Interaction between Sheet Pile Wall and Stabilized Backfill Material: Numerical Simulation

(1)

MASTER'S THESIS

Interaction between Sheet Pile Wall and

Stabilized Backfill Material

Numerical Simulation

Ali Adil Majid Al-Habib

Master of Science (120 credits) Civil Engineering

Luleå University of Technology

(2)

1

Interaction between Sheet Pile Wall and Stabilized Backfill Material: Numerical Simulation

Theoreticalmodeling and Simulationstudy

(3)

2 Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge here my parents, who have always encouraged me for learning and studying. My thesis supervisors Mr. Gregory Makusa and Professor Sven Knutsson for their help and guidance.

(4)

3 Summary

By the late of 2007, the port of Gavle authorities found out that the harbor capacity was not enough, and needs to be increased. This could be done by having new ports area, building new facilities and dredging the bottom of the sea near the harbor. The dredging of sediment will improve the navigation at the port. The upper layer of dredged sediment was found to be contaminated with harmful materials such as TBT, PCBs and metal parts. These sediments had to be amended with cement, fly ash and merit5000. The stabilized material were used as a backfill in reclamation of new areas for terminal expansion.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the interaction between the stabilized materials and the steel sheet pile wall. The cone penetration test data were used to evaluate the geotechnical parameters of the backfill material. Analytical calculations were used to illustrate the design of the sheet pile wall. Finite element method (PLAXIS 2D) was used to analyze the interaction of the sheet pile wall with the stabilized material.

(5)

4 Contents

1 Introduction ... 7

1.1 Research Objectives ... 8

1.2 Backfill Material ... 8

2 Evaluation of engineering parameters ... 9

2.1 CPT/CPTU Results interpretation ... 9

2.2 CPT/CPTU results evaluation and parameters calculation ... 10

2.2.1 Materials distribution & unit weight of layers ... 10

2.2.2 Constrained Modulus (M)of SCDM layer ... 11

2.2.3 Normalized cone penetration resistance (Qt) ... 12

2.2.4 Friction angle ϕo ... 12

2.2.5 Normalized Friction Ratio (Fr) ... 12

2.2.6 Soil Behavior Index Ic ... 13

2.2.7 Permeability K ... 13

2.2.8 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Ka,Kp ... 13

2.2.9 Soil classification ... 14

3 Conceptual construction stages ... 15

4 Analytical Calculations,Designof Sheet Pile Wall ... 17

4.1 Passive and active earth pressures ... 18

4.1.1 Calculation of contraflexure depth... 20

4.2 Calculation of Anchor force FA ... 21

4.3 Calculating the Pinned steel rod force Fc... 22

4.4 Calculating bending moment of sheet pile ... 23

4.5 Selecting the type of sheet pile section ... 27

4.6 Design of permanent Anchor support rod for earth pressure ... 27

4.6.1 Anchor concrete vertical beam ... 27

4.6.2 Anchor steel rod ... 31

4.7 Deflection and safety factor ... 32

5 Finite element method application in geotechnical engineer ... 33

5.1 Numerical analysis using Plaxis (sheet pile wall - SCDM interaction) ... 33

(6)

5

5.1.2 Input parameters... 33

5.2 Sequences of Construction ... 36

5.3 Analysis ... 36

5.3.1 First step of numerical analysis... 36

5.3.2 Second step of numerical analysis ... 39

5.3.3 Third step of numerical analysis. ... 43

Results………46 Discussion………..50 Conclusion……….51 Future research ………..52 References ... 53 Appendix ... 54

(7)

6 Legend and abbreviations

S.C.D.M.: Stabilized contaminated dredged material C.P.T.: Cone penetration test.

C.P.T.U.:Cone penetration test with pore water pressure consideration. Y: Contraflexure point depth

(8)

7 1 Introduction

Ports and harbors are identified as hot spots for generation of contaminants. Dredging activities at ports and harbors are inevitable for safe navigation of ships and vessels. Dredging of contaminated sediments, poses high risk to human health and environment. These sediments require proper treatment prior to disposal. Scarcity of landfill and the cost associated with, create demand for beneficial reuse of treated volume of contaminated sediments. The management of Gavle port, identified utilization of amended contaminated dredged sediment in structural backfill as a cost effective way of handling the contaminants. Thus, the contaminated dredged materials were amended by stabilization solidification technology and utilized as backfill material. Stabilized contaminated dredged material (SCDM) has been proved to meet most of geotechnical and environmental criteria. The new mixed result into material that can be used as a construction material. (SCDM) has a suitable engineering property that can interact successfully with the other structures such as retaining wall, secant wall, contiguous wall, solider wall, diaphragm wall, sheet pile wall.

The use of friendly environment material in road projects, and other embankments that might be needed at any project is essential to keep our environment clean. A successful use of such material in road embankment has been reported. A program of seeking environmentally friendly solution to handle a dredged material, including beneficial use of stabilized dredged material was initiated by USA super fund project. Some of the beneficial use under this project includes roadway application at New York-New Jersey harbor (Maher et al, 2003) .

In this study, the cone penetration test(CPTU) was performed in a structural backfill, which utilized (SCDM) at large scale field test. The study used (CPTU) data to calculate the required input parameters for analytical design of the steel sheet pile wall and for accomplishing a numerical analysis. The study, seek to evaluate the interaction between the sheet pile wall and the (SCDM). The case study is the port of Gavle in Sweden, where the sheet pile wall was used to reclaim the land from the Baltic sea. The dredged sediments were amended withcement, fly ash and merit5000 at 150 kg of binders per cubic metre of fresh dredged mass.

Numerical simulation involves applying a load over the (SCDM) until the sheet pile collapse, and that to give advice about the future potential use of this fill area. So that, Gavle harbor management can optimize the use of the site, like building new facilities, or to use it as a base for heavy equipments for loading and unloading the cargos from ships and vessels.

(9)

8 1.1 Research Objectives

The objective of the study is to use the (CPTU) data to evaluate engineering parameters for analysis of sheet pile wall and simulation for the interaction of stabilized contaminated dredged sediments (SCDM) and sheet pile wall. The focus is on bending effect, lateral displacement and settlement of sheet pile wall when subjected to a vertical load. The study includes analytical and numerical analysis of the sheet pile wall.

1.2 Backfill Material

Stabilized contamined dredged sediments were utilized as a structural backfill material. The on-site pugmill mixed freshly dredged sediments with binder. The mix wered done at constant ratio of 180 kg of binder per cubic meter of sediment sand discharged in the reclaimed area. After completing the fill operations, the fill area was preloaded to compress the soil and remove any air entrapped during mixing. Furthermore, the preloading weight aimed at speeding up the consolidation process. The homogeneity of the stabilized materials were inspected by in-situ test. The cone penetration tests (CPTU) were carried out after a certain period of curing. The design engineering parameters were evaluated from the (CPTU) data.

(10)

9 2 Evaluation of engineering parameters

The cone penetration tests was done on the structural backfill (SCDM) at port of Gavle for evaluating the geotechnical parameters. The tests were carried at variouslocation within the fill after a certain period of curing (Figure 5). The (CPTU) location are marked as p11-01, p11-02, p11-03, p11-04, p21-01, p21-02, p21-03, p21-04, p30-01, and p31-01. The mean value of the (CPTU) results were utilized to evaluated the geotechnical parameters using conventional (CPTU) empirical correlations.

Figure5: Top view of (CPTU) wells locations 2.1 CPT/CPTU Results interpretation

The (CPTU) data from Gavle including tables and diagrams, the tables contain the depths and the density (ρ) related to these depths, un-drained shear in-situ (Su), total in situ

vertical stress (σvo), effective vertical stress (σ'vo) and over consolidation ratio (OCR).

The diagrams of (CPTU) contain the depths, corrected cone resistance(qt), sleeve friction

corrected for pore pressure effects (ft), pore pressure measured on the cone (U1), pore

pressure measured behind the cone (U2), pore pressure (U0), friction ratio (Rft), pore

(11)

10

2.2 CPT/CPTU results evaluation and parameters calculation

Results from (CPTU) test collected in tables and diagrams. We organized these values in tables. At appendix (A), you can notice the geotechnical parameters values from (CPTU) test, these results will be used to calculate the stiffness and strength parameters. (Table 1) clarify the mean value of the mean values taken from (CPTU) test, first column is the wells number and the second column is the density of the (SCDM) layer. The rest values at the table explained already above.

