CHAPTER 1

Descriptions, history, initial developments

and launch of the national project

The concept of installing a foundation on a soil reinforced by rigid inclusions constitutes one
of the recent techniques for soil improvement and reinforcement. It is used to significantly
reduce the settlement of the foundation block subjected to applied loads, while increasing its
stability in resisting punching.

This technique does not necessarily improve the soil in and of itself, as in most cases the
actual mechanical characteristics remain unchanged following implementation of the
inclusions. In reality, the soil is reinforced by means of creating a composite in which the
loads applied are distributed between soil and inclusions.

This foundation concept requires the presence of a load transfer platform between the
inclusions and the structure they are supporting.

1. RIGID INCLUSIONS AND FOUNDATION TYPES

It is helpful at this point to place the foundation concept of a soil reinforced by rigid
inclusions into the general framework of major structural foundation principles (see Fig. 1.1):
the shallow foundation solution is obviously preferable if the foundation soil provides a
guarantee of stability and yields settlements acceptable for the structure;
if at least one of these two criteria is not met, then the conventional alternative would
consist of using deep foundations that have been designed to carry the entire load. Load is
transmitted to the piles via a rigid element, which performs the role of distributing forces
among the piles: this element is known as the pile group cap or the slab where piles are
embedded.

Yet, many intermediate situations can be found of average-quality soils and/or structures
tolerating small deformations, whereby the shallow foundation solution is not acceptable
while the deep foundation solution is overdesigned in comparison with what would be
strictly necessary.

This situation can be solved by simultaneously taking into account the respective load-bearing
capacities of the cap and the piles, in considering that a part of the loads introduced by the
structure is actually being transferred to the soil underneath the cap. This concept, referred to
as a piled raft foundation, is attractive for soils featuring average and homogeneous
characteristics. It leads to a fully satisfactory intermediate foundation system, in which a rigid
connection exists between the piles and the pile cap. The advantage is to decrease the load
transferred at each pile head (since a part of the load is transmitted by the cap to the soil
underneath it), leading to a reduction in the required pile length or diameter. The piled raft
foundation approach has unfortunately only been used sparingly in France, as opposed to
other countries like Germany.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 19

The foundation on rigid inclusions approach is somewhat similar to the piled raft foundation
approach, in that it associates rigid vertical elements, i.e. inclusions, with a flexible cap layer,
yet without any rigid mechanical link placed between the two. From a purely theoretical
standpoint, the rigid inclusion concept remains pertinent once the conventional rigid linkage
between pile cap and piles disappears in the piled raft foundation configuration. In practice,
this transition from piled raft foundation to a foundation on rigid inclusions is reflected by a
combined geometric and mechanical discontinuity, along with the introduction of a relatively
thin mattress, generally a granular layer, called the load transfer platform.

Figure 1.1: The various types of foundations.

This concept comprises various modes of interaction between: 1) the inclusions, each possibly
topped by a cap; 2) the load transfer platform directly supporting the foundation; and 3) the
foundation soil between the inclusions. The diagram in Figure 1.2 effectively summarizes this
range of interactions, with a differential settlement at the load transfer platform base, which
generates both a load transfer onto the inclusion caps via an arching effect taking place in the
load transfer platform and a negative friction along the inclusions over the upper part of the
soil between the inclusions. This load transfer by negative skin friction thus constitutes the
critical component of this concept and will be developed at length in Chapter 2.

Figure 1.2: The four components of a complete foundation on rigid inclusions.

20 ASIRI National Project

2. DEFINITION OF A RIGID INCLUSION

Rigid inclusions, in the strict sense of the term, contain elements that are slender, often
cylindrical in shape, mechanically continuous and typically vertical. They are laid out
according to a regular mesh pattern, which must be adapted both to the nature and geometry
of applied loads and to soil conditions.

The cross-section of an inclusion is in theory constant, except for the cap, which features a
larger cross-section.

For vertical inclusions, the term group is employed, and the present Recommendations are
intended solely for groups. Should the inclusions be slanted, in most cases at variable angles,
then the term network is introduced.

The adjective rigid is required whenever the component material displays a strong
permanent cohesion, thereby generating a level of stiffness significantly greater than that of
the surrounding soil. Nonetheless, this stiffness may vary widely depending on the type of
inclusion developed, ranging from the lime column to the metal section, yet still includes the
gravel column injected with a cement slurry, mortar or concrete (whether reinforced or not).
The rigid inclusion concept supposes that column stability is provided without any lateral
confinement of the surrounding soil, which sharply contrasts with the concept of stone
columns, whose justification would be totally different when adopting a rigid inclusion
approach.

The force to be applied at the cap, for a given cross-section, depends on the intrinsic strength
of the material composing the inclusion and thus varies from one type of inclusion to the next.
The various types of inclusions described in Chapter 7 reveal the presence of large families,
as characterized by both their stiffness and intrinsic capacity. As such, the design of a
reinforcement using rigid inclusions requires a minimum internal strength of inclusion
material and moreover must incorporate interactions with the surrounding soil: shaft friction,
and forces at the top and tip.

Consequently, the inclusion dimensions themselves prove to be highly variable. In most cases,
their length extends to at least the thickness of the relevant soft soils, in recognizing that
shorter inclusions would be less efficient due to a lack of load-bearing capacity. The diameter
or transverse dimensions may also vary considerably since current techniques, and those
practiced in France in particular, have led to installing diameters that routinely range from
250 mm to 800 mm for elements bored by a hollow auger, with these latter applications
involving a technology identical to that derived for piles.

