(Japan) Ocdi PDF

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN
Chapter 2 Items Common to Facilities Subject to Technical Standards

1 Structural Members
Ministerial Ordinance
Performance Requirements for Structural Members Comprising the Facilities Subject to the Technical
Standards
Article 7
1 The performance requirements for structural members comprising the facilities subject to the Technical
Standards shall be such that the functions of the facilities concerned are not impaired and the continuous
use of them is not affected by damage due to the actions of self weight, earth pressure, water pressure,
variable waves, water currents, Level 1 earthquake ground motions, collision with floating objects, and/or
other actions in light of the conditions of the facilities concerned during construction and in service.
2 In addition to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the performance requirements for the structural
members comprising the facilities of which there is a risk that damage may seriously affect human lives,
property, and/or socioeconomic activity following a disaster shall be as specified in the subsequent items:
(1) In the event that the functions of the facilities concerned are impaired by damage due to tsunamis,
accidental waves, Level 2 earthquake ground motions, and other actions, the structural stability of
the facilities concerned shall not be affected significantly. Provided, however, that in the performance
requirements for the structural members comprising the facilities in which further improvement of
performance is necessary due to environmental conditions, social circumstances and other reasons
to which the facilities concerned are subjected, the damage due to said actions shall not affect the
restoration through minor repair works of the functions of the facilities.
(2) In the performance requirements for structural members comprising facilities which are required to
protect the landward side of the facilities concerned from tsunamis, the damage due to tsunamis, Level
2 earthquake ground motions, and/or other actions shall not affect restoration through minor repair
works of the functions of the facilities concerned.
3 In addition to the provisions of the preceding paragraph 1, the performance requirements for the structural
members comprising high earthquake-resistance facilities shall be such that the damage due to Level 2
earthquake ground motions or other actions do not affect restoration through minor repair works of the
functions required of the facilities concerned in the aftermath of the occurrence of Level 2 earthquake
ground motions. Provided, however, that the structural members comprising the facilities in which higher
earthquake-resistant performance is required due to environmental conditions and social circumstances
surrounding the facilities concerned shall maintain the functions required of the facilities concerned in the
aftermath of the occurrence of Level 2 earthquake ground motions for the continuous use of the facilities
without impairing their functions.
4 In addition to the provisions of the preceding three paragraphs, necessary matters concerning the
performance requirements for the structural members comprising facilities subject to the Technical
Standards shall be provided by the Public Notice.
Public Notice
Structural Members Comprising the Facilities Subject to the Technical Standards
Article 21
The items to be specified by the Public Notice under paragraph 4 of Article 7 of the Ministerial Ordinance
concerning the performance requirements of structural members comprising the facilities subject to the
Technical Standards shall be as provided in the subsequent article through Article 28.
Performance Criteria Common to Structural Members
Article 22
1 The performance criteria common to structural members comprising the facilities subject to the Technical
Standards shall be as specified in the subsequent items:
(1) The structural members comprising the facilities of which damage may induce serious impact on
364
PART III FACILITIES, CHAPTER 2 ITEMS COMMON TO FACILITIES SUBJECT TO TECHNICAL STANDARDS
human lives, property, or socioeconomic activity shall contain the degree of the damage owing to
the accidental actions in the accidental action situation, of which the dominant actions are tsunamis,
accidental waves, or Level 2 earthquake ground motions, at the level equal to or less than the threshold
level corresponding to the performance requirements.
(2) The structural members comprising the facilities which are required to protect the landward side from
tsunamis shall contain the degree of the damage owing to the accidental actions in the accidental action
situation, of which the dominant actions are tsunamis or Level 2 earthquake ground motions, at the
level equal to or less than the threshold level.
2 In addition to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the performance requirements for the structural
members comprising the high earthquake-resistance facilities shall be such that the degree of the damage
owing to the accidental actions in the accidental action situation, of which the dominant action is Level 2
earthquake ground motions, is contained at the level equal to or less than the threshold level corresponding
to the performance requirements.
3 In cases where the effects of scouring of the seabed and sand outflow on the integrity of structural members
may impair the stability of the facilities, appropriate countermeasures shall be taken.
[Technical Note]
1.1 General
1.1.1 Basic Policy on Performance Verification
(1) This section describes verification of the structural performance of reinforced concrete members, prestressed
concrete members, and steel-concrete composite members. These provisions may also be applied to non-reinforced
concrete members and other similar members, considering their characteristics.
(2) Performance verification of structural members can be performed by substituting the limit state of the structural
members based on the performance criteria specified from the performance requirements in the facilities. In this
case, it may be generally performed by substituting either the ultimate limit state and the serviceability limit state,
or the fatigue limit state. These respective limit states are defined as follows.
Limit state for cross-sectional failure due to maximum load (ultimate limit state).
Limit state for functional nonconformance due to actions that frequently occurs during the design working life
(serviceability limit state).
Limit state for failure due to repeated action acting during the design working life similar to the ultimate limit
state (fatigue limit state).
(3) W hen examining the safety of members by the limit state design method, it is necessary to set appropriate values
for the following five partial factors; namely, a material factor, a load factor, a structural analysis factor, a member
factor, and a structure factor, considering the characteristics of the facilities, the characteristics of the materials
and actions, etc. corresponding to the limit state.
1.1.2 Examination of Ultimate Limit State
(1) Examination of the ultimate limit state of cross-sectional failure can be performed by confirming that the value
obtained by multiplying the ratio of the design force resultant Sd to the design cross-sectional capacity Rd by the
structure factor i is 1.0 or less, as below

(1.1.1)
The design force resultant Sd can be obtained by calculating the force resultant S (S is a function of Fd) using
the design load Fd, and multiplying by structural analysis factor a,

(1.1.2)
The design cross-sectional resistance Rd can be obtained by calculating the resistance R (R is a function of fd)
of the member cross section using the design strength fd, and dividing by the member factor b as follows:

(1.1.3)
365
1.1.3 Examination of Serviceability Limit State
(1) Verification of the compressive stress of concrete in the permanent situation can be performed using Equation
(1.1.4).

where
c : compressive stress generated in concrete by permanent action (N/mm 2)
fck : characteristic value of compressive strength of concrete (N/mm 2)
(1.1.4)
(2) Examination for Crack caused by Bending

Verification of cracks caused by bending can be performed using equation (1.1.5).

where
w : crack width (mm)
wa : limit value of crack width (mm)
(1.1.5)
The width w of a crack caused by bending can be calculated using equation (1.1.6).

(1.1.6)
where
k1 : coefficient expressing the influence of surface profile of reinforcing bars on crack width (in case
of deformed bars = 1.0)
k 2 : coefficient expressing the influence of quality of concrete on crack width

fc : compressive strength of concrete (N/mm 2)
k 3 : coefficient expressing the influence of number of layers of tensile bars on crack width

n
c
c s

E s
csd
: number of layers of tensile bars

: concrete cover (mm)
: distance between centers of reinforcing bars
: diameter of tensile reinforcing bar; nominal diameter of the smallest reinforcing bar (mm)
: Youngs modulus of reinforcing bar (N/mm 2)
: compressive strain for considering increase in crack width due to concrete shrinkage, creep,
etc. In general cases, on the order of 150x10 -6; in case of high strength concrete, a value around
100x10 -6 may be used.
se : stress increment of reinforcing bar near the surface of member (N/mm 2)
The increment of reinforcing bar stress se can be obtained using equation (1.1.7), assuming the cross section is
in the elastic range.
where
Md

k
n
pw
d
bw
A s
(1.1.7)
: design value of flexural moment in examination of serviceability limit state (N/mm)

j=1-k/3
: neutral axis ratio (
)
: Youngs modulus ratio ( = Es/Ec)
: ratio of reinforcement to concrete sections ( = As/bwd)
: effective height (mm)
: width of member (mm)
: cross-sectional area of reinforcing bars (mm 2)
366
In general, the limit values of the crack width are listed in Table 1.1.1 based on Standard Specifications for
Concrete Structures [Structural Performance Verification]. Provided, however, that the applicability of this
table shall be limited to concrete cover of 100mm or less.
Table 1.1.1 Limit Values of Crack Width Caused by Bending wa
Environmental condition
Deformed bar/plain bar
Prestressing steel
Particularly severe corrosion

environment
0.0035c
Corrosion environment
0.004c
Ordinary environment
0.005c
0.004c
(c denotes for cover depth.)
Here, particularly severe corrosion environment is applied in the case of exposure to severe marine
environments, for example, in the case of outside reinforcing bars of caissons and reinforcing bars on the
downside of pier superstructures. Corrosion environment can be applied to other cases than these, but
ordinary environment may also be applied in cases where pavement is laid, as in pier floor slabs, and a sealed
space, as in caisson compartments and the like.
Cracks in structural members due to causes other than the load acting on the structure, for example, cracks
originating in initial period defects, which do not close when the load is removed are excluded from application
of this method. Separate examination is necessary.
(3) Verification of Water-tightness
When water-tightness is required, verification can be performed using the crack width as an index. In this case, it
is necessary to specify the limit value of the crack width appropriately, considering the service conditions of the
facilities, the characteristics of loads acting on the facilities, etc.
In general, the limit values presented in Table 1.1.2 can be used, based on the Standard Specifications for
Concrete Structures [Structural Performance Verification].
Table 1.1.2 Limit Value of Crack Width wa for Water-tightness
Level of water-tightness requirement

Predominant
member force
High
Normal
Axial tension
*1)
0.1mm
Flexural bending*2)
0.1mm
0.2mm
*1) Concrete stresses due to stress resultant should be in compression at whole area. Minimum compressive stress should be greater than
0.5N/mm 2. In case that detailed analysis is carried out the value may be determined differently.
*2) Under the action of reversed cyclic loadings, the limit crack width should be determined in a manner similar to that under axial tension.
(4) In cases where the action of cargo handling equipment is comparatively large and deflection to an extent that will
hinder cargo handling can be expected, as in the superstructures of piers, a verification of serviceability shall be
made, using deflection as the index as necessary. The limit value of deflection in this case can be determined
referring to the performance of the crane and Specifications for Highway Bridges and Commentaries (Japan
Road Association).
1.1.4 Examination of Fatigue Limit State
(1) When variable actions account for a high percentage of all actions and the magnitude of variable actions is large,
examination for fatigue is necessary.
(2) In examination of the fatigue limit state, safety with respect to fatigue failure is judged by appropriately classifying
cyclic actions by rank, calculating the influence of each ranked action on fatigue failure, and totaling the influences
of all ranked actions. Safety with respect to fatigue failure is not only influenced by the magnitude of the action,
but is also greatly influenced by the number of repetitions of the action; therefore, the number of repetition must
be set appropriately. The influence of actions of a rank that does not cause fatigue failure when the number of
repetition exceeds 2x106 may be disregarded.
367
1.1.5 Examination of Change in Performance Over Time
(1) The performance possessed by structural members shall not fall below the required performance due to
deterioration of the materials or similar factors occurring during the design working life. Therefore, it is generally
necessary to verify the following items with regard to concrete and reinforcing bars. In existing facilities with
a design working life of about 50 years, examination of changes in performance over time can be omitted for
facilities which show no remarkable reduction of performance due to deterioration caused by chloride attack
during the design working life, provided the facilities satisfy the following conditions.
As the concrete cover for the outer side reinforcing bars (side in contact with sea water), a value equal to or
greater than the standard value for particularly severe corrosion environments specified in Table 1.1.4 shall be
set, and similarly, for the inner side reinforcing bars (side in contact with the filling), a value equal to or greater
than that for ordinary environments shall be set.
Concrete with the water-to-cement ratio specified in Table 3.2.2 of Part II, Chapter 11, 3.2 Concrete Quality
and Performance Characteristics shall be used as the maximum value.
Construction work shall be performed with care.
(2) Corrosion of Reinforcing Bars due to Carbonation.
Verification of corrosion of reinforcing bar due to carbonation may be performed using equation (1.1.8).
i yd / ylim 1.0
(1.1.8)
where
i : structure factor
yd : design value of carbonation depth (mm)
ylim : limit carbonation depth (mm)
The design value of carbonation depth yd can be calculated using equation (1.1.9).

(1.1.9)
where
cb
d

t
k
e

: partial factor considering deviation in the design carbonation yd. In general, 1.15 may be used.
: design value of carbonation rate coefficient (mmy-1/2)
d = k e c
: design working life (y)
: characteristic value of carbonation rate coefficient (mmy-1/2)
: coefficient considering environmental action.
In cases where port and harbor facilities are not exposed to remarkable drying conditions, 1.0
may be generally used; in case where facilities are exposed to easy-to-dry environment as
facing to the south, 1.6 may be used.
c : material factor of concrete; in general, 1.0 may be used.
The characteristic value of the carbonation rate coefficient d can be determined using Equation (1.1.10). The
predicted value of the carbonation rate of concrete shown here was obtained by regression equation 1) for
ordinary Portland cement or moderate heat Portland cement.

where
p : safety factor consider the accuracy of p. In general, 1.1 may be used.
p : predicted value of carbonation rate coefficient of concrete (mmy-1/2)
W/B : water-to-binder ratio of concrete
(1.1.10)
The limit carbonation depth for reinforcing bar corrosion ylim can be obtained using Equation (1.1.11).

where
c : design cover (mm)
(1.1.11)
368
ck : remaining depth carbonation (mm). In general, 25mm should be used in marine environments.
(3) Corrosion of Reinforcing Bars due to Penetration of Chloride Ions
The verification of reinforcing bar corrosion due to penetration of chloride ions can generally be performed
using Equation (1.1.12).

(1.1.12)
where
i : structure factor
Cd : design value of chloride ion concentration at the position of reinforcing bar (kg/m3)
Clim : limit value of chloride ion concentration for initiation of corrosion (kg/m3)
In verification of reinforcing bar corrosion by chloride ions, setting of various limit states is conceivable;
here, however, the limit state is defined as the situation when corrosion of the reinforcing bars occurs,
considering a safety side assessment and the fact that a comparative assessment is possible at the current
technical level.
The design value of the chloride ion concentration at the position of the reinforcing bars Cd can be obtained
using Equation (1.2.13).
where
C0
c
Dd
t
(1.1.13)
: chloride ion concentration at the surface of concrete (kg/m3)

: design concrete cover (mm)
: design diffusion coefficient of concrete for chloride ions (cm 2/y)
: design working life (y)
erf : error function (
It is preferable to set the chloride ion concentration at the surface of the concrete C0 based on actual data
measured under the environmental conditions similar to those at the location where the structural member is
to be installed. In cases where the distance between the water level (H.W.L.) and the bottom surface of the
members of the concrete superstructure of an open-type wharf is on the order of 0-2.0m, C0 can be set using
equation (1.1.14), based on the measured data in Reference 2).

(1.1.14)
where
C0 : chloride ion concentration at the surface of concrete (kg/m3); it shall not be less than 6.0kg/m3.
x : distance between H.W.L. and the bottom surface of the member (m)
The design diffusion coefficient for chloride ions Dd can be obtained using equation (1.1.15).

(1.1.15)
where
c : material factor of concrete. In general, it may be 1.0.
Dk : characteristic value of diffusion coefficient for chloride ions in concrete (cm 2/y)
D0 : constant expressing the effect of cracking on migration of chloride ions in concrete. In general,
it may be 200cm 2/y.
wa : limit value of crack width (mm)
w/ : ratio of crack width to crack interval
w/ = 3(se Es + csd )
se : increment of reinforcement stress (N/mm 2)
Es : Youngs modulus of reinforcing bars (N/mm 2)
csd : compressive strain for considering an increase in crack width due to concrete shrinkage and
creep, etc. It may be set in accordance with equation (1.1.6).
369
When the concrete which will actually be used is known in advance, the characteristic value of the diffusion
coefficient for chloride ions Dk in concrete shall be set by the experiments 3) using specimens prepared from the
concrete. In other cases, Dk may be set using equation (1.1.16).

When using ordinary Portland cement 1)
(1.1.16)

When using blast furnace cement or silica fume 1)
(1.1.17)

(1.1.18)
where
: adjusting factor; when using ordinary Portland cement, 0.65 may generally be used; 2) when
using blast furnace cement or silica fume, 1.0 may generally be used.
p : partial factor considering the accuracy of Dp. In general, 1.0 may be used.
Dp : predicted value of diffusion coefficient of concrete (cm 2/y)
The limit concentration of chloride ion to initiate corrosion of reinforcing bar Clim shall be set appropriately
considering the condition of similar structures, etc. In the cases where port and harbor facilities are constructed
in ordinary marine environments, and the concrete cover specified in 1.1.7 Details of Structures is satisfied,
Clim can generally be set at 2.0kg/m3. This is the lower limit of the chloride ion concentration for corrosion
initiation of reinforcing bars based on the results of experiments at the Port and Airport Research Institute
(PARI).4)
1.1.6 Partial Factors
The partial factors listed in Table 1.1.3 can be used in verification of structural concrete. This table presents
standard values for partial factors; if partial factors can be determined appropriately by other methods, those values
may be used.
370
Table 1.1.3 Partial Factors 5), 6), 7)
Concrete
1.3
Type of limit state

Serviceability
limit
1.0
Reinforcing bars and prestressing steel
1.0
1.0
1.05
Steel materials other than above
1.05
1.0
1.05
1.0-1.1
(0.9-1.0)
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0-1.2
(0.8-1.0)
1.0
1.0
Partial factor
Material factor m
Ultimate limit
Permanent action
Fatigue limit
1.3
Variable action
Wave force
Load factor f
Actions other than wave force

Accidental actions
1.0
Actions during construction
1.0
Structural analysis factor a
1.0
1.0
1.0
Member factor b
1.1-1.3
1.0
1.0
Structure factor i
1.0-1.2
1.0
Note 1) T he figures in parentheses in the table shall be applied to cases where the small action results in the large risk.
Note 2) The values below may be used for the member factor when examining the ultimate limit state.

When calculating flexual and axial capacity
: 1.1

When calculating upper limit of axial compressive capacity
: 1.3

When calculating shear capacity borne by concrete
: 1.3

When calculating shear capacity borne by shear reinforcing bars : 1.1
Note 3) T he values below may be used for the structure factor relating to the ultimate limit state.
Superstructure of
open-type wharf
Breakwater
Permanent
situation
1.2
1.1
1.0
Slab
Beam
Variable situation
1.2
1.1
1.1
Accidental
situation
1.0
1.0
1.0
Quaywall (caisson, etc.)
1.0
1.1
(only during
earthquake: 1.0)
1.0
Others (sheet pile superstructure, etc.)
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1.7 Structural Details

(1) Concrete Cover
The concrete cover secures the bond strength between reinforcing bars and concrete, which is a precondition
for verification of concrete structural members, and also has a large influence on durability. Accordingly, it
is necessary to set the concrete cover appropriately, considering the required durability, the functions of the
facilities, errors during construction work, etc.
The concrete cover should generally have values equal to or greater than those in Table 1.1.4. Provided, however,
that adequate consideration must be given to control of crack width when a concrete cover exceeds 100mm. In
performance verification, errors during construction work for the cover may not be considered subject to the
precondition on proper management and inspection during construction work.
Table 1.1.4 Standard Values of Concrete Cover
Environmental condition
Cover (mm)
Severe corrosion environment
70
Normal environment
50
371
Remarks
Parts in direct contact with sea water, and
parts washed with sea water,
parts exposed to severe sea breeze
Parts other than the above
The concrete cover specified in Table 1.1.4 may be reduced provided adequate examination is performed, for
factory-manufactured concrete products.
(2) Other structural details may conform to the Standard Specifications for Concrete Structures [Structural
Performance Verification].
372
1.2 Caissons
Public Notice
Performance Criteria of Caisson
Article 23
The performance criteria of a reinforced concrete caisson (hereinafter referred to as caisson in this article)
shall be as specified in the subsequent items in consideration of the type of the facilities:
(1) For the bottom slab and footing of a caisson, the risk of impairing the integrity of the bottom slab and
footing of the caisson shall be equal to or less than the threshold level under the permanent action
situation in which the dominant action is self weight and under the variable action situation in which the
dominant actions are variable waves, water pressure during floating, and Level 1 earthquake ground
motions.
(2) For the outer walls of a caisson, the risk of impairing the integrity of the outer walls of the caisson
shall be equal to or less than the threshold level for a permanent action situation in which the dominant
action is the internal earth pressure and under the variable action situation in which the dominant
actions are variable waves, water pressure during floating, and Level 1 earthquake ground motions.
(3) For partition walls of a caisson, the risk of impairing the integrity of the partition walls of the caisson
shall be equal to or less than the threshold level under the variable action situation in which the dominant
action is water pressure during installation.
(4) In the case of a caisson which requires flotation, the risk of overturning of the floating body during
flotation shall be equal to or less than the threshold level under the variable action situation in which
the dominant action is water pressure.
[Commentary]
(1) Performance Criteria of Caissons
As the performance criteria of caissons and indexes corresponding to design situations, items which
require performance verification shall be set appropriately depending on the type of facilities.
Bottom slab and footing (serviceability)
The performance criteria and indexes corresponding to design situations excluding accidental situations
for caissons are shown in accordance with design situations.
(a) Permanent situation in which dominating action is self weight
Among the performance criteria and indexes corresponding to design situations (excluding
accidental situations) for the bottom slab and footing of caisson, those for the permanent situation in
which the dominating action is self weight are as shown in the Attached Table 4.
Attached Table 4 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situation (permanent situation in which dominating action
is self weight) for Bottom Slab and Footing of Caisson
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
23
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Non-dominating
Situation Dominating
action
action
Serviceability Permanent Self weight Water pressure,

sub-grade
reaction,
surcharge, earth
pressure
Verification item
Index of standard limit value
Cross-sectional failure
of bottom slab and
footing
Design cross-sectional
resistance (ultimate limit
state)
Serviceability of cross
section of bottom slab
and footing
Limit value of bending

compressive stress
(serviceability limit state)
Extrusion of bottom
slab and footing from
partition wall (yield of
reinforcing bars)
Design yield stress
(b) Variable situation in which dominating action is variable wave

Among the performance criteria and indexes corresponding to design situations excluding
373
accidental situations for the bottom slab and footing of caisson, those for the variable situation in
which the dominating action is variable waves are as shown in the Attached Table 5.
Attached Table 5 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situation (variable situation in which dominating action is
variable waves) for Bottom Slab and Footing of Caisson
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
23
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Serviceability
Situation
Variable
Dominating
action
Verification item
Nondominating
action
Index of standard limit

value
Variable waves*1) Self weight,

water pressure,
sub-grade
reaction,
surcharge, earth
pressure
Cross-sectional
failure of bottom slab resistance (ultimate limit
and footing
state)
Extrusion of bottom
slab from partition
wall (yield of
reinforcing bars)
Design yield stress
Variable
waves*2)
Serviceability of
bottom slab and
footing
Limit value of crack

width due to bending
Cyclic action of
waves*3)
Fatigue failure of
bottom slab and
footing
Design fatigue strength

(fatigue limit state)
*1): Here, among waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.1 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be waves which are used in performance
verification of the structural stability of the objective facilities.
*2): Here, among the waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the wave having a height greater than the specified waves
which attack with a frequency on the order of 104 times during the design working life shall be used as a standard.
*3): Here, among the waves specified , Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be set appropriately depending on the
frequency of appearance in regard to wave height and wave period occurring during the design working life.
(c) Variable situations in which dominating action is water pressure during flotation and Level 1
earthquake ground motion
Among the performance criteria and indexes corresponding to design situations excluding
accidental situations for the bottom slab and footing of caisson, those for variable situations in which
the dominating actions are water pressure during flotation and Level 1 earthquake ground motion
are as shown in the Attached Table 6.
Attached Table 6 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situation (variable situations in which dominating actions
are water pressure during flotation and Level 1 earthquake ground motion) for Bottom Slab and Footing of Caisson
Item
Article
Paragraph
Paragraph
Design situation
Paragraph
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
Performance
requirements
23
Serviceability
Situation
Variable
Dominating
action
NonDominating
action
Water pressure Self weight

during Caisson
Verification item
Index of standard limit

value
Cross-sectional failure of Design cross-sectional

bottom slab and footing
resistance (ultimate
limit state)
Limit value of crack
section of bottom slab and width due to bending
footing
Level 1
Self weight,
Cross-sectional failure of Design cross-sectional
earthquake
water pressure, bottom slab and footing
resistance (ultimate
ground motion sub-grade
limit state)
reaction
Extrusion of bottom slab Design yield stress
from partition wall (yield
of reinforcing bars)
*1) Here, among waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.1 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be waves which are used in performance
*2) Here, among the waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the wave having a height greater than the specified waves
374
*3) Here, among the waves specified , Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be set appropriately depending on the
Outer walls (serviceability)

(a) The performance criteria and setting of design situations excluding accidental situations for the outer
walls of caissons are as shown in the Attached Table 7.
Attached Table7 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) of Outer Walls
of Caissons
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
23
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Situation
Serviceability Permanent Internal

earth
pressure
Variable
Verification item
NonDominating Dominating
action
action
Internal water Serviceability of cross

pressure
section of outer wall
Limit value of bending

compressive stress
Extrusion of outer wall

from partition wall
(yielding of reinforcing
bars)
Design yield stress
Cross-sectional failure of
outer wall*2)
resistance (ultimate limit state)
Limit value of crack width
due to bending (serviceability
limit state)
Variable
waves*1)
Variable
waves*3)
Internal water
pressure,
internal earth
pressure
Cyclic action
of waves*4)
Level 1
earthquake
ground
motion
Fatigue failure of outer

wall*2)
Internal water Cross-sectional failure of
pressure,
outer wall
internal earth
pressure
Water
pressure
during
flotation
Cross-sectional failure of
outer wall

state)
state)
Limit value of crack width
due to bending (serviceability
limit state)
*1): Here, among waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.1 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be waves which are used in performance
*2) Limited to outer walls affected by waves.
*3) Here, among the waves specified , Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the wave having a height greater than the specified waves
*4) Here, among the waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, waves shall be set appropriately depending on the
frequency of appearance in regard to the wave height and wave period occurring during the design working life.
Partition wall (serviceability)

(a) The performance criteria and the setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations) for the
partition walls of caissons are as shown in the Attached Table 8.
Attached Table 8 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) of Partition
Walls of Caissons
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
23
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Serviceability
Situation
Variable
Dominating
action
Water pressure
during
installation
NonDominating
action
Verification item
Cross-sectional
failure of partition
wall
state)
Serviceability of cross Limit value of crack

section of partition
width due to bending
wall
375
Caissons requiring flotation (serviceability)

(a) The performance criteria and setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations) for
caissons requiring flotation are as shown in the Attached Table 9.
Attached Table 9 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) of Caissons
Requiring Flotation
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
23
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Situation
Dominating
action
Serviceability Variable Water

pressure
Verification item
NonDominating
action
Self weight
Overturning of
floating body
Limit value for overturning
[Technical Note]
1.2.1 Fundamentals of Performance Verification
(1) The description presented here may be applied to the performance verification of structural members in ordinary
reinforced concrete caissons.
(2) For the concept for verification of structural members, 1.1 General may be used as reference.
(3) An example of the performance verification procedure for caissons is shown in Fig. 1.2.1.
Setting of design conditions
Assumption of dimensions of caisson members
Evaluation of actions
Performance verification
Permanent situation and variable situation relevant
torelated to waves, and Level 1 seismic motion
Verification of ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state, and fatigue limit state of outer walls *1
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of partition walls
Verification of ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state, and fatigue limit state of bottom slab
Verification of ultimate limit state, serviceability limit state, and fatigue limit state of footing
Verification of ancillaries
Determination of dimensions
*1 For outer walls which are not affected by waves, only verification of the serviceability limit state may be required.
*2 For the high earthquake-resistance facilities or facilities of which damage to the facilities is expected to have a serious impact on human
life, property, and social activity, it is preferable to perform, verification of accidental situations as necessary. Verification of the accidental
situation for waves is performed where hazardous cargo handling facilities are located immediately behind the objective facilities and
damage of the facilities is expected to have a serious impact.
Fig. 1.2.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Caissons
376
1.2.2 Determination of Basic Cross Section and Characteristic Values
(1) The dimensions of caisson members shall be determined in view of the following factors :
Capacity of caisson fabrication facilities
Draft of a caisson and the water depth at the place of installation (depth above the crown of foundation mound)
Floating stability
Working conditions during towing and installation : tidal currents, waves, wind, etc.
Working conditions after installation of caisson : filling, placing upper concrete, tidal currents, waves, wind, etc.
Differential settlement of mound
Bending and torsion acting on caisson.
(2) In many cases, dimensions of 0.3-0.6m for the thickness of caisson outer walls, 0.4-0.8m for the thickness of
the bottom slab, and 0.2-0.3m for the thickness of the partition walls are used.
(3) As the keel clearance depth during installation, it is common to set the difference between the draft of ordinary
caissons and the mound crown as 0.5m or more.
(4) For caissons which float unassisted, a cross section capable of securing stability during flotation is set.
Verification of the stability of the caisson while floating may be performed using equation (1.2.1) (see Fig.
1.2.2). This equation can be applied in cases where the caisson cross section is bilaterally symmetrical, and it
is considered that only comparatively slight inclination will occur in the caisson which afloat.
where
V
I
C
G
M
(1.2.1)
: displacement volume (m3)

: secondary moment of cross section around long axis at water level (m4)
: center of buoyancy
: center of gravity
: metacenter
Fig. 1.2.2 Stability of Caisson
For verification of stability in case of towing using a counterballast, equation (1.2.2) or (1.2.3) may be used.
(a) When using water as the counterballast:

(1.2.2)
(b) When using sand or stone or concrete as the counterballast:

377

(1.2.3)
where
i : moment of inertia of water surface in partition chambers about centerline parallel to axis of
rotation of caisson (m4)
', I', C', G' : respective values of positions when counterballast is used
V
1.2.3 Actions
(1) It is preferable that the combination of actions and load factors considered in performance verification be set
appropriately for each facility.
(2) The combination of actions and load factors may be set as follows.
The combinations of actions considered and the standard values of the load factors to be used for multiplying
the characteristic value in performance verification are shown in Table 1.2.1. Here, the footing may be treated
in the same manner as the bottom slab. The values in the upper rows of the respective boxes in the table are load
factors to be used when examining the ultimate limit state; the numerical values shown in square brackets are
load factors to be used when a small action induces a large impact. Most of these values were set considering the
relationship with external stability etc. by reliability analysis.5), 7) The figures in parentheses ( ) in the lower rows
of the respective boxes are load factors for examination of the serviceability limit state. For accidental situations,
a load factor of 1.0 may be used.
In recent years, reduction of the construction cost of breakwaters and other facilities by alleviating the
leveling accuracy of the rubble mound has been studied. However, if the leveling accuracy of the rubble mound is
alleviated, a reaction greater than that in case of the normal leveling accuracy 5cm will act on the caisson bottom
slab, and in this case, the values shown in Table 1.2.1 cannot be used. In the case where the leveling accuracy of
the rubble mound is alleviated in the range of 30cm, the factors can be set referring to the References 8) and 9).
Table 1.2.1 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors
In service
Permanent
situation for self
weight
Permanent
situation for
internal earth
pressure
1.1
[0.9]
(1.0)
Variable
situation for
waves
During construction
0.9
(0.5)
Remarks
Hydrostatic head
difference between
chambers
Dynamic water
pressure
Wave force
Variable component
of internal water
pressure
Variable component
of bottom slab
reaction
Uplift pressure
Bottom slab
1.1
(1.0)
1.1
[0.9]
(1.0)
Outer wall
1.2
[0.8]
(1.0)
1.2
[0.8]
(1.0)
Bottom slab
0.9
(1.0)
Variable
situation
for Level 1
earthquake
ground motion
Variable
situation for
water pressure
while afloat
1.1
(1.0)
1.1
(1.0)
1.1
[0.9]
(1.0)
Internal water
pressure
1.1
(1.0)
Bottom slab reaction
0.9
1.0
Internal earth
pressure
Hydrostatic pressure
Design situation
Self weight
Situation
(a) Breakwaters
1.2
(1.0)
1.1
(1.0)
1.1
(1.0)
1.0
()
1.0
()
Outer wall
1.2
(1.0)
1.0
()
Outer wall
1.1
(0.5)
Bottom slab
1.1
(0.5)
Outer wall
Variable
situation
for water
pressure during
construction
1.1
(0.5)
378
Partition wall
In service
Permanent
situation for self
weight
Variable
situation for
water pressure
while afloat

during an earthquake
Dynamic water
pressure
Surcharge

1.1
(1.0)
1.1
(1.0)
1.0
()
Internal earth
pressure
Internal water
pressure
1.1
(1.0)
Permanent
situation for
internal earth
pressure
Variable
situation
for Level 1
earthquake
ground motion
During construction
0.9
(1.0)
Design situation
Self weight
Situation
(b) Quaywalls
Remarks
Installation
Still
water
Bottom slab
(surcharge
is equivalent
to bottom
slab reaction
component)
0.8
(0.5)
1.1
(1.0)
Outer wall
1.0
()
1.0
()
1.0
()
Loads during
construction
1.0
()
Bottom slab
(surcharge is
equivalent to
that during an
earthquake)
1.0
()
1.0
()
Outer wall
0.9
(0.5)
Variable
situation
for water
pressure during
construction
1.1
(0.5)
Bottom slab while

afloat
1.1
(0.5)
Outer wall while

afloat
1.1
(0.5)
Partition wall
during installation
The actions used in performance verification of outer walls of breakwater caissons are shown in Figs. 1.2.3 to
1.2.5. The standard values of the load factors are shown in Tables 1.2.2 to 1.2.4.
(a) Front wall (parallel to faceline: seaside)
During wave action (wave crest)
Wave
pressure
Internal
earth pressure
During action of seismic motion
During wave action (wave trough)
During construction
while afloat
Internal water Variable component Dynamic

Internal earth
pressure
of internal
water pressure
pressure in permanent situation water pressure
Internal
earth pressure
Internal
water pressure
in permanent situation
L.W.L.
Hd
3
Sf
*In this figure, Hd stands for design wave height. In verification of the ultimate limit state, Hd =Hmax may be assumed.
Fig. 1.2.3 Actions on Front Wall (Breakwater)
379
Table 1.2.2 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors for Front Wall (Breakwater)
Design situation
Direction of action
Variable situation relevant to waves

during action of wave crest
Ultimate limit state
Serviceability limit state
1.2H0.9D
1.0H1.0D
1.1Sf
0.5Sr
1.1D+1.1S+1.2 S
1.0D+1.0S+1.0 S
1.0D+1.0S+1.0P
Not examined
From outside
Variable situation relevant to

water pressure while afloat during
construction
Variable situation relevant to wave
during action of wave trough
From inside
Variable situation relevant to Level 1

* For the symbols in the table, see Fig. 1.2.3.
(b) Rear wall (parallel to face line : land side)

During action of seismic motion
During wave action

During construction
while afloat
Internal
earth pressure
Internal water pressure Dynamic

in permanent state water pressure
Internal
Internal water pressure
earth pressure
in permanent state
L.W.L.
Sf
Fig. 1.2.4 Actions on Rear Wall (Breakwater)

Table 1.2.3 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors on Rear Wall (Breakwater)
Design situation
construction
Direction of action
From outside
1.1Sf
0.5Sf
Not examined
1.0D+1.0S
1.0D+1.0S+1.0P
Not examined
Permanent situation relevant to

internal earth pressure
From inside
380
(c) Outer wall (direction perpendicular to face line)
During wave action (wave trough)
During construction
while afloat
Internal
earth pressure
Internal water Variable component

pressure i
of internal
permanent situation water pressure
L.W.L.
Hd
3
Sf
*In this figure, Hd stands for design wave height.
Fig. 1.2.5 Actions on Outer Wall (Breakwater)

Table 1.2.4 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors on Outer Wall (Breakwater)
Design situation
Direction of action

construction
From outside
1.1Sf
0.5Sf

From inside
1.1D+1.1S+1.2 S
1.0D+1.0S+1.0 S
The actions used in performance verification of the outer walls of quaywall caissons are shown in Fig. 1.2.6.
The standard values of the load factors are shown in Table 1.2.5.
(a) Under calm conditions (actions from inside)
Internal earth pressure
Internal water pressure
L.W.L
(b) While afloat (actions from outside)

Draft +1.0m
Sf
Fig. 1.2.6 (a) (b) Actions on Outer Wall (Quaywall)
381
(c) During action of ground motion (action to sea side)
Internal
earth
pressure
Internal
water
pressure
Dynamic
water
pressure
L.W.L
Fig. 1.2.6(c) Actions on Outer Wall (Quaywall)

Table 1.2.5 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors on Outer Wall (Quaywall)
Design situation
Direction of action

construction
Action from outside
1.1Sf
0.5Sf
Not examined
1.0D+1.0S
1.0D+1.0S+1.0P
Not examined

Action from inside

The actions used in performance verification of the stability of the bottom slab of breakwater caissons during
construction can be obtained by multiplying the characteristic values of the actions by the load factors shown in
Table 1.2.1. In verification of stability in service, values may be obtained using the equations shown in Table
1.2.7, considering the combination of actions shown in Fig. 1.2.7. The classification of actions is as shown in
Table 1.2.6.
Permanent state
Durig wave action
Deadweight of
filling and
concrete lid
Deadweight of
filling and
concrete lid
Hydrostatic
pressure
Hydrostatic
pressure
Reaction of
bottom slab
Reaction of
bottom slab
Composite
load
D0
D0 = D + F
+ R
Variable bottom
slab reaction
Uplift pressure
Fig. 1.2.7 Actions on Bottom Slab (Breakwater)
382
F
R'
R = R' - R
Table 1.2.6 Classification of Actions under Wave Action (Breakwater)
Class of action
Action
Permanent action
Composite load under calm conditions D0
Variable action
Variable of bottom slab reaction R, uplift pressure U
Table 1.2.7 Combination of Actions and Load Factors (Breakwater)

(a) Ultimate limit state
Design situation
Direction of R and W
Combination of actions
Permanent situation
0.9D0 +1.1F+1.1R
Variable situation relevant to water pressure while

afloat during construction
0.9D0 +1.1F
R
during action of wave crest
R
R
1.1D0 +1.2 R+1.2U
1.1D0 +0.8 R+1.2U
0.9D0 +1.2 R+0.8U
1.1D0 +1.2 R+0.8U
0.9D0 +0.8 R+1.2U
1.1D0 +0.8 R+0.8U
0.9D0 +1.2 R+1.2U
(b) Serviceability limit state

Design situation
Combination of actions
Permanent situation
1.1D0 +1.1F+1.0R
1.0D0 +1.0 R+1.0U
Provided, however, that assuming W=D0 +R+U, and each action is represented as the signed value (positive or negative). In the case of an action
in the same direction as W, the value is positive, and in the case of an action in a direction opposite to W, the value is negative. The symbols in
the table accord with those in Fig. 1.2.7.
Note) When variable of bottom slab reaction (R) acts downwards, an upper limit is applied to the value of 1.2 |R|, which cannot exceed 1.1 |R|.
Accordingly, if 1.2|R|>1.1|R|, the combination of actions shall be as follows :

0.9D 0+1.1|R|+0.8U , or 0.9D 0+1.1|R|+0..8U+1.2U
Actions used in performance verification of the stability of the bottom slab of quaywall caissons during
construction can be obtained by multiplying the characteristic values of the actions by the load factors shown
in Table 1.2.1. In verification of stability in service, values obtained using the equations shown in Table 1.2.8
can be used, considering the combinations of actions shown in Fig. 1.2.8.
383
(During action of
seismic motion)
Permanent
(Permanent situation) actions due to
D concrete lid,
filling etc.
(While afloat)
Df Deadweight of slab
S f Hydrostatic water pressure
F Hydrostatic
in
W Surcharge
permanent situation
W' Surcharge during
R Bottom reaction
R' Bottom reaction during
water pressure
action of seismic motion
in permanent situation
action of seismic motion
Permanent state: Situatiom in which surcharge is imposed.

Fig. 1.2.8 Actions on Bottom Slab (Quaywall)
Table 1.2.8 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors (Quaywall)
Design situation
Permanent situation
1.1Sf
0.5Sf
1.0D+1.0F+1.0R+1.0W
Not examined
0.9D+1.1Sf
0.5Dr +0.5Sf
Variable situations relevant to Level 1 earthquake ground

motion
Variable situations relevant to water pressure while afloat
during construction
* The symbols in the table accord with those in Fig. 1.2.8.
As the action used in performance verification of the stability of partition walls during construction works, the
hydrostatic head difference between chambers during construction works (during installation) shall be generally
used.
As the action used in performance verification of the stability of partition walls in service, the action in the state
where extrusion force becomes the largest in the actions related to the bottom slab and actions related to the
outer walls is generally used.
(3) The actions used in performance verification during fabrication of caissons may be set as follows.
When a caisson is fabricated on a dry dock, floating dock etc., particular study of the actions during fabrication
is not necessary. Provided, however, that when the caisson is raised with jacks to move on a slipway or caisson
platform, or loaded on a launch truck, the self weight acts as a concentrated load.
When examination is necessary during fabrication, examination may be performed considering the whole
caisson to a simple beam.
(4) The actions used in performance verification while the caisson launches and is afloat may be set as follows.
In cases where a dry dock or floating dock, or ordinary slipway (slipway and truck) is used, the hydrostatic
pressure with an allowance added to the draft calculated as the action during launching and floating may be
used. In cases where there is a danger that greater hydrostatic pressure may act on the caisson temporarily
during launching, separate examination is necessary.
The water pressure acting on outer walls may be considered as a load with a triangular distribution in which the
base is the distance to the crown and height is the intensity of the hydrostatic water pressure (Pt) at the centerline
of the bottom slab (see Fig. 1.2.9).
384
H0
Design draft
Allowance:1.0m (approx.)
0g : unit weight of sea water (kN/m3)

H : depth used in calculation of hydrostatic water pressure (m)
H0 : water depth with an allowance of approximately 1.0m H=H0t/2
added to design draft (m)
t : thickness of bottom slab (m)
t
t
2
pt= 0gH
Fig. 1.2.9 Water Pressure Acting on Outer Wall
As the action on the bottom slab, the value obtained by subtracting the self weight of the bottom slab from the
intensity of the hydrostatic pressure at the bottom edge of the bottom slab (w) shall be used. (see Fig. 1.2.10).
p= pw w = 0 gH0 w
p' : action on bottom slab (kN/m2)
pw : hydrostatic pressure acting on bottom slab considering an allowance of
approximately 1.0m in design draft (kN/m2)
w : selfweight of bottom slab (kN/m2)
0g : unit weight of sea water (kN/m3)
H0 : length with allowance of approximately 1.0m added to design draft (m)
p' p
w
w
pw= 0gH0
Fig. 1.2.10 Actions on Bottom Slab
(5) Actions used in performance verification of caissons during installation may be set as follows.
In the case of the outer walls and bottom slab, performance verification of the outer walls and bottom slab during
installation may be omitted, because it is clear that the actions while afloat and in service are larger than those
during installation.
Water pressure caused by the hydrostatic head difference between chambers shall be applied to the partition
walls, considering construction conditions.
(6) Actions used in performance verification of caissons in service may be set as follows.
As actions on the outer walls, internal earth pressure and internal water pressure shall be considered. In the
outer walls of breakwater caissons, the influence of the action of waves shall also be considered. In addition
to the actions of waves, breakwaters covered with wave-dissipating blocks are also affected by the impact of
the wave-dissipating blocks against the front wall, and depending on the region, by the impact force of drift
ice, driftwood, etc., freezing, and other factors. Therefore, when these influences are remarkable, they must be
considered as actions.
(a) In many cases, the distribution of internal earth pressure takes an irregular shape. For design purpose,
however, this distribution can be converted to an appropriate equivalent uniform distribution load or triangular
distribution load.
(b) In the case where sand is used as the filling, the coefficient of earth pressure at rest K can be set at 0.6.
Provided, however, that the earth pressure may be disregarded when the filling consists of blocks or concrete.
385
(c) It can be assumed that earth pressure increases to the depth equal to the width b of the wall, but does not
increase beyond that. (see Fig. 1.2.11).
In cases where strong cast-in-place concrete is located on top of caissons and it can be regarded that the
effect of the surcharge does not reach the interior of the caisson, the surcharge may be disregarded. Provided,
however, that the self weight of the cast-in-place concrete shall be taken into account.
qK
H
45
p=KH '
Fig. 1.2.11 Earth Pressure of Filling
Internal Water Pressure

The internal water pressure shall be the head difference between the water level in the caisson and the lowest
water level (L.W.L.). However, when verifying the front wall of a breakwater or outer wall perpendicular to
the face line, as shown in Fig. 1.2.12(a), in case of wave troughs acting on the walls L.W.L. (Hmax)/3 can be
used as the external water level. In the case where the wave crests act on the surface of the front wall, internal
water pressure may be disregarded. For the rear wall, L.W.L. can be used as the external water level, as shown
in Fig. 1.2.12(b).
For the front walls of the breakwater caissons, wave force shall be taken into account when wave crests act on
the walls.11), 12).
Determination of the internal earth pressure and internal water pressure by structural member is as shown in
Fig. 1.2.12.
(a) Breakwaters (front wall and outer walls perpendicular to face line)
a
L.W.L.
Hd/3
45
b
Internal
Internal
Composite
earth pressure water pressure
load

.
*In this figure, Hd stands for design wave height.

