Recent Advances in Column

Technologies to Improve Soft

Foundations

Jie Han, Ph.D., PE

Professor

The University of Kansas, USA

 Outline of Presentation

Introduction

Innovations in Installation and Applications

Load Transfer Mechanisms

Settlement and Consolidation

Stability

Concluding Remarks
Introduction
 Definition of Columns

A vertical sub-structural element, installed in-situ

by ground improvement techniques
(replacement, displacement, and/or mixture with
chemical agents), that carries the load of the
super-structure or earth structure with
surrounding soil and transmits it to geo-media
around and/or below, through compression,
shear, or rotation
 Classification of Columns
Method Type Technology Examples

Installation Replacement Stone columns

Displacement Sand compaction piles, stone columns
Mixture DM columns, grouted columns
Combination Rammed aggregate piers
Material Sand compaction piles, stone columns, rammed
Granular
aggregate piers
Chemically-stabilized DM columns and grouted columns
Concrete columns, cement-flyash-gravel (CFG)
Concrete
columns
Geosynthetic-encased soil columns, stiffened DM
Composite
columns, and composite spun piles
Rigidity Sand compaction piles, stone columns, rammed
Flexible
aggregate piers
Semi-rigid DM columns, grouted columns, composite columns
Rigid Concrete columns
 Functions
Densification
Increase density, modulus, strength, and liquefaction
resistance of surrounding soil
Increase pre-consolidation stress of surrounding soil

Pile effect
Transfer loads to a deeper and competent geo-material
Stress concentration

Drainage
Accelerate consolidation
Increase liquefaction resistance

Reinforcement
Increase shear, tensile, and/or bending resistance
 Design Considerations

Load transfer

Bearing capacity (e.g., Bouassida et al., 1995)

Settlement and consolidation

Slope stability

Liquefaction mitigation (e.g., Rollins et al.)

Earth retaining (e.g., Shao et al.)

Innovations in Column Installation
and Applications
 T-shape Deep Mixed Columns

Rotation
direction

Grouting Grouting Mixing Grouting Grouting Mixing Mixing

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Mixing Mixing Mixing Mixing

Courtesy of S.Y. Liu

T-shape Deep Mixing

Courtesy of S.Y. Liu

 Hollow Concrete Columns

Referred to as Large Diameter Pipe Pile Using

Cast-in-place Concrete (PCC) by Prof. Liu Courtesy of H.L. Liu
X-shape Concrete Columns

Courtesy of H.L. Liu

 Geosynthetic-encased Columns

Alexiew et al. (2005)

 Composite Columns

Courtesy of G. Zheng
 Composite Columns
- Stiffened Deep Mixed Piles

- Jet pressure =220 bar

- Diameter =0.60 m
- L=7.00 m

Courtesy of Bergado SDCM pile construction

Composite Columns - Grouted Spun Pile

Cement mix Spun pile

Welding

Bhandari et al. (2009)

 Pile-Column Combined Method

Pile Column

Huang and Li (2009) and Zheng et al. (2009)

 DM-PVD Combined Method

Liu et al (2008)

DM
column

Ye et al (2008)
PVD
The Most Commonly Used Application
Column-supported Embankments

Geosynthetic-reinforced s0 Geosynthetics
fill platform
Embankment

s0

Columns

Firm soil or bedrock

Load Transfer Mechanisms
 Equal Strain vs. Equal Stress
sc
ss sc
ss

Ss Sc Ss Ss Sc Ss
Ec Es Ec Ec Es Ec

(a) Equal strain = rigid loading (b) Equal stress = flexible loading

Columns

How about a column-supported embankment?

Stress Concentration under Equal V. Strain
sc
Stress Concentration Ratio, n =
ss
sc sc
ss ss

Dc Ds S c = Ss Ec Es S c = Ss
dh
1-D unit cell Unit cell with lateral deformation
sc ss sz - (sx - sy) sz - (sx - sy)
z = = z = =
Dc Ds Ec Es
Dc Ec
n=
Ds > n
Es
 Stress Concentration Ratio vs. Strain
Equal vertical strain condition

Stress Yielding Stress concentration ratio, n

sc
sc2 n
ss
sc3
sc4 Column
sc1
Yielding
ss4 Soil
ss3
ss2
ss1
Strain 0 Strain
(a) Stress-strain relationship (b) Stress concentration ratio

E.g., stone column: qcult = 15 to 25 cu, qsult = 5 to 6 cu

n = qcult / qsult = 2 to 5
 Influence of Column Lateral
Deformation and Yielding
Stress concentration ratio, n

