DFI–CSCE Workshop

April 12, 2013

Solutions for
Embankments Over Soft Soils

Embankments Over Soft Soils

• Construction over Unstable Soils focuses on
methods to support embankment and
embankment widening on the foundation, i.e.,
typically below-grade technologies. Methods
include ground improvement and support over
the unstable soils. Although the ground
improvement is often below-grade, some at-
grade technologies are also applicable to this
application.

1
 Embankments Over Soft Soils
1.Column-Supported Embankments
a. Large number of column types can be used
2. Excavation and Replacement
3. Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankments
4. Lightweight Fill
5. Electro-Osmosis
6. Hydraulic Fill with Geocomposite and Vacuum
Consolidation
7. Prefabricated Vertical Drains and Fill Preloading
8. Vacuum Preloading with and without PVDs

Vertical Support Elements

1.Aggregate Columns
2. Combined Soil Stabilization with Vertical Columns
3. Continuous Flight Auger Piles
4. Deep Mixing Methods
5. Geotextile Encased Columns
6. Jet Grouting
7. Micropiles
8. Sand Compaction Piles
9. Vibro-Concrete Columns
Selection tool within GeoTechTools

2
 SOLUTIONS ABOVE GRADE

EMBANKMENT

EMBANKMENT

UNSTABLE SOILS

STABLE SOILS

SOLUTIONS ABOVE OR BELOW GRADE

Construction over Unstable Soils Construction over STABLE/STABILIZED Soils

WORKING PLATFORM SOLUTIONS GROUND SURFACE
PAVEMENT SURFACE
BASE
UNSTABLE SOILS
SUBBASE

UNSTABLE STABLE
SUBGRADE SOILS OR
SOILS  SOILS

GEOTECHNICAL PAVEMENT 
COMPONENTS (SOLUTIONS FOR BASE, 
SUBBASE, AND SUBGRADE)
Geotechnical Pavement Components (Base, Working Platforms
Subbase, and Subgrade)

3
 DFI–CSCE Workshop

Column-Supported Embankments

4
 Column-Supported Embankments

Basic Function
Column-Supported Embankments (CSE) enable
construction of embankments over unstable
soils by transferring the load to a stiffer
underlying stratum.

Column-Supported Embankments

Advantages
 Accelerates construction compared to conventional
methods
 Eliminate staged construction
 Reduces total and differential settlement
 Reduces stability problems
 Protects adjacent facilities from distress
 Can be used with a wide variety of columns to
accommodate different site conditions

5
 Column-Supported Embankments

Description
 CSEs are used when the soil is too soft or compressible to
support the embankment. The columns transfer the load to
a firm stratum below the soft layer.
 The columns can be floating or end-bearing depending on
the site geology, the project requirements, and the type of
column used. For most CSE applications, the columns are
end-bearing.
 When high-capacity columns with wide spacings are used,
geosynthetic reinforcement is typically used at the
interface between the top of the columns and the
embankment to more efficiently transfer the embankment
load to the columns.

Column-Supported Embankments

Geologic Applicability
 Typically used on soft compressible clay, peats, and organic
soils where settlement and global stability are concerns
 Most cost effective when the compressible material
thickness ranges from 15 to 70 feet (4.6 to 21.3 meters)
 Soft soil underlain by stiffer soil or bedrock

6
 Column-Supported Embankments
Construction Methods
• Columns of strong material are placed in the soft ground to
provide the necessary support by transferring the
embankment load to a firm stratum.
• Numerous types of columns that may be used
• A load transfer platform or bridging layer may be
constructed immediately above the columns to help
transfer the load from the embankment to the columns,
and thereby permit larger spacing between columns than
would be possible otherwise. Load transfer platforms
generally consist of compacted soil and geosynthetic
reinforcement.

Column-Supported Embankments

Potential Disadvantages
 CSEs can incur a higher cost than technologies that require
more time before the embankment can be put into service.
 CSEs suffer form a lack of standard design procedures
and lack of knowledge about technology benefits, design
procedures, and construction techniques.

7
 Design Methods
No current FHWA design guidance. Limited
information is available FHWA-NHI Ground
Improvement manual (2006).
• SHRP 2 R02 project completed extensive
research on design methods
• Developed recommended procedure

QC/QA Methods
No current FHWA QC/QA guidance. Limited
information is available FHWA-NHI Ground
Improvement manual (2006).
• QC/QA for a column-supported embankment project should
include verification of the properties and placement of the
LTP fill, embankment fill, the geosynthetic reinforcement, and
the column type being used.
• Acceptance criteria are typically based on minimum total
and/or differential settlement criteria.