Table 1: Mean values (CPTU) results of (SCDM) layer

Wells Number

ρ(wet) Su

σvo σ'vo qt ft Bq

kPa kPa kPa kPa

kN / m3 kPa P11-01 14.408 18.188 81.916 48.488 382.575 21.690 0.350 P11-02 14.592 17.56 82.088 48.659 408.484 22 0.365 P11-03 14.581 14.65 98.161 52.725 349.375 26.437 0.542 P11-04 15.137 22.03 97.826 54.868 497.058 20.852 0.302 P21-01 14.911 15.09 85.819 52.046 461.428 16.885 0.497 P21-02 14.5 16.72 83.658 50.827 402.205 23.676 0.430 P21-03 14.754 23.85 103.5 57.764 558.571 23.314 0.294 P21-04 14.46 14.2 98.856 55.648 428.472 21.777 0.416 P30-01 16.275 38.59 94.428 57.870 797.674 20.904 0.206 P31-01 16.58 37.39 85.217 50.892 888.571 11.428 0.227 Mean value 15.020 21.827 91.147 52.979 517.442 20.897 0.363

2.2.1 Materials distribution & unit weight of layers

For calculating the density there are three different layers of materials. First layer is the gravel with 2.5 meter thickness from level 0.0 up to level +2.5 lying on the top of the (SCDM) layer. That makes the second one is the (SCDM) layer of 9.75 meters thickness from level 0.0 down to -9.75 level. The last layer is the boulders layer with a thickness of 6.05 meter from level -9.75 down to the level -15.8. These all layers were in the active side of sheet pile, while at the passive side consist of a 2.3-meter thick layer of boulders lying on the bedrock from level -15.8 up to level -13.5 at the bottom of the sea which the water level is fluctuation within the year.

(CPTU) results (data) show the density for the different layers of (SCDM) above and under the water ground level.

(12)

11 Unit weight Gravel layer

The density of this layer was18 kN / m3, and the effective dry density is 11 kN/m3. These

values are compatible with what the Vagverketdirectory published regarding the sub base layers (Vägverket, 1994).

Density of SCDM layer

From (Table 1) the mean value of the density is 15.020 kN / m3 and the dry density is

= 15.020 – 9.81 = 5.21 kN/m3

and this is for the SCDM layers under water ground level. The density of the SCDM

layer according to the CPTU test results above the water ground level is 17.658 kN / m3.

Unit weight boulders layer

This layer density is 18 kN/m3, and this value compatible with what has published by

Vägverket (1994).

Dry density = 18 – 9.81 = 8.19 kN/m3

2.2.2 Constrained Modulus (M)of SCDM layer

The one dimension constrained modulus, M is a deformation parameter and usually measured in an odometer test. (Lunne, Robertson, & Powell, 1997) showed the following correlation ( M= 8.25(qt- )).

Where is the vertical stress (total overburden stress) and qt is the corrected cone

resistance of the qc. due to the pore water pressure effects on the sleeve friction resistance and cone resistance of the piezocone. Lunne et al. (1997) stated at page 25 '' Due to the inner geometry of the cone penetrometer, the ambient pore water pressure will act on the shoulder are behind the cone and on the ends of the friction sleeve.'' they also mentioned that '' Influences the total stress determined from the cone and the friction sleeve'' that makes the data need to be corrected . The corrected cone resistance (qt ) was given by the (CPTU) test results as it obvious in (Table 1) the mean value of qt is 517.442 kPa. The average value for total vertical stress from (Table 1) which calculated from CPTU results was 91,147 kPa.

(13)

12

2.2.3 Normalized cone penetration resistance (Qt)

While the is the effective overburden stress and its value available from the (CPTU) test and the mean value from (Table 1) is 52.979 kPa. Lunne et al. (1997) in their book at page 53 illustrate the following formula

= (517.442 -91.147)/ 52.979 = 8.046 It is a dimensionless value

2.2.4 Friction angle ϕo

Three different materials used at the site gravel, SCDM and boulders. Therefore, there will be three values for the friction angle. The study will not calculate the allowable friction angle and factor of safety, because it is analyzing calculation and not designing. Friction angle ϕo

of Gravel layer

The Friction angle of the gravel layer is 40⁰. Friction angle ϕo of SCDM layer

According to Robertson, and Cabal (2010) presented at their book '' Guide to Cone

Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering ''. For two true conditions 20º ≤ ≤

45º and 0.1≤ Bq ≤ 1.0

The friction angle

is the pore pressure parameter and its indicated from the (CPTU) results sheets, the study showed at table1 the mean value of Bq is 0.363 .

= 29.5. 0.3630.121 (0.256+0.336*0.363 +log 8.046) = 33.48 Friction angle ϕo

of Boulder layer

The friction angel of the boulder layer is 40⁰. 2.2.5 Normalized Friction Ratio (Fr)

Normalized friction ratio (Fr) represents the friction of the sleeve of piezometer according to Lunne et al. (1997) they stated in their book the following correlation

While the value of which is the sleeve friction corrected for pore water pressure effects, it is only valid when pore pressure have been measured at both ends of friction sleeve, (CPTU) results give a mean value from (Table 1) equal to 20.897 kPa

(14)

13

2.2.6 Soil Behavior Index Ic

Soil behavior index illustrated in Lunne et al. (1997) stated the definition of (Ic) as defined by

= 2.56 It is a dimensionless value.

2.2.7 Permeability K

The permeability K of the layer can be calculated as in Robertson, and Cabal (2010) When 1.0 <Ic<3.27... K = 10(0.952-3.04 Ic)

When 3.2 <Ic< 4 ... K = 10(-4.52-1.37Ic)

Then K = 10(0.952-3.04 Ic) = K = 10(0.952-3.04 * 2.56) = 1.48 x 10-07 m/s = 0.013 m/day.

2.2.8 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Ka,Kp

Coefficient of lateral earth active and passive pressure are, Ka = tan2 ,

and Kp=tan2

Coefficient of lateral earth pressure Kafor Gravel layeris :

Ka = tan2 = 0.217, KP =tan2 = 4.599

While the coefficient of lateral earth pressure Ka for SCDM layer is :

Ka = tan2 = tan2

= 0.289

And the coefficients of lateral earth pressure Ka, Kpfor boulders layer are :

Ka = tan2

= 0.217

(15)

14 2.2.9 Soil classification

The two charts shown in (Figure 6) represent a three dimensional classification system. Lunne et al. (1997) ploted a chart as illustrated in (Figure 6) are still global in nature and should be used as a guide to define soil behavior type based on (CPT) and (CPTU) data. Factors such as changes in stress history, in situ stresses, sensitivity, macro fabric, mineralogy and void ratio will also influence the classification. As stated above from the (CPTU) results and calculation above we have Qt = 8.04 , Fr = 5 % , Bq = 0.363 . In

addition, by using the normalized CPTU soil behavior type (SBTN) charts Qt – Fr and Qt

- Bq Lunne et al. (1997).

Figure 6: Soil behavior type, classification chart based on normalized (CPT/CPTU) data Lunne et al. (1997).

From the figure above, we can see the inter-sectioned points of the lines locate at zone number 3 at that means the (SCDM) soil could be classified as clays-clay to silty clay.

(16)

15 3 Conceptual construction stages

Construction of the sheet pile wall as a retaining structure differ according to the needs, location and the functions. In this case study port of Gavle there are four stages of construction carried out. At the sea side, the study will consider the level of water -0.69, and at the ground water, level -2.3. Figures 1 to 4 illustrating the stages of construction carried out at port of Gavle. In the first stage dredging was done to the level -15.8 m until reaching the bed rock layer. The sheet pile wall was installed and underpinned by steel dowel. Steel bar inserted into the rock layer, every two sheets there is one pinned steel rod. The sheet pile wall was held in place with the help of boulders on each side. The boulders layer had thickness of 6.05 meters. The steel sheet pile used is AZ 37-700-S355GP with a total length of 17.5 meters and the pinned steel dowel selected was 7.5 cm diameter, S355J2G3 (Figure 1). In the second stage, the (SCDM) layer was filled up (Figure 2). Follwed by 2.3 meter of selected gravel for preloading freshly stabilized mass (Figure 3). The last stage of the construction comprise of installation of concrete platform and dredging of boulders at the seaside, the boulders layers was removed to the level -13.5 meter.

(17)

16

Figure2: Second stage of construction

(18)

17

Figure4: Forth stage of construction

4 Analytical Calculations,Designof Sheet Pile Wall

Clayton, Milititsky, and Woods (1993). described the design process of the sheet pile wall as follows:

1. Determine soil parameters for the likely height of the sheet pile wall.

2. Estimate tidal range, and the likely lag between the ground water level in the retained soil and in front of the wall.

