, 1937
70) PHRI, Yawasa Steel: Study on horizontal resistance of H-shaped piles, pp.345-353, 1963
71) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, pp. .6-8, 1964
No. 12, p.550,1962
No. 12, p.550,1962
74) Sawaguchi, M.: Soil Constants for Piles, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 7, No.2, p.87, 1968
75) Yamashita, I., T. Inatomi, K. Ogura and Y. Okuyama
76) Yamashita, I., T. Inatomi, K. Ogura and Y. Okuyama
77) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, pp.14-15, 1964
78) Fujiwara, T. and K. Kubo: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 1), Report of Technical Research
Institute of Transport, Vol. 11, No.6, pp. 61, 1961
79) Sawaguchi, M.: Soil Constants for Piles, Rept. Of PHRI Vol. 7, No.2, PP.82-83, 1968
80) Kubo. K.: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 3), Report of Technical Research Institute of Transport,
Vol. 12, No.2, P.190, 1962
81) Kikuchi, Y., K. Abe and K. Yuasa*Change in characteristics of lateral resistance of buttered pile due to the improvement by
sand compaction pile, Proceedings of 34th Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1661-1662, 1999
82) K.Terauchi, T.Sato, M. Sawaguchi, Y. Kikuchi, S. Kitazawa, M. lmai: Effect of lateral resistance of coupled piles on the field
loading test, Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice, pp.375-380, 2000
83) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 32-47, 1977
84) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, p.68, 1977
85) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.47-68, 1977
86) K. Terzaghi: Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade reaction, Geotechnique, Vol.5, No.4, pp.316-319, 1955
87) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 139-141, 1977
88) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp 72, 1977
89) Kikuchi, Y. and M. Suzuki: Variance of the subgrade reaction for the estimating the resistance of a pile perpendicular to pile
axis, ASCEGSP innovative Methods for Foundation Analysis and Design for Geoshanghai 2006, pp.111-118, 2006,
90) Kikuchi, Y. and M. Suzuki: A proposal on evaluation method of coefficient of subgrade reaction in the lateral direction to
pile axis, Proceedings of 41st Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, PP.1489-1490, 2006
91) Sawaguchi, M.: Soil Constants for Piles, Rept. Of PHRI Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 21-25, 1968
92) Y. L. Chang: Lateral pile loading tests, Trans., A.S.C.E, Vol.102, pp. 50-54, 1937
pp. 239-241, 2002
94) Takahashi, K. and Y. Shoji: Experimental Study on Vertical Anchor Piles of Sheet Pile Wall, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 22, No.4,
pp.33-58, 1983
95) Shoji, Y.: Experimental Study on Lateral Resistance of a Pile with Embedded Head in Sand, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 23, No.2, pp.
75-179, 1984
96) Yokoyama, Y.: Design of steel piles and construction, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 148-157,1963
97) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 56-68, 1977
98) Tanigawa, M., M. Sawaguchi and M. Tanaka: Horizontal bearing capacity of piles in composite ground- Replacement ratio
of clayey soul by sand pile and Coefficient of subgrade horizontal reaction-, Proceedings of 28th Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 1599-1600, 1993
99) Kitazume, M. and K. Murakami: Behaviour of Sheet Pile Walls in the Improved Ground by Sand Compaction Piles of Low
Replacement Area Ratio, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 32, No.2, pp.183-211, 1993
100) Takahashi, K. and K. Iki: Lateral Resistance of a Pile in Rubble Mound, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 30, No.2, pp.229-273, 1991
101) Kikuchi, y., M. Ishimaru: Coefficient subgrade lateral reaction of rubble ground, Proceedings of 53rd Annual Conference of
JSCE, 3B, pp.52-53, 1998
102) Kubo, K:. Lateral Resistance of Short Piles, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 5, No.13, pp.1-38, 1966
103) Miyamoto, M. and M. Sawaguchi: Group Action on Lateral Resistance of Piles (1st Report)-Spacing Effect in the Direction
of Loading-, Rept. of PHRI Vol.10, No.4, pp.53-108, 1971
104) B.B. Broms: Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils, Proc., ASCE, Vol.90, No. SM 3, PP.123-156, 1964
105) Kikuchi, T., T. Kamii, Y. Mori and S. Kagaya : Horizontal bearing capacity of group piles and the spacing, Proceedings of
6th Conference on Soil Mechanics, pp.427-430, 1971
106) Tamaki, O., K. Mituhashi and T. Imai: Study of group pile effects on horizontal bearing capacity, Proceedings of JACE, 192,
pp.79-89,1971
107) Prakash, S. and Saran, D.: Behavior of laterally-loaded piles in cohesive soils, Proc., 3rd Asian Conf. of Soil Mech., pp.235-
238, 1967
– 481 –
108) Poulos, H. G.: Behavior of laterally-loaded piles, II-pile groups, Proc., A.S.C.E., Vol.97, No. SM 5., 1971, pp.733 751
109) Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Sustructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp. 245, 2002
110) Segawa, M., T. Uchida and T. Katayama: Desgin of Coupled Batter Piles (Part 2)-Two Batter, Technical Note of PHRI No.
110, pp.1-14, 1970
111) M. Sawaguchi: Experimental investigation on the horizontal resistance of coupled piles, Rept. PHRI Vo1.9, No.1, pp.11-13,
1970
112) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 193-197, 1977
113) Aoki, Y.: Design of group piles against horizontal force, Soil and Foundation, Vol.18, No.8, pp.27-32, 1970
114) Kikuchi, Y., K. Takahashi and M. Suzuki: Experimental Study on People’s Safety against Overtopping Waves on Breakwaters-
A study on Amenity-oriented Port Structures (2nd Rept.)-, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 33-60, 1992
115) Shinohara, T. and K. Kubo: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 1), Technical Research Institute of
Transport, Vol. 11, No.6, pp. 50-53, 1961
116) Kikuchi, Y., K. Takahashi and T. Hirohashi: Lateral Load Tests on Piled Slab Structures, Technical Note of PHRI No.773,
p.25,1994
117) Kubo, K. and F. Saegusa: Reciprocal loading test of model piles, Proceedings of 2nd Study Presentation Conference of PHRI,
pp.64-73, 1964
118) Kikuchi, Y.: Lateral Resistance of soft landing moundless structure with piles, Technical Note of PARI No.1039, 2003
No.2, pp. 181-205, 1962
120) Suzuki, A., K. Kubo and Y. Tanaka: Lateral resistance of vertical piles embedded in sandy layer with sloping surface, Rept.
of PHRI Vol. 5, No.2, pp.1-20, 1966
121) Bureau of Port and Harbours Edition: Handbook of countermeasures to requifaction of reclaimed area, Coastal Development
Institute of Technology, pp.314-319, 1997
122) Japan Geothechnical Society Edition: Survey, design, construction and inspection of pile foundation, pp. 343-461, 2004
123) Sawaguchi, M.: Comparison of calculation results by various estimation methods of dynamic bearing capacities, Proceedings
of 38th Conference of JSCE, Part III, pp.605-606, 1983
124) Heutker, T. (Translated by M. Kishida ): Shokoku-sha Publishing, pp.37-41, 1978
pp. 509-510, 2002
126) R. D. Chellis : Pile foundations, McGraw Hill, p.464, 1961 R.D.Che1Hs:Pilefbundations, McGrawHil1, 29-32, 1961
127) Architectual Institute of Japan: Standards and commentary for architectural steel pile foundation, pp. 31-32, 1963
129) Uto, K., M. Fuyuki and M. Sakurai: Review of monitoring formulae of pile driving depth, Proceedings of 17th Conference
on Soil Mechanics, pp.2041-2044, 1982
130) Yokoyama, Y.: Design of steel piles and construction, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.188-196,1963
131) Kato, T.: Experiment on plastic local buckling of steel pipe piles, Proceedings of Technical Conference of Architectual
Institute of Japan:, pp.463-464, 1971
132) Kishida, H. and A. Takan: Buckling of steel pipe piles and reinforcement of the end, Proceedings of Technical Conference of
Architectual Institute of Japan:, No.213, pp.29-38, 1973
133) Suzunai, K.: Study on deformation of steel pile head due to pile driving loads, Report of Technical Research Institute of
Transport, Vol. 12, No.2, pp.57-83, 1962
134) Yokoyama, Y.: Design and construction of steel piles, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 2351963
136) Architectual Institute of Japan: Guideline for design of architectural foundation, 2001
137) Akai, K.: Bearing Capacity and settlement of soil, Sankai-do Publishing, 1964
138) Ishii, Y.: Tschbotarioff Soil Mechanics, (Vil. 1)Gihoi-do Publishing, p.212,1957
139) J. O. Osterburg: Influence values for vertical stresses in a semi-infinite mass due to an embankment loading, Proc. 4th. Int.
Conf. S.M.F.E., Vol.2, 1957
140) Kobayashi, M., J. Minakami and T. Tsuchida: Determination of the Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation cohesive soil,
Rept. of PHRI Vol.29, No.2, 1990
141) Nakase, A., M. Kobayashi and A. Kanechika: Consolidation Parameters of Over consolidated Clays, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 123-139, 1973
142) L.A. Palmer and P.P. Brown: Settlement analysis for areas of continuing subsidence, Proc. 4th. Int. Conf. S.M.F.E, Vol.1,
pp.395-398,1957
143) R.L. Schifflnan and R.E. Gibson: Consolidation of nonhomogeneous clay layers, Journal of S.M.F.E., ASCE, Vol.90, No. SM
5, pp.1-30,1964
144) Kobayashi, M.: Numerical Analysis of One-Dimensional Consolidation Problems, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 21, No.1, 1982
145) Kobayashi, M.: Study on the application of Finite Element Method to settlement analysis, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Dissertation, Technical Note of Soil Mechanics Laboratory, No.1,1990
146) Kobayashi, M.: Finite Element Analysis of the Effectiveness of Sand Drains, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 30, No.2, 1991
– 482 –
147) Mesri, G.: Coefficient of secondary compression, Proc. A.S.C.E, Vol.99, SM1, pp.123-137, 1973
148) Kasugai, Y., K. Minami and H. Tanaka: The Prediction of the Lateral Flow of Port and Harbour Structures, Technical Note
of PHRI No. 726, 1992
149) Okumura, T. and T. Tsuchida: Prediction of Differential Settlement with Special Reference to Variability of Soil Parameters,
Rept. of PHRI Vol. 20, No. 3, 1981
150) Tsuchida, T. and K. Ono: Evaluation of Differential Settlements with Numerical Simulation and Its Application to Airport
Pavement Design, Rept. of PHRI Vol.27, No.4, 1988
151) Tsuchida, T.: Estimation of differential settlement in reclaimed land, Proceedings of Annual Conference of PHRI, 1989
– 483 –
3 Stability of Slopes
3.1 General
(1) Stability of slopes against slip failure caused by self weight of soil or surcharge may be analyzed as a two-
dimensional problem, assuming a circular arc slip surface or a straight sliding surface.
(2) It is necessary to perform slope stability analysis for the case in which a slope becomes least stable.
(3) In slope stability analysis, in cases where the stability of the soil mass comprising a slope is reduced by the self
weight of the soil or surcharge, as the ultimate equilibrium state, it is necessary to confirm that the design value of
shearing resistance exceeds the design value of shearing force based on actions. Calculation methods used in the
slope stability analysis can also be used to calculate the bearing capacity of foundations, in addition to the stability
of slopes, as these calculation methods are used to examine the stability of soil masses. The method described
below can be used in verification of stability against variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground
motion in addition to the Permanent situation.
(4) Shapes of Slip Surface
① Types of shapes of slip surfaces
Theoretically, shapes of slip surfaces in slope stability analysis are combinations of linear, logarithmic spiral,
and/or circular arc shapes 1). In practice, however, linear or circular arc slip surfaces are assumed. When there
is a particularly weak layer and a slip surface is expected to pass over it, that slip surface or other appropriate
slip surfaces may sometimes be assumed. An assumed slip surface in general should be the one along which
the slip of the soil mass smoothly takes place. Thus, a slip surface with sharp bends or curves that seems to be
kinematically unnatural should not be used.
② Slip failure of slope on sandy soil ground
Slip failure of slopes of dry sand or saturated sand usually takes a form in which the slope collapses, and as
a result, its inclination decreases. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider a slope of these types as a
straight sliding surface than as a circular slip failure surface. Even when considering a circular slip failure
surface, the form is close to a straight line passing through the vicinity of the surface layer. The inclination of
a sandy slope when the slope is in a state of equilibrium is termed the angle of repose. This angle of repose is
equivalent to the angle of shear resistance, which corresponds to the void ratio of the sand comprising the slope.
In the case of unsaturated sand, the slope possesses apparent cohesion resistance caused by the suction due to
the surface tension of the water in the sand. As a result, its angle of repose is far larger than in the cases of
dry sand and saturated sand. However, saturation may increase due to infiltration of rainwater or a rise in the
groundwater level, causing a sudden decrease in apparent cohesion resistance, or angle of repose. Therefore,
adequate consideration is necessary.
③ Slope failure of cohesive soil ground
The actual slip failure surface of cohesive soil ground is close to a circular arc, and a deep slip called the base
failure often takes place, while a shallow slip appears near the surface layer in sandy slope.
Slope stability analysis is usually treated as a two-dimensional problem. Although actual slip surface in
slopes with long extention takes the form of three-dimensional curved surfaces, a two dimensional analysis
gives a solution on the safer side. When the stability is expected to decrease due to surcharge over a finite
extention, however, the resistance of both sides of a cylindrical failure surface may be taken into account.
(5) Actions in Slope Stability Analysis
Important causes of slip failures are self weight of soil, surcharge, water pressure and others. Beside them,
repeated actions such as seismic force, wave force, and others may be included. Resistance against the slip is
given by shear resistance of soil and counter weight.
Because the shear strength of soil is related with time, the stability problems on soil mass are classified into two
cases; loading on the ground in normally consolidated state, and unloading by excavation. The former is referred
to as a short-period stability problem and the latter a long-period. It is preferable to use shear strength appropriate
to each case (see Part II, Chapter 3, 2.3.3 Shear Characteristics).
(6) Stability verification in slope stability problems can be performed by confirming that the ratio of the shear
strength of soil to the shear stress in an assumed slip surface is greater than 1.0. The value of the obtained
ratio will differ depending on the assumed slip surface. However, the result with the smallest ratio of “shearing
resistance”/”shearing force” among the shearing resistance and shearing force obtained assuming several slip
surfaces based on the given conditions shall be regarded as the limit state for slip failure of the slope under study.
– 484 –
(7) Partial Factors
In examination of the stability of slopes, the partial factors for each structural type of facilities or partial factors
by type of improved soil can generally be used. In performance verification of structural types and embankments
for which no partial factors are particularly specified, the values shown in this section can be used. The parts to
be referenced on partial factors are as shown in Table 3.1.1. Because the position of the slip surface will differ
depending on how the partial factors for the soil parameter and the analysis method are determined, caution is
necessary when the range of soil improvement is to be determined based on the stability verification. For example,
if the partial factor of the soil parameter of the resistance side is set small, the range of slip failure, which is the
limit state, will be narrow. This means that the necessary range of soil improvement will be underestimated.
Table 3.1.1 Parts to be Referenced on Partial Factors for Use in Verification of Slip Failure
Applicable facilities for