8
CSE w/ Geosynthetic Load
Transfer Platform

Embankment

Columns

Sand (Firm Foundation)

9
10
 Historical Overview
• Developed in Europe in 1980’s as rapid
construction technique
• First transportation application in 1984 for
a bridge approach in Europe using concrete
piles and one layer of reinforcement
• First US application was in 1994 for storage
tank
• NJ Lightrail supported on CSE with VCC in
2001

11
What type of columns may be used
for CSE?
• Timber piles • Geopiers
• Steel piles • VCC-Vibro concrete
• Pre-cast concrete columns-
piles • Continuous Flight
• Soil mix columns Auger (CFA) piles
• Stone columns • CSV-combined soil
• Geotextile encased stabilization
columns-GEC

Load Transfer Platforms

• Reinforced Concrete Structural Mat
• Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Mat

12
 Applications

• Embankment support
• Bridge approach fill support
• Bridge abutment and foundation support
• Road widening, rapid construction

Criteria for Successful Application

• Column spacing based on area replacement

ratio 7-20%
• Clear span between columns < 3 m (~ 10 ft)
• Embankment height greater than clear span
between columns
• LTP backfill friction angle > 35
• Columns designed to carry full embankment
load

13
 Construction Materials

Benefits of Pile Caps

• Reduce clear span
between columns
• Reduce potential for
punching failure
through embankment

14
 Load Transfer Platforms (LTP)
• Geosynthetic
reinforced soil
mass designed to
transfer load from
above the platform
to VCC’s, stone
columns, etc. below
the platform

What type of geosynthetic

reinforcement would you use
for this application?

• High Strength Woven Geotextile

• Uniaxial Geogrid
• Biaxial Geogrid

15
 Design
Concepts
– Failure
Modes

Design Concepts – Serviceability

State

16
 Column Design Steps
• Determine geotechnical characteristics of
foundation soil
• Determine load in columns
• Select preliminary column type/types
• Calculate column capacity and length
• Consider deformation characteristics of
column types (i.e., stone columns 30 –50%
settlement)

Column Load
Qr =  (De/2)2 (H +
q)

De = effective diameter
of column
H = height of
embankment
q = live and dead load
surcharge (typically
250 psf)
 = unit weight of the
embankment soil

17
 Preliminary Column Layout
• Column spacing 1.5m – Column loads 110-225 kN
(25-50 kips) for 3-10m high embankment

• Column spacing 3.0m – Column loads 400-1100

kN (90-250) for 3-10m high embankment

• Column costs typically represent 85-95% of

construction cost

Design Issues – Edge Stability

18
 Edge Stability

Lp = H (n-tanp)

n = side slope of the embankment

p = (45-emb/2)]
emb = effective friction angle of embankment fill

Lateral Spreading

19
 Lateral Spreading

Tls = Ka (H + q)H/2

Le = Tls /[H(ciembtan emb)]

Design Concepts – Geosynthetic

LTP Design

20
 LTP Design – Catenary
Assumptions

• Soil arch forms in embankment

• Reinforcement is deformed during loading
• One layer of reinforcement

LTP Design – Beam Theory

Assumptions
• Minimum three layers of reinforcement
• Spacing between layers 20-45 cm (8-18”)
• Platform thickness  ½ clear span between
columns
• Soil arch is fully developed within the
depth of the platform

21
 LTP Design Steps
• Select design method—see GeoTechTools
guidance
• Determine vertical load (WT) from the
embankment to be carried by the
geosynthetic
• Determine the tensile force in the
geosynthetic TRP
• Select reinforcement based on design
requirements

LTP Design – Definition of Terms

22
 What would you monitor
during construction?
• Column installation
• Geosynthetic reinforcement material type
• Reinforcement seam/overlap
• Geosynthetic reinforcement placement
• LTP fill placement and compaction
• Embankment fill placement and compaction

Quality Control Monitoring Column

Installation
• Cast-in-place • Driven
Grout/stone/sand/etc. Driving resistance
quantity Hammer efficiency
Strength testing (i.e, PDA
grout cubes, cores etc.)
Length, blows per
In-situ foot
testing/verification
Hammer size
Length,diameter
Load test
spacing of columns
Load test

23
 Contracting Approaches
• Complete design & construction execution
specified

• End result or performance approach with

geometric & design criteria specified

24
 DFI–CSCE Workshop

Aggregate Columns

Aggregate Columns

Basic Function
Aggregate Columns are a ground improvement
method that uses compacted aggregate to
create stiff pier elements. Aggregate Columns
help increase bearing capacity, shear strength,
rate of consolidation, and liquefaction
resistance; and reduces settlement.