3. Calculate the effective horizontal earth pressure using active earth-pressure coefficients on the back of the wall.

4. Calculate the effective horizontal earth pressure using passive earth-pressure coefficients on the front of the wall.

5. Calculate the out-of-balance pressure distribution on the wall.

6. Take moments about the level at which the anchor tie is attached to the sheets, and determines the necessary depth of penetration of the sheet piling to give moment equilibrium.

7. Resolve horizontally to determine the force applied to the tie.

8. Calculate the shear force diagram for the sheet pile wall, in order to find the position of maximum bending moment, start at the top of the wall.

9. Calculate the maximum bending moment at the point of zero shear force. 10. Increase the tie force by 10% to allow for horizontal arching.

(19)

18

At this chapter, the study will analyze the design steps. Calculating many parameters like the displacements, the forces of anchor rod, under pinned rod, point of zero shear force, maximum bending moment and the selection of the sheet pile. Figure (7) below illustrate the surcharges loads produced by the weight of the gravel layer part above the top of the sheet pile, the calculations follow at section 6.1.

Figure7: Layers and surcharge.

This method of calculation of earth effective pressure and the steps of designing the sheet pile, and analyzing the forces, moments applied by the soil and the surcharges is called ''fixed earth support method''. Clayton, et al. (1993) also stated in their book page 225 describing the fixed earth support method '' This method is derived from the work of Blum (1931, 1950, 1951), and is in a wide spread use in Europe. The sheet piling is considered flexible, but deriving to sufficient depth that it may be considered fixed at its toe''. They also wrote in another place at the same book,'' In these methods the stresses on the wall immediately above the toe (F) are replaced by a single force some distance up the wall (Fc) and the sheet piling is consider to be held vertical at point C''. Point (C) can be noticed at (Figure 8) and point (N) is the point of contra flexure.

4.1 Passive and active earth pressures

Level +1.7 at the top point of the sheet pile

Surcharge = kN / m2

(20)

19

Where the density of this layer is = 18 kN / m3

Level 0.0 gravel – (SCDM) layers

45 kN / m2

At Gravel layer σh = σh' = 45 * 0.217 = 9.765 kN / m2

At (SCDM) Layer σh = σh' = 45 * 0.289 = 13.005 kN / m2

Where the depth of this layer is = 1.7 meter

Level – 2.3 at the water table within the (SCDM) layer

85.613 kN / m2

σh = σh' = 85.613 * 0.289 = 24.74 kN / m2

Level -9.75 (SCDM)-boulders layers.

197.512 kN / m2

Pore water pressure U = = 7.45 * 10 = 74.5 kN / m2

kN / m2

At (SCDM) layer σh' = 123.012 * 0.289 = 35.55 kN / m2

At boulder layer σh' = 123.012 * 0.217= 26.69 kN / m2

Level -13.5 dredging level

265.012 kN / m2

Pore water pressure U = = 74.5 + 3.75 * 10 = 112 kN / m2

kN / m2 σh' = * 0.217 = 33.203 kN / m2 Level C Active side U = = 112 + 10 D' σh' = σh' = 33.203 + 1.736 D' Passive Side U = = 12.81 * 10 + 10 D' σh' = kp* = 4.599 * = 36.792 D'

(21)

20

These effective active and passive pressure values illustrated in a diagram (Figure 8) as below.

Figure 8: Effective pressure diagram 4.1.1 Calculation of contraflexure depth

First must calculate contraflexure point depth y (the distance between the contra flexure point and the dredged level).

Figure 9: Contraflexure point depth calculations

From (Figure 9) and by using the similarity of triangles theory, we can derive the following: , = 0.947 m

(22)

21 4.2 Calculation of Anchor force FA

FA = Anchor Force

FA+FN = ((9.76+3.125)/2) *1.7 + ((13.005+24.74)/2)*2.3 +((24.74+35.55)/2)*7.45

+((26.69+33.203)/2)*3.75 + 0.5*0.947 * 33.203

FA+FN = 406.959 kN / m2

Summation moment about point N = 0, clockwise positive

3.125 * 1.7 * ((1.7/2)+13.5+0.947) +0.5 * 1.7 * 6.635 * ((1.7/3)+13.5+0.947) + 13.005 * 2.3 * ((2.3/2) + 7.45 + 3.75 + 0.947) + 0.5 * 2.3 *11.735 ((2.3/3)+7.45+3.75+0.947) + 24.74 * 7.45 ((7.45/2)+3.75+0.947) + 0.5 * 7.45 * 10.81 *((7.45 /3)+3.75+0.947)+26.69 * 3.75 ((3.75/2)+0.947) + 0.5 *3.75 * 6.513 ((3.75/3)+0.947) + 0.5 * 0.947 * 33.203 ((2/3)*0.947) – 14.647 * FA = 0 FA = 2898.558/14.647 = 197.89 kN/ m. Run

Increase 10% to allow horizontal arching FA = 217.68 kN/ m. Run

(23)

22 4.3 Calculating the pinned steel rod force Fc

Figure 10: Horizontaleffective stress distribution B point is the point of the bottom of the sea with the (SCDM) layer When the D' = 2.3 meters and Y= 0.947 m

Summation moment about point B = 0 , clockwise positive

3.125 * 1.7 *((1.7/2)+2.3 + 7.45 + 3.75) + 0.5*1.7*6.635((1.7/3)+2.3+7.45+3.75) + 13.005*2.3((2.3/2)+7.45+3.75) +0.5*2.3*11.735((2.3/3)+7.45+3.75)+24.74*7.45((7.45/2+3.75) +0.5*10.81*7.45((7.45/3)+3.75)+26.69*3.75(3.75/2)+0.5*3.75*6.513(3.75/3)–0.5*0.947 * 33.203 *(0.947/3) + 0.5*1.35*47.421((2/3)*1.35+0.947) – 217.68 *(0.2+13.5) – Fc * 2.3 = 0 Fc = -178.23 kN / m Run B

(24)

23 4.4 Calculating bending moment of sheet pile

Effective pressure at 1.5 m from the top. The location of the anchor rod.

X = 5.854 kN/m2

1. -1.7 = < X = < -0.2 q = 3.9 X , see (Figure 11).

Figure 11

M = Summation moment about point O, counter clockwise positive M = 3.125 X (X/2) + 0.5 X * 3.9 *X *(X/3)

M = 1.563 X2 + 0.65 X3

Table 2: Moment distribution M X 0 0 2.213 1 5.711 1.5

(25)

24

2. -0.2 = < X = < 0.0 q = 3.905 X, see (Figure 12).

Figure12

M = Summation moment about point (O), counter clockwise positive

M = 3.125 * 1.5 ((1.5/2)+X) + 0.5 * 1.5 *5.854 ((1.5/3)+X) – 217.68 X + 8.979 *X*(X/2) + 0.5 * X * 3.905 *X*(X/3)

M = 0.651 X3 + 4.489X2 – 208.6 X + 5.71

Table 3: Moment distribution M X 5.71 0 -35.826 0.2

(26)

25

3. 0.0 = < X = < 2.3 q =5.104 X , see (Figure 13)

Figure13: Moment distribution

M = Summation moment about point (O), counter clockwise positive

M =0.85 X3+6.5X2-206.729X – 35.825

Table 4: Moment Distribution M X -35.826 0 -235.204 1 -466.573 2.3

(27)

26 4. 2.3 = < X = < 9.75 q = 1.45 X

Figure14: Moment distribution

M = 0.241 X3+12.37 X2-163.328X – 466.566

Table 5: Moment distribution M X -466.566 0 -838.713 3 -943.831 5 -949.158 6 -939.38 6.5 -897.142 7.45

(28)

27 4.5 Selecting the type of sheet pile section

To select the suitable sheet pile section, section modulus will be compaired with the

calculated value. the maximum bending moment is Mmax= -949.158 kN.m/m. width

Allowable stress for S355GP steel

Required section modulus, S = = (949.158/355000) = 2673.68 cm3/m.width

Table 6: Sheet pile section type modulus

Section type Section Modulus cm3/m Az24-700 2430 Az37-700 3705 Az44-700N 4405

From the (Table 6) AZ 24-700 section is not suitable, because its section modulus lower than the required section modulus. While Az44-700N is a way larger than the required section modulus and that means from the economic perspective it is not suitable. Therefore, the most suitable alternativeisthe Az37-700.

4.6 Design of permanent Anchor support rod for earth pressure

Insufficient information about the anchor rod length, we have the section of the anchor rod but we do not know the length of the steel rod. Therefore, we cannot compare the anchor rod properties that we will calculate with the existing one regarding the length, but we will recommend these properties.

