Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers

Volume 169 Issue GE2
The boundary between deep foundations
and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin
Geotechnical Engineering 169 April 2016 Issue GE2
Pages 201213 http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgeen.15.00062
Paper 1500062
Received 15/03/2015 Accepted 16/11/2015
Published online 08/02/2016
Keywords: columns/foundations/piles & piling

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

The boundary between deep

foundations and ground
improvement
&
1 Babak Hamidi BEng, MEng, PhD &
3 Jerome Racinais BEng, MEng
Marketing Manager, GFWA, Perth, Australia Technical and Scientific Director, Menard, Nozay, France
(corresponding author: b.hamidi@gfwa.com.au) &
4 Serge Varaksin BEng, MEng
&
2 Frederic Masse BEng, MEng Technical Advisor, Apageo, Paris, France
President, Menard USA, Carnegie, PA, USA

1 2 3 4

Deep foundations by implementation of piles have been the historical and conventional solution for supporting heavy
loads in low-strength or highly compressible soils. During recent decades, however, ground improvement has
successfully been able to provide competitive and economical technical foundation solutions by increasing the
grounds mechanical properties, thereby increasing bearing capacity and reducing total, differential and creep
settlements. Controlled modulus columns are formed by installing cementitious columnar rigid inclusions into soft
ground, and can be considered as the boundary between the classical deep foundations and ground improvement
technologies. These elements have a pile-like appearance, but are designed as ground improvement inclusions. This
paper discusses the concept of the controlled modulus column, its design philosophy and the way it behaves; a case
study of the world record for depth of a controlled modulus column installation is also presented to demonstrate its
application.

Notation L inclusion length

Ac area of columnar inclusion Lmax horizontal distance required from edge of inclusion
AE area of one unit cell of soil and inclusion for the Prandtl failure mechanism to fully develop
As area of soil in unit cell (Asiri)
a size (or diameter) of pile caps (assuming full support Nc coefficient
can be generated at the edges of the caps) Nq coefficient
b pile cap width Nq* coefficient
Ca arching coefficient N coefficient
c cohesion of load transfer platform n stress distribution ratio
D inclusion diameter Q vertical load
E column efficacy q0 uniformly distributed external load (Asiri)
Es modulus of elasticity of soil q+p stress at inclusion head
H height of embankment (British standard, Hewlett q+p,d allowable limit stress in load transfer platform at
and Randolph (1988)) inclusion head
Hc maximum load transfer platform thickness without q+p (L) inclusion head edge limit stress
failure shear cones overlapping q+p (P) inclusion head limit stress calculated from Prandtls
HM thickness of load transfer platform failure mechanism
Hs thickness of compressible soil q+s stress in the in situ soil
hc critical depth R radius of unit cell
hg arching height Rc upper radius of shear cones
Kp Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient rp inclusion radius

