geopier foundation co inc t e c h n i c a l p a p e r

N1

o.

CASE HISTORIES OF RAMMED AGGREGATE PIER SOIL REINFORCEMENT CONSTRUCTION O V E R P E A T A N D H I G H LY O R G A N I C S O I L S

A B S T R A C T:

In the past five years, a number of projects on peat and highly organic subsoil sitesranging from a four-

story bank headquarters building in the Cayman Islands, to single story warehouses and two to four story residential and commercial structures built in the United Stateshave been successfully and economically supported on a Rammed Aggregate Pier system. In this system, very stiff and highly densified, short aggregate pier elements are installed in cavities made within the very soft peat and highly organic soil layers. Although the peat soils are penetrated by the pier cavities, the pier bottoms often terminate on soft and compressible, underlying inorganic soils. The resulting composite bearing material of stiff piers and adjacent, soft matrix soils, is substantially stiffer than the unimproved matrix soil. Settlements of shallow foundations bearing on this improved composite bearing material are typically designed and controlled to maximum settlements of 25 mm (1 in) or less. This paper presents methods for analyzing and estimating settlements of footings supported by Rammed Aggregate Pier soil reinforcement, along with specific discussions related to peat and highly organic soils. Design parameters for Rammed Aggregate Pier design are verified by full-scale modulus load tests. Three projects are discussed, with modulus load test data and subsurface information presented for each project.

1. introduction

Rammed Aggregate Pier systems have been successfully installed on numerous major project sites within the United States within a wide variety of soil conditions exclusive of peat soils, over a time span of over ten years.

The purpose of this paper is to present selected case histories of projects with peat. Generalized construction and design methods for Rammed Aggregate Pier systems are described by Lawton, et al. (1994) and Wissmann and Fox (2000).

2. first case history

In 1997, a three story wood framed Assisted Living facility structure was planned for construction in the city of Sumner, Washington (United States) on a site containing peat soils. Cone Penetration Tests (CPTs) taken to depths of 18.3 m (60 ft) located no reliable strata capable of supporting deep foundations to those depths. Driven piles would have to extend to depths greater than 18.3 m (60 ft). Alternative support methods of overexcavation and replacement of the soft organic silts and peat, and of traditional vibro-replacement stone columns, were rejected because of groundwater problems and anticipated poor reinforcement, respectively.

trol settlements of a moderately light structure to such close tolerances, when the matrix soils contained appreciable volumes of compressible peat and organic silts. Two other projects are briefly discussed, one with similar peat and organic silt zones, while the other was underlain by stiffer, fibrous peat and highly organic silt soils. The range of capacities and performances achieved by this soil reinforcement method for these three projects is considered to be representative of what can be expected in other locations containing limited depths of peat and organic soils.

G E OT E C H N I CA L A N D

A geotechnical engineer and principal with Geopier Foundation Company, Northwest proposed a Value Engineering (VE) alternative, using the patented (US and European patents), Geopier Rammed Aggregate Pier method to reinforce the soils to make a stiffer, composite, pier-matrix soil bearing support zone. This composite material would support high bearing pressure, shallow spread footings. The proposal included design of footings to control settlements to less than 25 mm (1 in), and the performance of a full-scale, modulus load test to verify assumptions made regarding Geopier element stiffness modulus.

F O U N DAT I O N C H A L L E N G E S

When the deep cone penetration data showed no reliable support for deep foundation systems extending to depths of 18 m (60 ft), shallow, five-meter (15 ft) soil borings with Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed to provide more detailed soil information. Subsurface conditions encountered consisted of a 0.4 m (1.3 ft) zone of topsoil, underlain by soft layers of organic silts interbedded with layers of peat extending to depths ranging between 2.3 to 5.3 m (7.5 to 17.5 ft) below grade (Figure 1). The organic silt and peat zones were underlain by loose to firm sand and soft to firm sandy silt with some thin lenses of peat which were

Shallow foundations designed with a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 216 kPa (4,500 psf), and supported by a system of Geopier Rammed Aggregate Pier elements, were subsequently designed and constructed. Observations indicate that total settlement of the structure has been less than the design settlement of 25 mm (1 in). This paper discusses how it was possible to con-

150 mm (6 in) thick and less. Temporary (perched) groundwater was found at a depth of about 1.5 m (5 ft), while permanent groundwater was found at a depth of 2.5 to 3 m (8.3 to 10 ft) below grade. The shallow depth to groundwater eliminated the practical use of massive over-excavation and replacement techniques for this site.

page two

Figure 1. Soil Profile, Sumner, Washington.