Parts to be referenced Applicable facilities
partial factors
Composite breakwater Chapter 4 Protective Facilities for Harbors Upright breakwater, sloping caisson breakwater,
3.1 Gravity-type Breakwaters (Composite upright wave-dissipating block type breakwater,
Breakwaters), Table 3.1.1 wave-dissipating caisson type breakwater
Breakwater armored with Chapter 4 Protective Facilities for Harbors Sloping top caisson breakwater armored with
wave-dissipating blocks 3.4 Gravity-type Breakwaters (Breakwaters wave-dissipating blocks
Covered with Wave-dissipating Blocks),
Table 3.4.1
Gravity-type quaywall Chapter 5 Mooring Facilities Gravity-type revetment, placement-type
2.2 Gravity-type Quaywalls, Table 2.2.2 cellular-bulkhead quaywall
Sheet pile quaywall Chapter 5 Mooring Facilities Sheet pile revetment, cantilevered sheet pile
2.3 Sheet Pile Quaywalls, Table 2.3.3 quaywall
SCP improved soil Chapter 2, 4 Soil Improvement Methods Gravity-type quaywall or sheet pile quaywall
4.10 Sand Compaction Pile Method for applying SCP improvement
Cohesive Soil Ground, Table 4.10.2
Others In accordance with this section (3 Stability of Sloping breakwater and other similar facilities
Slopes)
– 485 –
3.2 Examination of Stability

3.2.1 Stability Analysis by Circular Slip Failure Surface
(1) Examination of the stability of slopes can be performed by circular slip failure analysis with the modified Fellenius
method, which is given by the following equation, or by an appropriate method equivalent to the bearing force
in 2.2.5 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined Actions, depending on the characteristics of the ground.
In equation (3.2.1), the partial factor γa for the analysis method should be an appropriate value corresponding to
the characteristics of the ground and characteristics of the facilities. In general, γa can be set at 1.30 or higher for
permanent situations, but in cases where the reliability of the constants used in verification can be considered high
based on actual data for the same ground, and in cases where monitoring work is carried out by observing the
displacement and stress of the ground during construction, values from of larger than 1.10 and less than 1.30 can
be used.2) In cases where partial factors are given for the structural type of the facilities or by type of improved
soil, as shown in 3.1(7) Partial Factors, the partial factors given at the objective parts shall be used.
(3.2.1)
where
R : radius of circular slip failure (m)
cd : in case of cohesion soil ground, design value of undrained shear strength, and in case of sandy
ground, design value of apparent cohesion in drained condition (kN/m 2)
l : length of bottom of slice segment (m)
W’d : design value of effective weight of slice segment per unit of length (weight of soil. When
submerged, unit weight in water) (kN/m)
qd : design value of vertical action from top of slice segment (kN/m)
θ : angle of bottom of slice segment to horizontal (º)
φd : in case of cohesion soil ground, 0, and in case of sandy ground, design value of angle of shear
resistance in drained condition (º)
Wd : design value of total weight of slice segment per unit of length, total weight of soil and water
(kN/m)
x : horizontal distance between center of gravity of slice segment and center of circular slip failure
(m)
PHd : design value of horizontal action on soil mass of slice segment in circular slip (kN/m)
a : length of arm from center of circular slip failure at position of action of PHd (m)
S : width of slice segment (m)
γa : partial factor for analysis method
The design values in equation (3.2.1) can be calculated using the following equation by multiplying the
characteristic value by the partial factor. If partial factors are not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all
partial factors in equation (3.2.2).
cd = γc ck ,W'd = γW' W'k ,qd = γq qk ,φd = tan–1(γtanφ tanφk),PHd = γPH PHk (3.2.2)
(2) In slope stability analysis, the causes of slip failure include the self weight of the soil, surcharge, water pressure,
wave pressure, and action due to ground motion. Elements which resist slip failure include the shearing resistance
of the soil and counterweight. Verification of safety against slip failure of slopes is performed assuming that the
shearing resistance of the soil exceeds the shearing force in the assumed slip surface. When assuming a circular
slip failure surface, this is equivalent to verifying that the moments which work to resist slip exceed the moments
which cause slip for the center of the circle.
(3) In the slice method used in circular slip failure surfaces, the soil mass inside the slip circle is divided into a number
of slices by vertical planes, the shearing force at the bottom surface of each slice and the resistant stress of the
soil are calculated considering the balance of forces in each slice. The fact that the design value of the shearing
resistance obtained by adding the stresses for all of the slices exceeds the design value of the shearing force along
the slip line is then verified. In order to solve the inter-slice balance of forces in the slice method, it is necessary
to assume statically the determinate conditions. Various methods have been proposed, which vary depending on
the assumptions used. In general, the modified Fellenius method and the simplified Bishop method are used.
– 486 –
(4) Stability Analysis Method using Modified Fellenius Method 1), 3), 4)
Various calculation methods have been proposed for the slice method, depending on how the forces acting on the
vertical planes between the slices are assumed. The modified Fellenius method assumes that the direction of the
resultant force acting on vertical planes between slices is parallel to the base of the slices. This method is also
referred to as the simplified method or Tschbotarioff method. When a circular arc and a slice are as shown in Fig.
3.2.1, equation (3.2.1) according to the modified Fellenius method is applicable. In performing slope stability
analysis, first, the center of the slip circle is assumed. Of the slip circles that take this point as their center, the
one with the smallest ratio expressed by “the design value of shearing resistance”/”design value of shearing force
based on loading” is obtained, and its value is used as the minimum ratio for that center point. The minimum ratio
of “design value of shearing resistance”/”design value of shearing force” for other center points is then obtained by
the same method. Verification can be performed for the limit state for slip failure of the slope using the minimum
value of the minimum ratios obtained by the contour for the minimum ratios.
Fig.3.2.1 Circular Slip Failure Analysis using Modified Fellenius Method
(5) Stability Analysis by Bishop Method 3), 5)