Aggregate Columns are either Aggregate Piers

or Stone Columns

25
 Aggregate Columns

Advantages
 Rapid installation
 Cost effective compared to other foundations
options
 Creates an additional drainage path and accelerates
consolidation
 Allows for high level of compaction
 Efficient QC/QA procedures

Aggregate Columns

Description
 Aggregate Piers are a ground improvement system that
places aggregate in predrilled holes to form stiff, high
density aggregate piers. As the aggregate is rammed to
form the piers, the aggregate is forced laterally into the
sidewalls of the hole, partially densifying the surrounding
soil.
 Stone Columns are columns formed with densified gravel or
crushed rock in a pattern to create a composite foundation
of the columns and the surrounding soil. The stiff columns
carry a larger load than the surrounding soil to increase
strength and capacity and reduce settlement.

26
 Aggregate Columns
Geologic Applicability
 Clays, silts, loose silt and sand, uncompacted fill, stiff
clays, and medium dense sands.
 Recommended in soft clays with an undrained shear
strength greater than 400 psf but has been used in clays
with a strength as low as 150 psf.
 Bulging columns is a concern in soft clays.
 Particle sizes and shape of the column infill material
depends on the construction technique used, but generally
ranged from ½ in to 3 in.
 Elevated water tables and cohesionless soils complicate the
installation.
 Construction may be difficult in soft clays and loose sands,
necessitating casing of the borehole

Aggregate Columns
Construction Methods
• Aggregate Piers: 24- to 36–inch (600 to 900 mm) diameter holes
are drilled into the foundation soils. The holes normally reach
depths of 7 to 30 feet (2 to 9 m) below grade. Casings are
needed for cohesionless soils where the water table is above the
depth of the pier. Lifts of well-graded aggregate are rammed
into the holes. The first lift is open graded aggregate forms a
bulb at the bottom of the pier. The subsequent compacted lifts
are typically 12 inches deep. A high-energy beveled tamper
mounted on excavator equipment is used to compact the
aggregate.
• Stone Columns: Can be installed by water jetting, referred to as
vibro-replacement or a wet, top feed method. The rock is
densified by the vibratory probes as they are withdrawn from
the ground.

27
 Aggregate Columns
Potential Disadvantages
 Limited treatment depth.
 Lack of bending resistance.
 Difficult to install in clean sands when the groundwater
table is above the bottom of the pier.
 Not applicable of wide heavy load applications.
 With the wet technique of installation, the jetting water
must be disposed.
 Uncertain whether all stone reaches the bottom of the
hole using the dry-construction method.
 Soft soils may not provide adequate lateral support for the
columns.
 Some techniques are proprietary

Aggregate Columns-Applications

• Support of embankments
• Support of structures
• Improvement of slope stability

28
 Stone Columns
• Introduction of
backfill material into
the soil to form dense
columns that are
tightly interlocked
with the surrounding
soil

Related Technologies
• Rammed aggregate piers (Geopiers)
• Geotextile encased columns (GEC)
• Vibro-concrete columns (VCC)

29
 Suitable Soils – Stone Columns
Gravel Sand Silt Clay
100
Percent Finer by Weight

80

Stone Columns
60

40
Vibro-compaction
20

0
10 5 2 1.0 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.001
Particle Size, mm

Stone Column Construction Methods

• Wet top feed - vibro-replacement

• Dry bottom feed - vibro-displacement

30
Wet Top Feed – Vibro-Replacement
Original stone column installation technique
• High pressure jet of water to open hole which
probe follows into the ground
• Probe retracted in increments and stone
introduced into void from the surface
• Best suited for sites with soft to firm soils
(cu = 15 to 50 kN/m2 (300 to 1000 psf) and
high groundwater table

Stone Placement

31
 Dry Top and Bottom Feed –
Vibro-Displacement
• Jetting water effluent from wet top feed
method causes environmental problems
• Dry top/bottom feed methods developed to
solve these problems
For shorter stone columns stone can still be feed
down annulus
For deep treatment stone is feed to the bottom
of the vibrator through auxiliary tube

Dry Bottom Feed Method

32
 Applications
• Embankment stabilization
• Bridge approach fill stabilization
• Bridge abutment and foundation support
• Liquefaction mitigation

