Embankment Construction on Extremely Soft Soils Using Controlled

Modulus Columns for Highway 2000 Project in Jamaica

C. Plomteux & M. Lacazedieu
Menard Soltraitement, Nozay, France
info@menard-soltraitement.com

Abstract: The Highway 2000 Project consists of the construction of a new expressway out of Kingston, Jamaica. It is a 3-lane dual
carriageway extending over 7 kilometers. The construction involved bridges with one crossing the Hunt Bay, interchanges, a 25-lane
toll plaza and several service buildings and other structures. The road alignment passes over mangrove swamps and pond areas where
the ground condition is predominantly soft and compressible peat and organic clay up to depth of more than 20 m. Controlled Modulus
Columns are used to improve the bearing capacity of the underlying soft soils and to reduce post construction settlement. This paper
presents the design of the ground improvement works and the construction procedure.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Ground Improvement with Semi-Rigid Inclusions

The concept of semi-rigid inclusions is fairly old. A networks of
wooden piles installed under ancient churches are indeed one of
the first examples of such applications. The concept is to improve
the soil globally with the use of semi-rigid soil reinforcement
columns.
These semi-rigid inclusions can be installed using various
construction methods such as by percussion, vibration, soil displacement, etc. The objective is to obtain an improved ground
condition with an increase bearing capacity compatible with the
structure to be built. This method of ground improvement does
not bypass the compressible soil layers as in the case of installing
rigid piles where the piles support the entire imposed load but to
improve the soil globally and to reduce its deformability.
The principle of Controlled Modulus Columns (hereinafter
simply referred to as CMC) is to form a composite material.
These columns are usually associated with a load distribution
platform made of good quality well compacted granular material
that distribute the loads uniformly throughout the soil mass.
1.2 Controlled Modulus Columns
The CMC uses a displacement auger powered by an equipment
with very large torque capacity and very high downward thrust,
which displaces the soil laterally with virtually no spoil or vibration. The auger is screwed into the soil and when the required
depth or a preset drilling criterion is reached, a highly workable
grout-cement mixture is pumped through the center of the hollow
auger. The cement grout then flows under low pressure (typically
less than 5 bars) out of the auger base as it is retracting. This results in a 100% cement grout column that can be used in close
vicinity of sensitive structures due to its non-vibratory augering
process. This method of construction generates virtually no
above ground spoils and no soil mixing takes place during the
low-pressure grouting process. Fig. 1 shows the CMC installation
process.
The aim is to develop an optimum distribution of load between the soil and the columns while developing the full potential of the founding strata. The dimensions, spacing, and material

of the CMC are based upon the development of an optimum

combination of support coming from the columns and the soil
mass in-between the CMCs to limit post construction settlements to within the allowable limits. In doing so, the design
value for the equivalent deformation modulus of the improved
soil is calculated.

Fig. 1 CMC installation process

In the close vicinity of the CMC as shown in Fig. 2, deformation and stress fields are modified accordingly. The embankment
loads induce a settlement of wp(z) on the CMC. This is added to
its own elastic compression of the CMC inclusion. At the lower
part of the soil layer (z > h), settlement of the soil is smaller than
the elastic compression / settlement of the CMC inclusion. This
is the opposite of that appears in the upper part of the soil layer (z
< h). The point where z = h is the neutral point where settlement
of the soil and settlement of the inclusion are equal.
The head of the CMC inclusion punches through the soft
soil into the embankment fill by an amount equivalent to ws(0)wp(0). At this juncture, the head of the CMC behaves as an anchorage plate embedded at depth hr (being the thickness of the
embankment) and hence, developing traction forces from the surface. An equivalent resisting force Q is thus mobilized depending

on hr and the quality and degree of compaction of the embankment fill material.

wp(0)

wp(0)

ws(0)

ws(0)

w(z)

h
L

wp(L)

wp(L)

a twenty-five lanes toll plaza and several service buildings and

structures.
2.2 Ground Conditions
The road alignment passes through mangrove swamps and pond
areas with extremely soft and highly compressible soil deposits.
Thick layers of soft clay and peat were detected down to depths
of 12 to 21 m. The ground condition was variable along the road
alignment with over 50% of the area having a dense sand layer
sandwiched in-between the top layer of peat (qc = 0.3 MPa, Cu =
7 kPa, e0 > 6, w > 300%) and soft organic clay layer below.
A typical soil profile at the location of the interchange embankment is shown in Fig. 4 and details given in Table 1.
Table 1 Typical soil properties at Fort Augusta Interchange