Bishop 5) proposes an equation which considers the vertical shearing force and horizontal force acting in the
vertical plane of a slice. In actual calculations, a calculation method which assumes that the vertical shearing
forces are in balance is often used. This method is called the simplified Bishop method. In the simplified Bishop
method, γFf Ff is calculated based on equation (3.2.3), 5) and stability can be verified by the verification parameter
Ff ≥1. In this equation, the symbol γ is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d are the
characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(3.2.3)
where
Ff : verification parameter
γFf : partial factor for analysis method
cd : in case of cohesion soil ground, design value of undrained shear strength, and in case of sandy
ground, design value of apparent cohesion in drained condition (kN/m 2)
S : width of slice segment (m)
W’d : design value of effective weight of slice segment per unit of length (weight of soil. When
submerged, unit weight in water) (kN/m)
ød : in case of cohesion soil ground, 0, and in case of sandy ground, design value of angle of shear
resistance in drained condition (º)
qd : design value of vertical action from top of slice segment (kN/m)
θ : angle of bottom of slice segment to horizontal (º)
Wd : design value of total weight of slice segment per unit of length, total weight of soil and water
(kN/m)
PHd : design value of horizontal action on soil mass of slice segment in circular slip (kN/m)
a : length of arm from center of circular slip failure at position of action of PHd (m)
R : radius of circular slip failure (m)
– 487 –
The design values in the equation can be calculated using the following equation by multiplying the
characteristic value by the partial factor. Provided, however, that Wd shall be expressed by the sum of W’d and the
weight of water, because it is not necessary to multiply the weight of water by a partial factor. If partial factors are
not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all partial factors in equation (3.2.4).
cd = γc ck ,W'd = γW' W'k ,qd = γq qk ,φd = tan–1(γtanφ' tanφk ),PHd = γPH PHk (3.2.4)
(6) Applicability of Stability Analysis Methods 6), 7)

Solutions in stability analysis by the modified Fellenius method and the simplified Bishop method are in agreement
for cohesive soil in which φ = 0, when all partial factor are 1.00, but differ when the circular arc passes through
sandy ground. In Japan, circular slip failure analysis by the modified Fellenius method is widely used. This is
because it has been reported that the modified Fellenius method reasonably explains the actual behaviors of slope
failure based on the results of analysis of case histories of slip failures in port areas in Japan, 4) and also gives a
safety side solution for sandy ground.
However, when the foundation ground consists entirely of sandy soil layers, or when a slip circle cuts through
ground consisting of an upper thick sandy layer and lower cohesive soil layer, it is known that the modified
Fellenius method underestimates stability evaluated by the ratio expressed by the design value of shearing
resistance/design value based on actions.7) From the viewpoint of the basic principles of the stability calculation
method, the simplified Bishop method is more accurate under such conditions. Therefore, the simplified Bishop
method is generally used in case of eccentric and inclined loads, which are particularly a problem when examining
the bearing capacity of mounds (see 2.2.5 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined Actions). It should be
noted that the simplified Bishop method has the problem of overestimating the ratio expressed by “design value of
shearing resistance” / “design value of shearing forces based on actions” when actions on near-horizontal sandy
ground apply vertical loads. In such cases, a method of stability calculation can be used which assumes that the
ratio of the vertical to the horizontal forces between slices is 1/3.5 of the angle of slice inclination.8) In stability
verification in this case, calculations are made using the following equation. In this equation, the symbol γ is the
partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d are the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
n
(3.2.5)
Based on equation (3.2.5), γFf Ff is calculated, and stability can be verified by the verification parameter Ff ≥1.
The design values in this equation can be calculated using the following equation. Provided, however, that Wd
shall be expressed by the sum of W’d and the weight of water, because it is not necessary to multiply the weight of
water by a partial factor. If partial factors are not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all partial factors
in equation (3.2.6).
cd =γc ck ,W'd =γW' W'k ,qd =γq qk ,φd =tan–1(γtanφ tanφk),PHd = γPH PHk (3.2.6)

where n = 1 + tanθ tan (βθ), β is a parameter which provides the ratio of the vertical force to the horizontal
force acting on the sides of the slice, and can be assumed to be β = 1/3.5. The other symbols are the same as those
3.2.2 Stability Analysis Assuming Slip Surfaces other than Circular Slip Surface
(1) Despite the provisions stated in the previous sections, a linear or a compounded slip surface shall be assumed
in stability analysis when it is more appropriate to assume a slip surface other than a circular arc slip surfaces
according to the ground conditions.
(2) When linear slip is assumed, examination of stability against slip failure of a slope with a straight sliding surface
is calculated using the following equation.
(3.2.7)
where
cd : design value of cohesion of soil (kN/m 2)
φd : design value of angle of shearing resistance of soil (º)
l : length of base of slice (m)
W'd : design value of effective weight of slice per unit of length (kN/m)
– 488 –
Wd : design value of total weight of slice per unit of length (kN/m)
θ : inclination of base of slice, assumed to be positive in the case shown in Fig. 3.2.2 (º)
PHd : design value of horizontal action per unit of length applied to slice segment of slope, actions
include water pressure, actions due to waves and actions due to ground motion (kN/m)
γa : partial factor for analysis method
The partial factor γR for the analysis method for slip failure can be ≧1.2 in the permanent situation and ≧1.00
for variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion.
The design values in this equation can be calculated using the following equation. Provided, however, that Wd
shall be expressed by the sum of W’d and the weight of water, because it is not necessary to multiply the weight of
water by a partial factor. If partial factors are not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all partial factors
cd = γc ck ,W'd = γW' W'k ,φd =tan–1(γtanφ tanφk), PHd = γPH PHk (3.2.8)
Fig. 3.2.2 Examination of Slope Stability Analysis using Linear Sliding Surface
References
1) R.F, Scott: Principle of Soil mechanics, Addison Wesley, p.431, 1972
2) Tsuchida, T.and TANG Yi Xin: The Optimum Safety Factor for Stability Analyses of Harbour Structures by Use of the
Circular Arc Slip Method, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 5、No. 1、pp. 117-146, 1996
3) Yamaguchi, K.: Soil Mechanics (Fully Revised Edition)Chapter 7, Stability analysis of earth structure, Giho-do Publishing,
pp.197-223, 1969
4) Nakase, A.：The φ =0 analysis of stability and unconfined compression strength, Siol and Foundation, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.33-50,
1967
5) A.W. Bishop: The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes, Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.7-17. 1955
6) Nomura, K., T. Hayafuji and F. Nagatomo: Comparison between Bishop’s method and Tschebotarioff’s method in slope
stability analysis, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 7 No. 4, pp.133-175, 1968
7) Kobayashi, M.: Outstanding issues in stability analysis of ground, Proceedings of Annual Conference of PHRI 1976, pp.73-
93, 1976
8) Tsuchida, T., M. Kobayashi and T. Fukuhara: Calculation method for bearing capacity by circular slip analysis utilizing slice
method, Proceedings of 33rd Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1371-1372, 1998
– 489 –
4 Soil Improvement Methods

4.1 General
When carrying out soil improvement as a countermeasure against possible failures of soft ground, an appropriate
method shall be selected in view of the characteristics of foundation subsoil, type and scale of structure, ease and
period of construction, economic factors and influence on the environment.
4.2 Liquefaction Countermeasure Works
In carrying out liquefaction countermeasure works, it is preferable to conduct an appropriate examination of the
following items in order to maintain the functions of the facilities.
① Method of countermeasure works
② Scope of execution of countermeasure works (execution area and depth)
③ Concrete performance verification of countermeasure works
4.3 Replacement Methods
(1) In the performance verification of the replacement method, it is necessary to consider stability against circular slip
failure, settlement of subsoil, and constructability of replacement.
(2) Replacement methods can be divided into two methods including the replacement of subsoil by excavation
(foundation replacement by excavation) and the forced replacement. In the replacement of subsoil by excavation
method, soft soil is excavated and removed by a suction dredger or a grab dredger and replaced by filling with
good quality soil. This method is widely used in offshore works. On the other hand, the forced replacement
method is a method in which soft soil is forcibly pushed out by embankment load, sand compaction piles, blasting,
or other methods, and is then replaced with good quality soil.39)
(3) The following presents the performance verification method for the replacement of subsoil by excavation
(foundation replacement by excavation), which is widely used in offshore works.
① Procedure of performance verification
In the performance verification of the replacement methods, as shown in Fig. 4.3.1, it is generally preferable to
carry out the performance verification by a procedure of assumption of the verification conditions, assumption
of the verification cross section including replacement depth, replacement width, and slope of excavation,
examination of circular slip failure, examination of settlement, and selection of the replaced sand. Although not
shown in Fig. 4.3.1, it is also necessary to examine the possibility of liquefaction of the replaced sand and the
evaluation of the effect thereof.
Setting of design conditions
Assumption of cross-sectional dimensions
Evaluation of actions
Performance verification
Permanent state
Examination of circular slip failure
Examination of settlement
Selection of replaced sand
Fig. 4.3.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Replacement Method
– 490 –
② Examination of slip failure

In the examination of slip failure by circular slip failure calculations, 3 Stability of Slopes can be used as
a reference. For partial factors, related provisions in Part III of this Technical Standard can be used as a
reference, as necessary.
In calculating the earth pressure on sheet piles or anchorage works inside the replaced section, it is preferable
to conduct an examination of the composite slip in addition to the conventional earth pressure calculations. In
cases where the entire layer is to be replaced and the base rock stratum is inclined, it is preferable to conduct an
examination for a composite slip which includes slip failure on the base rock.
③ Examination of settlement
When cohesive soil remains beneath the replaced cross section, such as beneath partial replacement or the slope
of foundation excavation, consolidation settlement can be expected in the cohesive soil portion. Therefore, it is
preferable to conduct an examination of the effect of this consolidation settlement on the superstructure.
④ Selection of replaced sand
It is preferable that the replaced sand has a good grain size distribution and has a low content of silt content. In
general, the ratio of fines content is frequently specified as no more than 15%. The angle of shear resistance of
replaced sand can generally be assumed to be around 30º. However, this value is affected by the particle size,
size distribution, placement method, sequence of placement, elapsed time, surcharge, and other factors. There
is a case where the angle of shear resistance is extremely low, and therefore caution is necessary.
⑤ Examination of Liquefaction
Liquefaction is generally assessed based on the grain size distribution and the N-values of the replaced sand.
When difficult to evaluate, the liquefaction should be examined by cyclic triaxial test 41) (see Part II, Chapter
6 Ground Liquefaction). When liquefaction is one of critical factors in the determination of the replacement
section and the characteristics of the replacement sand, it should be considered at selecting the replaced material.
If in sufficient strength of the replaced sand is expected, it is preferable to compact the replaced sand after filling.
⑥ The N-values of the replaced sand are affected by its grain size and grain size distribution, placement method
and sequence of placement, elapsed time and surcharge. According to some case studies, the N-values of
the replaced sand were around 10 when sand was instantaneously placed in large volume from large-capacity
hopper barges with bottom doors, around 5 when sand was placed by grab buckets from sand carriers, and even
smaller values when sand was spread by suction dredger. Several case studies show that the N-values of the
loose replaced sand increased with the application of surcharge and the elapsed time after placing the replaced
sand or rubble stones or placing caisson.
– 491 –
4.4 Vertical Drain Method