Using the larger diameter from this range, 30-m long inclusions could be produced along the
banks of the Loire River in Montoir-de-Bretagne (Loire Atlantique Department). As an
exceptional case, metal tube elements 2 m in diameter were placed by pile-driving for the
foundations of the Rion-Antirion Bridge in Greece (Pecker, 2004). Smaller diameter
inclusions should still be anticipated in the outcome of the structural design calculations or as
validated by extensive practice. This is the case when introducing wood, such as bamboo, in
the Far East or casting in place 15 cm diameter mortar elements reinforced by a metal section
immediately driven into the mortar, as has been tested and used in Germany.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 21

As revealed in their mechanistic study (see Chapters 2 through 5), inclusions are intended to
carry a significant fraction of the loads applied to a soft soil volume. They must therefore be
designed to effectively withstand such loads; when given an appropriate cross-section,
inclusions are most often stopped in a ground layer exhibiting sufficient strength.

Typically not reinforced (especially in the presence of vertical loads), inclusions may
sometimes receive rebar additions in order to resist the eventual transverse forces being
exerted. This occurs, for example, when reinforcing the base of a tall embankment slope on a
soft or compressible soil, where sliding stability is a prerequisite.

Under this kind of scenario, in addition to placing rebar into the inclusions, it may be
requested to introduce above the pile caps, or inside the embankment body, other
reinforcements like horizontal geosynthetic sheets that absorb forces through traction and thus
limit vertical forces transmitted to the inclusions. Furthermore, the lack of a rigid bond
between inclusions and the supported structure, along with the absence of any group effect, is
indeed favorable in the event of seismic loading (Chapter 2).

3. PILE CAPS

The pile cap lies at the summit of the rigid inclusion. The surface area of its cross-section
divided by that of the reinforcement grid determines what is referred to as the "DUHD UDWLR.
This parameter, whose value often ranges between 2% and 10%, is an essential factor of
reinforcement efficiency.

In the majority of more common cases, the inclusion is simply embedded into the load
transfer platform; under certain conditions and for the purpose of raising this coverage rate,
the pile cap diameter may be increased or else the cap may be topped by a small slab.

The choice is available between uniform inclusions laid out in a relatively dense pattern and
elements sized with a diameter identical to the uniform inclusion but with greater spacing and
topped by a cap. Both cases offer the same cover rate.

Economic considerations however also play a role in the choice of cap type.

4. LOAD TRANSFER PLATFORM

The rigid inclusion concept implies that inclusion caps are not structurally bound to the
supported structure, as opposed to what is traditionally practiced for a foundation on piles
embedded into a tie raft.

In contrast, bonding is created by interspersing between the caps and structure a distribution
layer (or platform), on which the designed structure lies. The presence of this layer, called the
load transfer platform and most often composed of gravel, determines the specificity of the
rigid inclusion reinforcement technique.

Inclusion placement, combined with covering their caps by a load transfer platform,
ultimately leads to a composite or reinforced soil volume, which tends to be stronger and less
deformable than the initial soil volume, allowing the structure to lay on a shallow foundation.

22 ASIRI National Project

A minimum load transfer platform thickness is necessary to allow for appropriate load
transfer between inclusions and soil, as well as to limit forces within the supported structure
(slabs, base plates, etc.). This thickness, often on the order of 40 to 80 cm, proves essential in
deriving an optimal design for the supported structure, particularly with the aim of reducing
bending moments in the slabs.

The load transfer platform may be composed of the following, depending on the application:
a simple layer of well-compacted granular material;
a layer of soil treated with hydraulic binder;
or a layer of soil reinforced by horizontal geosynthetic sheets.

In the case of a granular material layer, the objective consists of obtaining a high level of
compactness, which in turn yields a high modulus of deformation.

In the case of materials treated with hydraulic binder (lime or cement-lime mortar), the treated
layer must retain sufficient flexibility in order to avoid cracking; an extreme condition would
be described as a slab supported by deep foundations, whereby the principle of foundations on
inclusions would no longer apply.

A load transfer platform composed of a granular soil reinforced by geosynthetic sheets is

widespread in Anglo-Saxon countries. Geotextiles laid out in one or more horizontal sheets
within the load transfer platform are less commonly used in France, since they have been
deemed too easily deformable, especially when placed beneath slabs. The use of stiffer
geosynthetics, such as geogrids or reinforcing steel meshes, is more efficient given that
smaller deformations are sufficient to mobilize major forces. These horizontal reinforcements
can also be laid out in one or more sheets either inside the load transfer platform or at the base
of a homogeneous embankment, in which case they sit directly on the caps. For a given load
transfer platform thickness, the use of geosynthetics serves to lower the cover rate value.

The designer therefore has access to a wide array of potential solutions that would need to be
optimized as part of a comprehensive technical-economic approach aimed at improving the
design.

5. APPLICABLE SOILS

According to its underlying principle, the rigid inclusion system may be applied to all types of
soil conditions. In practice however, its economic benefit remains confined to soft or medium
soils, which are most often compressible, i.e. clay, silt or peat. Let's point out however that
peat and, more generally, all materials containing organic matter require special attention due
to the fact that they are subjected to secondary compression settlements.

The type of soil, which is often saturated, along with its index parameters, loading history and
mechanical properties are contributing factors in the choice of rigid inclusion production
mode, and some of these modes, like for piles, might not be advised.

The most widespread applications relate mainly to the limits of conventional soil
improvement techniques because of their inability to guarantee the necessary settlement
criteria or their requirement of a minimum quality threshold for the surrounding soil.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 23

Reinforcement by rigid inclusions can also be effective for the purpose of building on former
waste storage sites. An analysis of such sites, in terms of chemical aggressiveness and
evolution, becomes critical when dealing with organic soils. Settlements, especially when
delayed, must be treated with special attention. The procedure for incorporating these
elements will be discussed in Chapter 6.

