Field Tests on Pile-Supported Embankments

over Soft Ground

R. P. Chen1; Z. Z. Xu2; Y. M. Chen3; D. S. Ling4; and B. Zhu5

Abstract: When designing embankments over soft soils, geotechnical engineers face many challenges. These include potential bearing
failure, intolerable settlement, and global or local instability. Pile-supported embankments have been emerged as an effective alternative
successfully adopted worldwide to solve these problems. This paper focuses on three cases in which pile-supported embankments were
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

used for constructing highways in the eastern coastal region of China. Each case provides a description of the soil profile, construction
procedure, and field monitoring of the settlements, earth pressures, and pore-water pressures. Field monitored data from contact pressures
acting on the piles and the soils, to the settlements of the piles and the soils are reported and discussed. The development of the earth
pressures both on the piles and the soils shows that there was a significant soil arching in the embankment, and the measured earth
pressures acting on the piles are much higher than that acting on the soils between the piles. The measured differential settlements between
the piles and the soils are small. The pore-water pressures are not significant compared to the embankment loads. Most pore-water
pressure dissipated after the complete of filling. The measurements have proven the effectiveness of this technique in reducing total and
differential settlements. Finally, the available design standards and approaches are verified by three cases.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲GT.1943-5606.0000295
CE Database subject headings: Piles; Embankments; Field tests; Earth pressure; Settlement; Case studies; Soft soils.
Author keywords: Pile-supported embankment; Field test; Earth pressure; Settlement; Case studies.

Introduction
Compared to the traditional soft soil improvement measures, pile-
supported embankments provide an economic and effective solu-
tion for embankment constructed over soft ground. This technique
has many advantages, which are rapid construction, small lateral
deformation, and easily controlled settlements. It spreads quickly
around the world, for example, the railway widening project at
Stansted airport in London 共Jones et al. 1990兲, the retaining wall
1
Professor, Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental En-
gineering of Ministry of Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang
Univ., 388 Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058, China. E-mail: chenrp@
zju.edu.cn
2
Doctor Candidate, Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering of Ministry of Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Zhejiang Univ., 388 Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058, China. E-mail:
supbaobao@163.com
3
Professor, Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental En-
gineering of Ministry of Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Zhejiang
Univ., 388 Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058, China 共corresponding
author兲. E-mail: chenyunmin@zju.edu.cn
4 reality, the mechanisms of load transfer are much more compli-
Professor, Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenvironmental
Engineering of Ministry of Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Zhejiang Univ., 388 Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058, China. E-mail:
Lingdaosheng@zju.edu.cn
5
Associate Professor, Key Laboratory of Soft Soils and Geoenviron-
mental Engineering of Ministry of Education, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Zhejiang Univ., 388 Yuhangtang Rd., Hangzhou, 310058, China. E-mail:
binzhu@zju.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 2, 2008; approved
on November 20, 2009; published online on November 25, 2009. Discus-
sion period open until November 1, 2010; separate discussions must be
submitted for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 6, June
1, 2010. ©ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/2010/6-777–785/$25.00.
project in the north of St. Paul in Brazil 共Alzamora et al. 2000兲,
and the highway construction in Netherlands 共American Associa-
tion of State Highway Officials/Federal Highway Administration
2002兲. The first documented application in China was the Hang-
zhou to Ningbo highway widening project 共Jia et al. 2003兲. Then
it was used in many other highways with the recent economic
boom in China 共Liu et al. 2007兲.
However, the interactions among piles, pile caps, foundation
soils, and embankment fills are complex 共Chen et al. 2008b兲.
Under the influence of fill weight, the embankment fills between
piles have a tendency to move downward due to the larger settle-
ment of soft foundation soil between piles. The movement of the
embankment fills is restrained by shear resistance generated in the
fills. These shear resistance reduce the pressure on the foundation
soil but increase the pressure on the pile caps. This load transfer
mechanism was termed the soil arching effect by Terzaghi 共1943兲.
Many researchers established different kinds of model tests to
study the piled embankments 共Hewlett and Randolph 1988; Low
et al. 1994; Chew et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2008a兲. These model
tests mainly focused on the soil arching in the embankment. In
cated than just the soil arching. The expanded applications of the
piled embankments demand a thorough understanding of the in-
teraction between the piles, the soils, and the embankment. A
closed-form solution has been developed for the interaction be-
tween the piles, the soil, and the embankment 共Chen et al. 2008b兲,
but no geosynthetic reinforcement was considered and the em-
bankment fill, the foundation soil, and the piles were assumed to
deform one-dimensionally. Numerical methods were frequently
used to investigate the load transfer mechanisms 共Han and Gabr
2002; Pham et al. 2004; Huang et al. 2006兲. Even though numeri-
cal analyzes are effective for investigating the interactions in the
pile-supported embankments, they are generally time-consuming

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010 / 777

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785

 Table 1. Detail Information of Test Sections in TJ Highway
Test H d L Sa Cap a Arrangement
section 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 shape 共m兲 of piles
G1 6.0 0.4 20 2.5 Square 1.3 Square
G2 6.0 0.4 20 3.0 Square 1.6 Square
G3 6.0 0.4 20 2.0 Square 1.0 Square
Note: H = embankment height; d0 = pile diameter; L = pile length; Sa = pile spacing; and a = pile cap width.

