Load Transfer in Rammed Aggregate Piers

Muhannad T. Suleiman, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; and David J. White, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE2

Abstract: Predicting the load–settlement and load–transfer behaviors of rammed aggregate piers are important aspects of design. Use of
advanced engineering models, however, can be complex involving uncertainty in selection of nonlinear constitutive model parameters for
the aggregate and surrounding matrix soils and in selection of in situ stress fields. For purposes of simpler design calculations, this paper
uses the closed-form approximate solution and the boundary-element method using both elastic 共i.e., neglecting interface slip兲 and
elastic–plastic soil–pier interface 共i.e., considering interface slip兲 to predict load–settlement and load–transfer for rammed aggregate piers.
Unlike previous studies that evaluate load–settlement and load–transfer for stiff, slender piles 共e.g., concrete and steel piles兲 or fully
penetrating granular piles, this paper focuses on floating rammed aggregate piers having slenderness ratios 共L / D兲 of 3–10 and pier–soil
stiffness ratios 共E p / Es兲 of 5–80. Predictions of load–settlement and load–transfer as a function of depth are compared to three full-scale
instrumented load tests. Based on the calibrated models, equations for predicting load–settlement response and load–transfer as functions
of E p / Es, and L / D are presented with example calculations.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1532-3641共2006兲6:6共389兲
CE Database subject headings: Foundations; Piers; Load transfer; Load tests; Stress distribution; Boundary element method;
Aggregates.

Introduction developed by Randolph and Wroth 共1978兲 and the boundary-

The use of rammed aggregate piers 共lengths ranging from 3 to
8 m兲 has grown steadily over the last decade and has become an
established ground improvement practice in the United States.
Initially developed as a simple method to improve weak and com-
pressible soils, the technique has since been used to solve a wide
range of ground improvement problems including commercial
building support and various transportation projects 共see,
Wissmann et al. 2000; White et al. 2003兲. Recent research efforts
have focused on better understanding the complex interactions
between the aggregate pier and soil matrix and the effects of
lateral stress increase in the soil matrix around the piers 共Handy
2001兲. A key element of design is that the applied vertical, load at
the top of the pier dissipates at a depth less than the pier length
since it is usually designed as a floating pier 共Fox and Cowell
1998 and Wissmann et al. 2000兲. Limited testing however has
been dedicated to measuring vertical stress distributions with
depth and better understanding its influence on vertical load–
settlement behavior.
This paper presents the results of three instrumented full-scale
load tests and predictions of pier settlement and stress distribution
as a function of depth using the approximate closed-form solution
1
Lecturer, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environment Engineering,
Iowa State Univ., 490 Town Engineering, Ames, IA 50011-3232. E-mail:
suleiman@iastate.edu
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction and Environment
Engineering, Iowa State Univ., 476 Town Engineering, Ames, IA 50011-
3232 共corresponding author兲. E-mail: djwhite@iastate.edu
Note. Discussion open until May 1, 2007. Separate discussions must
be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by one
month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing Editor.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible
publication on December 7, 2004; approved on October 27, 2005. This
paper is part of the International Journal of Geomechanics, Vol. 6, No.
6, December 1, 2006. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/2006/6-389–398/$25.00.
element method. Based on the calibrated models, a parametric
study is described that investigates the effects of pier slenderness
ratio 共L / D兲 and pier–soil stiffness ratio 共E p / Es兲 on pier settlement
and stress distribution. The outcomes of this analysis are design
charts and equations for estimating vertical stresses at the base
and the settlement at the top of floating rammed aggregate piers
with slenderness ratios ranging from 3 to 10 and pier–soil stiff-
ness ratio ranging from 5 to 80.
Background
Stiff and slender pile foundations resist light vertical loads mainly
by skin friction. As the applied load increases, shear stresses
along the upper part of the pile–soil interface are mobilized. As
applied load increases further, shear stresses develop to greater
depths along the pile. Generally, only very small relative displace-
ments of about 1% of the pile diameter are needed to develop the
ultimate shaft resistance 共Randolph 1994兲. With increased loads
and pile settlement, tip stresses begin to develop. Normally, de-
velopment of the ultimate tip resistance requires greater pile
movement 共up to 10% of the pile diameter兲. At the onset of reach-
ing the ultimate shaft resistance, tip stresses and the slope of the
load–settlement curve increase.
Although rammed aggregate piers can be designed to deform
at the tip, they are more commonly designed to deform in bulging
near the top of the pier. Wissmann et al. 共2000兲 provide a sum-
mary of 31 load tests performed on rammed aggregate piers
installed in silty and clayey soils 共ML, CL, and SM兲. Results
indicate that rammed aggregate piers with slenderness ratios 共i.e.,
length to diameter ratio兲 greater than 3.5 are more likely to de-
form in bulging, whereas tip deformation is more likely to occur
with smaller slenderness ratios. The mode of deformation is de-
termined from the applied stress–settlement curve 共see Fig. 1兲.
Tip deformation is indicated by the observance of points of in-

