Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers and Geotechnics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Technical Communication

Finite element modeling of the consolidation behavior of multi-column

supported road embankment
Sari W. Abusharar, Jun-Jie Zheng *, Bao-Guo Chen
Institute of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1037 Luoyu Road, Hongshan District, Wuhan, Hubei Province 430074, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A multi-column composite foundation is a new concept utilizing different column types with varying
Received 29 February 2008 lengths and diameters to support the embankment fill and to mobilize the strength and stiffness of
Received in revised form 22 September the soil at shallow depths. This study presents the results of finite element analyses using the finite ele-
2008
ment software PLAXIS to investigate the consolidation behavior of a road embankment constructed on a
Accepted 23 September 2008
multi-column composite foundation. The finite element results are calibrated for a period of 200 days.
Available online 1 November 2008
The settlement, horizontal displacement, differential settlement, column axial force, and the develop-
ment and dissipation of excess pore pressure are presented and discussed in detail. It is concluded that
Keywords:
Multi-column
a multi-column composite foundation allows a fast rate of consolidation and significantly increases the
FEM embankment stability. A multi-column composite foundation formed by CFG–lime columns is more
Settlement effective than one formed by SC–lime columns. The CFG–lime columns improve the long-term stability
Consolidation analysis of the embankment because the compression modulus of CFG columns is significantly greater than that
Elasto-plasticity of SC columns.
Embankment Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction the latter to be utilized as a load-supporting system. In many areas

The construction of embankments overlying soft soil with a
high groundwater level often leads to large lateral pressures and
movement, excessive settlements as well as slope and bearing fail-
ures, which usually result in long construction delays and costly
remedial works. In such instances, ground improvement measures
are often used to enhance stability and minimize ground move-
ment. Examples of such soil improvement methods are preloading,
vertical drains or grouting injection [1–3].
In China, combinations of cement–fly ash–gravel (CFG), soil–ce-
ment (SC), and lime columns are often used as ground improve-
ment measures to support highway embankments overlying soft
soils. This system consists of installing different column types with
different lengths and diameters to support the embankment fill
and to mobilize the strength and stiffness of the soil at shallow
depths. Fig. 1 shows an example of such a composite foundation,
where the embankment is supported by long CFG columns or SC
columns and shorter lime columns (also called chemico columns).
The long columns are generally much stiffer than the short col-
umns and they are used much like piles to mobilize the bearing
capacity of the deeper soil strata. The more flexible lime columns
strengthen and stiffen the shallower soil strata, thereby allowing
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 27 87557024; fax: +86 27 87542231.
E-mail addresses: sariwaleed@hotmail.com (S.W. Abusharar), zhengjj@hust.
edu.cn (J.-J. Zheng), baoguo_chen@126.com (B.-G. Chen).
in China, this ground improvement method is being increasingly
adopted.
In recent years, a substantial amount of research has been con-
ducted on such multi-column composite foundations. For instance,
Liu et al. [4] and Chen et al. [5] performed field tests on composite
foundation comprising two types of columns. Zhou et al. [6] carried
out field tests on a composite foundation with three to four differ-
ent column types. Chen [7] reported finite element analyses on
multi-column composite foundation. Yan et al. [8] developed a sys-
tematic design method for multi-column composite foundation
while Zheng et al. [9] proposed a design methodology for CFG–lime
column composite foundation, which is now being used exten-
sively in China and has proven to be an economical way of control-
ling settlements within the allowable levels and increasing the
bearing capacity. Liang et al. [10] performed three-dimensional fi-
nite element method analyses of a composite piled raft foundation
with different pile types. Zheng et al. [11] reported three-dimen-
sional finite element method analyses of a multi-element compos-
ite foundation with SC–lime columns. Zheng et al. [12] conducted a
series of three-dimensional finite element analyses on CFG–lime
columns composite foundation with varying lengths and diame-
ters. However, there are very few studies on multi-column com-
posite foundations formed by CFG–lime columns or SC–lime
columns at present.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to
address the behavior of multi-column composite foundation for