LOG OF BORING B-1
DEPTH, m GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

silt, sandy, soft to firm 1.5 m 2 silt, slightly plastic, soft

peat, very soft

5.5 m sand, silty, loose to firm 6

sand, clayey, loose to firm 8 sand, silty, loose to firm

10

F O U N DAT I O N A LT E R N AT I V E S

of the soft conditions, limited support capacities, and length of elements, costs of the deep foundations were estimated to be on the order of $50 to $70 U.S. per ton of load, approximately three times the typical cost of normal construction. Over-excavation (Option B) was deemed impractical because of shallow groundwater and difficult dewatering conditions. Vibro-replacement Stone Columns were ruled out because of capacity limitations in peat and organic soils. A system of Rammed Aggregate Piers (Option D) was considered and eventually selected for foundation support. This system spreads

The structure, with lightly loaded bearing walls and columns, needed to be supported on a foundation system capable of limiting settlements to approximately 25 mm (1 in). Foundation systems initially considered are presented in Figure 2. Conventional spread footings (Option A), even if designed for low bearing pressures of 48 kPa (1,000 psf), were estimated to settle approximately 400 mm (16 in), with settlement occurring over a period of several years.

Based on past experience in the general site location, deep foundations (Option C) were estimated to be on the order of 24 to 30 m (80 to 100 ft) long. Because

the load similar to that afforded by option B, while eliminating groundwater problems and providing a lighter surcharge to supporting soils.

page three

Figure 2. Four Foundation Options in Peat.

A. SHALLOW FOUNDATION B. EXCAVATION AND REPLACEMENT C. PILE FOUNDATION GWT D. RAMMED AGGREGATE PIERS

PEAT

SELECT FILL

INORGANIC SOILS

ZONE OF MATRIX SOIL IMPROVEMENT

HARD OR DENSE ZONE

A G G R E G AT E P I E R C O N S T R U C T I O N

footings was 216 kPa (4500 psf), while footing bearing pressure for bearing wall footings was about 144 kPa (3000 psf). As shown on Figure 1, the bottom of the drilled cavity and the bottom of the bottom bulb terminated in compressible soft and loose soil materials; the pier shafts were not extended to a stiff or dense layer. The piers are typically designed to improve the composite stiffness of the upper layer in which the footing-induced stresses are the highest, in order to control the long term footing settlements to meet design criteria of 25 mm (1 in).

The aggregate piers for the Assisted Living facility were made by drilling 762 mm (30 in) diameter holes to depths of 5 m (16.5 ft) from ground surface and 4 m (13 ft) below footing bottoms. A small volume of clean stone (crushed stone without fines, maximum diameter 50 mm or 2 in) was placed at the bottom of each drilled cavity. This aggregate was then densified with a high-energy impact rammer (not vibration energy), to form a bottom bulb (Figure 3). An undulated-sided pier shaft was formed in 300 mm (12 in) thick lifts using well-graded highway base course stone, that was again, highly densified by the ramming action of the patented, beveled, tamper head.

During densification, with the beveled impact tamper head, stone is pushed laterally into the sidewalls of the cavities. This action causes an increase in the lateral

The piers were designed and constructed to underlie approximately 35% of the footprint area of the overlying footings. Footing bearing pressure for isolated column

stress of the matrix soils, thus providing additional stiffening of the matrix soil and additional stiffening of the composite pier-soil system.

page four

Figure 3. Construction Process.

1. DRILL A CAVITY

2. PLACE CLEAN STONE AT BOTTOM OF CAVITY

3. MAKE A BOTTOM BULB

4. BUILD GEOPIER SHAFT WITH 0.3 m THICK LAYERS OF HIGHWAY BASE AGGREGATE

F O O T I N G - P I E R - M AT R I X S O I L I N T E R A C T I O N

approach is that the footing is perfectly rigid compared with the matrix soil and the Geopier element.