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 / 389

Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 1. Load-settlement behavior of rammed aggregate piers for tip
and bulging failure modes
creased slope 共i.e., design limit兲 at the top of the pier and for the
tell-tale reference plates 关see Fig. 1共b兲兴. These points of increased
slope suggest the beginning of full mobilization of the interface
shear strength along the pier–soil interface. Pier bulging is de-
picted by the observance of a point of increased slope at the top of
the pier but not for the tell-tale reference plate 关see Fig. 1共c兲兴.
Bulging deformation occurs when the shear strength of the pier
aggregate is exceeded. The stress–settlement curve thus provides
indirect information about load transfer mechanisms—tell-tale
Fig. 2. Dimensions and definitions used in derivation of closed-form solution and boundary-element method
390 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
movement suggests tip stress development. Further insight into
these load transfer mechanisms can be gained through numerical
methods.
Poulos 共1989兲 categorized the approaches used for predicting
stress distribution with depth in vertically loaded piles into three
categories: 共1兲 approximate closed-form analytical methods 共see
Randolph and Wroth 1978; Balaam and Booker 1981 and 1985;
and Mylonakis and Gazetas 1998兲; 共2兲 boundary-element methods
using elastic continuum theory developed by Mindiln 共1936兲 共see
Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; and Poulos and Davis 1980兲; and
共3兲 finite-element methods 共see Pham 2005 for discussion on
finite-element analysis of rammed aggregate piers兲.
Balaam and Booker 共1981 and 1985兲 developed an approxi-
mate solution for elastic and yielding stone columns that are fully
penetrating soft soil layer and resting on a rigid layer. Rammed
aggregate piers, however, are constructed and designed as floating
piers. The approximate closed-form solution developed by Ran-
dolph and Wroth 共1978兲 and the boundary-element method, which
were developed for floating piles and reported to show good
agreement with measured stresses and settlement for stiff slender
piles 共see Randolph 1994, and Poulos and Davis 1968兲, were used
in this study.
Approximate Closed-Form Solution
Randolph and Wroth 共1978兲 developed an approximate closed-
form solution to evaluate the settlement and vertical load as a
function of depth for vertically loaded piles. This approach was
developed by dividing the soil into two layers: upper soil layer
reinforced with the pile and lower nonreinforced soil layer as
shown in Fig. 2共a兲. The settlement and load transfer equations
were developed by considering the interaction between the upper
and lower soil layers. Randolph and Wroth 共1978兲 assumed that
shear stresses transferred at the pile–soil interface become negli-
gible at a “magical” radius, rm, from the pile as shown in
Fig. 2共b兲.
Knowing the applied load at the pile head 共z = 0兲, the force at
the base of the pile, Pb, is evaluated using Eq. 共1兲. This equation
is then used to evaluate the load as a function of depth 共z兲 within
the pile. Eq. 共2兲 is used to calculate the pile settlement as a func-
tion of depth. Randolph 共1994兲 reported that although this method
was developed for slender piles subjected to working vertical
loads 共i.e., neglecting yielding and pile–soil interface slip兲, it
could be used for piles having smaller slenderness ratios using a
modified radius of influence ratio, ␰ 关see Eq. 共3兲兴. The variable
used in Eqs. 共1兲–共3兲 are defined in Fig. 2 and the Notation
P共z兲 =
␰r0
再
2␲Pb ␩共1 − ␯兲
4␮
sinh关␮共L − z兲兴 +
␰r0
2␲
cosh关␮共L − z兲兴
再冋
w共z兲 =
Pb
2Gr0
␩共1 − ␯兲
4␮
−
1
␲r0␭␮
e−␮共L−z兲册
冋 册 冎
␩共1 − ␯兲 1 show that the tip resistance at the pier–soil interface ranged from
+ − e␮共L−z兲
4␯ ␲r0␭␮
冉 冊
␰ = ln 5 +
rm
r0
Boundary-Element Method
Many researchers 共Butterfield and Banerjee 1971; Poulos and
Davis 1968; Mattes and Poulos 1969; and Poulos and Davis
1980兲 have investigated the stress distribution with depth for
single piles subjected to vertical loads using the elastic analysis
approach of Mindlin 共1936兲. In his original analysis, Mindlin as-
sumed a homogenous isotropic elastic half space 共i.e., soil兲 hav-
ing a constant modulus 共Es兲 and Poisson’s ratio 共␯s兲. Early use of
Mindlin’s approach for pile analysis assumed that the sides of the
pile were rough with an elastic pile–soil interface 共i.e., no slip
between the pile and soil兲.