4.6.1 Anchor concrete vertical beam

Soil material where anchor beam driven, is friction soil (gravel). Slab thickness of

concrete assumed 0.3 m. and the density of concrete 2.4 t/m3.

The anchor placed not near the surface as the = = 4.33 so it is not equal to 1.5-2

(29)

28 Stage 1 – Basic case

Continuous vertical anchor in granular soil

Figure15: Anchor Beam height

The assumption in this case will be h = H as you can notice from figure above. H = 2.3 + 0.3 = 2.6 m

Pu' = 0.5 * Ɣ*H2 (kpcosδ – kacos ø)

From section (5.3.2.9.1) we have KP=4.599,ka = 0.217, ø = 40

kpsinδ =

= 0.441

KP for gravel = 4.599 ,kpcosδ = 4.58

Pu' = 268.5 kN/m

(30)

29 Stage 2 – Strip case

Determine the actual height of the vertical concrete anchor (h). The assumption in this case is the anchor beam is continuous B = infinity.

Figure 16: Anchor beam continuous

Pus' = Ultimate resistance

Cov = 19 for gravel

(31)

30 Stage 3 – Actual case

The assumptions in this case will be each anchor plate separate. Plates are places in row with center-to-center spacing.

Pu = Pus' *Be ,Pu is the ultimate resistance of the each anchor

Be = equivalent length

H = 4.33 h

Assume square anchor plate h = B = 0.6 m

In addition, this can give space between ends of plate 1.2 m S'=B + 1.2 = 0.6 +1.2 = 1.8 m

(S'-B)/(H+h)=(1.8-0.6)/(2.6+0.6)=0.375

(32)

31

From diagram at (Figure 17) , the dense sand or gravel values are

, Be = 1.432

Pu = Pus' *Be = 230.143 * 1.432 = 329.56 kN/m

Ultimate resistance force offered by this plate of 0.6 * 0.6 m is 329.56 kN/m. This resistance force can be increased by increasing the dimension of anchor.

4.6.2 Anchor steel rod

The information available is the Allowed stress 355 mpa = 355000 kN/m2 and the

diameter 8.125 centimeters (Figure 4).

4.6.2.1 Anchor steel rod length

Figure18: Anchor steel rod length L1= = 2.82 , L2 = = 3.96

L3= = 1.166 L4= = 5.36

L = L1 + L2 + L3 + L4 = 13.307 m

(33)

32

4.6.2.2 Anchor steel rod diameters

Allowable stress = 355 Mpa = 355000 kN/m2 see (Figure 4)

= (4F/(∏.d2))

Where (FA) is the anchor force = 217.68 kN/m (see section 4.2. at this study).

FA = FA* Anchor rod length =217.68 *14 = 3047.52 kN

Diameter of rod = 10.4 cm

This value of diameter is more than the used one at the site, so the used one is not proper and should use a larger diameter steel rod,with not less than 10.4 cm.

4.7 Deflection and safety factor

In this section, we will illustrate the horizontal displacement of the designed anchor, depending on the anchor force value. U.S. Department of Transportation/FHWA (1984) published the following equation to estimate the horizontal displacement of the anchor vertical beam slab.

Ultimate anchor force Pu =329.56 kN/m

Applied anchor force FA = 217.68 kN/m

Log10 ( ) = 2.5(

With conditions

, 32< ø < 41 the friction angle for gravel layer is 40. B = h, in our case they are equal 0.6 m.

, So all the condition verified

Log10 ( ) = 2.5(

= -2.234

. This is the horizontal displacement at the anchor rod level. The anchor beam provides a factor of safety as below

=

(34)

33

5 Finite element method application in geotechnical engineer

The numerical method enable the boundary conditions to be taken into account in better way than the classical earthworks design. It also can predict the failure patterns by the indication of the deformations occurring close to the point of the failure. The soil considered as a continuum and then split into elements to enable the finding of a numerical solution. The mesh of elements can only cover a limited area, so that the boundary conditions will have a considerable effect on the results. The material laws specified based on concepts of models and this will give good picture of the real behavior as a function of the loading history. Moreover, the results influenced mainly by inputting parameters of the soil like strength.

5.1 Numerical analysis using Plaxis (sheet pile wall – (SCDM) interaction)

The calculation of the geotechnical correlations are complex because it contains many parameters such as stress, strain, bending moments, shear forces and deflections . That makes the numerical modeling one of the most important alternatives that is capable of making the complex calculations of the problem easier and more accurate. The finite element method is a technique to find the solutions for the engineering correlations, that dealing with the geotechnical parameters. This has done by collecting the variables into matrices and vectors in computer programs, and by numerical methods solve the system. 5.1.1 Modeling process

The modeling process showed that the level of mesh coarsens influenced the results accuracy. A too coarse mesh could lead to have no accurate results, and the finer mesh will give larger deformations, but only until a certain point. When reaching certain coarseness in the model, the results no longer differs when refine the mesh. A finer mesh will only increase the calculation time, and only a slight different will results from the calculations. Moreover, this is a very important aspects could affect the reliability of the results.

5.1.2 Input parameters

The simulation model comprises of three layers. At the active side the first layer is the gravel from level +2.5 to level 0.0. Below this layer and specifically from level 0.0 the (SCDM) stabilized dredged material with 9.75 meters thick. Below that, the boulders layer with 6.05 meters thick. For sheet piles also there are inputted parameters. Anchor rod also has properties entered, as shown in (Table 8).

(35)

34 Soil layers parameters

Table 7: Soil inputted parameters

Parameters Gravel SCDM Boulders Unit

Material model

Mohr-Coulomb

Type of material behavior Drained Undrained(B) Drained

Saturated soil unit weight 18 15.02 18 kN / m3

Unsaturated soil unit weight 11 5.21 11 kN / m3

Effective Young Modulus (E') 2.00E+05 - 2.00E+05 kN / m2

Constrained Modulus (M) - 3517 - kN / m2

undrained shear strength (Su) - 22 - kN / m2

Friction angle (ϕ) 40 - 40

Dilatancy Angle 10 - 10

Cohesion 0 - 0

Poisson ratio 0.3 0.4 0.3

permeability (kx) 0.6 0.013 0.6 m/day

permeability (ky) 0.6 0.013 0.6 m/day

Steel sheet pile parameters

According to C.R.I Clayton,(1995) the Young modulus factor of steel is Esteel= 2.1 * 105 N/mm2.

From section Az37-700 manufacturer information the moment of inertia of the section is

I = 92400 cm4/m

In addition, the sectional area, A = 266 cm2/m.

(36)

35

E.I = 2.1 * 10 8 * 92400 * 10 -8 = 1.94 * 10 5 kN.m2/m.

Table 8: Sheet pile inputted parameters Sheet Pile Parameters

parameter value unit

EA 4.75E+06 kN/m

EI 1.94E+05 kN.m2/m

w 45 kN/m/m

Anchor rod parameters

Esteel= 2.1 * 105 N/mm2 = 2.1 * 105 *10-3 *106 = 2.1 * 108 kN / m2. The diameter of steel rod is 8.125 cm

Section area of rod = 3.1415 * r2 = 51.847 cm2= 0.0052 m2

E. A = 1.09*105 kN

Table 9: Steel anchor rod inputted parameters Steel Anchor Rod Parameters

parameter value unit

EA 1.09E+05 kN

L spacing 2.5 m

Equivalent length 20 m

(37)

36 5.2 Sequences of Construction

At the first stage, Sheet pile wall installed at the bedrock and underpinned with a steel rod, and the surrounding area filled with boulders with 6.05 meters layer thick to support the steel sheet pile wall with a total height 17.5 meters. The next stage of construction is filling the (SCDM) material layer. Later the anchored steel rod is applied. The last stage filled of the gravel layer over the top of the (SCDM) layer and then a layer of 4.05 meter thick of boulders removed from the seaside to improve the navigation at the sea near the steel sheet pile. The remaining layer of boulders has 2.3-meter thickness lying above the bedrock at the seaside

5.3 Analysis

The analysis has done by three stages. First, the analysis accomplished without applying

any load. Secondly, the load applied is 50 kN/m2. After that, the analysis has done with

the safety method. The modeling will decrease the stiffness parameters until the failure occurs, so the moment and the displacement will be recorded at this stage. During the modeling process, the study reach into a conclusion that the coarser the mesh is the more non accurate results will be. And the finer the mesh will give a larger deformation but only until a certain point. When reaching a certain coarseness in the model, the results no longer differs when refine the mesh. A finer mesh will only increase the calculation time. And only a slight different will results from the calculations.