The aggregate pier soil reinforcement method substantially increases the bearing capacity of the reinforced Estimates of settlement components from the Lower matrix zone and significantly reduces foundation settleZone soils are computed using conventional geotechniments. Settlement calculations are made using a two-zone cal settlement analysis methods that rely on estimating method, estimating settlement contributions from the the degree of load spreading below the footing and Upper Zone (the aggregate pier-matrix soil zone) and from estimating the compressibility of the soils. The analysis the underlying Lower Zone, and adding the two contribuincludes the assumption that vertical stress intensity tions together to provide an estimate of total settlements. within the Lower Zone is the same as that of a bare footing without the stiffened Upper Zone, using solutions The Upper Zone analysis method uses a spring analogy for a footing supported by an elastic half-space. This and considers the stiff pier acting as a stiff spring, while assumption is considered to be conservative because the the less stiff matrix soil acts as a soft spring (Lawton et al. presence of the stiff pier results in a stress concentration 1994). The equation derived to express the Upper Zone on the pier, and a more efficient stress transfer with settlement component is: s = (q Rs /(RaRs + 1 - Ra))/kgp, where q is the composite footing bearing pressure, Rs is the Geopier element to soil stiffness ratio, Ra is the ratio of Geopier area to footing area, and kgp is the Geopier stiffness modulus. The basic assumption inherent in the depth below the footing bottoms than what would occur for conventional bare footings. This has been shown during full-scale pier-supported footing tests that were instrumented with pressure cells (Lawton, 1999).

page five

P I E R M O D U L U S L OA D T E S T S

are based on the top of pier stress at design load. Telltales placed at bottom of the load test pier shaft (top of bottom bulb), provide supplemental information relating to bottom of pier movements and mechanical behavior of pier under load at different load intensities.

Full-scale load tests on single Rammed Aggregate Pier elements are performed to provide a conservative measure of the pier stiffness modulus value, kgp. Tests are performed by placing a circular steel plate (or concrete cap) equal in diameter to that of the drilled pier, on top of the constructed pier element, and then applying pressure in gradual increments. The maximum applied pressure in most tests is 150% of the design stress computed for the top of the aggregate pier element under full load. Composite footing settlement estimates

Results of the modulus load test for the Assisted Living facility site are shown on Figure 4. Tell-tales were not installed for this test. The measured pier stiffness modulus value exceeded the criterion needed for settlement control for this project.

Figure 4. Modulus Load Test, Sumner, Washington.

STRESS (kN/m )
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

10

DEFLECTION (mm)

15

20

25

30

35

40

page six

3. characteristics of peat and organic soils that lend to the use of geopier soil reinforcement

Soils identified as peat vary from a fibrous vegetative material that when dried is suitable for mulch or for fuel, to finely divided semi-carbonized organic material intermixed and interlayered with mineral soils, in particular, sands and silts. The behavior of individual aggregate pier elements in peat soil is analogous to the behavior of a cylinder of granular material in a triaxial compression test. The strength of the cylinder depends only on the friction angle of the material and the amount of confining pressure afforded by the surrounding media. The friction angle of the aggregate pier stone has been measured to be greater than 50 degrees from results of full-scale field tests (Fox and Cowell, 1998). This high friction angle, which results from the unique construction method of the piers, is the basis for the high strength of the piers. The amount of pier deflection during loading depends on the amount of bulging of the pier into the soft soil layer. Because the peat soil is prestrained horizontally during aggregate pier construction, lateral bulging deflections are minimized during compression loading of the structure (Handy, 2000, Wissmann and Fox, 2000).

consolidation. Presence of fibers induces both some anisotropy and internal reinforcement. These effects are reflected in strength parameters and lateral earth pressure transfer.

Based on an interpretation of the data generated by them as well as those reported in the literature regarding lateral earth pressure and strength testing of peats and organic soils, Edil and Wang (2000) report the following findings.

1 . Coefficient of earth pressure at-rest (Ko) for normally

consolidated peats is typically lower than for inorganic soils. It does not depend on organic content but depends on fiber content. Broadly, it can be taken equal to 0.49 for amorphous peats and 0.33 for fibrous peats.