Under all circumstances, it is essential to recall that a foundation on rigid inclusions will
undergo settlement on the order of a few centimeters.

6. FIELDS OF APPLICATION

All structures, regardless of their nature, require both internal and external design in order to
ensure integrity throughout the construction period and then during the service life. This
integrity relies on whether the deformations, settlements, horizontal displacements and
distortions remain permissible, in recognizing the difficulty often involved when setting exact
thresholds.

European standardization also prescribes for geotechnical structures a specific deformation

design. Until recently, this step primarily revolved around: justifications at the point of failure
and the application of normal safety factors leading to relatively acceptable deformations for
the structures. Only very severe deformation conditions would motivate undertaking a
complete deformation design, which is often complex and ultimately results in choosing
higher safety factors than usually admitted. The foundation design, notably for compressible
soils, consists of identifying the most relevant solution that satisfies both stability and
deformation objectives while seeking to optimize construction costs and scheduling.

When the preliminary design of a structure reveals that the foundation soil in its current state
is incapable of carrying the loads transmitted by this structure without either excessive
settlement or incurring the risk of failure, then the designer must plan for a backup with deep
foundations or preliminary ground improvement or reinforcement.

The choice of solution thus depends on: the type of structure, type of applied loads (either
distributed or point), structure sensitivity to settlement, type of foundation soil, and
construction scheduling duration.

From a general standpoint, soil improvement solutions are more likely to be reserved for
structures with a large footprint and loads primarily of the distributed type.
As an example, a very tall building with a strong concentrated load on a poor quality
foundation soil will typically remain in the domain of more conventional deep foundations
with piles or diaphragm wall barrettes.

Conversely, many structures transmit distributed loads over large surface areas on the
foundation soil, as:
slabs and foundations of industrial and commercial buildings;
storage reservoirs (water, oil products or liquid chemicals), treatment plant basins and
retention facilities;
highway embankments or railway embankments for high-speed trains.

24 ASIRI National Project

For all these categories of structures, the implementation of soil improvement or
reinforcement solutions often proves well adapted and leads to savings when compared with
other potential solutions.

Under which conditions should rigid inclusions be favored over other soil improvement
solutions such as vertical drains with preloading, stone columns, dynamic compaction or
compaction by vibration?

For the most part, this choice will be guided by soil conditions, type of structure with its
maximum settlement specifications, the construction timetable and, lastly, execution costs.

As regards soil conditions, it is a well-known fact that, for example, cohesive soils cannot be
improved using dynamic methods such as dynamic compaction or vibroflotation. The
previous section also observed that some very soft soils (e.g. silt) or organic soils could
prohibit the use of a non-cement soil reinforcement technique like stone columns.
The depth of such a poor quality soil layer is another element to be taken into consideration
since some techniques become inefficient beyond a certain depth, whereas the technology for
producing rigid inclusions is closely tied to that of piles and allows reaching greater depths
using the right set of tools.

Rigid inclusions will tend to be well adapted therefore in cases of soft or very soft soils,
whether natural or manmade, with an adequate thickness.

As for the structure, it is obvious that reliance on a rigid inclusion solution will become
necessary in the presence of relatively heavy loads (e.g. a heavily-loaded slab, a tall reservoir)
rather than a solution calling for flexible inclusions of the stone column type, which would
not sufficiently reduce the predicted settlements.

The acknowledgment of construction time frames may be a determinant factor as well. In the
example of building an embankment on compressible soil, a preloading solution with vertical
drainage is often adapted and economical, yet still requires a large span of available time to
cover: vertical drain installation, embankment placement at its final height raised by the level
of settlement compensation and temporary excess load (potentially requiring a phase-by-
phase rise if stability cannot be guaranteed), the waiting period for consolidation, and removal
of the residual overload. A works program does not always offer this time frame, whereas a
rigid inclusion solution will allow for quickly raising the embankment and immediately
mobilizing the corresponding settlements.

Moreover, the solution cost obviously remains a key selection criterion, with the solution
ultimately chosen needing to be more competitive for the Project Owner. Let's also mention
that in some cases, several solutions might be technically feasible, thus making it useful to
compare the costs of these various options while not overlooking that this cost depends on
both the type and density of inclusions required as well as the performance of the tooling
proposed by contractors.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 25

 a: Slabs and foundations of industrial buildings

b: Embankment used to access a bridge

c: Tanks and basins

Figure 1.3: Examples of structures reinforced by rigid inclusions.

What are the specificities of these various types of structures for which rigid inclusion
solutions are commonly preferred?

For the first category, i.e. industrial and commercial building slabs, the problem to be solved
is basically one of limiting settlements, since the soil is typically capable of carrying these
distributed loads without any risk of failure.

For these structures, special attention is paid during load transfer platform design since the
slab structure tends to be thin and sensitive to the bending moments eventually created.
Furthermore, let's not overlook the fact that the operating load on the slab will not necessarily
be uniform (strips with fluctuating loads, traffic corridors, rack bases, etc.), all of which
serves to complicate the design step, as will be discussed in Chapter 5.

26 ASIRI National Project

Let's also point out that should the slab foundation problem actually lead to a rigid inclusion
solution, then the same technology may be used as a complement underneath the structural
foundation footings.

For the second category, i.e. reservoirs, tanks and basins, the design criterion often stays
focused on settlements, whose magnitude is greater due to significantly higher stresses than
those found in the first category. Given the presence of load contributed by a liquid, the
operating stress will be perfectly uniform, except under the walls or skirts of tanks where
different localized reinforcements will be required.