A pile with a length L, a diameter d, and a base diameter db
subjected to axial load P0 is divided into n equal elements 关Figs.
2共a and c兲兴. The vertical displacement of a soil element at i sub-
jected to a shear stress p j on an element j is evaluated using Eq.
共4兲 where Is represents the vertical soil displacement factor de-
rived from Mindlin’s equations. Using the vertical equilibrium of
a pile element 关see Fig. 2共d兲兴, equating the soil and pile displace-
ments interface, and using the finite difference method, the shear
stresses along the pile shaft are calculated using Eq. 共5兲. All pa-
rameters presented in these equations are defined in the Notation.
This analysis was expanded by Poulos and David 共1968兲 to in-
clude pile–soil interface slip when the maximum interface shear
strength 共␶ f 兲 is exceeded. Poulos and Davis 共1980兲 summarize the
details of the approach used in such analysis
兵␳s其 =
d
Es
关Is兴兵p其
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 / 391
Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
再 冋 册
兵p其 = 关I兴 −
n2
4共L/d兲2
K关I p兴关Is兴 冎 −1
兵Y其 共5兲
Using the approach described by Poulos and David 共1968兲, a
boundary-element method algorithm using MATLAB software
was written to calculate the pier stresses and settlements. The
algorithm includes both elastic 共i.e., no slip兲 and elastic–plastic
共i.e., with slip兲 interface behavior. To test the code, calculated
stresses were compared with the results reported in Mattes and
Poulos 共1969兲 for pile–soil stiffness ratios of 50 and 5,000 and
showed very good agreement.
Effect of Pile Installation on Soil Properties
Ramming the aggregate inside a prebored hole during the con-
struction of rammed aggregate piers forces it to expand laterally
into the surrounding soil. This lateral expansion increases lateral
冎 stresses which should increase the soil shear strength and stiffness
共Handy 2001兲. White et al. 共2002兲 reported that measured lateral
stresses after pier installation in soil classified as CL were ap-
共1兲 proximately 90% of the Rankine passive pressure computed from
measured postconstruction shear strength parameter values. Law-
ton and Merry 共2000兲 investigated the effects of lateral stress
increase on the cohesive soil properties by comparing the tip re-
sistance of cone penetration test 共CPT兲 results at the pier–soil
interface with those of the soil before pier installation. These tests
共2兲
1 to 3 times the tip resistance of these soils before pier installa-
tion. This change in tip resistance indicates an increase of inter-
face shear strength by up to three times using the relationship 关see
共3兲
Eq. 共6兲兴 suggested by Robertson and Campanella 共1984兲. At the
same site, pressuremeter tests 共PMTs兲 performed before and after
pier installation showed an increase of 30% of the limit pressure
共PL兲, which results in an estimated 25% increase of undrained
shear strength from the relationship suggested by Briaud 共1989兲
关see Eq. 共7兲, PL in kPa兴
qc − ␴v
Su = 共6兲
Nk
Su = 0.67PL0.75 共7兲
Several approaches have been used to include the effects of
pile installation on pile analysis. These approaches include chang-
ing the pile–soil interface shear strength 共Poulos and Davis 1968兲
and changing the soil modulus as a function of distance around
displacement piles 共Poulos 1988兲. The pressuremeter results dis-
cussed above, including the effect of pier installation, were used
to estimate the shear strength at the interface between the soil and
rammed aggregate piers. The effect of rammed aggregate pier
installation on the soil modulus as a function of distance is not
reported in the literature. Therefore, the initial shear modulus rec-
ommended by Randolph 共1994兲 for analyzing vertically loaded
single piles was used. Furthermore, Randolph 共1994兲 recom-
mended the use of Eq. 共8兲 to estimate the initial shear modulus
using the tip resistance of CPT results. The soil Young’s modulus
required by the boundary element method was estimated using the
elastic theory relationship between shear and Young’s moduli
共4兲
G0
Pa
= 50
qc
pa
冉冊 0.6
共8兲
Fig. 3. Measured normalized stresses as function of normalized Fig. 4. Measured normalized stresses as function of normalized
depth showing no interface slip at Salt Lake City, Utah for rammed depth showing interface slip at 0.9 and 2D at Neola, Iowa for
aggregate pier having length of 4.57 m and diameter of 0.91 m rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.52 m and diameter of
installed in ML-CL soil 0.76 m installed in CL soil

