‫ﻣﺆﺗﻤﺮ اﻷزھﺮ اﻟﮭﻨﺪﺳﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻟﺚ ﻋﺸﺮ‬

AL-AZHAR ENGINEERING
THIRTEENTH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
December 23-25, 2014

Code: C 07
NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON
SOFT DEPOSITS
A.M. Ibrahim1, T.M. Fouad2, M. L. ElGhamrawy2, and M. M. Sherif1
1
Housing & Building National Research Cent er
2
Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University
ABSTRACT
Weak foundation soils have always been a challenge to Geotechnical Engineers. The north
Egypt delta and west north of Sinai contained area possesses considerable areas of low bearing
capacity and highly compressible soil. So when designing embankments over weak
foundations, some parameters such as: bearing capacity, slope stability, lateral pressures,
movements, and differential settlement are of major concerns.
. Geosynthetic reinforced and pile supported earth platforms provide an economic and effective
solution. For embankments, retaining walls, and storage tanks, etc. constructed on soft soils;
especially when rapid construction and/or strict deformation of the structure are required. The
inclusion of
geosynthetics in the fill enhances the efficiency of load transfer, minimizes yielding of the soil
above the pile head. and potentially reduces total and differential settlements. The main purpose
of this numerical study is to investigate the principal features of an embankment supported on
pile, incorporating geotextile reinforcement spanning between adjacent pile caps driven in thick
soft clay subsoil. The main parameters investigated in this study are: characteristics of
embankment fill material, embankment height, thickness of soft clay layer, stiffness of
geotextile, pile diameter and length, area ratio; floating and end bearing piles. The validation of
numerical results was also evaluated based on the results of physical model tests.
© 2014 Faculty of Engineering, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt. All rights reserved.

KEY WORDS: Geosynthetic, Pile Supported Embankments, Soft Clay, Embankment

Approach, Reduce Settlement

INTRODUCTION
A technique which best enables embankments to be constructed to unrestricted height, at any
construction rate, with good control in total settlements and differential settlements is the use of
embankment piles. As with other piled structures, piled embankments may utilize a range of pile
types, namely, stone columns, sand compaction columns, lime columns, soil-cement columns,
timber piles and driven or cast in-situ concrete piles.
The benefits associated with the use of pile-supported earth plat-forms are as follows: (1) to
build superstructures in a single stage without prolonged waiting Limes; (2) to significantly
reduce total and differential settlement; (3) to reduce earth pressures. Pile supported earth
platforms have been used with or without geosynthetic reinforcements. A system without
geosynthetic reinforcements is referred to herein as the conventional pile-supported earth
platform while the system with geosynthetic reinforcements is referred to as the gcosynthetic-
reinforced and pile-supported earth platform (Fig. 1).

Al-Azhar University Engineering Journal, JAUES

Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014
1
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

Fig. 1 Schematic section of piled embankment in soft soil and improvement principle

Conventional and geosyilthetic-reinforced earth platforms have been used over piles
with caps or columnar systems. such as: vibroconcrete columns (VCC), soil-cement
columns by mixing or grouting, or stone columns.
For a conventional pile-supported earth platform, piles need to be closely spaced,
and/or to have large pile caps, in order to transfer surcharge loads through soil arching
to the piles and minimize deflection of the soil between pile/caps as such deflection is
reflected to the embankment surface.
Based on the perfor- mance investigation of conventional pile-suppottcd embank-
ments,
Rathmayer (1975) shown that the required percent coverage of pile caps depends on
the quality of till materials. The percent coverage herein is defined as the percentage of
the total area of pile caps or columns to that of foundation footprint.
Reid and Buchanan (1988) reported that this technique was used for preventing
differential settlement between an approach embankment constructed over soft soil and
a bridge abutment supported by long piles, Fig. 2.

Fig. 2 Bride approach support piling – on motorways near GLASGOW

(AFTER Reid and Buchnan 1988)
A similar project was completed using cement mixing columns instead of concrete piles
as presented by Lin and Wong (1999).

