Numerical Modeling of the RAP Construction

Process and Its Effects on RAP Behavior

Amir M. Halabian, P.Eng.1; and Pegah Jarast Shamsabadi2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Although rammed aggregate piers (RAPs) have attracted much attention as a cost-beneficial ground improvement technique, their
construction process and the other affecting parameters on the behavior of these geotechnical structures during the construction and loading
phases have not been properly investigated and only some predictions for downward and radial expansion resulting from the construction pro-
cess have been proposed to be used in numerical simulations. The goal of this paper is to numerically simulate the RAP construction process to
investigate the effect of construction sequences on RAP behavior. Keeping this aim in mind, a hybrid distinct element–finite difference
algorithm is developed to simulate the placing and ramming of the RAP’s clean crushed stone layers in detail. Introducing several numerical
models, a parametric study was then conducted to compare the behavior of RAPs during the construction process for different pier geometries
and soil properties. The results of this research not only help to understand the RAP behavior during the ramming process but can also be used as
a guide for predicting the amount of downward and lateral expansion of RAPs after the ramming process. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000429. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Numerical methods; Distinct element; Rammed aggregate piers (RAPs); Construction process.

Introduction
Over the past century, significant progress has been achieved to
make the construction of buildings possible over soft and compress-
ible soils. Some of the advanced techniques, such as deep foundations,
stone columns, ground improvement, and soil replacement, are rela-
tively expensive and not economical in many cases. An alternative
to these methods is the rammed aggregate pier (RAP) technique.
This method was developed in the early 1980s and has been used for
different geotechnical applications, such as settlement control,
bearing capacity improvement, slope stabilization, uplift enhance-
ment, and liquefaction mitigation (Hoevelkamp 2002; Fox 2004;
Farrell and Taylor 2004; Farrell et al. 2008; Girsang et al. 2004;
White et al. 2007; Majchrzak et al. 2009). This technique is different
from similar techniques, such as stone columns. The difference is
mainly in the construction process, material, and their behaviors, as
discussed in past studies (White et al. 2002). The construction
procedure of RAP systems is well-described in the literature
(Lawton et al. 1994; Lawton and Fox 1994). Aggregate piers are
constructed using a variety of methods, such as vibroreplacement,
predrilling, vibration, and ramming, the vibrocomposer, the cased
borehole, and finally the Geopier reinforcing elements. In general,
RAP construction is initiated by drilling 600- to 900-mm-diameter
holes into the ground to depths ranging from 2 to 8 m below the
planned footing bottom elevation. Well-graded clean crushed stone
1
Associate Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Isfahan Univ. of
Technology, 8415683111 Isfahan, Iran (corresponding author). E-mail:
mahdi@cc.iut.ac.ir
2
Ph.D. Student, Dept. of Geotechnical Engineering, Univ. of New
Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824; formerly, Associate Professor, Faculty
of Civil Engineering, Isfahan Univ. of Technology, 8415683111 Isfahan,
Iran. E-mail: pj1@wildcats.unh.edu.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on August 10, 2013; approved on
June 2, 2014; published online on July 11, 2014. Discussion period open
until December 11, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/04014085(14)/$25.00.
is then introduced into the drilled cavity in 300-mm lifts. In the first
lift, the bottom bulb is formed by ramming the placed stone layer
using a downhole impact hammer equipped with a specially designed,
high-energy beveled tamper foot. The pier is completed by in-
troducing more thick lifts of aggregate over the bottom bulb and
densifying the aggregate with the beveled tamper. During ramming,
although the beveled tamper compacts the aggregates, it forces them
laterally into the sidewall of the excavated cavity, resulting in an
increase in the lateral stresses in the surrounding soil and the soil
matrix is densified and prestressed. In granular soils, casing is often
required to provide the stability of the cavity sidewall during con-
struction. A steel casing slightly larger than the drill tool is either
vibrated or lowered into the cavity during drilling and is withdrawn
incrementally during aggregate tamping.
The behavior of RAPs has been previously investigated using
both experimental and numerical approaches (White et al. 2007;
Pham and White 2007; Handy and White 2006a, b; Suleiman and
White 2006; Chen et al. 2009; Halabian et al. 2012a, b). However,
despite this expectation that the installation process has a significant
effect on RAP behavior, most of the numerical studies have focused
on the behavior of these structures after installation, neglecting the
construction process effect.
Limited studies have considered the pier’s construction effect, in
which the ramming effect on the soil matrix has been induced by cavity
expansions along the shaft and at the bottom of the cavity (Pham and
White 2007; Chen et al. 2009; Halabian et al. 2012a; Pham 2005).
Halabian et al. (2012a) showed that the stress path for an adjacent soil
element located at shallow depths of the pier in a pier group is affected
by pier installation (Fig. 1). During pier installation, the radial normal
stress (sH ) increased beyond the vertical normal stress (sv ), whereas
the shear stress also increased. By the end of the pier installation
process, the stress state of the soil element approached the Rankine
passive condition. The stress states of the soil element’s subsequent
application of foundation loading, captured by the upwards stress
path continuing from the passive condition, which can be charac-
terized by a rapid increase in the vertical normal stress and reduction
in the radial normal stress following another reverse to the shear