Case 3: McLean, Va.

Instrumented Load Test Results
At this site, a rammed aggregate pier with a diameter of 0.76 m
and a length of 2.1 m was constructed in silt with fine sand fill
Case 1: Salt Lake City, Utah
classified as ML. From PMT results performed before pier instal-
A rammed aggregate pier with a diameter of 0.91 m and a length lation at the middepth of the pier, soil modulus of about
of 4.57 m was constructed in layered alluvial deposits classified 30,000 kPa and undrained shear strength of 175 kPa were esti-
as ML and CL underlain by Bonneville clay in Salt Lake City, mated.
Utah 共see Lawton and Merry 2000兲. From CPT and PMT data and The pier was instrumented with top and tell-tale settlement
using Eq. 共7兲 and 共8兲, the soil elastic modulus 共Es兲 was estimated plates and total stress cells at the pier surface, 1.1D, and 2.3D.
to be 55,000 kPa and the undrained shear strength 共su兲 to be The pier applied stress settlement and stress with depth results
60 kPa. The instrumented pier is one of eight piers supporting an were recorded at ten loading stages with a maximum applied
instrumented concrete footing. The pier was instrumented with stress of 1,600 kPa 共see Figs. 6 and 7兲. Fig. 6 shows an increase
total stress cells installed at the pier top and depths of 1D, 2D, of normalized stresses at 1.1D and 2.3D with increased applied
3D, and 4D—where D⫽pier diameter. The stress distribution load. The load–settlement curve 共Fig. 7兲 shows tip stress defor-
with depth was measured at vertical applied stresses of 244, 274, mation with the points of increased slope 共i.e., design limit兲 oc-
and 320 kPa. Fig. 3 shows that the normalized stress–normalized curring at about 1,278 kPa.
depth curve is the same for different applied vertical loads. Mini-
mal slip at the pier soil interface is expected for this pier because
of the relatively light applied loads and because the overlying Pier Modulus
footing may have contributed to negative skin friction near the
top of the pier. No vertical settlement measurements were re- Rammed aggregate pier modulus 共E p兲 was evaluated from the
ported for this pier. results of the load tests using the following relationship 共Fellenius
1991兲:
Case 2: Neola, Iowa
A rammed aggregate pier with a diameter of 0.76 m and a length
of 2.52 m was installed in alluvial clay 共CL兲 underlain by glacial
till 共CL兲 and weathered shale 共CH兲. From CPT and PMT data and
using Eqs. 共7兲 and 共8兲, soil elastic modulus was estimated to be
about 30,000 kPa and undrained shear strength to be about
50 kPa.
The pier was instrumented with top and tell-tale settlement
plates 关see Fig. 1共a兲兴 and total stress cells located at depths of
0.9D, 2D, and 3D. The pier applied stress settlement and stresses
with depth were recorded at eight loading stages with a maximum
applied stress of 714 kPa 共see Figs. 4 and 5兲. Fig. 4 shows an
increase of normalized stress at 0.9D and 2D and minimal in-
crease of normalized stresses at 3D. This trend suggests that the
interface shear strength was exceeded in the upper 2D of the pier
but did not extend to a depth of 3D. The load–settlement curve Fig. 5. Measured stress settlement showing bulging behavior mode
with a point of increased slope 共i.e., design limit兲 at 475 kPa at Neola, Iowa for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.52 m
indicates a bulging deformation mode 共see Fig. 5兲. and diameter of 0.76 m installed in CL soil

