Construction of Flat Glass Float Factory on Loess Deposits Using

Controlled Modulus Columns in Seismic Condition

C. Plomteux & P. Liausu
Menard Soltraitement, Nozay, France
info@menard-soltraitement.com

Abstract: The Saint-Gobain Glass Calarai project consists of constructing a 21,500m rom float in Calarai, Romania. This warehouse
has a metal structure supported on piles. Ground improvement is used under the slab-on-grades in order to reduce differential settlement under heavy live loading (80 kN/m) to a maximum of 1/500 differential settlement over the whole building. The ground condition comprises of 6 to 10m of loess deposits overlying 6m of alluvium clay. Controlled Modulus Columns are used to minimize settlement under heavy live loadings. This consists of reinforcing the soil by means of semi-rigid cement grout inclusions. This paper
presents the procedures used for the design of the semi-rigid inclusions in soft soil under seismic condition and heavy loading.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Ground Improvement with Semi-Rigid Inclusions

The concept of semi-rigid inclusions is fairly old. A network of
wooden piles installed under ancient churches is indeed one of
the first examples of application. The concept is to improve the
soil globally by the use of semi-rigid soil reinforcement columns.
These inclusions can be installed by various methods (percussion, vibration, soil displacement, etc). The final objective is to
obtain an improved ground with bearing capacity compatible
with the structure to be built. This type of soil improvement solution does not aim to bypass the compressible ground by installing
piles that will directly support the entire load imposed by the
structure but rather, it is to improve the soil globally and to reduce its deformability. Fig. 1 illustrate the concept of ground improvement using semi-rigid inclusions compared with rigid piles.

granular material that distribute the loads uniformly throughout

the soil mass.
The CMC system 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 based grout then flows
under low pressure (typically less than 5 bars) out of the auger
base as it is retracting and results in a 100% cement grout column
that can be used in close vicinity of sensitive structures and that
generates virtually no above ground spoils. No soil mixing takes
place during the pressure grouting. Fig. 2 shows the installation
process.

Fig. 2 CMC installation process

Fig. 1 Semi-rigid inclusion versus piles
1.2 Controlled Modulus Columns
The principle of installing Controlled Modulus Columns (hereinafter referred to as CMC) as semi-rigid inclusions is to form a
composite material. These columns are usually associated with a
load distribution platform made of good quality well compacted

The main objective is to develop an optimal distribution of

load between the soil and the columns while aiming to develop
the full potential of the founding strata. The dimensions, spacing,
and material of the CMC are based upon the development of an
optimal combination of support from the columns and the soil
mass to limit settlements within the allowable range and to obtain
the design value for the equivalent deformation modulus of the
improved soil.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SAINT-GOBAIN GLASS

CALARAI

The Saint-Gobain Glass Calarai project consists of the construction of a rom float in Calarai, Romania. Due to local conditions,
Saint-Gobain has chosen the town of Calarasi (approximately
100 kilometres east of Bucharest) being the project site where the
soil conditions which consisted of compressible subsiding loess
and soft clay and having potential seismic risks inevitably required ground improvement for the construction.
2.1 Project Description

Table 1 General soil parameters

Thickness [m]
[kN/m3]
E [MPa]
[-]
c [kPa]
[]

Site investigation carried out in 2004 shows the following subsoil

profile:
- Top soil of 0.3 m thick
- Loess deposits over a thickness of 6 to 10 m
- Alluvial clay down to 14 to 17 m deep
- Clay sand over a thickness varying from 0 to 3 m
- Sand and gravel down to 26 to 29 m deep
- Clay-marl complex
- sandstone
The soil conditions are quite homogeneous over the project
site and typical average geotechnical conditions are presented in
Table 1. Fig. 3 represents a typical CPT profile on the project.
4

qc (MPa)
6 8 10 12 14

8
z (m)

z (m)

10

10

12

12

14

14

16

16

18

18

Fig. 3 Typical CPT profile

Sand & gravels

2.0
18
45
0.3
0
36

450
400
350

Settlement (mm)

300
250
200
150
100
50
0
18/03/05

25/03/05

01/04/05

08/04/05

15/04/05

22/04/05

29/04/05

06/05/05

13/05/05

Fig. 4 Test area settlement versus time

2.2 Soil Conditions

Alluvium clay
6.0
18
13
0.3
10
25

A test area was implemented in order to validate the settlement potential of the loess deposits. A 30 m 30 m trial embankment of 6.5m high was instrumented for settlement. Fig. 4
shows the settlement monitoring results.