© ASCE 04014085-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

 direction, gives more capacity to RAP-supported foundations. As can
be seen in Fig. 1, the adjacent soil element would have failed at
a substantially lower value of applied vertical load if the stress field
induced from pier installation had been neglected.
The current research aimed to simulate the construction effects of
a single RAP during the ramming process. To do this task, a general
particle-flow (PF) model that simulates the mechanical behavior of a
system composed of a collection of arbitrarily shaped particles was used
to simulate the placing and ramming of RAP layers, whereas the
finite-difference (FD) method was employed for modeling the soil
matrix. The PF method was then linked to the FD method to ex-
amine the effect of the ramming process on the mechanical behavior
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
geometries as well as the soil’s properties. This study not only helped
to understand the RAP behavior during ramming but can also be
used as a guideline for quantifying the ground improvement in terms
of downward and lateral expansion due to the ramming process. The
current study also aimed to examine the validity of the current
assumption in the postconstruction numerical modeling of RAPs,
which considers a constant percentage for downward and lateral
displacement as the construction effect for all RAPs with different
diameters and lengths and all types of soil.
Site Conditions and Pier Installation

of the neighboring soil matrix. A comprehensive parametric study
was conducted to compare the ramming effects for different pier
Fig. 1. Stress path for selected matrix soil element near pier (data from
Halabian et al. 2012a)
As it was pointed out, the installation process of RAPs is a phe-
nomenon of considerable significance and was studied experimen-
tally by a number of researchers (Handy and White 2006a, b). To
further investigate the installation effects, the soil-stress path during
construction has also been studied for isolated piers by some
researchers (Pham and White 2007; Chen et al. 2009). As part of an
experimental study at a test site in Neola, Iowa, a single RAP that was
3 m long and had a 0.76-m diameter was constructed and various in
situ and laboratory tests were performed to evaluate the load-
deformation behavior of the pier. Verification of the model de-
veloped in the current study was performed based on the field and
laboratory test results at this test site (Pham 2005). The site consisted
of an upper 1-m-thick desiccated fill and a lower 13-m soft alluvial
clay overlying glacial till and weathered shale bedrock. Table 1
shows the geotechnical properties of the soil and compacted ag-
gregate that had been obtained from the conducted in situ and
laboratory tests (Pham 2005).
Fig. 2 shows the sequence of RAP construction in Neola
(Majchrzak et al. 2004). The RAP construction in this site had been
initiated by boring a 760-mm-diameter hole into the ground to
a depth of 3 m below the ground surface. Well-graded clean crushed
stone was then introduced into the drilled cavity in 300-mm lifts.
Each layer was rammed with a beveled tamper that was attached to a

Table 1. Summary of Geotechnical Properties of the Compacted Aggregate, Alluvial Clay, and Desiccated Soil
Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) classification g (kN=m3 ) wn (%) e0 c9 (kPa) f9 c (degrees) Cc ref
E50 (MPa) ref
Eur (MPa) K0 n9
(GP) aggregate 21 6 0.33 4 47 12 — 90 180 — 0.2
(CL) alluvial clay 18.9 36 1.0 2 24 0 0.1 3 9 0.6 0.2
(ML) desiccated soil 18.9 36 1.0 2 35 0 0.05 9 27 1.0 0.2
Note: Cc 5 compression index; c9 5 effective cohesion; Eur ref
5 unloading/reloading modulus; E50
ref
5 deviatoric reference modulus; e0 5 initial void ratio;
K0 5 lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest; n9 5 effective Poisson’s ratio; wn 5 natural water content; g 5 unit weight above the groundwater table;
f9 5 effective friction angle; c 5 dilation angle.

