Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE)

Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26

Research Paper

Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery

and Petrochemical Tank Farm

F. Leclaire1*, Y. Bourgoin2, R. Ong1, J. Racinais3

1- Menard Geosystems Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Received: 1 November 2016
2- Menard Geosystems Singapore Pte Ltd., Singapore. Revised: 11 July 2017
3- Menard SNC, Paris, France Accepted: 14 August 2017
Printed: 20 October 2017

ABSTRACT: Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC) is a ground improvement technique that

enables an efficient transfer of applied loads down to a competent layer (typically stiff to very stiff
clay/silt or medium dense to dense sand). This system is based on a load sharing concept between
the inclusions and the natural soil and results in a settlement reduction and a bearing capacity
increase. This technique has been used for the Nghi Son Refinery and Petrochemical Complex
Project (NSRP) where approximately 15,900 CMC have been installed to support 32
petrochemical products storage reservoirs. This paper introduces the project inputs in terms of soil
conditions encountered, geometry of the reinforced tanks and settlement criteria to be achieved
under the weight of the structures and their content. Then, once the theoretical principles of the
working of CMC have been given, an overview of the ground improvement solution proposed for
this project is presented. Finally, the performance assessment of the CMC system is detailed
before concluding.

Keywords: Ground Improvement, Controlled Modulus Column, Tank Farm.

1. Introduction
Nghi Son Refinery Petrochemical Complex Project (NSRP) is located in the Mai
Lam Area, Tinh Gia District, Thanh Hoa Province, Vietnam. The project is situated
about 200 km south of the Vietnamese capital, Hanoi, and approximately 80 km north of
Vinh City. The site, situated near the East Vietnam Sea coast, is surrounded by a few
hills in the north-western and southern parts. The ground improvement scope of work
awarded to Menard relates to 32 tanks (as depicted on Figure 1) being part of a
petrochemical complex as well as energy facilities, pipelines and storage systems.
Nghi Son refinery is the second refinery built in Vietnam, after Dung Quat refinery
that is operational since 2009 and for which Menard was also in charge of the
reinforcement of the tanks with diameter up to 69 m. The ground improvement adopted
was a combination of Dynamic Compaction and Dynamic Replacement (DC/DR).

* - Corresponding Author: felix.leclaire@menard-mail.com

Copyright © 2015, ISSN: 2476-4825.
14 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

Figure 1. Tanks to be reinforced by CMC

Nghi Son refinery has the capacity to process 200,000 barrels of heavy crude oil
(designed API gravity: 30.2) per day, equivalent to 10 million tons per year. Mechanical
completion time is around the end of 2016 whereas commercial phase is expected to start
in early 2017.

2. Ground conditions
A significant number of field exploration works were carried out between July to
November 2013 to determine the general ground conditions on site and more particularly
below each tank’s footprint. This ground investigation campaign consisted in deep
boreholes with standard penetration test (SPT) as well as cone penetration test (CPT),
some with pore-water pressure measurement (CPTu). Table 1 gives the frequency at
which those tests have been performed as a function of the diameter of the tank.

Table 1. Geotechnical testing distribution

Tank diameter, D
Type of test Location
D  35 m D > 35 m
At the centre 1 1
Boreholes (with SPT) frequency
Below the shell 0 4
At the centre 1 1
CPT/CPTu frequency
Below the shell MAX(8, D/3.05) D/3.05

It has to be noted that the distribution and the frequency at which the CPTu has been
done around the circumference of the tanks corresponds to those advised by API 653
(2003) when positioning the settlement markers prior to the surveying of the settlement
during an hydrostatic testing. Consequently, as CPTu below the tank shell were equally
distributed, they have been used to assess the deformed shape of the bottom plate below
Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.
Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery … 15

the tank shell during the design stage. Overall, there are more than 80 boreholes with
SPT and 460 cone penetration tests that were performed below the 32 studied tanks.
Also, typical laboratory tests were performed on samples taken from boreholes such as
grain size analyses, Atterberg limits, triaxial tests and consolidation tests.
The geology of the site is made up of Quaternary deposits over Triassic bedrock. The
Quaternary Vinh Phuc Formation is shown covering most of the site and corresponds to
silty clay, clay, sandy silt and sand of 5 m to 25 m thick. The upper part of the stratum
comprises continental deposits of alluvial origin while the lower part appears to be
originated from fluvio-marine deposits, including a very soft marine clay layer (C3),
with traces of organic matters. The complex layering of soils encountered on site could
be explained by the deltaic nature of the fluvio-marine deposits.
The underlying Triassic, Dong Do Formation, has been identified as sandstone,
gritstone, siltstone and coaly shale. No faulting on the site has been shown on the
geological map. The general stratigraphy is summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. General Stratigraphy of the Project Site