5.3.1 First step of numerical analysis

At this step of analysis, the construction is completed and there is no load applied the only cause of deflection and moment is by the self-weight of soil layers.

(38)

37

(Figure 19) illustrate the deformation of the soil layer, which it's obvious occurred at the (SCDM) layer.

Figure20: Total displacement

Figure 21: Horizontal displacement zones

(Figure 20, 21) illustrated the total displacement and horizontal displacement are 8.8 cm and 5.6 cm respectively. This is happened because of self-weight of the soils.

(39)

38

Figure (22) Total horizontal displacement

As you can notice from (Figure 22), it has stated the horizontal displacement 5.6 cm and its location at the maximum bending moment zone.

(40)

39

From (Figure 23), the bending moment is -956.7 kNm/m. It is happening at the location of the maximum displacement at (SCDM) layer.

5.3.2 Second step of numerical analysis

At the second attempt of numerical analysis, the applied load was 50 kN/m2. The idea

behind that is to predict any increasing of load could applied at the area retained by the sheet pile wall in the future. Like building new facilities or storing some products over the area which filled mainly by the (SCDM).

Figure 24: Deformation due to applied load

The deformation results from applying the load is illustrated at (Figure 24). The total displacement is 13.8 cm in this stage.

(41)

40

Figure 25: Total displacement

Figure26: Total displacements

From (Figure 25), the total displacement increased again to reach 13.8 cm. This increasing because of the additional applied load. The red colored area represented the maximum displacement area and it concentrated at the top gravel and (SCDM) layers. In addition, the minimum is at the boulders layer.

(42)

41

The horizontal displacement started to increase due to increasing of the vertical load as shown in (Figure 26). The value 11.6 cm is the horizontal displacement. The zone of maximum horizontal displacement is beneath the anchor rod location and at the middle of (SCDM) layer.

Figure (27) Horizontal displacement diagram

The horizontal displacement distribution diagram illustrated at the (Figure 27). The displacement direction converted outward after the anchor steel rod. And the maximum horizontal displacement at (SCDM) layer. The value 11.4 cm increased due to the applied

(43)

42

Figure (28) Bending moment diagram

Due to the load applied, the maximum bending moment increased to reach -1869 kNm/m. the diagram of bending moment is illustrated at (Figure 28).

(44)

43 5.3.3 Third step of numerical analysis.

At this step, the safety numerical analysis method was used, and the simulation is decreasing the stiffness parameters of the soil until the failure occur. The settlement and

bending moment will illustrate. This case happened under the 50 kN/m2 . This is the same

load at the second stage but the calculation method is the safety method.

Figure 29: Deformation mesh

From (Figure 29), it has illustrated the deformation. It is obvious from the figure that the deformation is 29.5 cm. That happened when the safety factor started to be less than one. The decreasing of stiffness parameters of soil is reached to the ultimate limit. This decreasing in stiffness done by the safety simulation method of calculations.

(45)

44

Figure 30: Total displacement

(46)

45

From (Figure 30, 31) above the total and horizontal displacement increased and become 29.5 cm and 28 cm. The zone for this maximum displacement occurred mainly in (SCDM). Beneath the anchor rod and near the sheet pile.

Figure 32: Horizontal displacement diagram

Maximum horizontal displacement occurred before failure took place is 27.6 cm (Figure 32). The maximum displacement occurred at (SCDM) layer.

Figure 33: Bending moment diagram

(Figure 33) illustrated the maximum bending moment might occur before the failure, and

(47)

46 6 Results

All the results listed in (Table 10), the first column was calculated during the filling of the gravel layer. The study results shown in the next columns in (Table 10). The

analytical calculation has done under the load 14.4 kN/m2. While the numerical

calculations done in four different cases. the first was under the load 14.4 kN/m2, during

fill SCDM layer, under the load 50 kN/m2 , and the last was made by the safety

calculations method.

The study discussed the displacement and the maximum bending moment, and compare between the different situations of the calculations. It can be noticed that the horizontal displacement is increasing proportionally with the increasing of the load or decreasing the stiffness parameters as it shown in phase three column (Table 10).

Table 10: Results

Item Results

During filling of gravel layer

Analytical Numerical Analysis

Unit 14.4 kN/m2 Surcharge load 14.4 kN/m2 Surcharge load Phase one during filling SCDM layer Phase two Applying 50 kN/m2 load Phase three safety calculation method Total displacement 11.7 12.1 8.9 13.8 29 cm Horizon. Displacement 9.4 5.6 11.6 28 cm Maximum moment -851.47 -949.158 -938.56 -496 -1032 -2473 kN.m/m

The maximum moment at 8.5 to 9 meter is -851.47 kN.m/m it has been calculated by the engineers at the site. This value is lower than the maximum moment calculated in analytical design which is -949.158 kN.m/m, due to the filling of soil layer was not finished yet and the surcharge load was not applied yet. That means the additional weight of layer caused increasing in moment value.

A convergent results of moment values that results from the same surcharge load value

14.4 kN/m2 can be noticed from the (Table 10). The maximum bending moment results

from analytical calculations is -949.158 kN.m/m and the maximum bending moment results from numerical analysis is -938.56 kN.m/m this is a desirable convergence.

(48)

47

Figure 34: Total and horizontal displacements with respect to the stage of numerical analysis

The displacements at the numerical analysis increased when applied a load and safety numerical method took place, as shown in (Figure 34). The safety numerical method of analysis is decreasing the stiffness of the soil material and that results the increasing in the displacements. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 Total Displacement Horizontal Displacement Displacement (cm) Phase number Phase one Phase two Phase three

(49)

48

Figure 35 :Horizontal displacement for the three phases of numerical analysis (Figure 35) shown the horizontal displacement along the sheet pile wall at the three phases of the numerical analysis. At the contra-flexural point there is no displacement, and above it the horizontal displacement towards the sea side, while under the contra- flexural point the horizontal displacement towards the active side of the sheet pile wall (Figure 35). 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 Horizontal Displacement Phase One Horizontal Displacement Phase Two Horizontal Displacement Phase Three Horizontal displacement (m) Sheet Pile Wall Height (m)

(50)

49

Figure 36: Bending moment diagram for the three phases of numerical analysis With the increasing of load at stage two (phase two). The bending moment is increasing due to that load (Figure 36). And when the safety numerical analysis started at third stage (phase three) of analysis the moment was increasing due to the decreasing in the stiffness parameters of the soil material.

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 -5000 -4000 -3000 -2000 -1000 0 1000 2000 3000 Bending Moment Phase one Bending Moment Phase Two Bending Moment Phase Three Bending Moment (kN.m/m) Sheet Pile Wall Height (m)

(51)

50 7 Discussion

The displacements results is within the allowable limit. From (Table 10) the horizontal displacement is 11.6 cm. While Goldgerg, Jaworski, and Gordon (1976) stated in their book that the maximum horizontal displacement for this kind of soil and steel sheet pile must not exceed 14.9 cm. And that makes the displacements results in present study acceptable.

While in a look to (Table 10) the maximum bending moment field, it illustrated the maximum bending moment is -2473 kN.m/m. And this occurred when the safety calculation method were used during the numerical analysis at plaxis computer program.

This method decreased the stiffness parameters of the soils layers under the 50 kN/m2

load until failure occur. That meant when the load is 50 kN/m2 and the bending moment

is -1032 kN.m/m (Table 10), the steel sheet pile wall and the soil mass was in a stable condition and interact successfully. Because the maximum bending moment doesn't reach to the maximum bending moment value at the failure condition which is -2473 kN.m/m. Gavle port used the (SCDM) material as a backfill for the sheet pile wall. The main objectives of this study was to evaluate the interaction of stabilized contaminated dredged sediments (SCDM) with the sheet pile wall. It focused on two results to compare the displacement and the maximum bending moment. Its proved from applying the load at the analytical calculations and numerical simulation that, the sheet pile wall with the underpinned steel rod, the anchor rod, the backfill (SCDM), the gravel layer and the boulders layer. They all work together successfully and can withstand the lateral effective pressure produced by the self weight of the soils layer and the facilities might will build over them in the future.

The value of the applied load as it is illustrated at second analysis step is 50 kN /m2. That

means about 36 kN/m2 is additional weight, because the gravel layer surcharge load value

is 14 kN/m2.As an example of live and dead load of normal concrete structure buildings

is about 18 kN/m2 per storey. That will lead as to a conclusion of this area of the port, which filled with (SCDM), could withstand the loads applied by two storey concrete structure buildings.