Nonetheless, it must be noted that certain structures of the metal tank type are capable of
withstanding even greater settlements while remaining fully functional. For taller and more
heavily-loaded tanks, the problem of load-bearing capacity might also need to be addressed.

In the third and last category, i.e. embankments, these structures for the most part are loaded
in a permanent manner and by the embankment itself, with the extra operating load due to
road or rail traffic being relatively small. In this instance, it is difficult to identify a specific
structure, as opposed to the first two categories, and the embankment base is the target of a
specific treatment to ensure that the load transfer platform role is being fulfilled. For this
reason, full-scale testing undertaken within the scope of the ASIRI project has been divided
into two distinct full-scale experiments on inclusions: under slabs and under embankments.

For lower embankments, the design criterion will be based on settlements, while for taller
ones the stability problem will become predominant and generate the parasite horizontal
forces in the inclusions that need to be evaluated and taken into account.

7. A BRIEF HISTORY OF RIGID INCLUSIONS

Besides all available foundation soil improvement techniques, rigid inclusion reinforcement
offers a new and efficient technique. Yet in reality, this technique has already been used many
times over throughout history for building on difficult sites, such as marshy zones, without
necessarily a solid understanding of its mechanism and behavior.

It has longtime been observed that wood piles driven into the ground have served as
foundations for increasingly heavy structures over the ages. However, only when a sand layer
or stick bundle is positioned in between these piles and the structure can the thought be
entertained that rigid inclusion reinforcement is actually at work.

Noteworthy herein is the paper by Kerisel (1986), who cited an interesting publication by
Coles (1986) relative to the construction of Neolithic roads in England. The ingenious
underlying principle is as follows: long wood piles are driven at an angle in order to form a
succession of trestles, on top of which a traffic lane built on planks is placed, yet this
configuration can also comprise a line of vertical piles not aligned with the planks and placed
along a central axis, as shown to the right in Figure 1.4.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 27

 Figure 1.4: Foundation of Neolithic roads (England).

In the case described above, the planks are perforated with holes along the central axis to
enable the vertical piles to slide freely. While the trestles alone were in no way able to offer a
"foundation on rigid inclusions", the entire road foundation presented on the right-hand side
of the above figure provides a very clever example. The forces exerted on the traffic lane to
both sides of the central axis load the vertical piles with negative skin friction subsequent to a
soil settlement caused by the trestles. This mode of operations is similar to what was adopted
for certain buildings in Mexico City, as will be seen further below.

The modern period has led to technical and scientific improvements in the potential of these
foundation systems. A justification was provided with the study on negative skin friction
Zeevaert (1957) undertook in Mexico. Since Spains 16th-century conquest, Mexico City has
faced acute problems regarding the behavior of its edifices. A very thick layer of soft volcanic
clay (ash), which is both saturated and compressible, lies underneath the external loads and
experiences settlements up to several meters. These settlements were triggered and intensified
as of the beginning of the 20th century by the permanent pumping of water into deeper layers.

From the 1960's on, the technical literature provides many examples where both the negative
friction phenomenon and group effect are used advantageously, demonstrating that exterior
piles contribute more than piles located in the interior. The few original examples that follow
seem to have won only slight recognition.

A more subtle justification technique would be the so-called overlapping piles introduced in
Mexico by Girault (1969); Figure I.5 provides the corresponding diagram. The building rests
on piles A that do not reach as deep as the substratum but instead stop in the deformable
layers, in order to limit the substantial differential settlements occurring between the building
and the surrounding soil, which winds up being compacted. These building settlements
nonetheless require ensuring that any evolution diminishes over the time period following
construction. Short, type B inclusions, called piles for this purpose, are dropped into the
resistant layer and allow absorbing a fraction of the forces by means of the vault effect and by
mobilizing negative skin friction along their shaft. This set-up results in a notable decrease in
settlements and the appearance of significant forces in the type B inclusions.

28 ASIRI National Project

 Figure 1.5: Building supported on "overlapping piles" (Mexico).

Correa (1961), as related by Broms (1969) and Auvinet et al. (2006), designed buildings set
on an apron, with the combination resting on compressible soils undergoing consolidation.
Inside these soils were vertical piles lying on the substratum layer, the top of which crossed
the base of a hollow raft that had been designed as a box. This raft base was placed so as to
slide along the piles (see Fig. 1.6) which were acting like rigid inclusions. The uniform load
transmitted to the soil by the raft is then partially transferred onto the inclusions via negative
skin friction and the group effect. These inclusions have been designed relative to the soil
with a low safety factor and can be bonded to the raft without any technical difficulty should
it be sought to definitively stop the settlements.

Figure 1.6: Inclusions independent of the supported structure (Mexico).

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 29

In 1904 however, an engineer had proposed to support the Mexican Parliament palace
building on driven metal inclusions not bonded to the structure.

At present, Mexico City is the site of many construction projects featuring several thousand
non-reinforced concrete inclusions, where justifications have been conducted by applying a
finite element calculation method developed for this specific purpose.

In Japan, Okabe (1977) performed a full-scale study, on behalf of the Japanese Railways, of
groups of piles subjected to negative friction. The test site, containing 40 m of soft clay,
displayed an annual settlement of 10 cm due to water pumping in the depth. Isolated metal
piles, 60 cm in diameter, were able to bear up to 6,000 kN of undesirable forces due to
negative skin friction. Some heavier structures were supported on pile groups, which
themselves were surrounded by rigid inclusions independent of the pile group cap. The
recorded measurements confirmed transfer of the majority of parasite friction onto the
inclusions, with an unloading of piles bonded to the structure.