The warehouse consists of a metallic structure supported on piles.

The final slab level is about 1.5 m above natural ground level.
The slab-on-grades is 25 cm thick and construction joints are
made around each foundation.
Ground improvement works is mainly on the slab-on-grades
reinforcement of the warehouse measuring an area of about
21,500 m. Ground improvement is carried out to limit the differential settlement under live load of 80 kN/m to 1/500.
There is no limitation on the absolute settlement. However,
these absolute settlements need to be limited typically to 30 - 40
mm in order not to influence the reliability of the differential settlement predictions.

Loess deposits
8.6
18
3. 5
0.3
6
25

Rf (%)
6
8

10 12 14

The results of the trial embankment were used to backanalysed the geotechnical design parameters and the soil profile
used. Compaction and vibration tests also confirm that the loess
deposits were not collapsible.
The superficial ground water table was found to be about 5 m
deep in the loess deposits while a deep pressurized water table
was about 14 to 17 m deep below the alluvium clay layer. The
phreatic surface of this water table head is pressurized up to the
first water table level (5 m deep from NGL).
The Calarai area has a significant seismic activity, and the
Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) characteristics are as follow:
-

aN = 0.262 g,

Design earthquake magnitude : MW = 7,

Building class : C (appendix 2 in PS92),

Site type : S2 (soil type b over thickness lower than 50 m).

2.3 Ground Improvement Solution

An alternative solution proposed by Menard was chosen in preference to the initial exhibited design calling for a pile supported
slab. It consists of constructing a conventional slab-on-grades
with a thickness of 25 cm resting on soil reinforced with a grid
network of CMC with a well compacted sand-gravel load distribution platform of 60 cm thick below the slab.
The design of the ground improvement by CMC is based on
elastic and plastic FEM calculations. Design models are based on
axial-symmetrical calculations whose general principle is presented in Fig 5. Considering a quasi-infinite grid of CMC, a regular square grid with center-to-center spacing L and section L, is
quasi-equivalent to a cylindrical grid of radius L (equivalent volume) with an axial-revolution symmetry (Fig. 5).

The base case corresponds to the design parameters presented

in Table 1. Based on the site investigation and laboratory testing,
these soil parameters correspond to the best possible correlation
to the existing soil conditions and they are considered as the base
conditions for the design of the CMC reinforcement.
Sensibility calculations have been made based on different parameters to evaluate their impacts on total and differential settlement as presented in Table 2. Design variations have been made
on:

Fig. 5 General principle of axial-symmetrical models

Considering the heavy live load applied to the slab, the design
is on the settlement evaluation and the determination of the bending moment in the slab-on-grades. Sensibility calculation have
been made on the soil parameters and loading conditions.
In order to take into account different slab loadings, 2D plane
strain models where the treated soil is considered as an equivalent improved ground are considered. From the previous axialsymmetrical FEM calculations, the equivalent modulus of the
ground improved by CMC can be obtained as presented in Fig. 6.

Deformation modulus of the CMC from 5,000 MPa (base

case) to 15, 000 MPa

Equivalent deformation modulus of the loess deposits from 1

MPa to 3.5MPa (base case)

Length of the cut-off of the CMC from 0 to 0.2 m (base case)

Table 2 Sensibility calculation over settlement

Settlement
Stress in CMC
(cm)
(MPa)
Base case
3.34
3.77
CMC
10 000 MPa
3.05
3.84
modulus 15 000 MPa
2.95
3.86
1
MPa
4.24
3.97
Loess
modulus 2 MPa
3.72
3.88
Cut-off 0.0 m
3.57
3.75
Average value
3.48 cm
3.85 MPa
From Menard D.60.AN design documents, the maximum differential settlement is given by the standard deviation for points
at 10 m apart and it is expressed by the following equation:

w = S =

(w w)
n

= 0.433 cm over 10 m,

(2)

Thus, w = 0.86/500 < 1/500 which is acceptable.