Castro and Sagaseta (2011)

 Influence of Modulus Ratio
and Column Yielding
70

60 L/d e=4 Rigid

Stress concentration ratios

as =0.1 column
50 kc/kv=1
40 Ec/E
30 10
50
20
100
10 Semi-rigid
0
Flexible
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Time (days)

Jiang et al. (2010)

Stress Concentration vs. Consolidation

2040kPa
kPa

Yin and Fang (2008)

 n vs. Ec/Es
10
9
8
Stress Concentration Ratio, n

7
6
n = 1 + 0.217 (Ec /Es - 1) Cutoff ratio
5
for stone columns
4
Barksdale and Bachus (1983)
3
2
1
0
0 10 20 30 40
Modulus Ratio, Ec /Es
 Stress Transfer
under Unequal Vertical Strain
Average vertical
Settlement, S(z) Shear stress, (z) stress, s(z)
Equal settlement
Fill (upper plane)
hc

Soft Column Sc Ss <0

soil s0 ss sf sc
rc
re >0
Equal settlement
(lower plane)

at r = rc
Bearing layer Sc at r < rc sc at r < rc
z z z
Ss at r = re ss at r = re

Modified from Schlosser and Simon (2008)

Stress Transfer in Geosynthetic-reinforced
Column-supported Embankment

W H
Hcr
ps T
d
Ec
sc ss Es

Effects: (1) modulus ratio effect, (2) soil arching,

(3) tensioned membrane/slab stiffening
Modified from Han (1998)
 Field Stress Concentration Ratio
70
Stress Concentration Ratio, n

All plate loading test data from Han and Ye (1991)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Applied pressure, p (kPa)
Flexible column Rigid column
Semi-rigid column
PLT/VCC
PLT/lime columns PLT/DM columns PLT/concrete columns
PLT/stone columns GCSE/DM columns GCSE/VCC
PLT = Plate loading test CSE = Column-supported embankment GCSE/concrete columns
GCSE = Geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankment CSE/concrete columns

Findings: (1) n increases with stress level

(2) n increases with rigidity of loading
Han and Wayne (2000)
 DEM Modeling of Dynamic Behavior
Loading
19 20 21 22 23

14 15 16 17 18
Embankment

1.3m
9 10 11 12 13

Optional 4 5 6 7 8

geogrid
1 2 3 0.3 m
Pile cap

0.3 m 0.9 m 0.3 m

Findings: (1) geosynthetic increases rigidity of loading

(2) n decreases with soil arching
Settlement and Consolidation
 Methods of Settlement Calculation

1. Stress reduction factor (e.g., Aboshi et al, 1978)

2. Improvement factor method (e.g., Priebe, 1995)

3. Elastic-plastic solution (e.g., Pulko and Majes, 2005;

Castro and Sagaseta, 2009)

4. Column penetration method (e.g., Chai et al., 2010)

5. Pier-raft method (e.g., Han et al., 2009)

5. Numerical method
 Stress Reduction Factor Method
Settlement of untreated ground
s s m v ,s s z H

Settlement of treated ground

s sc m 'v ,s s 'z H m 'v ,s s s z H
'
s sc m v ,s
Settlement ratio s
s s m v ,s
If assume mv,s = mv,s
s sc 1
s Stress reduction factor
ss 1 a s (n 1)
Aboshi et al. (1978)
 Stress Reduction Factor Method
vs. Numerical Method
300
Consolidation settlement (mm)

H/d e = 4
250 as = 0.1
k c/kv = 1
200 Numerical
150 Simplified

100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
EEcc/E
/Es

Jiang et al. (2013)

 Improvement Factor Method
Basic Method
Assume incompressible columns with bulging over
column length

Improvement 5 as
If 1 a s 1
factor 2 o

41 a s tan 45 c / 2

Settlement of stone column ss

s sc
foundation If
Modified Method
In addition to column bulging, column compressibility
and overburden stress are considered
Priebe (1995)
 Basic Improvement Factor Method
8
Friction angle
of column (deg.)
7
35
Improvement Factor

6 37.5
40
5 42.5
45
4

1
0 0,1 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,5
Area Replacement Ratio

Priebe (1995)
 Elastic-Plastic Solution for
Stone Columns

Assume soft soil is linearly elastic

Assume stone columns are linearly elastic-perfectly

plastic with Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion with a
constant dilantancy angle

Plasticity starts with the upper portion of the column and

can extend deeper to the whole length of column with
applied load

Pulko and Majes (2005)

