Technical Note

Performance of Geogrid-Reinforced and PTC

Pile-Supported Embankment in a Highway
Widening Project over Soft Soils
Mengxuan Zhao 1; Chunyuan Liu 2; Tahar El-Korchi 3; Haichao Song 4;
and Mingjiang Tao, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE 5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A case study of a widened highway embankment is presented, in which prestressed tubular concrete (PTC) piles and geogrids
were used to reinforce the embankment and to reduce construction time. In situ measurements of earth pressures, settlements, and lateral
displacements were reported and analyzed to evaluate the effectiveness of the reinforcement technologies. The instrumentation data confirm
that a large portion of the embankment load is supported by the PTC piles, as quantified by a large stress concentration ratio of 6.6.
Consequently, the resulting total settlement at the embankment surface and lateral displacement during and after the embankment construc-
tion were significantly reduced by using geogrids and two groups of PTC piles at different elevations of the embankment. The measurement
data will be valuable for numerical simulations on pile-supported embankments and highway widening projects in the future. Lastly, a
design procedure was proposed for highway widening projects based on the literature studies, and its validity was verified by this case
study. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002157. © 2019 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Widened embankment; Soft soils; PTC piles; Geogrids; Load transfer mechanisms.

Introduction without prefabricated vertical drains (PVDs), lightweight fill,

With the rapid economic growth in China during the last few dec-
ades, the existing highway systems cannot meet the transportation
needs for national economic and social development. To address
the increasing demand on traffic capacity and safety, numerous
existing highways were widened, and many of these widening proj-
ects took place in the areas underlain by weak, soft deposits, such
as coastal areas of China that have experienced the fastest economic
development. The biggest challenge associated with highway
widening is how to decrease the differential settlement between
the widened embankment and the existing one where the settlement
has largely ceased. In addition, embankment construction over
soft soils raises several concerns such as: bearing capacity failures,
excessive total and differential settlements, large lateral pressures
and spreading, and slope instability (Han and Gabr 2002; Zheng
et al. 2011). Technologies and practices for constructing em-
bankments on soft compressible soils include preloading with or
1
Ph.D. Candidate, School of Civil Engineering, Hebei Univ. of
Technology, Tianjin 300130, PR China; Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Rd., Worcester,
MA 01609. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3360-3612
2
Ph.D. Professor, School of Civil Engineering, Hebei Univ. of Technol-
ogy, Tianjin 300130, PR China.
3 of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms.
Ph.D. Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Rd., Worcester, MA 01609.
4
School of Civil Engineering, Hebei Univ. of Technology, Tianjin
300130, PR China.
5
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, 100 Institute Rd., Worcester, MA 01609
(corresponding author). Email: taomj@wpi.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 25, 2018; approved on
June 13, 2019; published online on August 21, 2019. Discussion period
open until January 21, 2020; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Geotech-
nical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
staged construction, geosynthetic-reinforced embankment, vacuum
consolidation, and geosynthetic-reinforced and column-supported
embankment (Han et al. 2002; Collin 2004; Almeida et al. 2007;
Han et al. 2007; Liu et al. 2008; Jiang et al. 2018).
Piles and columns, in many cases working in conjunction with
geosynthetics, have been widely used to transfer embankment load
to a firm stratum in (1) new embankment and roadway construction
over soft, compressible soils; (2) roadway and embankment widen-
ing; and (3) stabilization of pavement working platforms (Low
et al. 1994; Han 1999; Han et al. 2007; Chen et al. 2010; Le Hello
and Villard 2009). Besides timber and concrete piles with caps,
columnar systems such as soil-cement mixing columns, vibro-
concrete columns, and stone columns are often used for this pur-
pose (Low et al. 1994; Giannaros and Tsiambaos 1997; Han and
Gabr 2002; Han et al. 2002; Mankbadi et al. 2004; Han 2015). The
combination of several processes—embankment soil arching, ten-
sioned membrane or stiffened platform effect of geosynthetics, and
stress concentration due to the stiffness difference between pile
and soil—is considered the mechanisms of load transfer involved
in geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankments. How-
ever, these load-transferring mechanisms are complex and far from
being understood.
Han and Gabr (2002) performed a parametric numerical study to
investigate the influence of design parameters on the performance
Their simulation results indicate that the inclusion of geosynthetics
in embankments reduced total and differential settlements and
enhanced the portion of the embankment load transferred from the
soil to the piles. Their numerical analyses also suggest that the
stress concentration ratio increases with the height of embankment
fill, tensile stiffness of geosynthetics, and elastic modulus of piles.
Liu et al. (2007) reported a case study of a geogrid-reinforced
and pile-supported highway embankment with a low area improve-
ment ratio of 8.7%. Both field measurements and numerical
simulations indicate that a significant amount of the embankment

