International Conference on Advances in Geotechnical Engineering, Perth, Australia, Nov.

7-9, 2011, ISBN: 978-0-646-55142-5

Support of Road Embankments on Soft Ground using Controlled

Modulus Columns
1 2
Patrick Wong and Thevaragavan Muttuvel
1
Senior Principal, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd
2
Senior Engineer, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd

Synopsis: In recent years, the use of controlled modulus columns (CMC) to support road embankments
over soft ground at bridge approaches has gained popularity in Australian road projects. Despite their
relatively high cost per unit area of ground treatment, CMC are often the preferred method of treatment
when time is of the essence. CMC enable accelerated construction of bridge abutments due to their
speed of installation and ability to limit lateral soil and abutment pile movements during embankment
construction. In Australia, most CMC supported embankments to date have been designed as piled
embankments, with the columns treated as structural elements to take all the applied loads. The authors
believe that there is scope for CMC to be more cost-effective if they are designed to function as
geotechnical elements.
This paper examines a number of CMC design issues, including the effect of columns stiffness and
spacing on settlement reduction, the need for load transfer platform over the columns, and what if the
columns crack when their bending moment capacity is exceeded, and do columns need to be reinforced.
An economic design approach is recommended and two case studies are provided to illustrate the use of
CMC to support bridge approach embankments.

Keywords: controlled modulus columns, semi-rigid inclusions, soft ground, bending failure, design.

1. Background of Controlled Modulus Columns and Traditional Design Approach

Controlled modulus columns (CMC) are supposed to be semi-rigid inclusions constructed using grout,
concrete or a combination of cementitious materials including waste products such as fly ash and slag.
Unlike pile supported structures, there is a sharing of load between the CMC and the surrounding soil
affected via a combination of (a) compressibility of the columns (b) yielding of the column toe, and (c) load
sharing via a load transfer platform such as a geosynthetic reinforced gravel mattress. Typical diameter of
CMC ranges from 300mm to 500cm installed at a spacing ranging from 1.3m to 2m. These columns are
typically 10m to 20m length with larger diameter columns installed to 30m depth.
For CMC that are designed to achieve a pre-determined stiffness compared with that of the surrounding
soil and equilibrium is achieved with the desired settlement limit, Plomteux & Lazacedieu [1] describes the
settlement and load distribution along the CMC shown in Figure 1.

Load distribution of CMC at equilibrium:

Q + F n = Fp + Q p (1)
where:
Q = load at the head of the CMC
Fn = negative skin friction, applied over the
thickness “h” on the CMC
Fp = positive skin friction, mobilized on the
lower part of the CMC (L – h)
Qp = tip resistance in the anchorage layer

Figure 1. Settlement profile and load distribution along CMC (after Plomteux & Lazacedieu [1])

621

621
In addition to axial load and settlement limits, the traditional design of CMC requires that the structural
strength of the columns is not exceeded. In this respect, the CMC are designed such that there are no
negative bending stresses at any point along their length as described by Plomteux & Lazacedieu [1], as
shown in Figure 2.

No negative stress condition:

N + M- > 0 (2)
where:
Ri
N  (3)
D 2 / 4
Mi
M   (4)
D 3 / 32
Ri = computed axial load at point of interest
Mi = computed bending moment at point of interest
D = column diameter

Figure 2. Settlement profile and load distribution along CMC (after Plomteux & Lazacedieu [1])

Bending of columns most commonly occur beneath embankment batters, or at transition zones between
CMC treated ground and non-treated ground behind the CMC zone due to non-uniform loading. Excess
bending and tensile stress can also occur during installation of the columns due to displacement effects
and these may cause cracking of the CMC. In order to design CMC to satisfy a zero tensile stress
condition, closer spacing columns, larger diameter columns, or reinforcing the columns with steel bar or
cage may be required. Such action may be unavoidable in certain cases. However, the additional
expense may be avoided if it can be demonstrated that the embankment remains stable after some of the
columns crack and the lateral deformations are within acceptable limits. According to centrifuge testing of
deep soil mixing columns carried out by Kitazume [2], bending failure of columns do not occur
simultaneously, and failure of some of the columns does not necessarily lead to failure of the
embankment. Kitazume [2] showed that as the embankment loading increases, the columns fail in
bending one by one with increasing lateral deformation until all the columns fail as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Centrifuge Testing by Kitazume [2] showing Deep Soil Mix columns continue to support
embankment after cracking induced by bending failure