2 . The effective angle of friction () for normally consolidated peats, as determined from consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests, does not appear to depend on organic content or type of peat. It varies

Shear strength and coefficient of earth pressure at-rest are two mechanical properties that are commonly required in design of embankments and other structures over such soils. Various investigators have studied these properties of peats and organic soils and the reported results indicate important differences in behavior from inorganic soils both qualitatively and quantitatively. Because of the capacity of these materials to retain high water contents, they are generally weak in their natural states but significant strength gain is achievable with

between 40 to 60 with an average value of 53. It is lower for organic soils (~ 41). Effective cohesion is, in general, small for peats.

3 . Normalized undrained strength (cu/3c or cu/1c)

for normally consolidated peats, as determined from isotropically or anisotropically consolidated undrained triaxial compression tests, does not appear to depend on organic content, type of peat, or type or level of consolidation (isotropic or anisotropic).

page seven

4 . The normalized undrained strength varies between

0.5 and 0.7 with an average value of 0.59, and seems to be lower for organic soils. Normalized undrained strength (cu/v) from field tests confirm the same independence from organic content or type of peat but give generally higher values.

significantly reduced. Consolidation tests on peats show that compression index decreases as consolidation stress increases significantly (about 40% reduction) (Dhowian and Edil, 1980). Subsequently, when the footing loads are applied on the composite pier-matrix peat system, the matrix peat will be loaded vertically resulting in a reversal of stress path relative to lateral loading

4 . Review of strength data implies a shift in behavior

as organic content increases from about 20 to 25% to higher values. Therefore, an upper classification border can be proposed for organic soils at 20 to 25% loss on ignition on the basis of geotechnical considerations.

during construction. It will behave as a recompressed overconsolidated material. The recompression index of peat is nearly 10 times lower than its virgin compression index (Dhowian and Edil, 1980). As long as it is not excessively loaded, the compression of peat will be relatively small.

The properties of peats and organic soils summarized above were based on laboratory investigations. Nevertheless the reported behavior has significant implications for the Rammed Aggregate Pier system. This system causes an increase in strength of matrix soil through a process of densification/consolidation, lateral stress increases, and prestressing. The matrix soil elements adjacent to the pier are subjected to significant lateral stresses, which tends to increase the average normal stress and should result in consolidation of these elements. Peats typically exhibit higher hydraulic conductivities than clays and presence of an aggregate column allows horizontal drainage. Therefore, the consolidation process is expected to occur rather rapidly. As consolidation takes place, the average effective stresses would rise in the matrix peat resulting in rapid shear strength gain as implied by items 2 and 3 above, i.e., due to high effective friction angle and normalized undrained strength.

The effects described above have been described for soils by Lawton et al. (1994). Handy (2000) described a reinforcement factor, defined as the ratio of the coefficient of passive earth pressure to the coefficient of earth pressure at-rest. This factor indicates the degree to which the matrix soil would be vertically overstressed due to lateral compaction during installation of Rammed Aggregate Piers. He shows that this factor depends on effective friction angle and can be 4 to 6 for typical clays and sands. Until footing loading exceeds the vertical overstress, the matrix soil would compress elastically like in the recompression range as opposed to virgin compression. The same general trend is expected for peats with however significant differences in magnitude. Peats typically have higher effective friction angles. Therefore, they have high coefficients of passive lateral earth pressure compared to clays or sands (7.5 versus 2.5 to 3). Peats also have lower coefficients of earth pressure at rest (0.3 to 0.4) compared to sands and clays (0.5 to 0.7). This combination of high passive and

As matrix peat consolidates after installation of a Rammed Aggregate Pier, its compressibility will be

low at-rest earth pressure coefficients would result in much higher levels of reinforcement factors in peats

page eight

and organic soils compared to clays and sands, i.e., 2 to 12 times more than inorganic soils as a result of installing Rammed Aggregate Piers. The case history described above supports this expectation. The modulus load test showed small settlements and no significant creep and relaxation effects. Next two case histories, as well as several others not reported here, indicate that presence of soft organic soils and peats does not

diminish the performance of Rammed Aggregate Piers. It is noted that in these cases Rammed Aggregate Piers penetrated fully through the major peat and organic soil layers. Currently, the long-term behavior at sites where Rammed Aggregate Piers partially penetrate peat deposits or at sites where peats are very soft surficial deposits, is not known because such installations have not yet been undertaken.