0266-352X/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2008.09.006
 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685 677

Reinforcement Embankment
(Optional)
Short columns

Long columns
Soft soil

Firm soil or bedrock

Fig. 1. A multi-column supported embankment.

supporting embankment fill. Numerical analyses considering real-
istic parameters are particularly needed for better utilization of the
technique. This paper presents the results of a series of two-dimen-
sional (2D) finite element analyses of the consolidation behavior of
a multi-column supported embankment using the finite element
software PLAXIS. Parametric studies are presented that shed light
on effective combinations of columns.
2. Plane strain finite element analysis
2.1. Problem dimensions
both sides. The clear spacing between adjacent columns was set
at 1.3 m. The ground water table was taken at the ground surface.
2.2. Modeling range
The size of the modeled domain was determined on the basis of
trial calculations, during which the mesh was progressively refined
and its boundaries extended until stresses and deformations at the
highly-stressed zones have sufficiently stabilized. Results from the
trial calculation showed that the lateral boundaries should be ex-
tended to 15 m on each side of the embankment.

As Fig. 2 shows, the model considered here consists of an
embankment fill supported by a multi-column composite founda-
tion. The typical subsoil profile, together with the general soil
properties of Nong Ngu Hao test embankment was chosen for this
study [13]. The soil profile consists of three layers as follows: 8.5 m
of very soft clay; 3 m of soft clay; and 4.5 m of medium clay. The
problem was solved as a two-dimensional (2D) plane strain consol-
idation problem with a full cross-section using the software PLAXIS
by restricting the planes perpendicular to the side of the embank-
ment (i.e., displacements fixed only in the longitudinal directions).
The column dimensions and spacing and the overall foundation
dimensions were typical values used in engineering practice. They
are as follows: long columns – diameter = 0.4 m, length = 16 m;
short columns – diameter = 0.4 m, length = 8.5 m; embankment –
crest width = 11 m, height = 2 m, gradient of side slope = 1.0 on
2.3. Boundary conditions
The soil beneath 16 m is a very stiff soil and its contribution to
ground movement was considered to be negligible. Thus, the bot-
tom boundary was set at this depth and was assumed to be com-
pletely rigid and impermeable. The nodes on the two vertical
boundaries were fixed against horizontal movement but allowed
to move freely in the vertical direction. The vertical boundaries
and the ground surface were set as drainage or recharge boundaries.
2.4. Material model and parameters
The embankment fill and in situ soils were modeled as linearly
elastic-perfectly plastic materials with the Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion, while the columns were assumed to be linearly elastic

15m 2m 11m 2m 15m

B
+2.0
A
Embankment Water table 0.0
E D 2m
C F

Short columns G
Very soft clay 8.5m

-8.5
H
Soft clay -11.5 3m

Long columns I
Medium clay 4.5m
-16.0

Firm soil
Fig. 2. Cross-section of multi-column supported embankment model for FEM analysis.
678 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685

Table 1
Material properties of the embankment and subsoil [13]

Parameter Unit Embankment fill Very soft clay Soft clay Medium clay
Material model – M–C M–C M–C M–C
Type of material behavior – Drained Undrained Undrained Undrained
Dry unit weight kN/m3 20 16 17 18
Sat. unit weight kN/m3 20 16 17 18
Horizontal permeability m/d 0.009 0.005 0.0009 0.0007
Vertical permeability m/d 0.009 0.005 0.0009 0.0006
Effective Young’s modulus kPa 8000 2100 2300 2900
Effective shear modulus kPa 3076.92 807.69 884.62 1115.39
Effective Poisson’s ratio – 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Effective cohesion kPa 1 4 2.5 5
Effective friction angle deg 30 23 23 23
Effective dilatancy angle deg 0 0 0 0
Interface reduction factor – – 0.8 0.8 0.8