At the European level, the first papers on the subject of structures supported on rigid
inclusions relate to road or rail embankments. In this respect, Broms (1979) in Sweden
supplied abacuses to proceed with designing pile groups, with the use of expanded pile caps
being specified. Along these same lines, Rathmayer (1975) in Finland produced a series of
similar recommendations with applications for road embankments. Several embankments for
accessing bridges were built in Scotland in 1983 based on recommendations featuring the
simultaneous use of geotextile reinforcement sheets above expanded prefabricated pile caps.

Let's add the construction, for West Germany's railway system, beginning in 1976 of a 7 m
embankment on rigid inclusions topped by prefabricated caps, as part of a layout designed by
Smoltczyk (1976).

All observations and measurements performed during the construction of these various
structures have demonstrated the efficiency of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.

In France, the first publication on reinforcement by rigid inclusions, presented in Figure 1.7,
is credited to Gigan (1975), who used the technique without taking account of the mechanism.
Nonetheless, discussions held with the specialized contractor, as recounted by the author,
reveal the emergence of new ideas in the field of foundations. In the case studied, the focus
was to improve the characteristics of former embankments, clayey silts then sandy silts, by
means of driving cast-in-place piles without bonding them to the structures. This pile-driving
step actually led to very significantly enhancing the characteristics of in situ soils, which were
then deemed sufficient to accommodate a direct foundation. Designers however questioned
one another over the complementary role played by piles, which despite being isolated from
the base plates by a sand-gravel platform obviously performed like foundations on rigid
inclusions and not like conventional piles, as had been suggested.

30 ASIRI National Project

Figure 1.7: Improvement in foundation soil characteristics thanks to the installation of piles (France).

The foundations presented in Figure 1.8 were designed in 1982 in Indonesia for reinforced
earth protection walls nearly 10 meters high by 6.5 m wide on a set of liquefied natural gas
retention reservoirs. These foundations are more technically sophisticated and rest on a 20 to
30-meter compressible clay layer. The walls are supported on open metal tubes 0.40 m in
diameter, with each one covered by a square metal plate 0.50 m to a side. The group of piles
is backfilled by a 1-m thick granular platform that had been horizontally stiffened by a
continuous structure of metal reinforcement strips merging and covering the driven pile caps.
While the rigid inclusions term had not been introduced at that time, this in fact was the
applied technique, though it was poorly understood 20 years ago. Simon and Schlosser (2006)
presented a paper on this case at an international congress on foundation soil reinforcement
held in Mexico City.

Figure 1.8: Reservoir foundation on rigid inclusions (Indonesia).

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 31

Two consecutive publications on the analytical design of rigid inclusion groups by Combarieu
(1988, 1990), built upon the findings of two highly detailed studies (theoretical, experimental
and bibliographical), were devoted to negative skin friction on piles. These works served to
boost popularity in France of the foundation soil reinforcement technique using rigid
inclusions.

The first study examined the construction of embankments on mediocre quality soils; it
provided a thoroughly justifying approach for the mesh pattern of a rigid inclusion groups and
for the resistant inclusion embedment, in addition to determining compressible soil settlement.
The second study related to calculating the inclusion groups for either large-sized flexible
structures or rigid shallow foundations. For these latter elements, a more targeted justification
had been proposed, dedicated to both load-bearing capacity and settlement, with this
justification being close to that developed for piled spread footing foundations.

These methods have been compared with the several existing European regulations as well as
with the experimental results of embankments on soft soils supported by rigid inclusions
(some of these results have already been cited). For rigid footings, the loading tests carried
out on a plate on sand reinforced by rigid inclusions, as conducted by Plumelle (1985) in a
large tank at the CEBTP testing facility, yielded results that match predictions fairly well.

The transition into practice occurred in 1989 at the time of an initial project, namely the
Carrre junction (Fig. 1.9), near the Lamentin-en-Martinique Airport (Combarieu et al., 1994).
These works were, technically speaking, conservative, with the objective of building bridge
access embankments consisting of Reinforced Earth abutments 6 to 7 m high. The footings of
these abutments were supported by HP piles crossing both the Reinforced Earth walls and in
situ soil.

Figure 1.9: Carrre junction abutment (Martinique).

The foundation soils were slightly sandy, saturated clays over a depth of 6 to 7 meters.
Without being treated, these soils would have led to a settlement of 40 cm. The 124 inclusions
were cast in place using a recovered metal tube and lost tip. Equipped with a central
reinforcement rod, these inclusions were all between 8 and 9 m long, with a 30 cm diameter
and 2.20 m spacing; they were subsequently covered by small, square prefabricated reinforced
concrete caps 0.80 m to a side. At the embankment base, a 10 cm thick concrete slab,

32 ASIRI National Project

reinforced by a metallic latticework, was cast 20 cm above the pile caps. The settlements
observed at the end of the works period were equal to 5 cm, without any subsequent evolution.

More difficult projects ensued, with thicker and highly compressible soils that even contained
substantial peat layers. The outstanding problems became more complicated while at the same
time calculation methods underwent various changes, some significant examples of which
will be cited below.

In 1990, Simon and DApolito (1991) studied the foundations and access embankments of an
upper section over the A43 motorway, near Chambery in France (Fig. 1.10). This structure
was intended to double the existing facility with a foundation composed of heavily-loaded
piles on which any additional force impact needed to be prevented. Without special
precautions, the 7 meters of new embankment would have generated 80 cm of settlement and
an 11-cm horizontal displacement of the foundation soil, composed of 12 m of clayey soil.