4. summaries of two additional case histories

The Rammed Aggregate Pier system was also used to stabilize somewhat similar subsurface conditions, with soft, highly organic silt and interbedded layers of peat, for a warehouse project in Salem, Oregon. This was a large, single story, warehouse facility with total footprint area of about 11,150 m2 (120,000 ft2). The subsurface conditions included a peat layer about 1.5 m (5 ft) thick, interbedded within very soft, fibrous organic silt soil layers. Groundwater was encountered at depths of 1 to 2.5 m (3 to 8.3 ft).

relatively heavy, and on the order of 29 kPa (600 psf). The concept for pier support was to design a grid of piers to support the live loads, and additional piers to support column footings and wall footings. The square grid spacing for slab support was at approximately 2.5 m (8 ft) centers. A total of 357 piers was installed in about two weeks.

Pier capacities were confirmed by modulus load test results. Individual Geopier cell capacities of 25 tons were used in design. The soil reinforcement method was

Insufficient subsurface information was available to design deep foundations at the time of the Rammed Aggregate Pier feasibility study. Shallow groundwater and very soft subsoils, eliminated the practicability of using the over-excavation and replacement method. The presence of peat and highly organic, fibrous silt, eliminated consideration of stone columns. Rammed Aggregate Pier soil reinforcement was deemed the best and most economical solution.

designed to minimize differential settlements and to prevent structural distress to the buildings. A second advantage of the system was to accelerate the settlements.

Actual live loads applied, were approximately 50% higher than originally designed, and about 43 kPa (900 psf). Yet the Rammed Aggregate Pier system performed well, and the large warehouse structure, including slab and walls, experienced no structural distress. Differential settlements were controlled to less than a slope of 1:300. The

Column loads for the structure were light, on the order of 35 tons per column. Live loads planned for slabs were

subsurface profile is shown in Figure 5a and the modulus load test results of this project are shown on Figure 5b.

page nine

Figure 5a. Soil Profile, Salem, Oregon.

LOG OF TEST PIT 6
DEPTH, m GRAPHIC LOG

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

fill, clayey silt with debris (glass, brick, concrete) silt with organics, soft 2 peat, very soft

0.8 m

clayey silt, soft to stiff 5.0 m

10

Figure 5b. Modulus Load Test, Salem, Oregon.

STRESS (kN/m )
0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
2

10

DEFLECTION (mm)

15

20

25

30

35

40

page ten

A Rammed Aggregate Pier system was also used to support a four-story office building in Beaverton, Oregon at a site containing highly organic and peat soils. The highly organic soils were not as soft and weak as those in the previous two example projects were, and represent fibrous peat and organic silts, with tested moisture contents less than 60%. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) resistances for peat soils at this site varied from 3 to 6 blows per foot, in comparison with SPT resistances from zero to 2 blows per foot existing at the previous two project sites.

value of 336 kPa (7000 psf). Tension pier elements were designed to resist uplift forces from earthquakes. The required uplift capacity of 14 tons per pier was confirmed by a full-scale pier tensile load test. The tensile load test resulted in a 15 mm (0.6 in) deflection at a tensile load of 30 tons.

The building experienced excellent settlement performance, with observed total settlements of less than 20 mm (0.8 in). The subsurface profile is shown on Figure 6a. The modulus load test as shown on Figure 6b, included a tell-tale located at the bottom of the pier shaft, that pro-

Column loads were moderately heavy for this four-story office building, and ranged from 50 to 400 tons. Modulus load tests confirmed capacities of 40 tons per pier for the relatively long piers up to 7 m (23 ft) in length. Piers penetrated the fills and soft highly organic silt and peat soils, and extended into medium stiff sandy silts and medium dense silty sands. Allowable composite footing bearing pressure was confirmed at the relatively high

duced supplemental information on pier behavior during increased load intensity. This tell-tale data indicated that the pier did not bulge appreciably during increased load intensity. The pier provided significant side friction to resist essentially full load up to a stress intensity of about 960 kPa (20,000 psf) top of pier stress, before the soils underlying the bottom bulb began to compress and consolidate under additional stress.

Figure 6a. Soil Profile,

LOG OF BORING B-1
DEPTH, m GRAPHIC LOG

Portland, Oregon.