© ASCE 06019014-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014

 load was transferred from soil to piles. In addition, the stability of
the embankment was enhanced by the use of geogrids and piles.
Chen et al. (2010) reported three case histories of pile-supported
embankments over soft soils in eastern China. PTC piles and
Y-shaped cast-in-place piles were used at these pavement sections.
Earth pressure, settlement, and pore water pressure were monitored
during and after the embankment construction to evaluate the effi-
ciency of the pile-supported embankment technology. Han et al.
(2007) carried out a numerical analysis of widened embankments
supported by foundation columns. Installing columns under the
widened portion and/or the connecting side slope of the existing
embankment reduced total settlement, differential settlement, and
lateral displacement. A similar reduction effect can be achieved
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with the enhanced properties of the soils under the existing em-
bankment due to consolidation. Han (2015) investigated the effec-
tiveness of the geogrids on reducing the differential settlements
between the existing and widened embankment over soft soil.
The differential settlement reduction of 20–30 mm was achieved
(a)
(c)
Fig. 1. Physical properties of soil layers at testing section K21 þ 700 of Jin-Bin expressway: (a)water content; (b) void ratio; and (c) unit weight.
© ASCE 06019014-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014
by the geogrid reinforcement. Based on the models by Han (2015),
the geosynthetic reinforcement is proven effective on the embank-
ment stabilization, differential settlement reduction on the embank-
ment surface, and serviceability enhancement of the widened
embankment through soil arching.
Despite the fact that pile-supported embankment technology
has been used for many years in numerous projects and is often
reported in the literature, the lack of a widely accepted design
procedure remains one of the biggest barriers limiting its wide use.
In addition, the mechanisms of load transfer depend on multiple
factors, such as embankment height, elastic modulus of piles or
columns, tensile stiffness of geosynthetics, etc. The influences of
the aforementioned factors are complicated and often intertwined.
The situation is even worse for the case of pile-supported embank-
ments in highway widening projects because very few case studies
on their design and performance have ever been reported or
systematically investigated. For highway widening projects, the
embankment height, as one of the most important factors in
(b)
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of soil layers, PTC piles and geogrids
Thickness Unit weight, Cohesion, Effective frictional Elastic modulus, Poisson’s Permeability coefficient,
Material (m) ϒ (kN=m3 ) c (kPa) angle, φ (degrees) E (MPa) ratio, ν k (1 × 10−7 m=s)
Embankment fill 2.0 19.0 16.7 22.0 6.0 0.30 —
Clay 1.1 19.0 12.5 14.6 5.2 0.32 1.0
Silt 0.9 19.3 14.0 26.1 4.5 0.30 5.0
Silty sand 2.0 18.6 13.0 23.7 8.1 0.33 8.2
Silty clay 5.4 19.0 15.1 24.5 5.5 0.30 1.1
Clay 1.8 18.8 13.8 20.5 6.1 0.29 0.9
Silty clay 2.2 19.5 16.7 25.6 5.8 0.32 1.2
Crushed stone 0.4 22.0 1.0 30.0 200.0 0.20 —
PTC piles 0.4ðDÞ × 16ðHÞ — — — 60,000.0 0.17 —
PTC pile caps 1 × 1 × 0.3 — — — 30,000.0 0.17 —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geogrids — — — — 16,300.0 0.20 —

