Scribd
Upload
58 views24 pages

2019 MWGC Session 4 Presentation 2

The document discusses the use of rigid inclusions for supporting roadways on challenging soils, detailing the types of soils that can be treated and the structures that can benefit from this method. It emphasizes the importance of quality control measures during installation and the design considerations necessary for optimizing performance. Additionally, it outlines the cost factors and challenges faced in the highway market related to geotechnical testing and design specifications.

Uploaded by

Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
58 views24 pages

2019 MWGC Session 4 Presentation 2

The document discusses the use of rigid inclusions for supporting roadways on challenging soils, detailing the types of soils that can be treated and the structures that can benefit from this method. It emphasizes the importance of quality control measures during installation and the design considerations necessary for optimizing performance. Additionally, it outlines the cost factors and challenges faced in the highway market related to geotechnical testing and design specifications.

Uploaded by

Vignesh Venkatasubramanian
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 24

Rigid Inclusions for Support of

Roadways on Challenging Soils

JASON GRIFFIN
Vice President of Sales
Menard USA
Rigid Inclusions

Treatable Soil Types Structures

• Soft clays & silts • Embankments, MSE walls, Abutments


• Controlled & uncontrolled fills • Industrial, residential, commercial &
(including landfills) retail buildings
• Peat & other organic soils • Large distribution warehouses
• Loose sand & gravel • Oil storage tanks
• Brownfield/contaminated sites • Wind turbines
• Utilities and pipelines
Rigid Inclusions - Quality Control

TYPICAL QUALITY CONTROL


MEASURES

• On-Board monitoring
• Single-element load testing
• Material testing (Grout, LTP)
• Pile Integrity Testing (PIT)
• On-site engineers
Quality Control
• Onboard rig computer system that continuously
monitors installation

• Real-time data:
• Downward Pressure (crowd)
• Rotary Pressure & Torque
• Rate of Penetration & Extraction
• Grout Pressure
• Theoretical Profiles of Grouted RI’s

• Installation logs are easily accessible and reviewed


daily
• Submitted to client frequently
Rigid Inclusion vs. Piles
Rigid Inclusions vs. Piles for Embankment/Wall Support

Piles & Pile Caps Rigid Inclusions


Rigid Inclusions – Support for MSE walls and Embankments
Rigid Inclusion : System Design

Four (4) main components must be designed in


together to optimize the overall system:
 Load transfer platform
 Rigid Inclusions
 Soil matrix
 Structure / slab

Optimized designs by adapting spacing and


diameters to account for varying:
 Soil conditions
 Loads
 Cut/Fill history
Uniform Load ( Building / Embankment )

Load Transfer by Arching


LOAD Load Transfer by Arching
TRANSFER
PLATFORM
5 - 30% of load on soil

Limited settlement Load Transfer


Load Transfer
by skin friction
by skin friction

Controlled
CONTROLLED
MODULUS
Modulus 70 to 95% of load in RI 70 to 95% of load in RI
COLUMNS
Columns
Rigid Inclusion : Load Sharing Principles
QP(0) QP(0)

qS qS

QP(z)
Load @ top of Rigid Inclusion

NEGATIVE SKIN
hc FN FRICTION

N N

FP POSITIVE SKIN
FRICTION

QP(L) QP(L)
z z

Load-bearing layer
Settlement Assumptions

up us

Equal
settlement
planes

bulging

Equal Settlement Planes / Strain compatibility Equal plane strain

Lateral expansion of column Load transfer through arching

Load transfer is function of area replacement ratio Load transfer through negative skin friction

GRANULAR INCLUSIONS RIGID INCLUSIONS


Estimating Settlement with Rigid Inclusions

 Calculation of settlements for rigid


inclusions is not as straight-forward as
Equal upper
granular inclusions settlement
plane
Negative
 Modulus is several orders of shear stress
magnitude different domain

 No strain compatibility Equal


intermediate
 Complex soil-structure interaction Positive settlement plane
shear stress
domain Equal lower
settlement
 Not Piles! plane
 Sharing of the load with the soil
Design and FEM Modeling

STANDARD DESIGN APPROACHES

 Plaxis finite element software


 2D axisymmetric models
 2D plane strain models
 Global 3D models
 Slope/global stability software
 L-PILE
 In-house design spreadsheets
2D Finite Element Method Analysis using Plaxis 2D
Load
sensitivity
 Models symmetric 1-D compression
 Assumes lateral confinement at symmetric
boundaries
 Valid for inclusions under uniform loading
(embankments, slabs, large storage tanks)
 Good for:
 confirmatory analyses
 straight-forward design cases
 refinement of spacing
 evaluating sensitivity
 Limitations: edge effects and non-
Rigid
uniform loading conditions can’t be Inclusion
considered Options

Layer sensitivity
3D Finite Element Method Analysis using Plaxis 3D

Advantages:
 Able to evaluate lateral deformation
 Uniform or variable loads
 Captures edge effects and 3-D effects
 Direct output of forces, stresses and
moments in the rigid inclusions

Disadvantages:
 Computation time can be significant
 More effort to build and validate model
RIGID INCLUSIONS – Bearing capacity

Existing soil has a bearing capacity


based on its in-situ shear strength

Additional bearing capacity


derived from the RI’s, which results
in overall system capacity

 Shallow bearing capacity is not


counted – only the deeper
bearing capacity from skin
friction
 Based on diameter and spacing
of RI’s
Embankment Stability – Granular Inclusions

The block of equivalent improved


soil is shown in light blue
Embankment Stability – Rigid Inclusions

The block of equivalent


improved soil is shown in light
blue

The rigid inclusion provide three effects :


1. “Unloading” of the soils between the inclusions
2. Increased shear resistance along the failure plane
3. Vertical force across the failure plane similar to soil nailing
Rigid Inclusions – Lateral Displacement

Lateral Displacement Evaluations


• Bester ES (Test Program)
• South Capital St. Bridge (Utility/Stormwater)
• 4th & 7th Brooklyn (for MTA Tunnel)
• Grand Ave, ILDOT (XYZ Survey for Duct bank movement) Instrumented Static Load Test of CMC, - Suleiman, 2013

• MNDOT (TPI – in prog)

SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE:
• Effects of displacement are localized – can often
maintain adequate clearance to avoid negative impact
• Methods for eliminating/reducing risk
• Partial or Full replacement augering
• Preauger locations
RIGID INCLUSIONS – BID UNITS AND COSTS

Mobilization – Lump Sum Per Each

Testing (Modulus/PIT/Strength) – Per Each


 Multiple Diameters
 Varying Embedment Layers

Installation
 Variables include Depth, Load, Diameter, Drilling Conditions,
Project size, Working conditions (winter, tight work area,
material supply)

 $/SY - $75 to $750 SY (~$200/SY is common)


 Consider LOADING or DEPTH variation
 Use different pay items for each zone
 $/LF - $15-$60
 Consider DIAMETER or DRILLING conditions
 Lump Sum
 Need to define add/deduct rates for change in base scope
of work
RIGID INCLUSIONS – CHALLENGES IN THE HIGHWAY MARKET

Geotechnical
 # of Borings
 Testing/Soils Data
 Responsibility of Selecting soil data (Owner vs. Specialty sub)
Design
 Tender period – Often too short
 Coordination w/ GCs, Wall Suppliers, Earthwork
Specifications
 Design Build Performance Spec is preferred, w/ clear requirements for
 Settlement (MSE vs Embankment vs Abutment Zones) and TIME!!!
 FS - Bearing Capacity/Stability
 Verification testing – frequency and when performed
 Obstructions
QUESTIONS?

You might also like