and difficult to be adopted for routine use in practice. There are
very few standards and approaches for the design of piled em-
bankments. British Standard BS8006 共British Standard 1995兲 uses
Marston’s formula to estimate the vertical stress on the top of the
piles. Moreover, the effects of the embankment fill material prop-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
in three sections of the embankment, which were section of
K18+ 223 共defined as G1 section兲, section of K18+ 253 共defined
as G2 section兲, and section of K18+ 283 共defined as G3 section兲,
respectively. The detail information of these test sections are
listed in Table 1.

erties on the vertical stress are not considered. Nordic handbook

共NGG 2002兲 calculates the soil arching by a soil wedge model
with a top angle of 30°. German criterion 共Deutsche Gesellschaft
fur Geotechnike E V. 2004兲 is based on the method of Hewlett
and Randolph 共1988兲 considering soil arching as a series of
domes of hemispherical shape supported by piles. Due to the
complexity of the systems, field test is considered as an effective
way for investigating the systems of pile-supported embankments
共Liu et al. 2007兲.
This paper provides the field measurements of earth pressures,
settlements, and pore-water pressures of pile-supported embank-
ments during construction by three case histories. These three
cases involve two highways, including the highway from Taizhou
to Jinyun 共TJ highway兲 and the highway connecting four prov-
inces of Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Anhui in east China
共SJZA highway兲. The study is based on the field measurements of
pressures on the piles and soil surfaces between piles and the
settlements of the piles and soils, and the pore-water pressures.
The measured data are compared with computed results obtained
by four theoretical methods.
Field Test on Piled Embankment with Firm
Substratum in TJ Highway
General Information of Project
TJ highway is located in the southeast of Zhejiang province in
China. The total length of the highway is 60.6 km. The height of
the embankment is from 4 to 9.7 m accordingly. The test site
consists of soft soils with thickness varying from 5 to 20 m. Most
of the soft soils are CL with very low shear strength and high
compressibility.
Prestressed tube piles with square pile caps were explored to
improve the soft ground. In order to better understand the settle-
ments and load share ratios of the pile-supported embankments on
soft soils, a test embankment totally 126 m in length 共from K18
+ 183 to K18+ 309兲 were chosen. The monitoring was carried out
Site Conditions
There is a crust 共ML兲 of approximately 3 m thickness under the
ground. Below the crust is a soft CL layer with a thickness of
about 16 to 17 m. The CL layer has high water content, poor
permeability, and low shear strength. The third layer is pebble
共GM兲 about 15 to 17 m thick which lies on the tuff. The ground-
water level was at a depth of ⫺0.5 m. The main soil properties are
shown in Table 2.
Test Setup and Instrument
The embankment was 6.0 m high with a crown width of 26 m.
The side slope was 1 V to 1.5 H. The fill material consisted
mainly of gravel mixed with clayey soil with a friction angle of
32°, and an average unit weight of 21 kN/ m3. The 20-m-long
prestressed tube piles were driven down to a firm pebble layer.
The outer diameter of the pile was 0.4 m and the thickness of the
concrete annulus was 5 cm. All the piles were arranged in square
pattern. Fig. 1 illustrates the cross section and plan views of the
test sections, arrangement of piles, and instruments.
Nine earth pressure cells were placed in the embankment cen-
ter in each test section. Earth pressure cells E1–E3 were installed
on the surface of the surrounding soils. Earth pressure cells
E4–E9 were on the top of the pile caps. Two settlement plates
were put on the top of pile cap 共S1兲 and on the surrounding soil
共S2兲.
The driving of tube piles began on March 3 in 2005, and
completed after eleven days. Then the square pile caps were cast
in the field. The instruments were installed after the construction
of pile caps. The embankment was filled to a height of 6.0 m over
a period about 65 days. The observation started with the begin-
ning of the embankment construction in late April and lasted 9
months after the construction.

Table 2. Main Soil Properties at Test Sections in TJ Highway

Thickness ␥ W Ip kh / kv mv c⬘ ␸⬘
Layer 共m兲 共kN/ m3兲 共%兲 e0 共%兲 共10−6 cm/ s兲 共MPa−1兲 共kPa兲 共degrees兲
ML 3.0 19.3 29.2 0.818 11.2 7.20/7.80 0.153 0 21
CL 16.0–17.0 16.7 46.3 1.286 16.1 0.10/0.15 0.415 0 24
GM 15.0–17.0 19.9
Note: ␥ = unit weight; W = water content; e0 = void ratio; I p = plasticity index; kh / kv = coefficient of permeability in horizontal and vertical directions;
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility; c⬘ = effective cohesion; and ␸⬘ = effective friction angle.