geogrid-reinforced and pile-supported embankments, is often lim-
ited by the grading of the existing highway surface. Therefore, the
design recommendations and analysis methods (e.g., the adapted
Terzaghi method and the parabolic method) proposed for the
reinforcement technologies for new embankment construction
are not readily applicable to the case of widened embankments
(Terzaghi 1943; Russell and Pierpoint 1997; Rogbeck et al. 1998;
Russell et al. 2003; Filz and Smith 2006).
A technical note on the use of PTC piles in highway embank-
ment widening is presented, which is based on field instrumenta-
tion on section K21 þ 700 of the Jin-Bin expressway located in
Tianjin, China. The challenges of this embankment widening
project included (1) a tight construction schedule of finishing ap-
proximately 5 km road in 320 days and narrow construction site;
(2) the whole highway embankment is located on the soft soil; and
(3) the existing highway had to remain open throughout the widen-
ing process. Using PTC piles in combination with geogrids could
be a good option to address these engineering challenges because
of its fast construction speed, reduced settlement, and a clean
construction site. The measurements obtained from in situ instru-
mentation during and after the construction, including settlement
at the elevation of pile cap, induced soil pressures, and lateral
displacement, were analyzed to examine the efficacy of PTC-
supported embankment technology in highway embankment widen-
ing applications.
Project Background
Jin-Bin highway, located in Tianjin, P.R. China, is 27.8 km long
with multiple testing sections. This project was to widen the
existing highway from two-way four lanes to two-way six or eight
lanes. In this technical note, the widened embankment testing sec-
tion on K21 þ 700 is presented and investigated for the efficacy of
using geosynthetics and PTC piles for foundation reinforcement.
Site Conditions
The project site is located on soft soil, which consisted of marine
and continental deposits. The soil profile at section K21 þ 700,
consisting of seven main soil layers, is summarized as follows
in a top-to-bottom sequence: the first one is 2-m-thick backfill that
is largely clayey soil with medium compressibility. The second
layer is 1.1-m-thick clay with high porosity, below which it is
0.9-m-thick silt, and both of these layers have a high compressibil-
ity and low bearing capacity. The fourth layer is 2.0-m-thick silty
sand with high compressibility, which is underlain by 5.4-m-thick
silty clay containing lacustrine sediment. The next two layers
are 1.8-m-thick clay and 2.2-m-thick close-grained silty clay,
respectively, with medium to low compressibility, which can be
the bearing layer for piles. Fig. 1 shows basic properties of the soil
strata on section K21 þ 700, including their water content, Atter-
berg limits, plasticity index, initial void ratio, and unit weight.
Water contents of most of the soil layers at the site are close to
their respective liquid limits, which indicates that these layers
are weak in terms of shear strength. The physical and mechanical
properties of all the soil layers are summarized in Table 1. The
ground water table (GWT) at the site is at a depth of 1.33 m below
the original ground surface.
Construction of Geogrid-Reinforced and PTC
Pile-Supported Embankment
The cross section of half of the whole widened embankment on
section K21 þ 700 is shown in Fig. 2. The existing embankment
is 13 m away from the central line, and a 5-m-wide new embank-
ment was added to both sides. The slope of both existing and new
embankments is 1ðVÞ∶ 1.5ðHÞ (V = vertical, H = horizontal). Two
PTC pile groups (mechanical properties are shown in Table 1), des-
ignated as lower and upper levels, were installed at the elevations of
0 and 2.4 m, respectively. The piles are 16 m long, with 0.4 m outer
diameter and 60.0-mm-thick wall. The piles are arranged in a rec-
tangular pattern, with a center-to-center spacing of 2.5 and 2.0 m
for the lower and upper level pile groups transversally, respectively,
and a center-to-center spacing of 4.5 m for all the piles longitudi-
nally. The PTC piles were driven into the ground and fitted with
pile caps to help transfer the embankment load to the piles, and
the dimensions of the caps are 1 × 1 × 0.3 m3 . The detailed con-
struction sequence of the widened embankment and the corre-
sponding construction time are summarized in Table 2. Three
construction phases were involved in about 56 days. In Phase 1,
part of the original embankment was excavated along a slope of
1ðVÞ∶1.5ðHÞ. The lower-level PTC pile group was installed after
the ground was regraded. A 0.4-m-thick crushed stone layer was
placed on the top of the pile caps, in which two steel-plastic
composite geogrid layers were embedded. As a bridging layer,
the geogrid-reinforced crushed stone layer helps transfer embank-
ment load to the piles (McGuire 2011). Then, the upper level PTC
pile group was installed, and the embankment was filled and com-
pacted up to 2.4 m vertically. Consequentially, the embankment fill
was placed to reach the surface of the existing embankment. Three
layers of steel-plastic geogrids with mechanical properties shown in
Table 1 were placed on the height of 2.4, 3, and 3.6 m during the
soil backfilling process, respectively. Finally, 0.5-m embankment
fill was placed on the top, covering both the existing and widened
embankment.