201
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
s inclusion centreline spacing
sd diagonal column centreline spacing
sx column centreline spacing in x direction
sy column centreline spacing in y direction
Ws(o) soil surface settlement
ws uniformly distributed surcharge loading
z depth
replacement ratio
unit weight of embankment fill or load transfer
platform
c material partial factor
material partial factor
material partial factor
average stress on unit cell
c stress in inclusion
c vertical stress on pile caps
s stress in soil
v;d allowable stress
v average vertical stress at base of embankment
z0 uniform stress at subsoil level
internal friction angle of load transfer platform
1. Introduction
In classical foundation engineering, a shallow footing is
defined as a footing that has a width equal to or greater than
the footing depth, a pier is a slender prismatic or cylindrical
body of masonry that transfers a load through a poor stratum
onto a better one, and a pile is essentially a very slender pier
that transfers a load through its lower end onto a firm stratum
or else through side friction onto the surrounding soil
(Terzaghi et al., 1996). These classifications have been some-
what reworded or the limits redefined in other publications.
For example, Bowles (1996) defined shallow foundations as
bases, footings, spread footings or mats with the ratio of depth
of footing to its width being equal to or less than 1, and
deep foundations as piles, drilled piers or caissons with ratio
of length to width (or diameter) being equal to or greater
than 4. Das (2009) notes that studies show the ratio of footing
depth to width of shallow footings can be as large as 3 or 4.
In fact these clearly cut limits for defining shallow and deep
foundation behaviours are probably too simplistic, and are
unable to delineate well the load transfer mechanisms in
the foundation systems. Numerous publications, for example,
Hooper (1973), Hain and Lee (1978), or more recently, Singh
and Singh (2013) and Tang et al. (2014), show that in piled
mats the load is shared between the piles and the soil, and not
necessarily transferred entirely through the piles.
Although the limits of the terms and the load transfer
mechanism are not that straightforward and simplistic on their
own, the discussion is possibly further complicated with the
advancement of ground improvement technologies that allow
construction of shallow footings on improved deep
202
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
The boundary between deep foundations
and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin
foundations, especially when the applied technique incorpor-
ates columnar inclusions. The complexity can turn into con-
fusion if the inclusions are composed of grout or concrete.
Indeed, to the layman these inclusions will appear as nothing
more than unreinforced concrete piles that are supporting
shallow footings. The controlled modulus column, commonly
referred to in its abbreviated form of CMC, is exactly such a
ground improvement technique.
2. Controlled modulus column
Controlled modulus columns are cementituous columnar rigid
inclusions that are installed in grids in soft soils to improve
foundation behaviour. Similarly to other inclusions, loads are
generally transferred from the footings or surface loads and
distributed between the in situ soil and the CMCs through
an engineered fill, which is referred to as the load transfer
platform (LTP).
Controlled modulus columns are typically implemented to
provide the required bearing capacity and to reduce settlements
to design values; however, lateral movements, such as what is
observed at edges of embankments, will generate horizontal
forces that may create stresses in the CMC, which exceed
acceptable limits. In such cases, it may be necessary to utilise
additional measures for example, placing reinforcing bars,
increasing the proportion of column area per unit area of
ground or introducing a confining system.
2.1 Installation method
Controlled modulus columns are installed in soft ground by
(piling) rigs with specially designed augers that are composed
of helical tips and cylindrical hollow-stem follow-up sections
with an inversely sloped helix. As the auger penetrates the soil
by screwing, the cylindrical section displaces the soil laterally,
and the inversely sloped helix prevents the soil from moving
up, thereby reducing the volume of spoil to negligible amounts
compared to cast in situ piling methods, such as continuous
flight auger (CFA) or bored piles. During the auger extraction
phase, low-strength grout or concrete is pumped through the
hollow stem to form a columnar inclusion with a diameter
that is usually 250 to 450 mm.
Similarly to piling works, real-time monitoring and recording
of drilling and extraction parameters and grout volumes
are also performed during CMC installation. These records
usually include installation date, drilling and grout placement
start and end times, auger diameter, drilling rate, torque,
rotation, orthogonal axes inclinations, grout volume and a
profile of the column.
2.2 Advantages of CMC
Although CMCs are not necessarily always the most appropri-
ate, suitable or economically attractive foundation solution,
the combination of advantages makes them an interesting
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
potential solution in many projects that are to be constructed
onto thick soft soils.
The CMCs modulus of elasticity is much greater than that of
in situ soil or inclusions composed of granular material. Even
the lowest strength grout or concrete has a very high modulus.
For example, the modulus of elasticity of normal weight con-
crete after applying a reduction factor of 2 for long-term
effects of creep and shrinkage can be estimated to be approxi-
mately 7500 MPa for concrete with 10 MPa strength (ACI,
2005). Some engineers assume that the modulus of elasticity of
stone columns is 60 MPa, but it is the authors experience
(Debats, 2012) that the ratio of the moduli of a stone column
to the surrounding ground should not be considered to be
more than 6 to 10.
The modulus of elasticity of the CMC is higher, has less
scatter and is more consistent compared to inclusions that are
formed by in situ mixing of cement and soil. In fact, the
CMCs name originates from the amount of control that can
be exerted on the grouts properties. The CMCs assumed
modulus of elasticity is highly predictable, as grout or concrete
is produced in a factory (batching plant) where stringent
quality control procedures may be implemented, and the
product that is pumped into the inclusion is neither contami-
nated nor mixed with in situ soil.
Although the moduli of grout mixed with in situ soil may be
within a limited range for each soil layer in a site, Croce et al.
(2014) note that the secant Young modulus of jet-grouted
columns can be linearly correlated with the grout specimens
axial compressive strength using a correlation factor that can be
from 280 to 1200 in gravels and sands, or from 100 to 500
in silts and clays. From various research studies, Navin (2005)
summarises that when deep soil mixing is implemented in soft
soils, the correlation factor will range from 75 to 100 and from
75 to 300, respectively, for wet and dry mix processes. Citing
FHWA-SA-98-086 (Elias et al., 1998), Andromalos et al. (2000)
note that the uniaxial compressive strength for grout specimens
is usually 1050 times the soil cohesion, and the modulus of
elasticity is 50200 times the compressive strength, which will be
much less than what is achievable with CMCs in soft soils.
Similarly to other cementituous materials, once the grout or
concrete sets, the CMC becomes a self-binding columnar
inclusion that does not require external confinement from
the soil to maintain its stability. However, stability of non-
cementituous inclusions that are composed of granular
material, such as stone columns, are totally dependent on the
surrounding soil, and the inclusion will fail by bulging once its
internal horizontal forces exceed the (pressuremeter) limit
pressure of the soil.
The amount of vibration that is generated by CMC installation
is comparable to what is experienced when CFA piles are
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
The boundary between deep foundations
and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin
installed, which can make CMC the preferred choice over
inclusions that are installed by vibratory techniques, such as
dynamic replacement or stone columns.
Owing to the special configuration of the CMC, soil is dis-
placed laterally, and the amount of spoil that is generated is
negligible compared to pile drilling techniques. This feature
can greatly reduce the cost of spoil disposal. Further saving
can be envisaged if the spoil is contaminated, and requires
special treatment processes.
The rate of CMC production is higher than both drilled pile
techniques and most ground improvement methods that also
incorporate inclusions. Even if piles are drilled and concrete is
pumped into them at the same speeds that are observed during
CMC installation, more CMC length can be completed per
day with equal resources, as no time is allocated for installing
reinforcing cages. Similarly, it is the authors experience that
CMC production rates are several times higher than other
techniques with cementituous inclusions as the grout is pre-
produced, and time is not allocated for in situ mixing during
the installation period. Similarly, CMC production rates are
higher than stone columns, as grout can be pumped at higher
rates than stone can be placed and compacted.
2.3 Transfer mechanism and load distribution
Although the equipment used and procedure applied for instal-
ling a CMC may appear to be similar to those that are
employed for CFA piles, it must be stressed that a CMC is not
a pile; it is a cementitious rigid inclusion that is used for
improving ground behaviour. Piling codes and standards have
been developed based on the uncertainties in the methods of
predicting allowable or ultimate loads on piles (Tomlinson,
2004), which are not the same for CMCs. Hence, it would be
erroneous and unjustifiable to apply piling codes and specifica-
tions to CMCs, which must be designed as rigid inclusions in
soft ground. Although in practice load distribution and defor-
mations for complicated ground with various soil layers are
calculated using various software that are based on numerical
analyses, there are a number of conceptual and analytical
approaches for determining loads in rigid inclusions.
Combarieu (1988) studied the post-stabilisation behaviour of a
single rigid inclusion with length L that was installed in soft
soil. In the absence of the inclusion, a compressible soil layer
with thickness Hs that is subjected to an embankment load
with intensity qo will ultimately settle by an amount equal to
Ws(o). In the presence of the inclusion, the soil condition at
distances away from the single inclusion is the same as the
untreated ground; however, the stresses and deformations
change around the immediate vicinity of the inclusion.
Settlement is higher when, as shown in Figure 1, the inclusion
is resting on soft soil, compared to when, as shown in
Figure 2, it is supported by hard ground.
203
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