(52)

51 8 Conclusion

The uncertainties about this study is that, the stiffness parameters of the (SCDM) layer increasing as a function of the time, and that means it could be very strong and could extend more loads. This will make these results could be more suitable for the initial state. In addition, in the future there is a need for doing more investigation to measure, monitor and calculate the geotechnical parameters of the (SCDM) layer.

The convergences between the results of the analytical and numerical calculation makes the plaxis program reliable for further calculation and can give dependable results, but it is always better to use the analytical calculations to have more certainties results. The estimated value of deflection and maximum bending moment will give a wider perceptions about the real case. Thus, the sheet pile wall and the (SCDM) layer interact successfully, and it can withstand additional applied load.

From (Table 10) above, the increasing in load steps result in increasing in total and horizontal displacement in sheet pile wall. This table enables us to predict the horizontal displacement will occur related to the specific load magnitude. Moreover, it can reflect that the increasing in load and /or decreasing of stiffness parameters of soils layer will cause increasing in displacements and maximum bending moment.

The displacements values are within the acceptable limits as stated in the discussion section. and the maximum bending moment value is lower than the value of the maximum bending moment at the failure condition, that makes the study can judge that the steel sheet pile and the (SCDM) soil layers interact successfully.

(53)

52 9 Future research

In this study, the two dimensional properties of the sheet pile wall was studied, and the geotechnical parameters of a stabilized contaminated dredged material layer was evaluated and calculated. It would be preferable to do more field test and measurements to evaluate the geotechnical parameters of the (SCDM) layer by the time. Because this layer is gaining more stiffness and become stronger in a function of time. In addition a three dimensional modeling could give a more accurate and reliable results for the long-term consistence of this structure, soils and sheet pile.

(54)

53 References

ArcelorMittal. Project Foundation Solution (2012). Retrieved October 08, 2012. Available at

http://www.arcelormittal.com/projects/europe/foundationsolutions/EN/sheet_pili ng/AZ_sections/AZ37-700.htm

Avdelning Teknik Sektion Väg-& Geoteknik, Vägverket (1994). Jords hållfasthets och deformationsegenskaper.Retrieved October 08, 2012. Available at

http://publikationswebbutik.vv.se/upload/5457/1994_15_jords_hallfasthet_och_ deformationsegenskaper.pdf

Clayton, C.R.I., Milititsky, J., & Woods, R. I. (1993). Earth Pressure and Earth-retaining

Structures, 2nd ed., Blackie Academic & Professional, London, 1993.

De Groot, M.B., (1999). GeotechnicalAspects. Retrieved August 12, 2012. Available at http://www.repository.tudelft.nl/assets/uuid:ce9ec158.../ProverbsVol2b.pdf Lambe, T., & Robert, V. (1969). Soil Mechanics, New York.

Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K.,&Powell, J.J.M. (1997).Cone penetration testing in geotechnical practice, Blackie Academic & Professional, London.

Maher, A., Bennert, T., Gucunski, N., Jafari, F., &Douglass, S. (2003). Dredge Material Evaluation and Utilization Plan for New Jersey. Retrieved October 08, 2012.

Available at https://cait.rutgers.edu/files/SROA-RU3971_0.pdf

Murad, Y., Abu-Farsakh, Xinbao Yu, &Gautreau, G. (2011) . Control of Embankment Settlement Field Verification on PCPT Prediction Methods. Retrieved August

23, 2012. Available at http://www.ltrc.lsu.edu/pdf/2011/fr_476.pdf

Robertson, P. K., & Cabal, K.L. 4th ed. (2010).Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. Retrieved August 12, 2012. Available at http://www.cpt-robertson.com/pdfs/cptguide4thedition2010.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation/FHWA (1984).Steel Sheet Piling Design Manual. Retrieved October 08, 2012. Available at

http://www.mcipin.com/publications/sheetpiles/USSteel_1984-SteelSheetPiles.pdf

Goldgerg, D.T., Jaworski, W. E., Gordon, M. D. (1976). Lateral Support Systems and Underpinning. Retrieved October 16, 2012. Available at

(55)

54 Appendix

Table 1.Appendix Data from well P11-01 part 1

Depth ρ σvo σ'vo qt ft Bq

From to t/m3 kpa kpa kpa kpa

0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.4 1.8 5.3 5.3 0.4 0.6 1.8 8.8 8.8 0.6 0.8 1.8 12.4 12.4 0.8 1 1.8 15.9 15.9 1 1.2 1.8 19.4 19.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 23 23 1.4 1.6 1.8 26.5 26.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 30 30 1.8 2 1.8 33.6 33.6 0 2 2.2 1.8 37.1 37.1 0.05 2.2 2.4 1.8 40.6 38.6 0.07 2.4 2.6 1.8 44.1 40.1 0.1 2.6 2.8 1.45 47.3 41.3 0.15 2.8 3 1.45 50.2 42.2 0.2 3 3.2 1.45 53 43 0.2 3.2 3.4 1.45 55.9 43.9 0.23 3.4 3.6 1.45 58.7 44.7 0.25 3.6 3.8 1.45 61.6 45.6 0.27 3.8 4 1.45 64.4 46.4 0.29 4 4.2 1.3 67.1 47.1 265 9.8 0.31 4.2 4.4 1.45 69.8 47.8 275 15 0.45 4.4 4.6 1.3 72.5 48.5 275 17 0.35 4.6 4.8 1.6 75.3 49.3 300 20 0.35 4.8 5 1.45 78.3 50.3 285 17.5 0.3 5 5.2 1.6 81.3 51.3 425 25 0.3 5.2 5.4 1.6 84.5 52.5 475 22 0.3 5.4 5.6 1.3 87.3 53.3 325 19 0.3

(56)

55

5.6 5.8 1.3 89.9 53.9 300 15 0.4 5.8 6 1.45 92.6 54.6 475 15 0.4 6 6.2 1.6 95.5 55.5 500 33 0.4 6.2 6.4 1.45 98.5 56.5 250 22 0.35 6.4 6.6 1.45 101.4 57.4 250 21 0.35 6.6 6.8 1.3 104.1 58.1 375 22 0.35 6.8 7 1.6 106.9 58.9 550 14 0.3 7 7.2 1.6 110.1 60.1 650 22 0.25 7.2 7.4 1.6 113.2 61.2 575 56 0.2 7.4 7.6 1.6 116.3 62.3 900 53 0.15 7.6 7.8 1.6 119.5 63.5 550 32 0.3 7.8 8 1.3 122.3 64.3 325 22.5 0.45 8 8.2 1.45 125 65 250 20 0.4 8.2 8.4 1.3 127.7 65.7 300 30 0.4 8.4 8.6 1.45 130.4 66.4 375 25 0.35 8.6 8.8 1.6 133.4 67.4 475 27 0.3 8.8 9 1.3 136.3 68.3 325 23 0.5 9 9.2 1.6 139.1 69.1 325 15 0.45 9.2 9.4 1.6 142.2 70.2 475 18 0.4 9.4 9.6 1.3 145.1 71.1 375 20 0.5 9.6 9.8 1.45 147.8 71.8 300 13 0.6 9.8 10 1.6 150.8 72.8 275 11 0.65 10 10.2 1.6 153.9 73.9 275 15 0.8 10.2 10.4 1.6 157.1 75.1 275 13 0.85 10.4 10.42 1.3 158.7 75.6 275 13 0.85 Avg. value 81.91667 48.48889 382.5758 21.69091 0.350455

(57)

56

0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.4 1.8 5.3 5.3 0.4 0.6 1.8 8.8 8.8 0.6 0.8 1.8 12.4 12.4 0.8 1 1.8 15.9 15.9 1 1.2 1.8 19.4 19.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 23 23 1.4 1.6 1.8 26.5 26.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 30 30 1.8 2 1.8 33.6 33.6 0 2 2.2 1.8 37.1 37.1 0.01 2.2 2.4 1.8 40.6 38.6 0.1 2.4 2.6 1.8 44.1 40.1 0.15 2.6 2.8 1.45 47.3 41.3 0.17 2.8 3 1.45 50.2 42.2 0.2 3 3.2 1.45 53 43 0.23 3.2 3.4 1.45 55.9 43.9 0.25 3.4 3.6 1.45 58.7 44.7 0.26 3.6 3.8 1.45 61.6 45.6 0.3 3.8 4 1.45 64.4 46.4 0.4 4 4.2 1.45 67.1 47.1 220 10 0.4 4.2 4.4 1.3 69.9 47.9 275 17 0.4 4.4 4.6 1.45 72.6 48.6 350 18 0.4 4.6 4.8 1.3 75.3 49.3 400 21 0.4 4.8 5 1.45 78 50 400 25 0.35 5 5.2 1.6 81 51 400 25 0.3 5.2 5.4 1.6 84.2 52.2 450 27 0.2