© ASCE 06019014-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Cross section of the widened embankment at testing section K21 þ 700.
Table 2. Construction sequence of the widened embankment (56 days in
total)
Phase Description
1 (3 days) The existing embankment slope was excavated, the
ground was regraded, the lower level PTC pile group
was installed, and the geogrid-reinforced crushed stone
layer was constructed.
2 (12 days) The upper level PTC pile group was installed and the
soil was backfilled up to the height of 2.4 m.
3 (41 days) The soil was backfilled to the surface of existing
embankment, steel-plastic composite geogrid layers
were placed at predetermined elevations, and the soil on
the surface of both existing and widened embankment
was backfilled.
In Situ Instrumentation
In situ instrumentation was carried out to verify whether the
geogrids and the PTC piles are effective in terms of reducing set-
tlement in the soil beneath the widened embankment. The cross-
sectional view and the plan view of the in situ instrumentation
layout are shown in Figs. 3(a and b), respectively. Two groups
of soil pressure gauges were installed in the embankment. The
first group (Gauges 1–6) was placed within the soil right on the
top of the leftmost lower-level PTC pile cap to monitor the mount
of the embankment load carried by the pile, and the second group
(Gauges 7–10) was buried in the soil between the piles at the
same elevation to monitor the embankment load transferred onto
the soils. A settlement measuring tube was buried horizontally
within the crushed stone layer (i.e., right above the original
ground surface), along which 19 reading gauges were placed
at a 0.5-m intervals [Fig. 3(a)]. An inclinometer was installed into
a depth of 22.5 m from the original ground surface at the right toe
of the widened embankment slope to monitor the lateral displace-
ment during and after embankment construction. The construc-
tion site and some of the sensor installations are illustrated with
pictures in Fig. 4.
© ASCE
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014
Field Measurements Results
Measured Earth Pressures on Pile Cap and the Soil
between Piles
Because of time and budget constraints, earth pressure was only
measured on one pile (i.e., the leftmost lower-level pile). The left-
most lower-level pile was chosen because this pile is located at the
edge between existing and widened embankment with highest
embankment load compared to other piles, which can better reflect
the pressure changes. Fig. 5 presents the average values and the
standard deviations of measured earth pressures acting on the soil
between the piles and those on the top of the cap of the leftmost
lower-level PTC pile. The corresponding embankment load is also
included for reference. When the embankment height reached
4.8 m (i.e., the total depth between the widened embankment edge
to the top of the lower PTC piles in Fig. 2), the resulting embank-
ment load was 91.2 kPa and the average measured earth pressure
acting on the soil adjacent to the pile was 42.2 kPa, which is only
about 46.3% of the embankment load. The average measured
earth pressure acting on the top of the lower-level PTC piles
was 279.7 kPa. It is evident that the large portion of the embank-
ment load was transferred to the piles because of the soil arching
effect, which was also reported in many previous studies (Liu et al.
2007; Chen et al. 2010; Zheng et al. 2011). The standard deviations
of the measured earth pressure on the top of the PTC pile cap and
on the soil between piles are relatively large. This is because the
pressure measured from Gauges 4 and 5 are nearly two times larger
than that from Gauges 1, 2, 3, and 6, and pressures measured form
Gauges 8 and 10 are nearly three times larger than that from Gauges
7 and 9, which can be attributed to the non-uniform distribution of
the resulting pressures at the center and edge of the cap, the differ-
ent embankment loadings, the detailed positions of gauges, and the
flatness of the surface of the gauges. Measured earth pressures from
Gauges 1 to 6 on the cap of the leftmost lower-level PTC pile are
plotted separately in Fig. 6. The difference between the measured
pressures was likely caused by the different composite stiffnesses
of the measured areas located on the pile cap, which relates to the
06019014-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. Arrangement of in situ instrumentation at testing section K21 þ 700: (a) side view; and (b) plan view of earth pressure gauges.

different proximities to the soil. Gauge 4, which had the highest
measured pressure, was located at the most rigid part of the pile
cap and furthest from the soil, followed by Gauge 5. Gauges 1–3
and 6 were supposed to have similar values, and the difference be-
tween those pressure readings might be caused by the soil differ-
ence adjacent to those gauges. The spatial pressure distribution over
pile caps, which is not often reported in the literature, could be a
valuable factor for other researchers to consider in both in situ in-
strumentation and numerical simulations in the future.
A stress concentration ratio, which is defined as the ratio be-
tween the average vertical stress measured on the top of the
PTC pile cap and that on the soil adjacent to the pile, is calculated
to quantify the load transfer mechanism (Han and Gabr 2002).
Fig. 7 shows the stress concentration ratio during the embankment
construction, which increased with the increase of embankment
height (i.e., load) as the construction proceeded and reached a
maximum value of 6.6 at the end of embankment construction. The
stress concentration ratio falls within the typical value range of 1 to
8 reported in the literature and is found to be affected by multiple
factors, such as materials of the piles, soil properties, spacing of the
piles, and embankment height (Goughnour and Barksdale 1984;
Greenwood 1991; Han and Gabr 2002; Liu et al. 2007; Chen
et al. 2010, 2008).
Measured Settlements
Fig. 8 presents the measured settlement-time history at the base of
the widened embankment during the embankment construction. In
the 19 reading gauges inside the settlement tube, some of them have
very close settlement readings, therefore only five representative
curves are selected and presented in Fig. 8, in which 0.5, 2.5,
4.5, 6.5, and 8.5 m represent the distance between the correspond-
ing reading gauge and the right toe of the widened embankment.
From Fig. 8, it can also be observed that the settlement was still
developing at an appreciable rate at the end of the instrumentation.
Unfortunately, there were not enough data points measured to de-
rive the coefficient of consolidation in order to predict the total set-
tlement under the embankment loading. Therefore, no conclusive
statement can be made about the effectiveness of reduced settle-
ment in this case study. The settlements are further separated from
the ones on the top of each lower-level pile and those in the soil
between piles, which are presented in Fig. 9 with the corresponding
embankment heights. The measured settlements indicate that the

© ASCE 06019014-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014

 Soil pressure gauges

Cleaned construction site

(a) (b)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Pile Caps

Settlement tube installation

(c) (d)

Fig. 4. Construction site of the widened embankment and sensor installation at testing section K21 þ 700: (a) cleaned construction site; (b) soil
pressure gauges installation; (c) settlement tube installation; and (d) pile caps installation.