Geological Period Description
A Recent Fill
B Made Ground, Top Soil and Subsoil
C1 Fine Sand
QUATERNARY C2 Firm Clay
C3 Very Soft Clay
D1 Firm to Very Stiff Clay
D2 Dense to Very Dense Sand/ Very Stiff to Hard Clay
E Dense to Very Dense Sand/ Very Stiff to Hard Clay/ Hard silt
TRIASSIC
F Bedrock: Siltstone/ Sandstone

The first four layers encountered on site are highly heterogeneous in terms of
strength, deformation and thickness as revealed by the soil investigation campaign. They
are defined as follow:
 Layer AB (i.e. Layer A and Layer B): comprises the recent fill for the upper part and
man-made ground, top soil and subsoil for the lower part. It is mainly made up of
sandy silt and it is characterized by high heterogeneities in terms of strength and
deformation characteristics. Its thickness scatters from 4 m to 5 m in the studied area.
 Layer C1: mainly composed by a layer of medium dense sand to dense sand. This
layer is encountered in all the studied area and its thickness varies from 0.5 m to 5 m.
Also, its compactness, although heterogeneous with qc values scattering from 5 MPa
to 50 MPa with an average of 15 MPa, presents good geo-mechanical properties.
 Layer C2: corresponds to soft to firm clayey soils. Silt can also be encountered. It is
located below AB or C1 and can also be found between C3 and D1 layers.
 Layer C3: corresponds to a soft to very soft clay layer with traces of organic matter
and fine grained sand that is explained as a result of marine deposits. This layer is
characterized by a very soft nature that has been analyzed with careful attention. It is
characterized by SPT blow count not more than 4 and q c not more than 0.7 MPa.
 Layer D1: corresponds to firm to very stiff clayey soils. It is encountered around 15
m below the natural ground level. The very stiff part of this layer presents enough
strength, typically with SPT blow count greater or equal to 18, and will be used as
anchorage for the CMC.
Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26.
16 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

In summary, the total area included in the scope of works for this project can be
divided into 3 zones:
 Zone A where the sensitive part of the Layer C3 has a thickness greater than 2 m and
where the thickness of the Layer C1 is less than 3 m.
 Zone B where the sensitive part of the Layer C3 has a thickness less than 1m and
where the thickness of Layer C1 is less than 4 m.
 Zone C where the sensitive part of the Layer C3 has a thickness less than 1m and
where the thickness of the Layer C1 is greater than 4m. Figure 2 and Figure 3 present
respectively the typical cone resistance profile of each zone and their distribution
thorough the project area.

a) Zone A b) Zone B c) Zone C

Figure 2. Typical Cone Resistance Profiles of the Three Zones

Ground water level was deducted from the pore-water pressure induced by the
penetration of the cone. It varies from 0 m to approximately 3 m below the natural
ground level.

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.

Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery … 17

Figure 3. Zones Distribution over the Project Site

3. Geometry of the tanks and foundations

The range of sizes of the tanks and the loads induced by the tanks’ content during
operation life is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Ranges of Tank Geometry and Load

Diameter Height Hydrotest load Operation load
Min 24.1 m 18.9 m 181.4 kPa 131 kPa
Max 68.7 m 21.6 m 201 kPa 198.1 kPa

The following three types of foundations below the footprint of the tank were
planned to be used:
 Earth foundation with earth mound (EM, Figure 4).
 Earth foundation with concrete ring wall (RW, Figure 5).
 Slab foundation with concrete ring wall (SF, Figure 6).

Figure 4. EM Cross-section
Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26.
18 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

Figure 5. RW Cross-section

Figure 6. SF Cross-section

Loads to be considered for the CMC design were larger (up to nearly 350 kPa in some
cases) than the loads presented in Table 3 as a result of the installation of the foundation
system, which either involved solely the placement of fill (e.g., Figure 4) or the
placement of fill coupled with the installation of a concrete structure (e.g., Figure 5 and
Figure 6), below and above the natural soil level.
Table 4 presents the types of foundation below the tank shell as well as the stratigraphy
encountered beneath its footprint for all the tank types encountered.