Fill
wp (o) ws (o) w(z)
ws (o) wp (o)
hc
L
Soft soil
Hs

wp (L)
wp (L)
Hard soil
z

Figure 1. Ground section with inclusion terminating in soft

ground, translated to English from Combarieu (1988)

Fill
wp (o) h wp (o) ws (o) w(z)
ws (o)

Soft soil hc
Hs L

wp (L) wp (L)
Hard soil
z

Figure 2. Ground section with inclusion supported by hard

ground, translated to English from Combarieu (1988)

At the lower part of the inclusion where depth is greater than
a critical depth, which is shown by hc in Figures 1 and 2, the
settlement of the soil is less than the inclusions settlement and
compression; however, the opposite is true when the depth
is less.
Although research on piles (Davisson, 1963; Davisson and
Robinson, 1965; Reddy and Valsangkar, 1970) shows that
buckling of piles will be confined to the critical length of the
pile under lateral loading (Fleming et al., 2008), Eurocode 7
(BS EN 1997-1:2004; BSI, 2004) notes that slender piles
passing through water or thick deposits of extremely low-
strength fine soil should be checked against lateral buckling.
However, the Eurocode adds that a check for buckling is nor-
mally not required when the piles are contained by soil with a
characteristic shear strength that exceeds 10 kPa. Intuitively, it
can be expected that the risk of buckling is even less for CMCs
that have a higher elasticity modulus to strength ratio than
piles with high strengths.
The phenomenon of transmitting and distributing loads
between the soft subsoil and CMCs through the LTP is by
arching. There are a number of methods that can be used for
determining the load distribution ratio or the proportion of
the load that is transferred to the columns. A number of
techniques that are more relevant to the discussion of rigid
inclusions are reviewed below.
2.3.1 Hewlett and Randolph method
Hewlett and Randolph (1988) studied two- and three-dimen-
sional soil arching of piled embankments in granular fills with
the assumption that no slab is used and the piles (or columns)
are placed at a relatively wide spacing, and developed plane
strain and three-dimensional expressions for determining the
proportion of weight of the embankment that is carried directly
by the pile cap. In three-dimensional spatial arching above a grid
of columns, sand vaults that comprise a series of domes form.
The crown of each dome is approximately hemispherical, and its
radius is equal to half of the diagonal spacing of the columns.

204
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

The crown of the dome is not necessarily the weakest region of
the system of vaulting, as the limited area of support at the
column heads may lead to a bearing failure by the column
head punching into the LTP. Analysis of the two regions,
namely, the crown and base of the arches, leads to two separate
estimates of the efficacy of the pile support, of which, the
lower estimate should be used for design.
where a is the size (or diameter) of pile caps; c is the
vertical stress on the pile caps; v is the average vertical stress
at the base of the embankment, which is equal to H + ws;
is the unit weight of the embankment fill; ws is the uniformly
distributed surcharge loading; and Ca is the arching
coefficient.

It can be demonstrated that, based on the analysis of the 2.3.3 German code method
crown, the efficacy, E, or the portion of load that is supported ABGEO 2004, Section 69 is a recommendation for piled
by the column is embankments design procedure issued by the German
8
Geotechnical Society (DGGT, 2004) and adopts the multi-
"
2 #<"
2 #2KP
1 "
2 #2KP
1
D D D shell arching theory (Zaeske, 2001). Satibi (2009), Kempfert
E 1
1 1

1
et al. (2004) and Raithel et al. (2008) have reviewed the
s : s s
1: 9 German code recommendations.