622

622
2. Load Transfer Platform
A load transfer platform (LTP) comprising a geosynthetic reinforced sand or gravel mattress is often used
beneath CMC supported embankments to enhance load transfer to the columns and increasing the
spacing between columns. In a literature review summarised by Filz and Smith [3], several methods are
available for estimating the stress reduction ratio (SRR) for the design of LTR. The ratio SRR =
soil/(H+q), where soil is the stress on the soil between columns,  and H are the unit weight and height of
the embankment respectively, and q is the design surcharge, varies significantly as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Stress Reduction Ratio beneath LTP (based on data provided in Filz and Smith [3] for H/s
= 1.5) Refer to full references given in [3]

Reference should be made to Filz and Smith [3] for the original source of the data. For the adapted
Terzaghi method, Russell and Pierpoint [4] modified Terzaghi’s arching analysis to account for the three
dimensional shape of the settling soil mass in the embankment above the foundation soil between the
columns and used a lateral earth pressure coefficient, KT, of 1 and 0.5 in their assessment.
It can be seen from Figure 4 that the different methods produces significantly different results for the
estimation of SRR (up to 1 order of magnitude difference at low a/S ratios). As the tensile load induced on
the geosynthetic reinforcement is directly related to SRR, similar variation in estimated tensile load will
also be expected. The authors’ opinion is that the need for the LTP, reinforcement, and tensile load in the
reinforcement (if needed) should be based on sound assessment of the differential deformation at road
level. This is particularly the case for low embankments to avoid “mushroom” effects at the head of the
columns when such embankments do not have the ability to span between columns. In this respect, the
stiffness of the columns including their founding conditions must be carefully assessed.
Furthermore, the SRR affects the catenary load between columns only, and where lateral deformation due
to non-uniform loading occur, additional load due to lateral thrust will apply. BS8006 [5] stipulates that an
active thrust equivalent to the active earth pressure load calculated at the crest of the embankment be
added to the catenary load. Wong and Poulos [6], however, found by numerical analysis that, for the 5m
embankment with 20kPa surcharge case considered, the lateral thrust is over-estimated by more than
100% using the lateral thrust method stipulated in BS8006 [5]. Wong and Poulos [6] concluded that the
lateral load in the fabric is a function of the lateral deformation of the ground and the ability of the columns
to resist such deformation. The lateral load in the fabric beneath the embankment crest and batter should
be analysed based on ground deformation analysis rather than via active pressure calculation based on
BS8006 [5].
The authors experience is that in certain cases where there is a sufficiently thick layer of existing fill over
the soft soil, the need of LTP and reinforcement may in fact become redundant.

623

623
3. Economical Design Approach

3.1 General Procedure

This section describes the authors recommended approach to derive more economic designs for CMC
supported embankments. For preliminary design of CMC spacing and the requirements of LTP, the 10
step approach described in Filz and Smith [3] is recommended. The method includes assessment of
embankment settlement and post-construction settlement and also includes the compressibility of the
columns. However, the method does not discuss the issue of lateral thrust beneath the batter of
embankments discussed in Section 2 of this paper.
For detailed design, a two step numerical analysis approach may be adopted as follows:
Step 1 – conduct an axi-symetric finite element analysis (FEA) to assess the effect of column spacing on
surface deformation, effectiveness of any LTP, and loading on the reinforcement within the LTP if needed.
Step 2 – conduct a two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) FEA to assess the lateral movement
beneath the embankment batter and any transition zones behind the CMC supported zone. For the latter
case, the effect of any surcharge/preload on the lateral deformation and structural action effects on the
CMC should also be assessed.