arching effect is more mobilized at larger corresponding embank-
ment heights, evidenced from the increasing difference in the
settlements between the pile and adjacent soil as the embankment
height decreases (e.g., δ pile@3.65 and δsoil@4.00 versus δpile@1.85
and δ soil@2.25 ). The settlement profile along the distance from
the right toe of the widened embankment is also detailed in Fig. 10
at different construction times. As expected, the measured settle-
ments increased with the increase of embankment load. A smaller
settlement resulted at locations closer to the right toe of the wid-
ened embankment because the corresponding embankment load is
smaller. The largest measured settlement was 34.6 mm and oc-
curred at a location 6.5 m away from the right toe of the widened
450
Earth pressure on the
top of the pile cap
400
Earth pressure in the
soil between piles
350
embankment. Because the monitoring only lasted for 56 days, the
measured settlements had not reached a steady state yet except
for the one measured at the location closest to the right toe of the
embankment (i.e., 0.5 m).
Lateral Displacement
The lateral displacement was also monitored during and after the
embankment construction with an inclinometer. Readings were
taken three times per month during the construction and twice
per month thereafter. The data are presented in Fig. 11, indicating
that (1) the biggest lateral displacement was 8.4 mm and occurred
near the base of the widened embankment at the end of the embank-
100
ment construction; (2) the lateral deformations increased with the
90
450.0 100
80
90
Embankment Load (kPa)

Embankment 400.0
Earth Pressure (kPa)

70
Embankment Pressure (kPa)
Pressure(kPa) 80
300 350.0
Earth Pressure (kPa)

60 70
250 300.0
50 60
250.0
200 50
40 200.0
150 40
30 150.0
30
100
20 100.0 1 2 20
3 4
50 10 50.0 5 6 10
Embankment Pressure
0 0 0.0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 5. Measured earth pressures on the cap of the leftmost lower-level Fig. 6. Measured earth pressures from Gauges 1 to 6 on the cap of the
PTC pile and on the adjacent soil during embankment construction. leftmost lower-level PTC pile.

© ASCE 06019014-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014

 8 100
increase in the embankment height or load; (3) the rate of the lateral
90 displacement change near the base of widened embankment de-
7
80 creased with time, with the largest rate occurring between 1 to

Embankment Pressure (kPa)

Stress Concentration Ratio

6 11 days; (4) the lateral displacement remained nearly constant after

70
the embankment construction; and (5) the lateral displacement was
5
60 confined to the top 15 m soil layers below the base of the widened
4 50 embankment. This trend in the lateral displacement demonstrates
the stability of the widened embankment supported by the PTC
40
3 piles in combination with geogrids.
30
Stress concentration ratio
2
20
Embankment Pressure
1
10
A General Design Procedure for Geogrid-
Reinforced, PTC Pile-Supported Widened
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Embankment on Soft Soil
Time (days)
As mentioned in the previous sections, the loading transfer mech-
Fig. 7. Derived stress concentration ratio of the leftmost lower-level anisms are complicated, and multiple factors are involved with
PTC pile during embankment construction. the arching effect, such as the conditions of soil underneath the
embankment, characteristics of piles, unit weight and height of
embankment fill, properties of geogrids, and so on. Therefore,
developing a design procedure is desirable to facilitate the imple-
mentation of geogrid-reinforced piled embankments in highway
40 100
widening projects. Based on the relevant literature studies (Chen
0.5m et al. 2005, 2010; Jiang et al. 2018) and this case study, the follow-
35 2.5m 90 ing step-by-step procedure is summarized for PTC pile-supported,
4.5m geogrid-reinforced embankment over soft soil, which aims to maxi-
6.5m 80
30 8.5m mize the soil arching effect [i.e., maximizing the stress ratio n in
Embankment Load (kPa)

Embankment Load 70 Eq. (3)]. The whole design is an optimization process by trial and
Settlement (mm)

25
60 error, and all the parameters described in the following steps are
schematically shown in Fig. 12.
20 50

40
15 1. Widening Embankment Design
30
10
• Determine the slope of the widened embankment, which is
20 usually determined by the shear strength and the frictional angle
5 of the embankment fill. Please refer to Table 3 for some typical
10
values based on a specific case.
0 0 • Determine the critical embankment height Hcrit . Based on the
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 literature (Hewlett and Randolph 1988), there is no soil arching
Time (days) effect if the fill embankment height is less than pile cap spacing.
For highway widening projects, the height of a widened em-
Fig. 8. Measured settlement time histories at the elevation of the cap of
bankment is often limited by the grading of existing roadways.
the lower-level PTC piles during embankment construction. The values
Therefore, the relationship between the critical embankment
0.5, 2.5, 4.5, 6.5, and 8.5 m are the distances between the correspond-
height and characteristics of piles, developed by McGuire
ing reading gauge and the right toe of new embankment.
(2011) and given in Eq. (1), is used to design the supporting

40

35 0…
Pile
0…
Soil
30
Settlements (mm)

25

20

15

10

0
4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.80 4.60 4.33 4.00 3.65 3.20 2.70 2.25 1.85 1.60 1.40 1.20 0.60 0.10 0.00
Corresponding Embankment Height (m)

Fig. 9. Settlements on top of the pile and in the soil between piles (lower-level) with the corresponding embankment height.