D 2KP
2 s
D 2KP
2 =
 p p
2H 2KP
3 2H 2KP
3 ; ABGEO 2004 is recommended for the design of embankment
on rigid end-bearing piles, and further elaboration of the
design procedure is required for the design of embankment on
where D is the pile cap width (or inclusion diameter); s is the
floating piles (Satibi, 2009). Denoting the pile (or inclusion)
spacing between adjacent piles; H is the height of the embank-
diameter and diagonal spacing between them, respectively,
ment; and Kp is the Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient.
with D and sd, in rectangular grids

The vault comprises four plane strain arches at the pile cap, q
with each occupying a quadrant of the cap. It can be analyti- 5: sd s2x s2y
cally demonstrated that efficacy will be
 n
o
2Kp = Kp 1  1=1 b=s  1
b=s
Kp
1 b=sKp
2: E  n
o
1 2Kp = Kp 1  1=1 b=s  1
b=s
Kp
1 b=sKp

where b is the pile cap width. and in triangular grids

 
This approach has a lower bound nature, and field studies indi- 6: sd max sx ; sy
cate that the columns actual efficacy is more than what is
calculated.
where sx and sy are, respectively, the horizontal and vertical
2.3.2 British Standard method distances between the inclusions in the rows and columns of
Based on a two-dimensional approach, BS 8006:1995 (British the installation grid.
Standards Institution, 1995) estimates the ratio of vertical
stress exerted on top of the pile caps to the average vertical This analytical model is also based on the lower bound
stress at the base of the embankment using Equation 3 theorem of plasticity (Satibi, 2009), and assumes that the
arches have the shape of hemispherical domes spanning

2
0c Ca a between the columns. However, it considers that the arches
3: consist of multi-shell domes.
0v H

It can be derived that the vertical stress at the lowest arching

Van Eekelen and Bezuijen (2008) have reviewed BS 8006, and
shell at the soft subsoil will be
have proposed a modification of the equations to make the
method three dimensional and to satisfy vertical equilibrium.
(
BS 8006 recommends that the relationship between embank-  ws   

ment height and pile cap spacing be maintained to the
0
z0 1 H 1 h2g 2 hg
H
expression shown in Equation 4 7: " !
#)
h2g 2  

 1
1 hg 2
2

4: H  07s
a 4

205
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

where q0

1
8: 1 sd
D2
8
HM c' ; ' ;

sd 2Dsd
D2 s
9: 2
2s2d
D = 2rp


D Kp
1
10:
2 s d

is the uniform stress at subsoil level and hg is the

where z0
arching height, which can be calculated from Equation 11 Figure 3. Section showing ground improved by rigid inclusions,
LTP and uniform loading (IREX, 2012)
sd sd sd
11: hg for H ; hg H for H ,
2 2 2
As shown in Figure 4(a), Prandtls failure diagram includes a
The effective pressure acting on top of pile cap can be calcu- Rankine active limit state domain (I) above the inclusion head
lated from Equation 12 that is delimited by a logarithmic spiral arc domain (II) and a
Rankine passive limit state domain (III) that is located beyond
AE the inclusion head. In this figure q+p is the stress at the
12: 0c H ws
z0
0
 0
z0
Ac inclusion head and q+s is the stress on the in situ soil. q+p can be
determined from the stress applied on the supporting soil and
where AE is the area of one unit cell of soil and inclusion the intrinsic parameters of the LTP. In axisymmetric or plane
(Balaam and Booker, 1981; Goughnour and Bayuk, 1979). strain conditions, when the LTP is purely granular and rela-
tively thin, in which case the LTPs weight is typically
ABGEO 2004 (DGGT, 2004) requires that the embankment neglected
height be at least 07sd to ensure that soil arching fully
develops. 14: q
p Nq qs

2.3.4 Asiri method

The combined effect of a cementitious columnar inclusion
with no rigid connection to the structure has been the subject

0 =0
 e tan =0
0
of a French nationwide research programme called Asiri 15: Nq tan2
4 2
(IREX, 2012).

As shown in Figure 3, it is assumed that rigid inclusions with where is a material partial factor and equal to 1
diameter D = 2rp are installed in a square grid with spacing s. (Eurocode 7 (BSI, 2004)).
LTP thickness is denoted by HM, and is defined by its cohe-
sion, c, friction angle, , and volumetric weight, . The uni- Solving the problem and determining the values of qp and qs
formly distributed external load q0 is applied to the LTP. As requires a second equation. Using the load conservation prin-
shown in Figure 4, two failures by either the Prandtl (1920) or ciple will yield
punching failure mechanisms are possible. The first mechanism
N
occurs when the LTP is covered by a rigid structural element 16: q
p
 q q
such as a slab on grade, raft or footings or when the embank- 1 Nq
1 0
ment thickness is sufficient to avoid the punching failure. The
latter mechanism corresponds to the development of a shear
cone in the LTPs surface. Asiri implies that the embankment 1
is considered thin when 17: q
s
 q
1 Nq
1 0

13: HM , 07s
D
where is the replacement ratio.