Table 4. Tank and Foundation Types

Tank type Zone Foundation type Nos
EFRT A/B/C Earth mound 10
floating roof tanks C Earth mound 2 19
CFRT
A/B/C Concrete ring wall 7
CRT A/B/C Concrete ring wall 9
fixed roof tanks 13
DRT A Concrete mat footing + ring wall 4
For external floating roof tanks (EFRT), a foundation system using an earth foundation
with an earth mound at the edge has been systematically used as opposed to the other
types encountered i.e. converted floating roof tanks (CFRT), cone roof tanks (CRT) and
dome roof tanks (DRT) for which a more rigid type of foundation has been retained.
This can be explained by the fact that, contrary to EFRT, the other formats have a self-
supported roof that is permanently affixed to the shell. Therefore, the load induced
below their shell is usually greater than the one induced by an external floating roof, that
is, in addition, already structurally less sensitive to differential settlements.

4. Settlement criteria
Settlement criteria are presented in Table 5. The differential settlement below the
tank shell directly impacting the structural integrity of the tank and it has been chosen to
Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.
Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery … 19

define the circumferential criterion as the most stringent one in order to minimize the
out-of-plane deflection. Therefore, a fixed value of 13mm/10m has been retained,
regardless the steel properties of the tank shell and the diameter of the tank.

Table 5. Settlement Criteria

Sag
Uniform settlement at edge Circumferential Tilt
(centre to edge)
D  25m 150 mm
R/300 13mm/ 10m H/200
D > 25m 300 mm

5. Ground improvement solution

It is common that refinery and other petrochemical complexes are built near-shore
where the subsoil is mainly composed of marine deposits that can present heterogeneous
interbedded layers usually including thick layers of very soft clay with undrained shear
strength, Cu < 20 kPa, making the use of stone columns not recommended, especially if
organic matters are present (BRE, 2000, CFMS, 2011) and dense to very dense layers of
granular materials making consolidation techniques such as prefabricated vertical drain
(PVD) with surcharge or vacuum consolidation to be construction-wise difficult to
implement. In addition, the large loadings brought to the soil by the tanks once filled
presents big challenge to most of the ground improvement techniques. Typically, two
methods will be considered under such conditions: either installing piles to bypass the
weak soil; or perform engineering soil modifications by implementing rigid inclusions,
jet grouting or soil mixing to enhance global soil strength and stiffness.
Nevertheless, the latter two ground improvement techniques are in general costly and
not productive enough compared to rigid inclusions. Also, classical methods such as
deep foundations will normally require structural mats (heavily reinforced) and pile caps
that will add significant costs to the project. On the contrary, CMC do not require such
structural components whichever type of foundation is encountered. As such,
reinforcement using CMC has been proposed as the most suitable ground improvement
solution for this project.
Controlled Modulus Columns or CMC is a technology invented by Menard since the
early 1990’s. CMC are cement-grout columns i.e. semi-rigid inclusions installed using a
specially designed auger that pushes the soil laterally during the entire penetration
process. First, the auger is screwed into the soil to the required depth which therefore
densifies the surrounding soil. Then, the column is developed by low pressure-grouting
through the hollow auger while the tool is extracted, the volume of grout replacing the
void left below the auger. By installing a network of such inclusions, a composite soil is
therefore created on a large scale with higher strength and lower compressibility than the
natural soil. However, on the contrary to stone columns, the integrity of the column is
not ensured by the mechanical characteristics of the surrounding soil as its strength is
fully controlled by the strength of the grout, easily adjustable as a function of the ground
conditions (Varaksin, et al., 2014).
Due to the installation equipment, the appearances of the columns, and their superior
ability in limiting settlements compared to other ground improvement techniques, CMC
are frequently referred to as piles although their concept, design and behaviour are
completely different, as presented on Figure 7. Indeed, unlike a piling solution which is
designed to support the entire load of the structures on the piles, the CMC are not

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26.

