The settlement analysis was subSettlement during the loading stage and after the full load was achieved. ratios (Cεr), which pertain to normally consolidated and over consolidated behavior from oedometer tests, respectively. The following expression can be adopted for this purpose: Equivalent = The composite elastic modulus value is computed based on a weighted average of the elastic modulus values of the rammed aggregate pier elements (Eg) and matrix soil (Em). Settlements within the lower zone are computed using conventional geotechnical settlement methods. Where Po' is the initial vertical effective stress at the center of the layer and ΔP is the change in pressure at the center of the layer. Elastic Modulus Values and Settlement for Each Layer Layer Soil Type New Fill Sand Crust Soft Silt Sand Sand Total Elevation (m) +5 to +3 +3 to 0 0 to -7 -7 to -10 Below -10 H (m) 2 3 7 3 ΔP (kPa) 117 70 33 19 CPT qc (MPa) 15 15 0.7 7 >20 Em (MPa) 60 60 6 (average) 28 80 Eg (MPa) 235 235 110 --Ecomp (MPa) 67 67 10 --Settlement (mm) 3.5 3.1 22.3 2.0 0.0 30.9 DEEP FOUNDATIONS * JAN/FEB 2024 * 91 The following conclusions can be drawn after conclusion of the load test and pier modulus back calculation: The high permeability of the gravel likely facilitated radial drainage into the piers and provided a rapid drainage pathway to alleviate excess pore pressures. divided into five representative layers for greater accuracy. The area replacement ratio (Ra) was 4.2% based on the pier diameter of 0.6 m (2 ft) and square spacing of 2.6 m (8.5 ft) on-center. The CPT tip resistances were used to obtain the soil elastic modulus Em in granular soils, whereby the post-installation qc values were used for the upper zone. The soft silts were estimated to be lightly over consolidated between Elevation 0 and -5 m (0 and -16 ft) and normally consolidated below elevation -5 m (16 ft) after placement of 2.1 m (7 ft) of new fill. A compression ratio of Cεc=0.2 and recompression ratio of Cεr=0.03 were used in the normally consolidated and over consolidated portions of loading, respectively. A 2:1 (V:H) stress distribution with depth was adopted. The parameters and settlement for each layer are summarized in the table below. Conclusion