206
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

q0 q0

c' ; ' ; ' c' ; ' ;

HM (II) HM
(III) (I)

q+s q+s q+s q+s

q+p q+p

(a) (b)

Figure 4. (a) Prandtls failure mechanism for slabs on grade, rafts

or footings and thick embankments; (b) punching failure for thin
embankments (IREX, 2012)

As shown in Figure 4(b), the second failure mechanism can be s

19: R p
modelled by a vertical cone within the LTP layer. This mechan-
ism exists only for thin LTPs that are not covered by rigid
structural elements, and is associated with the peak friction if the shear cones do not overlap; that is, if HM < Hc.
angle of the material.
Where
The relationship between the parameters shown in Figure 5 is
formulated in Equations 18 and 19 R
rp
20: Hc
! tan 0
0
18: Rc rp HM tan
0

q0

Rc q0 Rc Rc Rc

' ' HM
R-rp
' ' Hc =
HM tan

q+s q+s q+s q+s q+s q+s

q+p q+p q+p q+p

rp rp rp rp

R R R R

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Non-overlapping and (b) overlapping failure cones

(IREX, 2012)

207
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

then q+p will be the weight of the cone plus the external load segment 1b in Figure 6 that corresponds to Equation 21.
applied on the top circular side of the cone. Therefore Alternatively, when the failure cones overlap then the limit-
ation will be set by the curved segment 1b that corresponds to
! ! Equation 22.
HM R2c Rc R2c 1 R2c c0
21: q 1 q
1
p
3 r2p rp r2p 0 tan 0 r2p c0 At the same time, the mobilised stresses q+s and q+s must satisfy
the load conservation equation that is shown as line segment 4
if the shear cones overlap; that is, if HM > Hc. Rc = R, then in Figure 6. This signifies that the allowable domain can be
q+p will be the weight of the cone, the weight of the soil cylin- reduced to the intersection of line segment 4 with the shaded
der above it and the external load multiplied by the unit cell surface that is delimited by the limitations.
area.
The allowable limit stress in the LTP at the inclusion head,
" ! # q+p,d, is deduced by solving the system of Prandtl and load con-
R2
Hc R R2 servation equations. If the load increases, then q+p,d will also
q
p 1 H M
Hc
3r2p rp r2p increase. q+p,d depends on the load, the system and the LTPs
22: " !# parameters, but is independent of the deformability of the
R2 1 R2 c0
 2 q0 0

1 various soil layers. While the intersection of Prandls line and
rp tan rp 2 c0
the load conservation line is q+p,d, the stress pair (q+p ; q+s ) that is
actually mobilised can be anywhere on this diagonal line
segment, and its position depends on the compressibility of
When failure is by Prandtls mechanism, regardless of the load the various soil layers directly below the LTP. If the soil is
level, the stress domain in the LTP is first limited by the very soft, then the mobilised pair will be close to q+p,d, and if
Prandtl line that was formulated in Equation 14, and shown as the soil is quite dense, then the pair will be away from the
line segment 1a in Figure 6. The stress on the in situ soil, q+s , limit.
is limited at ultimate limit state (ULS) by the allowable stress
v;d that is shown by line segment 2 in Figure 6. Additionally, The efficacy of the inclusions can be expressed by Equation 23
q+p is limited by the load-bearing capacity of the inclusion,
which is shown by line segment 3 in Figure 6 and by the allow-
r2p q
p
able stress in the inclusion material. 23: E
q0 Hm s2
When the LTP is not covered by a rigid structural element, this
domain may be partially limited. For example, when the LTP A horizontal overhang length from the edge of the inclusion,
is thin, without rigid structural elements, and failure cones do Lmax, which is a function of the diameter of the inclusion and
not overlap, the stress domain will be further limited by line the internal friction angle of the LTP, is required for Prandtls

q+p

sq Nq v;d + sc Nc c'

qp max (3)
(1a)
( r 2) 1 (1b)
sq Nq
q +p,d (2)
Allowable domain

sc Nc c' (4)
(1b)
q+s

q v;d

Figure 6. Ultimate limit state allowable stress domain,

superimposed from IREX (2012)

208
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

failure mechanism to fully develop. Lmax can be expressed by a e e a

Equation 24.
cos=4
0 =2
tan0 =2 e i i e
24: Lmax De
cos=4 0 =2
a e e a

The distribution of stresses at the edge of the loading zone can

Figure 8. Edge effect combination for multiple rows of inclusions
be different. The limit pressure at the inclusion head will be as
previously discussed if the overhang length of the footing is
greater than Lmax. When the overhang length of the footing is
nil, the edge of the inclusion corresponds to the edge of the 2 1
26: q
p;e qp P qp L
footing, and the load applied to the footing will be nearly fully 3 3
transmitted on the inclusion head. The vertical stress on the
peripheral soil is equal to H, which is generated from the sur- For multiple rows of inclusions shown in Figure 8
rounding ground. Asiri details the calculation process of the
coefficient Nq* to be applied to H for determination of the q
27: p;i qp P
limiting stress with consideration of an LTP that is limited to
the footing footprint. Nq* is assessed based on the critical state
friction angle of the LTP and surrounding soil.

7 5
When the footing overhang is between nil and Lmax, the limit- 28: q
p;a q P q L
ing pressure at the inclusion head can be estimated using a 12 p 12 p
linear interpolation between these two extreme values.

In the general case when more than one inclusion is installed

beneath the footing, the edge effect that has been described is 5 1
29: q
p;e qp P qp L
applicable to only a fraction of the inclusion, depending on the 6 6
location of the inclusion.

