The ground improvement works carried out for the construction of five oil tanks at the Chiriqui Grande Phase 11 Oil
Terminal, Chiriqui Grande, Panama, and their results are presented herein. The site is underlain by some 28 m of
loose/soft, poorly graded, silty sands to clayey sands and silts. Ground improvement was used to provide the
required bearing capacity and reduce the expected total and differential settlements. To fulfil the technical
specifications, two ground improvement techniques were used in association with preloading: wick drains to full
depth of the soft layers and stone columns in the upper 18 m. Stone columns are commonly installed as partial
replacement to improve a soft ground, increasing its bearing capacity and accelerating its primary consolidation.
Wick drains are used to accelerate the consolidation of soft clayey soils. Particular emphasis was given to the
behaviour of the treated ground under the preloading fill: a back-analysis was carried out on measured settlements
and pore pressures; the improvement of the ground and the degrees of consolidation achieved at the end of the
preloading are highlighted; some correlations were derived and they provide an interpretation of the overall
behaviour of the improved ground; estimates of the settlements for the short and long term are presented, the short
term being that of the hydrotest and the long term being the design life of the oil terminal. They are based on
results of preloading for their primary consolidation part, and on reasonable assumptions for their long-term creep
(secondary consolidation) part. The estimates are compared to the actual hydrotest survey results.
Notation
A
Ac
a
Cc
Cc/(J
C..
C.. / (1
+ eo)
+ eo)
C"
CrJ(1 + eo)
Ch
Cv
E(olumn
Esnil
eo
},
NSPT
n
138
"/e
R
StrrCllec1
SUlltrctltl:d
Tv
U
Wn
Yh
y,
1.
Introduction
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
2.
sand and sandy silt lenses is present (layer M). The average
pre-CPT cone tip resistance qc was between 1 and 2 MPa,
with a friction ratio,f" of around 15%. The equivalent
compressibility therefore of layer M using the compression
ratio Cc/Cl + eo) based on the Lambe and Whitman
correlation was between 10 and 20% (Lambe and Whitman,
1969).
(b) The underlying layer consists of very soft clayey silt from
elevation -18 m down to -26 m/ - 28 m (layer C). The
average qc ranges from 1 to 125 MPa with an average f,
over that depth of 1%. The compressibility ranges from 20
to 30%.
(c) The site below layer C was found to consist of very dense
sands and gravels with an SPT blow count, NsPT > 50.
(d) The groundwater table was established at an elevation around
-100 m/-050 m.
The site investigation indicated that better (less compressible)
ground conditions are encountered at the locations of tanks 501
(phase 1) and 503 (phase 2), while also indicating that the most
compressible conditions occurred at tanks 502 (phase 1) and
tanks 504 to 507 (phase 2).
The general CPT profile is shown in Figure 2.
3.
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
o 10
20 30 40 5060 70 80
4.
Monitoring system
140
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
25
50
75
qc: MPa
100 125 150 17,5 200
2+---~---L--~----~--~--~--~--~
50
25
75
qc: MPa
100 125
150
175
200
2+---~~~----~--~--~---L--~--~
o
-2
-2
-4
-6
-6
-8
-10
-10
E-12
.,8 -14
. I
:8-14
ro
>
~-16
L.U
-18
I
I I
I
-20
-22
-18
Stone columns ~
-22 -24
-26
-26 Wick drains
-28
-30-r---,---.----,---,----r---.---,---,
8
543
Rf : %
Average qc
Min, Max qc
Inclinometer
-30+---~--_.--_,r---.---._--_.--_,---.
Average Rf
Min, Max Rf
4
3
2
Rf : %
Average qc - - Average Rf
5
treatment
r - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - 1293 - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -1
1~----------------- 762
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- ,
Settlement plate
survey rods
above preload
Wick drain
piezometer
locations)
141
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
5.
Monitoring results
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
14
21
28
35
Time: days
42
49
56
63
70
77
84
91
0+---4.=--L---L---L--~--~----~--~--~--~--~--~--_+350
05
300 cu
CL
- - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A
10
1-5
QJ
tl
Settlements edge
E
QJ
2-0
- 250
0..
200 ~
0..
'"
Settlements centre
/\1 f
2-5
3 -0
~
~
150 ~
Vl
~
V1
I
I
E
~
-""
- 100
cu
~
-0
cu
AvgEPP
- 50
--'
o
-
Avg L SP-centre -
(a)
14
21
28
35
Time: days
42
49
56
63
70
84
77
91
0+---~=_~--~--~--~--~-----'~--~--~--~--~---L--_+350
-0
cu
300 ~
05
;,;::
'0
E
~(j)
10
Settlements edge
'-5
Settlements centre
250 <f.