Fig. 2. Rammed aggregate pier construction process

© ASCE 04014085-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

 hydraulic hammer. The hydraulic hammer had a weight of 900–
1,800 kg (2,000–4,000 lb) and delivered between 1,400,000 and
2,800,000 N×m (1 and 2 million ft-lb) of ramming energy per min-
ute to the beveled tamper at 300–500 blows per minute. A reference
mark was considered on the beveled tamper to measure the
downward displacement. Because of its elevation changes before
and after ramming, an 80-mm downward displacement was re-
ported. Also, according to monitoring performed on deformations of
the pier, a 40-mm increase in the cavity’s radius was reported at the
pier tip (Pham 2005). To perform a full-scale load test on the RAP,
a concrete cap with a thickness of 0.46 m and a diameter of 0.76 m
was used. For monitoring the tip settlement, a telltale reference plate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
was also installed and so displacements at the top of the pier and at
the telltale plate were recorded during the load test.
Numerical Modeling
As it was mentioned, the current study seeks to have a better un-
derstanding of the construction effects of a single RAP during the
ramming process using a hybrid PF model capable of simulating
aggregate movements and the FD method for modeling the soil
matrix (Fig. 3). A methodology similar to what was presented by
Halabian et al. (2012b) is considered here, with some exceptions, to
take the ramming effect into account in a systematic manner. A series
of two-dimensional (2D) distinct element–FD models of isolated
piers embedded in different soil conditions were developed to
investigate the pier construction. Quadratic brick elements were
used to model the soil matrix in a FD algorithm, whereas all nu-
merical computations of elements were performed using the reduced
numerical integration. The zone and subzone dimensions and the
number of nodes and elements in the descritized soil matrix domain
were decided on after performing a number of sensitivity analyses.
The elements’ size at the vicinity of the pier should be small to
capture the intense stress and deformation gradients. The discretized
Fig. 3. (a) Hybrid PF model–FD algorithm of RAP examined at test
site of Neola, Iowa; (b) contributed models in PF and FD models
© ASCE 04014085-3
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085
domain should be considered large enough so that the reflection of
stress waves from the boundaries during the ramming process is
negligible. In this study, the Mohr-Coulomb model was used to
characterize the behavior of the surrounding soil matrix. Potts and
Zdravkovi
c (1999) provide the equations for the Mohr-Coulomb
model.
Computational modeling of granular materials, such as crushed
aggregates, should reflect some of the complexities that arise, from
irregularity of the particle shape, randomness, extent of particle size
distributions, and perhaps the aggregates’ moisture content; how-
ever, because of existing uncertainties on the capabilities of the
current numerical modeling techniques in capturing these essential
features of granular flow, using these sophisticated techniques is
usually a challenging task. A general PF model simulates the me-
chanical behavior of crushed aggregates as a collection of arbitrarily
shaped particles. The model adopted in this study is composed of
distinct particles with a finite amount of space that interacts at the
interfaces between the particles. The method uses the soft contact
approach, which assumes that elements have a finite normal stiff-
ness, and represents elastic flattening at contacts by allowing the
bodies to overlap. The mechanical behavior of such a system is de-
scribed in terms of the movement of each particle and the interparticle
forces acting at each contact point (Fig. 4). A stiffness model, bonding
model, and slip model are included in the constitutive representation of
contact points between the elementary circles (in a 2D nature), which
are the basic building blocks. Newton’s second law is used to de-
termine the motion of each particle arising from the contact and body
forces acting upon it, whereas the force-displacement law is used to
update the contact forces arising from the relative motion at each
contact. In 2D cases, only two force components and one moment
component exist.
Fig. 4. Interparticle forces acting at each contact point during ramming
process
Int. J. Geomech.
 The force-displacement law derives the contact forces acting on
two particles in contact to the relative displacement between the
particles as
Fin ¼ K n U n
DFis ¼ 2k s DUis
where overlap U n 5 relative contact displacement in the normal
direction; DUis 5 shear component of the contact displacement
increment occurring over a time step; and Fin and DFis 5 normal
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
force and shear elastic force increment over a time step at the contact
of two entities, respectively. The normal stiffness, K n , and shear
tangent stiffness, k s , at a contact are computed, assuming that the
stiffnesses of the two contacting objects act in series
½A ½B ½A ½B
kn kn ks ks
Kn ¼ ½A ½B
ks ¼ ½A ½B
kn þ kn ks þ ks
where kn½A and kn½B 5 normal stiffness of Objects A and B, which are
in contact; and kn½A and kn½B 5 shear stiffnesses. The total normal
and shear forces that the contact can carry are limited by enforcing
bond strengths. The maximum tensile force that the bond can sustain
in tension and the maximum shear force that it can withstand before
breaking are specified when the bond is created and may be modi-
fied at any time during the simulation. The slip model also allows
the particles to slip over each other. Slip occurs when the shear
component of the force exceeds the allowable shear strength, which
is
Fsmax ¼ m j Fin j
One of two vector equations of motion relates the resultant force to
the translational motion, and the other one expresses the resultant
moment in terms of the rotational motion for each particle
Fi ¼ mð€xi 2 gi Þ ðtranslational motionÞ
M1 ¼ I1 v_ 1 þ ðI3 2 I2 Þv3 v2
M2 ¼ I2 v_ 2 þ ðI1 2 I3 Þv1 v3
M3 ¼ I3 v_ 3 þ ðI2 2 I1 Þv2 v1
where I1 , I2 , and I3 5 principal moments of inertia of the particle; v_ 1 ,
v_ 2 , and v_ 3 5 angular accelerations about the principal axes; M1 , M2 ,
and M3 5 components of the resultant moment referred to the
principal axes; Fi 5 resultant force, which is the sum of all externally
applied forces acting on the particle; and €xi and gi 5 translational
acceleration and body force acceleration vector, respectively. For
a disk-shaped particle, v1 5 v2 5 0. Then, the rotational motion can
be simplified and referred to the global-axis system as


M3 ¼ I v_ 3 ¼ bmR2 v_ 3 ðrotational motionÞ
where

2=5 ðspherical particleÞ
b¼
1=5 ðdisk-shaped particleÞ
In general, loading on the distinct particle assembly is coming from
the boundary conditions at the soil-pier interface. Therefore, the
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085
distinct particle assembly is affected by the particles’ gravity and/
or wall movements as well as the shear stress induced by lateral
stresses during cavity expansion at the edge of the pier shaft.
Therefore, to simulate the soil-pier contacts, it is necessary that
the interacting forces and velocities at the soil matrix–RAP shaft
(1) interface are transferred from each to the other. Fig. 5 shows the
algorithm used to link the FD code employed in this study for
modeling the soil matrix to the PF model used for the RAP
domain.
The equations of motion are integrated in the PF model using
a centered FD scheme, whereas an explicit algorithm is employed to
solve the equations of motion governed in the soil matrix modeled
by the FD approach. The computed solution produced by both
methods will reach a unified response only if the time step is kept the
same in both solutions. This is possible if the differential density
scaling approach is used to solve the equations in the PF model. By
employing this technique, the time step in both approaches is taken
as unity and then the calculated displacements in each time step in
(2) both methods will be the same.
The solution calculated in the PF model will remain stable if
the time step is limited to a critical time step that is related to the
maximum eigenvalue of the total system. The actual time step
used in any cycle is taken as a fraction of this estimated critical
value
(pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m=k tran ðtranslational motionÞ
tcrit ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (6)
I=k rot ðrotational motionÞ
where tcrit 5 critical time step; m and I 5 mass and moment of inertia
of the particle; and k tran and k rot 5 translational and rotational
(3)
stiffnesses, respectively.
By invoking differential density scaling, the inertial mass of each
particle is modified at the start of each cycle such that the stability
criterion of Eq. (6) is satisfied with a time step of unity. The laws of
motion given by Eqs. (4) and (5) are modified as