In verification of the ultimate design situation, it can be assumed the Hd =Hmax
(b) Breakwaters (rear wall)
L.W.L.
a
45
b
Internal
Internal
Composite
load
386
(c) Quaywalls (front wall, rear wall, and outer walls perpendicular to face line)
L.W.L.
a
45
b
Internal
Internal
Composite
load
Fig. 1.2.12(a)-(c) Determination of Internal Earth Pressure and Internal Water Pressure
(d) Actions of waves
W.L.
45
b
Wave
pressure
Internal
Composite
earth pressure
load
Fig. 1.2.12(d) Determination of Internal Earth Pressure and Internal Water Pressure
(7) Actions used in performance verification of the bottom slab may be set as follows.
In fixed parts surrounded by outer walls and partition walls, the bottom reaction, hydrostatic pressure, uplift
pressure, weight of the filling, weight of the concrete lid, weight of the bottom slab, and surcharge shall be taken
into account.
The distribution of the composite action often takes an irregular shape. For design purpose however, this
distribution can be modified as an appropriate uniform distribution action or triangular distribution action.
The bottom reaction acting on the body or wall can be calculated according to equations (1.2.6) and (1.2.7) (see
Fig. 1.2.13).
(a) In the case of
(1.2.6)
(b) In the case of
(1.2.7)
387
The value of e can be calculated using equation (1.2.8).
(1.2.8)
where
p1 : characteristic value of reaction at front toe (kN/m 2)
p2 : characteristic value of reaction at rear toe (kN/m2)
V : characteristic value of vertical resultant force per unit length in direction of caisson face line
(kN/m)
H : characteristic value of horizontal resultant force per unit length in direction of caisson face line
(kN/m)
e : eccentricity of total resultant force (m)
b : width of bottom (m)
b : action width of bottom reaction in the case of
(m)
Mw : characteristic value of moment revolving point A by vertical resultant force (kNm/m)
Mh : characteristic value of moment revolving point A by horizontal resultant force (kNm/m)
H
R
A
x
e
b/2
b/2
p2
p1
b
In the case of e<6
b'
p1
1
6
In the case of e>-b

Fig. 1.2.13 Bottom Reaction
Hydrostatic pressure shall be the water pressure acting on the bottom slab at the design tide level.
Uplift pressure shall be taken into account in cases where waves act on the body or wall. For calculating uplift
pressure, Part II, Chapter 2, 4.7 Wave Pressure and Wave Force may be used as a reference.
The specific weight of the filling material is normally determined by testing the material to be used.
The weight of the concrete lid and bottom slab shall be the weight in air without influence of buoyancy.
The weight of soil on top of the caisson and superimposed load etc. are taken into account for the surcharge
acting on the bottom slab. Provided, however, that the surcharge may be disregarded in case where cast-in-place
concrete is placed on top of the caisson and in can be regarded that the influence of the surcharge does not reach
the interior of the caisson.
388
(8) Actions used in performance verification of footings can be set as follows.
The bottom reaction, weight of the footing (accounting buoyancy), and surcharge on the footing shall be taken
into account.
Actions may be set considering the distributions shown in Fig. 1.2.14.
p : bottom reaction (kN/m2)
pw : weight of footing (accounting buoyancy) (kN/m2)
w1 : surcharge on footing (kN/m2)
pt : composite load (kN/m2)
Fig. 1.2.14 Actions on Footings
For the bottom reaction acting on the footing, the values calculated using equations (1.2.6) or (1.2.7) can be
used.
The weight of the footing shall be the submerged weight accounting buoyancy.
The surcharge acting on the footing shall consider the weight of the wave-dissipating blocks of breakwaters etc.,
accounting buoyancy below the design water level, and the weight of overburden soil, the superimposed loads
etc., on the land side of quaywalls.
(9) The actions used in performance verification of partition walls can be set as follows.
In performance verification of extrusion of outer walls from partition walls, the internal earth pressure and
internal water pressure acting on the outer wall shall be considered. It may be assumed that these actions act on
the joint between the partition wall and the outer wall (see Fig. 1.2.15).
CL
CL
45 45
45 45
Composite load
P1
Internal earth pressure +
internal water pressure
per 1m of width
Design load
P=P1a
a
2
Internal earth pressure +

internal water pressure
per am
Fig. 1.2.15 Actions Used in Examination of Extrusion of Outer Wall from Partition Wall
389
In verification of extrusion of the bottom slab from the partition wall, the weight of the filling material acting on
the bottom slab, the surcharge, the weight of the bottom slab, the weight of the concrete lid, the bottom reaction,
the uplift pressure, and the hydrostatic pressure shall be taken into account. It may be assumed that these
actions act on the joint between the partition wall and the bottom slab (see Fig. 1.2.16).
x
45
y
x
45
45
45
w : design load acting

on bottom slab (kN/m2 )
w
2
w
3
P : load acting on joint

between partition wall
and bottom slab (kN/m2 )
Pd : converted design load
used in examination of
dislodging
Pd
w x (1-
x2
y2
Fig. 1.2.16 Actions used in Examination of Extrusion of Bottom Slab from Partition Wall
In cases where there is a possibility of actions due to non-uniform ground bearing capacity or similar factors,
this shall be examined. In this case, verification of the individual members of the caisson shall be performed
assuming a cantilever beam with a span equivalent to 1/3 of the length or width of the caisson (see Fig. 1.2.17).
Verification may also be performed using a structural analysis model in which only the parts of the ground
which can be expected to provide bearing support are converted to springs.
Fig. 1.2.17 Examination of Action due to Non-uniformity of Ground Bearing Capacity
The standard load factors of actions considered in verification of partition walls are shown in Table 1.2.9.
390
Table 1.2.9 Combinations of Actions and Load Factors
Design situation
Direction of action
Variable situation relevant to water

pressure during installation during
construction
Direction of action due to

hydrostatic head between
compartments
Direction of extrusion of
outer wall from partition
wall

Permanent situation relevant to self
weight
Direction of extrusion of
bottom slab from partition
wall
1.1Sf
0.5Sf
Maximum outward design

load by acting on outer wall
Not examined
Maximum downward design

load by acting on bottom
slab
Not examined
1.2.4 Performance Verification

(1) Performance verification of structural members can be performed using the method presented in 1.1 General.
Performance verification of structural members shall be performed by correlating the performance criteria with
the ultimate state for the respective members. Specifically, examination is performed by setting the verification
indexes for the corresponding ultimate states for the actions on the members calculated using the procedure
presented in 1.2.3 Actions. The settings of the verification indexes are based on 1 Structural Members. The
partial factors used in this case may generally be set based on Table 1.1.3 in 1.1.6 Partial Factors.
(2) Performance verification of partition walls can be performed as follows.
During installation, the partition wall can be regarded as comprising a slab with 3 fixed sides and 1 free side.
The span used in calculations shall be the interval between the centers of walls.
(3) Performance verification of the bottom slab and footing can be performed as follows.
The part of the bottom slab surrounded by the outer walls and partition walls can be regarded as a 4 sided fixed
slab.
The span used in calculation of the part having 4 fixed sides shall be the central interval between the center of
the walls.
The cross section used in calculations in connection with bending and shearing of the footing shall be the front
surface of the wall. Provided, however, that the cross section used in examination of diagonal tensile type shear
failure may be assumed to be the cross section at the front face of the wall. In this case, in calculations of the
height of members at the front face of the wall, the part of the haunch with a gradient shallower than 1
:
3 shall be considered effective.
In the case of reinforced concrete footings of normal dimensions, the caisson body is assumed to be rigid;
therefore, it may be considered that the moment occurring in the footing does not reach the main body of
caisson.
(4) Other Structural Members
In performance verification of structural members which are not described in this section, such as the slit members
of slit caissons, the methods of verification for structural members shall be applied correspondingly, considering
the dimensions of the structural member and the characteristics of the actions etc.
(5) Others
In the case of quaywall caissons, in principle, verification of the fatigue limit state may be omitted.
In cases where a caisson is lifted with jacks for transportation or uneven settlement occurs after installation,
verification may be performed considering the entire caisson as a beam. In this case verification for punching
shear failure of the bottom slab is necessary.
391
1.3 L-shaped Blocks

Public Notice
Performance Criteria of L-shape blocks
Article 24
The performance criteria of a reinforced concrete L-shaped block (hereinafter called L-shaped block in
this article) shall be set such that the risk of impairing the integrity of the front wall, bottom slab, buttress
wall, and footing of the L-shaped block is equal to or less than the threshold level under the permanent
action situation in which the dominant actions are self weight and earth pressure and under the variable
action situations in which the dominant actions are Level 1 earthquake ground motions and variable waves
in consideration of the type of facilities.
[Commentary]
(1) Performance Criteria of L-shaped Blocks
The performance criteria of L-shaped blocks, shall follow the provision shown in 1.2 Caissons
regarding the performance criteria and the setting of design situation (excluding accidental situations)
of caissons. Provided, however, that outer wall, partition wall, and internal earth pressure shall
be replaced with front wall, buttress wall, and earth pressure, respectively, and the provisions
in connection with flotation and installation shall be excluded. In addition to these provisions, the
performance criteria and the settings of design situations (excluding accidental situations) of L-shaped
blocks shall be as shown in Attached Table 10.
Attached Table 10 Performance Criteria and Settings of Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) of L-shaped
Block
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
24
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Non-dominating
action
action
Serviceability Permanent Earth

pressure
Variable
Water pressure,
reaction of
bearing part
of front wall,
reaction of
bearing part of
bottom slab
Level 1
Self weight,
earthquake earth pressure,
ground
water pressure,
motion
reaction of
bearing part
of front wall,
reaction of
bearing part of
bottom slab
Verification item
Extrusion of bottom
slab from buttress wall
bars)
Design yield stress
Extrusion of front wall

from buttress wall
bars)
Design yield stress
Extrusion of bottom slab or front wall from buttress wall (yielding of reinforcing bars)
Verification of extrusion of the bottom slab or front wall from the buttress wall (yielding of
reinforcing bars) means to verify that the risk that the tensile stress of the reinforcing bars due to
extrusion of the bottom slab or front wall from the buttress wall will exceed the design yield stress is
less than the limit value.
[Technical Note]
(1) The description in this section can be applied to the performance verification of ordinary L-shaped blocks.
(2) An example of the performance verification procedure for L-shaped blocks is shown in Fig. 1.3.1.
(3) In performance verification of L-shaped blocks, 1.2 Caissons and Technical Manual for L-shape Block
Quaywalls 17) may be used as a reference.
392

Assumption of dimensions of L-shaped block members
Permanent situation, variable situations

relevant to waves and level 1 seismic motion
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of front wall
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of buttress wall
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of bottom slab
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of footing
*1: For the high earthquake-proof facilities and the facilities of which damage is expected to have a serious impact on human life, property,
and social activity, it is preferable to perform verification for accidental situations, as necessary.
Fig. 1.3.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for L-shaped Blocks
1.3.2 Determination of Basic Cross Section and Characteristic Values

(1) It is desirable that the dimensions of the members of L-shaped blocks be determined considering the following
items :
Capacity of facilities for fabricating L-shaped blocks
Hoisting capacity of crane
Water depth in which L-shaped blocks are to be installed (mound water depth)
Tidal range
Working conditions after installation of L-shaped blocks (backfilling and superstructure construction)
(2) The wall height of L-shaped blocks should be determined so that the superstructure may be easily constructed,
considering the water depth at the front face and the tidal range when the L-shaped blocks form the quaywall main
body.
1.3.3 Actions
(1) In evaluation of actions, 1.2.3 Actions can be used as a reference.
(2) Actions on the members of L-shaped blocks can be considered as shown in Fig. 1.3.2.
393
q
Dynamic
water
pressure
h3
h2,w2, K2
h1,w1, K1
K1q
K1,w1, h1
Earth
pressure
wg, h3
Residual
water
pressure
Deadweight
K2(q+w1h1+w2h2)
(a) Actions on front wall and buttress wall
where
q
1
2
wg
pdw
h1
h2
h3
h4
K1
K2
w1
w2
w4
Surcharge + weight of
overburden soil
and sand + deadweight of
bottom slab
h1,w1
h2,w2
q+(w1h1+w2h2)+wh4
h4,w
Bottom reaction
(b) Actions on footing
Bottom reaction
(c) Actions on bottom slab
: load (kN/m 2)
: unit weight of soil above residual water level (kN/m3)
: unit weight of soil below residual water level (kN/m3)
: unit weight of sea water (kN/m3)
: dynamic water pressure during action of ground motion (kN/m 2)
: thickness of soil layer of soil above residual water level (m)
: thickness of soil layer of soil below residual water level (m)
: tidal range (m)
: thickness of bottom slab (m)
: coefficient of earth pressure of soil above residual water level
: coefficient of earth pressure of soil below residual water level
: weight of soil above residual water level (kN/m 2)
: weight of soil below residual water level (kN/m 2)
: self weight of bottom slab (kN/m 2)
Fig. 1.3.2 Actions for L-shaped Blocks
(3) In calculating earth pressure, Part II, Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure can be used as a reference. For the friction
angle on the wall at the virtual back face, the angle of shear resistance of the backfill material at the virtual back
face can be used.17)
(4) In calculating bottom resistance, 1.2.3 Actions (6) can be used as a reference.
(5) In the concrete placing method of L-shaped block fabrication, there are cases in which the wall is constructed in
the vertical direction and cases in which the wall is constructed by laying in the horizontal direction. In cases
where the wall is constructed by laying in horizontally, construction is accompanied by work in which the blocks
are raised before installation; therefore, in performance verifications, it is necessary to study the actions at the
block raising stage.
(6) In general, the actions on L-shaped blocks are not distributed uniformly. However, the non-conformity distributed
actions may be considered to be a combination of appropriately divided loads of uniform distribution. Provided,
however, that it should be avoided that the combination of divided loads causes weak points in the member
strength. Examples of the division of loads are shown in Fig. 1.3.3.
394
p1
ha
Design load distribution of member
Design load
distribution
of member
Footing
Bottom slab
H
hb
Load
distribution
Load
distribution
p2
(i)
(ii)
(a) Earth pressure
(b) External forces acting on footing and bottom slab
Fig. 1.3.3 Example of Method of Load Distribution

(1) Front Wall
Performance verification of the front wall can generally be performed assuming that a slab is supported by
buttress walls.
In the case of one buttress wall, performance verification can be performed assuming that a cantilever slab is
supported by the buttress. In case of two or more buttresses, it is assumed that the front wall is a continuous
slab supported by the buttresses.
The span of the front wall may be measured from the center of the buttress .
Actions from rear of the front wall can be regarded as acting on the entire length of the member.
The width of the front wall and the actions on the wall can be considered as shown in Fig. 1.3.4.
Structurally, the front wall is supported by the bottom slab as well as by the buttresses. Therefore, the front wall
may be regarded as a slab which is supported on 2 or 3 sides. However, in general, the front walls of L-shaped
blocks with large heights, are lightly affected by the part supported by the bottom slab, and the arrangement
of reinforcing bars at the bottom slab attachment becomes complex. Considering these facts, performance
verification can generally be performed assuming that the front wall is a cantilever slab or a continuous slab.
p: earth pressure,
residual water pressure
: length of
member
p: earth pressure,
Front wall
Buttress wall
: length of
member
Buttress wall
Front wall
Buttress wall
(a) When supported by one buttress wall
Fulcrum
Fulcrum
(b) When supported by two buttress walls
Fig. 1.3.4 Length of Front Wall Members and Actions on Front Wall
395
(2) Footing
Performance verification of the footing can be performed assuming that a footing is regarded as a cantilever slab
supported by the position of the front wall.
The length of the footing may be regarded as the distance between the front edge of the footing and the front
face of the front wall.
Front wall
The length of the footing and the actions on the footing can be considered as shown in Fig. 1.3.5.
Footing
a
: length of member
a
p
p = (bottom reaction) (deadweight of footing)

Fig. 1.3.5 Length of Footing and Actions on Footing
(3) Bottom Slab

Performance verification of the bottom slab can generally be performed assuming that the bottom slab is
supported by the buttresses. In the case of one buttress, the bottom slab can be treated as a cantilever slab
supported by the buttress, and in case of two or more buttresses, as a continuous slab.
The length of the bottom slab may be regarded as the distance between the centers of the buttresses.
Actions from the top side of the bottom slab can generally be regarded as acting on the entire length of the
member.
The bottom slab may be regarded as a structure supported by the front wall as well as by the buttresses. Therefore,
performance verification of the bottom slab may be performed assuming that the bottom slab is supported on 2
or 3 sides. However, for the same reason as stated in (1), verification may generally be performed assuming that
the bottom slab is a cantilever slab or a continuous slab. Accordingly, in the cases where it is advantageous in
performance verification to consider the bottom slab as a slab supported on 2 or 3 sides, does not necessarily
apply.
Of the actions on the bottom slab, the bottom reaction acts on the entire length of the member. The action from
the top of the bottom slab which is transmitted by backfilling can be considered as acting on the clear span of
the bottom slab. However, because this type of calculation is troublesome and this does not have a large effect
on performance verification, the action on the bottom slab may generally be applied on the entire length of the
member.
In performance verification of the bottom slab, it is necessary to set the load factor considering the load under
which members are at the greatest risk. For load factors used in performance verification, Technical Manual
for L-shaped Block Quaywalls 17) may be used as a reference.
(4) Buttress wall
Performance verification for buttress walls can be performed assuming that the buttress wall is a T-beam
integrated with the front wall.
Buttress walls may be examined by consideration as a cantilever beam supported at the bottom slab against the
reaction from the front wall.
Performance verification of buttress walls shall be performed for the cross sections parallel to the bottom slab.
396
The buttress wall, front wall, and bottom slab shall be tightly connected. The amount of reinforcing bars for this
purpose shall be calculated independently from that of stirrups against shear stresses.
When performance verification of the front wall and bottom slab follows the description given here, actions
from behind the buttress walls may be disregarded.
The length of members of buttress walls can be considered to be the total height including the bottom slab, as
shown in Fig. 1.3.6. Provided, however, that it is necessary to consider that actions work on the superstructure
as well as the buttress.
When the cross section is calculated assuming that the buttress wall is a T-beam, attention shall be paid to the
position of the neutral axis which is located either in the front wall or in the buttress wall.
Crown
Superstructure
where
p
h
b
H
: sum of earth pressure and residual water pressure (kN/m 2)

: length of buttress members (m)
: width of block (m)
: height of block (m)
Fig. 1.3.6 Length of Buttress Members and Actions on Buttress Wall
397
1.4 Cellular Blocks

Public Notice
Performance Criteria for Cellular Blocks
Article 25
The provisions of Article 23 shall apply correspondingly to the performance criteria of cellular blocks of
reinforced concrete construction.
[Technical Note]
(1) The description in this section can be applied to the performance verification of ordinary cellular blocks.
(2) An example of the performance verification procedure for cellular blocks is shown in Fig. 1.4.1.
Assumption of dimensions of cellular block members
Permanent situation, variable situation associated
with waves and Level 1 seismic motion
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of front wall
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of rear wall
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of outer walls
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of partition walls
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of bottom slab
Verification of ultimate limit state and serviceability limit state of footing
*1: In outer walls which are not affected by waves, verification may be limited to the serviceability limit state.
*2: In the high earthquake-resistance facilities and facilities in which serious impact on human life, property, and social activity due to
damage of the objective facilities can be expected, it is preferable to perform verification for the accidental situations, as necessary.
Verification of accidental situations associated with waves shall be performed in cases where facilities which handle hazardous materials
are located immediately behind the structure, and damage to the facilities can be expected to have a serious impact.
Fig. 1.4.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Cellular Blocks
(3) In performance verification of cellular blocks, the performance verification in 1 Structural Members may be
used as a reference.
(4) Because cellular blocks have various types, in individual performance verification, 1.2 Caissons and 1.3 L-shaped
Blocks may be used as a reference, corresponding to the structural type.
When cellular blocks are to be used as members of breakwaters or breakwater revetments or other structures
subject to the action of wave force, the fatigue limit state should be studied separately.
398
(5) Cellular blocks generally refer to blocks consisting of outer walls without a bottom slab. Cellular blocks function
as a wall body either in single units or multiple piled-up blocks. As a special type, cellular blocks with a bottom
slab are also used. In actual performance verification, it is necessary to adopt an appropriate method based on an
adequate understanding of the characteristics of the block shape.
(6) The cross-sectional shapes of cellular blocks have various types. The cross-sectional shapes of blocks which are
commonly used in relating large numbers are shown in Fig. 1.4.2.
Rectangular section
Outer wall
Rectangular with
partition wall
Outer wall
rear wall
rear wall
front wall
Outer wall
front wall
Partition wall
Outer wall (rear wall)
Outer wall
Outer wall (front wall)
Outer wall
Outer wall
Outer wall
Rectangular with
flanged section
I-shaped section
Fig. 1.4.2 Examples of Cross-sectional Shapes of Cellular Blocks (schematic diagrams)
1.4.2 Setting of Basic Cross Section and Characteristic Values

(1) The dimensions of the members of cellular blocks shall be set considering the following items
Capability of the facilities for fabricating cellular blocks

Hoisting capacity of crane
Water depth at the location where cellular blocks are to be installed
Tidal range
Work conditions after installation of cellular blocks (backfilling, superstructure construction)
Formation of a mutually integrated block structure when piled-up in stages
1.4.3 Actions
(1) The rear wall is subject to backfill earth pressure, residual water pressure etc., from outside. However, because
these are mutually cancelled out by internal earth pressure, in general cases, examination of this type of action
can be omitted.
(2) The internal earth pressure and residual water pressure acting on cellular blocks can be considered as shown in
Fig. 1.4.3. In the cases where backfilled is considered a part of the wall, the stress on the outer walls and the rear
walls due to the filling are reduced by the active earth pressure, residual water pressure etc., after backfilling is
completed. However, because in many cases filling is executed before backfilling in the construction process,
performance verification of members should be performed for this condition.
399
Outer wall
Outer wall
Filling pressure +

Fig. 1.4.3 Actions on Cellular Blocks
(3) Actions on front wall, rear wall, and outer walls

As actions on the front wall, rear wall, and outer walls, internal earth pressure and residual water pressure shall
be taken into account. Provided, however, that in the cases where cast-in-place concrete is placed on top of the
cellular block to a degree such that the surcharge may not affect the interior of the cellular block, it is generally
not necessary to consider the surcharge imposed on the cast-in-place concrete.
(a) The coefficient of earth pressure for internal earth pressure may be set as 0.6. Provided, however, that it is not
necessary to consider the internal earth pressure when the filling consists of blocks or concrete.
(b) It may be considered that the earth pressure increases from the crown of block to a height equal to the inner
width b1 of the cellular block, but does not increase at points lower than this.
(c) The earth pressure acting on cellular blocks piled in multiple stages may be calculated as shown in Fig. 1.4.4.
Provided, however, that when the inner width of the lower cellular blocks is less than that of the upper blocks
(in the case of cellular block partitioned by partition walls), the earth pressure obtained for the upper block
may be extended to the lower block without increasing its value.
b1
H1
H2
p1=K 1H2
b3
b2
qK
p2=K 2(H1-H2)
Residual
water level
45 1
2
H1
45
45
H3
p3=K 2(H3 -H1)
2
45
45
Fig. 1.4.4 Method of Calculating Internal Earth Pressure
The symbols in Fig. 1.4.4 are as follows :

q : characteristic value of surcharge (kN/m 2)
1 : specific weight of filling material above residual water level (kN/m3)
2 : specific weight of filling material below residual water level (kN/m3)
K : coefficient of internal earth pressure K = 0.6
b1 : inner width of block chamber (m) ; b1 = H1
400
(d) The internal earth pressure in cellular blocks is constrained by a frame and is considered to be the act similar
to the filling of a caisson. Therefore, 1.2 Caissons may be used as a reference.
Residual water pressure
(a) For quaywalls
Residual water pressure is calculated from the head difference between the residual water level and L.W.L.
(b) For breakwaters
Residual water pressure (internal water pressure in cellular blocks) is generally calculated from the hydraulic
head difference between the water level inside the block and L.W.L. Provided, however, that when the wave
trough acts on the front of a block, the increase of the internal water pressure shall be considered, depending
on the circumstances.
When used as breakwaters or revetments and the wave trough acts on the front of the block, the increase
of the residual water level difference should be examined. Part II, Chapter 2, 4.7.2 Wave Force on Upright
Walls can be referred to for a calculation of water pressure in this case.
(4) Actions on partition walls
The partition wall shall be designed against extrusion failure of the outer walls from the partition wall due to the
earth pressure of filling and residual water pressure. The characteristic values of loads against extrusion failure
of partition walls and outer walls should be those of the earth pressure acting on the shaded parts in Fig. 1.4.5.
Outer wall
(front wall)
Partition
Outer wall
(rear wall)
Load bearing area
Earth pressure of filling

+ residual water pressure
per 1m of width
Earth pressure of filling

+ residual water pressure
per (m)
Fig. 1.4.5 Load for Examination of Extrusion Failure of Outer Walls from Partition Wall
(5) Wave force is generally not considered. However, in the cases where particularly strong impact wave force acts
on the wall, it is necessary to consider this action.
(6) Actions during construction have many common points with those of L-shaped blocks. Therefore, 1.3 L-shaped
Blocks can be used as a reference.
(7) As the ordinary combinations of actions considered in the performance verifications and the load factors to be
multiplied by the characteristic values of the respective actions, the combinations of actions and the load factors
shown in 1.3.3 Actions can be used.
(8) In the cases where the actions on members of cellular blocks are divided for convenience of calculation, 1.3.3
Actions can be used as a reference.
401
(1) Rectangular Cellular Blocks
Outer walls
(a) The section force generated in a rectangular cellular block is solved by assuming the block as a rigid box
frame for each unit height against the equivalent uniform load converted from the actual load distribution.
(b) The span used for calculations is measured between the centers of the connected walls.
Partition wall
(a) The section forces acting on partition walls are calculated in the same way as that of outer walls.
(b) W hen any difference of filling height between neighboring chambers may occur during execution, the
partition wall should be designed against the earth pressure caused by the difference.
(c) The span used for calculations is measured between the centers of the connected walls.
Footings
(a) Footings may be designed as cantilever slabs supported by the outer walls.
(b) The span of footing is the distance from the front of the outer wall to the tip of the footing.
402
1.5 Upright Wave-absorbing Caissons

Public Notice
Performance Criteria of Upright Wave-absorbing Caisson
Article 26
The provisions of Article 23 shall be applied to an upright wave-absorbing caisson of reinforced concrete
construction (hereinafter referred to as upright wave-absorbing caisson in this article) with modifications
as necessary.
2. In addition to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the performance criteria of an upright waveabsorbing caisson shall be as specified in the subsequent items in consideration of the type of facilities.
(1) The risk of impairing the integrity of the wave-absorbing part of an upright wave-absorbing caisson
shall be equal to or less than the threshold level under the variable action situation in which the dominant
action is variable waves.
(2) The degree of damage in the accidental action situations in which the dominant action is the impact by
drifting objects shall be equal to or less than the threshold level.
[Commentary]
(1) Performance Criteria of Upright Wave-absorbing Caissons
In addition, the performance criteria and the setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations)
of caissons in 1.2 Caissons. The performance criteria and the provision in regard to design situations
(excluding accidental situations) of upright wave-absorbing caissons shall be as specified in .
Wave-absorbing part
(a) Variable actions in which the dominating action is variable waves (serviceability)
1) Front wall slit
The performance criteria and the setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations) of
front wall slits of upright wave-absorbing caissons shall be as shown in the Attached Table 11.
Attached Table 11 Performance Criteria and Settings for Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) of Front
Wall Slits of Upright Wave-absorbing Caissons
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
26
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Serviceability
Non-dominating
action
action
Variable
Variable
waves*1)
Variable
waves*2)
Water pressure,
axial force
transmitted from
top of front wall
Repeated
action of
waves*3)
Verification item
of front wall slit
section of front wall slit
strength (ultimate limit state)
Limit value of crack caused
by bending (serviceability
limit state)
Fatigue failure of front

wall slit
*1) Here, among waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.1 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be waves which are used in performance
*2) Here, among the waves specified, Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the wave having a height greater than the specified waves
*3) Here, among the waves specified , Article 8, Paragraph 1.2 of the Public Notice, the waves shall be set appropriately depending on the
2) Partition wall slits and outer wall slits

The performance criteria and the settings of design situations (excluding accidental situations) of partition
wall slits and outer wall slits shall follow the performance criteria and the setting of design situations
(excluding accidental situations) of front wall slits shown in a), providing that the non-dominating action
is water pressure and replacing front wall slits with partition wall slits and side wall slits.
3) Upper beam
The performance criteria and the setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations) of upper
403
beams shall follow the performance criteria and the settings of design situations (excluding accidental
situations) of front wall slit shown in a), providing that the non-dominating actions are water pressure, the
support reaction transmitted by the slit part, the wave force acting on the ceiling slab, the self weight of
the ceiling slab, and the self weight of the upper beam and replacing front wall slits with upper beam.
4) Lower beam
The performance criteria and the setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations) of lower
wall slits shall follow the performance criteria and the setting of design situations (excluding accidental
situations) of front wall slits shown in a), providing that the non-dominating actions are water pressure
and the support reactions transmitted by the slit part and lower slab And replacing the front wall slits
with lower beam.
(b) Accidental situation in which dominating action is impact by drifting objects (serviceability)
The performance criteria and the setting of design situations (limited to accidental situations) for
accidental situations of in which drifting objects collided with upright wave-absorbing caissons shall
be as shown in the Attached Table 12.
Attached Table 12 Settings for Performance Criteria and Design Situations (limited to accidental situations) of Waveabsorbing Part of Upright Wave-absorbing Caissons
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
26
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Non-dominating
action
action
Serviceability Accidental Impact by Self weight,

drifting
water pressure
objects
such as
driftwood,
etc. carried
by water
Verification item
of members of wavedissipating part
[Technical Note]
(1) Upright wave-absorbing caissons are caissons with a slit-shaped wall at the front face, and have an internal
wave chamber which gives the caisson a wave-absorbing function; this type of structure is used in quaywalls,
breakwaters, and similar facilities. At present, various structures have been developed as shapes for upright waveabsorbing caissons. However, these can be broadly classified into the permeable and impermeable types. As to
the slit shape, the vertical slit type is the most widely used. As other types, the horizontal slit and perforated wall
types have been used in actual facilities. In performance verification of the members, it is preferable to make an
adequate study of the characteristics of the respective structures, and to carry out hydraulic model experiments
suited to the conditions.
(2) As the procedure for performance verification of upright wave-absorbing caissons, 1.2 Caissons can be used as a
reference.
(3) The names of members of the relatively common vertical slit caisson are shown in Fig. 1.5.1.
404
Slit column
Rear wall
Ceiling slab
Front wall
Upper beam
Lower beam
Lower slab
Upper beam
Conventional caisson part
Lower beam
Lower slab Lower slab
Bottom
slab
Outer wall
Slit column
Wave
chamber
Slit column
Column type slit wall partition
B
Partition wall
Bottom
slab
Outer wall
Partition wall
Front view (CC)
Conventional caisson part
Section (BB)
Outer wall slit column
Slit column
Column type slit wall partition
Bottom slab
Plan view (AA)

Fig. 1.5.1 Names of Vertical Slit Caisson Members
1.5.2 Actions
(1) For actions which should be considered in performance verification of upright wave-absorbing caissons, 1.2
Caissons can be used as a reference.
(2) Wave forces acting on the members of slit caissons vary significantly, depending on the structure of the water
chamber and whether or not it has a ceiling slab. Therefore, as well as referring to past cases of implementation,
appropriate hydraulic model experiments are recommended in accordance with the individual conditions prior to
design.
(3) For the wave forces acting on members, Part II, Chapter 2, 4.7.2(7) Wave Forces Acting on Upright Waveabsorbing Caisson 18) can be used as a reference.
(4) If the top of the water chamber is completely sealed by the ceiling slab, an impulsive pressure may be generated
by the compression of the air trapped beneath the top at the instant when the front of incoming wave shuts off
the slits or perforations. Provision of ventilation holes with a suitable opening ratio in the ceiling slab can reduce
impulsive pressure due to air compression. The opening ratio of these holes should be carefully designed. If too
great, the wave surface collides directly with the ceiling slab, and this could produce a greater impulsive uplift
pressure than that of no ventilation 2), 3). For details, reference 19) and 20) may be used.
(5) The actions which should be considered in performance verifications of the members of the wave chambers in
upright wave-absorbing caissons are shown in Table 1.5.1.
405
Table 1.5.1 External Forces for Design of Members of Water Chamber of Wave-dissipating Caisson
Front wall
Member
Member
number
Actions
Slit column
Water pressure while afloat

Wave pressure (parallel/perpendicular to face line)
Impact force from driftwood and other drifting objects
Axial force transmitted from upper beam
Column type slit wall

partition
Wave pressure including wave force transmitted from partition wall
Water pressure while afloat including wave force transmitted from sidewalls
Wave pressure (ditto )
Upper beam
Vertical loads from above and below

Water pressure while afloat (reaction transmitted from slit column)
Wave pressure (wave force acting on the beam itself and slit column reaction)
Lower beam
Water pressure while afloat (reaction from slit column and lower wall, load
acting on the beam itself)
Wave pressure (ditto)
Lower slab

Wave pressure
Outer wall

Wave pressure
Partition
Wave pressure acts on both sides separately in the direction parallel to face
line
Fender reaction
Rear wall
Wave pressure
Earth pressure, residual water pressure
Bottom slab
Bottom reaction and bottom slab weight in each design situation, water head
difference, and water pressure while float
Ceiling slab
Wave pressure (upwards, downwards)

Surcharge
Self weight
Note : Member numbers are those shown in Fig. 1.5.1
406
1.6 Hybrid Caissons

Public Notice
Performance Criteria of Hybrid Caissons
Article 27
The provisions of Article 23 shall be applied to the performance criteria of a hybrid caisson (a caisson having
a composite structure of steel plates and concrete) with modification as necessary.
[Commentary]
(1) Performance Criteria of Hybrid Caissons
The provisions in connection with the performance criteria and design situations (excluding accidental
situations) of hybrid caissons shall be as shown in the Attached Table 13, in addition to the performance
criteria and setting of design situations (excluding accidental situations) of caissons in 1.2 Caissons.
Attached Table 13 Performance Criteria and Setting of Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) of Hybrid
Caissons
Paragraph
Item
Article
Paragraph
Item
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
27
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Non-dominating
action
action
Serviceability Permanent Water

(Variable) pressure
during
installation
Verification item
of partition wall (axial
force, bending, shear)
Extrusion of members
Variable
wave
(Level 1
earthquake
ground
motion)
Self weight,
surcharge,
bottom reaction,
internal earth
pressure,
internal water
pressure, earth
pressure, force
transmitted from
footing
Internal
Internal water
earth
pressure, force
pressure
transmitted from
(Variable footing
wave)
(Internal earth
(Level 1
pressure,
earthquake internal water
ground
pressure, force
motion)
transmitted from
footing)
of partition wall (axial
force, bending, shear)
Extrusion of members
Cross-sectional
failure of outer wall of
composite structure*1
(Horizontal slip shear
force)
Cross-sectional
failure of outer wall of
composite structure*1
(Bending, shear)
strength considering local
buckling (ultimate limit
state)
Design strength for
extrusion of members
state)
Design strength for
extrusion of members
Design horizontal shear
transfer resistance
state)
*1): Slab member (composite slab) comprising steel plate and concrete unified by shear connectors.
[Technical Note]
1.6.1 General
(1) In this chapter, caissons with a composite structural type of steel plates and concrete are defined as hybrid
caissons. By combining several different materials, composite structures achieve superior structural strength
properties that are not possible using a single material alone. In composite structures, the member sections
consist of a combination of different materials to achieve the functions of the structure. Hybrid caissons, like
conventional steel reinforced concrete caissons, are used in breakwaters, quays, and coastal revetments. Fig. 1.6.1
shows two types of structural members of hybrid caissons commonly used in the port and harbor structures. One
is a composite member structure with steel plates arranged on one side only. The other is an SRC structure with
H-shaped steel embedded inside it. In this chapter the term hybrid caisson is used as general term for caissons
using these two structural types.
407
Concrete
Shear connectors
(example of headed studs)
Concrete
Steel reinforcement
Steel reinforcement
Steel frame
Steel plate
(1) Composite structure
(2) SRC structure
Fig. 1.6.1 Hybrid Structural Members

(1) Fig. 1.6.2 shows an example of a hybrid caisson structure.
Partition wall
(steel stiffened plate)
Steel plate Steel
reinforcement
Outer wall
(composite slab)
Studs
Footing
(SRC slab)
Concrete
Base plate (SRC slab)
Base steel frame

(fabricated H frame)
Fig. 1.6.2 Example of a Hybrid Caisson Structure
(2) In performance verification of hybrid caissons, the Hybrid Caisson Deign Manual 21) and References 22) and 23)
can be used as reference.
(3) For the procedure for performance verification of hybrid caissons, 1.2 Caissons can generally be used as a
reference. For composite slabs, Fig. 1.6.3 can be used as a reference.
408

Assumption of specifications of composite slab
Calculation of design sectional force
Bending moment
Shear force
Verification for bending
( Fatigue limit state)
Verification for shear

Verification of shear
transfer resistance
Determination of steel plate

thickness and arrangement
of reinforcing bars
Determination of shear
reinforcing bars stiffner
Determination of
number of studs
Consideration of buckling
in the case of compression
on steel plate side
Determination of specifications of composite slab

Fig. 1.6.3 Example of Performance Verification for Composite Slab of Hybrid Caisson
1.6.3 Actions
The actions which should be considered in performance verification of hybrid caissons conform to those for caissons;
therefore, 1.2.3 Actions can be used as a reference. Provided, however, that in the cases where steel partition walls
are used as the partition walls in a hybrid caisson, it is preferable to consider the actions due to the difference in water
pressure from inside and outside of the caisson while afloat and during installation, the actions of earth pressure and
waves etc. and the bottom reaction of the bottom slabs and footings as actions acting on the partition wall.
(1) Calculation of Sectional Force
For calculations of sectional force, 1.2.4 Performance Verification can be used as a reference, corresponding to
the caissons.
(2) Performance Verification of Composite Slab
In performance verification of composite slabs, the following items shall generally be considered.
Flexural moment
For the flexural moment, the section stress of composite slabs can be calculated as a double reinforced concrete
member by converting the steel plates to equivalent reinforcements.
Shearing Force
The shearing force of composite slabs can be analyzed in the same manner as that of reinforced concrete slabs.
Integration of Steel and Concrete
Shear connectors are particularly important structural elements for the integration of materials in a hybrid
structure. In composite slabs, headed studs and shape steel are most commonly used as the shear connectors.
The required quantity and arrangement of shear connectors should be designed in consideration of preventing
the steel plate separating from the concrete (especially when compressive stress is active) and securing the
transmission of horizontal shear force occurring on the interface between steel plate and concrete.
409
(3) Performance verification of SRC Members
The steel and reinforced concrete (SRC) members shall be designed against the flexural moment and shearing
force, by taking full account of the structural characteristics due to differences in the structural type of the steel
frame.
SRC members can normally be classified as follows, depending on the structural type of steel frames :
(a) Full-web type
(b) Truss web type
For the flexural moment, the section stress can be calculated as a reinforced concrete member by converting
steel frames to equivalent reinforcements. When the fixing of steel frame ends with concrete is insufficient in
full-web type, it should be calculated as a composite of the independent steel frame member and the reinforced
concrete member.
For shearing force, if the web is of truss type, the shear stress can be calculated as a reinforced concrete by
converting steel frames to equivalent reinforcements. If it is of full-web type, steel frames themselves can resist
against the shearing force, and they can be duly considered in design.
(4) Performance Verification of Partition Walls

Because partition walls function as a bearing side of the outer walls and bottom slab, in performance verification,
stability of the cross section of the partition wall should be secured against the sectional forces calculated based
on the actions on these bearing sides.
(5) Performance Verification of Corners and Joints

Corners and joints shall be designed to smoothly and firmly transmit section forces, and to be easily fabricated
and executed.
To secure sufficient strength at corners and joints, it is desirable to firmly connect the steel materials on the
tensile side to those of the compressive side. It is also desirable to provide shear reinforced steel materials
(haunches) against concrete tensile stress of the inside of joints.
(6) Performance Verification for Fatigue Failure
Hybrid caissons use a large number of welded joints for connecting steel plates, and attaching shear connectors
and shear resistance steel. Therefore, where the members are frequently subject to repeated load, the fatigue
strength in welded parts should be examined.
In coastal revetments and quaywalls, the influence of repeated actions is small. However, in performance
verifications of breakwaters, when the stress on members due to waves as a repeated action changes significantly,
examination for fatigue failure of the caisson is needed.
1.6.5 Corrosion Control
(1) Corrosion control of hybrid caissons shall be set appropriately considering the performance requirements, level of
maintenance control, construction conditions, and other relevant factors.
(2) The main cause of deterioration of hybrid members is corrosion of the steel materials. Because there are cases
in which corrosion of the steel materials may result in developing cracks of the concrete, appropriate corrosion
prevention measures should be taken for steel plates in order to improve the durability of the hybrid members.
The deterioration characteristics of the concrete itself should be considered to be the same as that of conventional
reinforced concrete.
(3) Steel materials used on the outside of hybrid caissons are generally covered with concrete or asphalt mats. The
inside of a caisson is isolated from the external atmosphere by means of concrete lids. It is also in contact with
filling sand in a static state and with residual seawater. Thus, when designing hybrid caissons, direct contact
between the steel plates of members and the marine environment is generally avoided. For corrosion control, it is
usual to set steel plate on the inside and concrete on the outside so as to avoid direct contact of steel plate with fresh
seawater. If steel plates are in direct contact with seawater, corrosion control should be applied such as coating
methods to splash zone or tidal zone and cathodic protection methods in seawater.
410
1.7 Armor Stones and Blocks

Public Notice
Performance Criteria of Armor Stones and Blocks
Article 28
The performance criteria of rubble stones and concrete blocks armoring a structure exposed to the actions
of waves and water currents as well as armor stones and armor blocks of the foundation mound shall be such
that the risk of exceeding the allowable degree of damage under the variable action situation, in which the
dominant actions are variable waves and water currents, is equal to or less than the threshold level.
[Commentary]
(1) Performance Criteria of Armor Stones and Blocks
The settings of the performance criteria and design situations, excluding accidental situations, for armor
stones and blocks shall be as shown in the Attached Table 14.
Attached Table 14 Settings for Performance Criteria and Design Situations (excluding accidental situations) for Armor
Stones and Blocks
Item
Article
Paragraph
28
Item
Paragraph
Public Notice
Article
Ministerial
Ordinance
Design situation
Performance
requirements
Serviceability
Situation
Variable
Dominating action
Variable waves
Nondominating
action
Self weight,
water pressure
Verification item
Index of standard
limit value
Extent of damage Limit value of

damage rate, degree
of damage, or
deformation level
Extent of damage
The indexes which express the extent of damage of armor stones and blocks for the variable situations
in which the dominating actions are variable waves and water currents are the damage rate, the degree
of damage, and the deformation level.
In the performance verification of armor stones and blocks, the indexes including the degree of
damage and the limit value thereof shall be set appropriately considering the design working life of the
objective facilities, the construction work conditions, the time and cost necessary for restoration, and
the conditions of waves and water currents, etc.
[Technical Note]
1.7.1 Required Mass of Armor Stones and Blocks on Slope 24), 25)
(1) General
The armor units for the slopes and a sloping breakwaters are placed to protect the rubble stones inside; it is
necessary to ensure that an armor unit has a mass sufficient to be stable so that it does not scatter itself. This
stable mass, required mass, can generally be obtained by hydraulic model tests or calculations using appropriate
equations.
(2) Basic Equation for Calculation of Required Mass
When calculating the required mass of rubble stones and concrete blocks covering the slope of a sloping structure
which is affected by wave forces, Hudsons formula with the stability number NS, which is shown in the following
equation, may be used.26) In this equation, the symbol is a partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d show the characteristic value and design value, respectively. For the partial safety factors NS and H in the
equation, 1.0 may be used.
where
M
r
H
NS
S r
(1.7.1)
: required mass of rubble stones or concrete blocks (t)

: density of rubble stones or concrete blocks (t/m3)
: wave height used in stability calculation (m)
: stability number determined primarily by the shape, slope, damage rate of the armor, etc.
: specific gravity of rubble stones or concrete blocks relative to water
411

The design values in the equation may be calculated using the following equations.
(3) Design Wave Height H Used in the Performance Verification

Hudsons formula was proposed based on the results of experiments that used regular waves. When applying
it to the action of actual waves which are random, there is thus a problem of which definition of wave heights
shall be used. However, with structures that are made of rubble stones or concrete blocks, there is a tendency for
damage to occur not when one single wave having the maximum height H among a random wave train attacks the
armor units, but rather for damage to progress gradually under the continuous action of waves of various heights.
Considering this fact and past experiences, it has been decided to make it standard to use the significant wave
height of incident waves at the place where the slope is located as the wave height H in equation (1.7.1), because
the significant wave height is representative of the overall scale of a random wave train. Consequently, it is also
standard to use the significant wave height when using the generalized Hudsons formula. Note however that for
places where the water depth is less than one half of the equivalent deepwater wave height, the significant wave
height at the water depth equal to one half of the equivalent deepwater wave height should be used.
(4) Parameters Affecting the Stability Number NS
As shown in equation (1.7.1), the required mass of armor stones or concrete blocks varies with the wave height
and the density of the armor units, and also the stability number NS. The NS value is a coefficient that represents
the effects of the characteristics of structure, those of armor units, wave characteristics and other factors on the
stability. The main factors that influence the NS value are as follows.
Characteristics of the structure
(a) Type of structure; sloping breakwater, breakwater covered with wave-dissipating concrete blocks, and
composite breakwater, etc.
(b) Gradient of the armored slope
(c) Position of armor units; breakwater head, breakwater trunk, position relative to still water level, front face and
top of slope, back face, and berm, etc.
(d) Crown height and width, and shape of superstructure
(e) Inner layer; coefficient of permeability, thickness, and degree of surface roughness
Characteristics of the armor units
(a) Shape of armor units (shape of armor stones or concrete blocks; for armor stones, their diameter distribution)
(b) Placement of armor units; number of layers, and regular laying or random placement, etc.
(c) Strength of armor material
Wave characteristics
(a) Number of waves acting on armor layers
(b) Wave steepness
(c) Form of seabed (seabed slope, where about of reef, etc.)
(d) Ratio of wave height to water depth as indices of non-breaking or breaking wave condition, breaker type, etc.
(e) Wave direction, wave spectrum, and wave group characteristics
Extent of damage (damage ratio, deformation level, relative damage level)
Consequently, the NS value used in the performance verification must be determined appropriately based on
hydraulic model experiments in line with the respective design conditions. By comparing the results of regular
waves experiments with those of random wave experiments, 27) it was found that the ratio of the height of regular
waves to the significant height of random waves that gave the same damage ratio, within the error of 10%, varied
in the range of 1.0 to 2.0, depending on the conditions. In other words, there was a tendency for the random
wave action to be more destructive than the action of regular waves. It is thus better to employ random waves
in experiments.
412
(5) Stability Number NS and K DValue
In 1959, Hudson published the so-called Hudsons formula, 26) replacing the previous Iribarren-Hudsons formula.
Hudson developed equation (1.7.1) by himself using K D cot instead of NS.

(1.7.3)
where
: angle of the slope from the horizontal line()
K D : constant determined primarily by the shape of the armor units and the damage ratio
The Hudsons formula was based on the results of a wide range of model experiments and has proved itself
well in usage in-site. This formula using the K D value has thus been used in the calculation of the required mass
of armor units on a slope.
However, the Hudsons formula that uses the stability number in equation (1.7.1) has been used for quite a
while for calculating the required mass of armor units on the foundation mound of a composite breakwater as
discussed in 1.7.2 Required Mass of Armor Stones and Blocks in Composite Breakwater Foundation Mound
against Waves, and is also used for the armor units of other structures such as submerged breakwaters. It is thus
now more commonly used than the old formula with the K D value.
The stability number NS can be derived from the K D value and the angle of the slope from the horizontal line
by using equation (1.7.3) There is no problem with this process if the K D value is an established one and the slope
angle is within a range of normal design. However, most of the K D values obtained up to the present time have not
sufficiently incorporated various factors like the characteristics of the structure and the waves. Thus, this method
of determining the stability number NS from the K D value cannot be guaranteed to obtain economical design
always. In order to calculate more reasonable values for the required mass, it is thus preferable to use the results
of experiments matched to the conditions in question, or else to use calculation formulas, calculation diagrams,
that include the various relevant factors as described below.
(6) Van der Meers Formula for Armor Stones
In 1987, van der Meer carried out systematic experiments concerning the armor stones on the slope of a sloping
breakwater with a high crown. He proposed the following calculation formula for the stability number, which
can consider not only the slope gradient, but also the wave steepness, the number of waves, and the damage
level.28) Note however that the following equations have been slightly altered in comparison with van der Meers
original one in order to make calculations easier. For example, the wave height H2% for which the probability of
exceedance is 2% has been replaced by H1/20.

(1.7.4)

(1.7.5)

where
Nsp
Nssr
Ir
Som
L0
T1/3
C H
H1/3
H1/20

Dn50
M50

P
S
A
N
(1.7.6)
: stability number for plunging breakers

: stability number for surging breaker
: iribarren number (tan/Som0.5)), also called the surf similarity parameter
: wave steepness(H1/3/L0)
: deepwater wavelength (L0 =gT1/32/2,g=9.81m/s2)
: significant wave period
: breaking effect coefficient {=1.4/(H1/20/H1/3)}, (=1.0 in non-breaking zone)
: significant wave height
: highest one-twentieth wave height, see Fig. 1.7.1
: angle of slope from the horizontal surface ()
: nominal diameter of armor stone (=(M50/r)1/3)
: 50% value of the mass distribution curve of an armor stone namely required mass of an armor
stone
: permeability index of the inner layer, see Fig. 1.7.2
: deformation level (S=A/Dn502), see Table 1.7.1
: erosion area of cross section, see Fig. 1.7.3
: number of acting waves
413
The wave height H1/20 in Fig. 1.7.1 is for a point at a distance 5H1/3 from the breakwater, and H0 is the
equivalent deepwater wave height. The deformation level S is an index that represents the amount of deformation
of the armor stones, and it is a kind of damage ratio. It is defined as the result of the area A eroded by waves, see
Fig. 1.7.3, being divided by the square of the nominal diameter Dn50 of the armor stones. As shown in Table 1.7.1,
three stages are defined with regard to the deformation level of the armor stones :
initial
damage,
intermediate damage, and failure. With the standard design, it is common to use the deformation level for initial
damage for N = 1000 waves. However, in case where a certain amount of deformation is permitted, usage of the
value for intermediate damage may also be envisaged.
Sea Bottom slope 1/100
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.4
H1/20/H1/3
1.3
1.2
1.4
1.3
H0'/L0
0.08
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.005
0.002
H0: Equivalent deepwater

wave height
1.2
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
h/H0'
Fig. 1.7.1 Ratio of H1/20 to H1/3 (H1/20 Values are at a Distance 5H1/3 from the Breakwater)
(a)
P=0.1
aye
or l
Arm
Filter layer
P=0.5
(c)
0A
5
2D n
le
eab
m
per
Im yer
la
0.5Dn50A
Dn50A/Dn50F =4.5
2D n
50
r
aye
or l
m
Ar Core
Dn50A/Dn50C =3.2
P=0.4
(b)
50A
2D n 0A
Dn5
1.5
r
aye
or l
m
r
r
A aye
l
Dn50A/Dn50F =2
ter
Fil
Dn50F/Dn50C =4
(d)
P=0.6
aye
or l
Arm
Dn50A = Nominal diameter of armor stones

Dn50F = Nominal diameter of filter material
Dn50C = Nominal diameter of core material
Fig. 1.7.2 Permeability Index P
414
No filter,
no core
S.W.L
A (Area of eroded part)
Fig. 1.7.3 Erosion Area A
Table 1.7.1 Deformation Level S for Each Failure Stage for a Two-layered Armor
Slope
Initial damage
Intermediate damage
Failure
1:1.5
1:2
1:3
1:4
1:6
2
2
2
3
3
35
46
69
812
812
8
8
12
17
17
(7) Formulation for Calculating Stability Number for Armor Blocks including Wave Characteristics
Van der Meer has carried out model experiments on several kinds of precast concrete blocks, and proposed the
formulas for calculating the stability number NS.29) In addition, other people have also conducted research into
establishing calculation formulas for precast concrete blocks. For example, Burcharth and Liu 30) have proposed
a calculation formula. However, it should be noted that these are based on the results of experiments for a sloping
breakwater with a high crown.
Takahashi et al.31) showed a performance verification method of the stability against wave action for armor stones
of a sloping breakwater using Van der Meers formula as the verification formula, and proposed the performance
matrix used for performance verification.
(8) Formulas for Calculating Stability Number for Concrete Blocks of Breakwater Covered with Wave-dissipating
Blocks
The wave-dissipating concrete block parts of a breakwater covered with wave-dissipating blocks may have various
cross-sections. In particular, when all the front face of an upright wall is covered by wave-dissipating concrete
blocks, the stability is higher than that of armor concrete blocks of an ordinary sloping breakwater because the
permeability is high. In Japan, much research has been carried out on the stability of breakwaters covered with
wave-dissipating concrete blocks. For example, Tanimoto et al.32), Kajima et al.33), and Hanzawa et al.34) have
carried out systematic research on the stability of wave-dissipating concrete blocks. In addition, Takahashi et
al.35) have proposed the following equation for wave-dissipating concrete blocks that are randomly placed in all
the front face of an upright wall.

(1.7.7)
where
N0 : degree of damage, a kind of damage rate that represents the extent of damage: it is defined as the
number of concrete blocks that have moved within a width Dn in the direction of the breakwater
alignment, where Dn is the nominal diameter of the concrete blocks: Dn =(M/r)1/3, where M is
the mass of a concrete block
CH : breaking effect coefficient; CH =1.4/(H1/20/H1/3), in non-breaking zone CH = 1.
a, b : coefficients that depend on the shape of the concrete blocks and the slope angle. With deformed
shape blocks having a K D value of 8.3, it may be assumed that a = 2.32 and b = 1.33, if cot=4/3,
and a = 2.32 and b = 1.42, if cot=1.5.
Takahashi et al.35) have further presented a method for calculating the cumulative degree of damage, the
expected degree of damage, over the service lifetime. In the future, reliability design methods that consider the
expected degree of damage is important as the more advanced design method. In the region where wave breaking
does not occur, if the number of waves is 1000 and the degree of damage N0 is 0.3, the design mass as calculated
using the method of Takahashi et al. is more-or-less the same as that calculated using the existing K D value. The
value of N0 = 0.3 corresponds to the conventionally used damage rate of 1%.
(9) Increase of Mass in Breakwater Head
Waves attack the head of a breakwater from various directions, and there is a greater risk of the armor units on the
415
top of the slope falling to the rear rather than the front. Therefore, rubble stones or concrete blocks which are to
be used at the head of a breakwater should have a mass greater than the value given by equation (1.7.1).
Hudson proposed increasing mass by about 10% in the case of rubble stones and about 30% in the case
of concrete blocks. However, because this is thought to be insufficient, it is preferable to use rubble stones or
concrete blocks with a mass at least 1.5 times the value given by equation (1.7.1). Kimura et al.36) have shown
that, in a case where perpendicular incident waves act on the breakwater head, the stable mass can be obtained
by increasing the required mass of the breakwater trunk by 1.5 times. In case of oblique incidence at 45, in the
breakwater head on the upper side relative to the direction of incidence of the waves, the necessary minimum mass
is the same as for 0 incidence, whereas, on the lower side of the breakwater head, stability is secured with the
same mass as the in the breakwater trunk.
(10) Submerged Armor Units
Since the action of waves on a sloping breakwater below water surface is weaker than above the water surface, the
mass of stones or concrete blocks may be reduced at depths greater than 1.5H1/3 below the still water level.
(11) Correction for Wave Direction
In cases where waves act obliquely to the breakwater alignment, the extent to which the incident wave angle
affects the stability of the armor stones has not been investigated sufficiently. However, according to the results
of experiments carried out by Van de Kreeke, 37) in which the wave angles of 0, i.e., direction of incidence is
perpendicular to the breakwater alignment, 30, 45, 60 and 90, i.e., direction of incidence is parallel to the
normal line were adopted, the damage rate for a wave direction of 45 or smaller is more-or-less the same as that
for a wave direction of 0, and when the wave direction exceeds 60, the damage rate decreases. Considering these
results, when the incident wave angle is 45 or less, the required mass should not be corrected for wave direction.
Moreover, Christensen et al.38) have shown that stability increases when the directional spreading of waves is
large.
(12) Strength of Concrete Blocks
In case of deformed shape concrete block, it is necessary not only to ensure that the block has a mass sufficient
to be stable for the variable situation in respect of waves, but also to confirm that the block itself has sufficient
structural strength.
(13) Stability of Armor Blocks in Reef Area
In general, a reef rises up at a steep slope from the relatively deep sea, and forms a relatively flat and shallow sea
bottom. Consequently, when a large wave enters at such a reef, it breaks around the slope, and then the regenerated
waves afterward propagate over the reef in the form of surge. The characteristics of waves over a reef are strongly
dependent on not only the incident wave conditions but also the water depth over the reef and the distance from
the shoulder of the reef. The stability of wave-dissipating concrete blocks situated on a reef also varies greatly
due to the same reasons. Therefore the characteristics over a reef are more complicated than that in general cases.
The stability of wave-dissipating concrete blocks situated on a reef must thus be examined based either on model
experiments matching the conditions in question or on field experiences for sites having similar conditions.
(14) Stability of Wave-dissipating Blocks on Low Crest Sloping Breakwater
For a low crown sloping breakwater with wave-dissipating blocks and without supporting wall, it is necessary to
note that the wave-dissipating blocks around its crown are easily damaged by waves.39) For example, for detached
breakwater composed of wave-dissipating blocks, unlike a caisson breakwater covered with wave-dissipating
blocks, there is no supporting wall at the back and the crown is not high. This means that the concrete blocks near
the crown in particular at the rear are easily damaged, and indeed such cases of block damage have been reported.
In the case of a detached breakwater, it is pointed out that some kind of concrete blocks at the rear of the crown
should have a larger size compared to the one at the front of the crown.
(15) Stability of Blocks on Steep Slope Seabed
In cases where the bottom slope is steep and waves break in a plunging wave form, a large wave force may act
on the blocks, depending on their shapes. Therefore, appropriate examination should be carried out, considering
this fact.40)
(16) High-density Blocks
The required mass of blocks that are made of high-density aggregate may also be determined using the Hudsons
formula with the stability number shown in equation (1.7.1). As shown in the equation, high-density blocks have
a high stability, so a stable armor layer can be made using relatively small blocks.41)
(17) Effect of Structural Conditions
The stability of wave-dissipating blocks varies depending on structural conditions and on the method of placement,
such as regular or random placement etc. According to the results of experiments under conditions of random
placement over the entire cross section and regular two-layer placement on a stone core, the regular placement
with good interlocking had remarkably higher stability in almost all cases.32) Provided, however, that if the layer
416
thickness of the blocks is minimal and the permeability of the core material is low, conversely, the stability of the
blocks decreases in some cases.42)
The stability of wave-dissipating blocks is also affected by the crown width and crown height of the blocks.
For example, according to the results of a number of experiments, there is a tendency of having greater stability
when the crown width and the crown height are greater.
(18) Standard Method of Hydraulic Model Tests
The stability of concrete blocks is influenced by a very large number of factors, and so it has still not been
sufficiently elucidated. This means that when actually verifying the performance, it is necessary to carry out
studies using model experiments, and it is needed to progressively accumulate the results of such tests. The
following points should be noted when carrying out model experiments.
It is standard to carry out experiments using random waves.
For each particular set of conditions, the experiment should be repeated at least three times i.e., with three
different wave trains. However, when tests are carried out by systematically varying the mass and other factors
and a large amount of data can be acquired, one run for each test condition will be sufficient.
It is standard to study the action of 1000 waves in total of three runs for each wave height level. Even for the
systematic experiments, it is desirable to apply more than 500 waves or so.
For the description of the extent of damage, in addition to the damage ratio which has been commonly used in
the past, the deformation level or the relative damage level may also be used. The deformation level is suitable
when it is difficult to count the number of armor stones or concrete blocks that have moved, while the degree
of damage is suitable when one wishes to represent the damage to wave-dissipating blocks. The damage rate is
the ratio of the number of damaged armor units in an inspection area to the total number of armor units in the
same inspection area. The inspection area is taken from the elevation of wave runup to whichever is shallower,
the depth of 1.5H below the still water level or to the bottom elevation of the armor layer, where the wave height
H is inversely calculated from the Hudsons formula by inputting the mass of armor units. However, for the
deformation level and the degree of damage, there is no need to define the inspection area. For evaluating the
damage rate, an armor block is judged to be damaged if it has moved over a distance of more than about 1/2 to
1.0 times its height.
(19) K D Value Proposed by C.E.R.C.
Table 1.7.2 shows the K D value of armor stones proposed by the Coastal Engineering Research Center, C.E.R.C.,
of the United States Army Corp of Engineers. This value is proposed for the breakwater trunk, parts other than
the breakwater head, in the 1984 Edition of the C.E.R.C.s Shore Protection Manual.43) In the table, the values
not in parenthesis are based on experiment results by regular waves, and it is considered that those corresponds
to 5% or less of the damage rate due to action of random waves. The values in parentheses are estimated values.
For example, the value (1.2) for rounded rubble stones which are randomly placed in two-layer under the breaking
wave conditions is given as the value which is half of 2.4, because the K D value of two-layer angular rubble stones
under the breaking waves condition is 1/2 that under the non-breaking wave conditions.
However, in cases where the wave height of regular waves corresponds to the significant wave height, the
wave which is close to the maximum wave height of random waves acts continuously under the breaking wave
condition in the regular wave experiments. Therefore, the regular wave experiment under the breaking wave
condition falls into an extremely severe state in comparison with that under the non-breaking wave conditions. In
random waves experiments, as described previously, it is considered that so long as the significant wave height is
a standard, as the breaking wave conditions gets severe, conversely, K D has a tendency to increase. Thus, at least
it is not necessary to reduce the value of K D under the breaking wave conditions.
Table 1.7.2 K D Value of Rubble Stones Proposed by C.E.R.C. (Breakwater Trunk)
Type of armor
Rubble stones (rounded)
Rubble stones (angular)

KD
Number of layers
Placement
method
Breaking waves
2
3 or more
2
3 or more
Random
(1.2)
(1.6)
2.0
(2.2)
( ) shows estimated values.
417
Non-breaking
waves
2.4
(3.2)
4.0
(4.5)
cot
1.55.0
1.7.2 Required Mass of Armor Stones and Blocks in Composite Breakwater Foundation Mound against
Waves
(1) General
The required mass of armor stones and blocks covering the foundation mound of a composite breakwater varies
depending on the wave characteristics, the water depth where the facility is placed, the shape of the foundation
mound such as thickness, front berm width and slope angle etc., and the type of armor unit, the placement method,
and the position, breakwater head or breakwater trunk etc. In particular, the effects of the wave characteristics
and the foundation mound shape are more pronounced than that on the armor stones and blocks on a sloping
breakwater. Adequate consideration should also be given to the effects of wave irregularity. Accordingly, the
required mass of armor stones and blocks on the foundation mound of composite breakwater shall be determined
by performing hydraulic model experiments or proper calculations using an appropriate equation in reference with
the results of past research and actual experiences in the field. Provided, however, that the stability of the armor
units covering the foundation mound of a composite breakwater is not necessarily determined purely by their
mass. Depending on the structure and the arrangement of the armor units it may be possible to achieve stability
even when the armor units are relatively small.
(2) Basic Equation for Calculation of Required Mass
As the equation for calculation of the required mass of armor stones and blocks in the foundation mound of a
composite breakwater, Hudsons formula with the stability number NS, as shown in the following equation, can be
used in the same manner as with armor stones and blocks on sloping breakwater. In this equation, the symbol is
a partial safety factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d show the characteristic value and design value,
respectively. For the partial safety factors NS and H in the equation, 1.0 may be used. This partial safety factor is
the value in cases where the limit value of the damage rate is 1% or the limit value of the degree of damage is 0.3.