The edge limit stress, q+p (L), is applicable only to the exterior
portion of the perimeter, whereas the limit stress calculated
from Prandtls failure mechanism, q+p (P), applies to the interior
portion of the inclusion, and the resulting value must be a
weighted average of these two terms. By analogy with the dis-
tribution of negative friction within a group of piles, Asiri pro-
poses a weighing relationship to determine the limit stress
values on the inclusion head at different locations of the
inclusions under the footing.
For example, for a single row of inclusions shown in Figure 7
3. Case study: world record set at site of oil
tanks near New Orleans
Controlled modulus columns have been used to provide safe
and reliable foundations in lieu of piling in numerous projects
such as oil tanks (Buschmeier et al., 2012), bridge approaches
(Fok et al., 2012), roads (Plomteux and Lacazedieu, 2007) and
mechanically stabilised earth walls (Sankey et al., 2011). To the
knowledge of the authors, the case study that will be reported
in this paper is the holder of the current world record for
installation depth of CMCs at 42 m, in Louisiana, USA.

1 2
25: q
p;a qp P qp L
3.1 General information about the project
3 3 The project is located near New Orleans, and comprises four
oil tanks, one water tank, two shop and maintenance buildings
and ancillary structures. The diameter and height of the oil
tanks that will be built at distances of approximately 76 m
from one another are, respectively, 433 m and 11 m, and each
a a tank will be filled with a hydrocarbon-based product that will
apply a design pressure of 120 kPa to the bottom of the tank.
a e e a
3.2 Ground conditions
Figure 7. Edge effect combination for single row of inclusions Prior to construction, the site was fairly level and approxi-
(IREX, 2012) mately at elevation 0 m RL (reduced level). Initially, the
uppermost 03 m of the ground was treated and modified to

209
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering The boundary between deep foundations
Volume 169 Issue GE2 and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin

cement-stabilised clay. The site was then elevated with sand to Tip resistance, Friction
+ 12 m RL to be above flood levels. The tanks will be built on qt: MPa ratio: %
a pad that has been further raised by 03 m. 15 30 0 5 10
0

The upper 15 to 3 m thick layer of ground consisted of a crust

of desiccated over consolidated clay with an over-consolidation
ratio (OCR) of 4. Below this layer was a very soft clay layer
6
that extended to depths of approximately 335 m. The OCR
for this layer was assumed to decrease with depth from 3 in
the upper part to 12 in the lower layers. A sand layer was
present at depths of approximately 33 m to 36 m in some 12
areas, but in other areas this layer was replaced by a stiff to
medium stiff layer of clay roughly up to depths of 51 to 57 m,
where the Pleistocene clay formation that is typical of this area
was found. This lower clay was understood to have an OCR of 18
11 based on both consolidation tests performed during the
site soil investigation phase as well as the project consultants
extensive local knowledge of the ground conditions in the area.
In the upper clay layer, the pocket penetrometer result was gen- 24
erally from 0 to 50 kPa, which indicated the presence of a very
Depth: m

soft layer of fat clay, whereas at depth, the pocket penetrometer

values increased to about 100 to 120 kPa. Cone penetration
test (CPT) profiles at the location of the four tanks showed 30
that the cone resistance was almost consistently very low and
negligible in the soft clay. A CPT log of one of the tanks in
shown in Figure 9.
36
Initial calculations indicated that the tanks were susceptible to
undergoing settlements at the magnitude of 15 m to 18 m
without implementation of an improved foundation system.
42
Consolidation tests were carried out on the lower clay to esti-
mate the layers coefficient of consolidation. The calculated
values of this coefficient varied greatly, from as low as
17 m2/d to as high as 68 m2/d, thereby making it difficult to 48
estimate the amount of time that was required for reaching any
degree of consolidation. Yet, it was possible to estimate that it
would require approximately 17 years of the lower clay to fully
54
consolidate if the highest coefficient of consolidation was
considered.
Figure 9. CPT log in one of the tanks

3.3 Concept and design of the foundation solution

Since expected settlements by far exceeded the tanks design
criterion that limited long-term settlements under the tanks to
300 mm and differential settlements of values specified by the
American Petroleum Institute (API, 2001, 2011), the design
and construction of the foundations were tendered, and the
works were awarded to a geotechnical specialist contractor
who proposed that three oil tanks be supported at the edge by
a concrete slab and a geotextile-reinforced gravel ring wall,
while the fourth tank was to be supported by an LTP and a
geotextile-reinforced gravel ring wall. The other structures were
to be founded on classical concrete mat foundations. All struc-
tures, inclusive of the tanks, pumping station and light build-
ings, were also to be supported by square grids of CMCs with
typical centre to centre spacing of 17 to 25 m and diameters
of 396 mm.
The combination of a gravel ring wall with geotextile-
reinforced earth mass has several advantages, as listed below.
& The geotextile-reinforced earth mass produced a
confinement ring or belt, which was able to provide of
lateral resistance and confinement against the large
horizontal stresses that developed in the ground due to the
vertical loading of the tank.