Description

Fig. 2 Settlement distribution along the CMC inclusion

1.1 - Fill
1.2 - Peat
1.3 - Medium
sand
1.4 - Clay
1.5 - Clayed
sand
1.6 - Sand

Finally, stress distribution occurs and it reaches equilibrium

over the full length of the CMC inclusion with the four main
components of acting forces being:
-

The vertical load Q on the head of the CMC, behaving as an

anchorage plate;

The resultant Fn of negative skin friction, applied over the

thickness h on the inclusion (h is smaller than the length of
the CMC inclusion);

The resultant Fp of positive skin friction, mobilized on the

lower part of the inclusion over a thickness L h; and

Elevation
From
To
(m)
(m)
+3.0
+1.0
+1.0
-8.0

4/5
0.1 - 0.2

6 - 10
0

CPT qc
(MPa)

(blows /
30cm)

-8.0

-11.0

18

12 - 20

20

-11.0

-16.0

15.5

0.5

0-2

-16.0

-17.5

18

4-6

10

-17.5

bottom

18

20

25

Rf (%)

qc (MPa)
10

NSPT

Bulk
density
(kN/m3)
18
11

20

0 4% 8%

u2 (MPa)
0 0.1

0.5
1

The tip resistance Qp in the anchorage layer

At equilibrium state, Q + Fn = Fp + Qp is valid. This condition

of equilibrium necessarily requires some amount of settlement
from the CMC inclusion.
2

PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF A HIGHWAY IN JAMAICA

qc

2.1 Highway 2000 Project

The Highway 2000 Project consists of constructing a new three
lanes dual carriageway expressway out of Kingston. The total
distance is more than 7 kilometers.

10

15

20

(m)

Fig. 4 Typical CPTU results at Fort Augusta interchange.

The effect of a seismic event on the project is generally considered to be a force majeure. However, for the bridges and access embankments, the DBE (design basis for earthquake) has
adopted the following parameters:
Fig. 3 Road alignment for Highway 2000
The project comprises of two 8 to 10 m high box bridges and
access embankment interchange (Fort Augusta interchange and
Dawkins Drive interchange), one main bridge crossing Hunt Bay,

Earthquake magnitude: Mw = 7.5

Peak ground acceleration: aN = 0.3 g

Predominant period (Kingston harbor) : T = 0.5 s

equivalent number of uniform stress cycles Neq=30

2.3 Failure Analysis

One of the major concerns was the stability of the embankment
under static and seismic conditions. The horizontal displacement
under consolidation process may amount to about 25% to 30% of
the induced vertical settlement. Hence, the CMC inclusions need
to resist horizontal stress and displacement under static embankment load and under seismic conditions.
Rigid inclusions installed through soft soil while supporting
embankment load develop two stabilizing effects against potential failure surface (Fig. 5):
- A vertical reaction Ri supporting a significant part of the embankment weight which may accounts for about 60 to 90%
depending on grid, embankment thickness and type of soil;
and
- A sub-horizontal reaction Ti that develops a resisting shear
force directly opposing the potential shear failure surface.

Fig. 6 Calculation scheme for evaluation of Induced shear force

and bending moment under imposed deformation field
In this scheme, applied stresses on the CMC are calculated using a finite difference elastic-plastic calculation following Eq.
(1):
. = Ks B y

Soil displacement

where : differential pressure of the soil between each side of

the CMC with limited to the pressuremeter creep pressure pf,
y : differential displacement between soil and inclusion
Ks.B : reaction modulus of the soil applied over the width
B of the CMC, deducted from pressuremeter parameters
according to Eq. (2):
Embankment

KsB =

Ri

Soft soil

Ti
Potential shear
failure surface

Substratum

The resisting shear force is induced by the differential displacement of the soil along each side of the potential failure surface which creates a differential soil displacement field and resisting solicitations around the inclusion (Fig. 5). The calculation
scheme involves the following steps:
Evaluation of the vertical reaction Ri in the CMC inclusion
which depends on the embankment height, CMC spacing and
diameter;

Calculation of the maximum allowable bending moment Mi

in the CMC which is limited by acceptable stresses in CMC
material according to Eq. (3);

Calculation of the shear stress capacity Ti of the CMC in

such displacement field which is determined by the maximum allowable bending moment in the CMC inclusion. The
shear stress is evaluated using Eq. (1) for rigid inclusion under horizontal displacement of soil;

Model inclusion as soil-nails where vertical compression Ri

and shear forces Ti are imposed. Stability calculations are
implemented with Bishops global method in which factor
of safety applied on the allowable shear stress in the soil.