© ASCE 06019014-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014

 Distance from the right end of settlement monitoring tube (m)
10 8 6 4 2 0
0

10

Settlement (mm)
15

20

25
3 days 5 dyas
30
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 days 11 days
18 days 22 days 35
34 days 56 days
40

Fig. 10. Measured settlement profile along the base of the widened
embankment during embankment construction.

Lateral Displacement (mm)

0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
0

5
Fig. 12. Pile parameters shown in (a) cross section of piles; (b) plan
view of triangle unit cell; and (c) plan view of square unit cell,
10 and described in the design procedure of PTC pile-supported and
Depth (m)

geogrid-reinforced embankment widening projects.

1 day
11 days
15
21 days Table 3. Embankment design parameter summarized from literature for
34 days reference
20
51 days Parameter Value

82 days Slope of embankment V∶H ¼ 1∶1.5

Pile diameter (m) 0.3 or 0.4
25
Pile length (m) 5–32
Fig. 11. Measured lateral displacement of the widened embankment Pile cap dimensions (m) 0.9 × 0.9 × 0.3 or 1 × 1 × 0.35
Pile spacing (m) 1.8–2.5
during and after embankment construction. Note that construction
Spacing between geogrids 0.2–0.5
was finished in 56 days.
and pile caps (m)
Pile arrangement Square, rectangular, or equilateral triangle

piles for widened embankments to ensure the soil arching effect

(i.e., the embankment height required to match the existing values of these parameters reported in the literature are summar-
grade of roadway will also be the critical height by adjusting ized in Table 3.
design parameters of supporting piles) • Determine the pile spacing (s).

0 If pthe
Hcrit s ffiffi piles are arranged in an equilateral triangular pattern,
¼ 1.15 þ 1.44 ð1Þ s0 ¼ 2s−dc
dc dc 2 . pffiffi
2s−dc
Substituting s 0 ¼ 2 into Eq. (1), the Eq. (1) can be
where dc = diameter of a pile cap, and dc ¼ 1.13a for a square
rewritten as follows:
pile cap, whereas a = width of a pile cap; s 0 = maximum
distance from the edge of a pile cap to the boundary of a unit
s ¼ 1.23Hcrit − 1.06dc ð2aÞ
cell, and s = pile spacing (see Fig. 12 for the layout of piles and
the relevant parameters). pffiffi
If the piles are arranged in a square pattern, s 0 ¼ 3s − d c .
pffiffi 3 2

2. PTC Supporting Pile Design Substituting s 0 ¼ 33s − d2c into Eq. (1), Eq. (1) can be rewrit-
ten as follows:
• Determine the PTC pile characteristics, including its diameter
(d) and cap dimensions (a or dc ). PTC pile is prefabricated
and thus choices of d and a or dc are limited. Some typical s ¼ 1.51Hcrit − 1.30dc ð2bÞ