In order to estimate the imposed stresses in the slab, two types
of calculations are carried out as follow:
(1) Axial-symmetrical calculations to evaluate stresses induced
by the presence of the CMC columns. The main results are
presented in Table 3 below:

Fig. 6 General principle of axial-symmetrical models

The equivalent oedometric modulus of the improved ground is
calculated from the vertical displacement measured between the
top of the load distribution platform and below the tip of the
CMC column where settlement are homogeneous over the section using the following equation:

E oed =

h
h

(1)

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 load; Eoed is
the equivalent oedometric modulus of the reinforced ground.

Table 3 Sensitivity calculation over bending moment in the slab

Bending moment in the slab
(kNm/m)
Base case
8.63
CMC modulus 10 000 MPa
8.99
15 000 MPa
9.10
Loess modulus 1 MPa
11.49
2 MPa
10.10
Cut-off
0.0 m
11.27
Average value
9.93 kNm/m
(2) 2D plane-strain model using equivalent material for the
treated soil to evaluate the stress induced by the different live
loadings on the slab was carried out. The calculations are carried out for an applied live load of 80 kN/m of different
width ranging from 1 m to 6 m. The main results are presented in Table 4 and Fig. 7:

Fig. 7 2D plan-strain model for evaluation of bending moment in

slab-on-grades

Table 4 Bending moment versus width on loading

Differential
Bending moment
Width of loading
settlement
in the slab
(80 kN/m)
(mm)
(kNm/m)
1m
0.13
4.23
2m
1.01
8.85
3m
2.62
10.08
4m
4.52
9.60
5m
6.44
8.77
6m
8.33
8.41
60 m
7.87
Average value
3.84 mm
8.26 kNm/m

Fig. 9 CMC installation on site

2.4 Seismic Effect on CMC Soil Displacement
During an earthquake, the waves transmitted by the substratum
are transformed into shear waves that are spreading upward to the
surface layers.
2.4.1 Free field motion
During DBE (Design Basis Earthquake), the maximum associated strain has the shape of a quarter sine curve. In which case, it
has a maximum surface displacement dmax given by Eq. (3):
2

d max = .aN .
12

(3)

where

10
bending moment (kN.m/m)

S 2.H = 3.04 cm

GS

= 0.9 (based on site type S2)

8
6
4

aN : ground peak acceleration (equal to 2.62 m/s)

H thickness of the soil to substratum (equal to 49 m)

s = i Hi / Hi is the unit volume mass of the soil

(equal to 1792 kg/m3)

Gi = 0.5 Gimax is the dynamic shear modulus of the considered soil layer (cf. 9.4222 in PS92)

Gs = Gi Hi / Hi is the dynamic shear resistance modulus

of the soil profile (equal to 91 MPa; taking into account iterated shear modulus).

2
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

Load band w idth (m)

Fig. 8 Bending moment versus width of loading

Bending moment reaches a peak value for a loading width of
about 3 m. Fig. 8 shows the variation of bending moment against
loading width
These two effects are combined and the maximum total bending moment in the slab-on-grades was estimated to be around M
= 18kN.m/m. Hence, the slab-on-grades needs to be lightly reinforced.
This solution was able to guarantee an absolute residual settlement of about 3.5 cm and differential settlement lower than
1/500.
The final design of 2.25 m center-to-center square grid with
360 mm diameter CMC at an average depth of 17 m was adopted
and constructed in Calarai. The installation works commenced
in July 2005 working with 12 hours shifts. The works was successfully completed in August 2005 in just two months time.
Fig. 9 shows the CMC installation rig.