Fig. 6 shows the calculation scheme for evaluation of induced

shear force and bending moment.

12Em
4
2.65 +
3

(2)

Knowing the axial vertical stress Ri, the maximum allowable

bending moment on the CMC is then calculated from the acceptable maximum compression and tensile stresses in CMC material
which is as follow:
-

Compression stress limited to 5 MPa

Maximum offset M / N limited to D / 8 with D being the diameter of the CMC.

No tensile stress in the CMC material

Fig. 5 Resisting forces to slope failure

(1)

Under combined axial force Ri and bending moment Mi, extreme

stresses in the CMC (diameter D) are given by Eq. (3):

Ri

Mi

.D 4 .D 3 32
2

(3)

Allowable shear stress in the CMC inclusions during potential

slope failure thus corresponds to the shear stress obtained for the
soil deformation field that creates the maximum allowable bending moment in the inclusion, as calculated using Eq. (3).
This scheme thus allows to calculate the resisting shear force
Ti in each CMC inclusions during potential slope failure and to
calculate the global factor of safety against slope failure of the
CMC supported embankment.
Under seismic conditions, free field soil deformation and correlated seismic coefficient applied to any element of soil, are superimposed to the static deformation and stress field in order to
evaluate the updated resisting shear force Ti in each CMC inclusion.



a d m = 5 MP a
M = N

a d m = 5
M =

MP a

(b)

Fig. 8(a) Stability and (b) settlement analysis for Fort Augusta
interchange access embankment

Fig. 7 CMC under combined vertical load and bending moment

2.4 Fort Augusta Interchange
Fort Augusta overpass is located between main road CH 4+800
and CH 5+100. For the main access embankment, the final level
reaches elevation +13.4m and the embankment height thus varies
from 2.0 m to 10.1 m.
2.4.1 Ground improvement solution
The proposed ground treatment consisted of installating CMC inclusions down to the sand layer #1.6 (cf. Table 1) under the road
embankment and the box bridge. Ground improvement with
CMC is associated with a geosynthetic wrap-around type of embankment construction with a steep side slope of 1H:4V.
The extent of CMC was limited to areas where embankment
height is greater than 2.5 m (necessary to create a decent load
transfer platform). For embankment lower than 2.5 m, vertical
drains and surcharge were implemented.
Fig. 8 shows the stability analysis and settlement calculation
for Fort Augusta Interchange Access Embankment. Fig. 9 shows
the embankment supported on CMC inclusions.

Fig. 9 Wrap around embankment construction

Anticipated total settlement under the embankment and live
loads is about 200 mm, with a residual settlement over 35 years
of about 40 mm.
2.4.2 Foundation of the bridge

(a)

Foundation of the box bridge on piles would increase the differential settlement between the embankment and the bridge. To
minimize differential settlement, it was decided to found the
bridge on CMC inclusions in the same way as the access embankment.

Because of the different load conditions, the grid spacing of

the CMC inclusions is revised to 2.0 m centre-to-centre square
grid under the box bridge in order to obtain similar residual settlement under structure and the embankments.

specific treatment. Peat and clay material have liquid limit LL >
40% with plasticity index IP > 20%, and are thus not considered
liquefiable. Dense sandy layers # 2.4 and # 2.6, where NSPT = 20
to 35 and qc = 12.5 MPa, are too dense to liquefy.

Future bridge
CMC grid
1.4 m 1.4 m

CMC grid
2.0 m 2.0 m

CMC grid
1.4 m 1.4 m

CMC installation

Fig. 10 Design of CMC under box bridge at Fort Augusta interchange

Design method used is based on the estimation of equivalent
deformation modulus of the soil treated with CMC using Eq. (4).
The improved ground acts like a composite material with apparent equivalent modulus deduced from the vertical displacement
measured above the load distribution platform and below the tip
of the CMC where settlement are homogeneous over the whole
surface:

E oed =

h
h

(4)

where h is the differential settlement between the top of the

load distribution platform and the tip of the CMC;
h is the distance between those two points,
is the applied loading,
Eoed is the equivalent oedometric modulus of the reinforced ground.
The estimated settlements are presented in Table 2. It shows
limited differential settlement at the connections with the bridge
and acceptable residual settlement over the whole structure.
Table 2 Total and residual settlement at Fort Augusta Overpass
Profile Wrap-around embankment
Embankment height
10.1 m
Total long-term settlement under embankment
185 mm
loads
Total settlement under road traffic
17 mm
Residual settlement over 35 years
40 mm
Differential settlement between embankment and
5 mm
bridge

2.5 Hunt Bay Bridge

Hunt Bay Bridge North Approach starts at CH 2+400 and finishes at CH 2+770. The new three lanes dual carriageway bridge
crosses Hunt Bay along the existing bridge at the mouth of the
bay (Fig. 11). The final level reaches elevation +11.1m and the
embankment height varies from 2.0m to 12.0 m.