~
:::J
- 200
V1
V1
0..
E
QJ
BQJ 2-0 -
150
V1
V1
QJ
Vl
25
30
N
35
-
/
l\ c. 9-~
~
~i30b
Avg L SP-centre -
Avg EPP
\
~L. .
><
100
w
I
50
-0
0~
cu
0
--'
Avg L SP-edge
0..
0
-~
--e-
liU PZ-8&C-23 m
(b)
6.
load.
143
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
02
Settlement 5;_1: m
06
OS 10
12
04
1,4
16
1-8
lS -~~--~--~--~---L---L---L--~~
16 E
14 -
0,'- 12 -
t:
(J)
~
VI
10
S64
2
o
[
..
"
"
6.1.5.1
Avg L SP-centre
Avg L SP-edge
DEAD LOADS
(a) Weight of the part of the preloading fill that has settled
5;-1 = 5;
(a) To take into account the fact that the tanks are not full at all
20
U = (4*T/n)1/2 for Tv < 02
2
2
U = 1 - (S/n )*exp( - n *T/4) for Tv
01
>
-;
~
02 i
1S
----I
02 -
16
u
03
J
14
04 -
12
::::,
............ :4.
::::, 05
- 10 .......
~
: ...
06
l .....
07 -
.~
:
-.'"
'.
'.
Cv = (0 ,2273
::.~...............................................
10
144
with
Su =
H2)/(su
intercept)
ultimate settlement
drainage length
OS
- 06
0-4
- 02
0
05
10
15
Ground Improvement
14
21
28
35
Time: days
42
49
70
63
56
70
91
- 350
84
77
ISuedge: 1-50m l
60
300
---
ru
"-'"
250 ~:J
E 50
Vl
Vl
VI
>,
ru
f!!
0..
"D
.;...;
c(IJ
200 f!!
40
0..
E
(IJ
Vl
Vl
(IJ
B 30
-aJ
- 150 x
L.U
(IJ
Su centre: 1-97 m
i= 20
100
ru
"-'"
"D
ru
0
--'
tH
all
0
-
50
""-~.~ ...-~
10
Avg
SP-centre -
Avg
SP-edge -
Load -s-
~u
PZ -A-16 m --e-
~U
11
PZ -B&( -23 m
Tank number
Treatment base elevation: m
Demucking base elevation: m
Preload intensity: kPa
Oedometric + lateral under preload (ultimate
Primary
settlements hyperbolic method)
consolidation
prediction
Settlement at end of preloading (centre): m
Settlements
Settlement at end of preloading (edge): m
Settlement ratio (edge/centre)
Time elapsed since installation of half of the
preload: days
From settlements: %
Degree of
consolidation
From pore pressures: %
achieved
503
504
505
506
507
Averages
-270
-35
310
163
-265
-40
292
199
-270
-35
286
193
-27-0
-40
300
209
-26-5
-62
294
176
-268
-42
296-4
188
155
128
0-83
76
178
1-32
074
70
177
124
070
61
205
150
073
73
162
1-33
082
71
175
1-33
076
70
95
96
90
96
92
90
98
91
92
90
93
93
The resulting service loads for the various tanks are shown in
Table 2 and they correspond well to the specification requirement
of200 kPa.
6.1.6 Ground
The ground is modelled in three layers overlying an incompressible substratum (very dense sand and gravel as per the description in Section 2).
(a) Site strip (or muckaway) fill with variable thickness for the
Ground Improvement
Tank number
Service load intensity, incl.: kPa
Fill loads: kPa
Tank structure: kPa
80% of max. product load: kPa
Preload intensity: kPa
503
504
505
506
507
191
56
15
120
310
194
59
15
120
292
194
59
15
120
286
197
62
15
120
300
192
57
15
120
294
Averages
194
59
15
120
296
(variable level).