4.4.1 Fundamentals of Performance Verification
(1) In the vertical drain method, it is necessary to secure the following performance corresponding to the purposes of
improvement.
① Assure targeted strength increase.
② Assure that residual settlement should be within the allowable value.
③ Secure the necessary stability of the facilities.
(2) An example of the performance verification procedure for the vertical drain method is shown in Fig. 4.4.1.
Bearing
capacity Assumption of target strength increase
of ground
Allowable Assumption of necessary Assumption of section

settlement consolidation load to be improved
Assumption of height, weight,

and shape of embankment
Construction Verification of stability

period against circular slip failure
Determination of embankment
height and consolidation period in
each stage of construction
Verification of stability against

circular slip failure
Determination of embankment
width and shape
in each stage of construction
Determination of type,
diameter, and spacing of drains
Comparison of economy
Fig. 4.4.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Vertical Drain Method
4.4.2 Performance Verification
(1) Determination of Height and Width of Embankment

① Height and width of embankment necessary in soil improvement
(a) The height and width of the embankment when an embankment is to be used as consolidation load by the
preload method or surcharge method shall be determined considering the strength increase necessary for
stability of the embankment during and after construction, the stability and allowable settlement of the
facilities to be constructed, the effect on the surrounding area, and other relevant factors.
(b) It is preferable to set the top width of the embankment larger than the width required for soil improvement (see
Fig. 4.4.2).
– 492 –
Mean width
Fill top width h

(Fill)
H
Drain area
(Permeable layer)
Fig. 4.4.2 Width of Embankment for Vertical Drain Method
(c) In examination of the strength increase (Δc) of the original ground, equation (4.4.1) can be used.
(4.4.1)
where
Ca : target strength increase (kN/m 2)
h : height of embankment (m)
p 0′: initial pressure (vertical pressure before start of construction) (kN/m 2)
p c′: preconsolidation pressure (kN/m 2)
U : degree of consolidation
α : coefficient of stress distribution, namely ratio of distributed stress in ground and consolidation
load (embankment load)
γ′ : effective unit weight of embankment (kN/m3)
Δc : strength increase (kN/m 2)
Δc/Δp: increase rate of strength
② Evaluation of stability of embankment

(a) It is necessary to verify the stability of embankments by circular slip failure analysis or other appropriate
methods for the height and width of the embankment determined by the above explanation of ① Height and
width of the embankment necessary in soil improvement. In cases where it is not possible to secure the
stability of the embankment itself, it is necessary to divide the final embankment into several stages and
perform verification of the stability in each of the embankment stages.
(b) Evaluation of stability of embankment against slip failure
In the examination of the stability of an embankment by circular slip failure calculations, 3 Stability of
Slopes can be used as a reference. For the partial factors to be used in the calculations, the partial safety
factors for the circular slip failure calculations in connection with respective facilities can be used. In this
case, the strength of the ground must consider the strength increase calculated by equation (4.4.1).
(c) Rough estimation of strength increase
Since surcharge is usually applied in several stages in the vertical drain method, the degree of consolidation U
to be used in equations (4.4.1) and (4.4.2) differs at each surcharge stage. However, strength increment may
often be calculated by assuming a uniform degree of consolidation of approximately 80%.
(2) Performance Verification of Drains
In the performance verification of drains, it is necessary to make calculations which consider the permeability
characteristics of the drain material, and permeability characteristics and thickness of the sand mat, in addition to
the drain interval, drain diameter, and drainage conditions at the top and bottom of the layer to be consolidated.
① Drains and sand mats
(a) Drains and sand mats shall possess the required drainage functions.
(b) Consolidation rate and drain diameter
The consolidation rate is approximately proportional to the drain diameter and inversely proportional to the
square of the drain interval. Generally, the amount of drain material can be reduced by placing small diameter
– 493 –
drains at small intervals rather than by placing large diameter drains at wide intervals. However, in the sand
drain method, use of sand piles with an excessively small diameter may result in clogging due to infiltration of
clayey particles, and there is a danger of breakage of the sand piles if the piles are unable to follow deformation
by loading or consolidation settlement during the consolidation period. Construction records of sand drain
method to date show that the most frequently used diameter is 40cm, and diameters normally range from
30-50cm. In the small diameter fabri-packed drain method,43) sand piles with a diameter of 12cm are packed
into synthetic fiber bags, and four sand piles are installed simultaneously using a lightweight pile driver. This
method is frequently used with extremely soft subsoil on land. A fabri-packed drain method with a diameter
of the order of 40cm has also been developed for improvement of extremely soft subsoil at the sea bottom.44),
45)
(c) Materials for sand piles

Sand used for sand piles should have high permeability as well as a suitable grain size to prevent clogging with
clayey particles. The grain size distributions of sand used in works are shown in Fig. 4.4.3. However, cases
in which sand with a somewhat higher fines content is used have also increased in recent years.
Silt Fine sand Coarse sand Gravel

100
2
Passing weight percentage (%)
B
80
1
7 9
60
3
4
11 1 12 Examples in Japan
40 10
A A B New York
8 5
20 6
12
0
0.1 1 10
Grain size(mm)
Fig. 4.4.3 Examples of Sand Used in Sand Piles
(d) Prefabricated drains and related materials

In the performance verification of the prefabrication drain type of strip-shaped drain, the width and thickness
of approximately 10cm and 5cm respectively, the object drain is converted to a circular drain having the same
circumferential length. In practical cases, however, the performance verification is conducted as equivalent
to a sand drain having a diameter of 5cm.42) Caution is necessary in cases where the drainage capacity of
the drain is low, as there is a time lag in consolidation at the end of the vertical drain (i.e., lower part of the
consolidation layer).
(e) Sand mats
The thickness of the sand mat layer is usually set to be approximately 1.0 m to 1.5 m for marine works and
0.5 m to 1.0 m for land works. A thick sand mat layer may cause difficulty in drain pile driving. On the other
hand, a thin sand mat layer may show reduced permeability due to infiltration of clayey particles. Where
the thickness of the sand mat layer is concerned, when the drainage capacity of the sand mat layer is low, a
delay in consolidation may occur due to head loss. In this case, it is preferable to improve permeability by
installing drainage pipes in the sand mat layer. In recent years, a method which does not require a sand mat
has been developed by connecting the excess lengths of drains in a grid-like shape to secure drainage paths
in the horizontal direction.50)
② Drain interval
(a) Interval of drain piles shall be so determined that the required degree of consolidation can be obtained in a
given construction period.
(b) General
The vertical drain method can be applied when the rate of consolidation by the preloading method, surcharge
method, vacuum consolidation method, or similar methods is slow considering the time constraints of the
construction period. Fig. 4.4.4 shows the relationship between the required consolidation time t80, drainage
– 494 –
distance H, and coefficient of consolidation cv of a clayey layer by the preloading method, surcharge method,
and vacuum consolidation method.
Note) In Fig. 4.4.4, the units used are consolidation time t80 (day), drainage distance H (m), and coefficient
of consolidation cv (cm 2/min).
10000
in 2
5000
/m
10years
1cm
0.006
0.1 8
0.03
0. 4
2
0.2
0 .4
0.8
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
cν =
5years
4years
3years
1000
2years
t 80 500
(d)
1year
U T/T80
6months 10% 0.013
20% 0.055
Permeable layer
100 30% 0.125
2H 40% 0.222
Clay
50 Permeable layer 50% 0.348
Permeable layer 60% 0.507
H 70% 0.711
Clay
80% 1.000
Impermeable layer
90% 1.497
10
1 5 10 50
H(m)
Fig. 4.4.4 Required Days for 80% Consolidation of Clay Layer
(c) Determination of drain Interval

The drain interval can be obtained from Fig. 4.4.5 and equation (4.4.3) based on the Barron theory or Bio
theory.51) It has been pointed out that consolidation may be delayed due to the effect of the smear, which means
the disturbance of cohesive soil ground by drain driving, if the drain interval is excessively small52), 53), 54), 55).
(4.4.3)
where
D : drain interval (cm)
β : factor related to arrangement of drains
with square arrangement, β= 0.886, and with a triangular arrangement, β = 0.952.
n : (n can be obtained from Fig. 4.4.5)
De : effective diameter of drain (cm)

Dw : diameter of drain (cm)
Th’ : parameter similar to time factor
cvh : coefficient of consolidation related to flow of water in horizontal direction (cm 2/min)
t : consolidation time (min)
Note) The unit used for time (t) in Fig. 4.4.5 and Fig. 4.4.6 is days.
– 495 –
Fig. 4.4.5 Calculation Chart for N-value
(d) Flow of water in vertical direction

In the vertical drain method, consolidation by flow of water in the horizontal direction is expected. However,
when the thickness of the layer to be consolidated is comparatively small in comparison with the interval
between the drains, progress of consolidation due to flow of water in the vertical direction cannot be ignored.
For the performance verification of the pile interval considering consolidation due to vertical flow of water,
Reference 49) can be used as a reference.
(e) Coefficient of consolidation in horizontal direction
No appropriate test method has been established for the coefficient of consolidation (cvh) for flow of water in
the horizontal direction of cohesive soil layers. In general, the coefficient of consolidation in the horizontal
direction is considered to be 5-10 times greater than that in the vertical direction, but some reports say that
they are equivalent. If the effects of head loss in the drains and the effect of smear are considered, it is
not necessarily advisable to use the results of consolidation tests which reproduce the flow of water in the
horizontal direction. According to examples of construction to date, there are no practical objections to
substitution of the coefficient of consolidation (cv) for flow of water in the horizontal direction of clayey soil
layers.
(f) Calculation of degree of consolidation
After determining the drain interval, the relationship between the degree of consolidation and elapsed time
can be obtained using equations (4.4.4) and (4.4.5) and Fig. 4.4.6.
(4.4.4)
(4.4.5)
where
Th : time factor of consolidation for flow of water in horizontal direction
cvh : coefficient of consolidation for flow of water in horizontal direction (cm 2/min)
t : elapsed time from start of consolidation (min)
De : effective diameter of drain area (cm)
Dw : diameter of drain (cm)
Note) In Fig. 4.4.6, the units used are coefficient of consolidation cvh (cm 2/min), effective diameter of drain
area De (cm), and elapsed time t (day).
– 496 –
Fig. 4.4.6 Calculation Chart for Degree of Consolidation
(g) Effective diameter of drain area