392 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006

Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 6. Normalized stress as function of normalized depth showing
interface slip at 1.1 and 2.3D, McLean, Va. for rammed aggregate
pier having length of 2.1 m and diameter of 0.76 m installed in ML
soil
QavL
Ep =
A⌬L
where Qav⫽average load in the pier calculated using the mea-
sured load at the top and bottom of the pier; A⫽cross-sectional
area of the pier; L⫽tell-tale length; and ⌬L⫽measured shortening
of the pier. For the range of applied stresses and the axial strains,
Fig. 8 shows the variation in pier modulus with applied stress for
all load tests. As shown, the pier modulus decreases with increas-
ing load. Because the settlement of the instrumented pier for Case
1 was not measured, the pier modulus was estimated using an
adjacent test pier reported by Warner 共2003兲.
Comparison with Field Measurements
Figs. 9 and 10 compare the measured stresses with the results of
the closed-form solution and the boundary element method using
an elastic pier–soil interface 共i.e., no slip兲 for Case 1. Figs. 9 and
10 illustrate that both methods predict, with good accuracy, the
stresses in the rammed aggregate pier as a function of depth.
Fig. 7. Measured stress settlement for rammed aggregate pier
showing tip deformation mode at McLean, Va. for rammed aggregate
pier having length of 2.1 m and diameter of 0.76 m installed in ML
soil
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 / 393
Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 8. Calculated pier modulus values as function of applied stress
at top of pier
Considering pier–soil interface does not improve the prediction
because of the relatively small applied loads where ␶ f was not
developed.
For Case 2, Figs. 11 and 12 show the comparison of measured
共9兲 and predicted stresses using the closed-form solution and the
boundary-element method considering no interface slip. Both
methods show good agreement with the measured stresses at low
applied stresses. However, both analyses do not show good agree-
ment with measured stresses at high applied stresses, especially at
applied stresses higher than the design limit 共i.e., 475 kPa兲. Fig.
13 illustrate that considering interface slip between the aggregate
pier and the surrounding soil significantly improves the prediction
of stress with depth, especially at applied stresses greater than
475 kPa, which corresponds to the stress at the design limit 共Fig.
5兲.
In addition to stresses, the measured pier top and tell-tale
settlements were compared to the calculated values 共see Fig. 14兲.
All analyses show good agreement with pier top settlement for
applied stresses less than the design limit. When considering in-
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses
using closed-form solution at Salt Lake City, Utah for rammed
aggregate pier having length of 4.57 m and diameter of 0.91 m
installed in CL-ML soil
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses
using boundary-element method assuming no interface slip at Salt
Lake City, Utah for rammed aggregate pier having length of 4.57 m
and diameter of 0.91 m installed in CL-ML soil
terface slip, better agreement is observed for the pier top settle-
ment for the total range of applied stresses. However, only the
boundary-element method assuming no interface slip shows good
agreement with the measured tell-tale settlement.
Figs. 15–17 show the measured and predicted stress values for
Case 3. Both the closed-form solution and the boundary-element
method with no interface slip show good agreement with the mea-
sured stresses at low applied stresses. Considering interface slip
improves the prediction of measured stresses, especially at ap-
plied stresses higher than the design limit 共i.e., 1,278 kPa兲. The
closed-form solution overpredicts the pier top settlement at ap-
plied stresses less than the design limit 共see Fig. 18兲. However,
Fig. 11. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses
using closed-form solution at Neola, Iowa for rammed aggregate pier
having length of 2.52 m and diameter of 0.76 m installed in CL soil
394 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 12. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses
using boundary-element method assuming no interface slip at Neola,
Iowa for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.52 m and
diameter of 0.76 m installed in CL soil
the boundary-element method assuming no interface slip show
very good agreement with measured pier top settlement at applied
stresses less than the design limit. Considering interface slip im-
proves the pier top settlement prediction at applied stresses
greater than the design limit.
Overall, the boundary-element analyses show good agreement
with measured stresses with depth and an acceptable prediction of
the pier top settlement for all cases. It is believed that the predic-
tion of pier tip settlement could be improved if nonuniform pier
elastic modulus and influences of confinement with depth were
considered.
Fig. 13. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses
using boundary-element method considering interface slip at Neola,
Iowa for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.52 m and
diameter of 0.76 m installed in CL soil
Fig. 14. Comparison of measured and calculated pier settlement at
Neola, Iowa for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.52 m and
diameter of 0.76 m installed in CL soil