Fi ¼ mi €xi 2 ðmg Þgi

 (7)
(4) M3 ¼ I v_ 3 ¼ b mi R2 v_ 3
where mi and mg 5 inertial and gravitational masses, respectively; R
5 particle radius; and mg 5 the actual mass of the particle, and, in the
absence of differential density scaling, mi 5 mg . The FD expressions
for the particle velocities are given by
(5)
Fig. 5. Forces and momentum in numerical domain: (a) PF model;
(b) FD space
04014085-4 Int. J. Geomech.
 "
ðtÞ
#
Fi parameters of the soil matrix. Finally, based on the evaluated con-
ðtþDt=2Þ ðt2Dt=2Þ
x_ i ¼ x_ i þ þ gi Dt stitutive model parameters, the load-settlement behavior of an iso-
m lated pier, which was tested in Neola, Iowa, was compared with the
" ðtÞ # (8)
M3 experimental results.
ðtþDt=2Þ ðt2Dt=2Þ
v3 ¼ v3 þ Dt
I
Calibration of Particle Parameters Used for Aggregates
and modified as The results of the triaxial tests at confining pressures of 34.5, 69,
" 103, 138, and 172 kPa on samples taken from RAPs constructed in
ðtÞ  g # Iowa were used to examine the capability of the PF model in sim-
ðtþDt=2Þ ðt2Dt=2Þ Fi m
x_ i ¼ x_ i þ þ gi Dt ulating the mechanical behavior of the aggregates and validate the
mi mi
" # microparameters of the pier’s aggregates (Pham 2005). The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(9)
ðtÞ validation process in the PF model is different and more compli-
ðtþDt=2Þ ðt2Dt=2Þ M3
v3 ¼ v3 þ Dt cated than the mesh-based continuum models because the micro-
bðmi ÞR2
parameters of the materials, such as the cohesion or friction angle,
could not be evaluated from laboratory tests without engineering
where x_ i and v3 5 translational and angular velocity, respectively; judgments and, consequently, the model parameters such as normal
and t and Dt 5 time and time step, respectively. and shear contact stiffness, as well as the particle friction coef-
As mentioned earlier, in this study the Mohr-Coulomb model ficients, are not certainly obtained. In other words, selecting con-
was used to characterize the plastic behavior of the surrounding soil. stitutive microparameters of granular materials in a PF model to
Following this adoption, a stage analysis consisting of six steps was simulate the macroscopic behavior of laboratory samples under
used to model the construction stages of the piers different stress states needs a trial-and-error process and, because of
1. An axisymmetric soil continuum in the FD space is developed. current knowledge at this stage, is a complicated process.
Having the surrounding soil affected by the ramming process, Keeping the same aspect ratio with the experimental samples,
the edge length and height of the model are assumed to be 14 some numerical models were made, considering the RAP con-
and 8 m, respectively (Fig. 3). The model dimensions were struction procedure. Triaxial tests were simulated on numerical
decided on after performing a number of sensitivity analyses, models at the corresponding experimental confining pressures.
taking into account the wave attenuation. Full fixity is applied Fig. 7 plots the result of the simulation in the q, ɛ a -plane in the triaxial
along the base of the model, whereas the vertical boundaries test. In this simulation, the microparameters given in Table 2 are
were taken to be fixed in the horizontal direction, as shown in
Fig. 3. After assigning the soil parameters, the model is
allowed to get balanced under its weight.
2. In this step, in the FD space, the excavation is modeled.
Because of weakness of the soil and the possibility of it falling
into the cavity, casing has been modeled by fixing the edges of
the cavity. The model is then allowed to reach equilibrium
under this condition.
3. In this step, having both solving algorithms linked, the coor-
dinates of the grid points constructing the cavity’s sidewalls
are transmitted from the FD space to the PF model. In fact, each
of the two neighboring grid points is modeled as the boundary
walls in the PF model.
4. The backfilling and ramming of the aggregate is modeled in the
PF model, and the resultant forces and moments at each wall
are transmitted to the soil matrix space.
5. The applied forces and momentum are converted to equivalent
forces at the grid points and then applied to the corresponding
points in the FD model (Fig. 5). The surrounding soil matrix is
deformed due to the new amount of forces and the resultant
deformations transmitted to the PF model.
6. Applying grid point velocities, the geometry of the pier in the
PF model is modified and then Steps 4–6 are repeated.
Fig. 6 presents the details of these steps.

Model Verification

The model verification is performed in three phases. In the first

phase, a triaxial test is modeled using the PF model to obtain the
microparameters of the particles used in modeling the crushed ag-
gregate mechanical behavior. The second phase corresponds to
a triaxial test conducted on the surrounding soil. This test is simu- Fig. 6. Algorithm used for exchanging data between FD model and PF
lated using the FD algorithm adopted in this study, employing the model
Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model to properly evaluate the model