Table 2 soft clayey soils has been taken as 0.30, and the dilatancy angle
Material properties of the columns [11–13] has been assumed to be zero for all soils. The Young’s modulus
was set as a multiple of its undrained shear strength, that is
Parameter Unit Lime CFG column SC column
column E ¼ a  Su ð1Þ
Material model – Linear Linear Linear
elastic elastic elastic
where Su is the undrained shear strength and a = 75–100 for Nong
Type of material – Non-porous Non-porous Non-porous Ngu Hao clay [13]. For numerical modeling, the coefficient a has
behavior been taken here to be 100.
Young’s modulus kPa 20,000 250,00,000 100,000
Axial stiffness kN/m 2520.5 31,50,625 12602.5
Flexural rigidity kNm2/ 26.47 33088.13 132.35
m
Poisson’s ratio – 0.25 0.2 0.3
Equivalent diameter m 0.355 0.355 0.355
Reference – [13] [12] [11]

material. Previous studies have considered the Mohr–Coulomb (a) Triangular element (b) Beam element
model for the soft soil layers [13–17]. In addition, the Mohr–Cou-
lomb model is considered as a first order approximation for real
soil behavior and highly recommended where soil parameters
are not known with great certainty [18]. The soil input parameters
were determined from triaxial and in situ tests and prior publica-
tions [13]. The material properties of the various components are
shown in Tables 1 and 2.
The elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb model requires five
parameters: friction angle, u0 , cohesion, c0 , dilatancy angle, w,
Young’s modulus, E, and Poisson’s ratio, m0 . The strength parame- (c) Interface element
ters, u0 and c0 are obtained from large-scale laboratory testing of
the soil compacted to field conditions. The Poisson’s ratio for the Fig. 4. Basic elements considered for mesh generation.

Fig. 3. Finite element mesh of a multi-column supported embankment.

 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685 679

The permeability of the clay is one of the most difficult param- tions. For most natural deposits, the hydraulic conductivity in the
eters to determine. There are many uncertainties regarding the ra- horizontal direction is higher than that in the vertical direction
tios of horizontal permeability to vertical permeability due to the [19,20]. In this paper, the horizontal permeability is assumed to
presence of silt seams, sand lenses and fissures in the in situ condi- be approximately the same as the vertical [13].

Fig. 5. Settlement at (a) point A; (b) point B; (c) point C; (d) point D; (e) point E; and (f) point F.
680 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685
2.5. Mesh generation
The FEM analysis was carried out using PLAXIS version 8.2 to
discretize the embankment, columns and ground soil geometry
model into finite elements as shown in Fig. 3. Fifteen-noded trian-
gular elements (Fig. 4a) were used to discretize the embankment
and ground soils. The 15-noded triangular elements are accurate
elements that provide high quality stress results for complex prob-
lems. Five-noded beam elements (Fig. 4b) with two translational
degrees of freedom and one rotational degree of freedom were
used to model the long and short columns. Five pairs of interface
elements (Fig. 4c) were used to model the slippage between soil
and columns. Interface elements have been extended to 0.5 m be-
neath the short columns in order to allow for sufficient flexibility
around the column tip. In Fig. 4c, the interface elements are shown
to have a finite thickness, but in the finite element formulation the
coordinates of each node pair of interface elements are identical,
which means that the elements have zero thickness. The stiffness
matrix for interface elements is obtained by means of Newton–
Cotes integration. The position of the Newton–Cotes integration
points coincides with the node pairs. An elastic–plastic model is
used to describe the behavior of the interface of the soil and
structure. The Coulomb criterion is used to distinguish between
elastic behavior, where small displacements can occur within the
Fig. 6. Variation of settlement with depth beneath (a) point F; (b) point C; (c) point D; and (d) point E.
interface, and plastic interface behavior when permanent slip oc-
curs. For the interface to remain elastic, the shear stress s is given
by
jsj < rn tan /i þ ci ð2Þ
and for plastic behavior, s meets the criterion
jsj ¼ rn tan /i þ ci ð3Þ
where /i and ci are the friction angle and cohesion of the soil–struc-
ture interface. The strength properties of interfaces are linked to the
strength properties of the corresponding soil layer in which it is
embedded. Each data set has an associated strength reduction fac-
tor for the interface (Rinter) [18].
2.6. Loading procedure and calculation type
The construction process of the embankment consisted of two
phases, each phase adding 1 m of height over 2 days (the average
rate of construction was 0.5 m/d). A post-embankment construc-
tion period of 196 days is allowed for consolidation in the numer-
ical analysis. Consolidation analyses have been performed to
simulate the development or dissipation of excess pore water pres-
sure in the soft soil as a function of time, therefore, the model was
analyzed under an undrained condition.
 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685 681