Parametric Study Fig. 16. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses
using boundary-element method assuming no interface slip at
A parametric study was performed to investigate rammed aggre- McLean, Va. for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.1 m and
gate pier settlement and stress distribution as a function of depth diameter of 0.76 m installed in ML soil
共i.e., depth ratio⫽z / L兲 assuming no pier–soil interface slip at top
of pier stresses up to about 1750 kPa. Rammed aggregate piers
having slenderness ratios 共i.e., L / D兲 of 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 10 and
pier–soil stiffness ratios 共i.e., E p / Es兲 of 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 were
investigated. The calculated vertical stress ratio at the pier tip
冉冑 冊
共␴z=l/␴z=0.0兲 =
Es
E pA p
L Ib 共10兲

冋 冉 冊 册冋冉 冊 册
range from 11 to 22% for piers with slenderness ratio equal to 3 A3共E p/Es兲A4
and from 2 to 12% for slenderness ratio of 10. The calculated Ep L
Ib = A1LN − A2 共11兲
vertical stress ratio at the base of a rammed aggregate pier for the Es D
range of L / D and E p / Es can be estimated using Eq. 共10兲 where Ib The top of pier settlement for all cases was also determined.
is the base stress influence factor evaluated from Fig. 19 or Eq. The settlement of rammed aggregate piers can be calculated using
共11兲, where A1 = 0.695, A2 = 0.294, A3 = −2.95, and A4 = −0.14. The
Eq. 共12兲 where P⫽applied vertical load and I⬘p⫽settlement influ-
term between brackets on the right hand side of Eq. 共10兲 was
ence factor evaluated from Fig. 20 or Eq. 共13兲, where
defined as the load transfer parameter by Mylonakis and Gazetas
B1 = 0.6988, B2 = 0.3746, B3 = 0.0026, and B4 = 0.2976
共1998兲

Fig. 17. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses

Fig. 15. Comparison of measured and calculated normalized stresses using boundary element method considering interface slip at
using closed-form solution at McLean, Va. for rammed aggregate pier McLean, Va. for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.1 m and
having length of 2.1 m and diameter of 0.76 m installed in ML soil diameter of 0.76 m installed in ML soil