© ASCE 04014085-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Comparison of simulated and experimental results for samples in triaxial tests on RAP’s aggregates at different confining pressures
Table 2. Microparameters of RAP’s Aggregate in PF
Parameter Value
Kn
6 3 108 N=m
Ks 5 3 108 N=m
m 0.7
used. As can be seen, the numerical simulations could predict the
ultimate strength and postpeak softening behavior of samples during
the loading phases.
Verification on Soil Matrix
In the second phase, to use an appropriate constitutive model for the
soil matrix in the hybrid soil-pier model, two constitutive models
(Mohr-Coulomb and Cam clay) (Potts and Zdravkovi
c 1999) were
selected to be employed in the FD domain. The result of the
consolidated-drained (CD) triaxial tests conducted at confining pres-
sures of 25.5, 41, and 60 kPa on undisturbed alluvial clay samples
extracted at a depth of 4.2 m from the ground surface (Pham 2005) were
used to verify the workability of both constitutive models and validate
their model parameters for the soil matrix. Figs. 8 and 9 show the results
of this validation. Tables 3 and 4 also present the Mohr-Coulomb and
Cam-clay model parameters, respectively. As can be seen, both models
can predict the ultimate strength of the samples; however, the Mohr-
Coulomb model is capable of capturing the load-displacement curve
for all samples when compared with the experimental results (Pham
2005). Accordingly, the Mohr-Coulomb model is chosen in the hybrid
soil-pier model to simulate the soil matrix behavior.
Verification on Hybrid Soil-Pier Model
In the last phase, based on the presented constitutive model
parameters for aggregates in the PF domain (pier) and soil matrix in
the FD domain, the results of the load-settlement test conducted in
Neola, Iowa, on an isolated pier (Pham 2005) were compared with
the numerical predictions of the hybrid soil-pier model. The size of
the examined pier in the test was 0.80 m in diameter and 3.20 m in
length and was capped with a concrete footing having a 0.46-m
thickness. According to field measurements in Neola, Iowa, the
values of expansion along the shaft and at the bottom of the cavity
were determined to be equal to 5 and 10% of the nominal diameter
of the cavity, respectively (Pham 2005; White et al. 2003). The
construction procedure sequence, which was similar to what was
conducted in Neola, was implemented in the hybrid soil-pier model
developed in this study, and radial and downward expansions
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085
induced to the soil matrix after RAP construction as well as the load-
settlement curves of the top and tip of the pier were compared with
the corresponding values and curves from the experimental test
(Pham 2005). Fig. 10 shows the radial expansions along the height of
the pier after the construction is done. As can be seen, the radial
expansion at the tip (near the ground) is approximately 4 cm, which
is in good agreement with the experimental measurements in the
field (5% of the pier’s diameter). Fig. 11 also shows the downward
expansion after the pier’s construction, which is pretty much con-
sistent with 10% of the pier diameter suggested by the experimental
results. When it comes to workability of the model developed here to
simulate the load-settlement behavior of the pier during vertical
loading, as is shown in Fig. 12, a good agreement between the
experimental and numerical analyses results were achieved for both
the tip and top of the pier, showing the accuracy of numerical
modeling.
Discussion of the Numerical Results
Radial Expansion Distribution
The radial displacement distribution along the pier, which is given in
Fig. 10, has demonstrated that radial displacement distribution is not
uniform along the RAP and clearly decreases with depth, which can
be due to an increase in the amount of overburden with depth,
resulting in higher confining stresses. In fact, Fig. 10 shows a critical
length for radial expansions of the RAP, whereas beyond this length,
the radial expansion is not remarkable and can be neglected. Because
of these results, the uniform radial expansion along the RAP’s height
suggested in previous studies (Pham 2005) is far from reality. The
jagged behavior of the radial displacement distribution seen in
Fig. 10 could be related to the points between two layers of placing.
In other words, by ramming each layer, the upper points of the layer
have more displacements due to more received energy compared
with the lower points, which makes the sequential bracket shape of
the pier after construction (Fig. 2).
Radial Stress Distribution
To better understand the stresses induced to the soil matrix, the
radial stress distribution along the RAP is studied during the se-
quential ramming process of construction and at the end of RAP
construction.
04014085-6 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Comparison of simulated and experimental results for samples in triaxial tests on soil matrix using the Mohr-Coulomb model at different
confining pressures

Fig. 9. Comparison of simulated and experimental results for samples in triaxial tests on soil matrix using the Cam-clay model at different
confining pressures

Table 3. Mohr-Coulomb Model Parameters for Soil Matrix Table 4. Cam-Clay Model Parameters for Soil Matrix
Parameter Value Parameter Value
C 2 kPa rwet 1,924 kg=m3
Tension 0 kPa Elastic bulk modulus, K 1,000 MPa
f 33° Elastic shear modulus, G 3.75 MPa
c 0° Poisson’s ratio, y 0.2
rwet 1,924 kg=m3 Slope of ncl, l 0.043
E 3.5 MPa Slope of url, k 0.0108
y 0.2 Slope of csl, M 0.94
Reference pressure, Pref 25,500 Pa
Initial specific volume, v0 2
Note: csl 5 critical state line; ncl 5 normal critical line; url 5 unloading-
Radial Stress Distribution in the Soil Matrix during Ramming reloading line.
of Each Layer
Fig. 13 shows the radial stress distribution during the ramming
that stresses in all elements will not exceed this line. This line cor-
process of each layer. Lines K00 and KP0 are referred as at-rest and
responds to a passive pressure line of soil with an equivalent friction
passive pressures based on
angle of 44°. As can be noted, the stresses induced into the soil matrix
K0 ¼ 1 2 sin f (10) during the ramming process increases uniformly for each layer at
different depths, except for the first layer, in which the stress increase is
more pronounced due to a greater ramming effect, as described pre-
Kp ¼ tan2 ð45 þ f=2Þ (11) viously. This means that the friction of the angle of soil in shallower
layers upgrades to 44°, showing an increase of approximately 40%.
Based on the fact that stresses in the soil matrix cannot be more than the However, this is not the case in deeper layers because the radial
passive limit if no failure happens, Fig. 13 also presents the KP1 line so stresses do not exceed the passive pressure line (KP0 ).