© ASCE 06019014-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014

 • Determine the pile length (L). Based on the case studies re-
ported by Zhang et al. (2016), the pile efficiency Ep is increased
by increasing the pile length. For a given spacing s, the larger L,
the higher pile efficiency, with some typical value range listed
in Table 3. But this also depends on the stiffness difference
between pile and adjacent soil.
• Using the parameters determined previously, two efficacy para-
meters can be optimized:
1. Pile efficiency Ep, which is defined as the proportion of
total embankment load carried by piles and is the indicator
to load transferring efficiency of piles. The calculation
of Ep depends on the pile arrangement types:
If the pile arrangement is equilateral triangular:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Based on the model reported by Zhang et al. (2016), the
pile efficiency can be expressed as follows:
σc Ac
Ep ¼ ð3aÞ
σ c Ac þ σ s As
where σc and σs = the average stress on the pile cap and on
the soil, respectively; Ac = the area of pile cap; and As =
pffiffi 2 2 not been designed in an optimal way as recommended by the de-
the area of the soil between piles, As ¼ 4 − πd8 c .
3s
If the pile arrangement is square:
Based on the model reported by Hewlett and Randolph
(1988), the pile efficiency can be calculated as follows:
D
Ep ¼ ð3bÞ
1þD
where D ¼ K2K P 1
P þ1 1þδ
½ð1 − δÞ−KP − ð1 þ δK P Þ, δ ¼ a=s,
K p ¼ tan2 ð45° þ φ2 Þ, and φ is the frictional angle of soil.
2. The stress ratio, n, can be calculated as follows:
P × Ac
n¼ ð4Þ
γ × H × s2
where P = earth pressure on the pile cap. The larger n, the
better soil arching effect.
Repeat the preceding steps until the pile efficiency Ep and
stress ratio n are maximized. In order to achieve maximum pile
efficiency, the pile spacing should be chosen carefully when the
embankment height is fixed, such as the case of highway
widening projects. The stress ratio n can only be predicted when
the pressure on the cap can be predicted or measured. Only Ep
will be used in the design if n is not available.
3. Geosynthetics Design
• Determine the characteristics of geosynthetics, typically a geo-
grid, including the tensile force, tensile strain, and maximum
sag. The selected geogrids need to meet the strength require-
ments and have a maximum elongation of 5% over the design
life. Usually a tensile strength of 40–80 kN=m (Han 2015; Liu
et al. 2007) is chosen in previous studies. However, the choice of
tensile strength of geogrids is also related to the choice of pile
spacing and also the pile diameters. As reported by Ariyarathne
and Liyanapathirana (2015), the high-stiffness geogrids are
needed when the small pile diameter and/or large pile spacing
are chosen in the projects.
Case Study Verification
The preceding design procedure was applied to this case study
to verify its validity, with the leftmost lower-level PTC pile
as an example (a ¼ 1 m, s ¼ 2.5 m, H ¼ 3.6 m, ϒ ¼ 19 kNm3
,P¼
280 kPa, φ ¼ 30°)
© ASCE 06019014-9
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014
1. The pile spacing from actual project, sact ¼ 2.5 and 4.5 m along
transverse and longitudinal directions [Fig. 3(b)] were used in
the current case study. The pile spacing from calculation, scal ¼
4.0 m is calculated from [Eq. (2b)] by taking the corresponding
embankment height as the critical height, which indicates that
the choice of sact ¼ 2.5 m was conservative, whereas the pile
spacing sact ¼ 4.5 m for the other direction can be reduced
to further improve the arching effect.
2. The predicted pile efficiency from calculation, Ep;cal value is
0.72 based on Eq. (3b), whereas the Ep calculated from the
measured data is the pile efficiency from actual project,
Ep;act ¼ 0.87. The predicted pile efficiency agrees reasonably
well with the measured data, which confirms the validity of
the design procedure.
3. The stress ratio from actual project, nact of 0.65 is calculated by
using Eq. (4), in which P was the measured earth pressure. The
stress ratio n can only be predicted when the pressure on the pile
cap (a sum of pressures on the embankment above the cap and
transferred by the arching effect) can be predicted or measured.
It can be seen that the pile spacing in the current case study had
sign procedure. This might explain its moderate arching effect with
the stress ratio of 0.65, which can be further increased if the design
had been further optimized.
Conclusions
A case study of a widened embankment is reported herein, in which
geogrids and PTC piles were used to reinforce and provide struc-
tural support to the embankment. Based on the field instrumenta-
tion, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. A major portion of the embankment load was transferred from
the soil to PTC piles, which is confirmed by a large stress con-
centration ratio of 6.6. The load transferring is likely the result
of the combined effects of several mechanisms, such as soil
arching, tensioned membrane or stiffened platform effect of
geosynthetics, and stress concentration due to the stiffness
difference between the piles and the soils.
2. The maximum value of the measured total settlement at the ele-
vation of the lower-level PTC piles’ cap was 34.6 mm, which
occurred at the location 6.5 m from the right toe of the widened
embankment.
3. The measured lateral displacements at the right toe of the em-
bankment were very small during and after the embankment
construction, with a maximum value of 8.4 mm, which illus-
trates the effectiveness of PTC piles in reducing the lateral
displacements and thus enhancing the slope stability of the
embankment.
4. A general design procedure for a pile-supported, geogrid-
reinforced embankment over soft soil was summarized for high-
way widening projects. The three indicators to reinforcement
efficiency (i.e., pile spacing s, pile efficiency Ep, and stress ratio
n) agree reasonably well with those derived from the measured
data in the current case study, which confirmed the validity of
the design procedure. However, more field measurement data
and numerical simulations are needed to further confirm and
develop a more specific design procedure for highway widening
projects.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by Hebei University of Technology
China.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 References
Almeida, M., M. Ehrlich, A. Spotti, and M. Marques. 2007. “Embankment