The effective diameter of drain area De is the diameter of an equivalent circle that has the same area as the
soil being drained by a sand pile. The relationship between De and interval of the drain pile D is as follows:
De = 1.128D for square grid pattern. (4.4.6)

De = 1.050D for equilateral triangular grid pattern. (4.4.7)
– 497 –
4.5 Deep Mixing Method

4.5.1 Fundamentals of Performance Verification
[1] Scope of Application
(1) The deep mixing method dealt with in this section is the one in which the soil in-situ is mixed mechanically with
cement.
(2) The majority of examples of application of soil improvement by the deep mixing method in ports are breakwaters,
revetments including partition dikes, and quaywalls having caissons or the like as their superstructure. The
performance verification method presented here can be applied to improved soil when a gravity-type breakwater
revetment or quaywall is to be used as the superstructure.
(3) When applying the deep mixing method to port facilities, a high rigidity subsurface structure is formed by
mutually overlapping stabilized soil having a pile shape in the ground using a mixing machine. The pattern of
this subsurface structure is determined depending on the properties of the ground and the type and scale of the
superstructure. In general, however, the block type and the wall type shown in Fig. 4.5.1 are frequently used.
Accordingly, block type improvement and wall type improvement will be discussed here which are representative
forms of improvement in the field of port engineering.
(4) The wall type improvement consists of long and short walls as shown in Fig. 4.5.1(b). The basic concept of the
design is that the long walls function to transmit the external actions to the foundation ground, while the short
walls function to increase the integrity of the improved ground.
Sea surface Sea surface

Soft subsoil
Sea surface
Soft subsoil
Seabed Sea surface
Seabed
Improved subsoil
Soft subsoil Improved subsoil
Soft subsoil
Long wall
Short wall
(a) block type improvement (b) wall type improvement
Fig. 4.5.1 Typical Improvement Patterns in the Deep Mixing Method
[2] Basic Concept
(1) Definitions of the terms are as follows;

① Stabilized soil: Improved soil produced by the deep mixing method.
② Stabilized body: A kind of structure formed underground with stabilized soil.
③ Improved ground: Portion in which the stabilized body and untreated soil is combined. In the wall type
improvement, the untreated soil between the long walls is inclusive.
④ Improved subsoil system: Portion above the bottom of the improved subsoil, between the vertical planes passing
through the front toe and heel of the improved subsoil.
⑤ External stability: Examination of stability of unified body consisting of improved subsoil and superstructure
as a rigid body in the process up to failure.
⑥ Internal stability: Examination of internal failure of the stabilized body which is stable externally.
– 498 –
⑦ Bottom seated type: Structural type in which the stabilized body is seated directly on the bearing stratum; in
this type of improvement, actions are transmitted to the bearing stratum by improvement of the soft ground
reaching as far as the bearing stratum.
⑧ Floating type: Structural type in which the stabilized body takes a form that floats in the soft ground; in this type
of improvement, the stabilized body is not seated on the bearing stratum, but soft ground is allowed to remain
underneath the stabilized body.
(2) Stabilized soil by the deep mixing method generally has extremely high strength and deformation modulus and
extremely small strain at failure in comparison with the soil of the original ground.60) Accordingly, a stabilized
body formed with stabilized soil can be regarded as a kind of structure. Therefore, examination of external
stability of the structure as a whole, examination of the resistance of the structure itself, and when particularly
necessary, examination of the settlement, horizontal displacement, and rotation of the stabilized body as a rigid
body shall be performed.
(3) In the performance verification of the deep mixing method, the Technical Manual for the Deep Mixing Method
in Marine Construction Works 61) can be used as a reference.
(4) An example of the procedure of the performance verification for the deep mixing method for gravity-type
structures is shown in Fig. 4.5.2.
Determination of design conditions
Assumption of dimensions of stabilized body
Evaluation of actions including setting of seismic coefficient for verification

Performance verification
Permanent state
Verification of external stability such as sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
Verification of internal stability such as toe pressure, shear stress and dislodging
Variable states in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion

Verification of external stability such as sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
Verification of internal stability such as toe pressure, shear stress and dislodging
*1
Examination of deformation by dynamic analysis
*2
Accidental states in respect of

Level 2 earthquake ground motion
Examination of deformation by dynamic analysis
Permanent state
Examination of circular slip failure and settlement
Determination of dimensions of stabilized body
*1: When necessary, examination of deformation by dynamic analysis can be performed for Level 1 earthquake ground motion. In cases where
the width of the improved subsoil is smaller than the width of the foundation mound, it is preferable to conduct an examination of
deformation by dynamic analysis.
*2 Depending on the performance requirements of the main body, examination for Level 2 earthquake ground motion shall be performed.
Fig. 4.5.2 Example of Procedure of Performance Verification of Deep Mixing Method
– 499 –
(5) The performance verification of variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion in the deep
mixing method can be conducted, equivalent to gravity-type quaywalls, by either the simplified method (seismic
coefficient method),or by a detailed method (nonlinear seismic response analysis considering dynamic interaction
of the ground and structures) presented in Part III, Chapter 5, 2.2.3 Performance Verification. In cases where
the width of the improved subsoil is smaller than the width of the foundation mound in the results of verification
by the simplified method, it is necessary to carry out an examination of deformation of the improved subsoil and
main body by a detailed method. Examination of accidental situations in respect of Level 2 earthquake ground
motion may also be necessary depending on the performance requirements of the facilities.
(6) In the performance verification of the deep mixing method, it is necessary to consider the following items.
① Because there is no method for the deep mixing method to determine the dimensions of the stabilized body at
once, the verification calculation is performed repeatedly until stability conditions are satisfied and the most
economical cross section is obtained.
② In improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, it is necessary to determine the dimensions of both the long
walls and the short walls. Because the long walls and short walls are constructed by mutually overlapping
pile bodies of stabilized soil, the cross-sectional shapes of the walls cannot be determined arbitrarily and it is
necessary to consider the dimensions of the mixing machine which is expected to be used.
③ In improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, untreated soil between the long walls exists in the improved
subsoil; therefore, in the examination of the internal stability, it is necessary to examine the extrusion of the
untreated soil between the long walls, in addition to the examination of the internal stress in the stabilized body.
④ The limit values of deformation in the variable situations and the accidental situations can be set corresponding
to the performance requirements of the facilities, using deformation of the main structure to be supported by the
deep mixing method as an index.
⑤ In the verification of deformation of Level 1 earthquake ground motion and Level 2 earthquake ground motion,
it is preferable to use a numerical model or results of shaking table tests which can appropriately assess the
residual deformation of the improved subsoil caused by ground motion.
4.5.2 Assumption of Dimensions of Stabilized Body

[1] Mixing Design Method for Stabilized Subsoil
It is necessary to determine the mixing design of the stabilized subsoil by performing laboratory mixing tests or in-situ
tests under the same conditions as in actual construction.
[2] Material Strength of Stabilized Body
(1) Allowable stress of the stabilized body needs to be appropriately determined for the examination of the internal
stability.
(2) Design compressive strength fc can be obtained using equation (4.5.1) based on the standard design strength
quc. In this equation, the symbol γ is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the
characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(4.5.1)
where
fc : design compressive strength of stabilized body (kN/m 2)
α : factor for effective cross-sectional area
β : reliability index of overlap
quc : design standard strength (kN/m 2)
The design values in the equation can be calculated using the following equation.
qucd = γ quc quck
For the partial factor γquc of design standard strength, the values mentioned in 4.5.4 Performance Verification,
[2] Examination of Internal Stability may be used.
(3) The design shear strength fsh and design tensile strength ft of the stabilized body can be obtained from equation
(4.5.2) and equation (4.5.3) using the design compressive strength fc.
– 500 –
(4.5.2)
(4.5.3)
where
fsh : design shear strength of stabilized body (kN/m 2)
ft : design tensile strength of stabilized body (kN/m 2)
(4) In the performance verification of the stabilized body, the stabilized body is assumed to be a material with
homogeneous strength. However, in actual construction work, because the stabilized body is formed by mutual
overlapping of piles of stabilized subsoil, there are cases in which inhomogeneous by stabilized soil remains, for
example, containing residual untreated soil or having strength differences in overlapped parts, depending on the
mixing machine used and the method of overlapping. The factors α and β shown in equation (4.5.1) are factors for
treating stabilized subsoil as material having homogeneous strength. The concepts when setting these factors are
presented in the following.
① Factor for effective cross-sectional area α
When construction is carried out using machines with multiple mixing blades, the cross section of the
stabilized body consists of multiple cylinders as shown in Fig. 4.5.4. In block-type and wall-type improvement,
the stabilized body is formed by overlapping stabilized subsoil having a pile shape as shown in Fig. 4.5.5.
Therefore, unimproved portions remain around the overlapping parts, and the area occupied by the stabilized
subsoil is smaller than in other areas. The factor for effective cross-sectional area α is a factor for correcting
this unimproved part.
The value of the factor for effective cross-sectional area will differ depending on the direction and type of the
actions such as compressive, tensile and shear which are the object of the performance verification. For example,
when considering shear force in the vertical direction of the stabilized body or stress acting perpendicular to
overlapping parts, examination on the narrowest connecting section gives safe side results. On the other hand,
when considering normal stress in the vertical plane of the stabilized body, the entire area of the stabilized body
may be considered as acting effectively. Here, the factor according to the former concept is used as the factor
for effective cross-sectional area for the effective width α1, and the factor according to the latter concept is used
as the factor for effective cross-sectional area for the effective area α2.
Dx
R
D
y
Dy d Width of
overlapping
Connecting surface
L
x
Fig. 4.5.3 Effective Width inherent in Deep Mixing Machine Fig.4.5.4 Connecting Surfaces
(a) Factor for effective cross-sectional area for effective width α1