3. Results and discussion

Three different cases have been considered to clarify the behav-

ior of the new composite foundation and for comparison purposes.
These cases are as follows:

(1) M1C1: without reinforcement,

(2) M2C1: the embankment fill supported by SC–lime columns,
and
(3) M3C1: the embankment fill supported by CFG–lime
columns.

Results are presented for points A–I located in Fig. 2.

3.1. Settlement analysis

Fig. 5 shows the variation of settlement with time at points A–F

for the three cases. As can be seen, settlement has more or less sta-
bilized about 200 days after construction. As can be seen, settle-
ment is largest for M1C1, followed by M2C1 and then M3C1. Fig. 8. Differential settlement at the top surface of embankment.
Furthermore, the settlement of M1C1 also takes much longer to
stabilize than the corresponding settlement of M2C1 and M3C1.

Fig. 7. Variation of settlement with horizontal distance at (a) ground surface; (b) 4.25 m beneath ground surface; (c) 10 m beneath ground surface; and (d) 13.75 m beneath
ground surface.
682 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685

Thus, the settlement is strongly influenced by the column type, umns, compared to that of the SC columns. The settlement curves
with the CFG–lime columns being the most effective in curtailing for points D and E show initial heave, followed by subsequent set-
both the magnitude and time of consolidation. This is readily tlement. The heave is maximum just after completion of the
attributable to the higher compression modulus of the CFG col-