Fig. 11 Existing Hunts bay bridge and new bridge under construction
Table 3 Particular soil profile for Hunt Bay bridge
Elevation
Bulk
From
To
qc
Description
density
(m)
(m)
(MPa)
3
(kN/m )
2.1- Water
+2.5
-1.0
10
2.2- medium
-1.0
-2.5
18
3.0
sand
2.3- clayed peat
-2.5
-4.0
12
0.5
2.4- Silty sand
-4.0
-7.5
18
12
2.5- Organic
-7.5
-10.0
15.5
0.4
clay
2.6- Sand
-10.0
-12.0
18
13
2.7- Clayed
-12.0
-15.5
18
2.0
sand
2.8- Stiff sand
-15.5
-18.5
18
20.0
2.9- Stiff clay
-18.5
bottom
17
3.5

4-6
4
15 - 20
4
20 - 25
8
30
15 - 25

2.5.2 Ground improvement solution

The ground improvement solution includes the use of CMC inclusions associated with a specific consolidation program and
anti-liquefaction drainage system at bridge abutment. This design
scheme results in the following steps:
-

Estimation of settlement of the soil layers improved by the

CMC inclusions (i.e. layers # 2.1 to 2.6) under embankment
and traffic loads. This is made with 2D plane-strain FEM calculations;

Estimation of long-term residual settlement of the deep clay

layers that are not directly treated with CMC columns (i.e.
layers # 2.7) under embankment load. This is evaluated with
classical consolidation calculations;

Stability calculations are made with a shear-failure analysis

( 2.3) using TALREN software - Bishop method to assess
static factor of safety against slope failure, and limiting horizontal and vertical earthquake acceleration against stability
(Fig. 12);

2.5.1 Particular soil conditions

Because of its particular location at the mouth of the bay,
ground conditions in this area are slightly different from the rest
of the project and comprise several medium dense sand and silty
clay layers as presented in Table 3.
The medium sand layer # 2.2 where NSPT = 4 to 6 and qc = 2 to
4 MPa, together with the new platform layer (qc = 2 to 6 MPa) up
to water level (+2.50) are considered liquefiable and require a

NSPT
(blows /
30cm)

A specific treatment at bridge abutment was implemented to

ensure stability of the embankment under Design Basis
Earthquake conditions ( 2.5.3);

Factor of safety against liquefaction is calculated according

to simplified method (NCEER, 1996 and NCEER/NSF
Workshops, 1998)

Without any treatment, factor of safety against liquefaction at

Hunt Bay bridge abutment was estimated to be 0.42. Installation
of CMC has two stabilizing effects concerning liquefaction potential:
-

CMC uses a displacement auger that displaced the soil laterally without any extraction of soil. In the case of loose sand,
the driving of a group of conical displacement columns, with
a replacement ratio of 1.5 to 6%, results in an immediate
compaction of the soil with densification ratio of 1.5 to 6%
(which is equivalent to multiply the SPT blow count by 1.3
to 2.8). This additional compaction tends to decrease the contractancy of the loose sand, and thus decreases its liquefaction potential;

CMC columns are designed and reinforced in order to resist

to the lateral displacement and shear stresses induced during
a seismic event. The reinforced soil thus acts as a composite
material whose shear resistance is greater than the shear resistance of the natural soil due to the presence of the rigid inclusions.

The ground improvement scheme consisted of installation of

CMC inclusions down to sand layer # 2.6, resulting in 12 to 15 m
length CMC inclusions. Treatment is limited to areas where embankment height is greater than 2.5 m (necessary to create a decent load transfer platform). When embankment height is lower
than 2.5 m, vertical drains and surcharge was implemented.