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 / 395

Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org

Fig. 18. Comparison of measured and calculated pier settlement at
McLean, Va. for rammed aggregate pier having length of 2.1 m and
diameter of 0.76 m installed in ML soil
⌬ = 共p/DEs兲I⬘P
I⬘P = B1共E p/Es兲−B2 + 关B3共E p/Es兲 + B4兴/共L/D兲
Vertical stress ratio and settlement factors could be developed
for loading conditions considering interface slip, however, current
design practice is generally to limit the design load to less than
the design limit 共i.e., point of slope change on applied stress ver-
sus settlement curve兲. An example calculation is provided in the
Appendix.
Summary and Conclusions
The field measurements from instrumented floating rammed ag-
gregate piers show that 55–60% of the top of pier vertical stress
dissipates at a depth of 1D and that 75–80% dissipates at a depth
of 2D for loads less than the design limit. The closed-form solu-
tion shows good agreement with measured stresses at loads
smaller than the design limit. The boundary element method with
no pier–soil interface slip shows good agreement with measured
pier top settlement and stresses with depth at loads smaller than
the design limit. It does not show a good prediction of the pier
settlement and the normalized stresses at applied loads greater
Fig. 19. Influence factor for vertical stress at base of rammed
aggregate piers 共Ib = 0.08 for L / D = 5 and E p / Es = 20兲
396 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006
Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
Fig. 20. Influence factor for vertical settlement of rammed aggregate
piers 共I⬘p = 0.3 for L / D = 5 and E p / Es = 20兲
than the design limit for Cases 2 and 3. The boundary element
共12兲
method considering interface slip shows better agreement with
measured normalized stresses and pier top settlement for Cases 2
共13兲 and 3, especially for applied stresses greater than the design limit.
The boundary-element method considering interface slip, how-
ever, does not show good prediction of pier tip settlement. This
may be a result of oversimplifying the pier elastic modulus and
neglecting influences of confinement with depth.
A parametric study investigating rammed aggregate pier settle-
ment and stress distribution with depth was also described in this
paper. This parametric study provides a means to evaluate the
stress at the base and settlement at the top of floating rammed
aggregate piers having a slenderness ratio ranging from 3 to 10
and pier–soil stiffness ratio ranging from 5 to 80. The developed
equations provide an estimate of settlement and stress distribution
which could serve as a simple design check to ensure that pier top
settlement does not exceed the allowable settlement, that minimal
tip stresses are developing, or that tip stresses are considered in
settlement calculations for the unreinforced soil below the bot-
toms of the piers. In the future, additional instrumented load tests
similar to those described in this paper and an expansion of the
analysis to include group effects are encouraged 共see Mylonakis
and Gazetas 1998; Polous and Davis 1980; and Randolph 1994兲.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Geopier Foundation Company, Inc.
and Iowa State University. The support of these agencies is grate-
fully acknowledged. Help review comments were provided by Dr.
Kord J. Wissmann.
Appendix. Example Calculation
Determinations of top of pier settlement and bottom of pier stress
can be calculated using Eq. 共10兲–共13兲 with the following typical
rammed aggregate pier parameters: pier diameter⫽0.76 m; pier
length⫽3.8 m; soil elastic modulus⫽20,000 kPa; top of pier
load⫽400 kN; and pier–soil stiffness ratio⫽20.
Calculation of Top of Pier Settlement ⌬ ⫽ pier top settlement;
␦ ⫽ length of each pile element;
1. I⬘p = 0.6988共E p/Es兲−0.3746 + 关0.0026共E p/Es兲 + 0.2976兴/共L/D兲 ␩ ⫽ interaction factor between upper and lower soil
= 0.6988共20兲−0.3746 + 共0.0026共20兲 + 0.2976兲/5 layers 共assume⫽1兲;
␭ ⫽ pile modulus divided by soil shear modulus 共E p / G兲;
= 0.30 ␮L ⫽ 共2 / ␨␭兲1/21 / r0;
共also see graphical interpretation from Fig. 20兲 ␯ ⫽ soil Poissons ratio;
␳ ⫽ pile or soil displacement vector 共n + 1x1兲;
2. ⌬ = 共P/DEs兲I⬘P ␳s ⫽ soil element settlement; and
␴v ⫽ total vertical stress
= 关400/共0.76兲共14,400兲兴共0.297兲
= 8 mm 共0.3 in.兲
References
Calculation of Tip Stress
Balaam, N. P., and Booker, J. R. 共1981兲. “Analysis of rigid rafts sup-
−0.14
1. Ib = 关0.695LN共E p / Es兲 − 0.294兴关共L / D兲−295共Ep/Es兲 兴 ported by granular piles.” Int. J. Numer. Analyt. Meth. Geomech., 5,
−0.14 379–403.
Ib = 关0.695LN共20兲 − 0.294兴兵关5兴−2.95共20兲 其 = 0.0787
Balaam, N. P., and Booker, J. R. 共1985兲. “Effect of stone column yield on
共also see graphical interpretation from Fig. 19兲 settlement of rigid foundations in stabilized clay.” Int. J. Numer. Ana-
lyt. Meth. Geomech., 9 331–351.
2.
共␴z=l/␴z=0.0兲 = 冉冑 冊 Es
E pA p
L Ib
Briaud, J. L. 共1989兲. “The pressuremeter test for highway application.”
FHWA IP-89-008, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.