3.2 Column Spacing and LTP

An example output of Step 1 for a 9m high embankment founded on 20m of soft soil is shown in Figure 5,
which indicates an optimum spacing for the 0.45m diameter CMC to be 1.9m to limit post-construction
total settlement at the road level to 100mm whilst meeting the design strength of the columns.
600

500
Total Settlement (mm)

400

300

Settlement increases
rapidly
200

100

0
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5
Spacing /Diameter

Figure 5. Variation of Total Settlement with Spacing/Diameter ratio

3.3 Design Action Effects on CMC and Lateral Thrust Load on Reinforcement
To address the issues described in Section 1 of this paper, particularly in relation to deformation of the
columns and whether they need to be reinforced or if the deformations are acceptable even if unreinforced
columns fully crack, numerical analysis is usually required. For Step 2, a 2D FEA should be sufficient in
most cases. Experience has shown that 2D analysis will generally result in slightly conservative estimates
of deformation and structural actions on the CMC compared with 3D analysis. To assess whether the
lateral deformation is acceptable and whether the columns need to be reinforced, the columns may be
modeled as fully cracked elements that have no flexural rigidity but retains some of the axial stiffness
depending on lateral deformations. As a guide, the full axial stiffness may be assumed if the line of action,
after lateral deformation, remains within the middle third of the column, and this may be modelled as a
vertical plate element embedded within the middle of the CMC material elements described below.
Cracked CMC can be modelled as equivalent finite element strips, having a width of times the CMC
diameter, with appropriate stiffness and strength parameters in order to assess its lateral response. It is
important to note that the equivalent properties of the cracked CMC will depend on the extent of
deformation and cracking. In most cases, they will retain their axial stiffness, but may exhibit the
behaviour similar to that of a jointed rock mass after cracking has occurred. Therefore, designers must
use appropriate engineering judgment when assigning equivalent material parameters for the equivalent

624

624
material strips to model the CMC. An iterative process may be required to finalise the design parameters
based on the results of preliminary analysis. As a guide, initial estimates may be based on a long term
modulus, Eeq, of 1/50 of the column, an effective cohesion of 0.5% to 1% of the unconfined compressive
o o
strength of the column, and a friction angle of between 30 and 40 .

4. Case Studies

4.1 Weakleys Drive Overbridge CMC Supported Reinforced Soil Wall and Embankment
The Weakleys Drive overbridge carries the New England Highway traffic between Maitland and Newcastle
in the Hunter Valley of NSW. The bridge approach comprised a 7m high embankment supported between
two vertical reinforced soil walls (RSW) over a width of 35m. The ground comprised 2m of existing sandy
clay fill over 2.5m of soft to firm alluvial clay having an undrained shear strength of about 20kPa.
The original design was a piled embankment with high strength geosynthetic reinforced LTP, and 1m
square pile caps with the piles designed to carry all the embankment and traffic loads. The Roads and
Traffic Authority sought an alternative, more economical design which resulted in the first CMC supported
embankment in Australia, designed in 2006 and construction was successfully completed in 2008. The
design comprised 400mm diameter CMC at a spacing ranging from 1.7m to 1.8m with a maximum
working load capacity of 435kN. Noteworthy features of the design include:
 design based on deflection control, thus a low factor of safety of 1.2 was adopted on the axial load
capacity of the CMC, resulting in a nominal socket of only 1m into the underlying stiff to hard clay;
 20MPa concrete used for the CMC;
 Low strength geogrid reinforced gravel mattress LTP used beneath RSW near bridge abutment,
no LTP used elsewhere;
 due to concern over earthquake impact (design bedrock acceleration increased to 0.11 following
the Richter magnitude 5.6 Newcastle Earthquake in 1989), the outer rows of CMC supporting the
RSW blocks were reinforced with single, centrally placed 36mm diameter steel bars.
The estimated settlement and lateral deformations were approximately 50mm and 20mm respectively.
Approximately two years after construction, post-construction settlement and lateral deformations were
measured to be less than 20mm and appeared to have ceased.