20 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

mechanically linked to the structure but the transfer of the load is ensured by a well
compacted granular fill called the load transfer platform (LTP). Therefore, rather than
transferring the load directly to the bearing layer like piles do, the load is mainly
transferred to the inclusions thanks to an arching effect occurring in the LTP as depicted
on Figure 8a. However, as opposed to piles, the load is never transferred entirely to the
CMC heads but to the surrounding soil too, as the LTP cannot transfer the load with an
efficiency of 100%.

a) Deep foundations b) CMC

Figure 7. Working Concept of Deep Foundation and CMC (ASIRI, 2013)

The ratio of load transferred to the inclusions and the surrounding soil is therefore
controlled by the spacing between the columns, the replacement ratio and the material
properties and thickness of the LTP. Therefore, negative skin friction always develops
along the inclusions and should be added in the force equilibrium equations when
designing CMC. This state of equilibrium involves the following acting forces as
depicted on Figure 8b (Combarieu, 1988):
1. The vertical load (QP(0)) at the top of the CMC.
2. The negative skin friction (FN) acting on the upper zone of the CMC.
3. The positive skin friction (FS) acting on the lower zone.
4. The vertical reaction at the tip (QP(L)).

a) Arch effect scheme in the LTP b) Force equilibrium scheme

Figure 8. Load transfer mechanisms entailed with CMC (ASIRI 2013)

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.

Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery … 21

To summarize about the working of CMC, it is important to notice that:

 The LTP plays in this context an essential role by distributing the loads between the
CMC and the in-situ ground and;
 That both positive and negative skin frictions act along the bole of the inclusion.
Finally, the installation of CMC itself is performed using a soil displacement auger
that forces the soil to displace laterally during the installation, resulting in a lateral
densification of the surrounding soil. As the entire process is extraction free and also
vibration free, the execution of CMC provides significant economies due to the
unnecessity of removal and probable post-treatment of spoil as well as clean project sites
(Varaksin, et al., 2014).
Geometry of CMC and the properties of the concrete composing them are given in
Table 6. As the concrete mix design had to comply with stringent soil/water
aggressiveness (ACEC class AC3z according to BS8500-1:2006) and high vertical
compression stresses were expected to occur inside the inclusions (refer to Section
5.5.2), a C25/30 grade was adopted.

Table 6. Properties of the CMC

Diameter Lmin Lmax Concrete Grade Young’s Modulus
420 mm 4.9 m 19.2 m C25/30 > 5,000 MPa

The CMC grid below the tank footprint has been designed considering that, referring
to the different criteria presented on Table 5, the circumferential criterion was the most
stringent one. As such, two different configurations have been adopted on each tank. At
the edge, two rows of CMC have been positioned following the footprint of the tank
shell, to make sure that the foundation would homogeneously be settling around the
structure. On the other hand, a rectangular configuration has been retained at the centre,
allowing an optimization of the quantities rather than if the geometry of the mesh would
have been kept circular from the edge to the centre.
In addition, the spacing of the columns has been tightened in the edge part, to avoid
any unaffordable deflection of the tank bottom plate below the tank shell. Therefore, the
hydrotesting vertical load taken by a CMC, N max, has been reduced from 70 t to 60 t at
the edge compared to a CMC located in the central part. Finally, the CMC composing
the last row were installed in staggered rows with an offset depending on the type of
foundation to avoid any hard point below the tank shell, increase stability of the
foundation and prevent high bending moments at the head of the inclusions. As such, an
offset of 40 cm from the middle of the foundation was retained for the earth mound; for
which the footprint was larger compared to the footprint of the concrete foundations.
Below concrete ring walls, an offset of 20 cm was therefore retained. Figure 9 presents
the general configuration of the CMC below the footprint of a reinforced tank.

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26.

22 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

Figure 9. General CMC Pattern for NSRP Reinforced Tanks

As the CMC need to be anchored usually between 0.5 m to 1.0 m in the competent
layer, their length depends on the depth and thickness of the bearing layer. Layer D1 has
been retained as the anchoring layer. Also, as the layer C1 was exhibiting good in-situ
properties, a concept of short/long columns has been implemented on site depending on
the zone the studied tank was belonging to. Therefore, the following reinforcement
scheme was followed:
 Zone A: only long columns as this zone is the most sensitive in terms of strength and
deformation
 Zone B: short/long columns configuration has been adopted whenever possible i.e.
when the sand layer was thick enough to be used as anchoring layer and the Layer C3
thin enough to not undergo large settlements.
 Zone C: short/long columns configuration has been systematically adopted.
The maximum and minimum lengths of CMC adopted in this project are presented in
Table 6. In any case, short columns have been anchored with a maximum frequency of 1
on 2 columns in the centre and 1 on 4 columns in the edge (corresponding to 1 on 2
columns on the edge of the second to last row) in the layer C1. It has to be noted that this
particular configuration was not adopted for the peripheral row where only long columns
i.e. anchored in the layer D1 were installed. Table 7 summarizes the philosophy adopted
for the reinforcement of the tanks.