Fig. 10. Variation of lateral displacement with depth beneath (a) point C; (b) point
Fig. 9. Lateral displacement at (a) point C; (b) point D; and (c) point E. D; and (c) point E.
 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685
embankment. Once again, case M1C1 shows the largest ground
movement, followed by M2C1 and finally M3C1.
Fig. 6 shows the variation of settlement with depth beneath
points C–F. As shown in Fig. 6, the settlement decreases mono-
tonically with depth beneath points F and C, while the settlement
beneath point D increases first then decreases with depth. It can
be seen in Fig. 6d that the upper part of the soil beneath point E
is heaving whereas the lower part is settling. It can also be seen
that the maximum settlement occurs at the ground surface at
point F.
Fig. 7 shows the variation of settlement along the base of the
embankment at the ground surface, 4.25 m beneath ground surface
(at the middle of very soft clay layer), 10 m beneath ground surface
(at the middle of soft clay layer), and 13.75 m beneath ground sur-
face (at the middle of medium clay layer). The settlement profile
shows that the maximum settlement occurs at the middle and at
the ground surface and keeps decreasing towards the toe of the
embankment and with depth. It can also be seen that surface heave
starts at a distance 10 m outside the embankment and continues
increasing. Moreover, the maximum heave occurs at the ground
surface and decreases with depth. The differential settlement be-
tween the columns and surrounding subsoil arising from the dif-
ferences in stiffness is also evident in Fig. 8. This differential
settlement also decreases with depth as settlement decreases.
Fig. 11. Excess pore pressure at (a) point F; (b) point G; (c) point H; and (d) point I.
683
3.2. Differential settlement
Fig. 8 shows the build-up of differential settlement between
points A and B with time at the crest surface of the embankment.
It can be seen that the differential settlement increases first and
reaches a maximum at the end of embankment construction then
gradually decreases with time as consolidation occurs. As can be
seen, the differential settlement is strongly influenced by the col-
umn type; once again, the CFG–lime combination is the most effec-
tive, followed by SC–lime and then the untreated case.
3.3. Lateral deformation
Fig. 9 shows the variation of lateral displacement with time at
points C–E. It can be seen that the lateral displacement starts
immediately during the construction and reaches a maximum
upon completion of the embankment construction. Thereafter, it
decreases with time as consolidation occurs.
Fig. 10 shows the variation of lateral displacement along depth
beneath points C–E. It is clear that the lateral displacement slightly
increases first then decreases significantly along the depth. The re-
sults show that the lateral displacement of soft ground for the third
case is larger than that for the second case at shallow depths, be-
cause the stiffness of CFG columns is greater than that of SC columns,
684 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685
while at larger depths, the lateral displacement of the soft ground for
the third case is smaller than that for the second case. It is also clear
that multi-column ground treatments are effective in reducing the
lateral displacement of the composite foundation along depth.
3.4. Excess pore pressure analysis
In this study, it is assumed that the excess pore water pressure
induced by the installation of columns has dissipated before the
construction of the embankment over the soft ground. An embank-
ment construction period of 200 days is allowed for consolidation
in the numerical analysis. Fig. 11 shows the variation of excess
pore pressure with time at points F–I. It is clearly shown that dis-
sipation starts immediately during the construction and continues
afterwards. The rate of dissipation reaches a maximum once the
embankment construction is completed and then decreases with
time. It is also clear that the excess pore pressure increases with
the depth from the ground surface.
3.5. Axial forces of columns
Fig. 12 shows the variation with depth of the maximum axial
force in the columns. It can be seen that the greater the elastic
modulus of the columns, the greater the axial force of the columns.
Fig. 12. Maximum axial force of columns (a) long column and (b) short column.
It is also seen that the maximum axial force of columns is lower
from the head of the columns to a certain depth. This is because
that the displacements of subsoil are larger than those of the col-
umns in a range of depth along the shaft. Additionally, the negative
friction is generated by the relatively larger settlement of shallow
subsoil. Below the neutral plane, the displacements of the columns
are larger than that of the subsoil with the further increase in
depth, and positive skin friction is generated. Thus, the column ax-
ial force decreases with the depth again.
4. Summary and conclusions
A multi-column composite foundation utilizes different column
types with different lengths and diameters to support the embank-
ment fill and mobilize the strength and stiffness of the soil at shal-
low depths. The long columns constructed from cement–fly ash–
gravel (CFG) columns and/or soil–cement (SC) columns are used
to reduce the settlement of the underlying soft ground. The short
columns constructed from lime columns (also called chemico col-
umns) are used to improve and strengthen the shallow soft soil
strata. In this study, two-dimensional finite element analyses were
used to investigate the consolidation behavior of a road embank-
ment constructed on multi-column composite foundation.
Based on the finite element results, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. Multi-column ground treatment can significantly reduce total
and differential settlements and restrict the lateral movement
of the embankment; as a result, the stability of the embank-
ment can be improved.
2. Maximum settlement occurs at the center and at the ground sur-
face. Moreover, the settlement is more at the center than that at
the toe of the embankment, which agrees with field observations.
3. Multi-column support allows for a faster rate of consolidation
and significantly increases embankment stability.
4. The multi-column composite foundation formed by CFG–lime
columns is more effective than that formed by SC–lime col-
umns. The CFG–lime columns combination improves the long-
term stability of the embankment because the fact that the
compression modulus of CFG columns is significantly greater
than that of SC columns.
References
[1] Ariema F, Butler BE. Embankment foundations-guide to earthwork
construction. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board, National
Research Council; 1990. p. 59–73.
[2] Magnan JP. Methods to reduce the settlement of embankments on soft clay: a
review. Vertical and horizontal deformations of foundations and
embankments. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication 40; 1994. p. 77–91.
[3] Shen SL, Chai JC, Hong ZS, Cai FX. Analysis of field performance of
embankments on soft clay deposit with and without PVD-improvement.
Geosynth Geomembranes 2005;23(6):463–85.
[4] Liu FY, Yang XB, Liu X. Field test of a composite foundation including mixed
pile. Chin J Geotech Eng 2003;25(1):71–5 [in Chinese].
[5] Chen LZ, Liang FY, Huang DZ, Wang GC. Field study on behavior of composite
piled raft foundation for high-rise buildings. Chin J Geotech Eng
2004;26(2):167–71 [in Chinese].
[6] Zhou DQ, Liu HL, Zhang KN. Experimental comparison study on behavior of
three and four-element composite foundation. J Build Struct 2004;25(5):124–9
[in Chinese].
[7] Chen Q. Behavior of combined composite ground and simulation by study FEM.
Chin Civil Eng J 2001;34(1):50–5 [in Chinese].
[8] Yan ML, Wang MS, Yan XF, Zhang DG. Study on the calculation method of
multi-pile composite foundation. Chin J Geotech Eng 2003;25(3):352–5 [in
Chinese].
[9] Zheng JJ, Abusharar SW, He C. Design theory and application of CFG–lime piles
composite ground. In: 6th International conference on ground improvement
techniques, Coimbra, Portugal; 2005. p. 651–6.
[10] Liang FY, Chen LZ, Shi XG. Numerical analysis of composite piled raft with
cushion subjected to vertical load. Comput Geotech 2003;30(6):443–53.
 S.W. Abusharar et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 36 (2009) 676–685 685