supported on piles with biaxial geogrids.” Proc. ICE-Geotech. Eng.
160 (4): 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1680/geng.2007.160.4.185.
Ariyarathne, P., and D. S. Liyanapathirana. 2015. “Review of existing
design methods for geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embank-
ments.” Soils Found. 55 (1): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf
.2014.12.002.
Chen, R., Z. Xu, Y. Chen, D. Ling, and B. Zhu. 2010. “Field tests on
pile-supported embankments over soft ground.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng. 136 (6): 777–785. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT
.1943-5606.0000295.
Chen, R.-P., N. Jia, and Y.-M. Chen. 2005. “Mechanism and settlement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nottingham Trent University on 08/21/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
analysis of pile-supported and geogrid-reinforced embankments.”
Yanshilixue Yu Gongcheng Xuebao/Chinese J. Rock Mech. Eng.
24 (23): 4358–4367.
Chen, Y.-M., W.-P. Cao, and R.-P. Chen. 2008. “An experimental investi-
gation of soil arching within basal reinforced and unreinforced piled
embankments.” Geotext. Geomembr. 26 (2): 164–174. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.05.004.
Collin, J. 2004. “Column supported embankment design considerations.”
In Proc., 52nd Annual Geotechnical Engineering Conf., 51–78.
Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota.
Filz, G. M., and M. E. Smith. 2006. Design of bridging layers in
geosynthetic-reinforced, column-supported embankments. Charlottes-
ville, VA: Virginia Transportation Research Council.
Giannaros, C., and G. Tsiambaos. 1997. “Stabilization of embankment
foundations by using stone columns.” Geotech. Geol. Eng. 15 (3):
247–258. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00880828.
Goughnour, R., and R. Barksdale. 1984. Performance of a stone column
supported embankment. Rolla, MO: Univ. of Missouri.
Greenwood, D. A. 1991. “Load tests on stone columns.” In Deep founda-
tion improvements: Design, construction, and testing, edited by
M. Esrig and R. Bachus, 148–171. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Han, J. 1999. Design and construction of embankments on geosynthetic
reinforced platforms supported by piles. In Proc., 1999 ASCE/PaDOT
Geotechnical Seminar, 66–84. Hershey, PA: Central Pennsylvania
Section.
Han, J. 2015. “Recent research and development of ground column tech-
nologies.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Ground Improv. 168 (Nov): 246–264.
https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.13.00016.
Han, J., and M. Gabr. 2002. “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced
and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil.” J. Geotech. Geoen-
viron. Eng. 128 (1): 44–53. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241
(2002)128:1(44).
Han, J., S. Oztoprak, and J. ParsonsHuang. 2007. “Numerical analysis of
foundation columns to support widening of embankments.” Comput.
Geotech. 34 (6): 435–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2007
.01.006.
© ASCE 06019014-10
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2019, 145(11): 06019014
Han, J., H.-T. Zhou, and F. Ye. 2002. “State-of-practice review of deep soil
mixing techniques in China.” J. Transp. Res. Board 1808 (1): 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.3141/1808-06.
Hewlett, W., and M. Randolph. 1988. “Analysis of piled embankments.”
Int. J. Rock Mech. Mining Sci. Geomech. Abstr. 25: 297–298.
Jiang, X., Y. Jiang, C.-Y. Wu, W.-Q. Wang, J.-Y. Geng, and Y.-J. Qiu. 2018.
“Numerical analysis for widening embankments over soft soils treated
by PVD and DJM columns.” Int. J. Pavement Eng. 29 (2): 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2010.532700.
Le Hello, B., and P. Villard. 2009. “Embankments reinforced by piles
and geosynthetics—Numerical and experimental studies dealing with
the transfer of load on the soil embankment.” Eng. Geol. 106 (1–2):
78–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2009.03.001.
Liu, G., L. Kong, X. Li, F. Ding, and J. Gu. 2008. “Analysis of treatment
scheme for soft foundation in expressway widening project and its veri-
fication.” Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 27 (2): 309–315.
Liu, H., C. W. Ng, and K. Fei. 2007. “Performance of a geogrid-reinforced
and pile-supported highway embankment over soft clay: Case study.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (12): 1483–1493. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12(1483).
Low, B., S. Tang, and V. Choa. 1994. “Arching in piled embankments.”
J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (11): 1917–1938. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:11(1917).
Mankbadi, R., J. Mansfield, R. Wilson-Fahmy, S. Hanna, and V. Krstic.
2004. “Ground improvement utilizing vibro-concrete columns.” In
Proc., Geo Support 2004: Drilled Shafts, Micropiling, Deep Mixing,
Remedial Methods, and Specialty Foundation Systems, 473–484.
Reston, VA: ASCE.
McGuire, M. P. 2011. Critical height and surface deformation of
column-supported embankments. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ.
Rogbeck, Y., S. Gustavsson, I. Sodergren, and D. Lindquist. 1998.
“Reinforced piled embankments in Sweden—Design aspects.” In
Vol. 2 of Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Geosynthetics, 755–762. Roseville,
MN: Industrial Fabrics Association International.
Russell, D., P. Naughton, and G. Kempton. 2003. “A new design procedure
for piled embankments.” In Proc., 56th Canadian Geotechnical Conf.
and 2003 NAGS Conf. 858–865. Richmond, BC, Canada: Canadian
Geotechnical Society.
Russell, D., and N. Pierpoint. 1997. “An assessment of design methods for
piled embankments.” Ground Eng. 30 (10), 39–44.
Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Zhang, C., G. Jiang, X. Liu, and O. Buzzi. 2016. “Arching in geogrid-
reinforced pile-supported embankments over silty clay of medium
compressibility: Field data and analytical solution.” Comput. Geotech.
77 (Jul): 11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.03.007.
Zheng, G., Y. Jiang, J. Han, and Y.-F. Liu. 2011. “Performance of cement-
fly ash-gravel pile-supported high-speed railway embankments over
soft marine clay.” Marine Georesour. Geotechnol. 29 (2): 145–161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2010.532700.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.