(58)

57

5.4 5.6 1.3 87 53 350 23 0.2 5.6 5.8 1.6 89.9 53.9 350 30 0.4 5.8 6 1.45 92.9 54.9 250 16 0.4 6 6.2 1.6 95.8 55.8 500 17 0.4 6.2 6.4 1.45 98.8 56.8 375 20 0.4 6.4 6.6 1.45 101.7 57.7 250 24 0.3 6.6 6.8 1.3 104.4 58.4 450 25 0.4 6.8 7 1.6 107.2 59.2 500 22 0.5 7 7.2 1.6 110.4 60.4 500 19 0.2 7.2 7.4 1.6 113.5 61.5 510 38 0.12 7.4 7.6 1.85 116.9 62.9 750 50 0.2 7.6 7.8 1.3 120 64 500 35 0.4 7.8 8 1.3 122.5 64.5 300 20 0.5 8 8.2 1.45 125.2 65.2 300 18 0.5 8.2 8.4 1.45 128.1 66.1 300 23 0.4 8.4 8.6 1.45 130.9 66.9 450 20 0.3 8.6 8.8 1.6 133.9 67.9 650 27 0.3 8.8 9 1.6 137 69 500 30 0.4 9 9.2 1.3 139.9 69.9 500 30 0.45 9.2 9.4 1.45 142.6 70.6 500 18 0.45 9.4 9.6 1.45 145.4 71.4 450 18 0.53 9.6 9.8 1.6 148.4 72.4 350 15 0.5 9.8 10 1.45 151.4 73.4 350 12 0.7 10 10.2 1.6 154.4 74.4 350 12 0.8 10.2 10.4 1.6 157.5 75.5 350 10 0.9 10.4 10.43 1.8 159.4 76.2 350 11 0.9 Avg. value 82.08889 48.65926 408.4848 22 0.365227

(59)

58

Table 3.Appendix Data from well P11-03

0 0.2 0 0 0 0.2 1.95 1.8 15.5 15.5 1.95 3.05 1.8 40.6 35.1 3.05 3.8 1.45 55.7 40.9 3.8 4 1.45 62.4 42.9 250 22 0.55 4 4.2 1.45 65.3 43.8 250 20 0.55 4.2 4.4 1.45 68.1 44.6 250 23 0.45 4.4 4.6 1.45 71 45.5 250 23 0.4 4.6 4.8 1.45 73.8 46.3 250 30 0.4 4.8 5 1.3 76.5 47 400 40 0.4 5 5.2 1.3 79 47.5 500 40 0.4 5.2 5.4 1.45 81.7 48.2 350 18 0.4 5.4 5.6 1.3 84.4 48.9 350 30 0.6 5.6 5.8 1.6 87.3 49.8 400 20 0.5 5.8 6 1.6 90.4 50.9 190 20 1 6 6.2 1.6 93.6 52.1 190 20 0.8 6.2 6.4 1.6 96.7 53.3 190 18 0.6 6.4 6.6 1.45 99.7 54.2 250 20 0.5 6.6 6.8 1.6 102.7 55.2 510 23 0.4 6.8 7 1.6 105.8 56.3 350 30 0.3 7 7.2 1.3 108.7 57.2 350 40 0.2 7.2 7.4 1.6 111.5 58 650 60 0.1 7.4 7.6 1.3 114.4 58.9 500 60 0.4 7.6 7.8 1.6 117.2 59.7 350 30 0.35 7.8 8 1.3 120 60.5 400 30 0.4 8 8.2 1.3 122.6 61.1 400 30 0.6 8.2 8.4 1.6 125.4 61.9 400 25 0.5 8.4 8.6 1.6 128.6 63.1 500 25 0.4 8.6 8.8 1.3 131.4 63.9 350 18 0.7 8.8 9 1.6 134.3 64.8 500 25 0.5 9 9.2 1.6 137.4 65.9 500 25 0.6 9.2 9.4 1.45 140.4 66.9 350 10 0.8 9.4 9.6 1.6 143.4 67.9 250 17 0.85 9.6 9.8 1.6 146.5 69 250 17 0.85 9.8 10 1.6 149.7 70.2 250 17 0.85 10 10.11 1.6 152.1 71.1 250 20 1 Avg. value 98.16111 52.725 349.375 26.4375 0.542188

(60)

59

Table 4.Appendix Data from well P11-04

3.5 3.7 1.6 58.6 42.1 500 25 0.3 3.7 3.9 1.6 61.7 43.2 500 16 0.4 3.9 4.1 1.6 64.9 44.4 500 17 0.4 4.1 4.3 1.6 68 45.5 500 17 0.3 4.3 4.5 1.6 71.1 46.6 500 26 0.3 4.5 4.7 1.6 74.3 47.8 500 23 0.3 4.7 4.9 1.6 77.4 48.9 500 23 0.3 4.9 5.1 1.6 80.6 50.1 500 21 0.3 5.1 5.3 1.6 83.7 51.2 500 20 0.3 5.3 5.5 1.6 86.8 52.3 500 25 0.3 5.5 5.7 1.6 90 53.5 500 15 0.3 5.7 5.9 1.6 93.1 54.6 500 16 0.3 5.9 6.1 1.6 96.3 55.8 500 20 0.3 6.1 6.3 1.6 99.1 56.6 500 25 0.3 6.3 6.5 1.6 102 57.5 500 25 0.3 6.5 6.7 1.6 105.1 58.6 500 20 0.3 6.7 6.9 1.6 108.2 59.7 700 23 0.3 6.9 7.1 1.6 111.4 60.9 550 30 0.3 7.1 7.3 1.85 114.8 62.3 800 50 0.1 7.3 7.5 1.6 118.1 63.6 600 30 0.2 7.5 7.7 1.3 121 64.5 400 20 0.2 7.7 7.9 1.3 123.5 65 400 20 0.2 7.9 8.1 1.3 126.1 65.6 500 27 0.2 8.1 8.3 1.3 128.6 66.1 500 25 0.2 8.3 8.5 1.6 131.5 67 650 25 0.2 8.5 8.7 1.6 134.6 68.1 450 17 0.3 8.7 8.9 1.3 137.5 69 450 17 0.3 8.9 9.1 1.6 140.3 69.8 450 20 0.3 9.1 9.3 1.6 143.4 70.9 450 16 0.4 9.3 9.5 1.45 146.4 71.9 450 10 0.5 9.5 9.7 1.45 149.3 72.8 350 10 0.5 9.7 9.9 1.3 152 73.5 350 10 0.4 9.9 10.03 1.6 154.3 74.1 350 10 0.5 Avg. value 97.82632 54.86842 497.0588 20.85294 0.302941

(61)

60

Table 5.Appendix Data from well P21-01 part 1.

0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.4 1.8 5.3 5.3 0.4 0.6 1.8 8.8 8.8 0.6 0.8 1.8 12.4 12.4 0.8 1 1.8 15.9 15.9 1 1.2 1.8 19.4 19.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 23 23 1.4 1.6 1.8 26.5 26.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 30 30 1.8 2 1.8 33.6 33.6 2 2.2 1.8 37.1 37.1 0.2 2.2 2.4 1.8 40.6 40.6 0.2 2.4 2.6 1.8 44.1 42.1 0.2 2.6 2.8 1.45 47.3 43.3 0.2 2.8 3 1.45 50.2 44.2 0.2 3 3.2 1.45 53 45 0.2 3.2 3.4 1.45 55.9 45.9 0.2 3.4 3.6 1.45 58.7 46.7 0.2 3.6 3.8 1.45 61.6 47.6 0.2 3.8 4 1.45 64.4 48.4 0.3 4 4.2 1.45 67.2 49.2 400 10 0.5 4.2 4.4 1.45 70.1 50.1 400 10 0.5 4.4 4.6 1.45 72.9 50.9 400 10 0.5 4.6 4.8 1.45 75.8 51.8 400 10 0.5 4.8 5 1.45 78.6 52.6 400 10 0.5 5 5.2 1.3 81.3 53.3 450 20 0.5 5.2 5.4 1.3 83.9 53.9 450 20 0.25 5.4 5.6 1.6 86.7 54.7 700 20 0.25

(62)