The proposed solution consisted of foundation soil reinforcement by rigid inclusions, 37 cm

diameter and 15 m long, performed by using the soil mixing technique and supporting both
the new embankment and the shallow foundation of the new structure.

Figure 1.10: Abutment and embankment on rigid inclusions for the A43 motorway section,
Chambry (France).

Also during 1990, at Mandelieu on the A8 motorway (Bustamante and Gouvenot, 1991),
annual deformations of 15 cm reaching the surface and affecting the upper 15 m of 30 m high
marl embankments have been stopped using rigid inclusions. This significant highway
operations obstacle was in fact due to successive pavement thickness increases. Bored rigid
inclusions injected under high pressure over a height of approx. 18 m and then stopped in the
lower part of the embankment (built with high-quality materials) allowed absorbing by
negative skin friction the majority of the load due to the embankment's upper 15 m. All
movements were practically stopped since the residual deformation only measured 3 mm over
a 6-month period.

In 1999, the Nantes - Saint-Nazaire Port authority built a container dock on piles, in Montoir-
de-Bretagne on the banks of the Loire River (Combarieu and Frossard, 2003). The transition
between a slab on piles and the unstable riverbank was handled by floating rigid inclusions 30
meters long (Fig. 1.11) embedded into alluvial silts featuring 40-m power and average
characteristics at these depths.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 33

The inclusions, with a 3.50-m spacing and 54-cm diameter, were produced using a continuous
auger and composed of fiber-reinforced concrete. They were topped with 1.40 m u 1.40 m
prefabricated caps, which themselves were covered by a sheet of welded metallic latticework
laid out in the granular load transfer platform. The calculated settlement, in the absence of any
foundation soil treatment, was 1 m, and reduced to 20 cm with the rigid inclusions. In reality,
the measured settlements were between 5 and 10 cm.

Figure 1.11: Transition zone on inclusions between a dock on piles and the riverbank
(Montoir-de-Bretagne, France).

En 2000, it was proposed to found a closed frame made of reinforced concrete plus its
corresponding 6 m high access embankments on rigid inclusions, at the exit of Frances A15
motorway in Rouen, (Combarieu and Pioline, 2004). Use of this technique resulted in
successfully meeting the requirements of an imperative 4 month schedule for opening the new
lane to traffic. With 10 m of highly compressible soils, including peat, rigid inclusions 15 m
long and 40 cm in diameter, produced with a hollow auger and topped by caps, brought
settlements on the structure and its access ramps down to 4 cm in a homogeneous manner, a
feat that could not have been accomplished by deep foundations placed exclusively beneath
the concrete frame.

The ICEDA (French acronym for Conditioning Installation and Storage of Active Wastes)
project conducted in 2010 by France's electricity utility EDF at the Bugey site is a building
intended to temporarily store wastes from dismantled 1st-generation nuclear power plants and
the Super-Phenix reactor, plus wastes produced from sections of the pressurized water reactor
in operation. The predicted life span for this installation is 50 years. Its dimensions are on the
order of 120 m by 60-70 m, and average loads range from 140 kPa (under the space used to
store packages of waste) to 240 kPa (under the packaging workshop).

Prior to these works, the ICEDA project zone stratigraphy was as follows:
An average 5 m of sand-gravel alluvia offering high geotechnical quality;
35 to 55 m of silty clay;
A molasse substratum located at a depth of between approx. 40 to 60 meters (pitch of the
layer top on the order of 15%).

34 ASIRI National Project

The settlements evaluated during the preliminary design phase, of roughly 25 cm, were
deemed excessive, and a solution to reinforce the compressible clay layer by means of rigid
inclusions was adopted. This solution comprised (Fig. 1.12):
292 reinforced concrete inclusions 1 meter in diameter, with heads at least 2 meters below
the underside of the rafts and tips reaching the weathered molasse (i.e. a length of between
~37 m and ~57 m), with spacing varying between 3 m and 6 m;
A load transfer platform 2 to 2.75 m thick, composed of site alluvia homogenized and
carefully compacted.

The building settlement calculation on the reinforced soil led to values on the order of 4 cm.

Figure 1.12: Reinforcement by inclusions under the ICEDA project (Bugey).

This historical perspective will be concluded with the earthquake-resistant foundations

implemented on the exceptional structure of the Rion-Antirion Bridge crossing the Strait of
Corinth in Greece. This structure, built on a seismically active site with potential tectonic
movement and accommodating a heavy maritime navigation route, rests on very thick soils
with weak to average resistance and a highly heterogeneous composition (sands, silts, gravels,
clays).

The foundation soil, for three of the bridge supports, was reinforced by rigid inclusions
composed of large-diameter (2 m) open metal tubes, driven over a depth of 25 to 30 m, filled
with sand and then covered by a 2.80-m thick gravel embankment, thus forming the load
transfer platform. The foundation, comprising a 90 m diameter box girder prefabricated and
transported to the site by flotation, lies directly on the reinforced soil at the sea floor under 90
m of water. This foundation system, proposed in Pecker (2004), proved during the design
phase to be much better adapted technically than a conventional foundation on piles, and this
was especially so relative to the earthquake risk. The insertion of a very thick granular load
transfer platform in fact created a fuse capable of absorbing by shear a large portion of the
lateral forces caused by an earthquake, with the caisson foundation then capable of sliding
more than 1 meter on its base without generating any significant impact on the structure.

Figures I.13 and I.14 provide a glimpse of these exceptional foundations.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 35

 Figure 1.13: The Rion-Antirion Bridge - Principle of the foundation solution on inclusions (Greece).

Figure 1.14: The Rion-Antirion Bridge - Cut-away diagram of the foundations.