Cr/(l
+ eo) =
0027 ~ Cc/cl
Cv
o 23 ------:------=:--=---'----:-:---"-'-~
Tank number
503
504
505
506
507
Layer M
Layer C
Overall average layer C
Ratio to average in layer C
1-42
106
112
102
1-01
113
1-32
106
097
093
113
1-20
109
109
104
097
146
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
= + a (EcOlumn
Esoil
-1)
derived from the cone resistances and the stone column inclusion
factor, respectively, while the third factor (improvement of the
virgin ground) is calculated in such a way as to match the
calculated ultimate primary consolidation settlements and those
Tank number
Inclusion factor: %
Improvement factor
503
504
505
506
507
Averages
1730
221
1710
222
17-40
220
1720
220
1800
226
17-40
222
Tank number
Primary
consolidation
prediction
Preload
503
504
505
506
507
Averages
1-63
199
193
209
176
188
1-41
1-61
no
192
1-43
1-61
R: %
158
233
137
88
229
169
147
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
Log(time): days
160dclys l
10
0-
05 -
I
I
I
I
I
I
.;...;
c
E' 0
GJ
13
GJ
Vl
"".
'1,5 -
11-61 rnl
~.
I
I
1-
gj, 08
'0
GJ
+-'
250 ~
-0
200
.3
C
GJ
~ 07
13
GJ
VI
',;:J
150
~ 06 +---------~--------~--------~--------~
Avg L SP-centre
Load
25
15
20
10
R: lateral expansion intensity: %
-..:;;;:,,, .
I
20
eJ
.8
300
Og ,
100
350
100
Figure 11. Periphery to centre settlement ratio plotted against
lateral expansion intensity R
6.2 Correlations
6.2.1 Correlation between settlements and cone
resistances in layer M
Figure 10 shows the relation between settlements (oedometric
and lateral) and existing cone resistance harmonic averages in the
upper layer M, as reported in Section 6.1.9). As layer C is
homogeneous in thickness and compressibility, the governing
factor for the overall settlement is the nature of layer M, which
itself governs the overall improvement of that layer (see Section
7.1.1).
6.2.2
.;...;
~
6.2.3
7.
25
.,
~
o
2,
;,.:.,
Si 20
GJ
13 1,9
El
c
GJ
VI
~
17
GJ
+-'
15
'Vi
ro
-:;: ' 5-
o
~1-3
GJ
1,'
IR2 =0.19 1
'.
8. 10
+-----,-----,-----,-----,------.----~
Og
10
11
12
1-4
Average cone resistance in layer M
[R2
= 0.54}
O ~--~==~~~--~--~--~
og
10
11
12
intensity R
148
15
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
Tank number
Cone resistance harmonic
Layer M: MPa
averages
Layer C: MPa
503
504
505
506
507
1-42
1-06
112
1-02
1-01
113
1-32
106
097
1-34
1580
1237
093
113
120
1-09
109
094
13-70
1016
1-04
089
880
0958
097
124
2290
1161
HO
2330
1071
cf 30
.~ 25
'"
c
~
.'" 20
c
.~ 15
c
ro
!it
rn
(J)
10
~
-'"
ci::'
5
0
090
095
1-05
110
115
1-20
100
Weighted stiffness of M layer and softness of C layer combined
(tank 503 excluded)
7.1.1
7.1.1.1 CASE 1
Primary consolidation settlements under pre10ad with hypothetical oedometric (purely constrained) conditions.
7.1.1.2 CASE2
Ultimate primary consolidation settlements in the actual conditions (i.e. when taking into account the additional vertical
settlements due to the horizontal deformations (by use of the
lateral expansion intensity coefficient R)) and the improvement of
the ground surrounding the stone columns, with the improvement
factor being calculated to match the ultimate primary consolidation settlements calculated as well as those measured - see
Section 6.1. 9.
7.1.3
(b) Part of the preloading fill remains in the ground (the part that
o m).
149
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
286 kPa
o kPa
286 kPa
Assumed modulus ratio se vs qround:
Aver~~ inclusion factor:
Stone column
i~ovement
8
171%
factor:
220
1-19
2 47
192
Soil type
Density
kNIlII'
l - RII
2 - Clay M
2 - Clay M
3-ClayC
3-ClayC
-.i
QOOl
0 ,020
17
6
6
6
0010
0010
0025
0'085
0.025
43
117
131
182.