778 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Cross section and plan views of the embankment, the field
instrumentation, and the arrangement of piles in TJ highway
Field Measurements
Earth Pressures on Pile Cap and Soil Surface
Fig. 2 shows the average earth pressures acting on the pile caps
and the soil surfaces measured by the earth pressure cells which
were defined as P p and Ps, respectively. During the first 20 days,
the embankment reached 1.5 m, while the earth pressure on the
pile caps and the soil surfaces increased with the height of the
embankment fill. The earth pressures on the pile caps increased
sharply with the embankment height. However, the earth pres-
sures reached peaks around 25–60 days, then decreased to rela-
tive steadily values about 80 days. The decrease of the earth
pressures on the soils is due to the consolidation of the soils and
the soil arching developed in the fill. When the fill height reached
6.0 m at the end of the embankment construction, the pressures on
the top of caps in G1 and G3 sections were about 380 kPa, while
that measured in G2 section was 288 kPa. The lower steady value
of P p in G2 section attributes to the larger net spacing of caps.
However, the pressures on the soil between the piles were far
Fig. 2. Earth pressures measured in test sections in TJ highway
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010 / 779
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785
Fig. 3. Settlements measured in test sections in TJ highway
smaller than those measured on the piles. It can be seen that the
piles carried the majority of the embankment loads and so rela-
tively the soft soil beneath the embankment was subjected a much
smaller compressive load. This implies that there was a load
transfer from the soil onto the pile as a result of soil arching in the
embankment fill. The rapid steadility of the earth pressures both
on the piles and soils is attributed to the fact that the piles were
founded on firm pebble layer. Though there is no pore-water pres-
sure measurement, the steady earth pressures, and the settlements
which will be discussed later, indicate the complete of the soil
consolidation after filling. The degree of the soil arching may be
quantified using the load share ratio, n, which is defined as the
load on the pile cap divided by the total weight of the embank-
ment fill over the total area
P p · Ac
n= 共1兲
␥1 · H · Sa · Sa
where P p = earth pressure on the pile cap; Ac = area of pile cap;
␥1 = unit weight of embankment fill; H = embankment height; and
Sa = pile spacing. The load share ratio lies between 0% and 100%.
The measured load share ratio were 82.6% in G1 section, 71.2%
in G2 section, and 87.6% in G3 section at the end of monitoring.
The height of the fill should be high enough so that the soil
arching can be fully developed. This height is named as the criti-
cal height. Hewlett and Randolph 共1988兲 pointed that when the
fill height is less than the net spacing between the two near edges
of the piles, there is no soil arching. In Nordic handbook 共NGG
2002兲, it is suggested that the height of the embankment should
be at least 1.2 times as large as the distance between the pile caps.
In Fig. 2, the fill height at which the earth pressures on soil
surface reaches the maximum value can be regarded as the critical
height. The loads of the subsequent filling after the critical height
were transferred to the piles. The critical heights were about 1.3–
1.5 m in G1 section, 1.5–1.8 m in G2 section, and 1.0–1.3 m in
G3 section, respectively. Therefore, the arching height is about
1.1–1.3 times larger than the net cap spacing in these test sections
共see Table 1兲.
Settlements
Fig. 3 shows the measured settlements both on the pile cap 共mea-
sured by surface settlement marker S1兲 and on the soil surface
between the piles 共measured by S2兲. The settlements increased as
the fill height increased. Most part of the total settlements oc-
curred during the embankment construction, and the subsequent
settlements due to soil consolidation were small. This is mainly
 Table 3. Detail Information of Test Sections in SJZA Highway
Test H d0 L Sa Cap a Arrangement
section 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 共m兲 shape 共m兲 of piles
G4 4.0 0.4 14 2.0 Square 0.9 Triangle
G5 4.0 0.3 14 2.5 Square 1.0 Triangle
Y1 5.0 0.48 13.5 2.2 Round 1.4 Triangle
Y2 5.0 0.48 13.5 2.7 Round 1.4 Triangle
Y3 5.0 0.48 13.5 2.2 Round 1.4 Triangle
Note: H = embankment height; d0 = pile diameter or equivalent pile diameter; L = pile length; Sa = pile spacing; and a0 = cap width or cap diameter.