Due to the complexity of the problem itself, a numerical study is conducted and results
Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014
2
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

are presented in this study showing fundamental aspects related to the behavior of
geosynthetic reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft foundations. The
contributions of factors related to the height of embankments, tensile stiffness of
geosynthetic, and elastic modulus of pile material are investigated. Results are
presented as a discussion related to settlement, stress concentration, and soil arching.

Mechanisms of Load Transfer

The interactions among pile (caps), foundation soil, fill, and geosynthetic can be
schematically described as shown in Fig. 3
Under the influence of fill weight, W , the embankment fill mass between pile caps has
a tendency to move downward, due to the presence of soft foundation soil. This
movement is partially restrained by shear resistance, τ, from the fill above the pile caps.
The shear resistance reduces the pressure acting on the geosynthetic but increases the
load applied onto the pile caps. This load transfer mechanism was termed the ''soil
arching effect" by Terzaghi(1943). Based on the test results by Terzaghi(1936} and
Mcnulty (1965), the shear stress induced by soil arching in- creased with an increase of
the displacement and the thickness of the fill above the yielding soil portion. The degree
of soil arching was defined as follows {as proposed by Mcnulty 1965):

where n = arching ratio; n = 0 represents the complete soil arching while n = 1

represents no soil arching;
Pa = applied pressure on the top of the trapdoor in Terzaghi
γ = unit weight of the embankment fill
H = height of embankment;
and qo = uniform surcharge on the embankment.

Different methods have been proposed to model the soil arching effect as summarized
by Russell and Pierpoint ( 1997). Terzaghi(1936) considered the shear strength along
the soil prism, which is mobilized to a certain height, at which a plane of equal
settlement exists. In the British Standard BS 8006 (1995), Marston's formula for positive
projecting subsurface conduits was proposed for estimating the vertical stress applied
on the top of the pile caps. For all these studies, a cavity or no resistance is assumed
below the geasynthetic reinforcement. Therefore, the reinforcement is mainly designed
to carry all the loads imposed by the stress component Pa . The Hewlett and Randolph
(1988) and British Standard BS 8006 (1995) methods, which are specific to pile-
supported embankments, are suitable for design. However, both methods ignored the
effects of geosynthetic stiffness and pile material elastic modulus on the degree of soil
arching, which will be investigated in this study.
In summary, the mechanisms of load transfer can be consider as a combination of
embankment soil arching, tensioned membrane or stiffened platform effect of
geosynthetic, and stress concentration due to the stiffness difference between pile and
soil.
The component of load transfer by each mechanism depends on a number of factors
including number and tensile stiffness of geosynthetic reinforcement layers, properties
of embankment fill and foundation soils, and elastic module of pile materials.

Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014

3
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

Fig. 3 Load transfer mechanism of geosynthetic reinforced pile supported earth platform
Numerical Modeling
Due to the complication of the piled embankment problem and the wide range of the
parameters and to achieve some aspect of the piled embankment behaviour the
numerical analysis using the method of finite elements shall be used to perform a wide
parametric study needed to develop both qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the
interaction process. The main advantage of Finite element analysis (FEA) is its ability
to handle truly arbitrary geometry. And the ability to deal with general boundary
conditions and to include no homogeneous and anisotropic materials. PLAXIS is a
finite element package specifically intended for the analysis of deformation and stability
in geotechnical engineering projects. Only conditions close to the centre of a wide
embankment resting on a layer of soft soil of finite depth underlain by a stiff stratum are
considered in the most of numerical study. The analyses involves one and two unit cell
as shown in Fig. 4

H B

S
L
D
S

Fig. 4 Piled Embankment Problem

The Assumption of Plane Strain Conditions
The behaviour of a piled embankment are three dimensional, Jardenah (1988)
questioned the suitability of using a plane strain numerical model to represent piled
embankment behaviour.
Randolph (1981) proposed that in a plane strain analysis, the structural behaviour of a
pile row running normal to the section could be represented by an equivalent sheet pile
wall. The wall has the same flexural stiffness per unit width as the piles and soil it
replaces Fig. 5 However, the soil generally makes a very small contribution to the total
flexural stiffness, and can be neglected.

Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014

4
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

Fig. 5 Equivalent sheet pile wall: plan view of pile row and equivalent sheet pile wall
Material model and parameters
The embankment fill and in situ soils were modeled as linearly elastic-perfectly plastic
materials with the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, while the columns were assumed to
be linearly elastic material. Previous studies have considered the Mohr–Coulomb model
for the soft soil layers. In addition, the Mohr–Coulomb
model is considered as a first order approximation for real soil behavior and highly
recommended where soil parameters are not known with great certainty. The soil input
parameters were determined from triaxial and in situ tests of prior publications (cairo
university). The material properties of the various components are
shown in Tables 1 and 2. The elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr–Coulomb model requires
five parameters: friction angle, φ` , cohesion, c` , dilatancy angle, ψ, Young’s modulus,
E, and Poisson’s ratio, ν`.
The Poisson’s ratio for the soft clayey soils has been taken as 0.30, and the dilatancy
angle has been assumed to be 5o for all soils (for internal friction 35 o). The Young’s
modulus was set as a multiple of its undrained shear strength, that is
E = α . Su
where Su is the undrained shear strength and α = 75–100.
For numerical modeling, the coefficient α has been taken here to be 100.
In this study, the horizontal permeability of the clay is assumed to be approximately the
same as the vertical .

2.5. Mesh generation

The FEM analysis was carried out using PLAXIS version 8.5 to discretize the
embankment. Fifteen-noded triangular elements Fig. 6 were used to discretize the
embankment and ground soils. The 15-noded triangular elements are accurate
elements that provide high quality stress results for complex problems. Five-noded
beam elements with two translational degrees of freedom and one rotational degree of
freedom were used to model the piles. Five pairs of interface elements were used to
model the slippage between soil and piles Fig. 7 show the Distribution of nodes and
stress points in geotextile element and interface elements and connection with soil
elements. Interface elements have been extended to 0.5 m beneath the short columns
in order to allow for sufficient flexibility around the column tip. The interface elements
are shown to have a finite thickness, but in the finite element formulation the
coordinates of each node pair of interface elements are identical, which means that the
elements have zero thickness. The stiffness matrix for interface elements is obtained by
means of Newton– Cotes integration. The position of the Newton–Cotes integration
Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014
5
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

points coincides with the node pairs. An elastic–plastic model is used to describe the
behavior of the interface of the soil and structure. The Coulomb criterion is used to
distinguish between elastic behavior, where small displacements can occur within the
interface, and plastic interface behavior when permanent slip occurs. Fig. 8 show the
Basic idea of an elastic perfect plastic model and Fig. 9 show the Mohr-Coulomb yield
surface in principal stress space (c=0)

Table 1 Material properties

Parameter Embankment fill Soft clay Base soil
Material model M-C M-C M-C
Type of material behavior Drained Drained Drained
3 16 15 16
Dry unit weight kN/m
3 20 18 20
Saturated unit weight kN/m
Permeability m/d 1 1e-4 1
Effective Young’s modulus kPa 8000 2000 9000
Effective Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3
Effective cohesion kPa 1 5 1
Effective friction angle deg. 35 20 35
Effective dilatancy angle deg. 5 - 5
Interface reduction factor 0.8 0.8 0.8

Table 2 Material properties

Parameter Pile type I Pile type II Pile type III Pile type IV
Material model Linear-elastic Linear-elastic Linear-elastic Linear-elastic
Type 0f material behavior Non-porous Non-porous Non-porous Non-porous
Young’s modulus kPa 6.3e6 5e5 2.1e4 4.5e3
3 20 20 20 20
Unit weight kN/m
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

Fig 6 Nodes and Stress Points

Fig. 7 Distribution of nodes and stress points in geotextile element and interface elements and connection with soil
elements.

Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014

6
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

Fig. 8 Basic idea of an elastic perfect plastic model

Fig. 9 The Mohr-Coulomb yield surface in principal stress space (c=0)

Figure 10 Definition of Eo and E50 for standard drained triaxial test results
Results and discussion
The maximum settlement depends on the elastic modulus of the pile material as shown
in Fig. 11. The increase of the pile modulus can reduce the maximum settlements and
the reduction of the maximum settlements can be enhanced with inclusion of
Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014
7
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

geosynthetic. The difference in the magnitude of the maximum settlement between

unreinforced and reinforced cases tends to be greater with an increase in the pile
modulus. These result can be explained by the geosynthetic enhancing the stress
concentration from soil to piles due to the stiffness difference between piles and soil,
and preventing soil yielding above the piles. For concrete piles having a typical elastic
modulus of approximately 6.000 MPa, the maxinaum settlement for the reinforced case
can be reduced by 18% from that for the unreinforced case.

250
Pile-subsoil relative settlement (mm)

200

150

100
Reiforced
Unreinforced
50

0
1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04

Elastic modulus of pile Ep (Mpa)

Fig. 11 Influence of pile modulus on pile-subsoil relative settlement

The maximum settlement computed from the analysis results at the pile head level as
shown in Fig. 12 , increases with the height of the embankment fill. Also Fig. 12 shows
that the inclusion of geosynthetic reduces the maximum settlement. Such reduction is
estimated to be 18% at embankment height of 1m to 25% at embankment height of 4
m.

250
Pile-subsoil relative settlement (mm)

200

150

100
Reiforced
Unreinforced
50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Embankment height (m)

Fig. 12 Influence of height of embankment on pile-subsoil relative settlement

Differential Settlement
As shown in Fig. 13, the differential settlement at the ground surface. defined as the
settlement difference between the center of the pile and the midspan of the pile
spacing, has different responses from that computed at the elevation of the pile head.
The differential settlement at the elevation of the pile heads increases with the height of
the embankment fill while that at the ground surface decreases with the height of the
embankment fill until it approaches zero. The decrease of differential settlement at the
ground surface is due to the development of: soil arching above the pile heads. Using
Terzaghi's concept (Terzaghil 943), the zero differential settlement can be explained by
equal settlement plane being limited below the ground surface.
Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014
8
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

180
at the pile head elevation
160
at the ground surface

Pile-subsoil relative settlement (mm)

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Embankment height (m)

Fig. 13 Influence of embankment height on differential settlement

Soil Arching
Fig. 14 show the typical stress distribution on the pile caps and the horizontal sections
above 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 m above the pile caps. And as presented in Fig. 15 that the soil
arching ratio decreases with an increase in the height of the embankment, which is in
agreement with the findings by Mcnulty ( 1965) in his trapdoor experimental study. At a
low embankment height, and for an unreinforced or reinforced case, the shear
resistance in the embankment fill is not large enough to develop the arching and reduce
the pressure applied onto the foundation soil or the geosynthetic. With the increase in
the height of the embankment, more shear resistance accumulates for enhancing the
development of soil arching. It is found that the soil arching ratio approaches a constant
value when the height of the embankment is increased. The reduction of the differential
settlement by including geosynthetic can be considered as an explanation of why the
soil arching ratio is greater for the reinforced case than that for unreinforced case.

Fig. 14 show the typical stress distribution on the pile caps and the horizontal sections above 1.0,
2.0, 3.0 m above the pile caps.
1

0.9

0.8

0.7
Arching ratio, n

0.6

0.5

0.4
Reiforced
0.3
Unreinforced
0.2

0.1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Embankment height (m)

Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014

9
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

Fig. 15 Influence of embankment height on arching ratio

In addition, Hewlett and Randolph (1988) and British Standard BS8006 (1995) methods
did not consider the stiffness effect of the support (i.e., piles). However, Fig. 16
demonstrates that the elastic modulus of the pile material affects the soil arching. An
increase in the modulus of the pile reduces the soil arching ratio for both unreinforced
and reinforced cases, i.e a larger stiffness of the pile promotes higher soil arching
effect.