C/(l + eo)
C/ll + eo)
0085
0210
0 ,210
P,
Avg vertical
eff, stress
kPa
kPa
16
39
107
1<.5
166
Tota l primary
settlement
cm
872
1877
1800
2024
1467
172m
286 kPa
o kPa
286 kPa
Years
Top of layer
m
0
35
14
18
25
Infl"~rKc of IIIINill mov~men15;
Soil type
I FIlT
2-ClayM
2 Clay M
3 Clay C
3-ClayC
Density
C/( 1 + eo)
C/( l + eo)
kNlm
Q(1QZ
6
6
6
0011
0011
0028
0028
130%
Q'020
0096
0096
0237
0237
50
61 days
CJ(l + eo)
Total creep
P,
Avg vertica l
eff, stress
Total primary
settlement
kPa
17
kPa
cm
IQ
872
39
21 21
2034
2287
00006
00029
00029
00071
1658
00071
43
117
137
182
107
125
166
Time at end
of p. conso
settlement
1,93 m
cm
052
1 78
285
3 53
309
026 m
Tank number
Inclusion factor: %
Improvement factor due to vibrations
503
504
505
506
507
Averages
1730
226
1710
1-46
1740
119
1720
1-20
1800
154
1740
153
7.1.4.2 CASE 4
Re-compression settlements under tank structure dead load and
tank product service load after construction of the tanks.
The results for cases 3 and 4 for tank 505 are given in Figure
16, and the creep settlements were derived from those calculated in case 2 (preload) through application of a reduction
factor. This reduction in creep is associated with the ground
having been submitted to overconsolidation during the preloading phase, such reduction factor being given by Wong (2007)
(Figure 17).
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
23
(;
t! 2'
+-'
'I g
Q)
E
Q)
e>CL
.s
' 7
15
1-3
,.,
10
Og
1,2
11
14
Average cone resistance in layer M
15
150 m
177 m
Density:
2190 kN/m'
Fill load:
59 kPa
Service load:
Total load:
Top of layer
135 kPa
I
I
194 kPa
Soil type
of which
127 m
submerged
-->
1190 kN/m'
submerged
Density
C,I(l
+ eo)
I
I
I
+ eo)
C/(l
P,
Avg vertical
eff stress
kN/m'
kPa
kPa
1- Fill
0002
0020
17
16
oc
primary
settlement
cm
003
2 -Clay M
0011
0096
43
39
012
2-ClayM
0011
0096
117
107
019
18
3 - Clav C
0028
0237
137
125
0-23
25
3 - Clay C
0028
0237
182
166
020
35
14
130%
153 m
of which
>
2190 kN/m'
Density:
o kPa
Fill load:
Service load:
Total load:
135 kPa
135 kPa
Soil type
Density
kN/m'
1 - Fill
35
submerged
Top of layer
11 90 kN/m
submerged
+ eo)
+ eo)
oc primary
P,
Avg vertical
eff. stress
kPa
kPa
cm
0002
0020
277
16
081
183
C,I(l
C/(l
settlement
2 - Clay M
0011
0096
303
39
14
2 - Clay M
0011
0096
377
107
161
18
3-ClayC
0028
0237
397
125
178
25
3-ClayC
0028
0237
442
166
126
016 m
151
Ground Improvement
12
02 .
O ~~~~~~~~~-C~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1-0
Figure 17. Creep ratio plotted against OCR (after Wong, 2007)
Tank number
503
504
505
506
507
Averages
155
120
12
22
178
154
16
28
177
153
16
26
205
161
16
28
1-62
1-34
14
25
175
144
15
26
155
015
1-40
014
1-34
018
144
012
1-39
014
1-42
015
3
16
4
20
5
21
3
19
4
18
4
19
Creep
(50 years)
Estimated if no
overconsolidation: cm
OC R at Sce load
Reduction factor (after Wong,
2007)
Estimated creep in service: cm
Total long-term settlements (re-compression + creep) :
cm
Table 8. Settlements at the centre of the tanks
III
15 kPa.
(b) Weight of the water in the tank: 189 m X 10 kN/m 3 =
189 kPa.
(c) Hence a total stress of 204 kPa.
This means that not more than 15 days could be taken into
account for the estimation of the settlements, which should be
compared with the 70 days needed to achieve 90% consolidation;
that should not lead to more than some 20-25% of the
settlements stated in Table 9 being achieved.
Tank number
503
504
505
506
507
Averages
Hydrotest: kPa
Re-compression settlements: cm
204
16
204
20
204
20
204
21
204
18
204
19
152
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
can be seen that the values assumed for Cv (32 X 10- 8 m2/s) and
Ch/Cv (34) were in good agreement with the recorded consolidation times.
8.
Tv
Uv:%
88
2
4-4
Triangle
090
005
320 x 10-8
3-4
93
70
001
11%
Combined drainage
U%
Table 10. Equivalent Cv factor
938%
9.
Conclusions
153
Ground Improvement
Volume 166 Issue GI3
154