The factor for effective cross-sectional area for effective width α1 shall generally be the smaller of the values
obtained using equation (4.5.4) and equation (4.5.5).
1) Factor for mixing machines
In Fig. 4.5.3, assuming the interval between the mixing shafts of the mixing machines is Dx and Dy and the
overlapped length of the improved piles is lx and ly, the coefficient α1 determined by the mixing machines can
be obtained using equation (4.5.4).
– 501 –
(4.5.4)
2) Factor for overlap
In Fig. 4.5.4, assuming the interval between the mixing shafts is D, the radius of the mixing blade is R, and
the overlap width is d, the factor α1 for overlap can be obtained using equation (4.5.5).
(4.5.5)
In many examples, the minimum overlap width d is assumed to be 25cm, considering execution accuracy
and capacity.
(b) Factor for effective cross-sectional area for effective area α2

The factor for the effective area α2 can be obtained using equation (4.5.6).
(4.5.6)
where
A1 : area enclosed by bold line in Fig. 4.5.4
A2 : area shown by hatched lines in Fig. 4.5.4
② Reliability index of overlap β
At overlapped parts, a new improved pile is joined to the existing improved pile of stabilized subsoil which has
already begun to harden. Therefore, there is a possibility that the strength of this part may be smaller than that
of other parts. The reliability index of overlap β is defined as the ratio of the strength of overlapped part to that
of other improved piles. Its value will differ depending on the elapsed time until the new pile is joined to the
existing pile, the mixing capacity of the machine, the stabilizer feed method. However, in general, β may be set
to approximately β = 0.8–0.9.
(5) Relationship between standard design strength and in-situ and laboratory mixing strength
The relationship between the average value quf of the unconfined compressive strength quf of in-situ stabilized
subsoil and the characteristic value quck of the standard design strength is given by equation (4.5.7).
(4.5.7)
where
K : coefficient showing normal deviation, namely multiplier for standard deviation σ. In general,
K = 1.0 can be adopted.
V : coefficient of variation of unconfined compressive strength quf of in-situ stabilized soil.
Because the value of V is greatly affected by the mixing machine and mixing technology, it is preferable that
V be set individually for each case. However, based on the past examples, V = 33 (%) can be used.
Setting of the value of the coefficient K as 1.0 when the variation of the unconfined compressive strength quf
of in-situ stabilized subsoil follows a normal distribution means that the characteristic value quck of the standard
design strength is set at a strength where the defect occurrence ratio is 15.9% (see Fig. 4.5.5).
The relationship between the average value quf of the unconfined compressive strength quf of in-situ stabilized
subsoil and the average value qul of the unconfined compressive strength qul of samples mixed in the laboratory is
given by equation (4.5.8).
(4.5.8)
The value of λ is affected by numerous factors, including the mixing machine and construction conditions, type
of soil which is the object of improvement, type of stabilizer, the curing environment, and age. As a guideline, in
offshore works, λ = 1 can be assumed when construction is performed by large- or medium-scale working crafts,
and λ= 0.5–1 can be assumed for small-scale working crafts. Provided, however, that the value of λ may also be
determined based on tests or the past records of construction.
A schematic diagram of the relationship between design standard strength quck and the average value qul of the
unconfined compressive strength of samples mixed in the laboratory and the average value quf of the unconfined
compressive strength of in-situ stabilized soil is shown in Fig. 4.5.5.
– 502 –
q uck qut = λ quck
kσ=σ
15.9%
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Fig. 4.5.5 Relationship between quck, , and quck (schematic diagram)
4.5.3 Conditions of Actions on Stabilized Body 68)
(1) Fig. 4.5.6 shows a schematic diagram of the loads acting on the stabilized body in the case of gravity-type
revetments and quaywalls.
(2) Because improved subsoil of wall-type improvement contains untreated soil in the improved subsoil, depending
on the performance verification items, it may be necessary to set the load conditions by separating the untreated
and stabilized subsoils.
(3) For the examination on the external stability of improved subsoil systems, Pa or Pp can be determined using the
active and passive earth pressures specified in Part II, Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure. When examining internal
stability, Pa may be considered as active earth pressure. However, it is preferable that Pp be set appropriately
within the range from earth pressure at rest to passive earth pressure, considering the external stability of the
improved subsoil system.
(4) In cases where a certain amount of displacement of the improved subsoil is expected, it has been confirmed
experimentally that adhesion of untreated soil acts on the vertical planes of the active and passive sides of the
stabilized body. In the case of embankment and reclamation behind the improved subsoil, downward negative
skin friction accompanied by consolidation settlement of the untreated soil acts on the vertical plane of the active
side of the stabilized body. Therefore, these types of adhesion should be considered in the examination of the
Permanent situation.69) On the other hand, in the examination of actions associated with ground motion, safety
side assumptions, for example, that the inertia force of the stabilized body and the earth pressure during ground
motion will act simultaneously, are adopted. Therefore, Cua as a downward action and Cup as an upward action
may be assumed in the examination of both external and internal stability. The value of Cua and Cup in this case
are obtained from the undrained shear strength of the untreated soil under these conditions.
(5) In the case of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, it may be assumed that both Pa and Pp act uniformly
onthe long walls and the untreated soil between the long walls. Provided, however, that when the subgrade
reaction T at the bottom of the stabilized body is obtained, it is assumed that the loads acting on the stabilized
body, such as the weight of the main body, are concentrated on the long walls, and only the self-weight of the
untreated soil acts on the untreated soil between the long walls.
The shear resistance force R shall be the sum of the shear resistance forces acting on the stabilized body and
the bottom of the untreated soil.
(6) Deformation of the superstructure during action of ground motion tends to be reduced by soil improvement by
the deep mixing method. Therefore, when setting the seismic coefficient for the verification of the superstructure
and the improved subsoil system, it is possible to set a rational seismic coefficient for the verification based on an
appropriate evaluation of this reduction effect.
When soil improvement is performed by the deep mixing method the characteristic value kh1k of the seismic
coefficient for the verification of the superstructure and the structural elements of improved subsoil system such
as superstructure, foundation mound, backfill, reclamation and surcharge can be calculated by multiplying the
maximum value of corrected acceleration αc obtained for the untreated ground by the reduction coefficient 0.64,
as shown in equation (4.5.9) 61).
(4.5.9)
– 503 –
where
kh1k : characteristic value of seismic coefficient for verification of superstructure and structural
elements of improved subsoil system such as superstructure, foundation mound, backfill,
reclamation and surcharge
Da : allowable deformation (cm)
Dr : standard deformation (=10cm)
αc : maximum value of corrected acceleration (cm/s2)
g : gravitational acceleration ( = 980 cm/s2)
This reduction coefficient was obtained based on the results of a 2-dimensional nonlinear effective stress
analysis for untreated soil and improved subsoil. For details, Reference 61) can be used as a reference. In
calculating the maximum value of corrected acceleration αc for untreated soil, Chapter 5, 2.2.2 (1) S e i s m i c
coefficient for verification used in verification of damage due to sliding and overturning of wall body and
insufficient bearing capacity of foundation ground in variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake
ground motion can be used as a reference.
The characteristic value of the seismic coefficient for verification of improved subsoil kh2k can be calculated by
multiplying the seismic coefficient for verification kh1k obtained using equation (4.5.9) by the reduction coefficient
0.65 (kh2k = 0.65 x kh1k).
Provided, however, that in the characteristic value of the seismic coefficient for verification kh3k used in
calculations of the earth pressure during earthquakes for improved subsoil systems, in equation (4.5.9), the
maximum value of corrected acceleration shall not be multiplied by a reduction coefficient.
H1
H2 H4 W1 R.W.L.
L.W.L.
W2 W4
H5
H3 W5
Pdw W3
H7 <Vertical
W7 component>
H6 Pav
W6
Cua
<Vertical component>
Pw
Ppv
<Horizontal
H8 W8 Stabilized part component>
Pah
H9 W9 Untreated part
<Horizontal component> Cup * In case of wall-type improvement
Pph
Passive earth pressure Active earth Water

R* Block-type, wall-type (depend on slip pattern)
Pp pressure pressure
t2 Pa
t1 T
Subgrade reaction
Fig. 4.5.6 External Forces Acting on Stabilized Body
Pa : resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
Pah : horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Pav : vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Pp : resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of passive side (kN/m)
Pph : horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Ppv : vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Pw : resultant residual water pressure per unit of length (kN/m)
Pdw : resultant dynamic water pressure per unit of length (kN/m)
W1-W9 : weight per unit of length of each part (kN/m)
H1-H9 : inertia force per unit of length of each part (kN/m)
– 504 –
Cua : resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side
(kN/m)
Cup : resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of passive side
(kN/m)
R : shear resistance per unit of length acting on bottom of improved subsoil (kN/m)
T : resultant of subgrade reaction per unit of length acting on the bottom of improved soil (kN/m)
t1, t2 : intensity of subgrade reaction at toes of stabilized body (kN/m)
In the performance verification of actions during ground motion of strata which are subject to liquefaction,
it is necessary to consider the dynamic water pressure during the action of ground motion on the improved body.
For calculation of dynamic water pressure, Part II, Chapter 5, 2 Water Pressure can be used as a reference.
4.5.4 Performance Verification