(1.7.1)
This equation was widely used as the basic equation for calculating the required mass of the foundation
mounds of upright walls by Brebner and Donnelly.44) In Japan, it is also called Brebner-Donnellys formula.
Because it has a certain degree of validity, even from a theoretical standpoint, it can also be used as the basic
equation for calculating the required mass of armor unit on the foundation mound of a composite breakwater.45)
Provided, however, that the stability number NS varies not only with the water depth, the wave characteristics, the
shape of the foundation mound, and the characteristics of the armor units, but also with the position of placement,
breakwater trunk, breakwater head etc. Therefore, it is necessary to assign the stability number NS appropriately
based on model experiments corresponding to the conditions. Moreover, the wave height used in the performance
verification is normally the significant wave height, and the waves used in the model experiments should be
random waves.
(3) Stability Number for Armor Stones
The stability number NS may be obtained using the method proposed by Inagaki and Katayama,46) which is based
on the work of Brebner and Donnelly and past damage case of armor stones. However, the following formulas
proposed by Tanimoto et al.45) are based on the current velocity in the vicinity of the foundation mound and allow
the incorporation of a variety of conditions. These formulas have been extended by Takahashi et al.47) so as to
include the effects of wave direction, and thus have high applicability.
(a) Extended Tanimotos formulas
(1.7.8)
(1.7.9)
(1.7.10)

(1.7.11)
where
h' : water depth at the crown of rubble mound foundation excluding the armor layer (m) (see Fig.
1.7.4)
: in the case of normal wave incidence, the berm width of foundation mound BM (m)
418
in the case of oblique wave incidence, either BM or B'M , whichever gives the larger value of ( 2)
B (see Fig. 1.7.4)
L' : wavelength corresponding to the design significant wave period at the water depth h' (m)
s : correction factor for when the armor layer is horizontal (=0.45)
: incident wave angle, angle between the line perpendicular to the breakwater face line and the
wave direction, no angle correction of 15 is applied (see Fig. 1.7.5)
H1/3 : design significant wave height (m)

The validity of the above formulas have been verified for the breakwater trunk for oblique wave incidence
with an angle of incidence of up to 60.
h'
BM
BM'
Foot protection blocks
Upright section
Seaward
hC
Shoreward
Foot protection blocks
Armor units
Armor units
Rubble mound
Fig. 1.7.4 Standard Cross Section of a Composite Breakwater and Notations
Breakwater head
nk
at
w
ak
ru
rt
Br
Fig. 1.7.5 Effects of Shape of Breakwater Alignment and Effects of Wave Direction
(b) Stability Number When a Certain Amount of Damage is Permitted

Sudo et al. have carried out stability experiments for the special case such that the mound is low and no wave
breaking occurs. They investigated the relationship between the number of waves N and the damage rate, and
proposed the following equation that gives the stability number NS * for any given number of waves N and any
given damage rate DN (%).

(1.7.12)
where
NS is the stability number given by the Tanimotos formula when N = 500 and the damage rate is 1%.
In the performance verification, it is necessary to take N = 1000 considering the progress of damage,
while the damage rate 3% to 5% can be allowed for a 2-layer armoring. If N = 1000 and DN = 5%, then
NS * = 1.44NS. This means that the required mass decreases to about 1/3 of that required for N = 500
and DN = 1%.
(4) Stability Number for Concrete Units
The stability number NS for concrete blocks varies according to the shape of the block and the method of placement.
It is thus desirable to evaluate the stability number by means of hydraulic model experiments.49), 50) When carrying
out such experiments, it is best to employ random waves.
419
Based on the calculation method proposed by Tanimoto et al.,45) Fujiike et al.51) newly introduced reference
stability number, which is a specific value for blocks, and separating the terms which is determined by the
structural conditions of the composite breakwater etc., and then, presented the following equation regarding the
stability number for armor blocks in cases where wave incidence is perpendicular.

(1.7.13)
refer (1.7.9)
refer (1.7.10)
(1.7.14)
where
NS0 : reference stability number
A : constant determined based on wave force experiments ( = 0.525)
(5) Conditions for Application of Stability Number to Foundation Mound Armor Units
In cases where the water depth above the armor units on the mound is shallow, wave breaking often causes the
armor units to become unstable. Therefore, the stability number for foundation mound armor units shall be
applied only when h/H1/3>1, and it is appropriate to use the stability number for armor units on a slope of a slope
structure when h/H1/3 1. The stability number for armor stones in the Tanimotos formulas have not been verified
experimentally in cases where h/H1/3 is small. Accordingly, when h/H1/3 is approximately 1, it is preferable to
confirm the stability number by hydraulic model experiments.
On the other hand, Matsuda et al.52) carried out model experiments in connection with armor blocks, including
the case in which h/H1/3 is small and impulsive waves act on the blocks, and proposed a method that provides a
lower limit of the value of corresponding to the value of I in the case where the impulsive breaking wave force
coefficient I is large.
(6) Armor Units Thickness
Two-layers are generally used for armor stones. It may be acceptable to use only one layer provided that
consideration is given to examples of armor units construction and experiences of damaged armor units. It also
may be possible to use one layer by setting the severe damage rate of 1% for N=1000 acting waves in equation
(1.7.12). One layer is generally used for armor blocks. However, two layers may also be used in cases where the
shape of the blocks is favorable for two-layer placement or sea conditions are severe.
(7) Armor Units for Breakwater Head
At the head of a breakwater, strong currents occur locally near the corners at the edge of the upright section,
meaning that the armor units become liable to move. It is thus necessary to verify the extent to which the mass of
armor units should be increased at the breakwater head by carrying out hydraulic model experiments. If hydraulic
model experiments are not carried out, it should increase the mass to at least 1.5 times that at the breakwater trunk.
As the extent of the breakwater head in the case of caisson type breakwater, the length of one caisson may be
usually adopted. The mass of the armor stones at the breakwater head may also be calculated using the extended
Tanimotos formula. Specifically, for the breakwater head, the velocity parameter in equation (1.7.9) should be
rewritten as follows:

(1.7.15)

(1.7.16)
Note however that if the calculated mass turns out to be less than 1.5 times that for the breakwater trunk, it is
preferable to set it to 1.5 times that for the breakwater trunk.
420
(8) A rmor Units at Habor Side
It is preferable to decide the necessity and required mass of armor units at the harbor side, not only referring to past
examples, but also performing hydraulic model experiments if necessary and considering the waves at the harbor
side, the wave conditions during construction work and wave overtopping etc.
(9) Reduction of Mass of Armor
The equations for calculation of the required mass of armor units are normally applicable to the horizontal parts
and the top of slope. In cases where the mound thickness is minimal, armor units of the entire slope have the same
mass in many cases. However, in cases where the mound is thick, the mass of armor units places on the slope in
deep water may be reduced.
(10) Foundation Mound Armor Units in Breakwaters Covered with Wave-dissipating Blocks
In the case of breakwaters covered with wave-dissipating blocks, the uplift pressure acting on the armor and the
current velocities in the vicinity of the mound are smaller than those of conventional composite breakwaters.
Fujiike et al.51) carried out model experiments in connection with the stabilities of both the armor units of the
conventional composite breakwaters and the breakwaters covered with wave-dissipating blocks, and proposed a
method of multiplicating equation (1.7.9) by the compensation rate. Namely,

(1.7.17)
where
CR : breakwater shape influence factor, it may be used 1.0 for conventional composite breakwaters
approximately 0.4 for breakwaters covered with wave-dissipating blocks.
(11) Flexible Armor Units
Use of bag-type foot protection units which consist of synthetic fiber net filled with stones as the armor units on
the foundation mound has various advantages: large stones are not required, and mound leveling is not virtually
needed because they have high flexibility and can adhere to the irregular sea bed. Shimosako et al.53) proposed a
method of calculating the required mass of armor units on the foundation mound using bag-type foot protection
units, and also examined their durability.
1.7.3 Required Mass of Armor Stones and Blocks against Currents
(1) General
The required mass of rubble stones and other armor materials for foundation mounds to be stable against water
currents may be generally be determined by appropriate hydraulic model experiments or calculated using the
following equation. In this equation, the symbol is a partial safety factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d show the characteristic value and the design value, respectively.

where
M
r
U
g
y
Sr

(1.7.18)
: stable mass of rubble stones or other armor material (t)

: density of rubble stones or other armor material (t/m3)
: current velocity of water above rubble stones or other armor material (m/s)
: gravitational acceleration (m/s2)
: Isbashs constant, for embedded stones, 1.20; for exposed stones, 0.86
: specific gravity of rubble stones or other armor material relative to water
: slope angle in axial direction of water channel bed ()
The design values in the equation may be calculated by using the following equations. For the partial safety
factors U and y , 1.0 may be used.
Ud = U Uk , yd = y yk
This equation was proposed by the C.E.R.C. for calculation of the mass of rubble stones required to prevent
scouring by tidal currents and is called Isbashs formula.43) As also shown in the equation, attention should be
given to the fact that the required mass of armor units against currents increases rapidly as the current velocity
increases. The required mass also varies depending on the shape and density of the armor units etc.
421
(2) Isbashs Constant
Equation (1.7.18) was derived considering the balance of the drag force of the flow acting on a spherical object
on a slope and the friction resistance force. The constant y is Isbashs constant. The values of 1.20 and 0.86 for
embedded stones and exposed stones, respectively, are given by Isbash, and are also cited in Reference 54). It
should be noted that, because equation (1.7.18) was obtained considering the balance of forces in a steady flow, it
is necessary to use rubble stones with a larger mass in the place where strong vortices will be generated.
(3) Armor Units on Foundation Mound at Openings of Tsunami Protection Breakwaters
Iwasaki et al.55) conducted experiments on 2-dimensional steady flows for the case in which deformed concrete
blocks are used as the armor units on a foundation mound in the opening of the submerged breakwaters of tsunami
protection breakwater, and obtained a value of 1.08 for Isbashs constant in equation (1.7.18). Tanimoto et al.56)
carried out a 3-dimensional plane experiment for the opening of breakwaters, clarifying the 3-dimensional flow
structure near the opening, and also revealed the relationship between Isbashs constant and the damage rate for
the cases where stone materials and deformed concrete blocks are used as the armor units.
422
1.8 Scouring and Washing-out

Public Notice
Performance Criteria Common to Structural Members
Article 22
3 In cases where the effects of scouring of the seabed and sand outflow on the integrity of structural members
may impair the stability of the facilities, appropriate countermeasures shall be taken.
[Commentary]
(1) Scouring and Washout (serviceability)
In cases where scouring of the foundation of facilities concerned and ground and outflow of sand from
the ground behind structures might impair the stability of the facilities, appropriate countermeasures
against scouring and countermeasures against washout must be taken, considering the structural type
of the objective facilities.
References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
JSCE: Concrete Specifications, Construction, 2002

Yamaji, T.: Durability evaluation method for port concrete structures based on the results of long-term exposure tests,
Proceedings of Annual Conference of PARI, 2006, pp.41-58,2006
JSCE: Trend of testing methods, which want establishment of chloride ion diffusion coefficient testing method of chloride ion
of concrete and its standardization, Concrete Technology Series, 55,2003
Yamaji, T., T. Aoyama and H. Hamada: Effect of exposure environment and kinds of cement on durability of marine concrete,
Proceedings of annual conference on concrete engineering, Vol.23, No.2, pp.577-582, 2001
Nagao, T: Reliability based design method for flexural design of caisson type breakwaters, Jour. JSCE Nagao, T.: No. 696/I58, pp,173-184, 2002
Nagao, T.: Studies on the Application of the Limit State Design Method to Reinforced Concrete Port Structures, Rept. of
PHRI Vol. 33 No.4, 1994, pp.69-113
Nagao, T.: Case Studies on Safety Factors about Seismic Stability for the Slob of Caisson Type Quaywalls, Technical Note of
PHRI, Technical Note of PHRI
Moriya, Y., M. Miyata and T. Nagao: Design method for bottom slab of caisson considering surface roughness of rubble
mound, Technical Note of National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management No. 94, 2003
Nagao T., M. Miyata, Y. Moriya and T. Sugano: A method for designing caisson bottom slabs considering mound unevenness.
Jour. JSCE C, Vol. 62, No.2, pp. 277-291, 2006
Kikuchi, Y., K. Takahashi and T. Ogura: Dispersion of Earth Pressure in Experiments and Earth Pressure Change due to the
Relative Movement of the Neighboring Walls, Technical Note of PHRI No. 811, 1995
Tanimoto, K., K. Kobune and M. Osato: Wave Forces on a Caisson Wall and Stress Analysis of the Wall. for Prototype
Breakwaters, Technical Note of PHRI No.224, pp. 25-33, 1975
Shiomi, M., H. Yamamoto, A. Tsugawa, T. Kurosawa and K. Matsumoto: Damages and countermeasures of breakwaters due
to the wave force increase at discontinuous points of wave-absorbing blocks, Proceedings of the 41st conference on Coastal
Eng. JSCE, pp.791-795,1994
Miyata, M., Y. Moriya, T. Nagao and T. Sugano: Effects of surface roughness of rubble mound on section force of bottom slab
of caisson, (Part 2), Technical Note of National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management No.93, 2003
Moriya, Y., M. Miyata and T. Nagao: Design method for bottom slab of caisson considering surface roughness of rubble
mound, Technical Note of National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management No. 94, 2003
Nishibori, T. and T. Urae : Dynamic characteristics of metal fitting for hanging of large caisson, Proceedings of 29th
Conference of JSCE, 1974
Yokota, H., K. Fukushima, T. Akimoto and M. Iwanami: Examination for Rationalizing Structural Design of Reinforced
Concrete Caisson Structures,, Technical Note of PHRI No. 995, 2001
Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual for L-shape block wharves, 2006
Takahashi, S., K. Shimosako and H. Sasaki: Experimental Study on Wave Forces Acting on Perforated Wall Caisson
Breakwaters, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 3-34, 1991
Takahashi, S. and K. Tanimoto: Uplift Forces on a Ceiling Slab of Wave Dissipating Caisson with a Permeable Front Wall(2nd
Report)-Field Data Analysis-, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 23 No. 2, 1984
Tanimoto, K., S. Takahashi and T. Murakami: Uplift Forces on a Ceiling Slab of Wave Dissipating Caisson with a Permeable
Front Wall- Analytical Model for Compression of an Enclosed Air Layer-, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 19 No. 1, pp.3-31, 1980
Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Design Manual for Hybrid caisson, 1999
Yokota, H.: Study on Mechanical Properties of Steel-Concrete Composite Structures and Their Applicability to Marine
423
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
Structures, Technical Note of PHRI No.750, 1993

JSCE: Guideline for performance verification of hybrid structures (Draft), Hybrid Structure Series No. 11, 2002
JSCE Edition: Handbook of design of coastal protection facilities (Revised Edition), pp. 174-176, 1969
Literature survey Committee: Deformed wave absorbing blocks, Journal of JSCE, Vol. 49, No.4, pp.77-83, 1964
R.Y. Hudson: Laboratory investigation of rubble-mound breakwater, Proc. ASCE., Vol.85, W.W.3., pp. 93-121, 1959
Kashima, R., T. Sakakiyama, T. Shimizu, T. Sekimoto, H. Kunisu and O. Kyoutani: Evaluation equation of deformation of
wave absorbing works due to random waves, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 42, pp. 795-799, 1995
J.W. Van der Meer: Rock slopes and gravel beaches under wave attack, Doctoral thesis, Delft Univ. of Tech., p.152, 1988 or
J.W. Van Der Meer: Stability of breakwater armor layer ? Design formulae, Coastal Engineering, 11, pp. 219-239, 1987
J.W. Van der Meer: Stability of cubes, Tetrapods and Accropode, Proc. Of Breakwater 88, Eastbourne, UK., pp.71-80, 1988
H.F. Burcharth and Z. Liu: Design of Dolos armour units, Proc. Of the 23rd International Conference on Coastal Engineering,
Venice, pp. 1053-1066, 1992
Takahashi S., M. Hanzawa and K. Shimosako: Performance verification of stability of armour stones of rubble-mound
breakwaters against waves, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 50, pp. 761-765, 2003
Tanimoto, K., Y. Haranaka K. Yamazaki: Experimental Study on the Stability of Wave Dissipating Concrete Blocks against
Irregular Waves, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 85-121, 1985
Kashima, r., T. Sakakiyama, T. Shimizu, T. Sekimoto, H. Kunisu and O. Kyoutani: Evaluation equation of deformation of
wave absorbing works due to random waves, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 42, pp. 795-799, 1995
Hanzawa, M., H. Sato, T. Takayama, S. Takahashi and K. Tanimoto: Study on evaluation equation for the stability of wave
absorbing blocks, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 42, pp.886-890, 1995
Takahashi, S., M. Hanzawa, H. Sato, M. Gomyou, K. Shimosako, K. Terauchi, T. Takayama and K. Tanimoto
Kimura, K., K. Kamikubo, Y. Sakamoto, Y. Mizuno, H. Takeda and M. Hayashi : Stability of blocks at the end of breakwaters
armored with wave absorbing blocks, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol.44, pp.956-960, 1997
Van de Kreeke, J.: Damage function of rubble mound breakwaters, ASCE., Journal of the Waterway and Harbors Division,
Vol.95, WW3, pp.345-354, 1969
F.T. Christensen, R.C. Broberg, S.E. Sand, and P. Tryde : Behavior of rubble-mound breakwater in directional and unidirectional waves, Coastal Eng., Vol.8, pp.265-278, 1984
Soave, T. and T. Yajima: Outstanding technical issues in designing of detached breakwaters, Lecture note of Summer training
for Hydraulic Engineering 1982, (18th)Course B, Uralic Committee of JSCE, pp. B-5-1-B-5-24, 1982
Takeda, H., Y. Yamamoto, K. Kimura and T. Sasazima: Impact wave forces and stability of wave absorbing blocks on
breakwaters placed on steep slope, Proceedings Offshore Development Vol..11, pp.287-2901995
Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Technical Manual for wave absorbing blocks of large specific gravity,
p.45, 1995
Kubota, S., S. Kobayashi, A. Matumoto, M. Hanzawa and M. Matuoka: On the effect of the layer thickness and filling
materials of wave absolving blocks on their stability against waves, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 49, pp,756-760,
2002
Coastal Engineering Research Center: Shore Protection Manual, Vol.II, Department of Army Corps of Engineering, 1977
A. Brebner, D. Donnelly: Laboratory study of rubble foundations for vertical breakwaters, Proc. 8th Conf. of Coastal Engg.,
New Mexico City, pp.408-429, 1962
Tanimoto, K., T. Yanagisawa, T. Muranaga, K. Shibata and Y. Goda: Stability of Armor Units for Foundation Mounds of
Composite Breakwaters Determined by Irregular Wave Tests, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 3-42, 1982
Inagaki, K. and T. Katayama: Analysis of damage to armor stones of mounds in composite breakwaters, Technical Note of
PHRI No.127, pp.1-22, 1971
Takahashi S., K. Kimura and K. Tanimoto: Stability of Armour Units of Composite Breakwater Mound against Oblique
Waves, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 29 No. 2, pp.3-36, 1990
Sudo, K., K. Kimura, T. Sasajima, Y. Mizuno and H. Takeda: Estimation equation of requited weight of armour units of
rubble-mound of composite breakwaters considering the allowable deformation, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 42,
pp.896-900, 1995
Kougami, Y. and T. Narita: On the stability of armour layer, made with wave-absorbing blocks, of rubble foundation of
composite breakwaters, Journal of Public Works Research Institute (PWRI), Hokkaido Regional Development Bureau
(HRDB)No. 232, pp.1-13, 1972
Kashima, R., S. Saitou and H. Hasegawa: Required weight of armour concrete cube for rubble mound foundation of composite
breakwaters, Report of the Second Technical Research Institute of the Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
70022, p.18, 1971
Fujiike, T., K. Kimura, T. Hayashi and y. Doi: Stability against waves of armor units placed at front face of rubble-mound of
wave-absorbing-block-armored breakwaters, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 46, pp.881-885, 1999
Matuda, S., W. Nishikiori, A. Matumoto and M. Saitou: Estimation method of stable weight of armour blocks of rubblemound of composite breakwaters considering impact wave force actions, Proceedings of Coastal Eng. JSCE Vol. 47, pp.896900, 2000
Shimosako, K., S. Kubota, A. Matumoto, M. Hanzawa, Y. Shinomura, N. Oike, T. Iketani and S. Akiyama
Kudou, T.: Temporary river closing dikes and its overflow, Journal of JSCE, Vol. 58 No. 11, pp.63-69, 1973
424
55) Iwasaki, T., A. Mano, T. Nakamura and N. Horikoshi : Experimental study on fluid dynamic force in steady flow acting on
mound materials of submerged breakwaters and prepacked breakwaters, Proceedings of the 31st Conference on Coastal Eng.
JSCE, pp527-531, 1984
56) Tanimoto, K., K. Kimura and K. Miyazaki: Study on Stability of Submerged Dike at the Opening Section of Tsunami
Protection Breakwaters, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 93-121, 1988
425
2 Foundations
2.1 General Comments
(1) The foundation structures of the port facilities shall be selected appropriately, giving due consideration to the
importance of the facilities and soil conditions of the foundation ground.
(2) W hen the stability of the foundation structures seems to be an obstacle, countermeasures such as pile foundation
or soil improvement, etc. shall be applied as necessary.
(3) W hen the foundation ground is soft, excessive settlement or deformation may arise owing to the lack of the
bearing capacity. When the foundation ground consists of loose sandy soil, liquefaction due to action of ground
motion causes the structure failure or significantly damage its functions. In such cases, the stress in subsoil by the
weight of structures needs to be reduced or the foundation ground should be improved.
(4) For the stability of foundations, 2.2 Shallow Spread Foundations, and 2.3 Deep Foundations, or 3 Stability of
Slopes can be used as reference. For settlement of foundations, 2.5 Settlement of Foundations, and for liquefaction
due to action of ground motion, Part II, Chapter 6 Ground Liquefaction can be used as reference. For the
performance verification of pile foundations, 2.4 Pile Foundations can be used as reference. In cases where
it is necessary to conduct the performance verification for ground motion, the verification shall be performed
corresponding to the characteristics of the respective foundations.
(5) Methods of Reducing Ground Stress
The following are methods of reducing ground stress due to the weight of structures.
Reduction of the weight of the structure itself
Expansion of the area of the bottom of the structure
Use of a pile foundation
Shear stress due to the facilities may be reduced by the counterweight method.
(6) Method of Soil Improvement
For method of soil improvement, 4 Soil Improvement Methods can be used as reference.
2.2 Shallow Spread Foundations

2.2.1 General
(1) When the embedment depth of the foundation is less than the minimum width of the foundation, the foundation
may generally be examined as a shallow spread foundation.
(2) In general, the bearing capacity of a foundation is the sum of the bottom bearing capacity and the side resistance
of the foundation. Bottom bearing capacity is determined by the value of the pressure applied to the foundation
bottom considered necessary to cause plastic flow in the ground. The side resistance of a foundation is the
frictional resistance or the cohesion resistance acting between the sides of the foundation and the surrounding
soil. Although considerable research has been done on the bottom bearing capacity of foundations, relatively little
research has been done on side resistance. If the embedment depth of the foundation is less than the minimum
width of the foundation, in the case of so-called shallow spread foundations, the magnitude of the side resistance
will be small in comparison with that of the bottom bearing capacity. Therefore, it is not necessary to consider the
side resistance in such cases.
(3) W hen an eccentric and inclined action acts on the foundation, 2.2.5 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined
Actions can be used as reference.
2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sandy Ground
(1) The following equation can be used to calculate the design value of the bearing capacity of the foundations on
sandy ground. In this case, appropriate values corresponding to the characteristics of the facilities can be adopted
as the partial factors. In general, 0.4 or less can be considered an appropriate partial factor R.

(2.2.1)
where
qd : design value of foundation bearing capacity considering buoyancy of submerged part (kN/m 2)
R : partial factor for bearing capacity of sandy ground
426
: shape factor of foundation, see Table 2.2.1
1dg : design value of unit weight of soil of ground below foundation bottom or unit weight in water,
if submerged (kN/m3)
B : minimum width of foundation (m)
Nrd, Nqd : design values obtained by multiplying partial factors Nq and N by the characteristic values of
the bearing capacity factor Nqk and Nk (see Fig. 2.2.1), 1) respectively. The characteristic values
of the bearing capacity factor are expressed by the following equations.

(Prandtls solution)
(Meyerhofs solution)
2dg : design value of unit weight of soil of ground above foundation bottom, or unit weight in water,
D : embedment depth of foundation in ground (m)
(2) When the actions on the foundation increase, first, settlement of the foundation occurs in proportion to the actions.
However, when the actions reach a certain value, settlement increases suddenly and shear failure of the ground
occurs. The intensity of the load required to cause this shear failure which is obtained by dividing the load by
the contact area is called the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation. The bearing capacity of the foundation
can be calculated by multiplying the ultimate bearing capacity obtained from the bearing capacity formula by the
partial factor R.
Table 2.2.1 Shape Factors
Shape of foundation
Continuous
Square
Round
Rectangular
0.8
0.6
10.2(B/L)
Characteristic values of bearing capacity factort Nqk and Nk
B: length of short side of rectangle, L: length of long side of rectangle
100
10
Nqk
N k
10
20
30
40
50
Characteristic value of angle of shear resistance k ()

Fig. 2.2.1 Relationship between Bearing Capacity Factors Nrk and Nqk and Angle of Shear Resistance k
427
2.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Cohesive Soil Ground
(1) In calculations of the design values for foundations of cohesive soil ground in cases where the undrained shear
strength increases linearly with depth, the following equation can be used. In this case, an appropriate value
corresponding to the characteristics of the facilities shall be selected for the partial factor R.

(2.2.2)
where
qd
R
Nc0d
n
B
L
c0d
2dg
: design value of foundation bearing capacity considering buoyancy of submerged part (kN/m 2)
: partial factor for bearing capacity of cohesive soil ground
: design value of bearing capacity factor for continuous foundation
: shape factor of foundation, see Fig. 2.2.2
: minimum width of foundation (m)
: length of foundation
: design value of undrained shear strength of cohesive soil at bottom of foundation (kN/m 2)
: design value of unit weight of soil of ground above foundation bottom, or unit weight in water,
D : embedment depth of foundation in ground (m)
(2) As the undrained shear strength of cohesive soil ground in port areas usually increases linearly with depth, the
bearing capacity of foundation should be calculated by the equation that takes account of the effect of shear
strength increase.
(3) Equation for Calculating Design Value of Bearing Capacity of Cohesive Soil Ground Considering Strength
Increase in Depth Direction
The design value Nc0d of the bearing capacity factor in equation (2.2.2) can be calculated using Fig. 2.2.2.
Here, k is the strength increase rate in the depth direction. If the surface strength is assumed to be c0, the strength
at depth z is expressed by c0 + kz. As the partial factor for the bearing capacity R, an appropriate value of 0.66
or less can be used generally, but in cases where there is a possibility that slight settlement or deformation of the
ground may remarkably impair the functions of superstructure, as in the case of crane foundations, a value of no
more than 0.4 shall be used.
12
0.30
c0
Load intensity
0.25
10
z
kz
0.20
Nc0k
Nc0k 6
0.15 n
n
0.10
0.05
0
0
kkB/c0k
Fig. 2.2.2 Relationship of Bearing Capacity factor Ncok of Cohesive Soil Ground in which Strength Increases in Depth
Direction and Shape Factor n
428
(4) Practical Equation for Calculating Design Value of Bearing Capacity
Based on the bearing capacity factors shown in Fig. 2.2.2, the design value of the bearing capacity of foundations
in case of continuous foundations can be calculated using the practical equation shown in equation (2.2.3) in the
range where kkB/c0k4. The symbols used are the same as in equation (2.2.2).
(provided, however, that kkB/c0k4)
(2.2.3)
2.2.4 Bearing Capacity of Multi-layered Ground

(1) Examination of stability for the bearing capacity when the foundation ground has a multi-layered structure can be
performed by circular slip failure analysis. Assuming the overburden pressure above the level of the foundation
bottom as the surcharge, circular slip failure analysis is performed by the modified Fellenius method for an arc
passing through the edge of the foundation, as shown in Fig. 2.2.3. As the partial factor R for the analysis method,
0.66 or less can be used generally, but in cases where settlement will have a large effect on the functions of the
facilities like crane, it is preferable to use a value of no more than 0.4.
Soil layer 1
Soil layer 2
Soil layer 3
Soil layer 4
Fig. 2.2.3 Calculation of Bearing Capacity of Multi-layered Ground by Circular Slip Failure Analysis
(2) If the cohesive soil layer thickness H is significantly less than the smallest width of the foundation B (i.e., H <
0.5B), a punching shear failure, in which the cohesive soil layer is squeezed out between the surcharge plane and
the bottom of cohesive soil layer, is liable to occur. The bearing capacity against this kind of squeezed-out failure
can be calculated by the following equation 4)

(2.2.4)
where
qd : design value of bearing capacity of foundation considering the buoyancy of the submerged
partkN/m 2
B : smallest width of foundationm
H : thickness of cohesive soil layerm
cud : design value of mean undrained shear strength in layer of thickness HkN/m2
2dg : design value of unit weight of soil above the level of foundation bottom or unit weight in water,
if submergedkN/m3
R : partial factor for bearing capacity
D : embedded depth of foundationm
2.2.5 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined Actions
(1) Examination of the bearing capacity for eccentric and inclined actions acting on the foundation ground of gravitytype structures can be performed by circular slip failure analysis with the simplified Bishop method using the
following equation. In this equation, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d indicate the characteristic value and design value, respectively. In this case, the partial factor shall be an
appropriate value corresponding to the characteristics of the facilities. It is necessary to set the strength constant
of the ground, the forms of the actions, and other factors appropriately considering the structural characteristics
of the facilities.
429
(2.2.5)
where
R : radius of in circular slip failure (m)
cd : in case of cohesive soil ground, design value of undrained shear strength, and in case of sandy
ground, design value of apparent cohesion in drained condition (kN/m 2)
Wd : design value of effective weight to discrete segment per unit of length, submerges unit weight if
submerged (kN/m)
qd : design value of vertical action from top of discrete segment (kN/m)
: angle of bottom of discrete segment to horizontal ()
d : in case of cohesive soil ground, the value shall be 0, and in case of sandy ground, design value
of angle of shear resistance in drained condition ()
Wd : design value of total weight of discrete segment per unit of length, namely total weight of soil
and water (kN/m)
PHd : design value of horizontal action on lumps of earth in circular slip failure (kN/m)
a : arm length from the center of circular slip failure at position of action of an external action H
S : width of discrete segment (m)
Ff : partial factor for analysis method
Based on equation (2.2.5), Ff is calculated, and stability is verified by the verification parameter Ff 1. The
design values in the equation can be calculated by the following equations. Provided, however, that in cases where
partial factors are given by structural type, the partial factor for the part concerned shall be used. In other cases
where partial factors are not particularly designated, the value of the partial factor can be set at 1.00.
cd =c ck, W'd =W' W'k,qd =q qk, d =tan1(tan tank), PHd =PH PHk
(2.2.6)
(2) In gravity-type quaywalls and gravity-type breakwaters, actions due to self weight, earth pressure, wave force,
and ground motion shall be considered. However, the resultant of these actions is normally both eccentric and
inclined. Therefore, examination for eccentric and inclined actions is necessary in examination of the bearing
capacity of foundations. Here, eccentric and inclined action means an action with an inclination ratio equal to or
greater than 0.1.
(3) Because normal gravity-type structures are two-layered structures with a rubble mound layer on foundation
ground, an examination method which adequately reflects this feature is necessary. The fact that circular slip
failure calculations by the Bishop method, simplified Bishop method, accurately express stability for bearing
capacity has been confirmed in a series of research results, including laboratory model experiments, in-situ
loading experiments, and analysis of the existing breakwaters and quaywalls, and this method is therefore used as
a general method.5)
(4) Analysis of Bearing Capacity by Circular Slip Failure Analysis based on the Bishop Method
Analysis through circular slip failure analysis based on the Bishop method is more precise than the analysis based
on the modified Fellenius method, except when a vertical action exerts on horizontally layered sandy ground.
Therefore, the circular slip failure analysis by the Bishop method is applied under the condition that eccentric and
inclined actions exert act. As shown in Fig. 2.2.4 (a), the start point of the slip surface is set symmetrical about
the acting point of resultant load to one of the foundation edges that is closer to the load acting point. In this case,
the vertical action exerting on the rubble mound is converted into uniformly distributed load acting on the width
between fore toe of the bottom and the start point of the slip surface as indicated in Fig. 2.2.4 (b) and (c). The
horizontal force is assumed to act at the bottom of structure. When calculating the bearing capacity during an
earthquake, seismic force is assumed not to act on the rubble mound and the ground.
430
(p1+p2)
When subgrade reaction has a trapezoidal distribution; q=-B
4 b'
p1b
When subgrade reaction has a triangular distribution; q= 4 b'
b' b'
B
B
b' e
b
b' e
Combined force of load
R
R
Rubble
mound
Subsoil
(a)
p1
p2
b' b'
p1
b' b'
2b'
2b'
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2.2.4 Analysis of Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined Actions
(5) Verification Parameter and Partial Factors

The verification parameter is expressed by the ratio of the sliding moment due to actions and the weight of
earth and the resistant moment due to shear resistance (see 3.2.1 Stability Analysis by Circular Slip Failure
Surface). As general values of the partial factors for the analysis method, the values shown in Table 2.2.2 can
be used. Provided, however, that in cases where partial factors are indicated by structural type, the partial factor
for the part concerned shall be used.
Regarding actions on breakwaters due to ground motion, few examples of damage are available, and the degree
of damage is also small. As the reasons for this, in many cases actions due to ground motion are basically
equal in the harbor direction and the outer sea direction, and large displacement does not occur due to the short
duration of the action. Accordingly, examination of the bearing capacity due to actions of ground motion may be
omitted in the case of ordinary breakwaters. Provided, however, that detailed examination by dynamic analysis
is desirable for breakwaters where stability due to actions of ground motion may be a serious problem.
Table 2.2.2 Standard Values of Partial Factor Ff in Analysis Method for Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined
Actions (Bishop Method)
Quaywalls
Breakwaters
Permanent situation
0.83
Variable situation for Level 1 earthquake ground motion
1.00
1.00
Variable situation for waves

Note) In case partial factors are indicated by structural type, the partial factor for the part concerned shall be used.
(6) Strength Parameters for Mound Materials and Foundation Ground

Mound materials
Model and field experiments on bearing capacity subject to eccentric and inclined actions have verified that
high precision results can be obtained by conducting circular slip failure analyses based on the simplified
Bishop method, applying the strength parameters obtained by triaxial compression tests 5). Large-scale triaxial
compression test results of crushed stone have confirmed that the strength parameters of large diameter particles
are approximately equal to those obtained from similar grained materials with the same uniformity coefficient
6). Therefore, triaxial compression tests using samples with similar grained materials are preferably conducted
in order to estimate the strength parameters of rubbles accurately. If the strength tests are not conducted, the
values of cohesion cD = 20 kN/m2 and shearing resistance angle D = 35 are applied as the standard strength
parameters for rubbles generally used in port construction works.
The above standard values have been determined as safe side values based on the results of large-scale
triaxial compression tests of crushed stones. The values have been proven appropriate from the analysis results
of the bearing capacity of the existing breakwaters and quaywalls. It should be noted that cohesion cD = 20 kN/
m 2 as a strength parameter is the apparent cohesion, taking account of variations of the shear resistance angle
431
D of crushed stones under variable confining pressures. Fig. 2.2.5 shows the results of triaxial compression
tests on various types of crushed stones and rubbles 5). It shows that as the confining pressure increases, D
decreases due to particle crushing. The solid line in the figure represents the value under the assumption that the
apparent cohesion is cD = 20 kN/m2 and the shear friction angle is D = 35. Here, the dependency of D on the
confining pressure is well described by taking the apparent cohesion into account. These standard values can be
applied only to the stone material with an unconfined compressive strength in the mother rock of 30 MN/m2 or
more. If weak stones with the compressive strength of the mother rock of less than 30 MN/m 2 are used as a part
of the mound, the strength parameters will be around cD = 20 kN/m 2 and D = 30 7).
50
Test values
cD=20kN/m2, D =35
45
40
D ()
35
30
25
50
100
200
400
800 1400
Lateral pressure3 (kN/m2)

Fig. 2.2.5 Relationship between D and Lateral Confining Pressure 3 and Apparent Cohesion
Foundation ground
Foundations subject to eccentric and inclined actions often cause shallow surface slip failure. In these cases, it
is important to evaluate the strength near the surface of foundation ground. If the foundation ground is sandy,
the strength coefficient D is usually estimated from N-value. The estimation formulas employed up to now
have tended to underestimate D in case of shallow sandy grounds. This is because no correction has been made
regarding the effective surcharge pressure in-situ.
Fig. 2.2.6 collates the results of triaxial compression tests on undisturbed sand in Japan and presents a
comparative study of the formulas proposed in the past. Even when the N-values are less than 10, shearing
resistance angles of around 40 have been obtained. In many cases, the bearing capacity for eccentric and
inclined actions is important on the performance verification which is not under the permanent situation but
under dynamic external forces such as wave and seismic forces. In addition to the above and based on the results
of bearing capacity analysis of the structures damaged in the past, the values given below are applied as the
standard values of D in foundation ground.
Sandy ground with N-value of less than 10 : D = 40
Sandy ground with N-value of 10 or more : D = 45
If the ground consists of cohesive soil, the strength may be determined by the method indicated in Part II,
Chapter 3, 2.3.3 Shear Characteristics.
432
D ()
50
Range according to Meyerhof
Triaxial test
results
40
D = 20N + 15 according to Osaki
30
1
10
20
N-value
50
100
200
500
Fig. 2.2.6 Relationship Between N-value and D Obtained by Triaxial Tests of Undisturbed Sand Samples
433
2.3 Deep Foundations

2.3.1 General
(1) When the penetration depth of a foundation is greater than the minimum width of the foundation, it shall be
examined as a deep foundation. Means of distinguishing the deep foundations described here from pile foundations
include the method of judging whether L (L: embedment length of pile) 1 or not, based on calculations by the
method proposed by Y. L. Chan, see 2.4.5 Static Maximum Lateral Resistance of Piles.
(2) Foundations of the type described in (1) generally include the well, pneumatic caisson and continuous underground
wall. For pile foundations, see 2.4 Pile Foundations.
(3) Deep foundations support the superstructure stably by transmitting the action due to the heavy superstructure
through the weak upper strata to the strong lower strata. Accordingly, it can normally be considered that vertical
force is supported by the frictional resistance at the side surfaces of the foundation and the vertical bearing
capacity at the bottom, and the horizontal force is supported by the passive resistance of the ground.
2.3.2 Characteristic Value of Vertical Bearing Capacity
(1) The characteristic value of the vertical bearing capacity of a deep foundation shall be set taking into account the
soil conditions, the structural type, and the method of construction.
(2) Generally, the vertical bearing capacity of a deep foundation can be determined from the bearing capacity of the
foundation bottom and the resistance of the foundation sides, as shown in equation (2.3.1). However, in cases
where the amount of displacement and/or deformation of the facilities may be a problem, the deformation of deep
foundations should be estimated by assuming the ground behaves as a spring.

(2.3.1)
where
quk : characteristic value of vertical bearing capacity of deep foundation (kN/m 2)
qu1k : characteristic value of bearing capacity of foundation bottom (kN/m 2)
see 2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sandy Ground, 2.2.3 Bearing Capacity of
Foundations on Cohesive Soil Ground
qu2k : characteristic value of bearing capacity due to resistance of foundation sides (kN/m 2)
(3) The design value of the vertical bearing capacity of deep foundations shall consider a safety margin in the
characteristic value of the vertical bearing capacity, as in equation (2.3.2). The characteristic value of the
foundation bottom bearing capacity determined as described in 2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on
Sandy Ground and 2.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Cohesive Soil Ground, and the partial factor a,
which is used in cases where the characteristic value of the vertical bearing capacity is determined using equation
(2.3.3) and equation (2.3.5), as shown in the following, can generally be set at 0.4 or less for important facilities
and 0.66 or less for other facilities.

where
qud : design value of vertical bearing capacity of deep foundation (kN/m 2)
quk : characteristic value of vertical bearing capacity of deep foundation (kN/m 2)
(2.3.2)
(4) Caution is required concerning the resistance of the sides of deep foundations, as there are cases in which the
surrounding ground may be disturbed by construction and, as a result, adequate bearing capacity by side resistance
cannot be expected, depending on the structural type and method of construction.
The characteristic value of the bearing capacity due to the frictional resistance of the foundation sides in sandy
ground can be calculated by equation (2.3.3).

(2.3.3)
where
Kak : characteristic value of coefficient of active earth pressure ( = 0), see Part II, Chapter 5, 1
Earth Pressure
2k : characteristic value of unit weight of soil above level of foundation bottom, or submerged unit
weight if submerged (kN/m3)
434
D : penetration depth of foundation (m)
k : characteristic value of coefficient of friction between foundation sides and sandy soil,
k : characteristic value of shear resistance angle ()
B : width of foundation (m)
L : length of foundation (m)
qu2k in equation (2.3.3), is obtained by dividing the total friction resistance by the bottom area of foundation.
The total friction resistance is calculated as the product of the mean side friction strength f multiplying with
the penetration depth D and the total contact surface area between the sandy soil and foundation sides. Equation
(2.3.4) is generally used to calculate the mean side friction strength f corresponding to the penetration depth D.

(2.3.4)
The friction angle between the foundation sides and sandy soil should not be greater than the shear resistance
angle of soil , and it may be taken as (2/3) for the case between concrete and sandy soil.
The characteristic value of bearing capacity due to the cohesive resistance of the foundation sides in cohesive
soil ground can be calculated by equation (2.3.5).
where
ca
k
Dc
B
L
(2.3.5)
: characteristic value of mean adhesion (mean value in embedded part) (kN/m 2)

: penetration depth of foundation below groundwater level (m)
: width of foundation (m)
: length of foundation (m)
In case of deep foundations in cohesive soil ground, there is generally a possibility of drying shrinkage
during summer in the soil above the groundwater level; therefore, this soil is not considered to be an effective
contact surface. Accordingly, the mean adhesion ca in equation (2.3.5) should be the mean adhesion in the
effective contact part.
As practical values of mean adhesion in cohesive soil, the values in Table 2.3.1 can be used as reference.
Table 2.3.1 Relationship between Unconfined Compression Strength and Mean Adhesion of Cohesive Soil

(kN/m2)
ca
Class of ground at foundation side
qu
Soft cohesive soil
2050
*)
Medium cohesive soil
50100
612
Hard cohesive soil
100200
1225
Extremely hard cohesive soil
200400
2530
>400
>30
Consolidated cohesive soil

*Note) with soft cohesive soil, side resistance should not be considered.
(5) Consideration of Negative Skin Friction

In cases where the deep foundation penetrates through the consolidable ground and reaches the bearing layer, it is
necessary to examine negative skin friction acting on the body. As the method of examination in this case, 2.4.3
[9] Examination of Negative Skin Friction can be used as reference.
2.3.3 Horizontal Resistance Force of Deep Foundations
(1) The characteristic value of the lateral bearing capacity of a deep foundation shall be determined as appropriate
taking into account soil conditions, structural characteristics, and the method of construction.
(2) The lateral bearing capacity of a deep foundation is governed by the horizontal subgrade reaction of the foundation
sides and the vertical subgrade reaction at the bottom of foundation.
(3) The characteristic value of the horizontal resistance force of deep foundations can be determined from the passive
earth pressure and ultimate bearing capacity.
435
(4) The design value of the horizontal resistance force of deep foundations should include a safety margin in the
characteristic value, as in the following equation. When the characteristic value of the horizontal resistance force
of a deep foundation is obtained by the method presented below, the partial factors shown in Table 2.3.2 can
generally be used.

where
Fud : design value of horizontal resistance force of deep foundation (kN/m 2)
Fuk : characteristic value of horizontal resistance force of deep foundation (kN/m 2)
a : partial factor
(2.3.6)
Table 2.3.2 Partial Factor a

Resistance force by passive earth pressure
Resistance force by vertical bearing capacity
Important facilities
0.66
0.40
Other facilities
0.90
0.66
(5) Calculation Method for Performance Verification

When a resultant force at a bottom of foundation acts inside the core, namely the eccentricity of total resultant
force acting at the bottom of foundation is within one-sixth of the foundation width from the central axis of
the foundation, the maximum horizontal subgrade reaction p1 and maximum vertical subgrade reaction q1 can
be estimated by assuming the distributions of horizontal and vertical subgrade reaction are assumed as in Fig.
2.3.1.
Fig. 2.3.1 When Resultant Force is inside the Core
Assumption on the Distribution of Subgrade Reaction

The distribution of horizontal subgrade reaction shown in Fig. 2.3.1 may be assumed as being a quadratic
parabola with the subgrade reaction of 0 at the ground surface. This assumption is equivalent to the relationship
between the displacement y and the subgrade reaction p of equation (2.3.7) when the foundation rotates as a
rigid body.
where

p
k
x
y
(2.3.7)
: subgrade reactionkN/m2
: rate of increase in coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction with depthkN/m4
: depthm
: horizontal displacement at depth xm
436
When a linear distribution is assumed for vertical subgrade reaction and a resultant force acting at the bottom
of foundation is inside the core, the distribution of the vertical subgrade reaction becomes trapezoidal as shown
in Fig. 2.3.1.
Conditions when vertical resultant is in the core and characteristic value for horizontal resistance force in such
cases
The conditions for the case in which the vertical resultant at the bottom is in the core are expressed as in
equation (2.3.8).
(2.3.8)
The maximum horizontal subgrade reaction p1 (kN/m 2) and the maximum vertical subgrade reaction q1 (kN/
m2) in this case are obtained by equations (2.3.9) and (2.3.10), respectively.
(2.3.9)
(2.3.10)
When determining the horizontal resistance force of deep foundations, the values of p1 and q1 obtained by
equations (2.3.9) and (2.3.10) must satisfy equations (2.3.11) and (2.3.12), respectively.

where
l
2b
2a
A
P0
M0
N0
k
K'
K1
K2
w1

(2.3.11)
(2.3.12)
: penetration depth (m)

: maximum width perpendicular to horizontal force (m)
: maximum length (m)
: bottom area (m2)
: horizontal force acting on structure above ground surface (kN)
: moment due to P0 at ground surface (kNm)
: vertical force acting at ground level (kN)
: horizontal seismic coefficient
: K'=K2/K1
: rate of increase in coefficient of vertical subgrade reaction (kN/m4)
: rate of increase in coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction (kN/m4), see equation (2.3.7)
: self weight of deep foundation per unit of depth (kN/m)
: constant determined by bottom shape (= 1.0 for rectangular shape and = 0.588 for round
shape)
ppk : characteristic value of passive earth pressure at depth h (m) (kN/m 2), see Part II, Chapter 5,
1 Earth Pressure.
Provided, however that h is given by equation (2.3.19).
(2.3.13)
qud : design value of vertical bearing capacity at bottom level (kN/m 2), see equation (2.3.2)
a : partial factor for horizontal resistance force
When Vertical Resultant Force at the Bottom is outside the Core 12)
When the vertical resultant force acting at the base of foundation is not inside the core, a triangular distribution
of vertical subgrade reaction is assumed as shown in Fig. 2.3.2 12). When the vertical subgrade reaction is
expressed as qd (kN/m 2), the maximum subgrade reaction p1(kN/m 2) in the front ground is obtained from
equation (2.3.14).
437

(2.3.14)
The value of p1 calculated by equation (2.3.14) should satisfy equation (2.3.11). In this case, h is obtained by
equation (2.3.12).

(2.3.15)
where
h : depth at which horizontal subgrade reaction becomes maximum (m), see Fig. 2.3.2
W : self weight of foundationkN
e : eccentric distancem
The distance e is defined as shown in Fig. 2.3.2. When the foundation bottom is rectangular with the length
of 2a (m) and the width of 2b (m), the value of e is calculated by equation (2.3.16).

(2.3.16)
In the case of a round foundation bottom, the calculation may be made by replacing it with a rectangular
foundation bottom having length 2a and width 2b defined by equation (2.3.17).
(2.3.17)
where
D : diameter of circle (m)
In this way, the horizontal bearing capacity can be estimated at a safer side by approximately 10%. However,
this substitution should be applied on the basis of the appropriate judgement, by referring to reference 12).
M0
N0
P0
p1
kW
W
2a
qud
qd
e
Fig. 2.3.2 When Resultant Force is Not Inside the Core
438
2.4 Pile Foundations

2.4.1 General
(1) Definition of Pile Foundation
Pile foundation means a foundation which supports superstructures by means of a single pile or multiple piles, or
a foundation which transfers actions on the facilities or the foundation to the ground by means of single piles or
multiple piles, even when no facilities exist above the piles.
(2) Definition of Pile
Pile means a columnar structural element which is provided underground in order to transfer actions on the
facilities or the foundation to the ground.
2.4.2 Fundamentals of Performance Verification of Piles
(1) The loads received by piles as a result of actions are complex. However, in general, the components of the loads
acting on a pile consist of the axial load component and the lateral load component, and verification can be
performed based on the pile resistance performance with respect to the loads in these respective directions.
(2) Depending on the types of superstructures supported by the pile foundation and the types of loads acting on the
piles, there are cases in which is necessary to perform analysis by the component coupling method, treating the
superstructure and pile foundation as components.
2.4.3 Static Maximum Axial Pushing Resistance of Pile Foundations
[1] General
(1) The design value of the axial bearing resistance of pile foundations comprising vertical piles is generally
determined based on the maximum axial bearing resistance due to the resistance of the ground to vertical single
piles as a standard value in taking consideration of the following items.
Safety margin for displacement in the axial direction based on ground failure and deformation of the ground
Compressive stress of pile material
Joints
Slenderness ratio of piles
Action as pile group
Negative skin friction
Settlement of pile head
(2) The above (1) describes the general principle for determining the axial bearing resistance of pile foundations
comprising vertical piles. In order to determine the axial bearing resistance of a pile foundation, first, the static
maximum axial bearing resistance due to the resistance of the ground is determined, and a safety margin is
considered on this. Then, the above items (a) to (g) are examined, and the maximum axial bearing resistance is
reduced as necessary. The result obtained in this manner is the design value of the axial bearing resistance of the
piles which should be used in performance verification of the pile foundation.
(3) When considering the axial bearing resistance characteristics of a single pile based on the resistance of the ground,
the axial compressive load P0 acting on the pile head of the single pile is supported by the end resistance Rp and
the shaft resistance Rf of the pile, and can be expressed as in equation (2.4.1).

where
Rt : axial bearing resistance of single pile
(2.4.1)
(4) Characteristic Value of Axial Bearing Resistance of Single Pile Due to Resistance of Ground
Typical characteristic values for the axial bearing resistance of single piles include the following.
(a) Second limit resistance: Resistance equivalent to the load at the maximum bearing resistance in a static
loading test. Provided, however, that the displacement of the end of the pile shall be within a range of no more
than 10% of the end diameter. The static maximum axial bearing resistance given by appropriate calculations
shall be equivalent to this.
(b) First limit resistance: Resistance equivalent to the load at a clear break point appearing in the logPlogS curve
in the static compressive loading test. P represents load at the head and S means settlement value at the head
of a pile.
439
(c) Vertical spring constant of pile head: Slope of the secant of the pile head load displacement curve in the static
compressive loading test.
(5) Setting of Design Value of Axial Bearing Resistance of a Single Pile Based on Resistance of Ground
A safety margin shall be provided in the second limit resistance. The following equations are used in this safety
margin. Provided, however, that in the equation is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and
d indicate the characteristic value and the design value, respectively.