Feasibility Evaluation - Stone Columns

• Typical column diameters 0.45 – 1.2 m (1.5 – 4 ft)
• Allowable design load to approximately 500 kN (110
Kips) per column
• Most favorable outcome in compressible silts and
clays (undrained shear strength 50 – 100 kN/m2
(300-1000 psf))
• Depth 30 m (100 ft) max – typical range 10-15 m (35-
50 ft )
• Settlement reduction range 30 to 50% of unimproved

33
 Feasibility Evaluation - Rammed
Aggregate Piers
• Soils most favorable –soft to medium stiff
clays with undrained shear strengths > 15
kN/m2 (300 psf)
• Typical lengths 5-10 m (15-35 ft)
• Typical allowable load capacity 225-650 kN
(50-150 kips)
• Settlement < 25 mm (1 inch)

Feasibility Evaluation – VCC

Vibro-concrete columns
• Typical column diameters 45-60 cm (10-13 in)
• Typical allowable design loads 650-900 kN/m2
(150-300 kips)
• Soils most favorable – very soft clays and
organic soils
• Typical lengths 5-10 m (15-35 ft)

34
 Feasibility Evaluation – GEC
Geotextile encased columns
• Soils most favorable – very soft clays and
organic soils
• Typical lengths 5-10 m (15-35 ft)
• Typical column diameters 0.7-0.9 m (28-36 in)
• Typical allowable load capacity 175-350 kN
(40-80 kips)

Construction Equipment and

Materials

35
 Equipment for Stone Columns

• Vibrator
 Wet
 Dry

36
37
 Backfill Material for Stone
Columns
• Vibro-replacement
Stone or gravel: 25 to 60 mm (1 to 2½ inch)
• Vibro-displacement
Top feed: 10 to 100 mm (3/8 to 4 inch)
Bottom feed: 10 to 35 mm (3/8 to 1 3/8 inch)

38
 Geopier Rammed Aggregate Piers
• Patented process (1993)
• Applications to date include support of
structures and retaining walls on shallow
compressible foundation soils

Geopiers

39
40
 Design Methods
FHWA design guidance for stone columns
available in Barksdale & Bachus 1983 and
FHWA-NHI Ground Improvement manual
(2006). Geopier® design provided by
proprietary methods.
• A final design will usually consist of the
number, diameter, length, spacing, and
geometrical arrangement of aggregate
columns and the required properties of the
compacted stone after installation.

41
 Aggregate Column Design Concepts
• Design for bearing capacity
• Design for settlement
• Design for uplift capacity
• Design for shear strength increase
• Design for seismicity

Stone Columns – Bearing Capacity

1. Cavity expansion theory (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983a, and Elias et al. 2006a).
2. General bearing capacity and punching
failure (Barksdale and Bachus 1983a).
3. Wedge failure method (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983a)
4. Undrained shear strength method (Mitchell
1981b, Barksdale and Bachus 1983a, and
Elias et al. 2006a).
5. Priebe’s method (Priebe 1995).

42
 Aggregate Piers – Bearing Capacity
1. Cavity expansion theory (White and
Suleiman 2004, and Wissman et al. 2001b).
2. A modified Terzaghi lower bound approach
(Collin 2007a, Hall et al. 2002, and Wissman
et al. 2001b).

Aggregate Columns – Bearing Capacity

• A conservative determination of the overall

bearing capacity for both stone columns and
rammed aggregate piers is obtained by
neglecting the support contribution of the
soft matrix soil. In this case the bearing
capacity depends only on the vertical
supporting capacity of the individual columns.

43
Aggregate Columns – Bearing Capacity
′

• Using cavity expansion theory it can be shown

that:
′ 25 ⁄

where F = factor of safety

Stone Columns - Unit Cell Concept

44
 Design Variables
Astone column
Area replacement ratio: S 
A

 stone column
Stress ratio: n
 cohesive soil

Settlement w / o columns
Settlement ratio: N 
Settlement w / columns

Design Variables
• Typical spacing 1.5 - 3.5 m (5 – 11.5 ft)
• Typical diameter 0.9 - 1.1 m (3 – 3.6 ft)
• Replacement ratio 0.2 - 0.4
• Stress ratio 2-6
• Settlement ratio 1.5 - 6
• Column loads < 500 kN/column
(110 kips/column)

45
 Stress Distribution
On unimproved soil:
q
 in  situ soil 
1  n  1 
On improved soil:
nq
 stone column 
1  n  1 
Where: n = stress concentration ratio
q = total stress on foundation
 = area ratio

Design Process Embankment Stability

• Determine global stability without stone

columns
• Assume area replacement ratio
• Assume stress ratio (2.5 for stability)
• Determine global shear strength
• Perform stability analysis
• Iterate if necessary