MATERIAL DESCRIPTION

fill, silt with gravel

0.6 m

peat, soft silt, organic, soft

4 silt, firm to stiff 4.9 m

10

page eleven

Figure 6b. Modulus Load Test, Portland, Oregon.

STRESS (kN/m )
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Tell-Tale DEFLECTION (mm)

10

15

20

25

5. overall experience with rammed aggregate pier reinforcement in peats and highly organic soils

Observations after having installed over one-thousand, Rammed Aggregate Pier elements in subsurface soils containing limited thickness of peat and highly organic silts, and penetrating such materials with the pier cavities and subsequent pier shafts, show that soil reinforcement has been effective at controlling footing settlements to a total of less than 25 mm (1 in) in very soft peat and highly organic soils, with SPT resistances as low as zero to 2 blows per foot. Cell capacities of the Rammed Aggregate Piersurrounding matrix soil, is typically about 20 to 25 tons for the poorer peat and highly organic silt soils. For stiffer, fibrous organic silts and peat, with SPT resistances of 3 to 6 blows per foot,

higher cell capacities of up to approximately 40 tons are possible, depending on underlying soil characteristics and results of confirmation modulus load tests. Installations of tell-tales at the bottom of pier shafts in stiffer peat and organic silt, show that pier behavior under increasingly high stress intensities is similar to that of non-organic soils, where bulging is less likely to occur, and stress resistance is transferred to the bottom bulb under high stress intensity. Future installations of tell-tales in softer peat and highly organic soils are expected to show similar pier behavior to that found in non-organic, very soft clays, where bulging occurs under increasingly high applied stress intensity.

page twelve

The costs of aggregate pier reinforcement in peat and highly organic silt soils of limited depth and thickness can be expected to vary with different pier cell capacities and site conditions. In the U.S., Rammed Aggregate Pier costs for soil reinforcement within peat and highly

organic silt soils, have typically been on the order of $14 to $20 per ton for the softer peat soils, and $8 to $12 per ton for stiffer peat and organic soils. Thicknesses and depths of peat layers to be penetrated also influence costs.

6. summary and conclusions

The three described projects are each reinforced by a patented Rammed Aggregate Pier system, known as Geopier, supporting high capacity spread footings. Each of the projects contains soft and compressible peat and organic silt soils of limited depth and thickness. This special soil reinforcement method was selected for these three projects because of successful experience in its use in similar soils, the sound soil mechanics and engineering judgment used for design, and because of the excellent economics associated with this solution. The following statements summarize this method applied to these three projects:

3 . The aggregate piers extended through the major

peat and highly organic silt layers, and terminated on soft or loose soil strata in two projects, one of which included thin peat lenses in underlying soils. In the third project (the office building) a stiff sublayer was present.

4 . Assumed pier stiffness modulus values were confirmed by field modulus load tests. Modulus values were similar for the first two (softer soil) projects, at about 33.9 MN/m3 (125 pci), and were substantially higher for the third project, in stiffer peat and highly organic silt soils, at 78.7 MN/m3 (290 pci).

1 . Four to 7 m long (13 to 23 ft long), aggregate piers

replaced deep piles estimated to be on the order of 24 m (80 ft) or greater, for the 3 described projects.

5 . Settlements of supported footings for the two structures without heavy slab area loads, were observed to be less than 25 mm (1 in). Differential settlements

2 . Isolated and continuous shallow footings constructed

above the Rammed Aggregate Pier elements were successfully designed for composite bearing pressures of 216 kPa (4500 psf) to 336 kPa (7000 psf), depending on stiffness of peat and organic silts, and on the character of the underlying soils.

of the heavily loaded warehouse floor slab were controlled to slopes of less than 1:300.