(2.4.2)
(2.4.3)
where
Rp : bearing resistance of the end of pile
Rf : shaft resistance of pile during compressive loading
In cases where only the bearing resistance of the pile head can be obtained in the loading test, and a safety
margin can be determined from the bearing resistance of the pile head, the following equation can be used.

where
Rt : axial bearing resistance of single pile
(2.4.4)
The standard values of the partial factors Ri for the pile end resistance, the shaft resistance, and the axial
bearing resistance of piles shall be as shown in Table 2.4.1Table 2.4.3. Provided, that in cases where partial
factors are determined separately by code calibrations, etc., in the design system. The subscript i represents
p, f, or t.
Table 2.4.1 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Shaft Resistance
Design situation
Variable situation for load acting due to ship berthing
Ri: Partial factor

0.40
Variable situation for load acting due to ship traction
0.40
0.66
Variable situation for load during crane operation
0.40
Variable situation for load acting due to waves
0.66
Table 2.4.2 Standard Values of Partial factors for Pile End Resistance
Design situation
Ri: Partial factor

0.40
0.40
0.66 (0.50)
0.40

0.66 (0.50)
In case the end of the pile remains in an incomplete bearing stratum which appears to be unsafe, the figures in parentheses shall be used.
Table 2.4.3 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Total Resistance

Ri: Partial factor
Design situation
End Bearing pile*
Friction pile*
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.66
0.50
0.40
0.40
0.66
0.50
* ) End bearing piles and friction piles shall be as classification provided in (10).
440
(6) Based on information for the performance verifications of normal port facilities , the use of the partial factors
listed above may give conservative results.
(7) Because the axial bearing resistance of piles is strongly affected by the construction method, it is necessary to
carry out construction in advance with test piles and collect information for the verification by various types of
examination. Depending on the results obtained with the test piles, it may be necessary to change the dimensions
of the piles or the construction method.
(8) Among the axial resistance factors of a certain pile, when the end resistance of the pile Rp is governing, the pile is
called the end bearing pile, and when the shaft resistance Rf is governing, it is called the friction pile. According to
this definition, a pile becomes a bearing pile or a friction pile depending on load conditions such as the magnitude
of the load, loading velocity, loading duration, etc. Therefore, the distinction between end bearing piles and
friction piles cannot be considered absolute. Although the following definitions lack strictness, here, a pile which
passes through soft ground and whose end reaches bedrock or some other bearing stratum is called the end
bearing pile, and a pile whose end stops in a comparatively soft layer, and not a hard layer that could particularly
be considered a bearing stratum, is called the friction pile.
(9) In general, when a pile penetrates to a so-called bearing stratum such as bedrock, or dense sandy ground, axial
resistance is larger and settlement is smaller than when a pile only penetrates to an intermediate layer. When a
pile penetrates to a so-called bearing stratum, the pile itself rarely settles, even when the soft layers surrounding
the pile undergo consolidation settlement. Therefore, negative skin friction acts on the pile, applying a downward
load, and the amount of settlement differs in the head of the pile and the surrounding ground. As these phenomena
cause a variety of problems, caution should be necessary. Although these defects are slight in piles which only
penetrate to intermediate layers, settlement due to consolidation of the ground under the pile continues, and as a
result, there is a danger of uneven settlement.
(10) The partial factor for the serviceability limit is applied to ultimate failure phenomena of the ground. When the
designer desires to avoid yielding of the ground, the use of the first limit resistance is conceivable. The Partial
factor in this case can be set at a value on the order of 0.5.
(11) In case permanent deformation of the ground is expected to remain after an earthquake, separate examination is
necessary. Furthermore, because there are cases in which the shear strength of the soil is remarkably reduced by
the action of ground motion, caution is necessary. For example, when sensitive cohesive soil is affected by violent
motion, loss of strength is conceivable, and from past examples of earthquake damage, it has been pointed out that
liquefaction may occur in loose sandy layers as a result of the action of ground motion, causing a large decrease in
the resistance of piles. Accordingly, with friction piles, which are easily affected by phenomena of this type, due
caution is necessary in setting the partial factors.
(12) Pile group means a group of piles in which the piles are mutually affected by pile axial resistance and
displacement.
[2] Static Maximum Axial Resistance of Single Piles due to Resistance of Ground
(1) The static maximum axial resistance of single piles can be obtained by vertical loading tests or calculation by
static bearing capacity formulas after an appropriate soil investigation.
(2) As methods of estimating the static maximum axial resistance of single piles from the resistance of the ground,
the following are conceivable:
Estimation by loading tests
Estimation by static bearing capacity formulas
Estimation from the existing data
(3) It is preferable to estimate the static maximum axial resistance of single piles from the resistance of the ground
by conducting axial loading tests. Determining the characteristic value of the static maximum axial resistance by
this method and then conducting the performance verification is the most rational method. In this case, the soil
conditions may differ at the location where the loading test is conducted and at the site where the actual piles are
to be driven. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the results of loading tests with caution with regard to their
relationship to soil conditions, based on a sound understanding of the soil conditions at the location where the
loading test is conducted.
(4) It may be difficult to conduct loading tests prior to the performance verification due to circumstances related to
the construction period or cost. In such cases, estimation of the static maximum axial resistance depending on
the failure of the ground by static bearing capacity formulas taking account of the results of soil investigation
is permissible. Even when estimating the static maximum axial resistance by methods other than the abovementioned (2)(a), and conducting the performance verification by setting the axial resistance of piles based
441
thereon, the appropriateness of the pile axial resistance used in the performance verification should be confirmed
by conducting loading tests at the initial stage of construction.
[3] Estimation of Static Maximum Axial Resistance from Loading Tests
(1) When the second limit resistance can be confirmed from the load-settlement curve, the characteristic value for
static maximum axial resistance can be set based on that value. When it is not possible to confirm the second
limit resistance from the load-settlement curve, it is permissible to confirm the first limit resistance and use that
value as the characteristic value, or to estimate the second limit resistance from the first limit resistance. It is also
permissible to obtain the vertical spring coefficient of the pile head based on the load-settlement curve at the pile
head.
(2) Effect of Negative Skin Friction
When a pile passes through soft ground, there is a danger that the direction of skin friction may be reversed due
to consolidation of the soft ground, this phenomenon is called negative skin friction. In such cases, it is necessary
to conduct tests to appropriately evaluate the pile end resistance.
(3) Load-total Settlement Curve Obtained by Static Loading Test
A load-total settlement curve obtained by a static loading test is shown schematically in Fig. 2.4.1. The curve,
which is initially gentle, shows pronounced break points, and the settlement of the pile head becomes remarkable,
even though there is no increase in the load.
Load
P1
P3
P2
Total settlement
Fig. 2.4.1 Yield Load and Ultimate Load
(4) Case in which the Second Limit Resistance is not Obtained Directly by Loading Test
Although there is no problem if the second limit resistance can be obtained by a loading test, in many cases, it is
not possible to apply a sufficiently large load to confirm the second limit resistance due to constraints related to the
test equipment. In such cases, the second limit resistance can be assumed by multiplying the first limit resistance
obtained by a loading test by 1.2. This judgment is based on the results of research by Yamakata and Nagai 14) on
steel pipe piles and statistical studies by Kitajima et al.15) When the first limit resistance also cannot be obtained
in loading tests, the second limit resistance should be assumed to be 1.2 times the maximum load in the test, or a
method of setting the design value of the pile axial resistance which does not depend on the second limit resistance
should be examined. In either case, a condition which assumes that the pile axial resistance estimated in this way
will be larger than the pile axial resistance that can actually be expected is required.
(5) Alternative Loading Test Methods for Static Loading Test
The rapid load test 17) is a loading test which shall be performed in less than 1 second. Test equipment capable
of applying a large instantaneous load is necessary; however, because various innovations have eliminated the
need for reaction piles, the test can be performed more easily than the static loading test.
The end loading test is a method in which a jack is installed near the bottom end of the pile, and the pile body is
pushed up while pushing the bottom end of the pile. This method enables separate measurement of the pile end
resistance and pile shaft resistance.
442
The dynamic loading test 18) is a type of loading test which employs an ordinary pile driver. As a feature of this
test method, changes over time in the elastic strain and displacement of the pile head are measured. In this test,
there are limits to the resistance which can be obtained, depending on the magnitude of the pile-driving energy.
Therefore, when the axial resistance which is to be estimated is large, as in long or large-diameter piles, in many
cases it is not applied as a method for direct estimation of the second limit resistance. It can be used to estimate
the relationship between static resistance and driving stop control during construction.
[4] Estimation of Static Maximum Axial Resistance by Static Resistance Formulas
(1) When estimating static maximum axial resistance using static resistance formulas, attention must be paid to the
soil conditions, pile conditions, construction methods, and limits of applicability of the static resistance formulas.
(2) The static maximum axial resistance obtained by static resistance formulas may be considered to be equivalent to
the second limit resistance.
(3) When using static resistance formulas, it is necessary to consider differences in construction methods.
Piles driven by hammer driving method a)
(a) When employing static resistance formulas using the results of standard penetration test results and undrained
shear strength of ground
i) End resistance of a pile
a) Equation (2.4.5) can be used in estimating end resistance of a pile when the bearing stratum is sandy
ground.

(2.4.5)
where
R Pk : characteristic value of end resistance of a pile by static resistance formula (kN)
Ap : effective area of end of pile (m2). In determining the effective area of an open-ended pile, it is
necessary to consider the degree of closure of the end of the pile.
N : N value of ground around pile end
Provided, however, N is calculated by equation (2.4.6).

where
N1 : N-value at end of pile (N1 50)
N
N2 : mean N-value in range above the end of pile to distance of 4B ( 2 50)
B : diameter or width of pile (m)
(2.4.6)
In equation (2.4.5), the coefficient of the equation proposed by Meyerhof based on the correlation between
the static penetration test and the standard penetration test in sandy ground was modified to conform to real
conditions.
In estimating the ultimate pile end resistance of piles supported by ground with an N-value of 50 or more,
caution is necessary, as N-values itself is not reliable when it is measured larger than 50, and furthermore,
the applicability of equation (2.4.5) in its current form to hard ground of this kind has not been adequately
confirmed.
b) In estimation of the point resistance of piles when the point of the pile penetrates clayey ground, equation
(2.4.7) can be used.

where
cp : undrained shear strength at position of the end of a pile (kN/m 2)
(2.4.7)
The bearing capacity coefficient of the end resistance of a pile in cohesive soil ground shown in equation
(2.4.7) was obtained by the same method as the bearing capacity of foundations on cohesive soil ground in 2.2
Shallow Spread Foundations. Because the cross-sectional shape of ordinary piles has point symmetry, B/L =
1.0, and Bk/cp < 0.1. Based on these facts, the bearing capacity coefficient Nc of foundations is obtained from
Fig. 2.2.2, see 2.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Cohesive Soil Ground. Therefore, the bearing
capacity coefficient of the end of the pile is 6. Accordingly, the end resistance Rp of the pile can be shown as
6cpAp.
443
As the undrained shear strength used here, the undrained shear strength cu obtained in the unconfined
compression test was commonly used up to the present.
ii) Pile shaft resistance
Pile shaft resistance may be obtained as the sum of the products obtained by multiplying the average strength
of skin friction per unit of area in each layer with which the pile is in contact. Namely, equation (2.4.8) can
be used.

(2.4.8)
where
Rfk : characteristic value of pile shaft resistance (kN)
rf : average strength of skin friction per unit of area in i-th layer (kN/m 2)
Aki : circumferential area of pile in contact with ground in i-th layer (= length of outer circumference
si
Us x thickness of layer l) (m 2)
For sandy ground, equation (2.4.9) can be used.

where
N : mean N-value of i-th layer
(2.4.9)
For cohesive soil ground, equation (2.4.10) can be used.

where
: mean adhesion of pile in i-th layer (kN/m 2)
Here, the value of the adhesion of the pile may be obtained as follows.
in case c 100kN/m2; ca = c
in case c > 100kN/m 2; ca = 100kN/m 2
(2.4.10)
(2.4.11)
However, because theoretical problems 24) arise in obtaining the adhesion of piles from the undrained shear
strength c of the ground, the value of adhesion should be examined, paying due attention to the characteristics
of the ground and conditions of the piles.
(b) Method of estimating the end resistance of piles which remain in sandy ground from bearing capacity theory
i) Expansion of bearing capacity theory of shallow spread foundations
If the shear resistance angle of the bearing stratum is known, the end resistance of the pile can be estimated
as an expansion of the bearing capacity theory for shallow spread foundations. Here, the following method is
introduced as an example. The end resistance of the pile is obtained using equation (2.4.12).

where
Nq : bearing capacity coefficient proposed by Berezantzev, see Fig. 2.4.2
v0 : effective overburden pressure at the end of pile (kN/m 2)
(2.4.12)
When Nq is to be obtained from Fig. 2.4.2, it is necessary to obtain the shear resistance angle. When
obtaining the shear resistance angle, equation (2.3.21) in Part II, Chapter 3, 2.3.4 Interpretation Methods
for N Values can be used. When the shear resistance angle is to be obtained by a triaxial compression test, it
is necessary to consider the fact that the shear resistance angle is reduced as a result of confining pressure.
444
Bearing capacity coefficient Nq
150
100
50
0
20
25
30
35
40
45
Shear resistance angle ()

Fig. 2.4.2 Bearing Capacity Coefficient proposed by Berezantzev
ii) Void expantion theory

The failure mode when the area around the end of the pile fails due to compressive force is considered to be
one in which a plastic region forms at the outside of a spherical rigid region around the end of the pile and is
in balance with an elastic region at its outer side.25) This theory is called the void expantion theory.
End resistance of a pile according to the void expantion theory can be shown by the following
equations.26), 27)
(2.4.13)
where
qp
Irr
Ir
cv
: end resistance of a pile per unit area (kN/m 2)

: corrected rigidity index
: rigidity index
: shear resistance angle in limit condition; assumes cv = 30+1+2. the values of 1 and 2
shall be as shown in Table 2.4.4.
av : coefficient defining compressibility of ground. av = 50 (Ir)1.8
G : shear rigidity. May be obtained as G = 7000N0.72 (kN/m 2). N is the N-value around the end of
the pile.
Table 2.4.4 1; 2 of Sand and Gravel
(Depends on particle shape)
1()
(Uniformity coefficient)
2()
Round
Uniform (Uc<2)
Somewhat angular
Moderate particle size distribution (2<Uc<6)
Angular
Good particle size distribution (6<Uc)
445
0
Pile diameter 1000mm
Measured
300N
Void Expantion theory
Depth at the end of pile, GL (m)
20
40
60
80
10
15
20
25
30
End bearing capacity of pile per unit area (MN/m2)

Fig. 2.4.3 Comparison of Measured End Bearing Capacity of Pile and Results of Calculation by Void Expantion Theory
Fig. 2.4.3 shows the results of a comparison of the measured end bearing capacity of pile and the results of
an estimation of end bearing capacity by the expanded void theory assuming cv = 34.
The vibratory pile driving method, vibro-hammer method, is increasingly being used for driving piles because
of the capacity increase of pile-driving machinery in recent years. As the principles of this method differ from
those of pile driving by hammer, the bearing capacity should be carefully estimated. When using this method,
the ground should be compacted by the method of hammer pile driving instead of vibratory pile driving in the
course of final driving, or vertical loading tests should be conducted to confirm the characteristics of bearing
capacity of the ground in question.
In recent years, the use of pile installation method by inner excavation instead of pile driving by hammer has
been increasing in port and harbor construction works. In such cases, the characteristics of the bearing capacity
of piles in question should be confirmed by vertical loading tests.
(4) Effective Areas of Pile End
Even if there is no shoe on the pile end, the end bearing area of steel piles can be considered closed, as shown
by the shaded areas in Fig. 2.4.4. In this case, the outer edge of the closed area is taken as the perimeter. This
is based on the following principle. Soil enters the interior of steel pipes or the space between the flanges of
H-shaped steel during the pile driving until the internal friction between the soil and the surface of steel pile
becomes equal to the end resistance of pile. This balance prevents soil from entering to the piles and has the
same effect as the case when the open end section is closed. But complete closure cannot be expected in the case
of large-diameter piles. In such cases the plugging ratio should be examined.
Fig. 2.4.4 End Bearing Area of Steel Piles
Plugging ratio
The mechanism of the end resistance of open ended piles is composed of the sum of the end resistance of the
substantial part of the end of the pile and the skin friction of the inner surface of the pile as shown in Fig. 2.4.5.
446
The resistance from the inner surface of the pile is considered to be determined from the direct stress action on
the circumference and the inner circular area of the pile. Because the pile cross-sectional area is proportional to
the square of its diameter and its circumference is proportional to its diameter, as the diameter of a pile becomes
larger, the concept that the total cross-sectional area of the pile is effective for resistance loses validity. In piles
of this type, among the resistances which are conceivable due to closure of the pile end, only some fraction
can be expected to function as the end resistance. That fraction is called the plugging effect ratio. The size of
the plugging effect ratio is affected by the diameter or width of the pile, the penetration depth of the pile, the
properties of the ground, the construction method, and cannot be determined simply by the diameter or width
of the pile alone.
Pu
Rf
Rf
Rf
Pu
Rf
Rp
Rf
d
:
:
:
:
:
actions
outer skin friction of pile
resistance attributable to wall thickness of pile end in open-ended pile
resistance due to plugged soil
ile diameter
t
d
Rp
Rp
Fig. 2.4.5 Schematic Diagram of Plugging Effect Ratio
Different from plugging effect ratio, the plugging ratio refers to the ratio of the end resistance that can actually
be expected to the end resistance obtained by static resistance formulas. From past data, the plugging ratio can
be considered to be 100% when the diameter of steel pipe piles is less than 60 cm or H-shaped steel piles which
short side width is less than 40 cm. Numerous theoretical calculation methods 30), 31), 32), 33), 34), 35) and results
of laboratory experiments 36), 37) have been presented as methods of estimating the plugging effect ratio which
consider the various factors mentioned above for piles with larger diameters or widths. There are also examples
of study by actually conducting pile loading tests. However, in addition to the fact that the plugging effect ratio
varies greatly depending on the properties of the ground, the construction method, and other factors, the state of
plugging of actual piles differs depending on the penetration depth, including the stress in the ground, making
it difficult to obtain the ratio by theoretical calculation.
The Japan Association of Steel Pipe Piles collected examples of measurements of the plugging ratio.38) Fig.
2.4.6 shows data based thereon together with additional new data. The new data added here are for piles with
diameters of 1100mm to 2000mm. According to these data, the plugging ratio for the case where equation
(2.4.5) is considered to express the end resistance for complete plugging is in the range of 30-140%. In any case,
it appears that there is virtually no correlation between the embedded length ratio in the bearing stratum and
the plugging ratio. Provided, however, that there is clearly a difference in the plugging ratio in steel pipe piles
with diameters of less than 1000mm and those with diameters greater than 1000mm. Caution is particularly
necessary when using large diameter steel pipe piles with diameters larger than 1000mm. Fig. 2.4.7 shows the
results when the x-axis indicates the pile diameter. In spite of some dispersion in the data, the pile diameter has
a large effect on the plugging ratio, as can be understood by comparison with Fig. 2.4.6.
The plugging ratio is affected by construction methods and soil condition, therefore it is necessary to grasp
the plugging ratio in actual construction works and by carrying out the loading tests.
447
End resistance of pile based on loading test / (300NAp)
1.5
OD 650mm
OD 700~900mm
OD 1000mm
0.5
*
* ) Thin stratum bearing pile

0
10
12
penetration length ratio in bearing stratum L/D
Fig. 2.4.6 Plugging Effect of Open Ended Piles (effect of embedded length ratio in bearing stratum)
Measured value / (300NAp)
1.5
0.5
0
0.5
1.5
Pile diameter (m)

Fig. 2.4.7 Plugging Effect of Open Ended Piles (effect of pile diameter)
(5) Bearing Capacity of Soft Rock

When piles are supported on soft rock or hard clay, the bearing capacity may be calculated by equation (2.4.5).
If unconfined compressive strength qu (kN/m 2) has been measured by undisturbed soil samples, equation (2.4.14)
may alternatively be used.

(2.4.14)
Further, the value of qu should be reduced to 1/2 or 1/3 of the measurement values depending on the conditions
of cracking in the ground. In any event, however, the value of qu should not exceed 2104kN/m 2.
448
DN
DN
N=2
N=4
N=9
N ; Division Number
[5] Examination of Compressive Stress of Pile Material

When determining the axial resistance of piles, it is necessary to consider safety with respect to failure of the pile
material.
[6] Decrease of Bearing Capacity due to Joints
(1) If it is necessary to splice piles, the splicing work shall be executed under appropriate supervision and reliability
of joints of spliced pile shall be confirmed by appropriate inspection.
(2) If joints are sufficiently reliable, it may not be necessary to decrease the axial bearing capacity due to joints.
(3) When spliced piles are used, the joints sometimes become the weak points in the pile. Therefore, it is necessary to
adequately examine the structural reliability of the joints. If the structural reliability of the joints is inadequate, it
is necessary to reduce the axial resistance, in consideration of the effect of the joint on the bearing capacity of the
pile foundation as a whole.
(4) In-site circular welding by semi-automatic methods is generally employed for the splicing of steel pipe piles used
in the field of port and harbor construction works. When such highly reliable jointing methods are applied under
appropriate supervision and the reliability of the joints has been confirmed by inspection, it is not necessary to
decrease the axial bearing capacity.
(5) For other matters related to the structures of joints, 2.4.6[4] Joints of piles of piles can be used as reference.
[7] Decrease of Bearing Capacity due to Slenderness Ratio
(1) For piles with a very large ratio of length to diameter, the axial bearing capacity of piles needs to be decreased in
consideration of the accuracy of installation, unless the safety of bearing capacity is confirmed by loading tests.
(2) This provision takes account of the fact that the inclination of piles during installation reduces their bearing
capacity. If loading tests are conducted on foundation piles, the ultimate bearing capacity can be determined,
accounting for the decrease of bearing capacity due to installation accuracy. Therefore, in this case the decrease
due to the slenderness ratio may not necessarily be taken into account.
(3) When decreasing the bearing capacity due to the slenderness of piles, the following values may be used as
references:
Except for steel pipe piles
(2.4.15)
For steel piles
(2.4.16)
449
where
: rate of reduction (%)
: pile length (m)
d : pile diameter (m)
[8] Bearing Capacity of Pile Groups
(1) When a group of piles are examined as a pile group, the bearing capacity of pile group may be studied as a single
and deep foundation formed with the envelope surface surrounding the outermost piles in the group of piles.
(2) Terzaghi and Peck state that a failure of a pile group foundation does not mean the failure of the individual piles
but failure as a single block, 45), 46) based on the principle that the soil and piles inside the hatched area in Fig. 2.4.8
work as a single unit when the intervals between the piles are small. The axial resistance of a pile group when
considered in this manner is expressed by equation (2.4.17).

(2.4.17)
where
Rgud : design value of axial resistance of pile group as single block (kN)
qdk : static maximum axial resistance (characteristic value) when bottom of block is assumed to be
foundation load plane according to Terzghis equation (kN/m 2)
q : partial factor for bottom bearing capacity (bearing capacity of foundation on sandy ground and
bearing capacity of foundation on cohesive soil ground in 2.2 Shallow Spread Foundations)
Ag : bottom area of pile group (m 2)
U : perimeter length of pile group (m)
L : penetration length of piles (m)
2
s
k : mean shear strength of soil in contact with piles (characteristic value) (kN/m )
s : partial factor for skin friction (see 2.4.3[1] General)

The axial resistance per pile is shown by equation (2.4.18).

(2.4.18)
where
Rad : design value of axial resistance per pile against failure as a block (kN)
2 : mean unit weight of whole block including piles and soil (kN/m3); below groundwater level, the
mean unit weight is calculated considering buoyancy, and above ground water level, using the
wet unit weight.
n : number of piles in pile group
In the case of cohesive soil, equation (2.4.18) is replaced by equation (2.4.19), where c is undrained shear
strength and 2 2 (2: mean unit weight of soil above the end of the pile).

(2.4.19)
where
B : short side width of pile group (block) (m)
B1 : long side width of pile group (block) (m)
a : partial factor (see 2.2.3 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Cohesive Soil Ground)
As the axial resistance of each pile when used as a pile group, it is necessary to use the smaller of the
axial resistance of the single piles or the resistance against block failure given by equation (2.4.18) or (2.4.19),
respectively.
450
Perimeter length U
Fig. 2.4.8 Pile Group Foundation
[9] Examination of Negative Skin Friction

(1) If bearing piles penetrate through a soil layer that is susceptible to consolidation, it is necessary to consider
negative skin friction when calculating the allowable axial bearing capacity of piles.
(2) When a pile penetrates through a cohesive soft layer to reach a bearing stratum, the friction force from the soft
layer acts upwards and bears a part of the load acting on the pile head. When the cohesive soft layer is consolidated,
the pile itself is supported by the bearing stratum and hardly settles, the direction of the friction force is reversed,
as shown in Fig. 2.4.9. The friction force on the pile circumference now ceases to resist the load acting on the pile
head, but instead turns into a load downwards and places a large burden on the end of the pile. This friction force
acting downwards on the pile circumference is called the negative skin friction or negative friction.
Positive skin friction
Consolidation
settlement
Weak layer
Bearing stratum
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.4.9 Negative Skin Friction
(3) Although the actual value of negative skin friction is not well known yet, the maximum value may be obtained
from equation (2.4.20).

(2.4.20)
where
Rnf,maxk : characteristic value of negative skin friction for single pile (maximum value) (kN)
451
: circumference of piles (perimeter of closed area in the case of H-shaped steel piles) (m)
L2 : length of piles in the consolidating layer (m)
2
f
s : mean skin friction intensity in the consolidating layer (kN/m )
(4) In the above, fs in cohesive soil ground is sometimes taken at qu/2. If a sand layer is located between consolidating
layers, or if a sand layer lies on top of consolidating layer, the thickness of the sand layer should be included in L2.
The skin friction in the sand layer is sometimes taken into account for f s . The characteristic value of negative
skin friction in such cases is shown by equation (2.4.21).

(2.4.21)
where
Ls2 : thickness of sand layer included in L2 (m)
Lc : thickness of cohesive soil layer included in L2 (m)
Ls2+Lc =L2
N
s2 : mean SPT-N-value of the sand layer of thickness Ls2
qu : mean unconfined compressive strength of cohesive soil layer of thickness Lc (kN/m 2)
(5) In pile groups, the characteristic value of negative skin friction may be calculated by obtaining the negative skin
friction assuming all of the piles form a single and deep foundation, and dividing the result by the number of piles
to obtain the negative skin friction per pile. (see Fig. 2.4.10).
where
Rnf, maxk :
U :
H :
s :
Ag :
:
n :
(2.4.22)
characteristic value of negative skin friction for pile group (kN)

perimeter length of group of piles acting as pile group (m)
depth from ground level to bottom of consolidation layer (m)
mean shear strength of soil in range of H in Fig. 2.4.10 (kN/m 2)
bottom area of group of piles acting as pile group (m 2)
mean unit weight of soil in range of L2 in Fig. 2.4.10 (kN/m3)
number of piles in group of piles acting as pile group
Consolidation layer
Equations (2.4.20) to (2.4.22) give the conceivable maximum value for negative skin friction. The actual
value of negative skin friction is considered to be governed by the amount of consolidation settlement and the
speed of consolidation, the creep characteristics of the soft layers and the deformation characteristics of the
bearing stratum.
L2
Fig. 2.4.10 Skin Friction of Pile Group
(6) The design value of negative skin friction can be calculated by the following equation, using the characteristic
value of negative skin friction.

where
nf : partial factor for negative skin friction (normally, 1.0 can be used)
452
(2.4.23)
(7) Verification
When calculating the axial bearing capacity of piles, many uncertainties exist as to how the influence of negative
skin friction should be considered. However, at the present stage, when negative skin friction is adequately
considered, one method assumes safety when it is confirmed that the force transmitted to the end of the pile
possesses adequate safety against failure of the ground at the pile end and compressive failure of the pile material
cross section. That is, when the design value of the axial bearing capacity in the serviceability limit state is Rad,
in addition to securing the required safety against ordinary loads, Rad satisfies equations (2.4.24) and (2.4.25).

where
Rad
Rpk
Rnf,maxd

fk
Ae
Rp
f
(2.4.24)

(2.4.25)
: design value of axial bearing capacity (serviceability limit state) (kN)

: characteristic value of end resistance of pile (second limit resistance) (kN)
: design value of maximum negative skin friction (kN)
(smaller of values for single pile or pile group)
: characteristic value of compressive yield stress of pile (kN/m 2)
: effective cross-sectional area of pile (m2)
: partial factor for end resistance of pile (generally, 0.8 can be used)
: partial factor for compressive yield stress of pile (generally, 1.0 can be used)
The characteristic value for end resistance of pile Rpk can be calculated using equation (2.4.5). When the
pile penetrates into the bearing stratum, the circumference resistance of that section shall be included in the pile
end bearing capacity. In this case, the characteristic value of end resistance can be calculated using the following
equation (see Fig. 2.4.11).
where
Rpk
N
Ap
Ls1 = L1
Ns1

(2.4.26)
: characteristic value of end bearing capacity of pile (ultimate value) (kN)

: N-value of ground at the end of pile
: area of the end of pile (m 2)
: length of pile penetrates into bearing stratum (sandy ground) (m)
: mean N-value for zone Ls1
: circumference of pile (m)
L2
L1=Ls1
Bearing ground
Fig. 2.4.11 End Bearing Capacity
453
[10] Examination of Pile Settlement
The axial bearing capacity of pile shall be determined in such a way that an estimated settlement of pile head does
not exceed the allowable settlement determined for superstructures.
2.4.4 Static Maximum Pulling Resistance of Pile Foundations
[1] General
(1) The design value of the pulling resistance of foundation piles must be determined considering the following items,
using the static maximum pulling resistance of a single pile due to failure of the ground as a standard.
Tensile stress of pile material
Effect of pile joints
Load on pile group due to actions
Upward displacement of piles by pulling
(2) The design value of the pulling resistance of piles can be obtained as follows. First, the characteristic value of the
static maximum pulling resistance of a single pile is obtained based on failure of the ground and adding safety
margin. The design value of the pulling resistance of the pile is then determined considering the stress of the pile
material, actions of joints, the pile group and displacement. .
(3) The characteristic values of the pulling resistance of piles are as follows;
The first limit resistance
The first limit resistance is the load when the shearing stress generated in the pile circumference or the soil
surrounding the pile by pulling of the pile affects substantially the entire length of the pile and yielding begins.
When a loading test is performed and the logPlogS curve is drawn, the clear break point which appears on the
curve shall be considered as the first limit resistance.
Deadweight
Displacement
The second limit resistance

The second limit resistance is the resistance when the pulling resistance of the pile circumference shows its
maximum value. If the maximum resistance is unclear, the second limit resistance shall be the load when the
displacement of the end of the pile reaches 10% of the diameter or width of the pile end. The resistance obtained
using static bearing capacity formulas may be considered equivalent to this resistance.
Maximum pulling force
Pulling force
Fig. 2.4.12 Pulling Resistance of Piles
(4) Setting of Design Value of Pulling Resistance of Single Pile

(a) A safety margin shall be taken in the second limit resistance. As the method, the following equation can be used.

where
R : partial factor
(2.4.27)
The standard value of partial factors can be as shown in Table 2.4.5.
Table 2.4.5 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Total Resistance
454
Design situation
R: Partial factor
0.33
0.33
0.40
0.33
0.40
(5) In cases where there appears to be a possibility of liquefaction of sandy layers during an earthquake, it is necessary
to determine pulling resistance giving due consideration to this fact.
(6) Because the self weight of the pile can be expected to act reliably as pulling resistance together with the weight of
the soil in the pile, a partial factor of 1.0 may be used for this. Accordingly, it is rational to calculate the design
value of the pulling resistance due to failure of the ground from the characteristic value of pulling resistance due
to failure of the ground as follows. Provided, however, that when the self weight of the pile is comparatively small,
this process is normally omitted. When the diameter of the pile is excessively large, it is considered that the soil
filled in the pile is not necessarily lifted with the pile, but separates and falls down.
when maximum pulling resistance is obtained by pulling test

(2.4.28)
when maximum pulling resistance is obtained by static bearing capacity formula

where
Rad
Wpk
Rut1k
Rut2k

(2.4.29)
: design value of allowable pulling resistance of pile (kN)

: characteristic value of self weight of pile with buoyancy subtracted (kN)
: characteristic value of maximum pulling resistance of pile by pulling test (kN)
: characteristic value of maximum pulling resistance of pile by static bearing capacity formula
(kN)
: Partial factor corresponding to subscript
[2] Static Maximum Pulling Resistance of Single Pile

(1) It is preferable to obtain the maximum pulling resistance of a single pile on the basis of the results of pulling tests.
(2) Unlike axial bearing capacity, there are few comparative data for pulling resistance, and indirect estimations may
involve some risk. Thus conduct of pulling tests is preferable to determine the maximum pulling resistance of a
single pile. However, in the case of relatively soft cohesive soil, skin friction during driving of a pile is considered
to be virtually the same as that during pulling of piles. Therefore, the maximum pulling resistance may be
estimated from the results of loading tests (pushing direction) and static bearing capacity equations.
(3) Estimation of the maximum pulling resistance by static bearing capacity formulas may follow the explanation
given in 2.4.3[4]. Estimation of Static Maximum Axial Resistance by Static Resistance Formulas. However,
the end bearing capacity shall be ignored. Thus, for piles driven by hammer, the following equations may be used.
Sandy ground

(2.4.30)
Cohesive soil ground

where
Rutk
N
As
ca
(2.4.31)
: characteristic value of the maximum pulling resistance of pile (kN)

: mean N-value for total penetration length of pile
: total circumference area of pile (m2)
: mean adhesion for total penetration length of pile (kN/m 2)
(4) In cases where the static maximum pulling resistance of a pile is to be estimated using a static bearing capacity
formula, examination is sometimes performed using Terzaghis equation, which is shown in equation (2.4.32).
455
In this case, an appropriate value shall be adopted, based on comparison of the values calculated using equation
(2.4.30) and equation (2.4.31) and the value calculated using Terzaghis equation.

where
Rutk
Rf k

L
fsk
caik
Ksk
qik
k
li
(2.4.32)
(2.4.33)
: characteristic value of the static maximum pulling resistance of pile (kN)
: characteristic value of skin friction of pile (kN)
: circumference of pile (m)
: penetration depth of pile (m)
: characteristic value of average strength of skin friction (kN/m 2)
: characteristic value of adhesion between soil and pile in i-th layer (kN/m 2)
: characteristic value of coefficient of horizontal earth pressure acting on pile
: characteristic value of mean effective overburden pressure in i-th layer (kN/m2)
: characteristic value of coefficient of friction between pile and soil
: thickness of i-th layer (m)
For ca and , see 2.4.3[4] Estimation of Static Maximum Axial Resistance by Static Resistance
Formulas.
The value of the coefficient of horizontal earth pressure Ks is considered to be smaller than in the case of
pushing. In general, a value between 0.3 and 0.7, which is close to the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, is
frequently used.
[3] Items to be Considered when Calculating Design Value of Pulling Resistance of Piles
(1) When determining the pulling resistance of piles, it is necessary to consider the following items.
The resistance used in verification of the pulling resistance of piles should be no more than the product of the
resistance of the pile material and the effective cross-sectional area of the pile.
In spliced piles, the pulling resistance of the pile below the joint is generally ignored. Provided, however, that
when high-quality joints can be used in steel piles, the pulling resistance of the lower pile can be considered
within the range of the tensile strength of the joint after confirming the reliability of the joint.
In case of a pile group, it is necessary to examine the pulling resistance as a single block surrounded with the
envelope surface of the outermost piles in the group of piles that act as a pile group.
When determining the pulling resistance of piles, it is necessary to consider the limit value of the upward
displacement of pile heads by pulling determined by the superstructure.
(2) Tensile Strength of Pile Materials
The design value of the pulling resistance of piles is limited to the tensile strength of the pile materials. The
method of examination can conform to 2.4.3[5] Examination of Compressive Stress of Pile Materials.
2.4.5 Static Maximum Lateral Resistance of Piles
[1] General
(1) The static maximum lateral resistance of a single pile shall be determined as appropriate on the basis of the
behavior of the pile when it is subject to lateral forces.
(2) The characteristic value of the static maximum lateral resistance of a pile must be determined so as to satisfy the
following two conditions:
The pile material shall not fail due to stress generated in the pile body. Especially the pile material shall not fail
due to bending stress generated in the pile body.
The displacement in lateral direction and inclination of the pile head shall not exceed the limit value of the
displacement determined by the superstructure.
(3) Penetration Length of Piles
The length of penetrated part of pile that yields effective resistance against external forces is called the effective
length. Piles are called long piles when the penetrated length is longer than their effective length. Piles are called
456
short piles when the penetrated length is shorter than their effective length.
(4) Piles Subject to Lateral Actions
The resistance which a pile performs when subjected to actions in the lateral direction (actions in the horizontal
or near-horizontal direction) is called the lateral resistance of the pile, and may be categorized in the three basic
forms shown in Fig. 2.4.13.63)
(a) The resistance of the pile is limited to the lateral direction, and resistance in the vertical direction does not
appear. This is the simplest form of lateral resistance and is frequently called the lateral resistance of a pile in
the narrow sense.
(b) Some part of the resistance of the pile is composed of axial resistance. However, because the shares of the load
borne by lateral resistance and axial resistance are determined almost entirely by the inclination angle of the
piles, resistance may be divided into lateral resistance and axial resistance and examined separately.
(c) Coupled piles are those in which two or more piles with differing axial directions are combined. The simplest
form of coupled piles is shown in Fig. 2.4.13. In coupled piles, most of the action is supported by the axial
resistance of the respective piles. Therefore, when the free length of the piles is long, the lateral resistance is
normally ignored and only the axial resistance is considered in estimating resistance. With coupled piles, it is
quite difficult to calculate the pile head displacement. So far, a number of methods have been proposed, 64), 65)
but none can yet be called adequate (see 2.4.5[6] Lateral Bearing Capacity of Coupled Piles). However,
because the displacement of coupled piles is far smaller than that of single piles, displacement rarely becomes a
problem.
TA2
TL
T
TA
TL1 T
A
T2
T
TL
TA1
(a) When one vertical pile is subject

to lateral force
(b) When one batter pile is subject

to lateral force
(c) When coupled piles are subject

to lateral force
Fig. 2.4.13 Piles Subject to Lateral Force
[2] Estimation of Behavior of Piles

(1) The behavior of a single pile which is subject to lateral force can be estimated by either of the following methods
or by a combination thereof.
Methods using loading tests
Analytical methods
[3] Estimation of Behavior of a Single Pile by Loading Tests
(1) When loading tests are planned to estimate behavior of a single pile subject to lateral force, it is necessary to
consider sufficiently the differences in the pile and load conditions between those of actual structures and loading
tests.
(2) Loading test results and characteristic value and design value of lateral resistance
When loading tests are conducted under the same conditions as those in actual facilities, the characteristic value
457
of the static maximum lateral resistance may be obtained from the loading test results by the following method.
The load-pile head displacement curve in lateral loading tests generally shows a curved form from the
beginning of the loading. Therefore, with the exception of short piles, a clear yield load or ultimate load normally
cannot be obtained. As explained previously in [1] General, this is because only gradual small-scale failure
occurs in the ground with long penetration lengths, and overall failure of the ground does not occur. Therefore,
the load-pile head displacement curve is not used to obtain the yield load or the ultimate load, but to confirm the
pile head displacement itself. In other words, the fundamental concept of the performance verification of piles
subject to lateral force is determination of the limit value of the displacement of the pile head and design so as not
to exceed that limit value.
Furthermore, the bending stress corresponding to the resistance obtained in this manner must also be
considered. Hence, it is necessary to ensure that failure associated with the bending stress of the pile material (see
Part II, Chapter 11, 2.2 Characteristic Values of Steel) does not occur when the expected load acts. To calculate
the allowable lateral bearing capacity of short piles, overturning of piles must be considered, in addition to the pile
head displacement and bending stress mentioned already. When the overturning load cannot be ascertained, the
maximum test load may be used instead of the overturning load.
[4] Estimation of Pile Behavior using Analytical Methods
(1) When estimating behavior of a single pile subject to lateral force by using analytical methods, it is preferable to
analyze the pile as a beam is placed on an elastic foundation.
(2) Methods of analytically estimating the behavior of a single pile subject to lateral force as a beam is placed on an
elastic foundation include the relatively simple Changs methods well as the PHRI (Port and Harbor Research
Institute, name is changed to PARI) method.68)
(3) Basic Equation for Beam on Elastic Foundation
Equation (2.4.34) is the basic equation for analytically estimating behavior of a pile as a beam placed on an elastic
foundation.
where
EI
x
y
P
p
B
(2.4.34)
: flexural rigidity of pile (kNm2)

: depth from ground level (m)
: displacement of pile at depth x (m)
: subgrade reaction per unit length of pile at depth x (kN/m)
: subgrade reaction per unit area of pile at depth x (kN/m 2)
: pile width (m)
Analytical methods differ depending on how the subgrade reaction P is considered in equation (2.4.34). If the
ground is considered simply as a linear elastic body, P or p is a linear function of displacement of pile y.
or
(2.4.35)

where
Es : modulus of elasticity of ground (kN/m 2)
kCH : coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (kN/m3)
(2.4.36)
There is much discussion concerning the characteristics of the modulus of elasticity Es, but the simplest
concept is that Es = kCHB = constant, as proposed by Chang.69)
Shinohara, Kubo, and Hayashi proposed the PHRI method as an analytical method considering the nonlinear
elastic behavior of the ground.70), 71) This method can describe the behavior of actual piles more accurately
than other methods. The PHRI method uses equation (2.4.41) to describe the relationship between the subgrade
reaction and the pile displacement.

where
k : constant of lateral resistance of ground (kN/m3.5 or kN/m 2.5)
m : index 1 or 0
458
(2.4.37)
(4) PHRI Method
Characteristics of the PHRI method
In the PHRI method, the ground is classified into the S type and the C type. The relationship between the
subgrade reaction and the pile displacement for each ground is assumed by equation (2.4.38) and (2.4.39),
respectively.
(a) S-type ground

(2.4.38)
(b) C-type ground

where
k s : constant of lateral resistance in S-type ground (kN/m3.5)
kc : constant of lateral resistance in C-type ground (kN/m 2.5)
(2.4.39)
The identification of S-type or C-type ground and the estimation of k s and kc are based on the results of
loading tests and soil investigation.
In the PHRI method, the nonlinear relationships between p and y are introduced as given by equations (2.4.38)
and (2.4.39) to reflect the actual state of subgrade reaction. Therefore, the solutions under individual conditions
would remain unattainable without help of numerical calculation, and the principle of superposition could not be
applied. The results of many full-scale tests have confirmed that this method reflects the behavior of piles more
accurately than the conventional methods. It is commented here that for piles to behave as long piles, they must
be at least as long as 1.5 m1 ( m1: depth of the first zero point of flexural moment in the PHRI method).64)
Constants of lateral resistance of the ground
The two ground types in the PHRI method are defined as follows;
(a) S-type ground
1) Relationship between p-y is expressed as p = ks xy0.5
refer (2.4.38)
2) N-value by the standard penetration test increases in proportion to the depth.

3) Actual examples: sandy ground with uniform density, and normally consolidated cohesive soil ground.
(b) C-type ground
1) Relationship between p-y is expressed as p = kc y0.5
refer (2.4.39)
2) N-value by the standard penetration test is constant regardless of depth.

3) Actual examples: sandy ground with compacted surface, and heavily-overconsolidated cohesive soil
ground.
A relationship shown in Fig. 2.4.14 exists between the rate of increase in the N-value per meter of
depth in S-type ground N and the lateral resistance of piles k s.72) In cases where the distribution of the
N-value in the depth direction does not become 0 at the ground surface, N can be determined from the
average inclination of the N-value plotting through the zero point at the surface. In C-type ground, a
relationship of the type shown in Fig. 2.4.15 exists between the N-value itself and kc.68), 73) Thus, a rough
estimate of k s or kc can be made from the distribution of the N-value
.
459
104
1.
2.
3.
4.5.
6.
7.
8.9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
13
8
9
15
103
2
3
10
14
12
11
102
10
N-value
ALTON.ILLINOIS (FEAGIN)
WINFIELD.MONTANA (GLESER)
PORT HUENEME (MASON)
Hakkenbori No.1, No.2
Ibaragigawa (GOTO)
Osaka National Railways (BEPPU)
Tobata No.6, No.9
Tobata K-I (PHRI)
Tobata K-II (PHRI)
Tobata L-II (PHRI)
Kurihama model experiment
Shin-Kasai Bridge (TATEISHI)
Yamanoshita (IGUCHI)
100
Fig. 2.4.14 Relationship between N-value and ks
16
104
15
kc (kN/m2.5)
ks (kN/m3.5)
10
17
18
4
102
9
2
10
8 14
9 13
12
11 5
10
100
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Tobata K-I (TTRI)

Tobata K-III (TTRI)
Tobata K-IV (TTRI)
Tobata L-II (TTRI)
Tobata L-IV (TTRI)
Hakkenbori No.1
Hakkenbori No.2
Osaka National Railways
Yahata Seitetsu No.6
Yahata Seitetsu No.9
Tobata preliminary test-1 (TTRI)-1
Tobata preliminary test-2 (TTRI)-2
Wagner (Callif.) No.15
Wagner (Callif.) No.25
Wagner-1 (Alaska)-1
Wagner-1 (Alaska)-2
Tokyo National Railways b
Tokyo National Railways A4
Tokyo National Railways B
N-value
Fig. 2.4.15 Relationship between N-value and kc
Estimation of lateral resistance constants by loading tests

Estimations of the lateral resistance constants by using the N-value can only provide approximate values. It is
preferable to conduct loading tests to obtain more accurate values. The constants k s and kc are determined from
the ground conditions alone, and are unaffected by other conditions unlike Es in Changs equation. Therefore,
if k s or kc can be obtained by a loading test, those values can be applied to other conditions as well.
Effective length
For a certain pile to function as a long pile, its penetration length must be greater than its effective length.
Based on the results of model tests with short piles, Shinohara and Kubo found that the lower part of a pile
is considered to be fixed completely in the ground when the penetration length exceeds 1.5 m1, and therefore
proposed using 1.5 m1 as effective length.77) Actually, if the penetration length exceeds 1.5 m1, the behavior of the
pile will not differ substantially from that of a long pile. However, as the minimum penetration length of long
460
piles, 1.5 m1 should be used, considering the effects of soil fatigue or creep.
It should also be noted that the value of m1 increases as the stiffness of the pile increases and decreases as the
lateral resistance of the ground increases. However, the value of m1 is virtually unaffected by the loading height
and pile head fixing conditions. Furthermore, m1 also has the character of increasing gradually as loading
increases.
Effect of pile width
There are two ways in considering the effect of pile width. The first is to consider that the pile width B has no
effect on the relationship between the subgrade reaction p per unit area and the displacement y. The second, as
proposed by Terzaghi, is to assume that the value of p corresponding to a given y value is inversely proportional
to B. Shinohara, Kubo 78) and Sawaguchi 79) conducted model experiments on the relationship between the k s
value in sandy ground and B. The results are shown in Fig. 2.4.16. It seems to show a combination of the two
theories mentioned above and indicates that the first theory is effective if the pile width B is sufficiently large.
On the basis of these results, it was decided not to consider the effect of pile width in the PHRI method.
103
12
Legend
Pile head
displacement
p-y curve
Maximum
bending
moment
1st Series
2nd Series
3rd Series
Lateral resistance constant ks (kN/m3.5)
10
10
20
30
40
50
60
Pile width (cm)

Fig. 2.4.16 Relationship between ks and Pile Width
Effect of pile inclination

For batter piles, a relationship shown in Fig 2.4.17 exists between the inclination angle of the piles and the
ratio of the lateral resistance constant of batter piles to that of vertical piles 80) This tigure shows the in-situ
tests examples which examined driving of batter piles in horizontal ground and the laboratory tests examples
obtained by preparing the ground after driving of the batter pile and then sufficiently compacting the ground
around the pile. In the in-situ tests, when filling was performed after the batter piles were driven, results were
obtained in which the coefficient of the subgrade reaction did not increase even when the angle of inclination
of the pile is minus. In this case, however, an increase in the coefficient of the subgrade reaction due to
subsequent compaction of the surrounding ground can be expected.81), 82)
461
2.5
:Indoor tests
:In-situ tests
k0
Value of k, when = 0
x=k/k0
2.0
1.5
1.0
(out)
(in)
0.5
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
Fig. 2.4.17 Relationship between Pile Inclination Angle and Lateral Resistance Constants
(5) Changs Method

Calculation Equation
Using the elasticity modulus of the ground Es =B kCH, the elasticity equation of piles is expressed as follows;

Exposed section

Embedded section
(2.4.40)
By calculating these general solutions with B kCH as a constant and inputting the boundary conditions, the
solution for piles of semi-infinite length can be obtained (see Table 2.4.6).83)
According to Yokoyama, piles of finite length may be equivalent to the piles of infinite length if L .
When a pile is shorter than this, a pile must be treated as a finite length pile. Diagrams are available to simplify
this process.85)
462
463
Pile head rigidity factor

K1,K2,K3,K4
Depth of deflection angle zero point

L
Depth of 1st steady point 0
Depth at which Ms,max occurs m
Maximum flexural moment of

embedded parts Ms,max
Pile head flexural moment
Shear strength of pile members S
Flexural moment of pile members M
Pile head inclination t
Ground level displacement y0
Pile head displacement yt
Deflection curve y
If pile head does not rotate
kCH :Coefficient of horizontal subgrade reaction(kN/m3)

h
:Height of pile head above ground(m)

:
(m1)
(If Mt0, use equations in putting

h0=Mt/Ht: the same applies below)
Embedded underground(h=0)
Basic system (but Mt = 0)
If pile head does not rotate
Basic formation
Ht :Lateral force on pile head(kN)

Mt :External force moment on pile
head(kNm)
B :Pile diameter(m)
EI :Flexural rigidity(kNm 2)
Protruding above ground(h0)
[Symbols]
Deflection curve diagram

Flexural moment diagram
Embedded sections:
Exposed sections:
Table 2.4.6 Calculations for Piles of Semi-Infinite Length if kch is Constant
Situation of pile
Differential equations of deflection

curve and explanation of symbols
Estimation of kCH in Changs method
(a) Terzaghis proposal 86)
Terzaghi proposed the following values for the coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction in cohesive or sandy
soil:
1) In case of cohesive soil

where
kCH : coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (kN/m3)
B : pile width (m)
: value shown in Table 2.4.7
(2.4.41)
(2.4.42)
2) In case of sandy soil

where
x : depth (m)
B : pile width (m)
nh : value listed in Table 2.4.8
(2.4.43)
(2.4.44)
In sandy soil, Es is a function of depth and thus cannot be applied directly to Changs method. For such
cases, Chang states that Es can be taken the value at the depth of one third of y1 which is the depth of the
first zero-displacement point. However, y1 itself is a function of Es, thus repeated calculations have to be
made to obtain the value of Es. Reference 87) describes the method of calculation without the repetition
calculation.
Terzaghi assumes that the value of kCH is inversely proportional to the pile width B, as shown in
equations (2.4.43) and (2.4.44). Other opinions suggest that pile width is irrelevant to kCH (see (4) ).
Table 2.4.7 Coefficient of Lateral Subgrade Reaction
Consistency of cohesive soil
Unconfined compressive strength qu (kN/m 2)
Range of k CH1 (kN/m 2)
Proposed value of k CH1 (kN/m3)
Hard
100200
16,00032,000
Very hard
200400
32,00064,000
Solid
400 or greater
64,000 or greater
24,000
48,000
96,000
Dense
Table 2.4.8 Value of nh

Relative density of sand
Loose
Medium
(kN/m3)
2,200
6,600
17,600
nh for submerged sand (kN/m3)
1,300
4,400
10,800
nh for dry or wet sand
(b) Yokoyamas proposal

Yokoyama collected the results of lateral loading tests on steel piles conducted in Japan and performed reverse
calculations for kCH, and obtained Fig. 2.4.18 by comparing the results and the mean N-values at depths down to
-1 from the ground level.88) In this case, Es = kCHB is assumed to be valid for both sandy soil and cohesive soil,
and kCH itself is assumed not to be affected by B. Although the values of kCH obtained by reverse calculation
from the measured values decrease as loading increases, Fig. 2.4.18 is prepared using kCH when the ground
surface displacement is 1cm. Fig. 2.4.18 may be used when making rough estimates of the value of Es from soil
conditions alone without conducting loading tests in-situ.