[11] Zheng JJ, Ou JH, Wang XZ. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of multi- [16] Han J, Huang J, Porbaha A. 2D numerical modeling of a constructed
element composite foundation. In: The 9th international conference on geosynthetic-reinforced embankment over deep mixed columns.
enhancement and promotion of computational methods in engineering and Contemporary issues in foundation engineering (GSP 131). ASCE; 2005.
science, Macao; 2003. [17] Chen RP, Chen YM, Xu ZZ. Interaction of rigid pile-supported embankment on
[12] Zheng JJ, Abusharar SW, Wang XZ. Three-dimensional nonlinear finite element soft soil. Advances in earth structures: research to practice (GSP 131). ASCE;
modeling of composite foundation formed by CFG–lime piles. Comput Geotech 2006. p. 231–8.
2008;35(4):637–43. [18] PLAXIS 2D V8. Reference manual; 2002.
[13] Hossain MS, Haque MA, Rao KN. Embankment over soft soil improved with [19] Bergado DT, Enriquez AS, Sampaco CL, Alfaro MC. Inverse analysis of
chemico pile – a numerical study. Advances in earth structures: research to geotechnical parameters on improved soft Bangkok clay. ASCE J Geotech Eng
practice (GSP 151). ASCE; 2006. 1990;18(7):1012–30.
[14] Huang J, Han J, Porbaha A. Two and three-dimensional modeling of DM [20] Hansbo S. Design aspects of vertical drains and lime column installations. In:
columns under embankments. GeoCongress. ASCE; 2006. Proceedings of 9th southeast Asian geotechnical conference, vol. 2. Bangkok;
[15] Madhyannapu RS, Puppala AJ, Hossain S, Han J, Porbaha A. Analysis of 1987. p. 8-1–12.
geotextile reinforced embankment over deep mixed columns: using numerical
and analytical tools. GeoCongress. ASCE; 2006.