min =1.4

Fig. 12 Stability assessment for Hunt Bay bridge access embankment

The underlying soft to medium soft clayed-sand layer was not
treated with CMC. A surcharge program was implemented in order to reduce long-term residual settlement to satisfy the technical specifications. The consolidation program involved 2 months
consolidation at Working Platform Level + 3.5 m (+7.0), 2
months consolidation at Final Platform Level + 1.5 m (+12.6)
and 5 months consolidation at Final Platform Level during road
construction. Estimated settlements are presented in Table 4.
Table 4 Total and residual settlement at Hunts bay bridge
Profile: At CH. 2+770
Embankment height
12 m
Total long-term settlement under embankment
275 mm
loads
Total settlement under road traffic
4.3 mm
Residual settlement over 35 years
78 mm
Residual settlement after construction resulting from this consolidation program was less than 80 mm over 35 years. Most of it
will complete in the first 5 years. To deal with long term secondary consolidation and differential movement between pilled
bridges and the new embankment, two resurfacing are forecasted
during the concession period.
2.5.3 Anti-liquefaction treatment
The assessment of factor of safety against liquefaction follows
the simplified procedure, as outlined by PIANC (2001). This approach is based on an assessment of the seismic load defined by
the cyclic stress ratio, CSR, and the capacity of the soil to withstand liquefaction, the cyclic resistance ratio CRR.

The global increase in the factor of safety against liquefaction induced by the installation of CMC inclusions was estimated to an
approximate multiplication factor of 2.5 i.e. the factor of safety
can be increased by 2.5 (FS = 1.03) by the presence of the CMC
inclusions.
In order to provide an additional increase in the factor of
safety against liquefaction up to an acceptable value, the proposed solution was to install anti-liquefaction drains in order to
prevent any excess pore water pressure build up in the liquefiable
soil during an earthquake. Liquefaction parameters taken into account in the design of the liquefaction remediation drains are the
following:
-

kH = 10-5 m/s is the coefficient of permeability of the loose

sand in the horizontal direction;

mv3 = 1/Eoed =1.25.10-4 m/kN is the coefficient of volume

compressibility of the loose sand;

td = Neq T = 30 0.5 = 15 s;

a = 0.05 m is the equivalent radius of the vertical drains

based on perimeter;

As a consequence,

Tad =

kH

td
w mv 3 .a 2

= 48

(5)

For practical purposes, the irregular cyclic loading induced by

Design Basis Earthquake is converted into an equivalent number
Neq of uniform stress cycles, occurring in some duration td of
earthquake shaking. The relationship between the excess hydrostatic pore water pressure u and the number of cycle of alternating shear stress N can be expressed in terms of number of cycle
Nl required to cause initial liquefaction.
With Hunt Bay bridge soil conditions and for magnitude Mw =
7.5, the number of cycles Nl required to cause initial liquefaction
is Nl = 15, and thus Neq / Nl = 2.
Under the assumptions of purely radial flow, the pore water
pressure ratio ru = u / 0 throughout the sand and vertical drains
system is calculated from Fig. 13.

Fig. 13 Relationship between greatest pore pressure ratio rg and

drain system parameters for Neq / Nl = 2 (Seed & Booker, 1976)
Following assessments of induced displacements during pore
water pressure build up in the liquefiable sand, the value rg = u /
0 = 0.4 was considered acceptable, imposing a / b = 0.2 (Fig.
13) with b = 0.25 m so that a drain spacing of 2 b = 0.5 m was
adopted in order to prevent liquefaction of the considered soil
layers. In this calculation, the permeability of the drains was assumed to be infinite. In practice, the actual permeability and potential clogging of the drains will slightly reduce their effectiveness.
A regular square grid of vertical drains, with center-to-centre
spacing of 0.5 m was installed down to clay layer # 2.3 prior to
CMC installation.

CONCLUSION

The Highway 2000 Project in Jamaica proves to be a unique case

history of adapting various ground improvement methods to satisfy the technical and performance requirements.
CMC inclusions were used to provide necessary bearing capacity and to reduce post construction settlement for embankment varying from 2.5 m to 10 m height at the Fort Augusta Interchange.
At the Hunt Bay bridge, beside bearing capacity and post construction settlement criteria for the embankment up to 12m
height, liquefaction potential of the underlying subsoil poses additional requirement. Two types of treatments namely, installation of liquefaction remediation drains to prevent pore water
pressure build up during earthquakes and installation of CMC inclusions resulting in densification of the loose sand and increase
in global shear resistance of the soil were used in combination for
anti-liquefaction treatment..

REFERENCES
Combarieu, O. 1988. Amlioration des sols par inclusions rigides
verticales application ldification de remblais sur sols
mdiocres, Revue Franaise de gotechnique n44: 57-59
Combarieu, O. 1988. Calcul dune fondation mixte, Note
dinformation mixte LCPC
Seed R. & Booker J. 1976. Stabilization of potentially liquefiable
sand deposits using gravel drain systems, ASCE GT Journal
407 p201-255
Youd T. L. & Al. 2001. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on Evaluation on Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
Journal of Geotechnical and environmental engineering / October 2001 / 817