464
1. Yamaborigawa
2. Tobata
3. Tobata K-I
4. Tobata L-II
5. Tobata K-II
6. Tobata K-III
7. Tobata L-IV
8. Tobata K-IV
9. Shell Ogishima
10. Ibaragigawa
11. Takagawa
12. Tokyo SupplyWarehouse
13. Kasai Bridge
14. Aoyama
15. Den-en
105
1
kCH (kN/m3)
8
2
11
15
12
104
10
14
9
13
5
4
103
10
50
N-value
Fig. 2.4.18 Values of kCH obtained by Reverse Calculation from Horizontal Loading Tests on Piles
(c) Relationship between kc, k s, and kCH 89), 90)

From Fig. 2.4.14, Fig. 2.4.15, and Fig. 2.4.18, the relationships between the SPT-N-values or N -values shown
in the respective figures and the corresponding coefficients of subgrade reaction are as shown in Table 2.4.9.
As can be understood from these results, there are largely dispersed relationships between kCH and the N-value.
These results are due to the fact that the value of kCH cannot be determined from the soil conditions alone.
Hence, the relationship between kc and kCH and that between k s and kCH can be obtained in such a way that
ground surface displacement was equal under the same loading conditions. Then, substituting the relational
equations of kc, k s, and the N-value or N -value, the following equations can be obtained.
(free pile head)
(fixed pile head)
(2.4.45)
(free pile head)

(fixed pile head)
Table 2.4.9 Relationships between SPT-N-value or N -value and Respective of Subgrade Reaction
Correlation equation
Correlation coefficient
Coefficient of variation
(kN/m 2.5)
0.872
0.111
(kN/m3.5)
0.966
0.077
0.917
0.754
(kN/m3)
465
[5] Consideration of Pile Group Action
(1) When piles are used as a pile group, the effect of pile group action on the behavior of individual piles is necessary
to be considered.
(2) When the center interval of driven piles exceeds the values in Table 2.4.10, the action of the pile group on lateral
resistance may be ignored.
Table 2.4.10 Center Intervals of Piles
Sandy soil
Cohesive soil
Transverse
Pile diameter x 1.5
Longitudinal
Pile diameter x 2.5
Transverse
Pile diameter x 3.0
Longitudinal
Pile diameter x 4.0
[6] Lateral Bearing Capacity of Coupled Piles

(1) The lateral bearing capacity of a foundation of the structure with coupled piles is necessary to be determined as
appropriate in view of structural characteristics of the foundation.
(2) Distribution of Horizontal Force in Foundation with a Combination of Vertical and Coupled Piles
When a horizontal force acts on a foundation with a combination of vertical and coupled piles, the force borne by
vertical piles is far smaller than that borne by coupled piles under the condition of equal horizontal displacement.
It may generally be assumed that all of the horizontal force is borne by the coupled piles.
(3) Lateral Bearing Capacity of Coupled Piles
There are two calculation methods for the lateral bearing capacity of coupled piles. The first method only
takes account of the resistance of the axial bearing capacity of each pile. The second method takes account
of the resistance of the axial bearing capacity of each pile as well as the lateral bearing capacity of each pile in
consideration of the bending resistance of piles.
(4) Case when Only Axial Resistance of Individual Piles is Considered as Resisting Horizontal Force

When only the axial resistance is considered as resistance, as shown in Fig. 2.4.19, the vertical and horizontal
actions acting on the head of a pair of coupled piles shall be divided into the axial force of each pile. The coupled
piles shall be designed in a way that the axial force on each pile is less than the design values of the axial resistance
or design values of the axial pulling resistance of the respective piles. The axial force can be calculated using
equation (2.4.46) or a graphic solution (see Fig. 2.4.19)
(2.4.46)
where
P1, P2 : pushing force acting on each pile or pulling force when the value is negative (kN)
1, 2 : inclination angle of each pile ()
Vi : vertical force acting on coupled piles (kN)
Hi : horizontal force acting on coupled piles (kN)
466
Vi
Hi
P1
Vi
P2
Hi
P2
P1
Fig. 2.4.19 Axial Forces of Coupled Piles
(5) Method of Calculating Horizontal Resistance of Coupled Piles Considering Lateral Resistance of individual
Piles
Various methods of calculating the horizontal resistance of coupled piles by considering the lateral resistance of
individual piles are available. For example;
Method of solution based on a condition whereby the displacement of each pile is always the same at the
intersection of the coupled piles, on the assumption that the spring characteristics of the pile head in the axial
and lateral directions are elastic.
Method of obtaining the ultimate resistance of the coupled piles on the assumption that the axial and lateral
resistances of the piles show elasto-plastic properties.
Method of calculating the load and displacement at the pile heads, or the settlement and the upward displacement
of piles by pulling in the case of (b) on the basis of empirical equations.110)
Method of using the results of loading tests on single piles.111)
Method of solution assuming that the yield state of each pile will occur successively and the resistance of each
member to greater forces will be constant until the resistance of the coupled piles reaches the ultimate bearing
capacity.

The following presents an outline of method .
The method above is to calculate the distribution of horizontal force to each pile on the assumption that the
axial and lateral resistances of a pile have elastic properties 112)
In the coupled piles shown in Fig.2.4.20, the settlement of each pile at the pile head is proportional to the axial
force acting on that pile and also the lateral displacement is proportional to the lateral force acting on that pile.
On this assumption, the axial and lateral forces acting on each pile of the coupled piles can be calculated using
equation (2.4.47), derived from the conditions of force equilibrium and compatibility of displacements.
467
(2.4.47)
Vertical and horizontal displacements of the pile head can be calculated by equation (2.4.48)
where
N1, N2
H1, H2

V

H
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
'1, '2
'1, '2
(2.4.48)

: axial force acting on each pile, compressive force is indicated by positive value (kN)
: lateral force acting on each pile (kN)
: vertical load per pair of coupled piles (kN)
: horizontal load per a pair of coupled piles (kN)
: inclination angle to vertical line of each pile ()
: axial spring constant of each pile head (kN/m)
: lateral spring constant of each pile head (kN/m)
: vertical displacement of each pile head (m)
: horizontal displacement of each pile head (m)
The subscript numbers attached to the symbols, as shown in Fig. 2.4.20, are 1 for the pushed pile and 2
for the pulled pile if only a horizontal load acts.
The values listed in Table 2.4.11 may be used for the spring constants of pile head. The symbols used in
Table 2.4.11are defined below

where

E
A
I
Es
B
CH
(2.4.49)
: penetration length of piles (m)

: exposed length of piles (m)
: Youngs modulus of pile material (kN/m 2)
: pile section area (m 2)
: moment of inertia of pile (m4)
: elastic modulus of subsoil (kN/m 2) Es =kCH B
: pile width (m)
: coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (kN/m3)
The coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction kCH may be calculated by multiplying the value of kCH obtained
468
in [4] Estimation of Pile Behavior using Analytical Methods, (5) Changs Method by the factor obtained
from Fig. 2.4.17, in accordance with the inclination of piles.
1
1
N1
'1
H1
'1
1 2
N2 2
'2
H2
2
'2
l2
l1
(Out-batter pile)
(In-batter pile)
Fig. 2.4.20 Coupled Piles Considering Pile Bending and Soil Resistance due to Deflection
Table 2.4.11 Spring Constants of Pile Head
End Bearing piles

Axial spring constant of pile head
()
Cohesive soil
Friction piles
Sandy soil
Without exposed section
(=0)
Pile head hinged
With exposed section
(0)
Lateral axial spring constant of pile

head
()
Without exposed section

(=0)
Pile head fixed
With exposed section
(0)
2.4.6 General Considerations of Performance Verification of Pile Foundations

Performance verification of pile foundations can be conducted as follows.
[1] Load Sharing
(1) Vertical loads are considered to be supported by piles alone. In general, no bearing capacity shall be expected
for the ground in contact with the bottom of the superstructure. Even if the ground under the bottom slab of
the superstructure which is supported by the piles is in contact with the bottom of the slab when construction is
completed, voids under the slab will appear over time; therefore, from the viewpoint of safety, it is preferable to
ignore the bearing capacity of the ground under the slab.
(2) Horizontal actions are generally supported by piles alone. However, if passive earth pressure resistance at the
front of the embedded part of the superstructure can be expected, this resistance may also be included. However,
it is generally difficult to calculate the resistance due to passive earth pressure in this case. It is not necessarily
possible to determine whether the passive earth pressure of the ground reaches its ultimate value in response
469
to the pile head displacement corresponding to the static maximum lateral resistance of the piles. When the
superstructure is displaced until the passive earth pressure reaches the value obtained using Coulombs equation,
there is a danger of the pile undergoing bending failure. Therefore, when considering inclusion of the passive
earth pressure resistance at the front of this embedded section, it shall not be included in calculations without
adequate examination of these facts.
(3) For structural types in which settlement of facilities is controlled by employing piles as friction piles, for example,
piled-raft foundations, 122) or soft landing moundless structures with piles, there are cases in which it is reasonable
to consider the bearing capacity under the slab bottom.
In case of the performance verification of the facilities above, it is necessary to confirm sufficiently the
behavior characteristics of the facilities.
(4) Procedure of performance verification for pile foundations
It is generally preferable that performance verification of pile foundations be conducted by the procedure shown
in Fig. 2.4.21.
Assumptions : Type of piles

Shape of piles
Dimensions of piles
Arrangement of piles
Estimation of bearing capacity of piles
Loading tests
Static bearing capacity formulas
Displacement of single pile
Displacement of pile group
Ultimate bearing capacity of single pile
Ultimate bearing capacity of pile group
Allowable bearing capacity of single pile
Allowable bearing capacity of pile group
Stress generated in piles
Stress generated in piles
Soil conditions
Load conditions
Allowable displacement
Axial bearing capacity
Axial pulling force
Horizontal resistance
Buckling
Joint efficiency
Vibration and earthquake
Determination : Type of piles

Shape of piles
Dimensions of piles
(diameter, wall thickness, and length)
Arrangement of piles
Number of piles
Pile driving angle
Economy
End
Fig. 2.4.21 Example of Procedure of Performance Verification Procedure
[2] Distance between Centers of Piles

When determining the distance between the centers of piles to be driven, the workability, deformation behavior of
surrounding ground, and behavior as a pile group is necessary to be taken into account.
[3] Performance Verification of Pile Foundations during Construction
(1) Examination of Loads during Construction
In performance verification of piles, it is preferable to examine not only the loads acting after completion of
construction but also those during transportation, positioning, and driving.
470
Driving suspension control by pile driving formulas
Pile driving formulas, designed to calculate the static maximum bearing capacity of piles from dynamic
penetration resistance, are difficult to make good use in principle. Although estimations of the static maximum
bearing capacity using pile driving formulas have the advantage of being very simple, the problem lies in their
accuracy. In Fig. 2.4.22 by Sawaguchi, 23) the static maximum bearing capacity obtained from the pile driving
formula for steel piles is compared with the results of loading tests in a form of the ratio of the former to the
latter. The figure reveals major discrepancy and dispersion between the two. In clayey soil, soil is disturbed
during pile driving and skin friction temporarily decreases. Therefore, the static maximum bearing capacity
cannot be estimated by pile driving formulas. In sandy soil, pile driving formulas are said to be inaccurate
for estimating the bearing capacity of friction piles. The limits of applicability of pile driving formulas are
discussed in reference 24).
Nevertheless, when driving a large number of piles into almost identical ground, pile driving formulas can
be used as a reference for estimating the relative differences in bearing capacity per each driven pile. Thus, the
application of these formulas should be restricted to construction management purposes.
However, they may also be used as reference to confirm variation in the bearing capacity of each pile or to
finish the driving of each pile so that they are all governed by the same condition.
It has become possible to separate the resistance of the pile shaft and resistance at the end of the pile by
performing an dynamic pile loading test; more accurate driving suspension control can be expected than by
depending solely on pile driving formulas.
Hileys equation
Weisbachs equation
Janbus equation
Denmarks equation
Smiths equation
10
20
40
60
100
200
400 600 1,000%
Fig. 2.4.22 Distribution of Results of Pile Driving Formulas and Loading Tests
(a) Hileys equation

Hileys equation is the most common pile driving formula and is expressed by equations (2.4.50) and (2.4.51).
Energy required
for penetration
of pile
Impulsive
loss
Loss due to elastic

deformation of pile
Loss due to elastic

deformation of
ground
Loss due to
cushion
(2.4.50)
(2.4.51)
471
where
Rdu
WH
WP
F
ef
e
S
C1
C2
C3
: ultimate pile-driving resistance; i.e., dynamic maximum bearing capacity (kN)

: weight of hammer (kN)
: weight of pile including pile head attachments (kN)
: impact energy (kJ)
: efficiency of hammer, ranging from 0.6 to 1.0, depending on the type of hammer126)
: rebound coefficient (e = 1 if completely elastic, and e = 0 if completely non-elastic)
: final settlement of pile (m)
: elastic deformation of pile (m)
: elastic deformation of ground (m)
: elastic deformation of pile head cushion (m)
Most pile driving formulas are obtained by replacing C1, C2, C3, ef, e, etc. in equation (2.4.51) with appropriate
values. Equation (2.4.52) is considered relatively well-suited to steel piles. Assuming the impact between
hammer and pile to be elastic, i.e., e = 1, the following is derived:

(2.4.52)
The term C1 + C2 + C3 in the above is the sum of elastic deformation of ground, pile, and pile head cushion.
Of these, the term C1 + C2 are equal to the rebound K measured at the pile head in pile driving tests (see
Fig. 2.4.23). With steel piles, elastic deformation C1 is dominant, while C3 is generally smaller. Thus, if C3 is
neglected, the following can be assumed:

thus,
(2.4.53)
(2.4.54)
where
Rdu : dynamic maximum bearing capacity of pile (kN)
ef : efficiency of hammer, set at 0.5 in case of equation (2.4.54)
S : settlement of pile (m)
drop hammers : mean settlement per blow for the final 5 10 strikes (m)
other hammers : mean settlement per blow for the final 10 20 strikes (m)
K : value of rebound (m)
F : impact energy (kNm)
drop hammer:
F=WH H
Single action steam hammer:
double action steam hammer: F=(ap+WH ) H
diesel hammer:
F=2 WH H
H : drop height of hammer (m)
WH : weight of hammer (kN)
a : cross-sectional area of cylinder (m2)
p : steam pressure or air pressure (kN/m 2)
The design value of axial resistance Rdad is obtained by multiplying Rdu by the partial factor . Here, a partial
factor of 0.33 can generally be used.

(2.4.55)
472
Pile
Pencil
Metal clamp
Pencil
Elastic compression of pile and ground (K)
Penetration of pile (s)
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2.4.23 Rebound Measurement
[4] Joints of Piles

(1) Joints of piles shall be sufficiently safe against actions after completion as well as during construction.
(2) Joints shall be placed at the position where there is a sufficient margin in cross-sectional strength and relatively
free from corrosion.
(3) Depending on the position of joints, the forces acting on joints after completion of a structure are sometimes
far smaller than the strength of the piles. However, considerations should be taken to ensure the safety of joints
against the pile-driving stress during construction, load increases in future, and unexpected stresses arising within
the cross section of joints.
(4) Position of Joints
Execution of joint parts is necessarily accompanied by work at the construction site. Therefore, unlike fabrication
in a factory, supervision of construction work tends to be inadequate. Accordingly, in performance verification
of joints, care different from that for the pile proper is necessary. Even in deep sections which are not affected by
bending stress under ordinary conditions, there are examples of buckling of piles at joints and at points where the
pile wall thickness changes below a joint. Thus, adequate examination is necessary.
In determining the position of joints, it is necessary to select the joint position based on a good understanding
of the joint structure, considering all of the factors of bending, shear, compression, and tension. A position where
the flexural moment is small shall be selected if the joint structure is weak against bending, and a position where
shear is small shall be selected if the structure is weak against shear.
The durability of joints is considered to be small in comparison with the pile. For example, in steel piles,
various kinds of corrosion control treatment are considered to cause a reduction of functions due to welding at this
part. Therefore, joint positions where corrosion is slight shall be selected, and in particular, positions which are
subject to repeated wetting and drying due to changing water levels shall be avoided.
The length allotted to elements in one pile is determined by the position of joints. Limitations related to
transportation, construction equipment, and work space factors shall be considered in determining the length of
the element. It is considered advantageous to reduce the number of joints to the minimum and use long elements
as much as possible. Given the present transportation conditions, the maximum lengths that can be transported
are 13m by road and 20m by rail.
(5) Joints in Steel Piles
In steel piles, arc welded joints should generally be used, as this is the most reliable type of joint. However,
because gas-pressure welding and other new methods are being developed, when sufficient safety is confirmed by
the responsible engineer based on adequate study by testing, these other methods may also be used.
(6) Wood Pile Joints
It is not preferable to use the wooden joints when horizontal force or pulling force does not act.
(7) Reinforced Concrete Pile Joints and Prestressed Concrete Pile Joints
When reinforced concrete pile and prestressed concrete pile are used to the structure where horizontal force or
pulling force acts, joint structure which has been confirmed with high reliability shall be selected.
[5] Change of Plate Thickness or Material Type of Steel Pipe Piles
(1) When changing plate thickness or material type of steel pipe piles, all due considerations shall be given to the
workability and the distribution of section force on piles.
473
(2) The section force of steel pipe piles varies with depth, generally decreasing as the depth becomes large. Therefore,
plate thickness or material type of steel pipe piles is sometimes changed over the total length from the economical
point of view.
(3) When changing plate thickness or material type of steel pipe piles, the position of the change should be at the depth
where the section force arising in the piles does not increase. Caution is also required because such a change may
not be allowed if a large negative skin friction is active.
(4) Jointing piles with different thickness and material type should be done by shop circular welding. The shape of
the welded section should comply with JIS A 5525.
[6] Other Notes regarding Performance Verification
(1) Steel Piles
Radial buckling of steel pipe piles
When using closed ended piles and when using open ended piles from which the soil is to be removed for filling
with concrete, if the wall thickness of the pile is extremely thin relative to the pile diameter or penetration
length is extremely large, there is a danger of buckling in the radial direction due to the earth pressure and water
pressure acting on the pile surface. Therefore, caution is necessary.
The external pressure at which buckling occurs when a steel pipe is subjected to uniform external pressure
can generally be expressed as shown in equation (2.4.56).

where
pk
E
v
t
r
(2.4.56)
: external pressure causing buckling (kN/m 2)
: modulus of elasticity of steel (kN/m 2) E = 2.1 x 108 kN/m 2
: Poissons ratio of steel v = 0.3
: wall thickness of cylinder (mm)
: radius of cylinder (mm)
Axial buckling of steel pipe piles

In steel pipe piles which have a thin wall thickness relative to the pile diameter, as in large diameter piles, there
is a danger of local buckling due to axial loading.
There is no danger that buckling will occur during pile driving provided the impact stress is less than the
yield stress of the steel pile.134) Kishida and Takano proposed equation (2.4.57) to express the effect of wall
thickness on yield stress.

(2.4.57)
where
py : yield stress of steel pile considering effect of wall thickness (kN/m 2)
y : yield stress of steel pile against static load (kN/m 2)
474
2.5 Settlement of Foundations

2.5.1 Ground Stress
(1) It is preferable that the stress induced in a ground due to load on a foundation is estimated by assuming that the
ground is an elastic body. However, for uniformly distributed load, the stress in the ground may be estimated by
simply assuming that the stress disperses linearly with depth.
(2) When a structure built on the ground which has a sufficient margin of safety factor against shear failure, the
stress distribution in the ground can be rationally approximated by assuming the ground to be an elastic body.
The elastic solution obtained by Boussinesq is commonly used in calculation of stress distribution in a ground.
Boussinesqs solution is based on the case that a vertical concentrated load acts on the surface of an isotropic
and homogeneous semi-infinite elastic body. By superposing this solution, it is possible to calculate the stress
distribution in the ground when a line load or spatially-distributed load acts on the ground surface. In addition
to this elastic solution, the Koegler method that assumes the stress to disperse linearly with depth can be used for
estimating the stress in the ground when a strip load or a rectangular load acts on the ground.137)
2.5.2 Immediate Settlement
(1) In estimation of immediate settlement, it is preferable to apply the theory of elasticity by appropriately setting the
modulus of elasticity of the ground.
(2) Immediate settlement, unlike consolidation settlement, which will be described in the following, is caused by
shear deformation and occurs simultaneously with loading. Because sandy ground does not undergo long-term
consolidation settlement like that in cohesive soil ground, immediate settlement in sandy ground, as described
here, can be considered to be total settlement. On the other hand, the immediate settlement of cohesive soil
ground is a phenomenon which is caused by settlement due to undrained shear deformation and plastic flow in the
lateral direction. In soft cohesive soil ground, there are cases in which immediate settlement may be ignored in
performance verification because it is smaller than the consolidation settlement described below.
In calculations of immediate settlement, the ground is usually assumed to be an elastic body, and the theory
of elasticity and the modulus of elasticity E and Poissons ratio v are used. As the modulus of elasticity of soil
varies greatly depending on the strain level, it is important to make calculations using a modulus of elasticity that
corresponds to the actual strain level. For example, the strain in soft ground with a small safety factor is on the
order of 0.5% to 1.5%, while that in excavation of hard ground and deformation of foundations is no more than
0.1%. The relationship between the strain level and the elastic modulus shall follow Part II, Chapter 3, 2.3.1
Elastic Constants.
2.5.3 Consolidation Settlement
(1) Settlements of foundations that are caused by consolidation of ground shall be examined in accordance with the
procedures described in Part II, Chapter 3,2.3.2 Compression and Consolidation Characteristics. Design
parameters for the ground is necessary to be determined by using an appropriate method based on the results of
consolidation tests.
(2) Calculations of settlements due to consolidation can be performed based on the results of consolidation tests on
undisturbed samples of cohesive soils. The final consolidation settlement, which is the amount of settlement
when consolidation caused by a load has finally completed, is determined by the compressibility properties of
the soil skeleton, and can be estimated directly from the results of consolidation tests. Time-dependent changes
in settlement up to the final consolidation settlement of a foundation are necessary to be calculated based on the
theory of consolidation.
(3) Calculation Methods of Final Consolidation Settlement of Foundation
Final consolidation settlement of foundation can be calculated by using the following equations described in
Part II, Chapter 3,2.3.2 Compression and Consolidation Characteristics.
When using e-logp curve:

(2.5.1)
where
S : final consolidation settlement due to pressure increment p (m)
h : layer thickness (m)
e : change in void ratio for pressure increment p
475
e0 : initial void ratio
When obtained from Cc:
Application of this method is limited mainly to the cases in which consolidation of the normal consolidation
area is considered.

where
S
h
Cc
e0
p0
p
(2.5.2)
: final consolidation settlement due to pressure increment p (m)

: layer thickness (m)
: compression index
: initial void ratio
: overburden pressure (kN/m 2)
: pressure increment (kN/m 2)
when obtained from mv:

Application of this method is limited to cases in which the increment of consolidation pressure is sufficiently
small that mv can be considered constant.

where
S
mv
p0
p
h
(2.5.3)
: final consolidation settlement due to pressure increment p (m)

: coefficient of volume compressibility when consolidation load is
: overburden pressure (kN/m 2)
: pressure increment (kN/m 2)
: layer thickness (m)
(m2/kN)
(4) Calculation Method of Time-Settlement Relationship

The rate of consolidation settlement is calculated from the relationship between the average degree of consolidation
U and the time factor T that is obtained from Terzaghis consolidation theory, where the dissipation of excess
pore water pressure is expressed as a partial differential equation of thermal conductivity type. The amount of
settlement s(t) at a given time t can be calculated from the average degree of consolidation U(t) by the following
equation:

(2.5.4)
The finite element analysis with visco-elasto-plasticity model for cohesive soil can be utilized for accurate
analysis of the consolidation settlement that takes account of inhomogeneity on consolidation properties of the
ground, the effect of self weight of cohesive soil layer and time-related changes in consolidation load.
(5) Division of Cohesive Soil Layer subject to Consolidation
When calculating the final consolidation settlement, the cohesive soil layer is usually divided into a number
of sub-layers as shown in Fig. 2.5.1. This is because the consolidation pressure and the coefficient of volume
compressibility mv vary with depth. With the mv method, the final consolidation settlement of foundation may be
calculated using equation (2.5.5).
(2.5.5)
where
S0 : final consolidation settlement (m)
z : increments of consolidation pressure at the center of a sub-layer (kN/m2)
mv : coefficient of volume compressibility for the consolidation pressure at the center of each sublayer equal to
, (m2/kN)
where z0 is the effective overburden pressure at the center of a sub-layer before consolidation
h : thickness of a sub-layer in the consolidated layer (m)
476
mv
Z1
Z
h1
Z2
Z1
Z
mv1
Z
Fig. 2.5.1 Calculation of Consolidation Settlement
Since mv and z generally decrease with depth, the compression in each sub-layer becomes smaller as the
depth increases. The thickness of sub-layer h is usually set at 3 to 5 m. It should be noted that the consolidation
settlement of soft cohesive soil will be underestimated when h is taken too large, because the value of m of the
surface layer is very large and it governs the total settlement.
The increment of consolidation pressure z is calculated at the center of each sub-layer using the vertical stress
distribution with depth, which is described in 2.5.1 Ground Stress. The term z is the increment in vertical
stress due to loading. In the natural ground, it is usually assumed that consolidation due to the existing overburden
pressure has completely finished.
Although the distribution of subgrade reaction at the bottom of foundation is not the same as that of the acting
load due to the rigidity of foundation, the rigid foundation settles unifomly and the stress distribution of subsoil at
a certain depth becomes irrelevant to the distribution of reaction immediately below the foundation bottom.
(6) Vertical Coefficient of Consolidation cv and Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation ch
When pore water of ground flows vertically during consolidation, the vertical coefficient of consolidation cv is
used. But when vertical drains are installed, drained water of ground flows mainly to the horizontal direction and
the horizontal coefficient of consolidation ch should be used. The value of ch obtained from experiments on the
clay in Japanese port areas ranges from 1.0 to 2.0 times the value of cv.140) However, in performance verification ch
cv is acceptable when considering a decrease in ch due to disturbance caused by installation of vertical drains,
inhomogeneous consolidation properties in the ground, and others.
(7) Coefficient of Consolidation cv of Overconsolidated Clay 141)
The coefficient of consolidation of cohesive soil in overcosolidated state is generally larger than that in normally
consolidated state. When the cohesive soil seems to be clearly in over consolidated state, the value of cv used
for performance verification should be the one at the mean consolidation pressure between the existing effective
overburden pressure and the final pressure after consolidation. However, rather than simply calculating cv at
the mean consolidation pressure, it would be better to determine a weighted mean value of cv considering the
settlement.
(8) Rate of Consolidation Settlement in Inhomogeneous Ground
When the ground consists of alternate layers with different cv values, the rate of consolidation settlement is
analyzed using the equivalent-thickness method 142) or numerical analysis such as the finite difference method 143)
or the finite element method.144), 145), 146) The equivalent-thickness method is used as a simplified method, but
it sometimes yields significant errors. When the ground is inhomogenous to a large extent or when accurate
estimation is required, it is recommended to use the finite element method.
(9) Settlement due to Secondary Consolidation
The shape of the settlement - time curve in long-term consolidation tests on cohesive soil is consistent with
Terzaghis consolidation theory up to the degree of consolidation of around 80%. When the consolidation passes
this level, the settlement increases linearly with logarithm of time. This is due to the secondary consolidation
that arises with the time-dependent properties of soil skeleton under consolidation load, beside the primary
consolidation that causes the settlement accompanying dissipation of excess pore water pressure induced in the
cohesive soil due to consolidation load.
The settlement due to secondary consolidation is particularly significant in peat and other organic soils. In
ordinary alluvial clay layers, the consolidation pressure caused by loading is often several times greater than the
consolidation yield stress of the subsoil. Under such conditions, the settlement due to secondary consolidation is
smaller than that due to the primary consolidation, and is not significant in the performance verification. But when
the consolidation pressure acting on the ground due to loading does not greatly exceed consolidation yield stress,
the settlement due to secondary consolidation tends to continue over a long time, even though the settlement due
to primary consolidation may be small. In this case, the secondary consolidation settlement must be fully taken
into account in the performance verification.
477

The settlement due to secondary consolidation may be generally calculated using the following equation:

where
Ss
C
t
t0
h
(2.5.6)
: settlement due to secondary consolidation (m)

: coefficient of secondary compression
: time (d)
: start time of secondary consolidation (d)
: clay layer thickness (m)
The coefficient of secondary compression is obtained from conventional consolidation tests. It can also be
estimated from the relationship between and the compression index Cc that is generally expressed in the following
equation 147)
(2.5.7)

2.5.4 Lateral Displacement
(1) In quaywalls or seawalls constructed on soft cohesive ground, countermeasures are preferable when lateral
displacements due to shear deformation of the ground have an adverse effect on structures.
(2) In quaywalls or seawalls on soft ground, there are cases in which it is necessary to estimate lateral displacements
caused by shear deformation of the ground. Lateral displacements include displacement accompanying immediate
settlement occurring immediately after loading, and displacement which occurs continuously over time thereafter.
In cases where the imposed load is significantly smaller than the ultimate resistance of the ground, lateral
displacement accompanying immediate settlement can be predicted by analyzing the ground as an elastic body.
(3) A frequent problem with soft ground is lateral displacements occurring as a combination of consolidation and
creep deformation due to shear when the ratio of the resistance of the ground as a whole to the moment due to
actions is low, being on the order of 1.3. A method of predicting whether this kind of lateral displacement will
occur or not using a simple constant based on past experience has been proposed.148) When making a more
detailed analysis, computer programs which obtain changes over time in settlement and lateral displacement
by finite element analysis are widely used, applying an elasto-plastic model or an elasto-viscoplastic model to
cohesive soil ground. Because the importance of lateral displacement differs greatly depending on the functions
of the facilities, it is necessary to select an appropriate calculation method considering these functions.
2.5.5 Differential Settlements
(1) When constructing structures on a soft cohesive ground, uneven settlements of the ground shall be taken into
account and appropriate countermeasures are preferable when uneven settlements have an adverse effect on
structures.
(2) A simplified method is proposed for estimating uneven settlement in reclaimed land in port areas. This method
classifies the ground of reclaimed land into the following four types;
Extremely inhomogeneous ground
Inhomogeneous ground
Ordinary ground
Homogeneous ground
Fig. 2.5.2 shows the mean uneven settlement ratios for each type of ground. The uneven settlement ratio
means the ratio of the difference in the average settlement occurring between two arbitrary points to the total
settlement. For example, because the mean uneven settlement ratio for two points separated by a distance of 50m
in ground of type (b) is 0.11, when settlement of x cm occurs from a certain reference time, the average uneven
settlement occurring in the distance of 50m can be calculated as 0.11x. When applying this method to actual
problems, it is preferable to correct the values in Fig. 2.5.2 for the reference time and the depth of the ground
which is the object to settlement.150), 151)
478
0.5
Extremely inhomogeneous ground
Mean uneven settlement ratio
Inhomogeneous ground
Ordinary ground
0.4
Homogeneous ground
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
20
50
100
Distance between 2 points

Fig. 2.5.2 Relationship between Distance and Uneven Settlement Ratio in Reclaimed Land
References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
21)
22)
Architectural Institute of Japan: Guideline for design of architectural foundation, p.108, 2001
Davis, E.H. and Booker :The effect of increasing strength with depth on the bearing capacity of clays, Geotechnique, Vol.23,
No,4, 1973
Nakase, A.: Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on clay of strength increasing linearly with depth, Soil and Foundations,
Vol. 21, No.4, pp.101-108, 1981
Yamaguchi, K.: Soil Mechanics (Fully revised Edition), Chapter 9 Bearing strength, Giho-do Publishing, pp.273-274, 1985
Kobayashi, M., M. Terashi, K. Takahashi and K. Nakajima: A New Method for Calculating the Bearing Capacity of Rubble
Mounds, Rept. of PHRI Vol.26, No.2, 1987
Shoji, Y.: Study on shearing Properties of Rubbles with Large Scale Triaxial Compression Test, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 22,
No,4,1983
Minakami, J. and M. Kobayashi: Soil Strength Characteristics of Rubble by Large Scale Triaxial Compression Test, Rept. of
PHRI No.699, 1991
Japan Road Association: Specifications and commentary of highway bridges, Part IV Substructures, pp.231-273, 1996
Railway Technical Research Institute: Design standards for railway structures and commentary, Foundation structures, Soil
pressure resistance structure, pp.175-178, 1997
A.W. Skempton: The bearing capacity of clays, Proc. Building Research Congress, Div.1, pp.180-189, 1951
G.G. Meyerhof : The ultimate bearing capacity of foundations, Geotechnique Vol. 2, No, 4, pp.301-332, 1951
Takahashi, K. and M. Sawaguchi: Experimental Study on the Lateral Resistance of a Well, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 16 No.4, pp.334, 1977
Japan Geothechnical Society Edition: Vertical loading tests of Geothechnical Societys Standard vertical pile, and
commentary- First revised Edition-, p.271, 2002
Yamagata, K. and K. Nagai: Examination of bearing strength of open end steel piles (Part 2), Proceedings of Architectural
Institute of Japan, No.213, pp.39-44, 1973
Kitajima, S., S. Kakizaki, Y. Hanaki and H. Tahara: On the Axially Bearing Capacity of Single Piles, Technical Note of PHRI
No.36,pp.1-66,1967
Japan Geothechnical Society Edition: Vertical loading tests of Geothechnical Societys Standard vertical pile, and
commentary- First revised Edition
Kusakabe, O. and T. Matumoto: Rapid loading testing (Stanamic test)method and examples of tests, Soil and Foundation, Vol.
43, No. 5, pp.19-21, 1995
Katayama, T., S. Nishimura, T. Wakiya, M. Hayashi, Y. Yoshizawa and A. Shibata
Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science Edition: Design method for pile foundation and commentary,
G.G. Meyerhof: Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soi1, Proc. A.S.C.E., Vol. 82, S.M. 1, pp.1-10, 1956
Japan Road Association: Specifications and commentary of highway bridges, Part IV Substructures, pp.353-363, 2002
Railway Technical Research Institute: Design standards for railway structures and commentary, Foundation tructures, Soil
pressure resistance structure, SI Units version, pp.227-232, 2000
479
23)
24)
25)
26)
27)
28)
29)
30)
31)
32)
33)
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
40)
41)
42)
43)
44)
45)
46)
47)
48)
49)
50)
51)
52)
53)
54)
55)
56)
57)
58)
59)
60)
61)
62)
63)
64)
65)
66)
Architectural Institute of Japan: Guidelines for architectural foundation, pp.229-230, 2001

Takahashi, K.: Behavior of Single Piles in Subsiding Ground, Rept. of PHRI No. 533, p.17, 1985
Yamaguchi, T.: Soil Mechanics (Fully revised Edition), Giho-do Publishing, pp.281-282, 1984
Yasuyuki, N., H. Ochiai and S. Oono: Practical evaluation equation of point bearing capacity of piles considering
compressibility and its application, Soil and Foundation, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp.12-15, 2001.
Ando, N. H. Ochiai and S. Ono: Geotechnical Engineering estimation of vertical bearing capacity of piles applying insitu tests and its application, Japan Geothechnical Society, Proceedings of 45th Symposium on Geothecnical Engineering,
pp,163-167, 2000.
Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Substructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp.333-363, 2002
M.J. Tomilinson: Foundation Design and Construction, Fifth Edition, Skin friction on pile shaft, Longman Scientific &
Technical, pp.415-419, 1986
Yamahara, H.: Structures of bearing capacity of steel piles, Soil and Foundation, Vol.l7, No.11, pp.19-27, 1969
Goto, H. and T. Katsumi: Fundamental studies on settlements of large diameter steel piles, Jour. JSCE No.138, pp.1-10, 1967
Aoki, M. and H. Kishida: Ultimate resistance capacity of sands filled within open ended piles, Proceedings of 14th Conference
of Soil Mechanics, pp.913-916, 1979
Katsumi, T. and N. Kitani: Fundamental studies ion the effect of blockade on open piles, Jour. JSCE Vol. 323, pp.133-139,
1982
Nishida, Y., H. Ohta, T. Matsumoto and K. Kurihara: Bearing capacity dur to plugged soil in open-ended pipe piles, Jour.
JSCE Vol. 364/III-4, pp.219-227, 1985
Nagai, O.: Examination of blockage effect of open ended steel piles, Proceedings of Soil Mechanics, Vo1.26, No.2, pp.113120, 1986
Komatu, M., K. Hijiguro and M. Tominaga: Some experiments on blockage of large diameter steel piles, Soil and Foundation,
Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.11-16, 1969
Kishida, H., Arihara and Hara: Behavior of sand filled within open ended piles, Proceedings of 9th Conference of Soil
Mechanics, pp. 549-552, 1974
Japan Association of Steel Pipe Piles: Steel piles- design and construction-, p.110, 2004
Kikuchi, Y., H. Sasaki, H. Shimoji, Y. Saimura and H. Yamashita: Vertical bearing capacity of large diameter steel pile,
Proceedings of Structural Engineering, Vol.51A, 2005.
Kusakabe, O., Y. Kikuchi and J. Fukui: Presentations of the results of loading tests of coastal roads of Tokyo Port, Proceedings
of 40th Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1669-1688, 2005.
Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Substructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp.333-334, 2002
Railway Technical Research Institute: Design standards for railway structures and commentary, Foundation structures, Soil
pressure resistance structure, SI Units version, pp.227-232, 2000
A. Kezdi : Bearing capacity of piles and pile groups, Proc., 4th. Int. Conf. S. M. F. E., Vol.2, pp.50-51, 1957
K. Terzaghi, R. B. Peck, G. Mesri: Soil mechanics in engineering practice Third Edition, John Wiley, pp.435-436, 1995
R. B. Peck, W. E. Hanson, T. H. Thornburn: Foundation engineering, John Wiley, pp.260, 1953
Takahashi, K.: Behavior of Single Piles in Subsiding Ground, Rept. of PHRI No. 533, pp.8-11, 1985
Architectual Institute of Japan: Guidelines for architectural foundation, pp.229-230, 2001
Sawaguchi, M.:Approximate Calculation of Negative Skin Friction of a Pile, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 67-87, 1971
Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.147-152, 1977
Nakase, A., T. Okumura and M. Sawaguchi: Easy-to-understand Foundation works, Kajima Publishing, p53, 1995
R. D. Chellis : Pile foundations, McGraw Hill, p.464, 1961 R.D.Che1Hs:Pilefbundations, McGrawHil1, p.464, 1961
K. Terzaghi, R. B. Peck, G. Mesri: Soil mechanics in engineering practice Third Edition, John Wiley, pp.436-444, 1995
R.B. Peck, W. E. Hanson, T. H. Thornburn: Foundation engineering, John Wiley, pp.238-239, pp.273-275, 1953
G.P. Tschebotarioff: Foundations, retaining and earth structures Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, pp.217-262, 1973
W.C. Teng: Foundation design, Prentice-Hall, pp.220-222, 1962
A.L. Little: Foundations, Arnold, pp.174-179, 1961
H.O. Ireland: Pulling tests on piles in sand, Proc. 4th Int. Conf. S.M.F.E., Vol.2, p.45, 1957
Architectural Institute of Japan: Standards and commentary for architectural steel pile foundation, p.55,1963
Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, p.2, 1964
Yokoyama, Y.: Design of steel piles and construction, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.188-196,1963
Takeshita, J.: Calculation of group piles, Civil Engineering Technology, Vol. 19, No.8, pp.54-60, 1964,No.9,pp.75-80,1964,
No.10,pp.71-79,1964
Fujiwara, T. and K. Kubo: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 1), Technical Research Institute of
Transport, Vol. 11, No.6, pp.41-53, 1961
480
67) Kubo. K.: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 3), Technical Research Institute of Transport, Vol. 12,
No.2, pp.49-50, 1962
68) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, pp. 1-372, 1964
69) Y. L. Chang: Lateral pile loading tests, Trans., A.S.C.E, Vol.102, pp.273-276, 1937
70) PHRI, Yawasa Steel: Study on horizontal resistance of H-shaped piles, pp.345-353, 1963
71) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, pp. .6-8, 1964
No. 12, p.550,1962
No. 12, p.550,1962
74) Sawaguchi, M.: Soil Constants for Piles, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 7, No.2, p.87, 1968
75) Yamashita, I., T. Inatomi, K. Ogura and Y. Okuyama
76) Yamashita, I., T. Inatomi, K. Ogura and Y. Okuyama
77) Kubo, K.: A New Method for the Estimation of Lateral Resistance of Pile, Rept. PHRI Vol.2, No.3, pp.14-15, 1964
78) Fujiwara, T. and K. Kubo: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 1), Report of Technical Research
Institute of Transport, Vol. 11, No.6, pp. 61, 1961
79) Sawaguchi, M.: Soil Constants for Piles, Rept. Of PHRI Vol. 7, No.2, PP.82-83, 1968
80) Kubo. K.: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 3), Report of Technical Research Institute of Transport,
Vol. 12, No.2, P.190, 1962
81) Kikuchi, Y., K. Abe and K. Yuasa*Change in characteristics of lateral resistance of buttered pile due to the improvement by
sand compaction pile, Proceedings of 34th Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1661-1662, 1999
82) K.Terauchi, T.Sato, M. Sawaguchi, Y. Kikuchi, S. Kitazawa, M. lmai: Effect of lateral resistance of coupled piles on the field
loading test, Coastal Geotechnical Engineering in Practice, pp.375-380, 2000
83) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 32-47, 1977
84) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, p.68, 1977
85) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.47-68, 1977
86) K. Terzaghi: Evaluation of coefficient of subgrade reaction, Geotechnique, Vol.5, No.4, pp.316-319, 1955
87) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 139-141, 1977
88) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp 72, 1977
89) Kikuchi, Y. and M. Suzuki: Variance of the subgrade reaction for the estimating the resistance of a pile perpendicular to pile
axis, ASCEGSP innovative Methods for Foundation Analysis and Design for Geoshanghai 2006, pp.111-118, 2006,
90) Kikuchi, Y. and M. Suzuki: A proposal on evaluation method of coefficient of subgrade reaction in the lateral direction to
pile axis, Proceedings of 41st Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, PP.1489-1490, 2006
91) Sawaguchi, M.: Soil Constants for Piles, Rept. Of PHRI Vol. 7, No.2, pp. 21-25, 1968
92) Y. L. Chang: Lateral pile loading tests, Trans., A.S.C.E, Vol.102, pp. 50-54, 1937
93) Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Substructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp. 239-241, 2002
94) Takahashi, K. and Y. Shoji: Experimental Study on Vertical Anchor Piles of Sheet Pile Wall, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 22, No.4,
pp.33-58, 1983
95) Shoji, Y.: Experimental Study on Lateral Resistance of a Pile with Embedded Head in Sand, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 23, No.2, pp.
75-179, 1984
96) Yokoyama, Y.: Design of steel piles and construction, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 148-157,1963
97) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation method of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 56-68, 1977
98) Tanigawa, M., M. Sawaguchi and M. Tanaka: Horizontal bearing capacity of piles in composite ground- Replacement ratio
of clayey soul by sand pile and Coefficient of subgrade horizontal reaction-, Proceedings of 28th Conference on Geotechnical
Engineering, pp. 1599-1600, 1993
99) Kitazume, M. and K. Murakami: Behaviour of Sheet Pile Walls in the Improved Ground by Sand Compaction Piles of Low
Replacement Area Ratio, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 32, No.2, pp.183-211, 1993
100) Takahashi, K. and K. Iki: Lateral Resistance of a Pile in Rubble Mound, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 30, No.2, pp.229-273, 1991
101) Kikuchi, y., M. Ishimaru: Coefficient subgrade lateral reaction of rubble ground, Proceedings of 53rd Annual Conference of
JSCE, 3B, pp.52-53, 1998
102) Kubo, K:. Lateral Resistance of Short Piles, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 5, No.13, pp.1-38, 1966
103) Miyamoto, M. and M. Sawaguchi: Group Action on Lateral Resistance of Piles (1st Report)-Spacing Effect in the Direction
of Loading-, Rept. of PHRI Vol.10, No.4, pp.53-108, 1971
104) B.B. Broms: Lateral resistance of piles in cohesionless soils, Proc., ASCE, Vol.90, No. SM 3, PP.123-156, 1964
105) Kikuchi, T., T. Kamii, Y. Mori and S. Kagaya : Horizontal bearing capacity of group piles and the spacing, Proceedings of
6th Conference on Soil Mechanics, pp.427-430, 1971
106) Tamaki, O., K. Mituhashi and T. Imai: Study of group pile effects on horizontal bearing capacity, Proceedings of JACE, 192,
pp.79-89,1971
107) Prakash, S. and Saran, D.: Behavior of laterally-loaded piles in cohesive soils, Proc., 3rd Asian Conf. of Soil Mech., pp.235238, 1967
481
108) Poulos, H. G.: Behavior of laterally-loaded piles, II-pile groups, Proc., A.S.C.E., Vol.97, No. SM 5., 1971, pp.733 751
109) Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Sustructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp. 245, 2002
110) Segawa, M., T. Uchida and T. Katayama: Desgin of Coupled Batter Piles (Part 2)-Two Batter, Technical Note of PHRI No.
110, pp.1-14, 1970
111) M. Sawaguchi: Experimental investigation on the horizontal resistance of coupled piles, Rept. PHRI Vo1.9, No.1, pp.11-13,
1970
112) Yokoyama, Y.: Calculation methods of pile structures and sample calculations, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 193-197, 1977
113) Aoki, Y.: Design of group piles against horizontal force, Soil and Foundation, Vol.18, No.8, pp.27-32, 1970
114) Kikuchi, Y., K. Takahashi and M. Suzuki: Experimental Study on Peoples Safety against Overtopping Waves on BreakwatersA study on Amenity-oriented Port Structures (2nd Rept.)-, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 33-60, 1992
115) Shinohara, T. and K. Kubo: Experimental study on lateral bearing capacity of piles (Part 1), Technical Research Institute of
Transport, Vol. 11, No.6, pp. 50-53, 1961
116) Kikuchi, Y., K. Takahashi and T. Hirohashi: Lateral Load Tests on Piled Slab Structures, Technical Note of PHRI No.773,
p.25,1994
117) Kubo, K. and F. Saegusa: Reciprocal loading test of model piles, Proceedings of 2nd Study Presentation Conference of PHRI,
pp.64-73, 1964
118) Kikuchi, Y.: Lateral Resistance of soft landing moundless structure with piles, Technical Note of PARI No.1039, 2003
No.2, pp. 181-205, 1962
120) Suzuki, A., K. Kubo and Y. Tanaka: Lateral resistance of vertical piles embedded in sandy layer with sloping surface, Rept.
of PHRI Vol. 5, No.2, pp.1-20, 1966
121) Bureau of Port and Harbours Edition: Handbook of countermeasures to requifaction of reclaimed area, Coastal Development
Institute of Technology, pp.314-319, 1997
122) Japan Geothechnical Society Edition: Survey, design, construction and inspection of pile foundation, pp. 343-461, 2004
123) Sawaguchi, M.: Comparison of calculation results by various estimation methods of dynamic bearing capacities, Proceedings
of 38th Conference of JSCE, Part III, pp.605-606, 1983
124) Heutker, T. (Translated by M. Kishida ): Shokoku-sha Publishing, pp.37-41, 1978
125) Japan Road Association: Specifications and Commentary for Highway Bridges, Part IV Substructures, Maruzen Publications,
pp. 509-510, 2002
126) R. D. Chellis : Pile foundations, McGraw Hill, p.464, 1961 R.D.Che1Hs:Pilefbundations, McGrawHil1, 29-32, 1961
127) Architectual Institute of Japan: Standards and commentary for architectural steel pile foundation, pp. 31-32, 1963
128) Japan Road Association: Specifications and commentary of highway bridges, Part IV Substructures, pp.353-363, 2002
129) Uto, K., M. Fuyuki and M. Sakurai: Review of monitoring formulae of pile driving depth, Proceedings of 17th Conference
on Soil Mechanics, pp.2041-2044, 1982
130) Yokoyama, Y.: Design of steel piles and construction, Sankai-do Publishing, pp.188-196,1963
131) Kato, T.: Experiment on plastic local buckling of steel pipe piles, Proceedings of Technical Conference of Architectual
Institute of Japan:, pp.463-464, 1971
132) Kishida, H. and A. Takan: Buckling of steel pipe piles and reinforcement of the end, Proceedings of Technical Conference of
Architectual Institute of Japan:, No.213, pp.29-38, 1973
133) Suzunai, K.: Study on deformation of steel pile head due to pile driving loads, Report of Technical Research Institute of
Transport, Vol. 12, No.2, pp.57-83, 1962
134) Yokoyama, Y.: Design and construction of steel piles, Sankai-do Publishing, pp. 2351963
135) Japan Road Association: Specifications and commentary of highway bridges, Part IV Substructures, pp.353-363, 2002
136) Architectual Institute of Japan: Guideline for design of architectural foundation, 2001
137) Akai, K.: Bearing Capacity and settlement of soil, Sankai-do Publishing, 1964
138) Ishii, Y.: Tschbotarioff Soil Mechanics, (Vil. 1)Gihoi-do Publishing, p.212,1957
139) J. O. Osterburg: Influence values for vertical stresses in a semi-infinite mass due to an embankment loading, Proc. 4th. Int.
Conf. S.M.F.E., Vol.2, 1957
140) Kobayashi, M., J. Minakami and T. Tsuchida: Determination of the Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation cohesive soil,
Rept. of PHRI Vol.29, No.2, 1990
141) Nakase, A., M. Kobayashi and A. Kanechika: Consolidation Parameters of Over consolidated Clays, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 12,
No. 1, pp. 123-139, 1973
142) L.A. Palmer and P.P. Brown: Settlement analysis for areas of continuing subsidence, Proc. 4th. Int. Conf. S.M.F.E, Vol.1,
pp.395-398,1957
143) R.L. Schifflnan and R.E. Gibson: Consolidation of nonhomogeneous clay layers, Journal of S.M.F.E., ASCE, Vol.90, No. SM
5, pp.1-30,1964
144) Kobayashi, M.: Numerical Analysis of One-Dimensional Consolidation Problems, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 21, No.1, 1982
145) Kobayashi, M.: Study on the application of Finite Element Method to settlement analysis, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Dissertation, Technical Note of Soil Mechanics Laboratory, No.1,1990
146) Kobayashi, M.: Finite Element Analysis of the Effectiveness of Sand Drains, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 30, No.2, 1991
482
147) Mesri, G.: Coefficient of secondary compression, Proc. A.S.C.E, Vol.99, SM1, pp.123-137, 1973
148) Kasugai, Y., K. Minami and H. Tanaka: The Prediction of the Lateral Flow of Port and Harbour Structures, Technical Note
of PHRI No. 726, 1992
149) Okumura, T. and T. Tsuchida: Prediction of Differential Settlement with Special Reference to Variability of Soil Parameters,
Rept. of PHRI Vol. 20, No. 3, 1981
150) Tsuchida, T. and K. Ono: Evaluation of Differential Settlements with Numerical Simulation and Its Application to Airport
Pavement Design, Rept. of PHRI Vol.27, No.4, 1988
151) Tsuchida, T.: Estimation of differential settlement in reclaimed land, Proceedings of Annual Conference of PHRI, 1989
483
3 Stability of Slopes
3.1 General
(1) Stability of slopes against slip failure caused by self weight of soil or surcharge may be analyzed as a twodimensional problem, assuming a circular arc slip surface or a straight sliding surface.
(2) It is necessary to perform slope stability analysis for the case in which a slope becomes least stable.
(3) In slope stability analysis, in cases where the stability of the soil mass comprising a slope is reduced by the self
weight of the soil or surcharge, as the ultimate equilibrium state, it is necessary to confirm that the design value of
shearing resistance exceeds the design value of shearing force based on actions. Calculation methods used in the
slope stability analysis can also be used to calculate the bearing capacity of foundations, in addition to the stability
of slopes, as these calculation methods are used to examine the stability of soil masses. The method described
below can be used in verification of stability against variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground
motion in addition to the Permanent situation.
(4) Shapes of Slip Surface
Types of shapes of slip surfaces
Theoretically, shapes of slip surfaces in slope stability analysis are combinations of linear, logarithmic spiral,
and/or circular arc shapes 1). In practice, however, linear or circular arc slip surfaces are assumed. When there
is a particularly weak layer and a slip surface is expected to pass over it, that slip surface or other appropriate
slip surfaces may sometimes be assumed. An assumed slip surface in general should be the one along which
the slip of the soil mass smoothly takes place. Thus, a slip surface with sharp bends or curves that seems to be
kinematically unnatural should not be used.
Slip failure of slope on sandy soil ground
Slip failure of slopes of dry sand or saturated sand usually takes a form in which the slope collapses, and as
a result, its inclination decreases. Therefore, it is more appropriate to consider a slope of these types as a
straight sliding surface than as a circular slip failure surface. Even when considering a circular slip failure
surface, the form is close to a straight line passing through the vicinity of the surface layer. The inclination of
a sandy slope when the slope is in a state of equilibrium is termed the angle of repose. This angle of repose is
equivalent to the angle of shear resistance, which corresponds to the void ratio of the sand comprising the slope.
In the case of unsaturated sand, the slope possesses apparent cohesion resistance caused by the suction due to
the surface tension of the water in the sand. As a result, its angle of repose is far larger than in the cases of
dry sand and saturated sand. However, saturation may increase due to infiltration of rainwater or a rise in the
groundwater level, causing a sudden decrease in apparent cohesion resistance, or angle of repose. Therefore,
adequate consideration is necessary.
Slope failure of cohesive soil ground
The actual slip failure surface of cohesive soil ground is close to a circular arc, and a deep slip called the base
failure often takes place, while a shallow slip appears near the surface layer in sandy slope.
Slope stability analysis is usually treated as a two-dimensional problem. Although actual slip surface in
slopes with long extention takes the form of three-dimensional curved surfaces, a two dimensional analysis
gives a solution on the safer side. When the stability is expected to decrease due to surcharge over a finite
extention, however, the resistance of both sides of a cylindrical failure surface may be taken into account.
(5) Actions in Slope Stability Analysis
Important causes of slip failures are self weight of soil, surcharge, water pressure and others. Beside them,
repeated actions such as seismic force, wave force, and others may be included. Resistance against the slip is
given by shear resistance of soil and counter weight.
Because the shear strength of soil is related with time, the stability problems on soil mass are classified into two
cases; loading on the ground in normally consolidated state, and unloading by excavation. The former is referred
to as a short-period stability problem and the latter a long-period. It is preferable to use shear strength appropriate
to each case (see Part II, Chapter 3, 2.3.3 Shear Characteristics).
(6) Stability verification in slope stability problems can be performed by confirming that the ratio of the shear
strength of soil to the shear stress in an assumed slip surface is greater than 1.0. The value of the obtained
ratio will differ depending on the assumed slip surface. However, the result with the smallest ratio of shearing
resistance/shearing force among the shearing resistance and shearing force obtained assuming several slip
surfaces based on the given conditions shall be regarded as the limit state for slip failure of the slope under study.
484
(7) Partial Factors
In examination of the stability of slopes, the partial factors for each structural type of facilities or partial factors
by type of improved soil can generally be used. In performance verification of structural types and embankments
for which no partial factors are particularly specified, the values shown in this section can be used. The parts to
be referenced on partial factors are as shown in Table 3.1.1. Because the position of the slip surface will differ
depending on how the partial factors for the soil parameter and the analysis method are determined, caution is
necessary when the range of soil improvement is to be determined based on the stability verification. For example,
if the partial factor of the soil parameter of the resistance side is set small, the range of slip failure, which is the
limit state, will be narrow. This means that the necessary range of soil improvement will be underestimated.
Table 3.1.1 Parts to be Referenced on Partial Factors for Use in Verification of Slip Failure
Applicable facilities for
partial factors
Composite breakwater
Breakwater armored with
wave-dissipating blocks
Gravity-type quaywall
Sheet pile quaywall
SCP improved soil
Others
Parts to be referenced
Chapter 4 Protective Facilities for Harbors
3.1 Gravity-type Breakwaters (Composite
Breakwaters), Table 3.1.1
Chapter 4 Protective Facilities for Harbors
3.4 Gravity-type Breakwaters (Breakwaters
Covered with Wave-dissipating Blocks),
Table 3.4.1
Chapter 5 Mooring Facilities
2.2 Gravity-type Quaywalls, Table 2.2.2
Chapter 5 Mooring Facilities
2.3 Sheet Pile Quaywalls, Table 2.3.3
Chapter 2, 4 Soil Improvement Methods
4.10 Sand Compaction Pile Method for
Cohesive Soil Ground, Table 4.10.2
In accordance with this section (3 Stability of
Slopes)
485
Applicable facilities
Upright breakwater, sloping caisson breakwater,
upright wave-dissipating block type breakwater,
wave-dissipating caisson type breakwater
Sloping top caisson breakwater armored with
wave-dissipating blocks
Gravity-type revetment, placement-type
cellular-bulkhead quaywall
Sheet pile revetment, cantilevered sheet pile
quaywall
Gravity-type quaywall or sheet pile quaywall
applying SCP improvement
Sloping breakwater and other similar facilities
3.2 Examination of Stability