© ASCE 04014085-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

 Radial Stress Distribution in Soil Matrix after
RAP Construction
Fig. 14 presents the radial stresses’ distribution in the RAP’s ad-
jacent soil elements along the pier before and after the construction is
completed. As can be seen, after the excavation is performed, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Radial expansion along height of RAP
Fig. 11. Downward expansion at base of RAP
Fig. 12. Verification results of isolated pier (data from Pham 2005)
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085
stresses follow the K00 line. However, at the end of the construction
phase, stresses are increased in shallower layers, reaching the KP1
line, which could suggest that the efficient soil improvement depth is
approximately 25% of the pier length.
The radial distribution of the radial stresses in the soil matrix could
show the size of the near field zone around the pier, which is affected by
the ramming process. Fig. 15 shows the radial stresses induced to the
soil matrix at different radial distances. As can be noted, by taking
the distance from the pier, the radial stresses decrease, leading to
the K00 line at a distance 3 m from the pier. Therefore, one can
conclude that the ramming process could not affect the mechanical
behavior of the soil matrix beyond a distance of 4d from the pier’s
center, where d is the pier’s diameter. The results also demonstrated
that the radial stresses in deep soil layers (more than h=4 from the
ground surface, where h is the pier’s length, are under KP0 at distances
less than around d from the pier’s center, showing the most mechani-
cally improved soil matrix around the pier after construction.
Stress Path in the Soil Matrix
Fig. 16 shows the stress path in the q-p space for different layers of the
soil matrix in the vicinity of the pier and the variations of the soil
deviatoric stress with the average confining pressure during the pier’s
construction from the excavation step to the final stage of construction.
Parametric Analyses
Geometric properties of RAPs and the soil matrix’s mechanical
parameters could affect the RAP’s expansion. A comprehensive pa-
rametric study is conducted to examine the effects of these pa-
rameters. Similar to what was considered in the verification process,
the load-settlement test conducted in Neola, Iowa, on an isolated pier
(Pham 2005) was chosen as the base condition in the parametric
analyses. The effects of the pier’s length and diameter, soil matrix
friction of the angle, and cohesion on the downward displacement,
radial expansion, and radial stress distribution induced to the soil
matrix are examined.
Effect of RAP’s Length and Diameter
on Downward Displacements
Fig. 17 shows the variations of the RAPs’ downward expansion
as a percentage of their diameters in terms of different values of pier
04014085-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Radial stress distribution during ramming for several elements
along RAP
Fig. 14. Radial stress distribution in adjacent soil element before and
after pier construction
lengths and diameters. The outcomes demonstrated that for a given
pier’s diameter, increasing the pier’s slenderness results in a decrease
in the downward expansion percentage. This is more pronounced for
shorter RAPs. However, keeping the pier’s length constant, the results
highlighted that the bigger RAP’s diameter leads to a lesser downward
expansion percentage induced to the soil matrix. These findings
suggest that, unlike what is expressed by Chen et al. (2009), Halabian
et al. (2012b), and Pham (2005), the downward expansion as a per-
centage of the RAP’s diameter should also be related to the RAP’s
© ASCE 04014085-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085
length. The effect of the RAP’s length on downward expansions is
more pronounced for short piers and can be negligible for slender
RAPs. In fact, by having the pier’s length increased, the weight of the
soil adjacent to the RAP’s toe is increased and the soil tends to swell so
that more energy is required for making downward displacements.
Therefore, keeping in mind that the input energy is constant, less
downward expansion can be anticipated for longer RAPs.
Effects of Length and Diameter on RAP’s
Radial Expansion
Fig. 18 presents the radial expansion distribution of RAPs after
construction along the pier’s height for different slenderness ratios
(l=r). As already mentioned, unlike what has been suggested in the
literature, the expansion is not constant along the RAP and decreases
with depth. This reduction pattern is highlighted more in longer
RAPs, showing that the soil matrix can even move toward the cavity.
The results also suggested that the radial expansion could be taken as
constant in different areas around the pier, neglecting the effect of
the piers’ length. Accordingly, the equivalent radial expansions as
percentages of the diameter have been evaluated for three equal
segments of the pier and are given in Table 5. As can be noticed, the
radial expansion in the shallower segments is higher than that in the
deeper segments.
Effect of RAP’s Length and Diameter on Radial Stress
Distribution in the Soil Matrix
The radial stresses’ distribution in the RAP’s adjacent soil matrix
along the pier before and after construction is obtained. The properties
of the mechanically improved soil zones for different pier lengths and
diameters are given in Table 6. As is shown in Table 6, the ramming
process has raised the soil friction angle to between 7 and 12°. Table 7
also shows that the highly improved soil around the pier is 20–35 cm,
showing no certain pattern in terms of the pier’s length or diameter and
seems to be related to the site condition, like grain size distribution, in
different layers. In addition, the radius of an affected area by ramming
(area in which the stress in the soil has increased) is almost 3 m. Also, it
can be learned from Table 8 that the depth of the improved area is
approximately 40–96 cm, showing a tendency to increase when the
length or diameter of the pier is increased.
Because of these results, it can be suggested that
1. The clear distances of the RAPs need to be kept at less than 3 m
to enlarge the improved area by having overlapped stress
zones.
2. In the case of using long RAPs, the ramming process should be
modified. In other words, the ramming process does not affect
the soil state in RAPs with lengths more than 3–3.5 m that
much.
Effect of Soil Friction Angle and Cohesion on
RAP’s Behavior
To represent soft cohesionless soils in which RAPs are usually
used as a ground improving technique, the range of 15–24° for
the soil friction angle and 2–10 kPa for cohesion are considered in
the parametric study. The RAP’s geometry and material prop-
erties are kept the same as the ones used in the base model tested in
Iowa (Fig. 3). Figs. 19 and 20 present the variations of downward
expansion with respect to different soil friction angles and
cohesions. Figs. 21 and 22 also give the variations of radial
expansions along the RAP in terms of different friction angles and
cohesions. As can be seen from these figures, as the value of the
friction angle increases, the downward expansion value also
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Radial stress distribution in adjacent soil element before and after pier construction in different radial distances