210
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
& The gravel ring wall provided a more deformable edge that
helped to minimise any risks of excessive differential
settlement between the edge and centre of the tank.
& This solution was more economical than the classical
solution of implementing a reinforced concrete ring wall.
The design included an iterative approach and finite-element
analyses using a combination of three different modelling tech-
niques, as listed below.
& Axisymmetrical models were used to calculate the total
settlement at the centre of the tank and to verify the load
transfer mechanism from the LTP to the CMC.
& Three-dimensional strip models were used to evaluate the
differential settlement between the edge and the centre, the
influence of the consolidation settlement outside the tank
on the inside of the tank, and the lateral displacements, the
adequacy of the design of the geotextile-reinforced gravel
ring wall, and the loads in the CMCs. This model
over-estimated settlements as it did not incorporate any
three-dimensional global effects of stress reduction; hence,
it was calibrated to the three-dimensional model in terms
of vertical and horizontal deformations.
& Three-dimensional global models of two adjacent tanks
and the surrounding soil mass were used. The main
purpose of this model was to estimate large-scale
settlements at the site, including the external areas, and to
evaluate the effects of adjacent tanks stresses overlapping.
This model did not include individual CMCs, and used a
homogenised CMC-surrounding soil material, and was
unable to yield any information on the stresses and loads
within the CMCs or the soil mass.
The calculation process was iterative as parameters needed to
be adjusted in such a way that the various types of models
yielded similar results. This approach led to approximately
280 mm of long-term settlement under the centre of the tank,
of which 75% occurred below the toes of the CMCs rather
uniformly.
The results of the three-dimensional strip model, after adjust-
ment to reduce lateral movements, were used to estimate shear
and bending moments in the CMCs, and calculations indicated
that the grouts compressive strength at 28 d had to be
25 MPa. Basic hand calculations showed that more than 95%
of the tank and fill loads were supported by the CMCs, which
explains the very large settlement reduction factor that was
offered by the CMC solution.
The additional load from the fill used to raise the site level was
included in the design, and the presence of the highly compres-
sible organic soils at the surface was also considered in the
finite-element model. Long-term creep that creates additional
friction along the upper portion of the CMCs, and usually
increases the CMCs loads over time, was modelled using the
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
The boundary between deep foundations
and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin
Figure 10. General view of the project during CMC installation
phase
appropriate soil behavioural models included in the design
software package.
To the knowledge of the authors and the construction team, at
that time the world record for depth of CMC had been
achieved by installing 34-m-long columns in an oil tank
project on the banks of the Mississippi River (Buschmeier
et al., 2012); hence, installing CMCs down to the depth of
approximately 42 m in the project would have increased the
world record by 8 m, and required special equipment that was
not commercially readily available. Consequently, as shown in
Figure 10, the contractor built two custom-made CMC rigs to
reach the target depth safely, and provisionally to penetrate the
ground to 45 m. Inclinometers were installed on the rig to
monitor continuously the verticality of the drilling lead and
the CMCs.
More than 2600 CMCs were installed under the structures to
an average depth of 365 m during a period of approximately
4 months.
4. Conclusion
The advancement of geotechnical engineering in general, and
ground improvement technologies in particular, have compli-
cated the boundaries of shallow and deep foundations as
described by classical foundation engineering terms. The devel-
opment of ground improvement methods with inclusions pro-
duces a reinforced deep foundation system that allows the safe
application of what would be categorised as a shallow foun-
dation system in classical terms.
CMCs are cementituous columnar rigid inclusions that have
been installed to the record depth of 42 m. Although the
installation process of these inclusions may be similar to CFA
piles, they are not piles, as their concept, design concept and
associated risks are not the same.
211
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2005) Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and
Commentary (318R-05). ACI, Farmington Hills, MI,
USA.
Andromalos KB, Hegazy YA and Jasperse BH (2000)
Stabilization of soft soils by soil mixing. In Proceedings of
the Soft Ground Technology Conference, Noordwijkerhout,
the Netherlands (Hanson JL and Termaat RJ (eds)).
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
USA, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 112,
pp. 194205.
API (American Petroleum Institute) (2001) API Standard 653:
Tank inspection, repair, alteration, and reconstruction,
3rd edn. API, Washington, DC, USA.
API (2011) API Standard 650: Welded tanks for oil storage,
11th edn. API, Washington, DC, USA.
Balaam NP and Booker JR (1981) Analysis of rigid rafts
supported by granular piles. International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics
5(4): 379403.
Bowles JE (1996) Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th edn.
McGraw Hill, New York, NY, USA.
BSI (1995) BS 8006:1995: Strengthened-reinforced soils and
other fills. BSI, London, UK.
BSI (2004) BS EN 1997-1:2004, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical
design part 1: general rules. BSI, London, UK.
Buschmeier B, Masse F, Swift S and Walker M (2012) Full scale
instrumented load test for support of oil tanks on deep soft
clay deposits in Louisiana using controlled modulus
columns. Proceedings of International Symposium on
Ground Improvement (IS-GI), Brussels, Belgium, vol. 3,
pp. 359372.
Combarieu O (1988) Amlioration des sols par inclusions
rigides verticales. Application ldification de remblais
sur sols mdiocres. Revue Franaise de Gotechnique
44: 5779.
Croce P, Flora A and Modoni G (2014) Jet Grouting