3.2.1 Stability Analysis by Circular Slip Failure Surface
(1) Examination of the stability of slopes can be performed by circular slip failure analysis with the modified Fellenius
method, which is given by the following equation, or by an appropriate method equivalent to the bearing force
in 2.2.5 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined Actions, depending on the characteristics of the ground.
In equation (3.2.1), the partial factor a for the analysis method should be an appropriate value corresponding to
the characteristics of the ground and characteristics of the facilities. In general, a can be set at 1.30 or higher for
permanent situations, but in cases where the reliability of the constants used in verification can be considered high
based on actual data for the same ground, and in cases where monitoring work is carried out by observing the
displacement and stress of the ground during construction, values from of larger than 1.10 and less than 1.30 can
be used.2) In cases where partial factors are given for the structural type of the facilities or by type of improved
soil, as shown in 3.1(7) Partial Factors, the partial factors given at the objective parts shall be used.
(3.2.1)
where
R : radius of circular slip failure (m)
cd : in case of cohesion soil ground, design value of undrained shear strength, and in case of sandy
l : length of bottom of slice segment (m)
Wd : design value of effective weight of slice segment per unit of length (weight of soil. When
submerged, unit weight in water) (kN/m)
qd : design value of vertical action from top of slice segment (kN/m)
: angle of bottom of slice segment to horizontal ()
d : in case of cohesion soil ground, 0, and in case of sandy ground, design value of angle of shear
resistance in drained condition ()
Wd : design value of total weight of slice segment per unit of length, total weight of soil and water
(kN/m)
x : horizontal distance between center of gravity of slice segment and center of circular slip failure
(m)
PHd : design value of horizontal action on soil mass of slice segment in circular slip (kN/m)
a : length of arm from center of circular slip failure at position of action of PHd (m)
S : width of slice segment (m)
a : partial factor for analysis method
The design values in equation (3.2.1) can be calculated using the following equation by multiplying the
characteristic value by the partial factor. If partial factors are not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all
partial factors in equation (3.2.2).
cd = c ck ,W'd = W' W'k ,qd = q qk ,d = tan1(tan tank),PHd = PH PHk
(3.2.2)
(2) In slope stability analysis, the causes of slip failure include the self weight of the soil, surcharge, water pressure,
wave pressure, and action due to ground motion. Elements which resist slip failure include the shearing resistance
of the soil and counterweight. Verification of safety against slip failure of slopes is performed assuming that the
shearing resistance of the soil exceeds the shearing force in the assumed slip surface. When assuming a circular
slip failure surface, this is equivalent to verifying that the moments which work to resist slip exceed the moments
which cause slip for the center of the circle.
(3) In the slice method used in circular slip failure surfaces, the soil mass inside the slip circle is divided into a number
of slices by vertical planes, the shearing force at the bottom surface of each slice and the resistant stress of the
soil are calculated considering the balance of forces in each slice. The fact that the design value of the shearing
resistance obtained by adding the stresses for all of the slices exceeds the design value of the shearing force along
the slip line is then verified. In order to solve the inter-slice balance of forces in the slice method, it is necessary
to assume statically the determinate conditions. Various methods have been proposed, which vary depending on
the assumptions used. In general, the modified Fellenius method and the simplified Bishop method are used.
486
(4) Stability Analysis Method using Modified Fellenius Method 1), 3), 4)
Various calculation methods have been proposed for the slice method, depending on how the forces acting on the
vertical planes between the slices are assumed. The modified Fellenius method assumes that the direction of the
resultant force acting on vertical planes between slices is parallel to the base of the slices. This method is also
referred to as the simplified method or Tschbotarioff method. When a circular arc and a slice are as shown in Fig.
3.2.1, equation (3.2.1) according to the modified Fellenius method is applicable. In performing slope stability
analysis, first, the center of the slip circle is assumed. Of the slip circles that take this point as their center, the
one with the smallest ratio expressed by the design value of shearing resistance/design value of shearing force
based on loading is obtained, and its value is used as the minimum ratio for that center point. The minimum ratio
of design value of shearing resistance/design value of shearing force for other center points is then obtained by
the same method. Verification can be performed for the limit state for slip failure of the slope using the minimum
value of the minimum ratios obtained by the contour for the minimum ratios.
Fig.3.2.1 Circular Slip Failure Analysis using Modified Fellenius Method
(5) Stability Analysis by Bishop Method 3), 5)

Bishop 5) proposes an equation which considers the vertical shearing force and horizontal force acting in the
vertical plane of a slice. In actual calculations, a calculation method which assumes that the vertical shearing
forces are in balance is often used. This method is called the simplified Bishop method. In the simplified Bishop
method, Ff Ff is calculated based on equation (3.2.3), 5) and stability can be verified by the verification parameter
Ff 1. In this equation, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d are the
characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(3.2.3)
where
Ff : verification parameter
Ff : partial factor for analysis method
cd : in case of cohesion soil ground, design value of undrained shear strength, and in case of sandy
S : width of slice segment (m)
Wd : design value of effective weight of slice segment per unit of length (weight of soil. When
submerged, unit weight in water) (kN/m)
d : in case of cohesion soil ground, 0, and in case of sandy ground, design value of angle of shear
resistance in drained condition ()
qd : design value of vertical action from top of slice segment (kN/m)
Wd : design value of total weight of slice segment per unit of length, total weight of soil and water
(kN/m)
PHd : design value of horizontal action on soil mass of slice segment in circular slip (kN/m)
a : length of arm from center of circular slip failure at position of action of PHd (m)
R : radius of circular slip failure (m)
487
The design values in the equation can be calculated using the following equation by multiplying the
characteristic value by the partial factor. Provided, however, that Wd shall be expressed by the sum of Wd and the
weight of water, because it is not necessary to multiply the weight of water by a partial factor. If partial factors are
not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all partial factors in equation (3.2.4).
cd = c ck ,W'd = W' W'k ,qd = q qk ,d = tan1(tan' tank ),PHd = PH PHk
(3.2.4)
(6) Applicability of Stability Analysis Methods 6), 7)

Solutions in stability analysis by the modified Fellenius method and the simplified Bishop method are in agreement
for cohesive soil in which = 0, when all partial factor are 1.00, but differ when the circular arc passes through
sandy ground. In Japan, circular slip failure analysis by the modified Fellenius method is widely used. This is
because it has been reported that the modified Fellenius method reasonably explains the actual behaviors of slope
failure based on the results of analysis of case histories of slip failures in port areas in Japan, 4) and also gives a
safety side solution for sandy ground.
However, when the foundation ground consists entirely of sandy soil layers, or when a slip circle cuts through
ground consisting of an upper thick sandy layer and lower cohesive soil layer, it is known that the modified
Fellenius method underestimates stability evaluated by the ratio expressed by the design value of shearing
resistance/design value based on actions.7) From the viewpoint of the basic principles of the stability calculation
method, the simplified Bishop method is more accurate under such conditions. Therefore, the simplified Bishop
method is generally used in case of eccentric and inclined loads, which are particularly a problem when examining
the bearing capacity of mounds (see 2.2.5 Bearing Capacity for Eccentric and Inclined Actions). It should be
noted that the simplified Bishop method has the problem of overestimating the ratio expressed by design value of
shearing resistance / design value of shearing forces based on actions when actions on near-horizontal sandy
ground apply vertical loads. In such cases, a method of stability calculation can be used which assumes that the
ratio of the vertical to the horizontal forces between slices is 1/3.5 of the angle of slice inclination.8) In stability
verification in this case, calculations are made using the following equation. In this equation, the symbol is the
partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d are the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(3.2.5)
Based on equation (3.2.5), Ff Ff is calculated, and stability can be verified by the verification parameter Ff 1.
The design values in this equation can be calculated using the following equation. Provided, however, that Wd
shall be expressed by the sum of Wd and the weight of water, because it is not necessary to multiply the weight of
water by a partial factor. If partial factors are not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all partial factors
in equation (3.2.6).
cd =c ck ,W'd =W' W'k ,qd =q qk ,d =tan1(tan tank),PHd = PH PHk
(3.2.6)
where n = 1 + tan tan (), is a parameter which provides the ratio of the vertical force to the horizontal
force acting on the sides of the slice, and can be assumed to be = 1/3.5. The other symbols are the same as those
3.2.2 Stability Analysis Assuming Slip Surfaces other than Circular Slip Surface
(1) Despite the provisions stated in the previous sections, a linear or a compounded slip surface shall be assumed
in stability analysis when it is more appropriate to assume a slip surface other than a circular arc slip surfaces
according to the ground conditions.
(2) When linear slip is assumed, examination of stability against slip failure of a slope with a straight sliding surface
is calculated using the following equation.

where
cd
d
l
W'd
: design value of cohesion of soil (kN/m 2)

: design value of angle of shearing resistance of soil ()
: length of base of slice (m)
: design value of effective weight of slice per unit of length (kN/m)
488
(3.2.7)
Wd : design value of total weight of slice per unit of length (kN/m)
: inclination of base of slice, assumed to be positive in the case shown in Fig. 3.2.2 ()
PHd : design value of horizontal action per unit of length applied to slice segment of slope, actions
include water pressure, actions due to waves and actions due to ground motion (kN/m)
a : partial factor for analysis method
The partial factor R for the analysis method for slip failure can be 1.2 in the permanent situation and 1.00
for variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion.
The design values in this equation can be calculated using the following equation. Provided, however, that Wd
shall be expressed by the sum of Wd and the weight of water, because it is not necessary to multiply the weight of
water by a partial factor. If partial factors are not particularly designated, 1.00 can be used for all partial factors
cd = c ck ,W'd = W' W'k ,d =tan1(tan tank), PHd = PH PHk
(3.2.8)
Fig. 3.2.2 Examination of Slope Stability Analysis using Linear Sliding Surface
References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
R.F, Scott: Principle of Soil mechanics, Addison Wesley, p.431, 1972

Tsuchida, T.and TANG Yi Xin: The Optimum Safety Factor for Stability Analyses of Harbour Structures by Use of the
Circular Arc Slip Method, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 5No. 1pp. 117-146, 1996
Yamaguchi, K.: Soil Mechanics (Fully Revised Edition)Chapter 7, Stability analysis of earth structure, Giho-do Publishing,
pp.197-223, 1969
Nakase, A.The =0 analysis of stability and unconfined compression strength, Siol and Foundation, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.33-50,
1967
A.W. Bishop: The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes, Geotechnique, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.7-17. 1955
Nomura, K., T. Hayafuji and F. Nagatomo: Comparison between Bishops method and Tschebotarioffs method in slope
stability analysis, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 7 No. 4, pp.133-175, 1968
Kobayashi, M.: Outstanding issues in stability analysis of ground, Proceedings of Annual Conference of PHRI 1976, pp.7393, 1976
Tsuchida, T., M. Kobayashi and T. Fukuhara: Calculation method for bearing capacity by circular slip analysis utilizing slice
method, Proceedings of 33rd Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1371-1372, 1998
489
4 Soil Improvement Methods

4.1 General

When carrying out soil improvement as a countermeasure against possible failures of soft ground, an appropriate
method shall be selected in view of the characteristics of foundation subsoil, type and scale of structure, ease and
period of construction, economic factors and influence on the environment.
4.2 Liquefaction Countermeasure Works

In carrying out liquefaction countermeasure works, it is preferable to conduct an appropriate examination of the
following items in order to maintain the functions of the facilities.
Method of countermeasure works
Scope of execution of countermeasure works (execution area and depth)
Concrete performance verification of countermeasure works
4.3 Replacement Methods

(1) In the performance verification of the replacement method, it is necessary to consider stability against circular slip
failure, settlement of subsoil, and constructability of replacement.
(2) Replacement methods can be divided into two methods including the replacement of subsoil by excavation
(foundation replacement by excavation) and the forced replacement. In the replacement of subsoil by excavation
method, soft soil is excavated and removed by a suction dredger or a grab dredger and replaced by filling with
good quality soil. This method is widely used in offshore works. On the other hand, the forced replacement
method is a method in which soft soil is forcibly pushed out by embankment load, sand compaction piles, blasting,
or other methods, and is then replaced with good quality soil.39)
(3) The following presents the performance verification method for the replacement of subsoil by excavation
(foundation replacement by excavation), which is widely used in offshore works.
Procedure of performance verification
In the performance verification of the replacement methods, as shown in Fig. 4.3.1, it is generally preferable to
carry out the performance verification by a procedure of assumption of the verification conditions, assumption
of the verification cross section including replacement depth, replacement width, and slope of excavation,
examination of circular slip failure, examination of settlement, and selection of the replaced sand. Although not
shown in Fig. 4.3.1, it is also necessary to examine the possibility of liquefaction of the replaced sand and the
evaluation of the effect thereof.
Assumption of cross-sectional dimensions
Examination of circular slip failure
Permanent state
Examination of settlement
Selection of replaced sand

Fig. 4.3.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Replacement Method
490
Examination of slip failure
In the examination of slip failure by circular slip failure calculations, 3 Stability of Slopes can be used as
a reference. For partial factors, related provisions in Part III of this Technical Standard can be used as a
reference, as necessary.
In calculating the earth pressure on sheet piles or anchorage works inside the replaced section, it is preferable
to conduct an examination of the composite slip in addition to the conventional earth pressure calculations. In
cases where the entire layer is to be replaced and the base rock stratum is inclined, it is preferable to conduct an
examination for a composite slip which includes slip failure on the base rock.
Examination of settlement
When cohesive soil remains beneath the replaced cross section, such as beneath partial replacement or the slope
of foundation excavation, consolidation settlement can be expected in the cohesive soil portion. Therefore, it is
preferable to conduct an examination of the effect of this consolidation settlement on the superstructure.
Selection of replaced sand
It is preferable that the replaced sand has a good grain size distribution and has a low content of silt content. In
general, the ratio of fines content is frequently specified as no more than 15%. The angle of shear resistance of
replaced sand can generally be assumed to be around 30. However, this value is affected by the particle size,
size distribution, placement method, sequence of placement, elapsed time, surcharge, and other factors. There
is a case where the angle of shear resistance is extremely low, and therefore caution is necessary.
Examination of Liquefaction
Liquefaction is generally assessed based on the grain size distribution and the N-values of the replaced sand.
When difficult to evaluate, the liquefaction should be examined by cyclic triaxial test 41) (see Part II, Chapter
6 Ground Liquefaction). When liquefaction is one of critical factors in the determination of the replacement
section and the characteristics of the replacement sand, it should be considered at selecting the replaced material.
If in sufficient strength of the replaced sand is expected, it is preferable to compact the replaced sand after filling.
The N-values of the replaced sand are affected by its grain size and grain size distribution, placement method
and sequence of placement, elapsed time and surcharge. According to some case studies, the N-values of
the replaced sand were around 10 when sand was instantaneously placed in large volume from large-capacity
hopper barges with bottom doors, around 5 when sand was placed by grab buckets from sand carriers, and even
smaller values when sand was spread by suction dredger. Several case studies show that the N-values of the
loose replaced sand increased with the application of surcharge and the elapsed time after placing the replaced
sand or rubble stones or placing caisson.
491
4.4 Vertical Drain Method

(1) In the vertical drain method, it is necessary to secure the following performance corresponding to the purposes of
improvement.
Assure targeted strength increase.
Assure that residual settlement should be within the allowable value.
Secure the necessary stability of the facilities.
(2) An example of the performance verification procedure for the vertical drain method is shown in Fig. 4.4.1.
Bearing
capacity
of ground
Allowable
settlement
Assumption of target strength increase
Assumption of necessary
consolidation load
Assumption of section
to be improved
Assumption of height, weight,

and shape of embankment
Verification of stability
against circular slip failure
Construction
period
Determination of embankment
height and consolidation period in
each stage of construction
Verification of stability against
circular slip failure
Determination of embankment
width and shape
in each stage of construction
Determination of type,
diameter, and spacing of drains
Comparison of economy
Fig. 4.4.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Vertical Drain Method

(1) Determination of Height and Width of Embankment
Height and width of embankment necessary in soil improvement
(a) The height and width of the embankment when an embankment is to be used as consolidation load by the
preload method or surcharge method shall be determined considering the strength increase necessary for
stability of the embankment during and after construction, the stability and allowable settlement of the
facilities to be constructed, the effect on the surrounding area, and other relevant factors.
(b) It is preferable to set the top width of the embankment larger than the width required for soil improvement (see
Fig. 4.4.2).
492
Mean width
Fill top width
(Fill)
Drain area
(Permeable layer)
Fig. 4.4.2 Width of Embankment for Vertical Drain Method
(c) In examination of the strength increase (c) of the original ground, equation (4.4.1) can be used.
where
Ca
h
p0
pc
U

(4.4.1)
: target strength increase (kN/m 2)

: height of embankment (m)
: initial pressure (vertical pressure before start of construction) (kN/m 2)
: preconsolidation pressure (kN/m 2)
: degree of consolidation
: coefficient of stress distribution, namely ratio of distributed stress in ground and consolidation
load (embankment load)
: effective unit weight of embankment (kN/m3)
c : strength increase (kN/m 2)
c/p: increase rate of strength
Evaluation of stability of embankment

(a) It is necessary to verify the stability of embankments by circular slip failure analysis or other appropriate
methods for the height and width of the embankment determined by the above explanation of Height and
width of the embankment necessary in soil improvement. In cases where it is not possible to secure the
stability of the embankment itself, it is necessary to divide the final embankment into several stages and
perform verification of the stability in each of the embankment stages.
(b) Evaluation of stability of embankment against slip failure
In the examination of the stability of an embankment by circular slip failure calculations, 3 Stability of
Slopes can be used as a reference. For the partial factors to be used in the calculations, the partial safety
factors for the circular slip failure calculations in connection with respective facilities can be used. In this
case, the strength of the ground must consider the strength increase calculated by equation (4.4.1).
(c) Rough estimation of strength increase
Since surcharge is usually applied in several stages in the vertical drain method, the degree of consolidation U
to be used in equations (4.4.1) and (4.4.2) differs at each surcharge stage. However, strength increment may
often be calculated by assuming a uniform degree of consolidation of approximately 80%.
(2) Performance Verification of Drains
In the performance verification of drains, it is necessary to make calculations which consider the permeability
characteristics of the drain material, and permeability characteristics and thickness of the sand mat, in addition to
the drain interval, drain diameter, and drainage conditions at the top and bottom of the layer to be consolidated.
Drains and sand mats
(a) Drains and sand mats shall possess the required drainage functions.
(b) Consolidation rate and drain diameter
The consolidation rate is approximately proportional to the drain diameter and inversely proportional to the
square of the drain interval. Generally, the amount of drain material can be reduced by placing small diameter
493
drains at small intervals rather than by placing large diameter drains at wide intervals. However, in the sand
drain method, use of sand piles with an excessively small diameter may result in clogging due to infiltration of
clayey particles, and there is a danger of breakage of the sand piles if the piles are unable to follow deformation
by loading or consolidation settlement during the consolidation period. Construction records of sand drain
method to date show that the most frequently used diameter is 40cm, and diameters normally range from
30-50cm. In the small diameter fabri-packed drain method,43) sand piles with a diameter of 12cm are packed
into synthetic fiber bags, and four sand piles are installed simultaneously using a lightweight pile driver. This
method is frequently used with extremely soft subsoil on land. A fabri-packed drain method with a diameter
of the order of 40cm has also been developed for improvement of extremely soft subsoil at the sea bottom.44),
45)
(c) Materials for sand piles

Sand used for sand piles should have high permeability as well as a suitable grain size to prevent clogging with
clayey particles. The grain size distributions of sand used in works are shown in Fig. 4.4.3. However, cases
in which sand with a somewhat higher fines content is used have also increased in recent years.
Passing weight percentage (%)
100
Silt
Fine sand
Coarse sand
Gravel
2
80
1
7
60
3
11
40
4
10
A
8
20
0
5
6
12 Examples in Japan
A B New York
12
0.1
1
Grain size(mm)
10
Fig. 4.4.3 Examples of Sand Used in Sand Piles
(d) Prefabricated drains and related materials

In the performance verification of the prefabrication drain type of strip-shaped drain, the width and thickness
of approximately 10cm and 5cm respectively, the object drain is converted to a circular drain having the same
circumferential length. In practical cases, however, the performance verification is conducted as equivalent
to a sand drain having a diameter of 5cm.42) Caution is necessary in cases where the drainage capacity of
the drain is low, as there is a time lag in consolidation at the end of the vertical drain (i.e., lower part of the
consolidation layer).
(e) Sand mats
The thickness of the sand mat layer is usually set to be approximately 1.0 m to 1.5 m for marine works and
0.5 m to 1.0 m for land works. A thick sand mat layer may cause difficulty in drain pile driving. On the other
hand, a thin sand mat layer may show reduced permeability due to infiltration of clayey particles. Where
the thickness of the sand mat layer is concerned, when the drainage capacity of the sand mat layer is low, a
delay in consolidation may occur due to head loss. In this case, it is preferable to improve permeability by
installing drainage pipes in the sand mat layer. In recent years, a method which does not require a sand mat
has been developed by connecting the excess lengths of drains in a grid-like shape to secure drainage paths
in the horizontal direction.50)
Drain interval
(a) Interval of drain piles shall be so determined that the required degree of consolidation can be obtained in a
given construction period.
(b) General
The vertical drain method can be applied when the rate of consolidation by the preloading method, surcharge
method, vacuum consolidation method, or similar methods is slow considering the time constraints of the
construction period. Fig. 4.4.4 shows the relationship between the required consolidation time t80, drainage
494
distance H, and coefficient of consolidation cv of a clayey layer by the preloading method, surcharge method,
and vacuum consolidation method.
Note) In Fig. 4.4.4, the units used are consolidation time t80 (day), drainage distance H (m), and coefficient
of consolidation cv (cm 2/min).
in 2
10000
0.0
2
0.0
0.03
0. 4
0.006
0.1 8
0.2
0.3
0 .4
0.6
0.8
1.0
10years
c =
0.0
1cm
/m
5000
5years
4years
3years
1000
2years
t 80
(d)
500
1year
6months
Permeable layer
100
Clay
50
30% 0.125
2H 40% 0.222
Permeable layer
50% 0.348
Permeable layer
60% 0.507
70% 0.711
80% 1.000
Clay
Impermeable layer
10
U T/T80
10% 0.013
20% 0.055
10
90% 1.497
50
H(m)
Fig. 4.4.4 Required Days for 80% Consolidation of Clay Layer
(c) Determination of drain Interval

The drain interval can be obtained from Fig. 4.4.5 and equation (4.4.3) based on the Barron theory or Bio
theory.51) It has been pointed out that consolidation may be delayed due to the effect of the smear, which means
the disturbance of cohesive soil ground by drain driving, if the drain interval is excessively small52), 53), 54), 55).

where
D : drain interval (cm)
: factor related to arrangement of drains
(4.4.3)
with square arrangement, = 0.886, and with a triangular arrangement, = 0.952.

n :
(n can be obtained from Fig. 4.4.5)
De : effective diameter of drain (cm)

Dw : diameter of drain (cm)
Th : parameter similar to time factor
cvh : coefficient of consolidation related to flow of water in horizontal direction (cm 2/min)
t : consolidation time (min)
Note) The unit used for time (t) in Fig. 4.4.5 and Fig. 4.4.6 is days.
495
Fig. 4.4.5 Calculation Chart for N-value
(d) Flow of water in vertical direction

In the vertical drain method, consolidation by flow of water in the horizontal direction is expected. However,
when the thickness of the layer to be consolidated is comparatively small in comparison with the interval
between the drains, progress of consolidation due to flow of water in the vertical direction cannot be ignored.
For the performance verification of the pile interval considering consolidation due to vertical flow of water,
Reference 49) can be used as a reference.
(e) Coefficient of consolidation in horizontal direction
No appropriate test method has been established for the coefficient of consolidation (cvh) for flow of water in
the horizontal direction of cohesive soil layers. In general, the coefficient of consolidation in the horizontal
direction is considered to be 5-10 times greater than that in the vertical direction, but some reports say that
they are equivalent. If the effects of head loss in the drains and the effect of smear are considered, it is
not necessarily advisable to use the results of consolidation tests which reproduce the flow of water in the
horizontal direction. According to examples of construction to date, there are no practical objections to
substitution of the coefficient of consolidation (cv) for flow of water in the horizontal direction of clayey soil
layers.
(f) Calculation of degree of consolidation
After determining the drain interval, the relationship between the degree of consolidation and elapsed time
can be obtained using equations (4.4.4) and (4.4.5) and Fig. 4.4.6.

(4.4.4)

where
Th
cvh
t
De
Dw
(4.4.5)
: time factor of consolidation for flow of water in horizontal direction

: coefficient of consolidation for flow of water in horizontal direction (cm 2/min)
: elapsed time from start of consolidation (min)
: effective diameter of drain area (cm)
: diameter of drain (cm)
Note) In Fig. 4.4.6, the units used are coefficient of consolidation cvh (cm 2/min), effective diameter of drain
area De (cm), and elapsed time t (day).
496
Fig. 4.4.6 Calculation Chart for Degree of Consolidation
(g) Effective diameter of drain area

The effective diameter of drain area De is the diameter of an equivalent circle that has the same area as the
soil being drained by a sand pile. The relationship between De and interval of the drain pile D is as follows:
De = 1.128D
De = 1.050D
for square grid pattern.

for equilateral triangular grid pattern.
497
(4.4.6)
(4.4.7)
4.5 Deep Mixing Method

[1] Scope of Application
(1) The deep mixing method dealt with in this section is the one in which the soil in-situ is mixed mechanically with
cement.
(2) The majority of examples of application of soil improvement by the deep mixing method in ports are breakwaters,
revetments including partition dikes, and quaywalls having caissons or the like as their superstructure. The
performance verification method presented here can be applied to improved soil when a gravity-type breakwater
revetment or quaywall is to be used as the superstructure.
(3) When applying the deep mixing method to port facilities, a high rigidity subsurface structure is formed by
mutually overlapping stabilized soil having a pile shape in the ground using a mixing machine. The pattern of
this subsurface structure is determined depending on the properties of the ground and the type and scale of the
superstructure. In general, however, the block type and the wall type shown in Fig. 4.5.1 are frequently used.
Accordingly, block type improvement and wall type improvement will be discussed here which are representative
forms of improvement in the field of port engineering.
(4) The wall type improvement consists of long and short walls as shown in Fig. 4.5.1(b). The basic concept of the
design is that the long walls function to transmit the external actions to the foundation ground, while the short
walls function to increase the integrity of the improved ground.
Sea surface
Sea surface
Sea surface
Soft subsoil
Soft subsoil
Sea surface
Seabed
Improved subsoil
Soft subsoil
Seabed
Improved subsoil
Soft subsoil
Long wall
Short wall
(a) block type improvement
(b) wall type improvement
Fig. 4.5.1 Typical Improvement Patterns in the Deep Mixing Method
[2] Basic Concept

(1) Definitions of the terms are as follows;
Stabilized soil: Improved soil produced by the deep mixing method.
Stabilized body: A kind of structure formed underground with stabilized soil.
Improved ground: Portion in which the stabilized body and untreated soil is combined. In the wall type
improvement, the untreated soil between the long walls is inclusive.
Improved subsoil system: Portion above the bottom of the improved subsoil, between the vertical planes passing
through the front toe and heel of the improved subsoil.
External stability: Examination of stability of unified body consisting of improved subsoil and superstructure
as a rigid body in the process up to failure.
Internal stability: Examination of internal failure of the stabilized body which is stable externally.
498
Bottom seated type: Structural type in which the stabilized body is seated directly on the bearing stratum; in
this type of improvement, actions are transmitted to the bearing stratum by improvement of the soft ground
reaching as far as the bearing stratum.
Floating type: Structural type in which the stabilized body takes a form that floats in the soft ground; in this type
of improvement, the stabilized body is not seated on the bearing stratum, but soft ground is allowed to remain
underneath the stabilized body.
(2) Stabilized soil by the deep mixing method generally has extremely high strength and deformation modulus and
extremely small strain at failure in comparison with the soil of the original ground.60) Accordingly, a stabilized
body formed with stabilized soil can be regarded as a kind of structure. Therefore, examination of external
stability of the structure as a whole, examination of the resistance of the structure itself, and when particularly
necessary, examination of the settlement, horizontal displacement, and rotation of the stabilized body as a rigid
body shall be performed.
(3) In the performance verification of the deep mixing method, the Technical Manual for the Deep Mixing Method
in Marine Construction Works 61) can be used as a reference.
(4) An example of the procedure of the performance verification for the deep mixing method for gravity-type
structures is shown in Fig. 4.5.2.
Determination of design conditions
Assumption of dimensions of stabilized body
Evaluation of actions including setting of seismic coefficient for verification
Verification of external stability such as sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
Permanent state
Verification of internal stability such as toe pressure, shear stress and dislodging
Variable states in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion
Verification of external stability such as sliding, overturning and bearing capacity
Verification of internal stability such as toe pressure, shear stress and dislodging
*1
Examination of deformation by dynamic analysis
*2
Accidental states in respect of
Level 2 earthquake ground motion
Examination of deformation by dynamic analysis
Examination of circular slip failure and settlement
Permanent state
Determination of dimensions of stabilized body

*1: When necessary, examination of deformation by dynamic analysis can be performed for Level 1 earthquake ground motion. In cases where

the width of the improved subsoil is smaller than the width of the foundation mound, it is preferable to conduct an examination of

deformation by dynamic analysis.
*2 Depending on the performance requirements of the main body, examination for Level 2 earthquake ground motion shall be performed.
Fig. 4.5.2 Example of Procedure of Performance Verification of Deep Mixing Method
499
(5) The performance verification of variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion in the deep
mixing method can be conducted, equivalent to gravity-type quaywalls, by either the simplified method (seismic
coefficient method),or by a detailed method (nonlinear seismic response analysis considering dynamic interaction
of the ground and structures) presented in Part III, Chapter 5, 2.2.3 Performance Verification. In cases where
the width of the improved subsoil is smaller than the width of the foundation mound in the results of verification
by the simplified method, it is necessary to carry out an examination of deformation of the improved subsoil and
main body by a detailed method. Examination of accidental situations in respect of Level 2 earthquake ground
motion may also be necessary depending on the performance requirements of the facilities.
(6) In the performance verification of the deep mixing method, it is necessary to consider the following items.
Because there is no method for the deep mixing method to determine the dimensions of the stabilized body at
once, the verification calculation is performed repeatedly until stability conditions are satisfied and the most
economical cross section is obtained.
In improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, it is necessary to determine the dimensions of both the long
walls and the short walls. Because the long walls and short walls are constructed by mutually overlapping
pile bodies of stabilized soil, the cross-sectional shapes of the walls cannot be determined arbitrarily and it is
necessary to consider the dimensions of the mixing machine which is expected to be used.
In improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, untreated soil between the long walls exists in the improved
subsoil; therefore, in the examination of the internal stability, it is necessary to examine the extrusion of the
untreated soil between the long walls, in addition to the examination of the internal stress in the stabilized body.
The limit values of deformation in the variable situations and the accidental situations can be set corresponding
to the performance requirements of the facilities, using deformation of the main structure to be supported by the
deep mixing method as an index.
In the verification of deformation of Level 1 earthquake ground motion and Level 2 earthquake ground motion,
it is preferable to use a numerical model or results of shaking table tests which can appropriately assess the
residual deformation of the improved subsoil caused by ground motion.
4.5.2 Assumption of Dimensions of Stabilized Body
[1] Mixing Design Method for Stabilized Subsoil
It is necessary to determine the mixing design of the stabilized subsoil by performing laboratory mixing tests or in-situ
tests under the same conditions as in actual construction.
[2] Material Strength of Stabilized Body
(1) Allowable stress of the stabilized body needs to be appropriately determined for the examination of the internal
stability.
(2) Design compressive strength fc can be obtained using equation (4.5.1) based on the standard design strength
quc. In this equation, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the
characteristic value and design value, respectively.
where
fc

quc

(4.5.1)
: design compressive strength of stabilized body (kN/m 2)

: factor for effective cross-sectional area
: reliability index of overlap
: design standard strength (kN/m 2)
The design values in the equation can be calculated using the following equation.
qucd = quc quck
For the partial factor quc of design standard strength, the values mentioned in 4.5.4 Performance Verification,
[2] Examination of Internal Stability may be used.
(3) The design shear strength fsh and design tensile strength ft of the stabilized body can be obtained from equation
(4.5.2) and equation (4.5.3) using the design compressive strength fc.
500

(4.5.2)

where
fsh : design shear strength of stabilized body (kN/m 2)
ft : design tensile strength of stabilized body (kN/m 2)
(4.5.3)
(4) In the performance verification of the stabilized body, the stabilized body is assumed to be a material with
homogeneous strength. However, in actual construction work, because the stabilized body is formed by mutual
overlapping of piles of stabilized subsoil, there are cases in which inhomogeneous by stabilized soil remains, for
example, containing residual untreated soil or having strength differences in overlapped parts, depending on the
mixing machine used and the method of overlapping. The factors and shown in equation (4.5.1) are factors for
treating stabilized subsoil as material having homogeneous strength. The concepts when setting these factors are
presented in the following.
Factor for effective cross-sectional area
When construction is carried out using machines with multiple mixing blades, the cross section of the
stabilized body consists of multiple cylinders as shown in Fig. 4.5.4. In block-type and wall-type improvement,
the stabilized body is formed by overlapping stabilized subsoil having a pile shape as shown in Fig. 4.5.5.
Therefore, unimproved portions remain around the overlapping parts, and the area occupied by the stabilized
subsoil is smaller than in other areas. The factor for effective cross-sectional area is a factor for correcting
this unimproved part.
The value of the factor for effective cross-sectional area will differ depending on the direction and type of the
actions such as compressive, tensile and shear which are the object of the performance verification. For example,
when considering shear force in the vertical direction of the stabilized body or stress acting perpendicular to
overlapping parts, examination on the narrowest connecting section gives safe side results. On the other hand,
when considering normal stress in the vertical plane of the stabilized body, the entire area of the stabilized body
may be considered as acting effectively. Here, the factor according to the former concept is used as the factor
for effective cross-sectional area for the effective width 1, and the factor according to the latter concept is used
as the factor for effective cross-sectional area for the effective area 2.
Dx
R
D
y
of
d Width
overlapping
Dy
Connecting surface
L
x
Fig. 4.5.3 Effective Width inherent in Deep Mixing Machine
Fig.4.5.4 Connecting Surfaces
(a) Factor for effective cross-sectional area for effective width 1

The factor for effective cross-sectional area for effective width 1 shall generally be the smaller of the values
obtained using equation (4.5.4) and equation (4.5.5).
1) Factor for mixing machines
In Fig. 4.5.3, assuming the interval between the mixing shafts of the mixing machines is Dx and Dy and the
overlapped length of the improved piles is lx and ly, the coefficient 1 determined by the mixing machines can
be obtained using equation (4.5.4).
501
(4.5.4)
2) Factor for overlap

In Fig. 4.5.4, assuming the interval between the mixing shafts is D, the radius of the mixing blade is R, and
the overlap width is d, the factor 1 for overlap can be obtained using equation (4.5.5).

(4.5.5)
In many examples, the minimum overlap width d is assumed to be 25cm, considering execution accuracy
and capacity.
(b) Factor for effective cross-sectional area for effective area 2
The factor for the effective area 2 can be obtained using equation (4.5.6).

where
A1 : area enclosed by bold line in Fig. 4.5.4
A2 : area shown by hatched lines in Fig. 4.5.4
(4.5.6)
Reliability index of overlap

At overlapped parts, a new improved pile is joined to the existing improved pile of stabilized subsoil which has
already begun to harden. Therefore, there is a possibility that the strength of this part may be smaller than that
of other parts. The reliability index of overlap is defined as the ratio of the strength of overlapped part to that
of other improved piles. Its value will differ depending on the elapsed time until the new pile is joined to the
existing pile, the mixing capacity of the machine, the stabilizer feed method. However, in general, may be set
to approximately = 0.80.9.
(5) Relationship between standard design strength and in-situ and laboratory mixing strength
The relationship between the average value quf of the unconfined compressive strength quf of in-situ stabilized
subsoil and the characteristic value quck of the standard design strength is given by equation (4.5.7).

(4.5.7)
where
K : coefficient showing normal deviation, namely multiplier for standard deviation . In general,
K = 1.0 can be adopted.
V : coefficient of variation of unconfined compressive strength quf of in-situ stabilized soil.
Because the value of V is greatly affected by the mixing machine and mixing technology, it is preferable that
V be set individually for each case. However, based on the past examples, V = 33 (%) can be used.
Setting of the value of the coefficient K as 1.0 when the variation of the unconfined compressive strength quf
of in-situ stabilized subsoil follows a normal distribution means that the characteristic value quck of the standard
design strength is set at a strength where the defect occurrence ratio is 15.9% (see Fig. 4.5.5).
The relationship between the average value quf of the unconfined compressive strength quf of in-situ stabilized
subsoil and the average value qul of the unconfined compressive strength qul of samples mixed in the laboratory is
given by equation (4.5.8).
(4.5.8)
The value of is affected by numerous factors, including the mixing machine and construction conditions, type
of soil which is the object of improvement, type of stabilizer, the curing environment, and age. As a guideline, in
offshore works, = 1 can be assumed when construction is performed by large- or medium-scale working crafts,
and = 0.51 can be assumed for small-scale working crafts. Provided, however, that the value of may also be
determined based on tests or the past records of construction.
A schematic diagram of the relationship between design standard strength quck and the average value qul of the
unconfined compressive strength of samples mixed in the laboratory and the average value quf of the unconfined
compressive strength of in-situ stabilized soil is shown in Fig. 4.5.5.
502
q uck
qut = quck
k=
15.9%
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
Fig. 4.5.5 Relationship between quck,
2.0
2.5
3.0
, and quck (schematic diagram)
4.5.3 Conditions of Actions on Stabilized Body 68)

(1) Fig. 4.5.6 shows a schematic diagram of the loads acting on the stabilized body in the case of gravity-type
revetments and quaywalls.
(2) Because improved subsoil of wall-type improvement contains untreated soil in the improved subsoil, depending
on the performance verification items, it may be necessary to set the load conditions by separating the untreated
and stabilized subsoils.
(3) For the examination on the external stability of improved subsoil systems, Pa or Pp can be determined using the
active and passive earth pressures specified in Part II, Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure. When examining internal
stability, Pa may be considered as active earth pressure. However, it is preferable that Pp be set appropriately
within the range from earth pressure at rest to passive earth pressure, considering the external stability of the
improved subsoil system.
(4) In cases where a certain amount of displacement of the improved subsoil is expected, it has been confirmed
experimentally that adhesion of untreated soil acts on the vertical planes of the active and passive sides of the
stabilized body. In the case of embankment and reclamation behind the improved subsoil, downward negative
skin friction accompanied by consolidation settlement of the untreated soil acts on the vertical plane of the active
side of the stabilized body. Therefore, these types of adhesion should be considered in the examination of the
Permanent situation.69) On the other hand, in the examination of actions associated with ground motion, safety
side assumptions, for example, that the inertia force of the stabilized body and the earth pressure during ground
motion will act simultaneously, are adopted. Therefore, Cua as a downward action and Cup as an upward action
may be assumed in the examination of both external and internal stability. The value of Cua and Cup in this case
are obtained from the undrained shear strength of the untreated soil under these conditions.
(5) In the case of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, it may be assumed that both Pa and Pp act uniformly
onthe long walls and the untreated soil between the long walls. Provided, however, that when the subgrade
reaction T at the bottom of the stabilized body is obtained, it is assumed that the loads acting on the stabilized
body, such as the weight of the main body, are concentrated on the long walls, and only the self-weight of the
untreated soil acts on the untreated soil between the long walls.
The shear resistance force R shall be the sum of the shear resistance forces acting on the stabilized body and
the bottom of the untreated soil.
(6) Deformation of the superstructure during action of ground motion tends to be reduced by soil improvement by
the deep mixing method. Therefore, when setting the seismic coefficient for the verification of the superstructure
and the improved subsoil system, it is possible to set a rational seismic coefficient for the verification based on an
appropriate evaluation of this reduction effect.

When soil improvement is performed by the deep mixing method the characteristic value kh1k of the seismic
coefficient for the verification of the superstructure and the structural elements of improved subsoil system such
as superstructure, foundation mound, backfill, reclamation and surcharge can be calculated by multiplying the
maximum value of corrected acceleration c obtained for the untreated ground by the reduction coefficient 0.64,
as shown in equation (4.5.9) 61).

503
(4.5.9)
where
kh1k : characteristic value of seismic coefficient for verification of superstructure and structural
elements of improved subsoil system such as superstructure, foundation mound, backfill,
reclamation and surcharge
Da : allowable deformation (cm)
Dr : standard deformation (=10cm)
c : maximum value of corrected acceleration (cm/s2)
g : gravitational acceleration ( = 980 cm/s2)
This reduction coefficient was obtained based on the results of a 2-dimensional nonlinear effective stress
analysis for untreated soil and improved subsoil. For details, Reference 61) can be used as a reference. In
calculating the maximum value of corrected acceleration c for untreated soil, Chapter 5, 2.2.2 (1) S e i s m i c
coefficient for verification used in verification of damage due to sliding and overturning of wall body and
insufficient bearing capacity of foundation ground in variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake
ground motion can be used as a reference.
The characteristic value of the seismic coefficient for verification of improved subsoil kh2k can be calculated by
multiplying the seismic coefficient for verification kh1k obtained using equation (4.5.9) by the reduction coefficient
0.65 (kh2k = 0.65 x kh1k).
Provided, however, that in the characteristic value of the seismic coefficient for verification kh3k used in
calculations of the earth pressure during earthquakes for improved subsoil systems, in equation (4.5.9), the
maximum value of corrected acceleration shall not be multiplied by a reduction coefficient.
H1
H4
H2
L.W.L.
W2
H3
Pdw
W1
R.W.L.
W4
W3
H5
H7
W5
<Vertical
component>
W7
H6
Pav
W6
Cua
<Vertical component>
Ppv
<Horizontal component> Cup

Pph
Passive earth pressure

Pp
t1
H8
W8 Stabilized part
H9
W9 Untreated part
* In case of wall-type improvement
<Horizontal
component>
Pah
R* Block-type, wall-type (depend on slip pattern)
Pw
t2
Active earth Water

pressure pressure
Pa
Subgrade reaction
Fig. 4.5.6 External Forces Acting on Stabilized Body
Pa : resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
Pah : horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Pav : vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Pp : resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of passive side (kN/m)
Pph : horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Ppv : vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Pw : resultant residual water pressure per unit of length (kN/m)
Pdw : resultant dynamic water pressure per unit of length (kN/m)
W1-W9 : weight per unit of length of each part (kN/m)
H1-H9 : inertia force per unit of length of each part (kN/m)
504
Cua : resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side
(kN/m)
Cup : resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of passive side
(kN/m)
R : shear resistance per unit of length acting on bottom of improved subsoil (kN/m)
T : resultant of subgrade reaction per unit of length acting on the bottom of improved soil (kN/m)
t1, t2 : intensity of subgrade reaction at toes of stabilized body (kN/m)
In the performance verification of actions during ground motion of strata which are subject to liquefaction,
it is necessary to consider the dynamic water pressure during the action of ground motion on the improved body.
For calculation of dynamic water pressure, Part II, Chapter 5, 2 Water Pressure can be used as a reference.
[1] External Stability of Improved Subsoil
For the external stability of improved subsoil, the following items shall be examined, assuming that the stabilized
body and the superstructure behave integrally. It should be noted that the following describes the cases of gravity-type
revetments and quaywalls; however, the same description can also be applied to breakwaters by appropriately setting
actions due to waves and other relevant factors.
(1) Examination of Sliding 61)
The improved subsoil shall secure the required stability against slip failure.
It is necessary to conduct performance verification of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement for two cases,
namely, the slip pattern 1 case which considers the frictional resistance of the bottom of the improved subsoil
as a whole as resistance to slip failure, and the slip pattern 2 case which considers the resultant of the frictional
resistance directly under the long walls and the shearing resistance of the unimproved subsoil between the walls,
considering the improved ground to be a structure in which the stabilized subsoil long walls fully demonstrates
shear strength. In the examination of the stability against slip failure, equation (4.5.10) can be used. The symbol
in the equation is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic value and
design value, respectively.
(Slip pattern 1)
(Slip pattern 2)

Provided, however, that
(4.5.10)
where
R1 : frictional resistance of bearing ground per unit of length acting on bottom of stabilized body
(kN/m)
R2 : frictional resistance of bearing ground per unit of length acting on bottom of untreated soil
(kN/m)
505
R3
Pw
Pdw
Hi
Wi
Ws
W9
B
Rl
R s

Cu
Pah
Pav
Pph
Ppv
Cua
Cup
wg
RWL
WL
h L
h1
kh1
kh2
kh3
Wni
Wn8
Wn9
i
a
: shearing resistance per unit of length acting on bottom of untreated soil (kN/m)
: resultant of residual water pressure per unit of length (kN/m)
: resultant of dynamic water pressure during earthquake per unit of length (kN/m)
: inertia force per unit of length acting on respective parts (kN/m)
: weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, foundation mound, backfill, reclamation
on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system (kN/m)
: weight per unit of length of stabilized body (kN/m)
: weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls (kN/m)
: improved width of stabilized body (m)
: ratio of long wall in stabilized body
: ratio of short wall in stabilized body
: static friction coefficient
: shear strength of bottom of untreated soil (kN/m 2)
: horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
: vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
: horizontal component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
: vertical component of resultant earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
: resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side
(kN/m)
: resultant adhesion of vertical plane per unit of length acting on vertical plane of passive side
(kN/m)
: unit weight of seawater (kN/m3)
: residual water level (m)
: water level at front side (m)
: water depth at bottom of stabilized body (m)
: water depth at front side of structure (m)
: seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on surcharge,
superstructure, foundation mound, backfill and reclamation on improved subsoil comprising
improved subsoil system (kN/m)
: seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on improved subsoil
: seismic coefficient for verification when calculating earth pressure and dynamic water pressure
acting on improved subsoil system
: weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, main body, foundation mound, backfill
and reclamation on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system. If submerged, the
weight in air when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
: weight per unit of length of stabilized body. If submerged, the weight in air when saturated with
water shall be used. (kN/m)
: weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls. If submerged, the weight in air
when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
: structural factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
: structural analysis factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
The system reliability index T is set depending on the individual facilities and improved subsoil. In cases
where soil improvement is carried out by the deep mixing method, the system reliability index T for sliding and
overturning of the wall body, failure due to insufficient bearing capacity of the foundation ground of gravitytype quaywalls, failure due to toe pressure, vertical shear failure of the long wall part, vertical shear failure of
the short wall part and failure due to extrusion of untreated subsoil between thte long walls was 2.9 (failure
probability of 2.1 x 10 3) for the Permanent situation. This was the result of assessment, by reliability theory,
of the average safety level of gravity-type quaywalls for soil improvement by the deep mixing method in the
conventional design method. In the performance verification described here, the target reliability index of T '
= 3.0 for each limit state is set so as to exceed the system reliability index. The partial factors determined on
this basis are as shown in Table 4.5.1 through Table 4.5.6. For partial factors for use in the examination of
slip failure of improved subsoil, the values shown in Table 4.5.1 may be used. For partial factors which are not
listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
506
Table 4.5.1 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Slip Failure
(a) Permanent situation
All facilities
Target reliability index T
2.9
Target system failure probability PfT
2.110 3
Reliability index used in calculation of
3.0
Slip pattern 1 W1-W9
/X k
Weight
1.00
0.131
1.00
0.03
Pah
Horizontal resultant of active earth pressure
1.15
0.519
1.00
0.10
Vertical resultant of active earth pressure
1.00
0.000
1.00
Pph
0.90
0.277
1.00
0.10
Ppv
Horizontal resultant of passive earth

pressure
Vertical resultant of passive earth pressure
1.00
0.000
1.00
Cua
Adhesion of vertical plane (active side)
1.00
0.000
1.00
Cup
Adhesion of vertical plane (passive side)
1.00
0.000
1.00
Static friction coefficient
0.70
1.000
1.00
0.10
Structural analysis factor
1.00
Weight
1.00
0.000
1.00
Pav

Pah
1.15
0.461
1.00
0.10
1.00
0.000
1.00
Pph
0.85
0.454
1.00
0.10
Ppv

pressure
1.00
0.000
1.00
Cua
1.00
0.000
1.00
Cup
1.00
0.000
1.00
0.75
0.831
1.00
0.10
c u
Shear strength of bottom of unimproved

subsoil
0.80
0.202
1.00
0.33
1.00
Pav
507
(b) Variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion
All facilities
Performance requirement
Serviceability
/X k
Weight
1.00
Pah
1.00
1.00
Pph
1.00
Ppv

pressure
1.00
Cua
1.00
Cup
1.00
1.00
1.00
Pav
Weight
1.00
Pah
1.00
1.00
Pph
1.00
Ppv

pressure
1.00
Cua
1.00
Cup
1.00
1.00
c u
Shear strength of bottom of unimproved

subsoil
1.00
Pav
1.00
(2) Examination of Overturning 61)

It is necessary that improved subsoil secure the required stability against overturning. In the examination of
the stability against overturning of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, equation (4.5.11) and equation
(4.5.12) can be used. In these equations, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.