increases, especially up to a friction angle equal to 18°; however,
the downward expansion percentage is not that much sensitive to
the cohesion. The radial expansion percentage also decreases
when the friction angle increased. This mostly happened in the
shallow layers, where it is not sensitive to the cohesion values
taken in this study.
Fig. 22 also demonstrates that the nonuniform behavior of the
radial expansion distribution decreases and the critical depth in-
creases with increasing cohesion. In other words, by increasing the
cohesion, the induced soil matrix displacements after pier con-
struction are uniform and then the critical depth increases.
Tables 9 and 10 present the variations of the soil matrix’s im-
proved properties in terms of different soil friction angles and
cohesions. As it is seen, the soil’s modified friction angle varies
between 38 and 42° for the initial values considered in this study,
showing the effectiveness of using RAPs in general soft soils.
Table 10 also highlights that the higher soil cohesion does not result
in a bigger mechanically improved soil matrix zone. This could refer
to the fact that with increasing soil cohesion, stresses are distributed
more uniformly in the surrounding soil and thus the RAP ramming
process varies little with changes to the soil cohesion.
Summary and Conclusions
Developing the ramming process in RAP construction, this paper
aimed to present the results of a comprehensive numerical study that
was conducted to examine the effects of pier geometry and the
mechanical properties of the soil matrix on RAPs’ radial and
downward expansion induced to the soil matrix. The major results
from this study can be summarized as follows:
1. The PF model as one of the distinct elements method could be
one of the suitable methods to simulate the granular material
behavior, such as crushed sands under different static and
dynamic stress states.
2. The RAP construction process has a significant effect on the
stress path and behavior of the soil matrix around the piers, and
neglecting this stress phase could cause unreliable results in
the design of RAPs.

© ASCE 04014085-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 16. Soil matrix stress path at different depths during pier’s construction

3. Unlike previous studies, the current research stated that the

pier’s length, soil friction angle, and cohesion would affect the
RAPs’ expansion, and taking the pier expansion as the per-
centage of the RAP’s diameter could lead to enormous errors
in the postconstruction numerical modeling of RAPs.
4. By having the RAP’s length increased, the soil under the pier’s
base tends to swell. On the other hand, by increasing the pier’s
diameter, the downward expansion decreases, especially for
short piers. The effect of the RAP’s length in downward
expansions can be neglected for RAPs longer than 4 m.
5. The radial expansion is not constant along the RAP height. In
the deeper soil layers, as the overburden pressure increases, the
radial expansion decreases so that a critical depth can be
Fig. 17. Downward expansion percentage of RAPs with different
defined in which the radial expansion can be neglected. This
lengths and diameters critical depth increases with an increase in the RAP’s diameter
and soil matrix cohesion.

© ASCE 04014085-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 18. Radial expansion distribution along RAP for different lengths and diameters

Table 5. Suggested RAP’s Radial Expansion for Different Depths

Expansion
Pier Range Suggested radial expansion (m)
Upper segment (0, h1 ) 0–2 m 0:04d 2 0:05d

ð0:04d 2 0:05dÞ
Middle segment (h1 , h2 ) 2–ð2:4 1 1:5dÞ m ð0:04d 2 0:05dÞ 2 ðh 2 2Þ
0:4 1 1:5d
Lower segment (h2 , L) h . h2 0

Table 6. Improved Friction Angle for Different RAPs Table 8. Depth of Improved Area for Different RAPs
RAP diameter RAP diameter
RAP length, L (m) d 5 60 cm d 5 80 cm d 5 100 cm RAP length, L (m) d 5 60 cm (cm) d 5 80 cm (cm) d 5 100 cm (cm)
1:6 40 40 41 1:6 0:24H 5 40 0:28H 5 45 0:38H 5 60
3:2 43 44 43 3:2 0:22H 5 70 0:22H 5 70 0:26H 5 83
4:8 45 43 41 4:8 0:18H 5 86 0:18H 5 86 0:2H 5 96
6:4 44 43 43 6:4 0:18H 5 86 0:18H 5 86 0:18H 5 86

Table 7. Radial Distance of Improved Area for Different RAPs

RAP diameter
RAP length, L (m) d 5 60 cm d 5 60 cm d 5 100 cm
1:6 20 15 25
3:2 25 20 25
4:8 30 35 30
6:4 30 30 25

6. To take the effect of the pier’s length in the radial expansion

into account, the results of this study suggested that the radial
expansion for the upper part of the pier (1.5 m from the
ground surface) should be taken as 4.5–5% of the RAP’s
diameter, whereas for the deeper part of the pier (approxi- Fig. 19. Downward expansion percentage for different friction angles
mately 2 m about the base), the radial expansion vanished.