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.

Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery … 23

Table 7. General Configuration of the CMC

Ratio long/total CMC
Offset from
Mesh type Zone Nmax
tank shell (*)
A B C
Centre Rectangular 1/2 1/2 or 1/1 1/1 N/A 70 t
Second to last row 1/2 1/2 or 1/1 1/1 N/A
EM: 0.4m
Circular 60 t
Last row 1/1 1/1 1/1 RW: 0.2m
SF: 0.2m
(*) refer to Table 3 for the definitions of EM, RW and SF.

6. Numerical Verification of the Solution

For each tank, the design and verification of the retained CMC configuration have
been performed using the Finite Element Method (FEM) software PLAXIS 2D through
the computation of several models:
 Unit-cell axisymmetric (to check the efficiency of a single CMC, stress distribution)
for each grid,
 Global axisymmetric (to check the settlement distribution below the bottom steel
plate from the centre to the edge of the tank) and;
 Plane strain model (to check the settlement distribution below the tank shell).

6.1. Focus on the short/long concept

Prior to the validation of the ground improvement scheme, a numerical verification
of the concept of short and long CMC has been carried out using PLAXIS 2D and
PLAXIS 3D. This general analysis was conducted to check the validity of the concept in
terms of settlement and stress distribution in the CMC. Calculations have therefore been
done using the hydro-testing and operation loads of a tank that was expected to be
reinforced using this concept. Only the results of the hydro-testing load will be presented
hereinafter as the validity of the concept was verified using the same methodology for
the operation load. The lengths of the CMC were respectively 8.5 m and 18.8 m for the
Tank 154, that was belonging to the Zone A.
First, as the settlement analysis for each tank would be carried out using PLAXIS
2D, a comparison of the results between unit-cell calculations using PLAXIS 2D and
PLAXIS 3D, using the same inputs, has been done to check that the results of the two
models were matching. This is illustrated on Figure 10, which shows the comparison of
the 2D and 3D models for long inclusions. As expected, the variation between the 2D
and 3D models outputs is low: less than 5% for the settlement and less than 9% for the
maximum stress in the CMC (short or long) as presented in Table 8.

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26.

24 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

Figure 10. Comparison between 2D and 3D Outputs for Long CMC

Finally, a 3D model has been run to determine the influence of the concept of short
and long CMC (see Figure 11) in terms of settlement and stress but also to check if it
was possible to take into account this influence in a 2D model, which would be solely
used during the design stage.

Table 8. Results of the PLAXIS 2D/3D Analyses

HYDROTEST Short CMC Long CMC Short +
LOAD (L = 8.5 m) (L = 18.8 m) Long CMC
(181.4kPa) 2D 3D 2D 3D 3D
Settlement (cm) 18.8 18.6 11.9 11.4 14.2
Stress Short 3.66 4.00 N/A N/A 3.67
(MPa) Long N/A N/A 5.98 5.97 7.68

In terms of deformation, analysis outputs showed that the average between the
settlements given by the short CMC and the long CMC 2D unit-cell models was almost
equal to the settlement given by the more rigorous 3D model (15.3 cm vs 14.2 cm).
Calculating this average made sense as the ratio of long CMC over total number of CMC
was equal to 1/2 in the 3D model. In case this ratio was different, subsequent
calculations showed that this average could indeed be weighted by this ratio to get a
conservative value but still close to the value output from the 3D model.
In terms of vertical stress in the inclusions, the maximum stress for a short CMC is
the same whether or not the short CMC is coupled with a long CMC (3.66 MPa vs 3.67
MPa). However, for the 3D model, the maximum load transferred into the long CMC is
greater, of about 30%, than the maximum load in the 2D model’s long CMC
configuration. This percentage corresponds to the differential of load that is not taken by
the short CMC (5.98 – 3.66 = 2.32 MPa). A particular care has therefore been taken to
choose a mortar with sufficient resistance (see Table 6) so that the maximum vertical
Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.
Application of Controlled Modulus Columns for Refinery … 25

stress in the CMC would always be within the acceptable ranges according to the
Eurocode 2, whichever configuration was retained. Figure 11 shows the load distribution
between the CMC in case of a short/long system.