4.2 Kempsey Bypass Alliance – Northern Approach of Macleay River Bridge

As part of Roads and Traffic Authority’s (RTA) Pacific Highway upgrade in New South Wales (NSW),
Australia, construction of a bypass joining south Kempsey to Fredericton started in late 2010. A bridge will
be constructed across the Macleay River. The northern approach of the bridge is founded over alluvial
deposits consisting of soft to firm clay with interbedded loose sand, extending down to approximately 6.5m
to10.5m in depth followed by extremely weathered siltstone/sandstone. CMC ground treatment was
selected to speed up bridge construction and to meet lateral movement tolerance of 30mm in 100 years
design life at the bridge abutment pile location. Numerical modelling was carried out using the
commercially available computer software PLAXIS 2D, adopting cracked CMC to assess the lateral
movement at abutment location. Modelling the cracked CMC has been briefly described in Section 3.3. A
summary of material parameters adopted for cracked CMC are summarised below:

2
axial stiffness, EA of 10,000 MPa x 0.159m = 1590MN (same as uncracked CMC);
 cracked modulus of 200MPa (2% of uncracked CMC Young’s modulus);
 cohesion of 50kPa and friction angle of 30 degrees; and
 Poisson’s ratio of CMC 0.25.
PLAXIS 2D output showing horizontal displacement shading is presented in Figure 6 and the estimated
lateral deformation at abutment pile location is approximately 25mm in 40 years. Based on the numerical
analysis results, CMC design includes the following:
 450mm dia. CMC at square spacing of 1.6m with a maximum working load capacity of 407kN;
 relatively low strength, 10MPa concrete used for the CMC except 40MPa was used for the other
two rows based on advice from the durability engineers;
 no high strength geosynthetic or geogrid reinforcement was used; and
 no steel reinforcement has been provided for the CMC.

625

625
 Abutment pile location

INTERBEDDED SOFT TO
FIRM CLAY AND LOOSE
SAND

EXTREMELY WEATHERED
SANDSTONE

Figure 6. Lateral movement predicted from PLAXIS 2D analysis for cracked CMC

At the time of writing this paper, all CMC within the approach embankment have been installed and
embankment construction is expected to be completed mid-2011.

5. Conclusions
Although there are established methods for the design of column supported embankments on soft ground,
the design of CMC is often misunderstood and result in treating them in similar fashion as piled
embankments. The authors have provided a recommended approach in this paper for economical CMC
design and construction. In particular, the need for LTP and geosynthetic reinforcement is questioned,
and a method of analysis is provided to examine whether steel reinforcement is needed for the CMC. The
design method is supported by two case studies.

6. Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge the Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales, Australia for
permission to publish data from the Weakleys Drive and the Kempsey Bypass Alliance projects. In
particular, we would like to express our gratitude to Ms Jennifer Burnie for providing the survey results and
construction photographs for the Weakleys Drive project.

7. References
1. Plomteux, C. & Lazacedieu, M. 2007, “Embankment Construction on Extremely Soft Soils using
Controlled Modulus Columns for Highway 2000 Project in Jamaica”, Proceedings of the 16th
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur.
2. Kitazume, M. 2008. “Stability of Group Column Type DM Improved Ground under Embankment
Loading” Report of the Port and Airport Research Institute, Vol. 47 No. 1 March (2008), pp 1-53.
3. Fitz, G. and Smith, M. 2006, “Design of Bridging Layers in Geosynthetic-Reinforced, Column-
Supported Embankments”, Virginia Transportation Research Council Contract Research Report
VTRC 06-CR12, April 2006, pp 1-49.
4. Russell, D. and Pierpoint, N. 1997, “An assessment of design methods for piled embankments,
Ground Engineering, Vol. 30, No. 11, November 1997, pp 39-44.
5. BS8006, 1995, “Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills”, British
Standards Institution, London, U.K., 198 pages.
6. Wong, P.K. and Poulos, H.G. 1999, “Piled Reinforced Soil Walls”, Sydney Chapter, Australian
Geomechanics Society Mini-Symposium on Flexible Retaining Structures, August 1999.

626

626