because the piles were founded on firm pebble layer. The mea- is 0.181 m2. Hence, the compression stiffness of the Y-shaped pile
sured total settlements in G2 section were larger than those mea- is 2.5 times that of the tube pile. Under the embankment loads,
sured in other sections, while the data obtained in G3 section the compression of the pile is in millimeter order. So those two
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were smallest. It indicates that the pile spacing has significant
impact on the settlements. At the end of the monitoring, the mea-
sured maximum settlements were 72 and 82 mm at the pile cap
and on the soil surface, respectively.
In this paper, differential settlement is defined as the difference
in settlement at the top of pile cap and on the soil surface. Similar
to the total settlements, the differential settlements also increased
with the increase of the height of the embankment. But there was
no obvious increase in differential settlement after the construc-
tion of the embankment. The measured maximum differential
settlement was about 10 mm. Thus, it is clearly proved that the
needed differential settlement between the pile and soils for the
full development of the soil arching is small when the piles are
embedded in the firm substratum.
Field Test on Piled Embankment with Soft
Substratum in SJZA Highway
General Information of Project
The total length of the highway is about 89 km. Most of the
embankments from K0 to K53 were constructed over deep soft
soils. The thickness of the soft soils is about 30 m. The pre-
stressed tube piles, manufactured in the factory, are widely used
for their good quality and high strength. However, the producing
cost of prestressed tube pile is expensive. Moreover, it is difficult
to construct the embankment dealing with tube piles for its varia-
tion of pile length in transitional embankment section. As a result,
a new type of pile whose cross section likes the letter Y was also
used in this project. The construction technique of Y-shaped pile
is similar to that of casing pile. It is more economical than the
prestressed tube pile and has many advantages, such as larger
surface area, higher bearing capacity, and lower producing cost.
Typically the elastic modulus of the concrete of the Y-shaped pile
is 25 GPa, while that of prestressed tube pile is 35 GPa. The cross
area of the tube pile is 0.0628 m2, while that of the Y-shaped pile
types of piles can be considered as rigid piles when they are used
in the embankment.
A test embankment totally 50 m in length 共K25+ 090– K25
+ 140兲 were chosen to study the field performance of the piled
embankment. There are five test sections, which were section of
K25+ 100 共G4兲, section of K25+ 135 共G5兲, section of K24+ 970
共Y1兲, section of K24+ 995 共Y2兲, and section of K25+ 025 共Y3兲.
The G4 and G5 sections were improved by prestressed tube piles,
and Y1, Y2, and Y3 sections were improved by Y-shaped piles.
Table 3 shows the details of the test sections.
Site Conditions
There is a thin crust 共ML兲 about 2.5–3.0 m thick under the
ground. The second layer is CL with a thickness of 2.0–4.0 m.
Below it is a very soft CL layer about 15.0–16.5 m thick. These
two layers have high water content and compressibility, which are
the main soft soils layer. The underlying soil is composed of ML
with a thickness of 18.5–23.2 m. The groundwater level was at a
depth of ⫺0.3 m. The main index and strength properties of the
soils under the test embankment are shown in Table 4.
Test Setup and Instrument
The embankment had a crown width of 35 m. The side slope was
1 V to 1.5 H. The fill material consisted mainly of crushed rock
mixed with clayey soil with friction angle of 35°, and an average
unit weight of 22 kN/ m3. Fig. 4 illustrates the cross section and
plan views of the test sections, the arrangement of the piles, and
the instruments.
All piles were arranged in a triangular pattern and were not
founded on the firm layer. The tube piles had square caps on the
pile heads, whereas the Y-shaped piles had round cap. Detail in-
formation of piles and pile caps were provided in Table 3. The
reinforcement consisted of a biaxial polypropylene grid, which

Table 4. Main Soil Properties at Test Sections in SJZA Highway

Thickness ␥ W Ip kh / kv mv c⬘ ␸⬘
Layer 共m兲 共kN/ m3兲 共%兲 e0 共%兲 共10−6 cm/ s兲 共MPa−1兲 共kPa兲 共degrees兲
ML 2.5–3.0 19.1 27.2 0.801 11.5 7.50/7.90 0.189 0 24
CL 2.0–3.9 17.3 59.9 1.312 19.9 0.91/0.25 0.681 0 20
CL 15.0–16.5 17.1 47.0 1.290 15.9 0.10/0.11 0.483 0 22
ML 18.5–23.2 18.9 27.8 0.788 15.0 7.22/7.61 0.145 0 25
Note: ␥ = unit weight; W = water content; e0 = void ratio; I p = plasticity index; kh / kv = coefficient of permeability in horizontal and vertical directions;
mv = coefficient of volume compressibility; c⬘ = effective cohesion; ␸⬘ = effective friction angle.

780 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Earth pressures and pore-water pressure measured in tube pile

sections in SJZA highway

about 2.5 years after it was completed. The embankments im-

proved by tube piles and Y-shaped piles in the test sections were
constructed to 4.0 and 5.0 m, respectively.

Field Measurements

Earth Pressures on Pile Cap and Soil Surface

The earth pressures acting on the pile caps and the soil surface,
and the pore-water pressures in test sections improved by tube
piles and Y-shaped piles were shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respec-
tively. During the first 150 days, the embankment reached 1.0 m,
while the earth pressure on the pile caps and the soil surface
increased with the height of the embankment fill. After 150 days,
the rate of construction increased until the complete of embank-
ment filling. The earth pressures on the pile caps increased
sharply with the embankment heights. However, the earth pres-
sures on the soils reached peaks around 150 days, then decreased
to relative steady values after about another 100 days. This is
mainly because that the piles were founded on soft substratum.
When the embankment construction was completed 共i.e., the fill
height reached 4.0 m in sections with tube piles and 5.0 m in
sections with Y-shaped piles兲, the measured pressures on the pile
caps were 280 kPa in G4 section, 289 kPa in G5 section, 259 kPa
in Y1 section, 350 kPa in Y2 section, and 269 kPa in Y3 section,
as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. It is obvious that the foundation soils
only carried a small part of the embankment load, which is simi-
Fig. 4. Cross section and plan views of the embankment, the field
lar to TJ highway. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was a
instrumentation, and the arrangement of piles in SJZA highway

was laid in one layer on the top of the pile cap. The tensile
stiffness in longitudinal and transverse directions of the geogrid
was 1,500 kN/m.
Earth pressure cells 共E10–E23兲 were placed in the center of
embankment to measure the vertical loads shared by the piles and
the surrounding soils. Two settlement plates were installed in each
test section. The settlement plates were installed both on the top
of the pile caps 共S3 and S5兲 and on the surrounding soils 共S4 and
S6兲. Besides, two settlement gauges 共SS1 and SS2兲 were installed
to a depth of 21 m near the center line of the embankment to
measure the settlements of the substratum.
The instruments were set up from July 15 to August 30 in
2003. In late October, the pile caps were cast in the field after the
installation of the piles, and the observation started from the be- Fig. 6. Earth pressures and pore-water pressure measured in
ginning of the embankment construction in November and lasted Y-shaped pile sections in SJZA highway