(4.5.11)
(4.5.12)
Provided, however, that
508
where
Items related to resistance
Pph : horizontal component of resultant of earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
passive side (kN/m)
Wi : weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, foundation rubble, backfill and
reclamation on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system (kN/m)
W8 : weight per unit of length of stabilized body (kN/m)
W9 : weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls (kN/m)
Pav : vertical component of resultant of earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Cua : adhesion of vertical side per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
Items related to loads
Pw : residual water pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
Pah : horizontal component of resultant of earth pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of
active side (kN/m)
Hi : inertia force per unit of length acting on respective parts of improved subsoil system (kN/m)
Wni : weight per unit of length of surcharge, superstructure, foundation mound, backfill and
reclamation on improved subsoil comprising improved subsoil system. If submerged, the
weight in air when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
Wn8 : weight per unit of length of stabilized body. If submerged, the weight in air when saturated with
water shall be used. (kN/m)
Wn9 : weight per unit of length of untreated soil between long walls. If submerged, the weight in air
when saturated with water shall be used. (kN/m)
kh1 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on surcharge,
superstructure, foundation mound, backfill, backplugging and surcharge on improved subsoil
comprising improved subsoil system
kh2 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on improved subsoil
kh3 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating earth pressure and active water pressure
acting on improved subsoil
Pdw : dynamic water pressure per unit of length acting on vertical plane of active side (kN/m)
xi, xav, xcua : distance from action line of vertical force acting on improved subsoil to front toe of stabilized

body (m)
i, p, w, dw : height from action line of horizontal force acting on improved subsoil to bottom of stabilized
body (m)
i : structural factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
a : structural analysis factor (see Table 4.5.2)
For partial factors for use in the examination of overturning of improved subsoil, the values shown in Table
4.5.2 may be used. For partial factors not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
509
Table 4.5.2 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Overturning
All facilities
2.9
2.110 3
3.0
/X k
0.85
0.382
1.00
0.10
W6

pressure
Weight (foundation mound)
1.00
0.030
1.00
0.03
W7
Weight (backfill soil)
1.00
0.055
1.00
0.03
W8
Weight (stabilized body)
1.00
0.102
1.00
0.03
W9
Weight (untreated soil)
1.00
0.074
1.00
0.03
Cua
1.00
0.102
1.00
0.10
Pah
Adhesion of vertical plane (stabilized body

part: active side)
1.25
0.882
1.00
0.10
1.00
0.029
1.00
0.10
1.00
Overturning Pph
Pav

All facilities
Serviceability
/X k
1.00
W6

pressure
Weight (foundation mound)
1.00
W7
Weight (backfill soil)
1.00
W8
Weight (stabilized body)
1.00
W9
Weight (untreated soil)
1.00
Cua
1.00
Pah
Adhesion of vertical plane (stabilized body

part: active side)
1.00
1.00
1.10
Overturning Pph
Pav
(3) Examination of Bearing Capacity 61)

Improved subsoil shall secure the required stability against failure of bearing capacity of the original ground
under the bottom of the improved subsoil. In the examination of the bearing capacity of block-type improved
subsoil, 2.2 Shallow Spread Foundations can be used as a reference.
For the bearing capacity of improved subsoil by wall-type improvement when the bearing ground is sandy
ground, verification can be performed using equation (4.5.13) for toe pressures t1 and t2, considering the effect
of mutual interference between the long walls. In this equation, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript,
and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
In the case of

in the case of
where
510
(4.5.13)
R : partial factor for bearing capacity of sandy ground (see 2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations
on Sandy Ground)
Nq, Nr : bearing capacity coefficients (see 2.2.2 Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sandy Ground)
p0 : effective overburden pressure to bearing sand layer (kN/m 2)
g : unit weight of bearing ground, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
Ll : length of long wall in direction of face line (m) (see Fig. 4.5.9)
Ls : length of short wall in direction of face line (m) (see Fig. 4.5.9)
B : improvement width (m) (see Fig. 4.5.9)
[2] Examination of Internal Stability
(1) For the characteristic value of the material strength of the stabilized body, 4.5.2 Assumption of Dimensions of
Stabilized Body can be used as a reference.
(2) The stress generated in the stabilized body can be obtained by assuming that the stabilized body is an elastic body
under the conditions specified in 4.5.3 Conditions of Actions on Stabilized Body.
(3) In block-type improved subsoil and improved subsoil by wall-type improvement, internal stability can be
examined by the method presented below. Provided, however, that in cases where the shape of the stabilized body
is complex or the depth of the stabilized body is large in comparison with its width, examination by FEM analysis
is preferable.
(4) Examination of Toe Pressure 61)
Examination of internal stability due to toe pressure at the bottom of the stabilized body can be performed
using equation (4.5.14), considering the effect of the confining pressure acting on the improved subsoil. In this
equation, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic
value and design value, respectively.

(4.5.14)
where
fc : design compressive strength (kN/m 2)
t1, 2 : toe pressures (kN/m 2)
K : coefficient of earth pressure
wi : unit weight of untreated soil, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
hi : layer thickness of untreated subsoil (m)
a : structural analysis factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0

The design values in the equation can be obtained using the following equations.

Provided, however, that it is necessary to determine the value of the confining pressure K (w id hi) acting
on the bottom edge of the stabilized body from the untreated subsoil considering the improvement pattern and
external stability of the improved subsoil.
For the partial factors for use in examination of toe pressure, the values shown in Table 4.5.3 may be used. For
partial factors not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
511
Table 4.5.3 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Toe Pressure
All facilities
2.9
2.110 3
3.0
Toe pressure quc
/X k
Standard design strength
0.55
t1,2
Toe pressure
1.05
0.116
1.00
0.03
Unit weight of untreated soil
1.00
0.001
1.00
0.03
1.00
wi

All facilities
Serviceability
/X k
0.67
t1,2
Toe pressure
1.00
wi
Unit weight of untreated soil
1.00
1.00
Toe pressure quc
(5) Examination of Shearing Stress at Vertical Plane Under Face Line of Superstructure 61)
Examination of internal stability against shearing stress along the vertical plane beneath the face line of the
superstructure can be performed for the long wall part and short wall part using equation (4.5.15) and equation
(4.5.16), respectively. In these equations, the symbol is the partial factor for its subscript, and the subscripts k
and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
(a) Long wall

(4.5.15)
where
: factor for effective cross-sectional area
: reliability index of overlap between improved piles
Tl : resultant of subgrade reaction acting from front toe of improved subsoil to position of Bl (kN)
(Tld = TTl)
quc : standard design strength (kN/m 2) (qucd = qucquck)
Wl : effective weight of stabilized body from front toe of improved subsoil to position of Bl (kN) (Wld
= wWl)
A : cross-sectional area of stabilized body, in case of long wall A = DlLl + DsLs (m2) (see Fig. 7.5.7)
Dl , Ds : vertical length of long wall, namely improved depth, and vertical length of short wall (m)
Ll, Ls : lengths of long wall and short wall in direction of face line, respectively (m)
a : structural analysis factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
When a rubble mound exists between the stabilized body and the superstructure, examination may be
performed using an examination plane which considers load dispersion in the mound from the position of the
face line of the superstructure. (See Fig. 4.5.7; is the angle of load dispersion in the mound.)
512
Ds
D
Ls
T
L
B
Fig. 4.5.7 Schematic Diagram of Vertical Shear Stress (Long Wall)
For the partial factors for use in the examination of vertical shear failure of the long wall part, the values
shown in Table 4.5.4 can be used. For partial factors which are not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.
Table 4.5.4 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Vertical Shear Failure of Long Wall
All facilities
2.9
2.110 3
3.0
Vertical shear quc

failure of
T
long wall
W
a
/X k
0.55
Resultant of subgrade reaction
1.05
0.115
1.00
0.03
Effective weight of stabilized body
1.00
0.005
1.00
0.03
1.00

All facilities
Vertical shear quc
failure of
T
long wall
W
a
Serviceability
/X k
0.67
Resultant of subgrade reaction
1.00
Effective weight of stabilized body
1.00
1.00
(b) Short wall
where
:
:
Tl :

(4.5.16)
factor for effective cross-sectional area

reliability index of overlap between improved piles
toe pressure after dispersion in mound, not including selfweight of mound (kN/m2) (Tld = T lTlk)
(see Fig. 4.5.8) (kN)
513
quc
w m
h m
Wl
D s
L s
i
a
: standard design strength (kN/m 2) (qucd = qucquck)

: unit weight of mound, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
: thickness of mound (m)
: effective weight of stabilized body, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
: vertical length of short wall (m)
: length of short wall in direction of face line (m)
: structural factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
: structural analysis factor, generally be assumed to be 1.0
Fig. 4.5.8 Schematic Diagram of Calculation of Vertical Shear Stress (Short Wall)
For the partial factors for use in examination of vertical shear failure of the short wall, the values shown in
Table 4.5.5 can be used. For partial factors which are not listed in the table, 1.00 may be used.

Table 4.5.5 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Vertical Shear Failure of Short Wall
All facilities
2.9
2.110 3
3.0
Vertical shear quc

failure of
T1'
short wall
wi
wm
a
/X k
0.55
Toe pressure
1.05
0.091
1.00
0.03
Unit weight of stabilized body
1.00
0.006
1.00
0.03
Unit weight of mound
1.00
0.006
1.00
0.03
1.00

All facilities
Vertical shear quc
failure of
T1'
short wall
wi
wm
a
Serviceability
V
/X k
0.67
Toe pressure
1.00
Unit weight of stabilized body
1.00
Unit weight of mound
1.00
1.00
514
(6) Examination of Extrusion 61)
Because improved subsoil by wall-type improvement comprises a large number of long walls and a short wall
connecting the long walls, untreated subsoil is left between the long walls. Failures in which the untreated
subsoil between the long walls is dislodged are conceivable, depending on conditions such as the spacing
between the long walls, the strength of the untreated subsoil, the thickness of the backfill layer. Therefore, it is
necessary to examine extrusion of the untreated soil between the long walls.71)
A schematic diagram of extrusion of the untreated soil in improved subsoil by wall-type improvement is shown
in Fig. 4.5.9.
Fig. 4.5.9 Schematic Diagram of Extrusion of Untreated Subsoil
Examination of extrusion of untreated subsoil between long walls can be performed by repeated calculations
using equation (4.5.17), using various values of Di in the calculations.

(4.5.17)
where
Ls : length of short wall in direction of face line (m)
Di : depth from bottom edge of short wall to crosssection being examined (m)
Cu : average shear strength of untreated subsoil at intermediate depth between bottom edge of short
wall and cross section being examined (kN/m 2) (C=cu Cuk)
B : improved width (m)
Pah, Pph : horizontal components of resultant of active earth pressure and passive earth pressure acting
on untreated subsoil between long walls, respectively, down to the depth of Di from bottom of
short wall (kN) (Pphd = PphPphd, Pahd = PahPahk)
kh2 : seismic coefficient for verification when calculating inertia force acting on improved subsoil
(kh2d= kh2kh2k)
hw : head between residual water level and water level at front of structure (m) (hwd = hwhwk)
wi : unit weight in air of untreated subsoil when saturated with water (kN/m3)
wg : unit weight of seawater (kN/m3)
i : structural factor, generally assumed to be 1.0
a : structural analysis factor, generally assumed to be 1.0
515
For the partial factors for use in the examination of the extrusion of the untreated subsoil between long walls,
the values shown in Table 4.5.6 can be used. For partial factors which are not listed in the table, 1.00 may be
used.
Table 4.5.6 Standard Values of Partial Factors for Use in Examination of Extrusion
All facilities
Extrusion
failure
2.9
2.110 3
3.0
Cu
Pah'
Pph'
wi
a
/X k
Average shear strength of untreated soil
0.75
0.955
1.00
0.10
Horizontal component of resultant of active

earth pressure acting on untreated soil
between long walls
Horizontal component of resultant of passive
between long walls
Unit weight in air of untreated soil when
saturated with water
1.05
0.190
1.00
0.10
0.95
0.182
1.00
0.10
1.00
0.000
1.00
0.10
1.00
* The partial factors for use in examination of extrusion were determined by reliability analysis of the examination position (Di) at which
the reliability index shows its minimum value.

All facilities
Extrusion
failure
Cu
Pah'
Pph'
wi
a
Serviceability
/X k
Average shear strength of untreated soil
1.00
Horizontal component of resultant of active

between long walls
Horizontal component of resultant of passive
between long walls
Unit weight in air of untreated soil when
saturated with water
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
* The partial factors for use in examination of extrusion were determined by reliability analysis of the examination position (Di) at which
the reliability index shows its minimum value.
(7) Examination of Circular Slip Failure

In the examination of the circular slip failure, 3 Stability of Slopes can be used as a reference.
Because the strength of the stabilized body is sufficiently greater than that of ordinary soil, examination of slip
circles passing through the stabilized body may be omitted.
(8) Examination of Displacement
When the improved subsoil is of the floating type, lateral displacement due to actions in respect of reclamation
and waves and actions in respect of ground motion, and vertical displacement due to consolidation are
conceivable. Therefore, advance examination on measures capable of satisfying the performance requirements
of the facilities is necessary, based on estimations of these displacements.
In sliding failure and circular slip failure of improved subsoil, there is a certain degree of relationship between
the ratio of the design value of resistance and design value of the effects of actions, and the amount of immediate
displacement due to lateral displacement of the stabilized body. Therefore, it is possible to judge the necessity
of examination of lateral displacement of the stabilized body depending on the safety margin in these factors.
Furthermore, when the layer thickness of the untreated subsoil underneath the stabilized body is constant, and
516
it is judged that the estimated displacement in the horizontal direction can satisfy the performance requirements
of the facilities, the examination of the consolidation settlement is only necessary.
Even in bottom seated-type improved subsoil, when a cohesive soil layer exists under the bearing stratum,
the examination of the amount of consolidation settlement is necessary, as there is a possibility of vertical
displacement of the stabilized body due to consolidation settlement.
It is preferable to determine the allowable displacement of improved subsoil appropriately, considering the
performance requirements of the facilities.
517
4.6 Lightweight Treated Soil Method

(1) Definition and Outline of Lightweight Treated Soil Method
The provisions in this section can be applied to the performance verification of the light weight treated soil
method.
The lightweight treated soil method is to produce artificial lightweight and stable subsoil by adding lightening
materials and hardening agents to slurry-state soil in adjusting its consisting being higher than liquid limit by
making use of dredged soil or excavated soil from construction sites, and then using the product as materials
for landfill or backfilling. When using air foam as the lightening material, it is called the foam treated soil, and
when using expanded polistyrol beads, it is called the beads treated soil. The lightweight treated soil has the
following characteristics:
(a) The weight is approximately one half of ordinary sand in the air and approximately one fifth in the seawater.
This lightness can prevent or reduce ground settlement due to landfill or backfill.
(b) Due to its light weight and high strength, the earth pressure during an earthquake is reduced. This makes it
possible to create high earthquake-resistance structures or reclaimed lands.
(c) Dredged soils, which are regularly produced and treated as waste in ports, or waste soils that are generated
by landbased construction works, are used. Thus, employment of the lightweight treated soil method can
contribute to reducing the amount of waste materials to be dealt with at waste disposal sites.
Refer to the Technical Manual for the Lightweight Treated Soil Method in Ports and Airports for further
details on the performance verification of this method.
(2) Basic Concept of Performance Verification
The performance verification method described in 2 Foundations and 3 Stability of Slopes can be applied to
lightweight treated soil.
Apart from mix proportion tests, the performance verification method for lightweight treated soil is basically
the same with that for other earth structure.73), 74)
An example of the performance verification procedure when using the lightweight treated soil method in
backfilling for revetments and quaywalls is shown in Fig. 4.6.1.
518
Determination of application of lightweight treated soil method

Assumption of strength and unit weight of lightweight treated soil
Assumption of area (or bounds, boundary) of improvement
with lightweight treated soil
Examination of ground as a whole, including lightweight
treated soil
Examination of bearing capacity
Examination of circular slip failure
Examination of consolidation settlement
Examination of liquefaction of surrounding ground
Performance verification of superstructure
Determination of strength/unit weight and area of improvement with lightweight treated soil
Fig. 4.6.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure of Lightweight Treated Soil Method
In performance verification, the following actions are generally considered.

(a) Self weight of lightweight treated soil, and self weight of main body (caissons, etc.), backfilling material,
filling material, reclaimed soil and mound materials, (considering buoyancy).
(b) Earth pressure and residual water pressure
(c) Surcharges including fixed loads, variable loads and repeated loads
(d) Tractive force of ship and reaction of fenders
(e) Actions in respect of ground motion
In calculations of earth pressure and earth pressure during earthquakes, the concepts in 4.18 Active Earth
Pressure of Geotechnical Material Treated with Stabilizer can be applied.
The properties of lightweight treated soil shall be evaluated by means of laboratory tests that take account of the
environmental and construction conditions of the site. They may be evaluated as follows:
(a) Unit weight
The unit weight may be set within a range of t = 8-13 kN/m3 by adjusting the amount of lightening material
and added water. When used in port facilities, there is a risk of flotation in case of a rise of seawater level if
the unit weight is less than that of seawater. Normally, therefore, the characteristic value of the unit weight is
frequently set to the following values:
below water level:
for use uder water: tk = 11.5-12 kN/m3
for use in air:
tk = 10 kN/m3
The unit weight of lightweight treated soil will vary depending on the environmental conditions during
and after placement, and particularly the intensity of water pressure. Therefore, these factors should be
considered in advance in the mixture design.75), 76)
(b) Strength 77)
The static strength of lightweight treated soil is mainly attributable to the solidified strength due to the
cement-based solidifying agent. Standard design strength is evaluated by unconfined compressive strength
qu and can generally be set in the range of 100500kN/m2. Because air foam or expanded beads are included
in the treated soil, no increase in strength can be expected due to increased confining pressure. However, the
residual strength is approximately 70% of the peak strength. The characteristic value of compressive strength
519
shall be the standard design strength and be set to an appropriate value capable of satisfying performance
requirements such as stability of the superstructure or the ground as a whole.
As the characteristic value of shear strength, undrained shear strength cu can be used. The value of cu can
be calculated using the following equation.

(4.6.1)
(c) The consolidation yield stress Py may be calculated using the following equation:

(4.6.2)

(d) Deformation modulus E50
When tests are conducted considering fine points such as measurement of small amounts of deformation,
finishing of the ends of specimens, the test value as such is used as the deformation modulus E50. When such
tests are not possible, the modulus can be estimated from the unconfined compressive strength qu using the
following equation:

The deformation modulus shown above corresponds to a strain level of 0.31.0%.
(4.6.3)
(e) Poissons ratio

Poissons ratio of lightweight treated soil varies depending on the stress level and the state before or after the
attainment of peak strength. When the surcharge is less than the consolidation yield stress of treated soil, the
following mean values may be used:
air foamed treated soil:
v = 0.10
expanded beads treated soil: v = 0.15
(f) Dynamic properties
The shear modulus G, damping factor h, strain dependency of G and h, and Poissons ratio v used in dynamic
analysis should be obtained from laboratory tests. They may be estimated from the estimation method
conducted for the ordinary soils as a simplified method in reference to the results of ultrasonic propagation
test.
(3) Examination of Area of Improvement 78)
The area to be filled with the lightweight treated soil needs to be determined as appropriate in view of the type
of structure to be built and the conditions of actions as well as the stability of the structure and the ground as a
whole.
The extent of filling area with lightweight treated soil is usually determined to meet the objective of lightening.
When the method is applied to control settlement or lateral displacement, it is determined from the allowable
conditions for settlement or displacement; to secure stability, it is determined from the condition of slope
stability; to reduce earth pressure, it is determined from the required conditions for earth pressure reduction.79)
(4) Concept of Mix Proportion
Design of mix proportion shall be conducted to obtain the strength and the unit weight required in the field.
Types of solidifying agents and lightening agents shall be determined after their efficiency has been confirmed
in tests.
The target strength in laboratory mix proportion tests shall be set to a value obtained by multiplying the standard
design strength by a required additional rate , considering differences in laboratory mix proportion strength
and in-situ strength and variance. The required additional rate is expressed by the ratio of the strength in
laboratory mix proportion tests and standard design strength. Normally, the following value can be used.
a = 2.2
520
4.7 Blast Furnace Granulated Slag Replacement Method

(1) Basic Concept of Performance Verification
When using blast furnace granulated slag as backfill for quaywalls or revetments, landfill, surface covering for
soft subsoil and sand compaction material, the characteristics of the materials shall be considered.
Blast furnace granulated slag is a granular material. However, it has a latent hydraulic hardening property not
found in natural sand and is a material which solidifies with lapse of time.83) When used in backfill, if its granular
state and solidified state are compared, the granular state generally gives a dangerous state in the performance
verification in many cases. Provided, however, that it is preferable to conduct an adequate examination, judging
the individual conditions, in cases where the solidified state may pose a risk to the facilities.
(2) Physical Properties
When using granulated blast furnace slag, its physical properties are preferably to be ascertained in advance.
Blast furnace granulated slag is in a state like coarse sand when shipped from plants. The important characteristics
of physical properties of the blast furnace granulated slags are its small unit weight latent hydraulic hardening
property.
Percentage finer by weight (%)
Grain size distribution

The range shown in Fig. 4.7.1 is generally standard for the grain size distribution of blast furnace granulated
slag. The standard grain size of blast furnace granulated slag is 4.75 mm or less, and its fines content is
extremely small. Thus, it has a stable, comparatively uniform grain size distribution. The coarse sand region
accounts for the larger part of the grain sizes, with a uniformity coefficient of 2.54.2 and a coefficient of
curvature of 0.9-1.4.
10
8
6
4
2
0
0.
1.
10.
50.
Grain size D (mm)

Fig. 4.7.1 Standard Grain Size Distribution of Blast Furnace Granulated Slag
Unit weight 83)

Blast furnace granulated slag is lighter in weight than natural sand because its grains contain air bubbles and
it has a large void ratio due to its angular shape and single grain size distribution. According to the results of
studies to date, the wet unit weight of granulated slag ranges from 9-14kN/m3, and its unit weight in water is
approximately 8kN/m3.
Permeability
The coefficient of permeability in the granular state differs depending on the void ratio but is roughly 1100 110 -1cm/s. The coefficient of permeability decreases with solidification, but even in this case is approximately
110 -2cm/s.85) Provided, however, that when construction is conducted using methods that cause crushing of the
particles, for example, in the sand compaction pile method, the coefficient of permeability becomes extremely
small. Caution is required in such cases.
Compressibility
The time-dependent change of compressibility of blast furnace granulated slag used for backfill, landfill, or
surface covering can be ignored.
521
Angle of shear resistance and cohesion
In the granular state, cohesion can be treated as non-existent. The angle of shear resistance in this case is 35
or greater. When solidified, shear strength is greater than in the granular state.83) In this case, the effects of
both the angle of shear resistance and cohesion on maximum shear strength can be considered. However, in
examining residual strength, only the effect of the angle of shear resistance should be considered.
Liquefaction during an earthquake
When blast furnace granulated slag is used in backfill, it solidifies in several years because of its latent hydraulic
hardening property. When solidification can be expected, liquefaction can be ignored. However, there is a risk
of liquefaction for blast furnace granulated slag that has not yet solidified. Therefore in this case, the possibility
of liquefaction should be examined, treating the blast furnace granulated slag as a granular material.
(3) Chemical Properties
When using blast furnace granulated slag, appropriate consideration shall be given to its chemical properties.
The pH value of the leached water from blast furnace granulated slag is smaller than the pH of the leached
water from cement and lime stabilization treatment. Furthermore, its pH is also reduced by the neutralizing and
buffering action of the seawater composition and dilution by seawater. For this reason, in ordinary cases, it is
not necessary to consider the effect of the pH on the environment.
522
4.8 Premixing Method

(1) Scope of Application
The performance verification described in this section may be applied to the performance verification of the
subsoil treated by the premixing method aimed at earth pressure reduction and liquefaction, prevention.
The meanings of the terms used in connection with this method are as follows:

Treated soil:
Soil improved by stabilizer.

Treated subsoil:
Subsoil improved by filling with treated soil.

Area of improvement:
Area to be filled with treated soil.

Stabilizer content:
Weight ratio of stabilizer to dry weight of parent material, expressed as a

percentage.

Reduction of earth pressure: Measures to reduce earth pressure against walls (active earth pressure).
In the premixing method, stabilizer and antisegregation agent are added into soil for reclamation, mixed in
advance and used as landfill materials to develop stable ground. The subsoil improvement is materialized as
cement-based stabilizers add cohesion to the soil used in landfill by means of chemical solidification action
between soil and stabilizer. This method can be applied to backfill behind quaywalls and revetments, filling of
cellular-bulkhead, replacement after sea bottom excavation and refilling.
Soils applicable to the treatment mentioned herein are sand and sandy soils, excluding cohesive soil. This is
because the mechanical properties of the treated cohesive soil differ considerably depending on the characteristic
of soil. It is necessary to conduct appropriate examination according to the property of soil subject to treatment.
Besides reducing earth pressure and preventing liquefaction, this method can also be used to improve the soil
strength necessary for construction of facilities on reclaimed lands. In this case, the strength of treated ground
should be evaluated appropriately.
For items in connection with the performance verification and execution when using the premixing method
which are not mentioned herein, Reference 1) can be used as a reference.
(2) Basic Concepts
In performance verification, it is necessary to determine the required strength of the treated soil correctly, and
to determine the stabilizer content and area of improvement appropriately.
When evaluating the earth pressure reduction effect or examining the stability of the subsoil against circular slip
failure, the treated soil should be regarded as a c- material.
The treated subsoil may be thought to slide as a rigid body during an earthquake because the treated subsoil
has a rigidity considerably greater than that of the surrounding untreated subsoil. Therefore, when determining
the area of improvement, the stability against sliding of the subsoil including superstructures shall also be
examined.
It is preferable to determine the standard design strength and area of improvement of treated subsoil by the
procedure shown in Fig. 4.8.1.
In general, when the parent soil is sandy soil, the treated soil is regarded as c- material. Therefore, the shear
strength of the treated soil can be calculated using equation (4.8.1).
where
f

c

(4.8.1)
: shear strength of treated soil (kN/m 2)

: effective confining pressure (kN/m 2)
: cohesion (kN/m 2)
: angle of shear resistance ()
c and correspond to the cohesion cd and angle of shear resistance d obtained by the consolidated-drained
triaxial compression test, respectively.
523
Preliminary survey and tests of untreated and treated soil
Determination of angle of shear resistance ( ) of treated subsoil
Assumption of cohesion (c) and area of improvement of treated subsoil
Examination of liquefaction countermeasures
and earth pressure reduction effect
Stability of facilities
Determination of standard design strength
and area of improvement of treated subsoil
Fig. 4.8.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Premixing Method
4.8.2 Preliminary Survey

(1) The characteristics of soil used in the premixing method need to be evaluated appropriately by preliminary surveys
and tests.
(2) Preliminary surveys and tests include soil tests on particle density, water content, grain size distribution, maximum
and minimum densities of soils to be used for filling, and surveys on records of soil properties and field tests of the
existing reclaimed ground nearby.
(3) Because the water content, and fines content of soils used in reclamation will affect the selection of the mixing
method when mixing the stabilizer and strength grain after mixing, caution is necessary.
(4) The density of the treated subsoil after placement should be estimated properly in advance. Because the density
of the subsoil after reclamation is basic data for determining the density for samples in laboratory mix proportion
tests and has a major effect on the test results, caution is necessary.
4.8.3 Determination of Strength of Treated Soil
(1) The strength of treated soil needs to be determined in such a way to yield the required improvement effects, by
taking account of the purpose and conditions of application of this method.
(2) For the purpose of reducing the earth pressure, the cohesion c of treated soil needs to be determined such that the
earth pressure is reduced to the required value.
(3) For the purpose of preventing liquefaction, the strength of treated soil needs to be determined such that the treated
soil will not liquefy.
(4) There is a significant relationship between the liquefaction strength and the unconfined compressive strength of
treated soils. It is reported that treated soils with the unconfined compressive strength of 100 kN/m2 or more will
not liquefy. Therefore, when aiming to prevent liquefaction, the unconfined compressive strength as an index for
strength of treated soil should be set at 100 kN/m 2. When the unconfined compressive strength of treated soil is
set at less than 100 kN/m2, it is preferable that cyclic triaxial tests should be conducted to confirm that the soil will
not liquefy.
(5) In determining the cohesion of treated soil, the internal friction angle of treated soil is first estimated. Then,
the cohesion is determined by reverse calculation using an earth pressure calculation formula that takes account
of cohesion and angle of shear resistance with the target reduced earth pressure and the estimated angle of shear
resistance .
524
(6) According to the results of consolidated-drained triaxial compression tests of treated soil with a stabilizer content
of less than 10%, the angle of shear resistance of the treated soil is equal to or slightly larger than that of the parent
soil. Accordingly, in the performance verification, to be on the safe side, the angle of shear resistance of the
treated soil can be assumed to be the same as that of the untreated soil.
(7) When obtaining the angle of shear resistance from a triaxial compression test, the angle of shear resistance is
obtained from the consolidated-drained triaxial compression test based on the estimated density and effective
overburden pressure of the subsoil after landfilling. The angle of shear resistance used in the performance
verification is generally set at a value 5-10 smaller than that obtained from tests. When a triaxial test is not
performed, can be obtained from the estimated N-value of the subsoil after landfilling. In that case, the N-value
of the untreated subsoil shall be used.
4.8.4 Design of Mix Proportion
(1) Mix proportion of treated soil shall be determined by conducting appropriate laboratory mixing tests. A reduction
of strength shall be taken into account because the in-situ strength may be lower than the strength obtained from
laboratory mixing tests.
(2) The purpose of laboratory mixing tests is to obtain the relationship between the strength of treated soil and the
stabilizer content, and to determine the stabilizer content so as to obtain the required strength of treated soil.
The relationship between the strength of treated soil and the stabilizer content is greatly affected by the soil type
and the density of soil. Therefore, test conditions of laboratory mixing tests is preferable to be as similar to field
conditions as possible.
(3) For the purpose of reducing earth pressure, consolidated-drained triaxial compression tests should be carried out
to obtain the relationship among the cohesion c, the angle of shear resistance , and the stabilizer content. For the
purpose of preventing liquefaction, unconfined compression tests should be conducted to obtain the relationship
between the unconfined compressive strength and the stabilizer content.
(4) It is important to grasp the difference between in-situ and laboratory strengths when setting the increase factor for
mix proportion design in the field. According to past experience, the laboratory strength is larger than the in-situ
strength, and the increase factor of = 1.1 to 2.2 is used. Here, the increase factor is defined as the ratio of the
laboratory to the field strengths in terms of unconfined compressive strength.
4.8.5 Examination of Area of Improvement
(1) The area to be improved by the premixing method needs to be determined as appropriate in view of the type of
structure to be constructed and the conditions of actions as well as the stability of subsoil and structures as a
whole.
(2) For the purpose of reducing earth pressure, the area of improvement needs to be determined in such a way that
the earth pressure of treated subsoil acting on a structure should be small enough to guarantee the stability of the
structure.
(3) For the purpose of preventing liquefaction, the area of improvement needs to be determined in such a way that
liquefaction in the adjacent untreated subsoil will not affect the stability of structure.
(4) The actions and resistances to be considered on the facilities and the treated subsoil in the case that liquefaction is
expected on the untreated subsoil behind the treated subsoil and in the case no liquefaction is expected are shown
in Fig. 4.8.2 and Fig. 4.8.3, respectively.
(5) For either reduction of earth pressure or prevention of liquefaction, it is necessary to conduct an examination of
stability against sliding during action of ground motion, including the treated subsoil and the object facilities, and
circular slip failure in the Permanent situation.
Examination of sliding during action of ground motion
Examination of sliding during action of ground motion is performed because there is a possibility that the treated
subsoil may slide as a rigid body. As the partial factor a which is used in this case, in general, an appropriate
value of 1.0 or higher is assumed, and as the characteristic value of the coefficient of friction of the bottom of
the treated subsoil, 0.6 can be used. Provided, however, that when the original subsoil in the calculation of the
sliding resistance of the bottom of the treated subsoil is clay, the cohesion of the original subsoil can be used.
The resultant of earth pressure in equation (4.8.2) of stability against sliding when untreated ground does not
liquefy, as presented below, shows a simple case in which the residual water level is at the ground surface. When
the residual water level exists underground and the untreated ground liquefies, it is considered that the subsoil
above the residual water level also liquefies by propagation of excess water pressure from the lower subsoil.
525
Such cases can be treated as liquefaction reaching the surface.
When the purpose is reduction of earth pressure, in general, the area of improvement takes the shape of the
treated subsoil as shown in Fig. 4.8.2, such that the active collapse plane is completely included in the stabilized
body. On the other hand, when the purpose is a countermeasure against liquefaction, if the shape of the treated
subsoil shown in Fig. 4.8.2 is adopted, liquid pressure from the liquefied subsoil will act upward on the treated
subsoil, reducing the weight of the treated subsoil. Because the shape of the treated subsoil shown in Fig. 4.8.2
is disadvantageous for sliding in comparison with the shape of the treated subsoil shown in Fig. 4.8.3, when the
purpose is use as a liquefaction countermeasure, the shape of the treated subsoil shown in Fig. 4.8.3 is generally
used.
(a) When purpose is reduction of earth pressure
If the positive direction of the respective actions and resistances is defined as shown in Fig. 4.8.2, the
verification of stability against sliding can be performed using equation (4.8.2). In the following, the symbol
is the partial factor of its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic value and design
value, respectively.

In this equation, the design values can be calculated as follows.
(4.8.2)
(when original subsoil under treated subsoil is sand)

(when original subsoil under treated subsoil is clay)

(4.8.3)
where
R1
R2
Pw1
Pw2
Pw3
H1
H2
Ph
Pv
wg
w'
kh
Ka
h1
h2

: frictional resistance of bottom surface of structure (ab) (kN/m)

: frictional resistance of bottom surface of treated subsoil (bc) (kN/m)
: resultant of hydrostatic water pressure acting on front of structure (af) (kN/m)
: resultant of dynamic water pressure acting on front of structure (af) (kN/m)
: resultant of hydrostatic water pressure acting on back of treated subsoil (cd) (kN/m)
: inertia force acting on structure (abef) (kN/m)
: inertia force acting on treated subsoil body (bcde) (kN/m)
: horizontal component of resultant of active earth pressure during earthquake from untreated
subsoil acting on back of treated subsoil (cd) (kN/m)
: vertical component of resultant of active earth pressure during earthquake from untreated
: unit weight of untreated subsoil in water (kN/m3)
: seismic coefficient for verification
: coefficient of active earth pressure during earthquake of untreated subsoil
: water level at front of structure (m)
: residual water level, for simplicity in this explanation, the residual water level in Fig. 4.8.2 is
assumed to be the ground surface.
: friction angle of wall between treated subsoil and untreated subsoil (cd) ()
526
: angle of back of treated subsoil (cd) to vertical direction (), counterclockwise is positive; in Fig.
4.8.2, the value of is negative.
f1 : coefficient of friction of bottom of structure
f2 : coefficient of friction of bottom of treated subsoil (= 0.6)
c : cohesion of original subsoil (kN/m 2)
l bc : length of bottom of treated subsoil (bc) (m)
a : structural analysis factor
(b) When used as liquefaction countermeasure
If the positive direction of the respective actions and resistances is defined as shown in Fig. 4.8.3, verification
of stability against sliding can be performed using equation (4.8.4). In the following, the symbol is the partial
factor of its subscript, and the subscripts k and d denote the characteristic value and design value, respectively.
When the untreated subsoil at the back of the treated subsoil liquefy, the static pressure and dynamic pressure
from the untreated subsoil generally act on the back of the treated subsoil as shown in Fig. 4.8.3. Static pressure
can be calculated by addition hydrostatic pressure to earth pressure, assuming the coefficient of earth pressure
to be 1.0. Dynamic pressure can be calculated using equation (2.2.1) and equation (2.2.2) shown in Part II,
Chapter 5, 2.2 Dynamic Water Pressure. Provided, however, that the unit weight of water in equation (2.2.1)
and equation (2.2.2) is replaced with the unit weight of saturated soil.

(4.8.4)
In this equation, the design values can be calculated as follows.

(when original subsoil under

treated subsoil is sand)
(when original subsoil under
treated subsoil is clay)

where
R1
R2
Pw1
Pw2
H1
H2
Ph
wg
w
kh
Ka
h1
h2

(4.8.5)
: frictional resistance of bottom surface of structure (ab) (kN/m)

: frictional resistance of bottom surface of treated subsoil (bc) (kN/m)
: resultant of hydrostatic water pressure acting on front of structure (af) (kN/m)
: resultant of dynamic water pressure acting on front of structure (af) (kN/m)
: inertia force acting on structure (abef) (kN/m)
: inertia force acting on treated subsoil body (bcde) (kN/m)
: horizontal component of resultant of active earth pressure during earthquake from untreated
: unit weight of untreated subsoil in water (kN/m3)
: seismic coefficient for verification
: coefficient of active earth pressure during earthquake of untreated subsoil
: water level at front of structure (m)
: water level used in calculating Ph due to liquefaction (This water level is assumed to be the
ground surface level.)
: angle of back of treated subsoil (cd) to vertical direction (), counterclockwise is positive; in Fig.
4.8.3, the value of is negative.
527

f1
f2
c
l bc
a
: coefficient of friction of bottom of structure

: coefficient of friction of bottom of treated subsoil (= 0.6)
: cohesion of original subsoil (kN/m 2)
: length of bottom of treated subsoil (bc) (m)
: structural analysis factor
(c) Partial factors

For all partial factors in the examination of sliding during action of ground motion, including the treated
subsoil and the object facilities, 1.00 can be used.
Examination of stability against circular slip failure in Permanent situation
For the examination of stability against the circular slip failure in the Permanent situation, 3 Stability of Slopes
can be used as a reference.
(6) When it is not possible to secure the stability of the facilities or the ground as a whole, it is necessary to modify
the area of improvement, or to increase the standard design strength of the treated soil, etc.
Structure
Pw1
Pw2
W1'
W1
a
Untreated subsoil (not liquefied)

d
() (+)
H2
H1
h1
Treated subsoil
Ph
W2 '
W2
h2
Pv
Pw3
c
R2
R1
Fig. 4.8.2 Diagram of Actions when Purpose is Reduction of Earth Pressure
Structure
H1
h1
Pw1
Pw2
W1
H2
W1'
Treated subsoil
d
() (+)
Dynamic pressure
(earth + water)
Pv
h2
W2
Ph
W2 '
b
R1
Untreated subsoil (not liquefied)
Static pressure
(earth + water)
R2
Fig. 4.8.3 Diagram of Actions when Used as Liquefaction Countermeasure
528
4.9 Sand Compaction Pile Method (for Sandy Soil Ground)

4.9.1 Basic Policy for Performance Verification
(1) The performance verification of the sand compaction pile method to densify sandy soils needs to be conducted
appropriately after examining the characteristics of subsoil properties and construction methods, as well as by
taking account of the past construction records and the results of test execution.
(2) Purpose of Improvement
The purpose of improving loose sandy subsoil can be classified into (a) improving liquefaction strength, (b)
reducing settlement, and (c) improving the stability of slopes or bearing capacity.
(3) Factors affecting compaction effect
In many cases, compaction to firm ground of loose sand subsoil cannot be achieved adequately by vibration or
impact from the surface. Therefore, the methods normally adopted are to construct piles of sand or gravel in the
loose sandy subsoil using hollow steel pipes or to drive special vibrating rods, so as to vibrate the surrounding
ground.
4.9.2 Verification of Sand Supply Rate
(1) In the verification of the sand supply rate, improvement ratio or replacement ratio, it is necessary to conduct an
adequate examination of the characteristics of the object ground, necessary relative density, and N-value.
(2) Setting of Target N-value
It is necessary to set the N-value of the improvement target. Furthermore, when the purpose of the sand compaction
pile method is a liquefaction countermeasure, it is necessary to set the N-value to a value at which it is judged that
liquefaction will not occur under the object ground motion. The N-value is defined as the limit N-value.
(3) Sand Supply Rate
The sand supply rate is the percentage of the sand piles after improvement in the original subsoil, as shown in
equation (4.9.1).

(4.9.1)
(4) Determination of Sand Supply Rate when Existing Data are not available 87)
The sand supply rate is determined using the relationship between the sand supply rate and the N-value after
improvement shown by the following equation. Provided, however, that the existing data used in deriving the
following equation (4.9.2) through equation (4.9.9) are sand supply rate FV = 0.07-0.20 and fines content Fc = 60%
or less. Accordingly, caution is necessary when using conditions outside of this range.

where
N1 : N-value after sand supply
CM : coefficient; here, CM = (1/0.16)2 may be used.
: coefficient; here = 510 0.01Fc may be used.

c : coefficient; here
(4.9.2)
may be used.
Fc : coefficient; fines content (%)

i* : coefficient calculated using equation (4.9.3)

(4.9.3)
where
N0 : N-value of original subsoil
A : coefficient calculated using equation (4.9.4)
529

where
v : effective overburden pressure when measuring N-value (kN/m 2)
(4.9.4)
Equation (4.9.2) can be solved for the sand supply rate Fv, and the sand supply rate for obtaining the target
N-value can be obtained using the following equation.

(4.9.5)
Because equation (4.9.2) and equation (4.9.3) do not consider the effect of the increase in lateral pressure
due to sand supply or the effect of coefficient of earth pressure at rest K0, there is a tendency to underestimate
the N-value after sand supply when the sand supply rate is large. When a result is obtained in which the sand
supply rate exceeds FV = 0.2, a method 88) using the following equation, which considers the effect of K0, is
also available. Provided, however, that caution is necessary, as predictive accuracy deteriorates due to the large
variation in the relationship between the sand supply rate and the value of K0 used in the derivation process of
the following equation. Accordingly, in order to avoid dangerous results, when using the following equation,
it shall be assumed that FV = 0.2, even when the results of calculation of the sand supply rate for obtaining the
target N-value are less than FV = 0.2.

where
CM : coefficient; here, CM = (1/0.16)2 may be used.
: coefficient; here = 410 0.01Fc may be used.

(4.9.6)
may be used.
(4.9.7)
where
AK1 : coefficient calculated using equation (4.9.8)

(4.9.8)
Here, is a coefficient expressing the rate of increase in K0 relative to the sand supply rate, and can be
assumed to be = 4.
AK0 : coefficient calculated using equation (4.9.9)

(4.9.9)
: effective overburden pressure when measuring N-value (kN/m 2)

Provided, however, that when the sand supply rate for the target N-value is FV < 0.2, FV = 0.2 shall be used.
(5) Setting of Sand Supply Rate, when the Existing Data are Available
The increase in the N-value after execution of the sand compaction pile method is strongly affected by the
subsoil characteristics and the execution method. Therefore, when abundant execution data are available for
the construction site or when test execution is performed, determination based on actual records of execution is
530
preferable, the method in (4) notwithstanding. When the method in (4) is to be used, the resetting of the parameter
in equation (4.9.5) should be done as follows using the existing data. When using a new compacting method, it
is advisable to reset the parameter in equation (4.9.5) by the following method using own data.
The parameter of equation (4.9.5) can be given by equation (4.9.10). Therefore, if data are available for the
N-value after sand supply in the sand compaction pile method, the N-value before sand supply, the fines content,
and the sand supply rate, can be calculated by using equation (4.9.10).

(4.9.10)
where

(4.9.11)
CM : coefficient; here CM = (1/0.16)2 may be used.

may be used.
A : coefficient; here
(4.9.12)
It is permissible to determine the relational equation for and the fines content by obtaining from the
respective sand supply rates and N-values before and after improvement, and arranging the relationship between
and the fines content as shown in Fig. 4.9.1. Here, it is basically assumed that the relational equation between
and the fines content is an exponential function as shown in (4).
In parameter setting, when there is a large difference in the fines content before and after improvement, and
when the N-value before improvement is larger, the data for that point shall not be used. When the relationship
between the value of K0 and the sand supply rate is actually measured, the parameters in equation (4.9.6) and
equation (4.9.7) which consider the influence of the value of K0 can be reset. For items related to parameter setting
in this case and related matters, Reference 2) can be used as reference.
25
Exponential regression curve of plot
Approximation line at = 510-0.01Fc
20
Sand supply rate
Fv = 0.7 ~ 0.20
15
10
10
20
30
40
50
Fines content (%)

Fig. 4.9.1 Relationship between and Fines Content
531
60
(6) Other Methods of Setting Sand Supply Rate
The methods of setting the sand supply rate shown in the above (4) and (5) consider compaction of the original
subsoil resulting from repeated shear by sand supply under sand pile driving, and were derived by analysis of past
execution data. In addition to these methods, methods referred to as A method, B method, and C method have also
been proposed and have been used for some time.89) In the A method, the relationship between the N-value before
and after sand supply is shown in chart form, using the sand supply rate as a parameter, and thus enables simple
calculation of the sand supply rate. Provided, however, that this method has low generality in comparison with
other methods because it does not consider the effect of the overburden pressure or the effect of the fines content.
The B method uses empirical formulae for the relative density, N-value, effective overburden pressure, and grain
size, and obtains the sand supply rate for the target N-value assuming that the ground is compacted only by the
amount of the sand piles supplied. Provided, however, that this method does not consider the effect of the fines
content. The C method is proposed using a concept which is basically the same as in the B method. The major
difference with the B method is the fact that the effect of the fines content is considered. Thus, the C method has
the highest generality of these three methods. The D method is also proposed.89) The D method considers the
effect of ground rise accompanying driving of the sand piles, which is not considered in the C method.
Here, the C method is described here, as this method has the highest generality and most extensive record of
actual results among the three methods in conventional use.90)
emax and emin are obtained from the fines content Fc.

(4.9.13)
(4.9.14)
The relative density Dr0 and e0 are obtained from the N-value of the original subsoil N0 and the effective
surcharge pressure v'.

(4.9.15)

(4.9.16)
The reduction rate for the increase in the N-value due to the fines fraction is obtained.

(4.9.17)
A corrected N-value (N1) is obtained from the N-value (N1) calculated assuming no fines fraction, considering
the reduction rate .

(4.9.18)
e1 is obtained using equation (4.9.16) in the above by substituting N1 for N0.

Sand supply rate Fv is obtained using equation (4.9.19) from e0, e1.

(4.9.19)
532
4.10 Sand Compaction Pile Method for Cohesive Soil Ground

4.10.1 Basic Policy of Performance Verification
[1] Scope of Application
The scope of application of the performance verification of the sand compaction pile method, SCP method, described
here shall be improvement of the lower ground of gravity-type breakwaters, revetments, quaywalls, and similar
structures.
[2] Basic Concept
(1) The SCP method for cohesive soil ground is a method in which casing pipes are driven to the required depth at a
constant interval in cohesive soil ground, and the ground is compacted and sand piles are constructed simultaneously
with the discharge of sand into the ground from inside the casing pipes. As features of the improved subsoil, the
soil is affected in a complex manner by (a) the strength of the sand piles, (b) the sand pile replacement rate, (c) the
positional relationship of the area of improvement to structures, (d) conditions related to actions such as intensity,
direction, loading path and loading speed, (e) the strength of the ground between the sand piles, (f) the confining
pressure applied to the sand piles by the ground between the piles, (g) the effects of disturbances inside and outside
the area of improvement by sand pile driving, (h) the characteristics of the ground rise at the ground surface due
to sand pile driving, and whether this rise is to be used or not.
(2) Effect of Execution
Because a large quantity of sand piles are driven into the ground in the SCP method, the ground is forcibly pressed
out in the horizontal and upward directions, which may result in disturbance of the ground and reduction of
strength in the construction area and its surroundings. This displacement of the ground, and spills of excess sand
in the casing pipes on the ground surface, may also cause a heave in the ground surface. Thus, when applying the
SCP method, it is necessary to examine the effect of this type of ground displacement on neighboring structures.
(3) Performance Verification Method
Methods of performance verification of composite ground comprising sand piles and the ground between the
piles include (a) a method in which the circular slip failure calculation method is applied with corresponding
changes using, as a base, an evaluation equation for mean shear strength modified to reflect the characteristics of
the composite ground, and (b) a method in which the composite ground is divided for convenience into a part that
behaves as sandy ground and a part that behaves as cohesive soil ground, and the actions are redistributed so that
the safety of the respective parts against circular slip failure agrees.99), 100) At present, the performance verification
by the former method is the general practice.
4.10.2 Sand Piles
(1) Materials for sand pile should have high permeability, low fines content of less than 75 m, well-graded grain size
distribution, ease of compaction, and sufficient strength as well as ease of discharge out of casing. When the sand
piles with a low replacement area ratio are positively expected to function as drain piles to accelerate consolidation
of cohesive soil layer, the permeability of the sand pile material and prevention of clogging are important. The
permeability requirement is relatively less important in the case of improvement with a high replacement ratio,
that is close to the sand replacement. Therefore, materials for sand pile need to be selected considering the
replacement ratio and the purpose of improvement.
(2) There are no particular specifications on materials to be used for the sand piles. Any sand material that can be
supplied near the site may be used from the economical viewpoint as far as it satisfies the requirements. Fig.
4.10.1 shows several examples of sands used in the past. Recently, sand with a slightly higher fines content have
often been used.
533
0.075
Passing weight percentage (%)
Silt
0.42
Fine sand
2.0
Coarse sand
Fine
gravel
5.0
Medium
gravel
20.0
Coarse gravel
90
80
Case1
70
Case2
60
Case3
50
40
Case4
30
20
Case5
10
0.01
0.05 0.1
(0.075)
0.5
1.0
(0.25) (0.42)
(2.0)
Grain size (mm)
5.0
10.0
(9.52)
50.0
Fig. 4.10.1 Examples of Grain Size Distribution of Sands Used for Sand Compaction Piles
4.10.3 Cohesive Soil Ground

(1) Estimation of Amount of Ground Heave
The amount of ground heave accompanying sand pile driving is affected by a large number of factors, including
conditions related to the original subsoil, the replacement ratio, conditions related to execution. Therefore,
several estimation methods using statistical treatment of the existing measured data have been proposed.107), 108),
109) Shiomi and Kawamoto 107) proposed equation (4.10.1) , defining the ratio of the amount of ground heave to
the design supply of sand piles as the ground heave ratio .

where
as : replacement ratio
L : mean length of sand piles (m)
V : ground heave (m3)
Vs : design sand supply (m3)
: ground heave ratio
(4.10.1)
Equation (4.10.1) was obtained by multiple regression analysis of 28 examples of execution with 6mL20m,
adding supplementary data on six sites, including two examples of sand piles with lengths of 21m and one
example of a length of 25.5m. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the contribution ratio to decreases
in the order of 1/L, as, qu, the lowest contribution ratio being that of qu, namely unconfined compressive strength
of original subsoil.
(2) Physical Properties and Strength Evaluation of Heaved Soil
Conventionally, there were many cases in which ground heave was removed. Recently, however, ground heave
has been effectively utilized as part of the foundation ground in an increasing number of cases. In such cases, it
is necessary to investigate the physical properties and strength of the heaved soil.
Where the physical properties of heaved soil due to driving of sand piles are concerned, an example 114) has
been reported in which the original subsoil was improved at a replacement rate of 70%, and the heaved soil portion
was improved so as to have a replacement ratio of 40% with 1.2m diameter of sand drain piles driven in square
arrangement of 1.7m intervals with the same construction equipment without compaction. Loose sand piles with
the mean N-value of 3.6 had been formed in the heaved soil area, and the height of the heaved soil in the area of
improvement was 3-4m. Tests of this heaved soil immediately after sand pile driving revealed that the physical
534
properties such as unit weight, moisture content, and grain size composition of the heaved soil were substantially
unchanged from those of the original subsoil to a depth equivalent to the height of the heaved soil. Table 4.10.1
110) shows the results of a comparison of the unconfined compressive strength q of the heaved soil and q as the
u
u0
mean value of the unconfined compressive strength before improvement of the original subsoil down to a depth
equal to the height of the heaved soil. In the table, the strength of heaved soil outside the area of improvement is
shown separately into cases within the range of 45 or 60 from the bottom end of the sand compaction piles. The
strength of the heaved soil in the improved area showed a strength decrease of approximately 50% due to driving
of the sand piles, but recovered to the original level in 1.5-3.5 months. The strength reduction of the heaved soil
outside the improved area was reportedly 30-40%, and recovery was slow, requiring 8 months after pile driving
for attain the original subsoil level.
For the final shape and physical properties of heaved soil in case of compacting in the heaved soil, the report
by Fukute et al.109) provides a useful information.
Table 4.10.1 Strength Reduction and Recovery in Heaved Soil 110)
qu / qu 0
Before construction
Immediately after
construction
1.5-3.5 months after

construction
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.46
0.62
0.72
0.93
0.65
0.72
In improved area
Outside improved area (45)
Outside improved area (60)
4.10.4 Formula for Shear Strength of Improved Subsoil

(1) Several formulae have been proposed for calculation of the shear strength of improved subsoil which is composite
ground comprising sand piles and soft cohesive soil.99) However, equation (4.10.2) is the most commonly used,
irrespective of the replacement ratio (see Fig. 4.10.2). When as 0.7, there are many cases in which the first term
in equation (4.10.2) is ignored, and the whole area of improvement is evaluated as uniform sandy soil with = 30,
disregarding equation (4.10.2).
Slip line
Cohesive
soil
Sand
pile
Fig. 4.10.2 Shear Strength of Composite Ground
(4.10.2)
where
as : replacement ratio of sand pile = (area of one sand pile)/(effective cross-sectional area governed
by sand pile)
c0 : undrained shear strength of original subsoil, when z = 0 (kN/m 2)
c0 + kz : undrained shear strength of original subsoil (kN/m 2)
k : increase ratio in strength of original subsoil in depth direction (kN/m3)
n : stress sharing ratio ( n = s c )
U : average degree of consolidation
535

z : vertical coordinate (m)

: average shear strength demonstrated at position of slip failure surface (kN/m 2)
s : stress concentration coefficient on sand pile (s = s z = n/{1+ (n 1) as})

c
w s
s

z
s
c
: stress reduction coefficient of clay part ( c = c/ z = 1/{1+ (n 1) as})

: unit weight of sand pile, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
: angle of shear resistance of sand pile ()
: angle of slip failure surface to horizontal ()
: mean increment of vertical stress acting at position of object slip failure surface (kN/m2)
: increment of vertical stress acting at sand pile at position of object slip failure surface (kN/m 2)
: increment of vertical stress acting at cohesive soil between sand piles at position of object slip
failure surface (kN/m 2)
c / p : strength increase ratio of original subsoil
(2) Constants used in Performance Verification
In the past examples of performance verification, the constants used in equation (4.10.2) varied over a wide range.
The values of the constants used in the performance verification should be set considering the strength of the
original subsoil, the applicable margin of safety, the method of performance verification to be used (see 4.10.6
Performance Verification), and the speed of construction. The standard values of the stress sharing ratio and the
angle of shear resistance obtained from past examples using equation (4.10.2) are as follows:
as 0.4
n = 3
0.4 as 0.7 n = 2
n=1
as 0.7
= 30
s = 30-35
s = 35
In recent years, the number of examples in which slag and similar materials were used as materials for sand
piles has increased. Slag include materials which can be expected to have comparatively high angles of shear
resistance. When such materials are to be used, performance verification may be performed using an angle of
shear resistance close to the measured value, provided adequate caution is used in setting the stress sharing ratio.
(3) Classification of Shear Strength Formulae of Composite Ground
In the past examples of performance verification, in addition to equation (4.10.2), the following three equations are
used.115) Equation (4.10.4) and equation (4.10.5) are those proposed as equations for shear strength of composite
ground with high replacement ratios. According to the existing survey results,99) with low replacement ratios
of as 0.4, almost all examples of performance verification used equation (4.10.2), and very few examples used
equation (4.10.3). Similarly, when 0.4 a s 0.6, the majority of examples used equation (4.10.2), and examples
using equation (4.10.4) accounted for only about 1/5 of the total. When 0.6 < as, equation (4.10.4) and equation
(4.10.5) were frequently used.