0.9
Pile-subsoil relative settlement (mm)

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3
Reiforced
0.2 Unreinforced

0.1

0
1.00E+00 1.00E+01 1.00E+02 1.00E+03 1.00E+04

Embankment height (m)

Fig. 16 Influence of pile modulus on arching ratio

Tension in Geosynthetic
The distribution of tension in geosynthetic material as a Junction of the distance from
the center of the pile is shown in Fig. 14. Results indicate that tension is not uniform
along the geosynthetic and the maximum tension occurs at the edge of the pile.
.As shown in Fig. 17, the maximum tension in the geosynthetic increases with the
height of embankment fill.
Reiforced

100
90
80

70
Arching ratio, n

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5

Embankment height (m)

Fig. 17 Influence of embankment height on tension in reinforcement

CONCLUSIONS
The results of the numerical study demonstrated that inclusion of geosynthetic in earth
platforms can deduce the total and differential settlements above the pile heads, and at
the ground surfaces, promote efficient load transfer from the soil to the piles and re-
duce the possibility of soil yielding above the pile heads. Analysis data indicated that
the soil arching ratio decreases with an increase in the height of embankment fill, an
increase in the elastic modulus of the pile material, and a decrease in the tensile
Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014
10
 NUMERICAL STUDY ON PILE SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS ON SOFT DEPOSITS

stiffness of geosynthetic. However, current design/analysis methods have generally

neglected to include the effect of the geosynthetic stiffness and the pile modulus on the
soil arching ratio.
The distribution of tension in geosynthetic shows that the maximum tension
occurs near the edge of the pile.

REFERENCES
1. Alzamora, D., Wayne, M. H., and Him, J. (2000). "Performance of SRW
2. supported by geogrids and jet grout columns." Pro., ASCE specialty conf.,
geotechnical Special Publication No. 94. 456 466
3. ASCE Geo-institute. (1 997). Grund improvement, ground reinforcement, ground
treatment development, 1987-1997, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 69, edited
by V. R. Schaefer
4. Bergado DT, Enriquez AS, Sampaco CL, Alfaro MC. Inverse analysis of
5. geotechnical parameters on improved soft Bangkok clay. ASCE J Geotech Eng
6. 1990;18(7):1012–30
7. British Standard BS 8006. (1995). Code of practice for strengthenedreinforced soils
and other fills, British Standard Institution, London.
8. Chen RP, Chen YM, Xu ZZ. Interaction of rigid pile-supported embankment on
9. soft soil. Advances in earth structures: research to practice (GSP 131). ASCE;
10. 2006. p. 231–8.
11. Gabr. M. A., and Hunter. T. J. (1994). "Stress-strain analysis of geogrid-supported
liners over subsurface cavities." J. geological geotech. Eng., 12(2). 65-86.
12. Han, J. (1999). ''Design and construction of embankments on geosynthetic
reinforced platforms supported by piles." Proc. 1999 . ASCE.
13. Han, J., and Wayne, M. H. (2000). ''Pile-soil-interactions in geosynthelic reinforced
platform/piled embankments over soft soil." Rep. no. 000777, Presentation and CD-
Printe at 79th Annual transpotation research board meeting, Washington, D.C. 27.
14. Hewlett, W. J., and Randolph, M. F. (1988). "Analysis of piled embankments."
Ground eng. 21 (3), 12- 18.
15. Hossain MS, Haque MA, Rao KN. Embankment over soft soil improved with
16. chemico pile – a numerical study. Advances in earth structures: research to
17. practice (GSP 151). ASCE; 2006.
18. Huang J, Han J, Porbaha A. Two and three-dimensional modeling of DM
19. columns under embankments. GeoCongress. ASCE; 2006.
20. Lin, K. Q., and Wong, I. H. (1999). "Use of deep cement mixing to reduce
settlements at bridge approaches." J. geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 125(4), 309 320.
21. PLAXIS 2D V8. Reference manual; 2002.
22. Schmertmann. J. H. (1999). ''Soil arching and the spanning of voids. Proc.., 1999
ASCE geotechnical seminar,
23. Terzaghi, K. (1936). ''Stress distribution in dry and in saturated sand above a
yielding trap door, proc. 1st int conf on soil mech and found. Eng., Harvard univ.,
Cambridge.
24. Terzaghi. K. ( 1943). Theoretical Soil Mech, Wiley, New York, 66-75.

Vol. 9, No. 1, Dec. 2014

11