© ASCE 04014085-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

 Table 9. Soil Matrix’s Improved Properties in Terms of Different Friction
Angles
Parameter, Improved friction Radius of improved Depth of improved
f (degrees) angle (degrees) area (cm) area (cm)
15 38 30 0:26H 5 83
18 40 30 0:24H 5 76
21 38 30 0:24H 5 76
24 43 30 0:22H 5 70

Table 10. Soil Matrix’s Improved Properties in Terms of Different

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cohesions

Fig. 20. Downward expansion percentage for different cohesions Parameter, Improved friction Radius of improved Depth of improved
c (Pa) angle (degrees) area (cm) area (cm)
2,000 44 30 0:22H 5 70
4,500 44 40 0:24H 5 76
7,000 43 40 0:24H 5 76
10,000 44 45 0:26H 5 83

For the middle part (0:4 1 1:5d in meters), a linear variation

can be adopted.
7. The ramming process changes the stress states of the surround-
ing soil matrix up to a radial distance of 3–5 of the RAP’s
diameter. In a smaller zone around the pier (around the RAP’s
diameter), regardless of the pier geometry and soil initial
friction angle, the soil mechanical properties improved and
the soil friction angle increased up to 40–46°.
8. In granular soils, cohesion distributes the soil stresses better,
resulting in an enlargement of the mechanically improved zone
around the pier.

References

Fig. 21. Radial expansion distribution along RAP for different friction Chen, J.-F., Han, J., Oztoprak, S., and Yang, X.-M. (2009). “Behavior of
angles single rammed aggregate piers considering installation effects.” Comput.
Geotech., 36(7), 1191–1199.
Farrell, T., Fitz Patrick, B., and Kenney, W. (2008). “Uplift testing of
rammed aggregate pierÒ systems.” Proc., Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV Congress, D. Zeng, M. T. Manzari,
and D. R. Hiltunen, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 1–14.
Farrell, T., and Taylor, A. (2004). “Rammed aggregate pier design and
construction in California—Performance, constructability, and eco-
nomics.” Proc., SEAOC 2004 Convention, Structural Engineers Asso-
ciation of California, Sacramento, CA, 147–154.
Fox, N. S. (2004). “Geopier soil reinforcement system—Case histories of
high bearing capacity footing support and floor slab support.” Proc., 5th
Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, S. Prakash,
ed., Vol. 4, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 13–17.
Girsang, C. H., Gutierrez, M. S., and Wissmann, K. J. (2004). “Modeling of
the seismic response of the aggregate pier foundation system.” Proc.,
Geo-Support 2004, ASCE, Reston, VA, 485–496.
Halabian, A. M., Naeemifar, I., and Hashemolhosseini, S. H. (2012a).
“Numerical analysis of vertically loaded rammed aggregate piers and
pier groups.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng., 165(3), 167–181.
Halabian, A. M., Naeemifar, I., and Hashemolhosseini, S. H. (2012b). “Nu-
merical analysis of vertically loaded rammed aggregate piers and pier
groups under dynamic loading.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 38, 58–71.
Handy, R. L., and White, D. J. (2006a). “Stress zones near displacement
piers: I. Plastic and liquefied behavior.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:1(54), 54–62.
Fig. 22. Radial expansion distribution along RAP for different Handy, R. L., and White, D. J. (2006b). “Stress zones near displacement
cohesions piers: II. Radial cracking and wedging.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:1(63), 63–71.

© ASCE 04014085-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085

 Hoevelkamp, K. K. (2002). “Rammed aggregate pier soil reinforcement:
Group load tests and settlement monitoring of large box culvert.” M.Sc.
thesis, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
Lawton, E. C., and Fox, N. S. (1994). “Settlement of structures supported on
marginal or inadequate soils stiffened with short aggregate piers.” Proc.,
Vertical and Horizontal Deformations of Foundations and Embank-
ments, Vol. 2, ASCE, Reston, VA, 962–974.
Lawton, E. C., Fox, N. S., and Handy, R. L. (1994). “Control of settlement
and uplift of structures using short aggregate piers.” Proc., In-Situ Deep
Soil Improvement, Vol. 45, ASCE, Reston, VA, 121–132.
Majchrzak, M., Farrell, T., and Metcalfe, B. (2009). “Innovative soil re-
inforcement method to control static and seismic settlements.” Proc.,
GeoFlorida 2009: Contemporary Topics in Ground Modification,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad Militar Nueva Granada on 06/23/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Problem Soils, and Geo-Support, M. Iskander, D. F. Laefer, and M. H.
Hussein, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA, 313–320.
Majchrzak, M., Lew, M., Sorensen, K., and Farrell, T. (2004). “Settlement of
shallow foundations constructed over reinforced soil: Design estimates
vs. measurements.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Case Histories in Geo-
technical Engineering, Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO, 13–17.
Pham, H. (2005). “Support mechanism for rammed aggregate pier.” Ph.D.
dissertation, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
© ASCE 04014085-14
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(5): 04014085
Pham, H. T. V., and White, D. J. (2007). “Support mechanisms of rammed
aggregate piers. II: Numerical analyses.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1512), 1512–1521.
Potts, D. M., and Zdravkovi
c, L. (1999). Finite element analysis in geo-
technical engineering: Theory, Thomas Telford, London.
Suleiman, M. T., and White, D. J. (2006). “Load transfer in rammed
aggregate piers.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2006)6:
6(389), 389–398.
White, D. J., Gaul, A., and Hoevelkamp, K. (2003). “Highway applications
for rammed aggregate piers in Iowa soils.” Iowa DOT Project TR-443,
CTRE Project 00-60, Final Rep., Dept. of Civil and Construction En-
gineering, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA.
White, D. J., Pham, H. T. V., and Hoevelkamp, K. K. (2007). “Support
mechanisms of rammed aggregate piers. I: Experimental results.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:
12(1503), 1503–1511.
White, D. J., Wissmann, K., Barnes, A., and Gaul, A. (2002). “Embankment
support: A comparison of stone column and rammed aggregate pier soil
reinforcement.” Proc., 55th Canadian Geotechnical Conf., Canadian
Geotechnical Society, Richmond, BC, Canada.
Int. J. Geomech.