Technology, Design and Control. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
FL, USA.
Das BM (2009) Shallow Foundations Bearing Capacity and
Settlement, 2nd edn. Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton,
FL, USA.
Davisson MT (1963) Estimating buckling loads for piles.
Proceedings of the 2nd Pan-American Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Brazil, vol. 1,
pp. 351371.
Davisson MT and Robinson KE (1965) Bending and buckling of
partially embedded piles. Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Monteal, Quebec, Canada, vol. 2, pp.
243246.
Debats JM (2012) Presentation: Vibro Compaction and Stone
Columns Design, Quality Control, Tools Available.
Vibroflotation Group, Vancouver, Canada.
212
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
The boundary between deep foundations
and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin
DGGT (Die Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Geotechnik) (2004)
ABGEO: Bewehrte Erdkrper Auf Punkt- Oder
Linienfrmigen Traggliedern. German Geotechnical Society
(DGGT), Essen, Germany, Ch. 6.9.
Elias V, Welsh J, Warren J and Lukas R (1998) Ground
Improvement Technical Summaries. Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, USA,
FHWA-SA-98-086.
Fleming K, Weltman A, Randolph M and Elson K (2008) Piling
Engineering, 3rd edn. Taylor and Francis, USA.
Fok N, Qiu T, Vincent P and Kreminsky M (2012) A case study of
ground improvement using semi-rigid inclusions for
breakwater Road Bridge. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Ground Improvement and Ground Control
Transport Infrastructure Development and Natural Hazards
Mitigation (ICGI2012), Wollongong, NSW, Australia,
vol. 2, pp. 629643.
Goughnour RR and Bayuk AA (1979) Analysis of stone
column-soil matrix interaction under vertical load.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil
Reinforcement; Reinforced Earth and Other Techniques
(Colloque International sur le Renforcement des Sols),
Paris, France, vol. 2, pp. 271278.
Hain SJ and Lee IK (1978) The analysis of flexible raft-pile
systems. Gotechnique 28(1): 6583.
Hewlett WJ and Randolph M (1988) Analysis of piled
embankments. Ground Engineering 21(3): 1218.
Hooper JA (1973) Observations on the behavior of a piled-raft
foundation on London clay. Proceedings of the Institution
of Civil Engineers 55(4): 855877, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/iicep.1973.4144.
IREX (Institute for Applied Research and Experimentation
in Civil Engineering) (2012) Asiri National Project:
Recommendations for the Design, Construction and Control
of Rigid Inclusion Ground Improvements. Presses des Ponts,
Paris, France.
Kempfert HG, Gobel C, Alexiew D and Heitz C (2004) German
Recommendations for Reinforced Embankments on Pile
Similar Elements. EuroGeo3: 3rd European Geosynthetics
Conference, Geotechnical Engineering with Geosynthetics,
Munich, pp. 279284.
Navin MP (2005) Stability of Embankments Founded on Soft Soil
Improved with Deep Mixing Method Columns. Civil and
Environmental Engineering. PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA.
Plomteux C and Lacazedieu M (2007) Embankment
construction on extremely soft soils using controlled
modulus columns for highway 2000 project in Jamaica.
Proceedings of the 16th South East Asian Geotechnical
Conference, Kuala Lumpur (Yee K, Aun OT, Hui TW and
Fatt CS (eds)). pp. 533538.
Prandtl L (1920) Uber die Hrte plastischer Krper.
Nachrichten Von Der Kniglichen Gesellschaft Der
Wissenschaften, Gottingen (Mathematisch-physikalische
Klasse aus dem Jahre 1920) 1920: 7485 (in German).
 Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 169 Issue GE2
Raithel M, Kirchner A and Kempfert HG (2008) German
recommendations for reinforced embankments on
pile-similar elements. Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional
Conference on Geosynthetics, Shanghai, pp. 697702.
Reddy AS and Valsangkar AJ (1970) Buckling of fully and
partially embedded piles. Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE 96(SM6): 19511965.
Sankey JE, Brabant K and Masse F (2011) Stand alone and
combined technologies for MSE walls: state of practice
for compressible soils. In Proceedings of Geo-Frontiers
2011: Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Dallas
(Han J and Alzamora D (eds)). American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA, USA, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 211, pp. 34193428.
Satibi S (2009) Numerical Analysis and Design Criteria of
Embankments on Floating Piles. DCC Siegmar Kstl e. K.,
Ostfildern, Germany.
Singh NT and Singh B (2013) Load sharing characteristics of
piled raft foundation in clay soil. International Journal of
Downloaded by [] on [10/01/17]. Copyright ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
The boundary between deep foundations
and ground improvement
Hamidi, Masse, Racinais and Varaksin
Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology,
National Conference on Recent Advances in Civil
Engineering 4(Special Issue 4): 4246.
Tang YJ, Pei J and Zhao XH (2014) Design and measurement of
piled-raft foundations. Geotechnical Engineering 167(5):
461475.
Terzaghi K, Peck RB and Mesri G (1996) Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, 3rd edn. John Wiley and Sons,
New York, NY, USA, pp. 512.
Tomlinson MJ (2004) Pile Design and Construction Practice,
4th edn. E & FN Spon, London, UK.
Van Eekelen S and Bezuijen A (2008) Design of piled
embankments, considering the basic starting points of the
British Standard BS 8006. Proceedings of the 4th European
Geosynthetics Conference, EuroGeo4, Edinburgh, UK.
Zaeske D (2001) Zur Wirkungweise Von Unbewehrten Und
Bewerhrten Mineralischen Tragschichten ber Pfahlartigen
Grndungselementen. PhD thesis, Universitt Gh Kassel,
Kassel, Germany (in German).
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the
editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be
forwarded to the author(s) for a reply and, if considered
appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as
discussion in a future issue of the journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in
by civil engineering professionals, academics and stu-
dents. Papers should be 20005000 words long (briefing
papers should be 10002000 words long), with adequate
illustrations and references. You can submit your paper
online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals,
where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
213