These examples illustrate a few of the varied geotechnical problems that the new technique
involving rigid inclusions has been able to solve. While up until 2000 the building of
foundations using this process remained relatively infrequent, the number of such projects has
increased since then significantly. This concept is now being proposed by the majority of
contractors specialized in foundation works and soil treatment and moreover has been
accepted by structural inspection bodies and insurance companies, provided that the
contractors have been given a relevant set of specifications. Project Owners and Architects
alike have found in this technique an effective response to project deadline constraints. The
introduction of a slab and raft foundation has generated a number of attractive applications.

Alongside these advances, many computation models have been developed in France, by
either contractors or geotechnical design firms, entailing the use of analytical models relying
on the concept of negative friction or numerical models incorporating the finite element
method.

8. THE ASIRI NATIONAL PROJECT

As of the end of the 1990s, many projects could already be cited in which rigid inclusions
constituted the foundation system. Their use has only expanded since that time and the claims
rate recorded through use of this technique remains, at present, comparable to that of more

36 ASIRI National Project

conventional soil or foundation reinforcement techniques. Though reassuring, this observation
is still not sufficient.

As indicated above however, a great diversity can be found within the set of implementation
techniques, component materials and justification methods. As such, it seemed both useful
and necessary to the French geotechnical engineering community to undertake a study
intended to better understand the mechanisms and behavior of reinforcement by means of
rigid inclusions, as well as to develop reliable design methods calibrated on the results
derived from a wide array of instrumentation.

At the end of 1999, a proposal was forwarded to the Institute for Applied Research and
Experimentation in Civil Engineering (IREX), through its Soil Expertise Unit that
interfaces with the geotechnical engineering community, by B. Simon with the firm Terrasol
suggesting a national project on the topic. Three preparatory stages preceded the official
launch of this project. A feasibility stage was initiated and officially commissioned in August
2000 to IREX by the Directorate for Research and Scientific and Technical Actions (DRAST)
of the national Public Works Ministry. The working group coordinated by B. Simon
(Terrasol) assembled representatives of project architects, design firms, structural inspection
offices and specialized contractors, namely: SETRA (G. Haun), LRPC de Rouen (O.
Combarieu), Sctauroute (A. Morbois), Bureau Vritas (P. Berthelot), Mnard Sol Traitement
(P. Liausu), Botte Fondations (D. Thiriat), Keller France (M. Naidji), Bouygues Offshore
(which has since become Saipem) (J.P. Iorio) and Soltanche (T. Kretz).

The feasibility report (IREX, 2000) was presented in January 2001 and underscored the strong
interest behind reinforcing soils by rigid inclusions, through displaying the portfolio of
completed and potential projects. A collection of the points critical to improving
understanding of the phenomena involved has guided this proposal towards seeking a
certification that will rely upon:
A state-of-the-art assessment of practices both in France and abroad;
An evaluation of the performance realized by the use of various inclusion techniques;
a determination, via experimental campaigns (full scale, in a centrifuge and in a calibration
chamber) of contributions from the various interaction mechanisms introduced into the
process, and comparison of these observations with different models;
Drafting of recommendations for field use with foundations, encompassing all aspects:
choice of techniques, design and control methods.

An initial program outline, covering 4 years, was presented along with a preliminary analysis
of the bibliography.

Based on the feasibility study, DRAST commissioned to IREX in October 2001 the task of
establishing, as a preparatory step to a National Project, a state-of-the-art on soil
reinforcement by rigid inclusions both in France and abroad, with this assessment jointly
coordinated by R. Kastner (INSA Lyon) and B. Simon (Terrasol).

L. Brianon executed this work program over the period February-July 2002, under close
monitoring of a committee of experts, composed of: S. Borel, O. Combarieu, J. Garnier,
E. Haza, Ph. Liausu, A. Morbois and L. Thorel.

Another step, carried out simultaneously in Lyon and focusing on 3D modeling, gave rise to a
Master4s degree dissertation, which was successfully defended in October 2002 (Laurent,

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 37

2002). The memoranda on these accomplishments then resulted in an IREX report published
in November 2002 (Brianon, 2002) offering a view of the current state of practices, by
highlighting outstanding project developments / experiments and relying on the results of a
survey conducted among specialized French firms.

The general program adopted by the National Project was presented on February 4th, 2005.
This R&D project was planned to span a 4 year period, with the first three years being
devoted to establishing and then implementing experimental and numerical protocols as well
as an analysis of the initial experimental data, and the final year spent synthesizing all data
collected, validating the various design methods and producing a document containing
recommendations.

The launch of this project was timed to coincide with the completion of the doctoral thesis
defended by Orianne Jenck, in November 2005 at the INSA de Lyon institution, dealing with
the physical and numerical modeling of the technique of reinforcement by rigid inclusions.

During the first Executive Committee meeting held on March 29th, 2005 at the FNTP offices
under the aegis of IREX, the National Project (abbreviated under the French acronym ASIRI,
for Soil Improvement by Rigid Inclusions) designated the following officers: President F.
Schlosser, Vice President O. Combarieu, and Scientific Director B. Simon.

Five working topics shape the scope of this project:

Topic 1: Full-scale experiments, hosted by C. Plumelle and L. Brianon (Geotechnical
Engineering Chair at the Cnam). This topic treats full-scale experimental campaigns in an
extremely thorough manner and solely to satisfy research needs.
Topic 2: Experimental sites, hosted by E. Haza (CER Rouen). This topic will focus on the
limited instrumentation built for actual project sites, with the aim of compiling results.
Topic 3: Laboratory testing, hosted by L Thorel (IFSSTAR Nantes). The scope here covers
all tests intended to characterize materials and develop centrifuge-based tests.
Topic 4: Numerical modeling, hosted by D. Dias and R. Kastner (INSA Lyon).
Topic 5: Recommendations, hosted by O. Combarieu.