[1] External Stability of Improved Subsoil
For the external stability of improved subsoil, the following items shall be examined, assuming that the stabilized
body and the superstructure behave integrally. It should be noted that the following describes the cases of gravity-type
revetments and quaywalls; however, the same description can also be applied to breakwaters by appropriately setting
actions due to waves and other relevant factors.
(1) Examination of Sliding 61)
① The improved subsoil shall secure the required stability against slip failure.
② It is necessary to conduct performance verification of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement for two cases,
namely, the slip pattern 1 case which considers the frictional resistance of the bottom of the improved subsoil
as a whole as resistance to slip failure, and the slip pattern 2 case which considers the resultant of the frictional
resistance directly under the long walls and the shearing resistance of the unimproved subsoil between the walls,
considering the improved ground to be a structure in which the stabilized subsoil long walls fully demonstrates
shear strength. In the examination of the stability against slip failure, equation (4.5.10) can be used. The symbol
γ in the equation is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic value and
design value, respectively.
(Slip pattern 1)
(Slip pattern 2)
(4.5.10)
Provided, however, that
where
R1 : frictional resistance of bearing ground per unit of length acting on bottom of stabilized body
(kN/m)
R2 : frictional resistance of bearing ground per unit of length acting on bottom of untreated soil
(kN/m)
– 505 –
R3 : shearing resistance per unit of length acting on bottom of untreated soil (kN/m)
Pw : resultant of residual water pressure per unit of length (kN/m)
Pdw : resultant of dynamic water pressure during earthquake per unit of length (kN/m)
Hi : inertia force per unit of length acting on respective parts (kN/m)
Wi : weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, foundation mound, backfill, reclamation
on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system (kN/m)
Ws : weight per unit of length of stabilized body (kN/m)
W9 : weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls (kN/m)
B : improved width of stabilized body (m)
Rl : ratio of long wall in stabilized body
Rs : ratio of short wall in stabilized body
μ : static friction coefficient
Cu : shear strength of bottom of untreated soil (kN/m 2)
Pah : horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Pav : vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Pph : horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Ppv : vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Cua : resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side
(kN/m)
Cup : resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of passive side
(kN/m)
ρwg : unit weight of seawater (kN/m3)
RWL : residual water level (m)
WL : water level at front side (m)
hL : water depth at bottom of stabilized body (m)
h1 : water depth at front side of structure (m)
kh1 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on surcharge,
superstructure, foundation mound, backfill and reclamation on improved subsoil comprising
improved subsoil system (kN/m)
kh2 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on improved subsoil
kh3 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating earth pressure and dynamic water pressure
acting on improved subsoil system
Wni : weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, main body, foundation mound, backfill
and reclamation on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system. If submerged, the
weight in air when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
Wn8 : weight per unit of length of stabilized body. If submerged, the weight in air when saturated with
water shall be used. (kN/m)
Wn9 : weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls. If submerged, the weight in air
when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
γi : structural factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
γa : structural analysis factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
③ The system reliability index βT is set depending on the individual facilities and improved subsoil. In cases
where soil improvement is carried out by the deep mixing method, the system reliability index βT for sliding and
overturning of the wall body, failure due to insufficient bearing capacity of the foundation ground of gravity-
type quaywalls, failure due to toe pressure, vertical shear failure of the long wall part, vertical shear failure of
the short wall part and failure due to extrusion of untreated subsoil between thte long walls was 2.9 (failure
probability of 2.1 x 10 –3) for the Permanent situation. This was the result of assessment, by reliability theory,
of the average safety level of gravity-type quaywalls for soil improvement by the deep mixing method in the
conventional design method. In the performance verification described here, the target reliability index of βT '
= 3.0 for each limit state is set so as to exceed the system reliability index. The partial factors determined on
this basis are as shown in Table 4.5.1 through Table 4.5.6. For partial factors for use in the examination of
slip failure of improved subsoil, the values shown in Table 4.5.1 may be used. For partial factors which are not
listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
– 506 –
Table 4.5.1 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Slip Failure
(a) Permanent situation
All facilities
Target reliability index βT 2.9
Target system failure probability PfT 2.1×10 –3
Reliability index β used in calculation of γ 3.0
γ α µ/X k V
Slip pattern 1 γW1-γW9 Weight 1.00 0.131 1.00 0.03
γPah Horizontal resultant of active earth pressure 1.15 –0.519 1.00 0.10
γPav Vertical resultant of active earth pressure 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γPph Horizontal resultant of passive earth 0.90 0.277 1.00 0.10
pressure
γPpv Vertical resultant of passive earth pressure 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γCua Adhesion of vertical plane (active side) 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γCup Adhesion of vertical plane (passive side) 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γµ Static friction coefficient 0.70 1.000 1.00 0.10
γa Structural analysis factor 1.00 – – –
Slip pattern 2 γW1-γW9 Weight 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γPav Vertical resultant of active earth pressure 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γPph Horizontal resultant of passive earth 0.85 0.454 1.00 0.10
pressure
γPpv Vertical resultant of passive earth pressure 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γCua Adhesion of vertical plane (active side) 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γCup Adhesion of vertical plane (passive side) 1.00 0.000 1.00 –
γµ Static friction coefficient 0.75 0.831 1.00 0.10
γc u Shear strength of bottom of unimproved 0.80 0.202 1.00 0.33
subsoil
– 507 –
(b) Variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion
All facilities
Performance requirement Serviceability
γ α µ/X k V
Slip pattern 1 γW1-γW9 Weight 1.00 – – –
γPah Horizontal resultant of active earth pressure 1.00 – – –
γPav Vertical resultant of active earth pressure 1.00 – – –
γPph Horizontal resultant of passive earth 1.00
– – –
pressure
γPpv Vertical resultant of passive earth pressure 1.00 – – –
γCua Adhesion of vertical plane (active side) 1.00 – – –
γCup Adhesion of vertical plane (passive side) 1.00 – – –
γµ Static friction coefficient 1.00 – – –
Slip pattern 2 γW1-γW9 Weight 1.00 – – –
γPph Horizontal resultant of passive earth 1.00
– – –
pressure
γPpv Vertical resultant of passive earth pressure 1.00 – – –
γCua Adhesion of vertical plane (active side) 1.00 – – –
γCup Adhesion of vertical plane (passive side) 1.00 – – –
γµ Static friction coefficient 1.00 – – –
γc u Shear strength of bottom of unimproved 1.00
– – –
subsoil
(2) Examination of Overturning 61)

① It is necessary that improved subsoil secure the required stability against overturning. In the examination of
the stability against overturning of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, equation (4.5.11) and equation
(4.5.12) can be used. In these equations, the symbol γ is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(4.5.11)
(4.5.12)
Provided, however, that
– 508 –
where
Items related to resistance
Pph : horizontal component of resultant of earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Wi : weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, foundation rubble, backfill and
reclamation on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system (kN/m)
W8 : weight per unit of length of stabilized body (kN/m)
W9 : weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls (kN/m)
Pav : vertical component of resultant of earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Cua : adhesion of vertical side per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
Items related to loads

Pw : residual water pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
Pah : horizontal component of resultant of earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Hi : inertia force per unit of length acting on respective parts of improved subsoil system (kN/m)
Wni : weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, foundation mound, backfill and
reclamation on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system. If submerged, the
weight in air when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
Wn8 : weight per unit of length of stabilized body. If submerged, the weight in air when saturated with
water shall be used. (kN/m)
Wn9 : weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls. If submerged, the weight in air
when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
kh1 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on surcharge,
superstructure, foundation mound, backfill, back–plugging and surcharge on improved subsoil
comprising improved subsoil system
kh3 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating earth pressure and active water pressure
acting on improved subsoil
Pdw : dynamic water pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
xi, xav, xcua : distance from action line of vertical force acting on improved subsoil to front toe of stabilized
body (m)
γi, γp, γw, γdw : height from action line of horizontal force acting on improved subsoil to bottom of stabilized
body (m)
γa : structural analysis factor (see Table 4.5.2)
② For partial factors for use in the examination of overturning of improved subsoil, the values shown in Table
4.5.2 may be used. For partial factors not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
– 509 –
Table 4.5.2 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Overturning
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Overturning γPph Horizontal resultant of passive earth 0.85 0.382 1.00 0.10
pressure
γW6 Weight (foundation mound) 1.00 0.030 1.00 0.03
γW7 Weight (backfill soil) 1.00 0.055 1.00 0.03
γW8 Weight (stabilized body) 1.00 0.102 1.00 0.03
γW9 Weight (untreated soil) 1.00 0.074 1.00 0.03
γ Cua Adhesion of vertical plane (stabilized body 1.00 0.102 1.00 0.10
part: active side)
γPav Vertical resultant of active earth pressure 1.00 0.029 1.00 0.10
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Overturning γPph Horizontal resultant of passive earth 1.00 – – –
pressure
γW6 Weight (foundation mound) 1.00 – – –
γW7 Weight (backfill soil) 1.00 – – –
γW8 Weight (stabilized body) 1.00 – – –
γW9 Weight (untreated soil) 1.00 – – –
γ Cua Adhesion of vertical plane (stabilized body 1.00 – – –
part: active side)
(3) Examination of Bearing Capacity 61)

① Improved subsoil shall secure the required stability against failure of bearing capacity of the original ground
under the bottom of the improved subsoil. In the examination of the bearing capacity of block-type improved
subsoil, 2.2 Shallow Spread Foundations can be used as a reference.
② For the bearing capacity of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement when the bearing ground is sandy
ground, verification can be performed using equation (4.5.13) for toe pressures t1 and t2, considering the effect
of mutual interference between the long walls. In this equation, the symbol γ is the partial factor for its subscript,
and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
In the case of
(4.5.13)
in the case of
where
– 510 –
γR : partial factor for bearing capacity of sandy ground (see 2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations
on Sandy Ground)
Nq, Nr : bearing capacity coefficients (see 2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sandy Ground)
p0 : effective overburden pressure to bearing sand layer (kN/m 2)
ρg : unit weight of bearing ground, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
Ll : length of long wall in direction of face line (m) (see Fig. 4.5.9)
Ls : length of short wall in direction of face line (m) (see Fig. 4.5.9)
B : improvement width (m) (see Fig. 4.5.9)
[2] Examination of Internal Stability
(1) For the characteristic value of the material strength of the stabilized body, 4.5.2 Assumption of Dimensions of
Stabilized Body can be used as a reference.
(2) The stress generated in the stabilized body can be obtained by assuming that the stabilized body is an elastic body
under the conditions specified in 4.5.3 Conditions of Actions on Stabilized Body.
(3) In block-type improved subsoil and improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, internal stability can be
examined by the method presented below. Provided, however, that in cases where the shape of the stabilized body
is complex or the depth of the stabilized body is large in comparison with its width, examination by FEM analysis
is preferable.
(4) Examination of Toe Pressure 61)
① Examination of internal stability due to toe pressure at the bottom of the stabilized body can be performed
using equation (4.5.14), considering the effect of the confining pressure acting on the improved subsoil. In this
equation, the symbol γ is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic
value and design value, respectively.

(4.5.14)
where
fc : design compressive strength (kN/m 2)
t1, 2 : toe pressures (kN/m 2)
K : coefficient of earth pressure
wi : unit weight of untreated soil, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
hi : layer thickness of untreated subsoil (m)
The design values in the equation can be obtained using the following equations.