Castro and Sagaseta (2009)
Column Penetration Method

Equivalent unimproved
zone thickness due to
column penetration

Area
replacement Improvement
ratio depth ratio

Hc = HL f() g() h()

Pressure
strength ratio

Chai et al. (2010) and Chai (2012)

Pier-raft Approach for Settlement of Soil-
cement or Concrete Columns

Raft Atp
Eeq Es E p Es
Ag
Es
deq
Horikoshi and Randolph (1999)
Eeq

Ag

Pp Pr K p K r 1 2 cp Randolph (1984)
K pr
Spr 1 K r / K p cp
2

Han et al. (2009)

 Calculated Settlements by Pier-raft Aproach

10m

0.8m
(a) Plan view 10m Settlement (cm)
Method
Group Equivalent pier
7.4m
Analytical 15.9 (16.9*)
15MN
Raft
0.5m Numerical 15.6 16.9
Lp =10m
DM columns
(Ep=100MPa) h = 30m * Without considering finite depth effect
(b) Cross section
Es=5MPa

Han et al. (2009)

 Consolidation of Stone Columns
(Han and Ye, 2001; 2002)
Rate of consolidation
due to radial flow:
de

p 8
Tr'
Fm' ( N )
Drainage surface Ur 1 e

rs Modified time factor

rc z H
Stone column
Ec Es in radial flow
kv 2H
kc ks c '
' rt
kh Tr 2
de

Drainage surface r
re ' 1
c c r 1 n s 2
r
N 1
 Degree of Consolidation
0

0.2
Barron (1947)

0.4
n=10 n=1
U

0.6
Balaam and Booker (1981) Free-draining
0.8
Han and Ye (2001)
stone column
1
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1

Tr

Han & Ye (2001)

Khine (2004)
Dissipation of Excess Pore Pressure
1.0
Dissipation of Average Excess Pore 0.9
N=3, ns=5

0.8
Water Pressure, u/p

Due to stress reduction

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
Due to drainage
0.2

0.1

0.0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Time Factor, Tr

Han and Ye (2001)

 Well Resistance Effect
Time (day)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
0

10

20
Settlement (mm)

30 Field data (Tan et al., 2008)

No well resistance (Han and Ye, 2002)
40
Well resistance (Han and Ye, 2002)
50

60

70

80

90

Han (2010)
 Consolidation of Column-improved
Soft Foundation over Soft Soil

Zhu and Yins (1999) closed-form solution for consolidation

of two-layered soils can be used for calculation of
consolidation rate

Chai and Pongsivasathit (2009)

 Consolidation of Soil-cement
Column-improved Foundations
0

10
Average degree of consolidation (%) .

20

30

40

50 kc = ks
60

70 Ec/Es
80 5
10
90 50
100
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1
2
Time factor Tv=cv t/H

Jiang et al. (2013)

Stability
 Column Failure Modes
under Embankment Loading
Embankment Embankment Embankment

Soft soil Columns Soft soil

Columns Columns Soft soil

Stiff layer Stiff layer Stiff layer

Sliding direction
(a) Sliding (b) Collapse (rotational) (c) bending
o
Embankment
Embankment Berm
Embankment
S

Columns
Soft soil Soft soil Columns
Columns

Stiff layer Stiff layer Tensile Bending

failure failure

(d) Circular shear (e) Horizontal shear (f) Combined

Modified from Kitazume (2008) and Broms (1999)

 Factor of Safety under Undrained
Condition for Stone Columns

a b

Backfill water level Backfill water level

Stone columns
Equivalent area
Clay Clay

Sand Sand

FS (individual) = 0.9 FS (equivalent)

Abusharar and Han (2010)

 Numerical Modeling with DM Columns

6
Numerical Bishop
5

4
Factor of Safety
3
Shear Bending Rotation

Han et al. (2005; 2010) 1

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Cohesion of DM Walls (kPa)
 Centrifuge Tests with Rigid Columns

Single column

Column group

Zheng et al. (2011)

 Concluding Remarks
A variety of column technologies have been developed
and successfully adopted for different applications
Composite columns or combined technologies with
columns have been increasingly used to combine their
advantages
Stress concentration ratio depends on rigidity of
loading, modulus ratio, lateral deformation, yielding of
columns, stress level, and dynamic loading
Columns can accelerate the rate of consolidation
through drainage and/or stress transfer
Columns under embankment loading can fail under
shear, tension, bending, rotation, or a combination.
Bending and rotation failure are dominant for semi-
rigid and rigid columns
Thank You!