46
 Design Considerations for Global
Stability
• Global shear strength () is function of the
area replacement ratio (as) (spacing and
diameter), the shear strength of the
unimproved soil, and the frictional strength of
the stone in the column
 = (1-astone column)c + astone column v tan 

Preliminary Estimate of
Settlement Reduction
• Perform settlement analysis without stone
columns
• Empirically determine for the area
replacement ratio the settlement ratio
• Iterate if necessary with different area
replacement ratio

47
 Stone Columns – Settlement
1. Equilibrium method (Mitchell 1981b, and
Barksdale and Bachus 1983a).
2. Greenwood method (Barksdale and Bachus
1983a).
3. Finite element method design charts
(Barksdale and Bachus 1983a).
4. Priebe’s method (Priebe 1995).

48
 Aggregate Piers – Bearing Capacity
1. Two-layer approach (see references in
technology product sheet).
i. Specialized methods for upper layer
ii. Conventional geotech methods for lower layer
2. Suleiman and White approach (Suleiman and
White 2006).

Bearing Capacity (ultimate load

capacity) of Stone Columns
qult = cNc

qult = ultimate bearing capacity of stone column

C = undrained shear strength of surrounding

cohesive soil

Nc = bearing capacity factor for stone columns

(18  Nc  22)

49
 Liquefaction Mitigation
• Effective in densifying silty sands (<25%
fines)
• Improvement of these soils is achieved by a
combination of densification, reinforcement
and drainage (increase density, increase soil
confinement, control pore pressure
development)

QC/QA Methods
FHWA design guidance for stone columns available in
Barksdale & Bachus 1983 and FHWA-NHI Ground
Improvement manual (2006). Geopier® design
provided by proprietary methods.
• Inspections, construction observations, daily logs, and record
keeping are essential QC/QA activities for all technologies.
These activities help to ensure and/or verify that:
• Good construction practices and the project specifications are
followed.
• Problems can be anticipated before they occur, in some cases.
• Problems that do arise are caught early, and their cause can
oftentimes be identified.
• All parties are in good communication.
• The project stays on schedule.

50
 QC/QA Methods – Stone Columns
• Gradation, specific gravity, loose density, and compacted
density tests on the stone to be installed
• Minimum column diameter and compacted density of the stone
• During construction, stone consumption, in terms of buckets of
a known weight or volume, monitored as a function of depth.
• For each stone column
• Location
• Measurement of rig verticality
• Elevation of top and bottom of each stone column
• Number of buckets of stone backfill in each stone column
• Amperage achieved as a function of depth.
• Time to penetrate and time to form each stone column
• Details of obstructions, delays, and any unusual ground
conditions
• Digital data log of amperage, depth, and stone consumption

QC/QA Methods – Geopiers®

• Gradation, specific gravity, hardness of stone
• Minimum column diameter and compacted density of the stone
• For each geopier
• Footing and pier location.
• Pier length and drilled diameter.
• Planned and actual pier elevations at the top and bottom.
• The number of lifts and time of tamping for each lift placed.
• Average lift thickness for each pier.
• Documentation of any unusual conditions encountered (e.g.,
sloughing).
• Type and size of densification equipment used
• Bottom STAbilization test (BSTA) is used to verify piers have
an adequate stabilized bottom involving re-tamping the bottom
of the piers to verify that displacement is within acceptable
limits.

51
 QC/QA Methods – Aggregate Columns
• Post-construction QC/QA is dependent on the specific
application and the type of ground in which the stone columns
are installed.
• In-situ testing (SPT, CPT, or PMT) conducted at central points
between the columns. Penetration resistance should be
verified against values that were used to determine column
spacing.
• The Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) is used in upper reaches of
geopiers to verify density.
• If the columns are to support a structure or embankment, load
tests are sometimes required to determine the short-term capacity
and settlement of the column. Short-term load tests should be
conducted (versions of ASTM D1143, Standard Test Methods for
Deep Foundations Under Static Axial Compressive Load) on
individual columns after all pore pressures induced by construction
have dissipated.

Budget Estimate – Stone Columns

• Minimum cost of stone backfill can account
for over 40% of total cost (will vary from
site to site)
• Minimum cost of vibro-replacement
$45/lm ($14 / lft)
• Minimum cost vibro-displacement starts at
$60/lm ($18 / lft)
• Site specific load test costs
• Verification costs

52
 Budget Estimate - Geopiers®
• Mob/Demob minimum $5,000 - $15,000 /rig

• Cost per pier $75/lm ($23 / lft)

• Modulus test $5,000 each

53