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010 / 781

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Settlements measured in sections with tube piles in SJZA
highway
soil arching developed during the embankment filling. The loads
of the fills were transferred by the soil arching from the soils to
the piles. The measured load share ratios were 75.5% in G4 sec-
tion, 61.4% in G5 section, 86.3% in Y1 section, 76.6% in Y2
section, and 89.6% in Y3 section at the end of monitoring. It is
clear that the load share ratios from sections improved by tube
piles are much smaller than those from sections improved by
Y-shaped piles. From the load share ratios measured in the 5
sections, the increase of Sa / a tends to decrease load share ratio.
The lowest load share ratio of pile 61.4% is in G5 section with
maximum Sa / a = 2.5; while the highest load share ratio of pile
89.6% is in Y3 section with minimum Sa / a = 1.57.
Similar to the measurement of earth pressures in TJ highway,
the critical heights were about 1.2–1.5 m in G4 section, 1.5–1.9 m
in G5 section, 1.0–1.3 m in Y1 section, 1.4–1.8 m in Y2 section,
and 1.1–1.3 m in Y3 section, respectively. Therefore, the arching
heights are about 1.0–1.5 times the net pile spacings in these test
sections.
Pore-Water Pressures
The pore-water pressures in G5 section and Y2 section are also
shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. It is clear that the measured
results illustrate an increase in excess pore pressures during the
period of construction and dissipation after the construction com-
plete. When the measurement was completed, the excess pore
pressures were all very small. Due to the longer drainage path, the
excess pore pressures in deep soils dissipated slower. However,
the increase of excess pore pressures in each depth was small, and
the maximum value was less than 25 kPa. This might be the result
of load transfer from the foundation soft clay to adjacent piles due
to soil arching and some dissipation of pore-water pressures dur-
ing construction. The piles carried the majority of the embank-
ment load and so relatively the soft clay beneath the embankment
was subjected to a much smaller compressive load.
Settlements
Figs. 7 and 8 show the measured settlements both on the soil
surface between the piles and on the pile cap in SJZA highway.
Similar to the findings in TJ highway, all the measured settle-
ments increased with an increase in the fill height. After the
construction of the embankment, a few subsequent settlements
occurred due to the consolidation of the foundation soils. The
measured settlements in G2 and Y2 sections were larger than
those in other sections. It implies that the settlements are strongly
affected by the pile spacings. The differential settlements also
782 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785
Fig. 8. Settlements measured in sections with Y-shaped piles in
SJZA highway
increased with the fill heights. The maximum differential settle-
ments ranged from 30 to 45 mm, and about 70% of them occurred
during the construction. The measured settlements of the substra-
tum were 68 mm in G4 section, 85 mm in G5 section, 88 mm in
Y1 section, 84 mm in Y2 section, and 86 mm in Y3 section, and
there was a large settlement in substratum due to the relative soft
substratum under the pile toe. The compression of the soft sub-
stratum counts for about 50–60% of the total settlement of the
embankment. And the magnitudes of the substratum settlements
in these three sections dealt with Y-shaped piles were close. The
settlement of the foundation soil was larger than that of the pile in
each test section.
Verification of Design Standards and Approaches
As discussed earlier, soil arching was developed in the embank-
ment during the embankment filling. Load share ratio is an indi-
cator of the soil arching. Nowadays, British Standard BS8006
共British Standard 1995兲, Nordic handbook 共NGG 2002兲, and Ger-
man criterion 共Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Geotechnike E V. 2004兲
are the main available design standards and approaches for the
design of piled embankments. British Standard BS8006 uses Mar-
ston’s formula to estimate the vertical stress on the top of the
piles. Moreover, the effects of the embankment fill material prop-
erties on the vertical stress are not considered. Nordic handbook
calculates the soil arching by a soil wedge model with a top angle
of 30°. German criterion is based on the method of Hewlett and
Randolph 共1988兲 considering soil arching as a series of domes of
hemispherical shape supported by piles.
Chen et al. 共2008b兲 presented a close-form solution consider-
ing the interaction between embankment fill, pile, and soil under
drained conditions. With the solution, the settlements of embank-
ment, piles, and soils, and the earth pressures on piles and soils
can be provided. But no geosynthetics is taken into consideration,
and this solution is only suitable for the piled embankment when
the soil consolidation is completed. From the measurement of
pore-water pressures in SJZA highway, the generation of pore-
water pressure was not significant and the dissipation of the pore-
water pressure was fast. At the end of monitoring, most pore-
water pressures have been dissipated. Hence, Chen’s method can
give an appropriate estimation of settlements and earth pressures
of the piled embankment.
The calculations according to BS8006 are as follows:
For H ⬎ 0.7共Sa − a兲 the distribution over pile load/soil load is
 Table 5. Parameters Used in the Calculations in TJ Highway Table 6. Parameters Used in the Calculation in SJZA Highway
Embankment H : 6 m; ␸ : 32°; ␥1 : 21 kN/ m ; Es : 0.067 MPa ;
3 −1
Embankment H : 4 m 共G4 and G5兲, 5.0 m共Y1, Y2, and Y3兲; ␸ : 35°;
Pile and cap E : 35 Gpa; d : 0.4 m; ␦ : 0.006 m; L : 20 m; Sa : 2.5 m ␥1 : 22 kN/ m3; Es : 15 Mpa;
共G1兲, 3.0 m共G2兲, 2.0 m 共G3兲; a : 1.3 m 共G1兲, 1.6 m Pile and cap E : 35 Gpa共G4 and G5兲,25GPa共Y1, Y2, and Y3兲;
共G2兲, 1.0 m共G3兲; d0 : 0.4 m 共G4兲, 0.5m共G5兲, 0.48 m共Y1, Y2, and Y3兲;
ML and CL mv : 0.2 MPa−1; ␥ : 18 kN/ m3; ␰ : 0.25; ␦u : 0.005 m; L : 14 m 共G4 and G5兲, 13.5 m共Y1, Y2, and Y3兲;
GM qu : 5000 kPa; ␦ p : 0.010 m Sa : 2.0 m 共G4兲, 2.5 m共G5兲, 2.2 m共Y1兲, 2.7 m共Y2兲, 2.2
m共Y3兲; a0 : 0.9 m 共G4兲, 1.0 m共G5兲, 1.4 m共Y1, Y2,
Note: H = embankment height; ␸ = friction angle of embankment fill; ␥1
and Y3兲; ␦ : 0.006 m;
= unit weight of embankment fill; Es = compression modulus of embank-
ment fill; E = elastic modulus; d = pile diameter; L = pile length; Sa = pile CL mv : 0.18 MPa−1; ␥⬘ : 8 kN/ m3; ␰ : 0.23; ␦u : 0.005 m
spacing; a = pile cap width; ␦ = wall thickness of tube pile; mv ML qu : 500 kPa; ␦ p : 0.010 m
= coefficient of volume compressibility of soft soil; ␥ = unit weight of soft Note: H = embankment height; ␸ = friction angle of embankment fill; ␥1
soil; ␰关␰ = 共1 − sin ␸⬘兲tan ␸⬘兴 = coefficient of skin friction; ␦u = ultimate = unit weight of embankment fill; Es = compression modulus of embank-
relative displacement of soils around pile; qu = ultimate resistance at pile ment fill; E = elastic modulus; d0 = pile diameter or equivalent pile diam-
toe; and ␦ p = ultimate relative displacement of soils at pile toe.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