aN

dmax

1, G1

2, G 2

3, G 3
Fig. 10 Free field displacement

CMC

In this scheme, shear force and bending moment in the CMC are
calculated as columns under lateral forces and displacement, using a finite difference elasto-plastic calculation following the
equation below:
. = Ks B y

(4)

where:

Table 5 Bending moment and shear force in CMC

Applied solicitations
Results
HorizonMaxiMaximum
Vertical
Surface
tal load
mum
shear
load in
displaceat CMC
bending
force in
the CMC
ment
head
moment
CMC
case

2.4.2 Bending moment and shear stress in the CMC

0 kN

0 kN

0.0304 m

384 kN

0 kN

0.0304 m

0.4 kNm

0.3 kN

ks.B : reaction modulus of the soil applied on the width of

the CMC (B),

2.4.3 Compression, tensile and shear stress in the CMC

: differential pressure of the soil between each side of the

CMC with limited to the creep pressure pf,

y : differential displacement between soil and inclusion

Under both axial force and bending moment (Fig. 12), stresses in
the CMC are given by Eq. (7):

The reaction modulus of the soil against the CMC is calculated using the short-term pressuremeter Eq. (5) below:

KsB =

and

4
2.65 +
3

pl
.B
1.8

Ri
Mi

2
.D 4 .D 3 32

(5)

(for B = 0.36 m < 0.6 m)

(6)

adm = 4 MPa
M = N

0,00
0,05
0,10
0,15
0,20
0,25
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45

0,30

0,20

0,00

0,10

Bending moments (kN.m)

-0,10

Shear force (kN)

-0,20

adm = 4 MPa
M =
N

6
depth Z (m)

6
depth Z (m)

8
10

Fig. 12 CMC under axial force and bending moment

12

12

14

14

16

16

Table 6 Bending moment and shear force in CMC

Applied solicitations
Results
Maximum
Vertical load bending
Maximum
compression
in the CMC
moment
tensile stress
stress

18

18

10

Fig. 11 Shear force and bending moment under free field

displacement

case

-0,30

-0,40

The main results of those calculations are presented in Fig. 11

and Table 5. Those results show that bending moment and shear
force induced by soil horizontal displacement during earthquake
are limited to low values.

(7)

where Ri is the axial compression force and Mi the bending moment

12Em

p f .B =

0 kN

384 kN

0.4 kNm

0.087 MPa

-0.087 MPa

3.859 MPa

3.685 MPa

The compression strength at 28 days of the CMC material is

around 12 MPa, giving a factor of safety of more than 3 on compression strength during earthquake.
Concrete with compression strength fck28 = 12 MPa have a approximate tensile strength fctm = 1.3 MPa. Tensile stresses occur
in unloaded CMC during earthquake but they remain within ac-

ceptable ranges (less than 1.3 MPa). Steel reinforcement is thus

not necessary.
2.4.4 Buckling of the CMC
Check for non-buckling of CMC (=360 mm and D= 16 m) is
carried out using Mandels method (Fig. 13). This method is used
to evaluate the critical buckling load Nc of a CMC installed in a
soil characterized by its surface horizontal reaction coefficient kh.

Calculation of the critical buckling force Nc

In this case, the critical buckling force calculated with

Mandels method is Nc = 277 tons. Usually, a 2.5 factor of safety
is adopted for serviceability limit state (SLS). The maximum
load applied to the CMC is N= 384 kN = 38.4 tons which is
much lesser than the safe critical buckling load of 111 tons
(computed as Nc/2.5 = 111 tons).
Hence, there is no risk of column buckling for the CMC inclusions in this case.

REFERENCES

Fig. 13 Graph from Mandel for buckling assessment

The calculation is conducted with the following steps:

-

Calculation of the reduced semi-length (no unit)

Calculation of reduced force from Mandels abacus according to the corresponding limit conditions.

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
D.60.AN - Interpretation and Application of Pressuremeter test
results to foundation design, Sols Soil N26, 1975
Fascicule N62 Titre V
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