6 . Costs of the foundation systems for these three projects are estimated to be from about 20% to 30% of the costs of deep foundations. In some cases, the foundation savings allowed the projects to be built.

page thirteen

references
Dhowian A.W. and Edil, T.B. 1980, Consolidation behavior of peats, ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal, 3 (3), pp. 105-114. Edil, T.B. and X. Wang, Shear strength and Ko of peats and organic soils, Geotechnics of High Water Content Materials, ASTM STP 1374, T.B. Edil and P.J. Fox, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000, 209-225. Fox, N.S. and M.J. Cowell (1998). Geopier Soil Reinforcement Manual, Geopier Foundation Company, Inc., 11421 East Aster Drive, Scottsdale, AZ. Handy, R.L. (2000). Does lateral stress really influence settlement? Journal of Geotechncial and Geoenvironmental Engineering. ASCE. Paper submitted for publication. Lawton, E.C., N.S. Fox, and R.L. Handy (1994). Control of settlement and uplift of structures using short aggregate piers. In-Situ Deep Soil Improvement, Proc. ASCE National Convention, Atlanta, Georgia. 121-132. Lawton, E.C. (1999). Performance of Geopier Foundations during simulated seismic tests at South Temple Bridge on Interstate 15, Salt Lake City, Utah. Interim Report No. UUCVEEN 99-05, University of Utah, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Salt Lake City, Utah. Wissmann, K.J. and N.S. Fox (2000). Design and analysis of Short Aggregate Piers used to reinforce soils for foundation support. Proceedings, Geotechnical Colloquium, Technical University Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany, March 25, 2000.

acknowledgement
This Technical Paper was prepared by Nathaniel S. Fox, President, Geopier Foundation Company, Inc., 11421 East Aster Drive, Scottsdale, AZ 85259 and Tuncer B. Edil, Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environ. Engr., Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706.

2000 Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.

geopier team
Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. 8283 North Hayden Road, Suite 291 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258 Telephone: (480) 998.3522 Facsimile: (480) 998.3542 e-mail: geopier6@aol.com Web: www.geopiers.com Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. 515 Sunrise Drive Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 Telephone: (540) 951.8076 Facsimile: (540) 951.8078 e-mail: kordw@earthlink.net Geopier Foundation Company, Northwest 40 Lake Bellevue, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98005 Telephone: (425) 646.2995 Facsimile: (425) 646.3118 e-mail: jamesj@geopier.com Geopier Foundation Company, Northwest 3234 Southeast 39th Avenue Portland, Oregon 97202 Telephone: (503) 236.1334 Facsimile: (503) 236.5404 e-mail: johnm@geopier.com Web: www.geopier.com Geopier Foundation Company of Northern California 685 Placerville Drive, PMB # 382 Placerville, California 95667 Telephone: (530) 621.4867 Facsimile: (530) 621.4837 e-mail: 4tom@farrellinc.com Web: www.geopiernca.com Geopier Foundation Company, West 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 253.5853 Facsimile: (949) 752.9318 e-mail: info@geopier.com Web: www.geopier.com Geopier Foundation Company, Utah 4001 South 700 East, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84107 Telephone: (801) 269.8012 Facsimile: (801) 264.6601 e-mail: jamesj@geopier.com Peterson Contractors, Inc. Box A, 104 Blackhawk Reinbeck, Iowa 50669 Telephone: (319) 345.2713 Facsimile: (319) 345.2991 e-mail: corkpci@staroute.com The Pro Firm 1334 NW 141st Drive Clive, Iowa 50325 Telephone: (515) 223.9326 Facsimile: (515) 225.4483 e-mail: geopier1@msn.com Foundation Service Corp. Box 23, 302 Blackhawk Reinbeck, Iowa 50669 Telephone: (319) 345.2277 Facsimile: (319) 345.2658 e-mail: djclark@sbtek.net Geopier Foundation Company, MidSouth, LLC 9160 Highway 64, Suite 12 Lakeland, Tennessee 38002 Telephone: (901) 309.3363 Facsimile: (901) 309.3373 e-mail: geopier@worldnet.att.net Geopier Foundation Company, Houston 4425 Kingwood Drive, PMB # 65 Houston, Texas 77339 Telephone: (281) 913.1804 Facsimile: (281) 913.1805 e-mail: tlw90@aol.com Geopier Foundation Company, Southeast 112 Park Street Adairsville, Georgia 30103 Telephone: (770) 773.9744 Facsimile: (770) 773.9844 e-mail: dlgilmor@bellsouth.net GeoStructures, Inc. and GeoConstructors, Inc. 107 Loudoun Street, SE Leesburg, Virginia 20175 Telephone: (703) 771.9844 Facsimile: (703) 771.9847 e-mail: geostructures@erols.com