(4.10.3)
(4.10.4)
(4.10.5)
Here, the definitions of symbols in the above equations which are different from those in equation (4.10.2) are
as follows.
wm : mean unit weight (wm = wsas + wc (1 as )
wc : unit weight of cohesive soil, when submerged, unit weight in water (kN/m3)
m : mean angle of shear resistance when improved subsoil with height replacement ratio is assumed
to be uniform subsoil
m = tan1 (sas tans)
4.10.5 Actions
(1) The displacement of the main body during earthquake with subsoil improved by the sand compaction pile
method tends to be reduced. When setting the seismic coefficient for verification of the main body in case
of soil improvement by the sand compaction pile method, it is possible to set a rational seismic coefficient by
appropriately evaluating this reduction effect. For the basic flow and items requiring caution when calculating the
seismic coefficient for verification, Chapter 5, 2.2.2(1) Seismic coefficient for verification used in verification
of damage due to sliding and overturning of wall body and insufficient bearing capacity of foundation
ground in variable situations in respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion can be used as a reference.
536
The characteristic value of the seismic coefficient for verification of gravity-type quaywalls in the case of soil
improvement by the sand compaction pile method with a replacement ratio of 70% or more can be calculated using
equation (4.10.6) by multiplying the maximum value of corrected acceleration obtained for the unimproved soil by
a reduction coefficient. In calculating the maximum value of corrected acceleration for the unimproved soil, this
part, Chapter 5, 2.2.2 (1) Seismic coefficient for verification used in verification of damage due to sliding and
overturning of wall body and insufficient bearing capacity of foundation ground in variable situations in
respect of Level 1 earthquake ground motion can be used as a reference. It should be noted that this reduction
coefficient was obtained based on a 2-dimensional nonlinear effective stress analysis for unimproved subsoil and
improved subsoil with a 70% replacement ratio for gravity-type quaywalls.
where
kh
c
g
Da
D r
c
(4.10.6)
: characteristic value of seismic coefficient for verification

: maximum value of corrected acceleration (cm/s2)
: gravitational acceleration ( = 980cm/s2)
: allowable deformation (cm) ( = 10cm)
: standard deformation (cm) ( = 10cm)
: reduction coefficient of seismic characteristics due to improved subsoil (c = 0.75)

(1) Examination of Circular Slip Failure
The modified Fellenius method is frequently used in circular slip failure calculations in performance verification
of improved subsoil by the sand compaction pile method. In circular slip failure calculations by the modified
Fellenius method, the subsoil and superstructures are divided into several segments called slices, and the normal
stress on the slip surface is calculated ignoring the statically indeterminate forces acting between slices. That
is, only actions acting on the original subsoil included in a slice portion are assumed to contribute to the normal
stress on the slip surface of that slice. Hereinafter, this normal calculation method is called the slice method.
On the other hand, in actual subsoil, loads are distributed in the ground to a certain extent. In order to reflect the
effects of this stress distribution in slip failure calculations, there is a method that the vertical stress increment
z at an arbitrary point on a slip surface obtained using Boussinesqs equation applies to the modified Fellenius
method. Hereafter, this is called the stress distribution method.
In the performance verification of improved subsoil by the sand compaction pile method, either the slice method
or the stress distribution method can be used. In the examination of circular slip failure, verification can be
performed using equation (4.10.7). In this equation, the subscript d denotes the design value.
where

(4.10.7)
: sum of resistant moments (kNN)
r : radius of slip circle (m)

s : width of slice segment (m)
: angle of slip surface to horizontal ()
: shear strength of subsoil (kN/m 2)

: sum of acting moments (kNN)

Case of quaywall:
w' : weight of slice segment (kN/m)

q : surcharge on slice segment (kN/m)
qRWL : buoyancy of slice segment due to difference in water level when the residual water level, RWL,
at the back side of facilities is higher than the water level, LWL, at the front of the facilities wg
(RWL - LWL) (kN/m)
x : horizontal distance between center of gravity of slice segment and center of slip failure circle (m)
537
Case of breakwater:
w'
q

:
:

:
weight of slice segment (kN/m)

spatially-distributed load of breakwater acting on slice segment when effective weight of
breakwater is divided by its width (kN/m)
angle of bottom of slice segment to horizontal ()
In calculating the design values in the equation, Chapter 5, 2.2.3 (5) Examination of Sliding Failure of
Ground in Permanent Situation can be used as a reference for quaywalls, and Chapter 4, 3.1.4 (5) Examination
for Slip of Ground can be used for breakwaters.
The shear strength of the improved subsoil can be calculated by equations (4.10.2) to (4.10.5), depending on
the design conditions. For example, when using equation (4.10.2), the design value of the shear strength of the
improved subsoil can be calculated by the following equation. In this case, z is obtained using Boussinesqs
equation.

(4.10.8)
The design values in the equation can be calculated using the following equations. The subscript k denotes
the characteristic value. For symbols, etc., equation (4.10.2) can be used as a reference.
Fig. 4.10.3 shows a schematic diagram of circular slip failure.

x
SCP improved subsoil
Fig. 4.10.3 Schematic Diagram of Circular Slip Failure
For partial factors for use in the examination of circular slip failure of improved subsoil when soil improvement
is conducted by the sand compaction pile method with replacement ratios of 30% to 80%, the values shown in
Table 4.10.2 can be used as a reference 116). In this case, caution is necessary, as the partial factors for circular
slip failure shown in 3.2.1 Stability Analysis by Circular Slip Failure Surface cannot be used. In setting
the partial factors in Table 4.10.2, the case in which the slip circle surface passes through sandy subsoil deeper
than the improved subsoil is not examined. Therefore, in such cases, separate study by an appropriate method
is necessary.
538
Table 4.10.2 Standard Partial Factors
(a) Permanent situation (high earthquake-resistance facilities)
High earthquake-resistance facilities
Circular slip c '

failure
tan '
wi
Standard reliability index T
3.1
3.1
/X k
Cohesion
Landfill soil
1.00
0.001
1.00
0.10
Original cohesive subsoil
0.95
0.092
1.00
0.10
Tangent of shear
resistance
Mound, backfilling stones,

etc.
SCP tans'=0.70
0.95
0.218
1.00
0.10
0.80
0.861
1.00
0.05
Ground, caisson, etc. above level of sea bottom
1.00
0.041
0.98
0.03
Mound, backfilling stones, etc.
1.05
0.041
1.02
0.03
Sandy soil below sea bottom (SCP)
1.00
0.069
1.00
0.03
Cohesive soil below sea bottom
1.00
0.009
1.00
0.03
Surcharge
1.35
0.270
1.00
0.40
RWL
Residual water level
1.00
0.022
1.00
0.05
/X k
(b) Permanent situation (revetments and quaywalls)

Others
2.7
2.7
Circular slip c '

failure
Cohesion
Landfill soil
1.00
0.001
1.00
0.10
Original cohesive soil
1.00
0.092
1.00
0.10
0.95
0.218
1.00
0.10
tan '
Tangent of shear
resistance
wi
Ground, caisson, etc. above level of sea bottom

etc.
SCP tans'=0.70
0.80
0.861
1.00
0.05
1.00
0.041
0.98
0.03
Mound, backfilling stones, etc.
1.00
0.041
1.02
0.03
1.00
0.069
1.00
0.03
1.00
0.009
1.00
0.03
Surcharge
1.30
0.270
1.00
0.40
RWL
Residual water level
1.00
0.022
1.00
0.05
539
(c) Permanent situation (breakwaters)
Breakwater
3.3
3.3
Circular slip c '

failure
tan '
wi
Cohesion
Original cohesive soil
Tangent of shear
resistance

etc.
SCP tans'=0.70
/X k
0.90
0.484
1.00
0.10
1.00
0.060
1.00
0.10
0.90
0.664
1.00
0.05
1.05
0.140
1.02
0.03
Wave-dissipating works, foot protection works, etc.

above sea bottom
Mound
1.05
0.140
1.02
0.03
1.00
0.110
1.00
0.03
1.00
0.115
1.00
0.03
Distributed load (weight of caissons)
1.00
0.140
0.98
0.02
(2) Examination of Consolidation

Calculation of consolidation
In performance verification of settlement, equation (4.10.9) can be used.
(4.10.9)

where
Cc : compression index
h : height of embankment (m)
H : thickness of consolidation layer (m)
mv : coefficient of volume compressibility (m 2/kN)
p : consolidation pressure (kN/m 2)
p0 : initial pressure (vertical pressure before construction) (kN/m 2)
pc : preconsolidation pressure (kN/m 2)
Sa : allowable residual settlement (m)
U : consolidation rate
e0 : initial void ratio of original subsoil
: coefficient of stress distribution (ratio of distributed stress in subsoil and consolidation pressure
or embankment pressure)
: settlement reduction ratio (ratio of settlement of composite ground and settlement of unimproved
subsoil)
: effective unit weight of embankment (kN/m3)
e : reduction of void ratio of original subsoil
Sf0 : settlement without improvement
Sf : residual settlement

Comparison of calculated settlement and measured values
The residual settlement of improved subsoil is obtained by multiplying the predicted settlement of unimproved
subsoil by the settlement reduction ratio as shown in equation (4.10.9). The settlement reduction ratio is
generally expressed in a form similar to the stress reduction coefficient c. An example of a comparison of the
calculated settlement reduction ratio and measured values is shown in Fig. 4.10.4. Here, the values of on the
y-axis were obtained by estimating the final settlement of the improved subsoil by approximating the progress
of measured settlement over time as a hyperbola, and estimating the ratio to the calculated final settlement of
the original ground. The Figure also shows the settlement reduction ratio ( =1as) which is used empirically
540
with high replacement ratios and settlement reduction ratios for stress sharing ratios of n = 3, 4, and 5. From this
figure, it can be understood that the reduction of settlement due to improvement is large, this effect is influenced
by the replacement ratio, and although variations in the measured values are large, the values are close to those
calculated assuming a stress sharing ratio of approximately 4.
1.0
Marine construction
Land construction
Settlement ratio
0.8
0.6
n=3
0.4
n=4
0.2
0
0.0
1
1+(n-1)as
0.2
0.4
n=5
0.6
0.8
1.0
Replacement area ratio as

Fig. 4.10.4 Relationship between Settlement Reduction Ratio and Replacement Rate 109)
Comparison between calculated and measured consolidation time

The consolidation rate of subsoil improved by the sand compaction pile method tends to be delayed compared
to that predicted by Barrons equation. Fig. 4.10.5 based on previous construction data shows the delay in
consolidation in terms of the coefficient of consolidation as a major parameter. In the figure, Cv is the coefficient
of consolidation reverse-analyzed from actual measurements for the time-settlement relationship, and Cv0 is the
coefficient of consolidation obtained from laboratory tests. It can be seen that the time delay in consolidation
becomes greater with the increase in the replacement area ratio.
C vp : The coefficient of consolidation from actual measurements

C v0 : The coefficient of consolidation obtained from laboratory tests
Marine constructin
Land constructin
0.5
vp/
C v0
1.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Replacement rate as
Fig. 4.10.5 Delay in Consolidation of Subsoil Improved by Sand Compaction Pile Method
Comparison of calculated and measured strength increments

The increment of strength of clay between sand piles c can be calculated using equation (4.10.10). On the
other hand, the results of a reverse calculation of c from the measured values of the strength increment of clay
between sand piles are shown in Fig. 4.10.627). The y-axis in the figure expresses the ratio (c (ca / cc)) of the
measured values ca of the strength increment in improved subsoil by the sand compaction pile method to the
541
predicted values cc (= zc /pU) of the strength in unimproved subsoil. The measured values of the strength
increment vary, centering around stress sharing ratio n = 34.

where
c
z
c /p
U
(4.10.10)
: stress reduction coefficient of cohesive subsoil portion (c = c z =1 {1+(n 1)as})

: mean value of vertical stress increment due to action at object depth (kN/m 2)
: strength increase rate of original cohesive subsoil
: mean degree of consolidation
n=1
1.0
cc : calculated increase of cohesion

=c/p s zU
ca : increase of cohesion based on
c ( c a / c c)
0.8
0.6
surveys before and after construction

Offshore
Land
n=2
Kasai-oki
n=3
n=4
0.4
n=6
0.2
0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Replacement area ratio as

Fig. 4.10.6 Strength Increase of Cohesive Soil between Sand Piles in Improved Subsoil 109)
4.11 Rod Compaction Method

In the rod compaction method, it is necessary to conduct performance verification appropriately based on the actual
records of the past execution or the result of test execution adequately considering the characteristics of the object
ground and the characteristics of the execution method.
Because this improvement method is a method of compaction employing only vibration, its effect decreases
exponentially with distance. Accordingly, it is preferable to determine the arrangement and spacing of the vibratory
rods based on the relationship between the pitch of the vibratory rods obtained from the past examples or test execution
and the N-value after execution. In application to the existing sheet pile quaywalls, the spacing of the tie rods should
be considered when determining the spacing in the direction of the face line of the quaywall.
4.12 Vibro-flotation Method

In the vibro-flotation method, it is necessary to conduct performance verification appropriately based on the actual
records of the past execution or the result of test execution, adequately considering the characteristics of the object
ground and the characteristics of the execution method.
[1] Examination using Past Results of Execution
(1) When sufficiently reliable past results such as the characteristics of the object ground, pile driving density in the
vibro-flotation method, capacity of the vibro-float, and correlation with the N-values of the ground before and after
542
improvement are available, the performance verification of the improvement works can be conducted based on
this.
Silt
100
Coarse sand
of
ss od
e
en eth
tiv n m
c
ffe tio
f e ata
o
it lo
m -f
Li ibro
v
80
60
40
20
Fine sand
N min=8-15
N min=15-20
0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.1
Gravel
Mi
nim
um
grai
p re
n si
fera
ze
ble
dis
as m
trib
ake
u
up
ma tion
ter
ial
Percentage passing by mass (%)
(2) The limits of applicability of the vibro-flotation method estimated from the examples of execution to date are
as shown in Fig. 4.12.2125). Fig. 4.12.2 is prepared based on the measured values of 11 examples of execution
using square and equilateral triangular patterns with pile spacings of 1.2-1.5m, together with other examples of
execution, and can be used as a rough estimate of the limits of applicability of this method.
N min=20-15
0.2 0.3 0.5 1.0 2.0
3.0 5.0
Grain size (mm)

Fig. 4.12.2 Relationship between Grain Size of Original Subsoil and Minimum N-value after Compaction
(Case of Sandy Soil)
4.13 Drain Method as Liquefaction Countermeasure Works

In the drain method as liquefaction countermeasure works, drains using materials with good permeability are
performed in ground where there is a possibility of liquefaction. These drains reduce the degree of liquefaction by
increasing the permeability of the ground as a whole. Drains are frequently performed in a pile shape; however,
wall shaped drains and shapes which surround the structure have also been considered. If a material with good
permeability, such as sand invasion prevention sheets, is used in backfilling of quaywalls, this can also be considered
a kind of drain. Crushed stone or gravel is frequently used as drain material. Recently, however, perforated pipes of
synthetic resin and similar products have been developed. In short, as indicated above, a variety of drain methods are
used as liquefaction countermeasure works.
4.14 Well Point Method
Percentage passing by mass (%)
In some cases, the well point method is used in combination with the sand drain method or plastic board drain method
in order to increase effective weight of ground. Frequently, however, it is used for the purpose of reducing the water
level in sand or sandy silt strata, thereby helping dry work under the ground execution. (Fig. 4.14.1) 129).
100
Clay
40
Fine sand
Vacuum
drainage
80
60
Sand
Silt
Electroosmosis
Vacuum well
method
Coarse sand
Gravel
Gravity
drainage
Sumping
Well
method
method
20
0
0.001
0.005 0.01
0.05 0.1
Grain size (mm)
0.5 1.0
Fig. 4.14.1 Applicability of Methods in respect of Soil Grain Size
543
4.15 Surface Soil Stabilization Method

Surface soil stabilization methods are widely used for purposes such as securing trafficability for construction
equipment in advance of actual soil improvement and increasing the bearing capacity of extremely soft subsoil, for
example, in reclaimed land which has been reclaimed using soft cohesive or extremely soft cohesive soil, and to
prevent residents from falling into the reclaimed land, prevent foul odors, prevent breeding of disease-bearing insects
in standing water, and seal harmful industrial wastes in reclaimed land near residential areas.130), 131)
4.16 Liquefaction Countermeasure Works by Chemical Grouting Methods

(1) The following describes the method of performance verification when using chemical grouting methods for the
purpose of liquefaction countermeasure works. As grouting methods for liquefaction countermeasure works,
the permeation grouting method, multiple permeation grouting method, grouting method, and others have been
developed.132), 133), 134)
(2) Regarding applicable soil quality, based on past records, it can be assumed that the fines content generally
comprises no more than 40% of the subsoil.
(3) In the examination of stability against circular slip failure safety side examination results should be adopted by
evaluating the improved subsoil as c material or c material.
(4) As a guideline, the improved strength for preventing liquefaction of soil with solution-type chemicals is an
unconfined compressive strength of 80100 kN/m2. This improved strength is equivalent to a high liquefaction
resistance on the order of R L20 = 0.4 of cyclic shearing stress ratio in the cyclic undrained triaxial test. Here,
soil improved by solution-type chemical grout, even when its unconfined compressive strength is 100kN/m 2,
is not always regarded as a material which does not liquefy due to such as its deformation characteristic under
cyclic motions. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the improved strength by calculating actions in accordance
with the performance criteria of the facilities. On the contrary, even with very low improved strength, such as
an unconfined compressive strength of the order of 16kN/m2, it has been reported that dilatancy characteristics
change from loosely filled sand to dense sand, in that fluid liquefaction like that in loose sand is not observed,
and liquefaction potential is greatly improved.
4.16.2 Setting of Improvement Ratio
In principle, the improvement ratio shall be 100%, namely the entire area subject to the improvement shall be
improved. In cases where the improvement ratio is to be reduced, a careful examination should be made, for example,
by confirming that settlement and deformation which are detrimental to facilities will not occur by conducting model
tests, etc.
4.17 Pneumatic Flow Mixing Method

(1) It is necessary to conduct performance verification of the pneumatic flow mixing method by appropriately setting
the necessary strength of the treated subsoil, area of improvement, etc. based on surveys and test results of the soil
which is to be improved, and the stabilized soil, and the conditions of application.
(2) In the pneumatic flow mixing method, stabilizer is added to the soil being improved, for example, dredged soil,
during pneumatic transportation. The object soil and stabilizer are mixed using the turbulence effect of the plug
flow generated in the transport pipe, and the mixture is then placed at the designated location. For the principle
and features of this execution method, Manual on Pneumatic Flow Mixing Technology 135), 136) can be used as
a reference.
544
4.18 Active Earth Pressure of Geotechnical Materials Treated with Stabilizer

4.18.1 General
(1) This section describes fundamentals of performance verification for calculation of active earth pressure when
using geotechnical materials solidified by stabilizers such as cement as backfill materials.
Solidifying agents considered in this section include those that harden naturally and others that are hardened
artificially by adding cement or other stabilizer. Materials developed to date are listed below. The variety of
materials tend to increase in future.
Premixed soil (treated soil by premixing method)
Lightweight treated soil
Cement-mixed soils other than the above two
Solidified coal ash
Self-hardening coal ash
Blast furnace granulated slag used for solidifying
4.18.2 Active Earth Pressure
[1] Outline
(1) When using solidified geotechnical materials, the material properties and the characteristics of earthquake motion
should be appropriately taken account in calculations of active earth pressure on a structure.
(2) When calculating active earth pressure during an earthquake, the seismic coefficient method may generally
be used. When detailed examination of earth pressure during an earthquake is required, however, response
analysis and others must be carried out. Methods to calculate earth pressure using the seismic coefficient method
considering material properties are described in 4.18.2 [2] Strength Constants.
(3) Generally, when solidifying agents are judged to have sufficiently large cohesion, liquefaction in the treated area
need not be considered. Although depending on actions due to ground motion, if the unconfined compressive
strength qu is greater than approximately 50100kN/m2, excess pore water pressure in the area of improvement
during action of ground motion may be ignored.
[2] Strength Constants
The method of determining strength constants for geotechnical materials will differ depending on the material used.
It is necessary to consider cohesion and the angle of shear resistance in accordance with the properties of the respective
materials used. In general, deep mixed soil, lightweight treated soil, and soil solidified with coal ash are assumed to
be c materials. Premixed soil can be considered to be a material of both the c and type. Granulated slag is usually
treated as material, but it may also be treated as a c material in cases where its solidification property is positively
employed.
[3] Calculation of Active Earth Pressure
(1) Generally, the earth pressure may be evaluated based on the provisions in Part II, Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure.
The principle for calculation of earth pressure may be the same as the Mononobe-Okabe principle. In this method,
the earth pressure is calculated by an equilibrium of forces in accordance with Coulombs concept of earth pressure
by assuming that the subsoil fails while forming a wedge.
(2) Many factors remain unknown about the earth pressure during an earthquake. This is particularly significant on
the earth pressure during an earthquake in submerged subsoils. Nevertheless, the principle of earth pressure in
Part II, Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure has so far been adopted in the performance verification of many structures
with satisfactory results.
(3) Equation (4.18.1), an expansion of the earth pressure equation in Part II, Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure, can be
applied to materials having both the cohesion c and angle of shear resistance (see Fig. 4.18.1).
545
where
pai
ci
i
i
hi

i

k
k'
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
(4.18.1)
active earth pressure intensity acting on wall by the i-th layer (kN/m 2)
cohesion of soil in the i-th layer (kN/m 2)
angle of shear resistance in the i-th layer ()
unit weight of the i-th layer (kN/m3)
thickness of the i-th layer (m)
angle of wall to the vertical ()
angle of ground surface to the horizontal ()
angle of wall friction ()
angle of failure surface of the i-th layer to the horizontal ()
surcharge per unit area of ground surface (kN/m 2)
resultant seismic angle ()=tan1k or =tan1k'
seismic coefficient
apparent seismic coefficient
1
P1
h1
P2
h2
Pi-1
Pi
Piv
+8)
Pi
hi
i
Pih
Fig. 4.18.1 Earth Pressure
(4) Equation (4.18.1) is an extension of Okabes equation.142) This extension lacks such rigorousness that Okabe
solved the equilibrium of forces. However, when the soil is exclusively granular material with no cohesion or
exclusively cohesive material with no angle of shear resistance , it is consistent with the equations in Part II,
Chapter 5, 1 Earth Pressure.
546
(5) The earth pressure and the angle of failure surface should be calculated separately at each soil layer with different
soil properties, while the earth pressure distribution and the failure line inside each layer are treated as linear.
Actually within a soil layer, the earth pressure and the failure line sometimes become curved when calculated for
divided sublayers. This contradicts the original assumption in Okabes equation that is based on a linear slip on
the premise of Coulombs earth pressure.
(6) When using the equations above, the existence of cracks sometimes has to be considered in accordance with the
characteristics of the geotechnical materials used.
[4] Cases where Improvement Width is Limited
When the area treated with solidified geotechnical materials is limited and Mononobe-Okabes equation cannot be
applied simply, the earth pressure is evaluated by a suitable method that allows the influence of the treated area to be
assessed. When the treated area is limited, the earth pressure can be evaluated by the slice method143).
With the slice method, three modes of failure are examined (see Fig. 4.18.2).
The earth pressure distribution is calculated by assuming that the difference between the resultant earth pressures
at adjacent depths is the earth pressure intensity for the corresponding depth
Mode 1: when a uniform slip surface is formed in the whole backfill (shear resistance mode)
Mode 2: when a cracks down to the bottom of the solidified soil layer is developed (crack failure mode)
Mode 3: when a slip surface is formed along the edge line of the solidified range (friction resistance mode)
Note: Among Mode 1, the case in which the slip surface does not pass the solidified body is categorized as Mode 0.
Mode 1
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 0
Fig. 4.18.2 Three Failure Modes Considered in the Slice Method
References
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
Japan Geothechnical Society: Handbook of Geotechnical Engineering, Part 4, Chapter 8, pp.1197-1262,1999

Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science: Countermeasure works for soft ground- Survey, design and constructionPart 1, Chapters 1 and 2, pp.1-32, 1990
Soil Stabilizing Materials Committee, The Society of Materials Science of Japan: Handbook of Soil improvement works, Part
1, Chapter 1 through 3, pp.3-19, 1991
Industrial Technology Service Center: Compendium of practical measures for soft ground, Part 2, Chapter 1 and 2, pp.419454,1993
Miki, H. and H. Kobashi: Solidification method with cement-based hardeners and environmental issues, Foundation work,
pp.12-14, 2000
Ichikawa, N.: Soil improvement- Pack drain method-, Foundation work, pp.91-101, May 1978
Matuo, M., J. Tukada, Y. Kanaya and H. Syouno
Kitazume, M., M. Terashi, N. Aihara and T. Katayama: Applicability of Fabri-Packed Sand Drain for Extremely Soft Clay
Ground., Rept. of PHR Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-123, 1993
Matumoto, K., I. Sandanbata, H. Ochiai and N. Yasufuku: Stability of embankment during vacuum consolidation work,
Proceedings of 36th Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1063-1064, 2001
Kobayashi, M. and T. Tsuchida: Field Test of the Vacuum Consolidation in Kinkai Bay, Technical Note of PHRI
No.476,pp.1-28,1984
Soil Stabilization Committee, Japan Lime Association: Soft soil stabilization method by lime, Chapter 5, 1983
Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science: Countermeasure works for soft ground- Survey, design and constructionPart II, Chapter 10, pp.328-335,1990
Kitazume, M.: The Sand Compaction Pile Method, Taylor & Francis, p.232, 2005
547
14) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: The Deep Mixing Method-Principia, Design and Construction, A.A. Balkema
Publishers, pp.123, 2002
15) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Technical Manual of deep mixing method for marine work s, 1999
16) Public Works Research Center: Design and construction manual of deep mixing method on land, 2004
17) Tsuchida, T., T. Sato, S. Kou, K. Minosaku and K. Sakai: Field placing test of lightweight treated soil at 10 m seawater depth
in Kumamoto Port, Technical Note of PARI No.1007, 2001
18) Tsuchida, T., H. Fujisaki, M. Makibuchi, H. Shinsha, Y. Nagasaka and K. Hikosaka: Use of light-weight treated soils of waste
soil in airport extension project, Jour. JSCE No.644/VI-46, pp.13-23, 2000
19) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Technical Manual for pneumatic flow mixing method, ,2001
20) Sato, T.: Development and Application of Pneumatic Flow Mixing Method to Reclamation for Offshore Airport, Technical
Note of PHRI No. 1076,p.81, 2004
21) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Handbook for countermeasure works for reclaimed land, pp.170-194,
1997
22) Yamamoto, M. and M. Nozu: Quiet compaction of sandy round- No vibration and low noise static compaction method for
sand pile, Journal of JSCE, Vol. 83, pp.19-21, 1998
23) Kakehashi T. et al.: Introduction of KS-EGG Method: Low vibration and[ low noise soil improvement method, Proceedings
of 52nd Conference of JSCE, Section III, pp.151-152, 2002
24) Kato, S., Y. Kato, H. Ichikawa and N. Mishiro: Geo-KONG Method; Low vibration and low noise ground compaction
method, Foundation Works, ,pp38-41,Dec., 2003
25) Soft ground handbook editing committee: New soft ground Handbook for Civil and architectural engineers, Part I, Chapter
9, pp387-390,1984
26) Ishiguro, K. and H. Shimizu: Examination of better countermeasure for liquefaction, Journal of JSCE, VoL83,pp,17-19,1998
27) Brown, R. E.: Vibroflotation compaction of cohesionless soils, Proc. ASCE, GT-12, pp.1437-1451,1987
28) Narumi, N., A. Nomura and M. Ikeda: Improvement of solid waste ground by heavy tamping method, Soil and Foundation,
Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science, ,pp.49-52,June, 1992
29) Suzuki, Y., S. Saitou, S. Onimaru, H. Kimura, A. Uchida and R. Okumura: Countermeasure work for liquefaction by grid
soil improvement by deep mixing method, Soil and Foundation, pp.46-48,1996
30) Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science: Survey, design and construction of Chemical Grouting Method, ,1985
31) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual for osmotic solidification method, 2003
32) Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction: Design and Construction Manual for countermeasure work for
liquefaction (draft), pp.364-374,1999
33) Japan Geotechnical Society: Countermeasure works for liquefaction, Geotechnical Engineering, Practical Business Series,
pp.326-335,2004
34) Zen K.: Development of Premixing-type stabilization method as countermeasure for liquefaction, Soil and Foundation,
VoL38,No,6,pp.27-32,1990
35) Public Works Research Center: Design and construction Manual for Reinforces Soil Terre Armee wall method, 1990
36) Matsuo, O., S. Yasuda, K. Harada, K. Ishiguro and R. Uzuoka: Examination of improvement soil under Level-one earthquake,
Proceedings of 32nd Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.1065-1066,1997
33) Japan Geotechnical Society: Countermeasure works for liquefaction, Geotechnical Engineering,, p.241, 2004
37) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Handbook for countermeasure works for reclaimed land (Revised
Edition), pp, 230-238,1997
Edition), pp.285-294,1997
39) Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science: Countermeasure works for soft ground- Survey, design and constructionPart II, Chapter 10, pp.317-321,1990
40) Japan Geotechnical Society: Handbook of Geotechnical Engineering, Part 4, Chapter 8, 1999
Edition), pp.114-136,1997
42) Japan Geotechnical Society: Handbook of Geotechnical Engineering, Part 4, Chapter 8, pp.1197-1262, 1999
43) Ichikawa, N.: Soil improvement- Packed drain method-, Foundation works, pp.91-101, May, 1978
44) Matsuo, M., J. Tsukada, Y. Kanaya and H. Shono: Trial construction of soil improvement for the foundation works of Yokkaichi LNG Base, Journal of JSCE, PP.9-15,1984
45) Katayama, T, A. Yahiro, M. Kitazume and Nakadono: Analysis and experimental study on fabri-packed sand-drains stability
in Tokyo International Airport extension Project, Jour. JSCE No,486 IV-22, pp.19-25, 1994
46) K. Terzaghi and P. B. Peck : Soil Mechanics Fundamentals), Maruzen Publishing,, 1968 (Terzaghi, K. and P. B. Peck : Soil
Mechanics in Engineering Practice, New York John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1948)
47) Aboshi, H. and Yoshikuni, H.: A study on the consolidation process affected by well resistance in the vertical drain method,
Soils and Foundations, Vol. 7 No,4, pp.38-58, 1967
48) Kamon, M.: Quality and characteristics of Plastic drain materials, Foundation Works, Vol. 13 No.8, pp.11-16, 1985
49) Yoshikuni, H.: Design and construction supervision of vertical drain method, Chapter 3, Giho-do Publishing, 1979
548
50) Japan Institute of Construction Engineering: Construction Technology
51) Nakashe, A.: Design diagram for sand drain, Soil and Foundation, Vol.12 No. 6, pp. 35-38, 1964
52) Amihoshi, H., Z. Koba, T. Inoue, M. Niki and H. Murase: Change of consolidation coefficient due to the construction of sand
drain, Proceedings of 19th Conference on Soil Mechanics, pp. 1573-1574,1984
53) Kamon, M.: Soil Improvement by plastic drain, Soil Improvement 8, Sogo-Doboku Kenkyu-jo ,pp.. 34-41, 1991
54) Tanaka, H., K. Oota and T. Maruyama: Performance of Vertical Drains for Soft and Ununiform Soils, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 30
No.2, pp,211-227, 1991
55) Onoue, A.: Consolidation of multi-layered anisotropic soils by vertical drains with well resistance. Soils and Foundations 28,
No.3, pp.75-90,Japanese Soc. SMFE., 1988
56) Kobayashi, M., J. Minakami and T. Tsuchida: Determination of the Horizontal Coefficient of Consolidation cohesive soil,
Rept. of PHRI Vol.29 No,2, pp.63-83, 1990
57) Katayama, T.: Katayama, T.: Study on Composite vertical drain for airport construction on soft ground. Kyu-shu Univ.
Dissertation, 1993
58) Mikasa, M.: Consolidation of soft clay, Kajima Publishing, 1963
59) Kobayashi, M: Numerical Analysis of One-Dimensional Consolidation Problems, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 21 No.1, pp.57-79,
1982
60) Terashi, M., H. Tanaka, T. Mitumoto, Y. Niidome and J. Honma: Fundamental Properties of Lime- and Cement-Treated Soils
(2nd Report), Rept. of PHRI Vol.19 No,1, pp.33-62, 1980
61) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual of deep mixing method for marine construction work, 2008,
2003
62) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual for FGC deep mixing method- soft soil improvement
method utilizing fly ash 1, 2004
63) Babasaki, R., M. Terashi, T. Suzuki, J. Maekawa, M. Kawamura and E. Fukazawa: Influence factors on the strength of
stabilized soil, Japan Geotechnical Society, Proceedings of Symposium on Cement-Treated Soils, pp.20-41,1996
64) Terashi, M. and H. Fuseya: Practice of deep ground Improvement and problems 10, Practice and problems of deep mixing
method- Outline of deep mixing-, Soil and Foundation, Vol. 31 No.6, pp.57-64, 1983
65) Japan Geotechnical Society : Method of soil tests and commentary (First revised Edition), pp.308-316,2000
66) Nose, S., N. Taguchi and M. Terashi: Practice of deep ground Improvement and problems 11, Practice and problems of deep
mixing method- Examples of deep mixing method-, Soil and Foundation, Vol. 31 No.7, pp.73-80, 1983
67) Public Works Research Center: Design and construction manual of deep mixing method on land Revised Edition), p.39,
2003
68) Terashi, M., M. Kitazume and T. Nakamura: External Forces Acting on a Stiff Soil Mass Improved by DMM, Rept. of PHRI
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp.147-184, 1988
69) Kitazume, M: .Model and Analytical Studies on Stability of improved ground by Deep Mixing Method, Technical Note of
PHRI No.774,p.73, 1994
70) Terashi, M. and M. Kitazume: Interference Effect on Bearing Capacity of Foundations on Sand, Rept. of PHRI Vol.26 No,2,
pp. 413-432, 1987
71) Yerashi, M., H. Tanaka and M. Kitazume: Dislodging failure of wall-type improved soil by deep mixing method, Proceedings
of 18th Conference on Soil Mechanics, pp.1553-1556, 1983
72) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Technical Manual of light weight treated soil method for ports and
airports, 1999
73) Tsuchida, T., H. Yokoyama, J. Minakami, K. Shimizu and J. Kasai: Field Test of Light-Weight Geomaterials for Harbor
Structures, Technical Note of PHRI No. 833, 1996
74) Tsuchida, T.: Research and development of light weight treated soil method in coastal areas and examples of practice,
Proceedings of Annual Meeting of PHRI, 1998
75) Tsuchida, T., J. Kasai, J. Minakami, Y. Yokoyama and K. Tsuchida: Effect of Curing Condition on Mechanical Properties of
Light-Weight Soils, Technical Note of PHRI No .834, 1996
76) Tsuchida, T., K. Nagai, M. Yukawa, T. Kishida and M. Yamamoto: Properties of Light-Weight Soil Used for Backfill of Pier
Technical Note of PHRI No.835,1996
77) TANG, Y., T. TSUCHIDA, D. TAKEUCHI, M. KAGAMIDA and N. Nishida: Mechanical Properties of Light Weight Cement
Treated Soil Using Triaxial Apparatus NISHIDA No.845 1996.9
78) TSUCHIDA, T., Haruo FUZISAKI Hiroaki NAKAMURA Masaharu MAKIBUCHI Hiroshi SHINSHIA Yuji NAGASAKA
and Yasuo HIKOSAKA: Use of Light-Weight Treated Soils Made of Waste Soil in Airport Extension Project, Technical Note
of PHRI No.923,1999
79) TSUCHIDA, T., Yoshiaki KIKUCHI, Tetsuo FUKUHARA, Takeo WAKO and Kazuhiro YAMAMURA: Slice Method for
Earth Pressure Analysis and its Application to Light-Weight Fill, Technical Note of PHRI No. 924, 1999
80) TSUCHIDA, T., Tatsuo WAKO, Yosiaki KIKUCHI, Toshio AZUMA and Hiroshi SHINSYA: Fluidity and Material Properties
of Light-Weight Treated Soil Casted Underwater, Technical Note of PHRI No. 865, 1997
81) TSUCHIDA, T., Tatsuo WAKO, Hiroshi MATSUHITA and Masahiro YOSHIWARA: Evaluation of Washout Resistance of
Light-weight Treated Soil Casted Underwater, Technical Note of PHRI No.884, 1997
549
82) Wako, T., T. Tsuchida, Y. Matsunaga, K. Hamamoto, T. Kishida and T. Fukasawa: Use of artificial light weight materials
(Treated soil with air form)for port facilities, Jour. JSCE No,602 VI-40, pp.35-52,1998
83) Kikuchi Y., M. Ikegami and H. Yamazaki: Field investigation on the solidification of granulated blast furnace slag used for
backfill of quay wall, Jour. Of JSCE No.799/III-72, pp.171-182, 2005
84) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Handbook of utilization of granulated blast furnace slag for port construction
work, p.71, 1989
85) Kikuchi, Y. and K. Takahashi: Change of Mechanical Characteristics of the Granulated Blast Furnace Slag according to
Age,, Technical Note of PHRI No.915, p.26, 1998
86) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual for premixing-type stabilization method, 1999
87) Yamazaki, H., Y. Morikawa and F. Koike: Study on effect on fines content and drainage characteristics of sandy deposit on
sand compaction pile method, Jour. Of JSCE No.722/III-61, pp.303-314, 2002
88) Yamazaki H., Y. Morikawa and F. Koike: Study on effect of K0-value prediction after densification by sand compaction pile
method, Jour of JSCE No.750/III-65, pp.231-236, 2003
,pp.233-242, 2004
90) Mizuno, T., N. Suematsu and K. Okuyama: Design method of sand compaction pile in sandy ground containing fine fraction
and evaluation of improvement effect, Soil and Foundation VoL35,No5,pp.21-26,1987
91) Ishimaru, M. O. Miura: Coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction of improved soils by SCP, Public Relation Magazine of
Survey and Design Office, Vol. 10 No,1, Third Port Construction Bureau, Kobe Survey and Design Office, pp.55-64,1983
92) KITAZUME, M. and Kiyoharu MURAKAMI : Behaviour of Sheet Pile Walls in the Improved Ground by Sand Compaction
Piles of Low Replacement Area Ratio, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 183-211, 1993
93) KITAZUME, M., Hidenori TAKAHASHI and Shinji TAKEMURA: Experimental and Analytical Studies on Horizontal
Resistance of Sand Compaction Pile Improved Ground, Rept. of PHRI Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 47-71, 2003
94) Japan Geotechnical Society: Estimation of effectiveness of soil improvement and practice, 2000
95) Sugiyama, H., S. Iai, O. Kotsutsumi and H. Mori: Analysis of effective stress of gravity-type wharf on a clayey ground
improved by SCP during an earthquake- (First Rept; Modeling of high replacement rate SCP improved soil.), Proceedings of
35th Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, ,pp.2055-2056, 2000
96) Sato, A., N. Yoshida, N. Iida, H. Tange, S. Tange, S. Iai and H. Mori: Analysis of effective stress of gravity-type wharf on
a clayey ground improved by SCP during an earthquake- (Second Rept; Case Study), Proceedings of 35th Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering, ,,pp.2057-2058, 2000
97) KITAZUME, M., Takahiro SUGANO, Yohsuke KAWAMATA, Naoto NISHIDA, Kazuhiro ISHIMARU and Yoshinori
NAKAYAMA: Centrifuge Model Tests on Dynamic Properties of Sand Compaction Pile Improved Ground, Technical Note
of PARI No.1029,2002
98) SUGANO, T., Masaki KITAZUME, Yoshinori NAKAYAMA, Yosuke KAWAMATA, Jun OBAYASHI, Naoto NISHIDA
and Kazuhiro ISHIMARU: A Study on Dynamic Properties of Sand Compaction Pile Improved Ground, Technical Note of
PARI No.1047,p.32,2003
99) Sogabe, T.: Technical problems of Design and construction of sand compaction pile method, Proceedings of 33rd annual
Technical Conference of JSCE, pp.39-45, 1981
100) Kitazume, M.: The Sand Compaction Pile Method, Tayior & Francis, p.232, 2005
101) Fujimori, K. and Y. Uchida: New soft soil improvement, Konda- Tosho Publishing, 1967
102) Japan Road Association: Highway earthworks- Guideline of countermeasure soft soils- 1977
103) Japan Highway Public Corporation: Design Manual Vol. 1, Part 1, Earth works, 1983
104) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT)and Nippon Slag Association: Guideline of utilization of granulated
blast furnace slag for port construction work,
105) Minami, K., H. Matsui, E. Naruse and M. Kitazume: Field test on sand compaction pile method with copper slag sand, Jour.
JSCE No.574/VI-36, pp,49-55, 1997
106) Hashidate, Y., S. Fukuda, T. Okumura and M. Kobayashi: Engineering characteristics of sand containing oyster shells and
utilization for sand compaction piles, Proceedings of the 29th Conference of Soil Mechanics, pp.717-720,,1994
107) Shiomi, M. and K. Kawamoto: Estimation of rise of ground due to SPC driving, Proceedings of the 21st Conference of Soil
Mechanics, Proceedings of the 29th Conference of Soil Mechanics, pp. 1861-1862, 1986
108) Hirao, S., H. Tsuboi, M. Matsuo and H. Taga: Profile forecast of emergence of sea bed ground due to compaction of sand piles,
Proceedings of the 8th Symposium on Geotechnical Engineering, pp.55-60, 1996
109) Fukude, T., Y. Higuchi, M. Furuichi and H. Tsuboi: Profile forecast of emergence of sea bed due to large scale sand compaction
piles, Proceedings of the 33rd Symposium on Soil Mechanaics,1988
110) Ichimoto, E.: Practical design of sand compaction pile method and examples of construction, Proceedings of Annual Technical
Conference, pp.51-55, 1981
111) Ichimoto, E. and N. Suematsu: Practice of sand compaction pile method and problems, Soil and Foundation, Vol.31 No.5,
pp.83-90, 1983
112) Matsuo, M., M. Kimura, R. Nishio and H. Andou: Matsuo, M., M. Kimura, R. Nishio and Y. Ando: Study on development of
soil improvement method using construction waste soil, Jour. JSCE No. 547/III-37, pp.199-209,1996
113) Nozu, M. and A. Suzuki: Effect of sand compaction piles on the consolidation of surrounding clayey ground and its
550
utilization, Symposium on Recent Research and Practice on Clayey Ground- from observation of microscopic structure to
countermeasure technology for extremely soft reclaimed land-, pp. 327-323, 2002
114) Hirao, H. and M. Matsudo: Study on characteristics of upheaval part of cohesive ground caused by soil improvement, Jour.
JSCE Vol. 376/III-6, pp.277-285, 1986
115) KANDA, K. Masaaki TERASHI: Practical Formula for the Composite Ground Improved by Sand Compaction Pile Method,
Technical Note of PHRI No. 669, pp.1-52, 1990
116) Nagao, T., M. Nozu Y. Imai: Application of reliability design method to circular slip failure of port facilities on sand
compaction piles, Proceedings of Offshore Development JSCE, Vol. 22, pp.727-732, 1996
117) Ichimoto, E. and N. Suematsu: Practice of sand compaction pile method and problems,- Summary-, Soil and Foundation,
Vol.31 No.5, pp.83-90, 1983
118) Society of Soil Mechanics and Engineering Science: Countermeasure works for soft ground- Survey, design and constructionPart II, Chapter 3, pp.119-152,1988
119) Tanaka, Y., A. et al. : Case study on the behavior of improved ground by T-type SCP, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
2006
120) Tanaka, Y., A. et al. : Applicability of T-type SCP method to soft ground, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2006
121) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Handbook of Countermeasure against Liquefaction of Reclaimed
Land (Revised Edition), CDIT, pp.137-255,1997
122) Ishiguro, T., T. Iijima, H. Shimizu and S. Shimada: Investigation about the vibration compaction work of saturated sand
layers with elimination of excess pore-water pressure, Jour. JSCE No.505/III-29, pp.105-114, 1994
123) Japan Geotechnical Society: Countermeasure works for liquefaction, Geotechnical Engineering, Chapter 4, 2004
124) Brown, R.E.: Vibroflotation compaction of cohesionless soils, Proc.A.S.C.E, GT12, pp.1437-1451, 1977
125) Watanabe, T.: Study of vibro-floatation method, Publication Division, Kajima Technical Research Institute, pp.87,1962
126) Industrial Technology Service Center: Handbook of practical Technology for countermeasure works of soft ground for
construction engineers, Part 3, Chapter 8, pp.726-732,1993
127) Kishida, T.: On soil improvement work of Nagoya Second Factory of Nisshin Flour Co. (Liquefaction-prevention works by
earthquake proof gravel compaction method), Proceedings of the 29th National conference on port construction, Japan Port
association, pp,82-94,1983
128) Coastal Development Institute of Technology (CDIT): Handbook of Countermeasure against Liquefaction of Reclaimed
Land (Revised Edition), CDIT, pp.170-194, 1997
construction engineers, Part 3, Chapter 6, pp.676-689,1993
130) Japan Geotechnical Society: Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, Japan Geotechnical Society, 1999
construction engineers, Part 3, Chapter 1, pp.619-6311993
132) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual for osmotic solidification method, 2003
pp.326-335,2004
134) Public work Research Institute, Ministry of Construction: Design and construction manual for liquefaction prevention works
(Draft), pp.364-374,1999
135) Chu-bu International Airport Survey Office, The Fifth Port Construction Bureau : Pneumatic flow mixing method, 1999
136) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Coastal Development Technology Library No. 11, Technical Manual for
pneumatic flow mixing method, pp.127, 2001
137) SATO, T.: Development and Application of Pneumatic Flow Mixing Method to Reclamation for Offshore Airport, Technical
Note of PARI No.1076, p.81, 2004.
138) Taguchi, H., Yamane, N., Hashimoto, F. and Sakamoto, A.: Strength characteristics of stabilized ground by plug-flow mixing
method, 1S-YOKOHAMA, 2000.
139) Shinsya, H., S. Ikeda and A. Matsumoto: Aeration-blow-type Pneumatic flow mixing method that makes large scale
solidification of dredged soil possible- Pipe mixing method-, Proceedings of 26th Kanto-district Conference, 2000
140) Yagyu, T. and H. Ogawa: Development of Pneumatic flow mixing method for dredged soil-snake mixer method-, Annual
Rept. of Port Technology Exchange Society, 1999
141) Yamada, H., Y. Takaba and S. Takanashi: Development of early-stage recycling technology of dredged soil by Tank and Plug
mixing method (T & P Method), Symposium of construction equipment and construction method, 1999
142) Okabe, S.: General Theory on Earth Pressure and Seismic Stability of Retaining Wall and Dam, Journal of JSCE, Vol. 10,
No.6, pp.1277-1323, 1924
143) Coastal Development Institute of Technology: Technical Manual of light weight treated soil method for ports and airports,
1999
551

(Japan) Ocdi PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

(Japan) Ocdi PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN

Chapter 2 Items Common to Facilities Subject to Technical Standards

(2) Examination for Crack caused by Bending

: number of layers of tensile bars

: design value of flexural moment in examination of serviceability limit state (N/mm)

Deformed bar/plain bar

Particularly severe corrosion

Level of water-tightness requirement

: chloride ion concentration at the surface of concrete (kg/m3)

erf : error function (

Type of limit state

Reinforcing bars and prestressing steel

Steel materials other than above

Actions other than wave force

Actions during construction

Structural analysis factor a

Quaywall (caisson, etc.)

Others (sheet pile superstructure, etc.)

1.1.7 Structural Details

Severe corrosion environment

Serviceability Permanent Self weight Water pressure,

Index of standard limit value

Limit value of bending

Design yield stress

(b) Variable situation in which dominating action is variable wave

Index of standard limit

Variable waves*1) Self weight,

Design yield stress

Limit value of crack

Design fatigue strength

Water pressure Self weight

Index of standard limit

Cross-sectional failure of Design cross-sectional

Outer walls (serviceability)

Serviceability Permanent Internal

Internal water Serviceability of cross

Limit value of bending

Extrusion of outer wall

Design yield stress

Fatigue failure of outer

Index of standard limit value

Design fatigue strength

Partition wall (serviceability)

Index of standard limit value

Serviceability of cross Limit value of crack

Caissons requiring flotation (serviceability)

Serviceability Variable Water

Index of standard limit value

Limit value for overturning

Fig. 1.2.1 Example of Performance Verification Procedure for Caissons

: displacement volume (m3)

Fig. 1.2.2 Stability of Caisson

(b) When using sand or stone or concrete as the counterballast:

Bottom slab reaction

Bottom slab reaction

Bottom slab reaction

Bottom slab while

Outer wall while

During action of seismic motion

During wave action (wave trough)

Internal water Variable component Dynamic

Fig. 1.2.3 Actions on Front Wall (Breakwater)