Provided, however, that it is necessary to determine the value of the confining pressure K Σ(w id hi) acting
on the bottom edge of the stabilized body from the untreated subsoil considering the improvement pattern and
external stability of the improved subsoil.
② For the partial factors for use in examination of toe pressure, the values shown in Table 4.5.3 may be used. For
partial factors not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
– 511 –
Table 4.5.3 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Toe Pressure
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Toe pressure γquc Standard design strength 0.55 – – –
γt1,2 Toe pressure 1.05 –0.116 1.00 0.03
γ wi Unit weight of untreated soil 1.00 0.001 1.00 0.03
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Toe pressure γquc Standard design strength 0.67 – – –
γt1,2 Toe pressure 1.00 – – –
γ wi Unit weight of untreated soil 1.00 – – –
(5) Examination of Shearing Stress at Vertical Plane Under Face Line of Superstructure 61)
① Examination of internal stability against shearing stress along the vertical plane beneath the face line of the
superstructure can be performed for the long wall part and short wall part using equation (4.5.15) and equation
(4.5.16), respectively. In these equations, the symbol γ is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(a) Long wall
(4.5.15)
where
β : reliability index of overlap between improved piles
Tl : resultant of subgrade reaction acting from front toe of improved subsoil to position of Bl (kN)
(Tld = γTTl)
quc : standard design strength (kN/m 2) (qucd = γqucquck)
Wl : effective weight of stabilized body from front toe of improved subsoil to position of Bl (kN) (Wld
= γwWl)
A : cross-sectional area of stabilized body, in case of long wall A = DlLl + DsLs (m2) (see Fig. 7.5.7)
Dl , Ds : vertical length of long wall, namely improved depth, and vertical length of short wall (m)
Ll, Ls : lengths of long wall and short wall in direction of face line, respectively (m)
When a rubble mound exists between the stabilized body and the superstructure, examination may be
performed using an examination plane which considers load dispersion in the mound from the position of the
face line of the superstructure. (See Fig. 4.5.7; θ is the angle of load dispersion in the mound.)
– 512 –
A
Ds θ
D D W
T Ls
L
B B
Fig. 4.5.7 Schematic Diagram of Vertical Shear Stress (Long Wall)
For the partial factors for use in the examination of vertical shear failure of the long wall part, the values
shown in Table 4.5.4 can be used. For partial factors which are not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
Table 4.5.4 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Vertical Shear Failure of Long Wall
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Vertical shear γquc Standard design strength 0.55 – – –
failure of Resultant of subgrade reaction 1.05 –0.115 1.00 0.03
γT
long wall
γW Effective weight of stabilized body 1.00 0.005 1.00 0.03
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
failure of Resultant of subgrade reaction 1.00 – – –
γT
long wall
γWℓ Effective weight of stabilized body 1.00 – – –
(b) Short wall
(4.5.16)
where
β : reliability index of overlap between improved piles
Tl ’ : toe pressure after dispersion in mound, not including self–weight of mound (kN/m2) (Tl’d = γT lT’l’k)
(see Fig. 4.5.8) (kN)
– 513 –
quc : standard design strength (kN/m 2) (qucd = γqucquck)
wm : unit weight of mound, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
hm : thickness of mound (m)
Wl : effective weight of stabilized body, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
Ds : vertical length of short wall (m)
Ls : length of short wall in direction of face line (m)
Fig. 4.5.8 Schematic Diagram of Calculation of Vertical Shear Stress (Short Wall)
For the partial factors for use in examination of vertical shear failure of the short wall, the values shown in
Table 4.5.5 can be used. For partial factors which are not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
Table 4.5.5 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Vertical Shear Failure of Short Wall
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
failure of γT1' Toe pressure 1.05 –0.091 1.00 0.03
short wall
γ wi Unit weight of stabilized body 1.00 –0.006 1.00 0.03
γ wm Unit weight of mound 1.00 –0.006 1.00 0.03
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
failure of γT1' Toe pressure 1.00 – – –
short wall
γ wi Unit weight of stabilized body 1.00 – – –
γ wm Unit weight of mound 1.00 – – –
– 514 –
(6) Examination of Extrusion 61)
① Because improved subsoil by wall-type improvement comprises a large number of long walls and a short wall
connecting the long walls, untreated subsoil is left between the long walls. Failures in which the untreated
subsoil between the long walls is dislodged are conceivable, depending on conditions such as the spacing
between the long walls, the strength of the untreated subsoil, the thickness of the backfill layer. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine extrusion of the untreated soil between the long walls.71)
② A schematic diagram of extrusion of the untreated soil in improved subsoil by wall-type improvement is shown
in Fig. 4.5.9.
Fig. 4.5.9 Schematic Diagram of Extrusion of Untreated Subsoil
③ Examination of extrusion of untreated subsoil between long walls can be performed by repeated calculations
using equation (4.5.17), using various values of Di in the calculations.
(4.5.17)
where
Ls : length of short wall in direction of face line (m)
Di : depth from bottom edge of short wall to cross–section being examined (m)
Cu : average shear strength of untreated subsoil at intermediate depth between bottom edge of short
wall and cross section being examined (kN/m 2) (C=γcu Cuk)
B : improved width (m)
Pah’, Pph’ : horizontal components of resultant of active earth pressure and passive earth pressure acting
on untreated subsoil between long walls, respectively, down to the depth of Di from bottom of
short wall (kN) (Pph’d = γPphPph’d, Pah’d = γPahPah’k)
(kh2d= γ kh2kh2k)
hw : head between residual water level and water level at front of structure (m) (hwd = γhwhwk)
wi : unit weight in air of untreated subsoil when saturated with water (kN/m3)
ρwg : unit weight of seawater (kN/m3)
γi : structural factor, generally assumed to be 1.0
γa : structural analysis factor, generally assumed to be 1.0
– 515 –
④ For the partial factors for use in the examination of the extrusion of the untreated subsoil between long walls,
the values shown in Table 4.5.6 can be used. For partial factors which are not listed in the table, 1.00 may be
used.
Table 4.5.6 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Extrusion
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Extrusion γ Cu Average shear strength of untreated soil 0.75 0.955 1.00 0.10
failure γPah' Horizontal component of resultant of active 1.05 –0.190 1.00 0.10
earth pressure acting on untreated soil
between long walls
γPph' Horizontal component of resultant of passive 0.95 0.182 1.00 0.10
between long walls
γ wi Unit weight in air of untreated soil when 1.00 0.000 1.00 0.10
saturated with water
* The partial factors for use in examination of extrusion were determined by reliability analysis of the examination position (Di) at which
the reliability index β shows its minimum value.
All facilities
γ α µ/X k V
Extrusion γ Cu Average shear strength of untreated soil 1.00 – – –
failure γPah' Horizontal component of resultant of active 1.00 – – –
between long walls
γPph' Horizontal component of resultant of passive 1.00 – – –
between long walls
γ wi Unit weight in air of untreated soil when 1.00 – – –
saturated with water
* The partial factors for use in examination of extrusion were determined by reliability analysis of the examination position (Di) at which
the reliability index β shows its minimum value.
(7) Examination of Circular Slip Failure

① In the examination of the circular slip failure, 3 Stability of Slopes can be used as a reference.
② Because the strength of the stabilized body is sufficiently greater than that of ordinary soil, examination of slip
circles passing through the stabilized body may be omitted.
(8) Examination of Displacement
① When the improved subsoil is of the floating type, lateral displacement due to actions in respect of reclamation
and waves and actions in respect of ground motion, and vertical displacement due to consolidation are
conceivable. Therefore, advance examination on measures capable of satisfying the performance requirements
of the facilities is necessary, based on estimations of these displacements.
② In sliding failure and circular slip failure of improved subsoil, there is a certain degree of relationship between
the ratio of the design value of resistance and design value of the effects of actions, and the amount of immediate
displacement due to lateral displacement of the stabilized body. Therefore, it is possible to judge the necessity
of examination of lateral displacement of the stabilized body depending on the safety margin in these factors.
Furthermore, when the layer thickness of the untreated subsoil underneath the stabilized body is constant, and
– 516 –
it is judged that the estimated displacement in the horizontal direction can satisfy the performance requirements
of the facilities, the examination of the consolidation settlement is only necessary.
③ Even in bottom seated-type improved subsoil, when a cohesive soil layer exists under the bearing stratum,
the examination of the amount of consolidation settlement is necessary, as there is a possibility of vertical
displacement of the stabilized body due to consolidation settlement.
④ It is preferable to determine the allowable displacement of improved subsoil appropriately, considering the
performance requirements of the facilities.
– 517 –

Tech Standard Japan Deep Mixing Menthod

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Tech Standard Japan Deep Mixing Menthod

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN

[5] Consideration of Pile Group Action

Table 2.4.10 Center Intervals of Piles

Transverse Pile diameter x 1.5

[6] Lateral Bearing Capacity of Coupled Piles

Fig. 2.4.19 Axial Forces of Coupled Piles

The following presents an outline of method ①.

(Out-batter pile) (In-batter pile)

Table 2.4.11 Spring Constants of Pile Head

End Bearing piles

Axial spring constant of pile head

Without exposed section

2.4.6 General Considerations of Performance Verification of Pile Foundations

[1] Load Sharing

Assumptions : Type of piles

Estimation of bearing capacity of piles Soil conditions

Axial bearing capacity

Stress generated in piles Stress generated in piles

Determination : Type of piles

Fig. 2.4.21 Example of Procedure of Performance Verification Procedure

[2] Distance between Centers of Piles

[3] Performance Verification of Pile Foundations during Construction

(1) Examination of Loads during Construction

② Driving suspension control by pile driving formulas

10 20 40 60 100 200 400 600 1,000%

(a) Hiley’s equation

Energy required Loss due to elastic (2.4.50)

Fig. 2.4.23 Rebound Measurement

[4] Joints of Piles

[5] Change of Plate Thickness or Material Type of Steel Pipe Piles

[6] Other Notes regarding Performance Verification

(1) Steel Piles

2.5 Settlement of Foundations

2.5.2 Immediate Settlement

2.5.3 Consolidation Settlement

Fig. 2.5.1 Calculation of Consolidation Settlement

2.5.4 Lateral Displacement

2.5.5 Differential Settlements

0.5 Extremely inhomogeneous ground

Mean uneven settlement ratio

Applicable facilities for

3.2 Examination of Stability

Fig.3.2.1 Circular Slip Failure Analysis using Modified Fellenius Method

(5) Stability Analysis by Bishop Method 3), 5)

(6) Applicability of Stability Analysis Methods 6), 7)

4 Soil Improvement Methods

4.2 Liquefaction Countermeasure Works

4.3 Replacement Methods

Setting of design conditions

Assumption of cross-sectional dimensions

Selection of replaced sand

Fig. 4.3.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Replacement Method

② Examination of slip failure

4.4 Vertical Drain Method

Allowable Assumption of necessary Assumption of section

Assumption of height, weight,

Construction Verification of stability

Verification of stability against

4.4.2 Performance Verification

(1) Determination of Height and Width of Embankment

Fill top width h

Fig. 4.4.2 Width of Embankment for Vertical Drain Method

② Evaluation of stability of embankment

(c) Materials for sand piles