eter; L = pile length; Sa = pile spacing; a0 = pile cap width or pile cap
diameter; ␦ = wall thickness of tube pile; mv = coefficient of volume com-
pressibility of soft soil; ␥ = unit weight of soft soil; ␰关␰ = 共1
p⬘c /␴⬘v = 共Cc · a/H兲2 共2兲 − sin ␸⬘兲tan ␸⬘兴 = coefficient of skin friction; ␦u = ultimate relative dis-
For H ⬎ 1.4共Sa − a兲 the distributed load on and the force in the soil placement of soils around pile; qu = ultimate resistance at pile toe; and
␦ p = ultimate relative displacement of soils at pile toe.
reinforcement is
1.4Sa · f fs · ␥1共Sa − a兲
WT = 关S2a − a2共p⬘c /␴⬘v兲兴 共3兲 and German criterion兲 are included for comparisons. These four
S2a − a2
methods give a wide range of prediction of the load share ratio.
where H = embankment height; Sa = pile spacing; a = pile cap BS8006 has a great difference in prediction of the load share ratio
width; Cc = pile type factor; ␥1 = unit weight of embankment fill; compared to the measured values. When the load share ratios are
f fs = partial coefficient for soil load; ␧ = strain; and WT=distributed low, BS8006 underestimates the load share ratio. And the German
vertical load acting on the reinforcement. DBGEO design method predicts much higher values of the load
Nordic handbook suggested that the soil arching is calculated share ratio. On the other hand, predictions using the design
by a soil wedge model with a top angle of 30°. The weight of the method in Nordic handbook and the method proposed by Chen
soil wedge, W2D, according to Nordic handbook is et al. 共2008b兲 are consistent with field measurements.
The settlements on the top of the pile caps 共S p兲, the settlements
共Sa − a兲2
W2D = · ␥d = 0.93共Sa − a兲2 · ␥d 共4兲 on the foundation soils between the piles 共Ss兲, and the settlements
4 tan 15° of the substratum 共Sd兲 were pictured in Fig. 10. The prediction of
The weight of the soil in three dimensions, W3D, is calculated as the settlements using the analytical method proposed by Chen et
follows: al. 共2008b兲 is in good agreement with the measured values in TJ
highway in which no geosynthetics was used, and overestimates
1 + Sa/a the settlements in SJZA highway in which one layer geogrid with
W3D = · W2D 共5兲
2 the stiffness of 1,500 kN/m was used.
The influences of geosynthetics on the performance of piled
where ␥d = unit weight of embankment fill per meter in depth.
embankment are concerned by researchers 共Han and Gabr 2002;
However, German DBGEO criterion is based on the method
Pham et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2008a,b兲. By using FLAC program
of Hewlett and Randolph 共1988兲 considering soil arching as a
series of domes of hemispherical shape supported by piles. The
average pressure applied on the reinforcement, ␴ZO,k, is calculated
as follows:

冉
␴ZO,k = ␭␹1 ␥1 +
q0
H
冊
共␭1 + H2c ␭2兲−␹ + Hc
4
冉
␭1 + H2c ␭2
冊 −␹

− 共␭1 + H2c ␭2兲−␹

D共K p − 1兲 共Smax − D兲2 S2max + 2D · Smax − D2

␹= , ␭1 = , ␭2 =
␭2Smax 8 2S2a
共6兲
where q0 = surcharge on the embankment; K p = the coefficient of
passive earth pressure; Smax = the maximum pile spacing; and
D = pile diameter 共d兲 or pile cap width 共a兲.
The parameters used in the calculation are shown in Tables 5
and 6. The soil profiles are shown in Tables 2 and 4. In the
calculations, the soils along pile shaft are assumed the same as
the soil below the crust. In Fig. 9, predictions of load share ratio
from a theoretical solution developed by Chen et al. 共2008b兲 and Fig. 9. Comparison of the load share ratio between measured and
other three common methods 共i.e., BS8006, Nordic handbook, computed values

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010 / 783

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785

 when the pile toes locate in soft soils, and range from 30 to
45 mm when the pile toes locate in firm soils; and
5. These four methods give a wide range of prediction of the
load share ratio. BS8006 has a great difference in prediction
of the load share ratio compared to the measured values. And
the German DBGEO design method predicts much higher
values of the load share ratio. Predictions using the design
method in Nordic handbook and the Chen’s method are con-
sistent with field measurements. Besides, the computed
settlements obtained by Chen’s method are in reasonable
agreement with the measured settlement in TJ highway, and
overestimates the settlements in SJZA highway in which one
layer geogrid with stiffness of 1,500 kN/m was used.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 10. Comparison between the measured settlements and the com- Acknowledgments
puted values by Chen’s method
The work was supported by the National Natural Science Foun-
dation of China 共Project No. 50878193兲, and Program for New
共finite difference method兲, Han and Gabr 共2002兲 conducted nu- Century Excellent Talents in University 共NCET兲 for financial
merical study to investigate the effect of geosynthetics stiffness support.
on the settlements of embankment. It was found that the geosyn-
thetics with the stiffness of 1,500 kN/m will decrease the maxi-
mum settlement about 22% and maximum settlement about 21%. Notation
By using PLAXIS program 共finite element method兲, Pham et al.
共2004兲 conducted 2D plane-strain numerical analyzes on geopier The following symbols are used in this paper:
embankment. The differences of different settlements and stress Ac ⫽ area of pile cap;
concentration ratio are only about 1–5% when the stiffness of a ⫽ pile cap width;
geosynthetics ranges from 0 to 100,000 lb/ft. Hence, from nu- a0 ⫽ pile cap width or pile cap diameter;
merical studies, the maximum influence of the geosynthetics with Cc ⫽ pile type factor;
tensile stiffness of 1,500 kN/m on settlement and load share ratio c⬘ ⫽ effective cohesion;
is less than 22%. Hence, this accounts for the overestimation of D ⫽ pile diameter 共d兲 or pile cap width 共a兲;
settlements in SJZA highway by Chen’s method. The influence of d ⫽ pile diameter;
geosynthetics stiffness on the settlement is more significant than d0 ⫽ pile diameter or equivalent pile diameter;
that of load share ratio. e0 ⫽ void ratio;
f fs ⫽ partial coefficient for soil load;
H ⫽ embankment height;
Conclusion Hc ⫽ critical height;
I p ⫽ plasticity index;
This paper presents three cases of pile-supported embankments K p ⫽ coefficient of passive earth pressure;
over soft soils in two highways. Based on the results of field kh ⫽ coefficient of permeability in horizontal direction;
monitoring of embankment settlements, earth pressures on piles kv ⫽ coefficient of permeability in vertical direction;
and on soils, and pore-water pressures, the following conclusions L ⫽ pile length;
can be drawn: mv ⫽ coefficient of volume compressibility;
1. The soil arching in the embankment has been observed from n ⫽ load share ratio of pile;
the measurement of earth pressures on pile caps and on soil P p ⫽ pressure applied on the pile cap;
surface. It reduces the loads on soft soils between piles and Ps ⫽ pressure applied on the soil surface;
distributes the embankment loads in a more efficient way to q0 ⫽ surcharge on the embankment;
the top of the pile caps. According to the field measurement Sa ⫽ pile spacing;
of earth pressures, the arching height is 1.0–1.5 times the net Sd ⫽ substratum settlement;
pile cap spacing; Smax ⫽ maximum pile spacing;
2. The load share ratios are in the range of 61.4–89.6%. The S p ⫽ settlement on the foundation soil;
load share ratios from sections improved by tube piles are Ss ⫽ settlement on the top of the pile cap;
much smaller than those from sections improved by W ⫽ water content;
Y-shaped piles. The increase of net cap spacing tends to de- WT ⫽ distributed vertical load acting on the reinforcement;
crease the load share ratio; W2D ⫽ weight of the soil wedge in two dimensions;
3. The measured excess pore-water pressures were small and W3D ⫽ weight of the soil wedge in three dimensions;
dissipated fast during embankment filling. At the end of ␥ ⫽ unit weight of foundation soils;
monitoring 共200 days after the complete of filling兲, the pore- ␥1 ⫽ unit weight of embankment fill;
water pressures dissipated almost completely; ␥d ⫽ unit weight of embankment fill per meter in depth;
4. The substratum settlements count for 50–60% of the total ␸⬘ ⫽ effective friction angle;
settlements when the piles do not found on firm substratum. ␧ ⫽ strain; and
The maximum differential settlements are about 10 mm ␴ZO,k ⫽ average pressure applied on the reinforcement.