61

From to t/m3 kpa kpa kpa kpa

5.6 5.8 1.85 90.1 56.1 500 50 0.4 5.8 6 1.3 93.2 57.2 400 20 0.5 6 6.2 1.6 96 58 400 15 0.75 6.2 6.4 1.6 99.2 59.2 400 15 0.6 6.4 6.6 1.6 102.3 60.3 400 15 0.78 6.6 6.8 1.6 105.5 61.5 400 15 0.65 6.8 7 1.45 108.4 62.4 400 16 0.74 7 7.2 1.6 111.4 63.4 400 10 0.75 7.2 7.4 1.6 114.6 64.6 400 8 0.55 7.4 7.6 1.6 117.7 65.7 650 10 0.45 7.6 7.8 1.6 120.9 66.9 500 50 0.48 7.8 8 1.3 123.7 67.7 500 12 0.5 8 8.2 1.6 126.5 68.5 500 25 0.4 8.2 8.4 1.6 129.7 69.7 500 30 0.4 8.4 8.6 1.3 132.5 70.5 500 30 0.5 8.6 8.8 1.6 135.4 71.4 500 10 0.5 8.8 9 1.6 138.5 72.5 500 23 0.5 9 9.2 1.6 141.7 73.7 700 20 0.5 9.2 9.4 1.45 144.6 74.6 500 10 0.7 9.4 9.6 1.6 147.6 75.6 500 10 0.5 9.6 9.8 1.6 150.8 76.8 500 40 0.5 9.8 10 1.6 153.9 77.9 500 20 0.6 10 10.2 1.6 157.1 79.1 400 7 0.8 10.2 10.4 1.6 160.2 80.2 400 5 1 10.4 10.6 1.6 163.3 81.3 400 5 1.5 10.6 10.8 1.6 166.5 82.5 400 5 0.75 10.8 10.86 1.6 168.5 83.2 400 5 0.5 Avg. value 85.81964 52.04643 461.4286 16.88571 0.497778

(63)

62

Table 6.Appendix Data from well P21-02 part 1 .

0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0.2 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.4 1.8 5.3 5.3 0.4 0.6 1.8 8.8 8.8 0.6 0.8 1.8 12.4 12.4 0.8 1 1.8 15.9 15.9 1 1.2 1.8 19.4 19.4 1.2 1.4 1.8 23 23 1.4 1.6 1.8 26.5 26.5 1.6 1.8 1.8 30 30 1.8 2 1.8 33.6 33.6 2 2.2 1.8 37.1 37.1 2.2 2.4 1.8 40.6 40.6 2.4 2.6 1.8 44.1 42.1 0 2.6 2.8 1.45 47.3 43.3 0.1 2.8 3 1.45 50.2 44.2 0.1 3 3.2 1.45 53 45 0.2 3.2 3.4 1.45 55.9 45.9 0.2 3.4 3.6 1.45 58.7 46.7 0.25 3.6 3.8 1.45 61.6 47.6 0.25 3.8 4 1.45 64.4 48.4 0.25 4 4.2 1.45 67.1 49.1 300 15 0.5 4.2 4.4 1.45 69.8 49.8 300 13 0.5 4.4 4.6 1.45 72.6 50.6 300 13 0.5 4.6 4.8 1.45 75.5 51.5 300 10 0.15 4.8 5 1.3 78.2 52.2 400 18 0.2 5 5.2 1.6 81 53 500 24 0.22 5.2 5.4 1.6 84.2 54.2 700 33 0.3 5.4 5.6 1.6 87.3 55.3 750 50 0.3 5.6 5.8 1.65 90.4 56.4 500 35 0.6

(64)

63

5.8 6 1.45 93.4 57.4 400 20 0.6 6 6.2 1.45 96.3 58.3 400 20 0.6 6.2 6.4 1.6 99.3 59.3 400 20 0.68 6.4 6.6 1.6 102.4 60.4 250 25 0.5 6.6 6.8 1.45 105.4 61.4 300 20 0.5 6.8 7 1.45 108.3 62.3 250 10 0.5 7 7.2 1.45 111.1 63.1 450 13 0.5 7.2 7.4 1.6 114.1 64.1 600 40 0.25 7.4 7.6 1.85 117.5 65.5 800 75 0.5 7.6 7.8 1.45 120.7 66.7 400 40 0.3 7.8 8 1.3 123.4 67.4 250 25 0.25 8 8.2 1.3 126 68 350 40 0.17 8.2 8.4 1.6 128.8 68.8 475 55 0.15 8.4 8.6 1.3 131.7 69.7 300 35 0.13 8.6 8.8 1.6 134.2 70.2 500 15 0.12 8.8 9 1.3 137 71 550 15 0 9 9.2 1.3 139.9 71.9 500 13 0 9.2 9.4 1.3 142.4 72.4 450 13 0.12 9.4 9.6 1.3 145 73 450 12 0.05 9.6 9.8 1.3 147.5 73.5 350 30 0.05 9.8 10 1.3 150.1 74.1 250 18 0.5 10 10.2 1.6 152.9 74.9 250 10 1 10.2 10.4 1.6 156.1 76.1 200 10 3 10.4 10.6 1.9 159.5 77.5 250 10 2 10.6 10.75 1.6 162.5 78.8 250 10 1 Avg. value 83.65818 50.82727 402.2059 23.67647 0.430714

(65)

64

0 0.14 0 0 0 0.14 2.15 1.8 17.7 17.7 2.15 3.05 1.8 43.4 38.9 3.05 3.7 1.45 56 43.8 3.7 3.9 1.3 61.9 45.4 450 15 0.3 3.9 4.1 1.3 64.5 46 450 20 0.35 4.1 4.3 1.45 67.2 46.7 450 20 0.35 4.3 4.5 1.3 69.9 47.4 450 20 0.35 4.5 4.7 1.3 72.4 47.9 450 25 0.35 4.7 4.9 1.6 75.2 48.7 500 30 0.35 4.9 5.1 1.6 78.4 49.9 1400 40 0.35 5.1 5.3 1.85 81.8 51.3 1000 35 0.15 5.3 5.5 1.6 85.2 52.7 500 28 0.3 5.5 5.7 1.6 88.3 53.8 500 10 0.35 5.7 5.9 1.3 91.1 54.6 500 10 0.37 5.9 6.1 1.6 94 55.5 500 20 0.33 6.1 6.3 1.6 97.1 56.6 500 25 0.3 6.3 6.5 1.3 100 57.5 500 22 0.3 6.5 6.7 1.6 102.8 58.3 500 10 0.35 6.7 6.9 1.6 106 59.5 500 7 0.36 6.9 7.1 1.6 109.1 60.6 500 25 0.3 7.1 7.3 1.85 112.5 62 1200 90 0.23 7.3 7.5 1.6 115.9 63.4 700 40 0.25 7.5 7.7 1.3 118.7 64.2 500 20 0.23 7.7 7.9 1.3 121.3 64.8 500 35 0.18 7.9 8.1 1.6 124.1 65.6 500 45 0.2 8.1 8.3 1.6 127.2 66.7 500 40 0.3 8.3 8.5 1.3 130.1 67.6 500 30 0.25 8.5 8.7 1.6 132.9 68.4 500 30 0.16 8.7 8.9 1.6 136.1 69.6 500 25 0.21 8.9 9.1 1.6 139.2 70.7 500 20 0.35

(66)

65

9.1 9.3 1.45 142.2 71.7 500 17 0.35 9.3 9.5 1.6 145.2 72.7 500 22 0.32 9.5 9.7 1.3 148 73.5 500 3 0.4 9.7 9.9 1.45 150.7 74.2 500 4 0.4 9.9 10.1 1.45 153.6 75.1 500 6 0.45 10.1 10.3 1.45 156.4 75.9 500 5 0.33 10.3 10.5 1.3 159.1 76.6 500 10 0.2 10.5 10.6 1.85 161.3 77.3 500 12 0 Avg. value 103.5 57.7641 558.5714 23.31429 0.294857

0 0.14 0 0 0 0.14 2.15 1.8 17.7 17.7 2.15 3.05 1.8 43.4 38.9 3.05 3.2 1.45 52.5 42.7 3.2 3.4 1.45 55.1 43.6 3.4 3.6 1.3 57.6 44.1 500 17 0.3 3.6 3.8 1.3 60.2 44.7 500 14 0.4 3.8 4 1.3 62.7 45.2 500 11 0.4 4 4.2 1.45 65.4 45.9 500 10 0.42 4.2 4.4 1.45 68.3 46.8 500 10 0.42 4.4 4.6 1.45 71.1 47.6 500 10 0.4 4.6 4.8 1.3 73.8 48.3 500 23 0.25 4.8 5 1.3 76.4 48.9 500 30 0.15 5 5.2 1.6 79.2 49.7 650 25 0.15 5.2 5.4 1.6 82.4 50.9 575 40 0.15