38 ASIRI National Project

References

Auvinet G., Rodriguez J.-F. Rigid inclusions in Mexico City soft soils: History and
perspectives. Symposium Rigid inclusions in difficult subsoil conditions, ISSMGE TC36,
Sociedad Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, UNAM, Mexico, 2006.
Brianon L. Renforcement des sols par inclusions rigides. eWDW GH Oart en France et
Otranger . Irex, opration du Rseau gnie civil et urbain, 2002.
Broms B.B. - Design of piles group with respect to negative skin friction; Specialty session
on negative skin friction and VHWWOHPHQWRISLOHGIRXQGDWLRQV 7th.ICSMFE, Mexico, 1969.
Broms B.B. - Problems and solutions to cRQVWUXFWLRQLQVRIWFOD\Proc. 6th Asian regional
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, Singapore, vol. 2, 1979, p 28-
30.
Bustamante M., Gouvenot D. &RQIRUWHPHQW GXQ UHPEODL GH JUande hauteur par
injection . 10e confrence internationale de mcanique des sols et travaux de fondation,
Florence, mai 1991.
Coles J. - Sweet track to Glastonbury. Thames and Hudson, Londres, 1986.
Combarieu O. - Amlioration des sols par inclusions rigides verticales. Application
OpGLILFDWLRQ GHV UHPEODLV VXU VROV PpGLRFUHV . Revue franaise de gotechnique n 44,
1988, p. 57-79.
Combarieu O. Fondations superficielles sur sol amlior par inclusions rigides verticales .
Revue franaise de gotechnique n 53, 1990, p. 33-44.
Combarieu O., Frossard A. Amlioration des sols des berges de Loire par inclusions
ULJLGHVSRXUVWDELOLVHUOHVUHPEODLVGDFFqVGXQSRVWHjTXDL . 13e Congrs europen de
mcanique des sols et fondations, Prague, 2003.
Combarieu O., Gestin F., Pioline M. - Remblais sur sols amliors par inclusions rigides.
Premiers chantiers . Bulletin des laboratoires des ponts et chausses n 191, 1994, p. 55-
62.
Combarieu O., Pioline M. - &RQVWUXFWLRQ GXQ 3,&) HW GH VHV DFFqV VXU sol amlior par
inclusions rigides 6\PSRVLXPLQWHUQDWLRQDOVXUOamlioration des sols en place, ASEP-
GI, 9-10 sept. 2004, Paris.
Gigan J.-P. - &RQVROLGDWLRQGXQVROGHIRQGDWLRQSDUSLORWV . Bulletin des laboratoires des
ponts et chausses n 78, 1975, p. 12-16.
Girault P.  $ QHZ W\SH RI SLOH IRXQGDWLRQ Proc. Conf. on deep foundations, Mexican
society of soils mechanics; Mexico, 1969, vol. 1.
IREX - Ple Comptence Sols. Utilisation des inclusions rigides pour le renforcement des sols
de fondaWLRQGouvrages et de remblais.eWXGHGHIDLVDELOLWpGun projet national, 2000.
Jenck O. - Le renforcement des sols par inclusions rigides verticales. Modlisation physique
et numrique. Thse de doctorat INSA Lyon, 2005.
Kerisel J. - Angleterre ; dcouYHUWH GXQH URXWH QpROLWKLTXH . Revue Archologia n 292,
1986, p 56-60.
Laurent Y. - Renforcement des massifs de fondation par inclusions rigides verticales, tude
bibliographique et numrique. Mmoire DEA INSA Lyon, 2002.
Okabe.T. Large negative skin frictionDQGIULFWLRQIUHHSLOHPHWKRGV 9th ICSFME, Tokyo,
vol. 1, 1977.
Pecker A. Le pont de Rion-Antirion en Grce, le dfi sismique . 550e confrence,
SURQRQFpHjO8QLYHUVLWpGHWRXVOHVVDYRLUVOHRFWREUH.
Plumelle C. - RenforcementGXQVROOkFKHSDULQFOXVLRQGHPLFURSLHX[ . Revue franaise
de gotechnique n 30, 1985, p.47-57.
Rathmayer H. Piled embankment supported by single pile caps . Proc. Istanbul
conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, 1975, 8 p.

Description, history, initial developments and launch of the national project 39

Simon B. - 8QH PpWKRGH LQWpJUpH SRXU GLPHQVLRQQHU OHV UpVHDX[ GLQFOXVLRns rigides en
dformation . XVe Congrs international de mcanique des sols et fondations, Istanbul,
vol. 2, 2000, p. 1007-1010.
6LPRQ % '$SROLWR 3 'RXEOHPHQW GXQ SDVVDJH VXSpULeur fond sur pieux ayant subi
des efforts parasites importants . Colloque international fondations profondes, ENPC,
Paris, mai 1991, p.285-292.
Simon B., Schlosser F. - Soil reinforcement by vertical stiff inclusions in France .
Symposium Rigid inclusions in difficult subsoil conditions, ISSMGE TC36, Sociedad
Mexicana de Mecanica de Suelos, UNAM, Mexico, 2006.
Smoltczyk - 3IlKOJUQGXQJ HLQHV (LVHQEDKQVGDPPV 6e Congrs europen de mcanique
des sols et fondations, Vienne, 1976, vol. 3.
Zeevaert L. Discussion on negative friction and reduction of SRLQWEHDULQJFDSDFLW\Proc.
4th.ICSMFE, 1957, vol. 3.

40 Summary ASIRI National Project