Figure 11. 3D Model and Load Distribution for the Short/Long CMC

7. Performance of the solution

Productivity of the CMC is ensured during the execution stage by the use of a
compelling set-up (heavy cranes, powerful rotary tables, etc.) that allows a continuous
penetration of the tools regardless the nature of the subsoil encountered. Also, as there is
no structural link between the inclusions and the foundation system, even for the slab
foundation with concrete ring wall and no spoil to be evacuated, high production rates
can be achieved: with 2 to 3 rigs working simultaneously, 220,000 linear meters of CMC
were installed successfully in 5 months of production with production rates reaching
1,200 linear meters per rig per shift.
The consistency of the solution was evaluated thanks to an efficient quality control
system. This system was one of the main requirements on the NSRP project to ensure
that the execution of CMC on site was complying with the designed solution. As such,
the quality control was segregated into three main fields of study: concrete quality
(slump tests, uniaxial compressive test on concrete samples), CMC quality (integrity
tests, load tests, real-time electronic recordings of drilling parameters for each inclusion)
and engineered earthwork quality (plate load tests, levelling control by GPS system).
This quality control system is presented in details by Thomas et al. (2016).
Also, as part of the quality procedures implemented on site, the reliability of the
solution was assessed using static load tests both on inclusions and platforms. Finally,
hydrotests have been performed following API 650 (2007). As such, the full load has
been kept for 24 hours after the tank was filled up by steps of 25%, 50% and 75%. The
analysis of settlement data from hydrotests showed that CMC complies with the required
criteria, ensures an efficient reduction of the absolute and differential settlements and
smooth the bottom plate settlement profile (Leclaire et al., 2015).
Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No. 1, (2017), 13-26.
26 F. Leclaire & Y. Bourgoin

8. Conclusions
CMC is a modern ground improvement technology with considerable benefits such
as independence of lateral confinement from in-situ soil, ability to reduce settlements
more than other ground improvement technique involving reinforcement of soil,
negligible amounts of spoil per CMC with a vibration-less and extraction-less boring
technique, high production rates and absence of mechanical link between the CMC and
the structure. CMC has quickly became a game changer in EU countries and in the USA
where this technology is nowadays widely spread. In fact, significant references and
experience using this technique, which has already been successfully implemented
worldwide on numerous of projects (such as industrial and commercial buildings,
housing development, road and railway embankments, windfarm, airport runways,
power and petro-chemical plants, etc.) for the past two decades are well documented
(Racinais et al., 2016).

References
American Petroleum Institute, 2003, API 653, "Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and
Reconstruction", 3rd edition, Appendix B – Evaluation of Tank Bottom Settlement.
Building Research Establishment (BRE), 2000, "Specifying Vibro Stone Columns", pp:13-14.
Comité Français de Mécanique des Sols (CFMS), 2011, "Recommendations for the Design,
Calculation", Construction and Quality Control of Stone Columns under Buildings and
Sensitive Structure.
ASIRI Standard, 2013, "Recommendations for the Design, Construction and Control of Rigid
Inclusions Ground Improvement", Presse des Ponts, Paris.
Combarieu, O., 1988, "Amélioration des sols par inclusions rigides verticales", Application à
l'édification de remblais sur sols médiocres, Revue Française de Géotechnique, Vol. 44, pp: 57-
79.
Varaksin, S., Hamidi, B., and Racinais, J., 2014, "The Thin Line between Deep Foundations and
Soil Improvement", Proceedings of the International Conference on Integrated Use and
Protection of underground spaces, Kungur Ice Cave, Perm Region, Russia.
British Standard (BS 8500-1:2006), 2006, "Concrete – Complementary British Standard to BS EN
206-1", Part 1: Method of specifying and guidance for the specifier, 2nd Edition.
Thomas, B., Vo, T., Ong, R., and Hoang, L.Q., 2016, "Quality Control of a Rigid Inclusion Project
for Petrochemical Storage Tanks", Proceedings of the 19th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference & 2nd AGSSEA Conference (19SEAGC & 2AGSSEA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
American Petroleum Institute, 2007, API 650, "Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage", 11th edition,
7.3.6 Hydrostatic Testing Requirements.
Leclaire, F., Bourgoin, Y., and Ong, R., 2015, "An Example of Controlled Modulus Columns
(CMC) Application as Ground Improvement Support for a Steel Tank", Proceedings of the
International Conference on Soft Ground Engineering (ICSGE2015), Singapore.
Racinais, J., Thomas, B., and Ong, R., 2016, "20 years of successful application of CMC",
Proceedings of the 19th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference & 2nd AGSSEA Conference
(19SEAGC & 2AGSSEA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Journal of Earth Engineering (JEE), Vol. 2, No.1, (2017), 13-26.