= 冉冑 冊 0.05
␲共0.76兲2/4
3.8 Ib
Butterfield, R., and Banerjee, P. K. 共1971兲. “The elastic analysis of com-
pressible piles and pile groups.” Geotechnique, 21共1兲, 43–60.
Fellenius, B. H. 共1991兲. “Pile foundations.” Foundation engineering
= 关0.42兴 ⫻ 0.0787 handbook, 2nd Ed., W. Fang, ed., Chap. 10, Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
= 0.033 Fox, N. S., and Cowell, M. J. 共1998兲. Geopier foundation and soil rein-
共indicating about 3% percent of the applied stress reaches the forcement manual, Geopier Foundation Company, Inc., Scottsdale,
pier bottom.兲 Ariz.
Handy, R. L. 共2001兲. “Does lateral stress really influence settlement?” J.
Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127共7兲, 623–626.
Lawton, E. V., and Merry, S. M. 共2000兲. “Performance of Geopier-
Notation supported foundation during simulated seismic tests on northbound
Interstate 15 bridge over South Temple, Salt Lake City Utah.” Final
The following symbols are used in this paper: Rep. No. UUCVEEN 00-03, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
d = D ⫽ pile diameter; Mattes, N. S., and Poulos, H. G. 共1969兲. “Settlement of single compress-
E p ⫽ pile elastic modulus; ible pile.” J. Soil Mech. and Found. Div., 95共1兲, 189–207.
Es ⫽ soil modulus; Mindlin, R. D. 共1936兲. “Force at a point in the interior of a semi-infinite
G0 ⫽ initial soil shear modulus; solids.” Physics (N.Y.), 7, 195–202.
I ⫽ unit matrix; Mylonakis, G., and Gazetas, G. 共1998兲, “Settlement and additional inter-
I p ⫽ pile action matrix 共n + 1xn + 1兲; nal forces grouped piles in layered soil.” Geotechnique, 48共1兲, 55–72.
I⬘p ⫽ pier settlement influence factor; Pham, H. T. V. 共2005兲. “Support mechanism of rammed aggregate piers.”
Is ⫽ soil-vertical displacement factor 共n + 1xn + 1兲; Ph.D. dissertation, Iowa State Univ., Ames, Iowa.
K ⫽ pile stiffness factor 共E pRA / Es兲; Poulos, H. G. 共1988兲. “Modified calculation of pile-group settlement in-
L ⫽ pile length; teraction.” Proc., IEEE Ultrason. Symp., 114共6兲, 697–706.
Poulos, H. G. 共1989兲. “Pile behaviour-theory and application.” Odontol.
Nk ⫽ bearing capacity factor;
Din, 39共3兲, 365–415.
n ⫽ number of elements;
Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. 共1968兲. “The settlement behavior of
Pa ⫽ atmospheric pressure;
single axially loaded incompressible piles and piers.” Geotechnique,
Pb ⫽ force at pile tip; 18, 351–371.
p j ⫽ shear stress vector 共n + 1x1兲; Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H. 共1980兲. Pile foundation analysis and
PL ⫽ PMT limit pressure; design, Wiley, New York.
P共z兲 ⫽ vertical force at depth 共z兲; Randolph, M. F. 共1994兲. “Design methods of pile groups and piled rafts.”
P0 ⫽ applied load; Proc., 13th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineer-
p ⫽ shear stress at depth z; ing, New Delhi, India.
qc ⫽ CPT tip resistance; Randolph, M. F., and Wroth, C. P. 共1978兲. “Analysis of Deformation of
RA ⫽ area ratio 共equals 1 for solid piles兲; Vertically Loaded Piles.” J. Geotech. Engrg. Div., 104共12兲, 1465–
rm ⫽ distance at which shear stress effect become 1488.
negligible; Robertson, P. K., and Campanella, R. G. 共1984兲. “Guidelines for use and
r0 ⫽ radius of pile; interpretation of the electrnic cone penetration test.” Soil mechanics,
Su ⫽ undrained shear strength; Series No. 69, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of British Columbia,
Y ⫽ applied load vector 共n + 1x1兲; Vancouver, Canada.
z ⫽ depth of interest; Warner, B. J. 共2003兲. “Settlement and bearing capacity improvement with

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006 / 397

Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org
 pier groups.” Master’s thesis, Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
White, D. J., Gaul, A., and Hoevelkamp, K. 共2003兲. “Highway applica-
tions for rammed aggregate piers in Iowa soils.” Final Rep. Iowa. No.
DOT-TR-443, Ames, Iowa.
White, D. J., Wissmann, K., Barnes, A., and Gaul, A. 共2002兲. “Embank-
ment support: A comparison of stone column and rammed aggregate
pier soil reinforcement.” Proc., 55th Canadian Geotechnical Conf.,
Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada.
Wissmann, K., Fox, N. S., and Martin, J. P. 共2000兲. “Rammed aggregate
piers defeat 75-feet long driven piles.” Proc., Performance Confirma-
tion of Constructed Geotechnical Facilities, ASCE Special Publica-
tion No. 194, Amherst, Mass., 198–211.

398 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2006

Downloaded 15 May 2012 to 180.211.192.67. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright. Visit http://www.ascelibrary.org