784 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785

 References
Alzamora, D. E., Wayne, M. H., and Han, J. 共2000兲. “Performance of
SRW supported by geogrids and jet grout columns.” Proc., Sessions of
ASCE Specialty Conf. of Performance Confirmation of Constructed
Geotechnical Facilities, A. J. Lutenegeer and D. J. DeGroot, eds.,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication, Reston, Va., Vol. 94, 456–
466.
American Association of State Highway Officials/Federal Highway Ad-
ministration 共2002兲. Innovative technology for accelerated construc-
tion bridge and embankment foundations, Preliminary Summary Rep.
Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Dept. of Trans-
portation, Washington, D.C.
British Standard. 共1995兲. “Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced
soils and other fills.” BS 8006, British Standard Institution, London,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Tufts University on 03/25/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
162.
Chen, R. P., Chen, Y. M., Han, J., and Xu, Z. Z. 共2008b兲. “A theoretical
solution for pile-supported embankments on soft soils under one-
dimensional compression.” Can. Geotech. J., 45, 611–623.
Chen, Y. M., Cao, W. P., and Chen, R. P. 共2008a兲. “An experimental
investigation of soil arching within basal reinforced and unreinforced
piled embankments.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26, 164–174.
Chew, S. H., Phoon, H. L., Loke, K. H., Lim, L. K., Le Hello, B., and
Villard, P. 共2004兲. “Geotextile reinforced piled embankment—Full-
scale model tests.” Proc., 3rd Asian Regional Conf. on Geosynthetics,
GeoAsia 2004: Now and Future of Geosynthetics in Civil Engineer-
ing, J. B. Shim, C. Yoo, and H.-Y. Jeon, eds., Seoul, Korea, 661–668.
Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Geotechnike EV. 共2004兲. Entwurf der empfe-
blung ‘bewehrte erdkorper auf punkf-order linienfomigen trag-
gliendern, Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JUNE 2010 / 785
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2010, 136(6): 777-785
Han, J., and Gabr, M. A. 共2002兲. “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-
reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil.” J. Geo-
tech. Geoenviron. Eng., 128, 44–53.
Hewlett, W. J., and Randolph, M. F. 共1988兲. “Analysis of piled embank-
ments.” Ground Eng., 21, 12–18.
Huang, J., Han, J., and Porbaha, A. 共2006兲. “Two and three-dimensional
modeling of deep mixed columns under embankments.” Proc., ASCE
GeoCongress, ASCE, Reston, Va., 1–5.
Jia, N., Chen, R. P., Chen, Y. M., Xu, L. X., and Yang, S. H. 共2003兲.
“Theoretical analysis and measurement of Hang-Yong highway wid-
ening project.” Chin. J. Geotech. Eng., 26, 755–760 共in Chinese兲.
Jones, C. J. F. P., Lawson, C. R., and Ayres, D. J. 共1990兲. “Geotextile
reinforced piled embankments.” Proc., 4th Int. Conf. on Geotextiles,
Geomembranes and Related Products, International Geosynthetics
Society, 155–160.
Liu, H. L., Ng, C. W. W., and Fei, K. 共2007兲. “Performance of geogrid-
reinforced and pile-supported highway embankment over soft clay:
Case study.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133, 1483–1493.
Low, B. K., Tang, S. K., and Choa, V. 共1994兲. “Arching in piled embank-
ments.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 120, 1917–1938.
NGG. 共2002兲. Nordic handbook—Reinforced soils and fills, Nordic Geo-
technical Society, Stockholm. Available from www.Nordicinnovation.
net/_img/nordisk_handbok_armerad_jord⫽engelsk.pdf.
Pham, H., Suleiman, M. T., and White, D. J. 共2004兲. “Numerical analysis
of geosynthetic-rammed-aggregate pier supported embankments.”
Proc., Geo-Trans 2004 Conf.: Geotechnical Engineering for Trans-
portation Projects, M. K. Yegian and E. Kavazanjian, eds., ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication, Reston, Va., Vol. 1, 657–664.
Terzaghi, K. 共1943兲. Theoretical soil mechanics, Wiley, New York.