International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Bridge Approach Embankments on Rigid Inclusions

M. Rizal
Rekakarya Geoteknik, Jakarta, INDONESIA,
rizal@rekakarya.com

K. Yee
Regional Synergy Consulting, Kuala Lumpur, MALAYSIA
kenny.yeeks@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
Rapid development in Indonesia calls for a new highway to be constructed in Central Java. Along the highway alignment,
bridges are to be constructed over rivers and existing local roads. Based on the soil conditions, performance requirements,
construction schedule and project budget, ground reinforcement using Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC) was adopted to
support the bridge approach embankments to minimise post construction settlements; and to improve bearing capacity and
slope stability. The CMC system consists of vertical cylindrical grout columns installed in a predetermined grid spacing using
displacement auger. Typically, the CMC column was terminate at stiff layer, which found at depth 15m to 24m. Due to the
huge loading and thick compressible cohesive soil, selection of CMC column spacing and length is importance to ensure CMC
capacity within design. To confirm design termination depth of CMC column a set of drilling instrument were fitted into the
drilling rig. In this paper, 2D numerical modelling were verified by the 3D model and the results are presented. Also presented
in this paper is a brief description of the installation method used in soft ground condition together with a description of the
quality control procedure and acceptance testing. After completion of the CMC works, approach embankments up to 11m were
constructed.
Keywords: ground reinforcement, rigid inclusions, embankment, numerical modeling.

1 GENERAL INFORMATION abutments have already been constructed before

1.1 Project Background
In the north-central Java, a new highway of 39 km is
being constructed linking Pemalang and Batang. This
new highway forms part of the Trans Jawa Highway.
The project site is a paddy field of flat terrain. Figure
1 shows the project location and the ground
improvement areas.
It is necessary to ensure smooth transition between
flexible pavement and rigid bridge structure. With a
thick compressible soft cohesive soil deposit,
excessive post construction settlement is a major
concern. Also there is potential instability during
embankment filling works if the bearing capacity is
exceeded. The excessive differential settlement at the
transition area between flexible pavement and rigid
concrete bridge abutment will cause abrupt bump
which will cause discomfort to road users and
endanger lifes. Long term maintenance works is
required which disrupt the smooth operation of the
highway and it is a costly affair.
Structural solution using RC piles and concrete slab is
expensive. Geotechnical solution using ground
improvement is a viable solution. Since the bridge
commencement of any ground improvement work, the
choice of ground improvement technique is limited to
techniques that are environmental friendly i.e.
techniques having minimum vibration and minimum
lateral soil movement during construction works to
avoid potential damage to the completed bridge
abutments and the foundations. The solution of
Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC) was selected.
CMC columns were installed at nine different
locations adjacent to the bridge abutments (Figure 1).
Figure 2 shows the location of CMC. A typical CMC
treatment area is 60m by 30m. The base width of the
embankment is about 60m and the treatment covers a
distance of 30m from the bridge abutment. The
embankment height varies from 6m to 11m.
1.2 Ground Conditions
For each treatment area, pre-treatment site
investigation was carried out to ascertain the ground
conditions. Two numbers of deep boreholes with
standard penetration tests (SPT) and one number of
in-situ cone penetration test (CPT) were carried out.
Figure 3 shows the typical SPT N-values and cone
resistance (qc) values.

1
International Conference on Geotechnics

Generally, the ground condition can be described as Below, a layer of hard clay (average NSPT = 20) to
an upper layer of 6m thick soft alluvium (NSPT  5) of depth of 28m. Following layer is back to firm silt
grey colour low plasticity marine origin overlying layer again (average Nspt = 7) to maximum drilling
firm clay layer (average NSPT = 7) to depth of 18m. depth borehole of 40m.

Pekalongan City

To Pemalang

Project location

To Batang

Figure 1 Project location and ground improvement areas where CMC columns are installed

CMC diameter 0.42m, length 15m

to 24m, Spacing 1.9m to 2.2m
Pile length up to 50m

Figure 2 Typical cross-section of CMC treatment area.

2
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

sufficiently long consolidation time and time for stage

Nspt qc (MPa)
loading of the embankment and surcharge fill
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 4 8 12 16 20 24
0
construction. With time constraint, this solution is not
5 feasible even with close spacing of vertical drains and
4
12
with the addition of reinforcement geotextile at the
5 4 base of the embankment. The rapid loading placed on
8 the soft soils below will cause excessive lateral
9
10 6 movement of the underlying soft soil deposit during
7 at 0m to 18m placement of embankment and surcharge fill which
10 qc<1 MPa
5 may cause deflection of the installed piles supporting
15
8 the abutments.
23
19
Depth (m)

20 21
Based on all the above constraints, an environmental
16 friendly solution of ground reinforcement using
31 Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC) was considered
25 25
28 most suitable. The CMC columns are installed by a
31 non-vibratory soil displacement augering process. The
30 13
8
columns are cement-grouted columns and hence, have
5 no column bulging problem and they are having
5 higher load bearing capacity than any other granular
35 8
9 columns. The columns are 42cm in diameter with a
7 cement grout compressive strength of 20MPa. The
40
column spacing varies from 1.9m to 2.2m square grid
subject to the embankment height.
45
Figure 3. Typical SPT N-values and cone resistance 3 CONTROLLED MODULUS COLUMNS
(qc) values.
3.1 Concept of CMC system
1.3 Performance Specifications
The components in a CMC system consist of a load
The performance specifications are as follow: transfer platform (LTP) of 1.0m thick compacted sand
(1) The maximum allowable residual settlement shall or gravel to facilitate the transfer of fill load on to the
be less than 100mm after the 10 years; columns uniformly. Two layers of reinforced wire
(2) The factor of safety against slope failure shall be mesh are placed inside the LTP layer to provide
not less than 1.5. traction reinforcement. Cylindrical vertical grout
columns (or also known as inclusions) are installed
The traffic loading shall be 15 kPa. below the LTP using displacement auger.

2 CHOICE OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT The process of load sharing mechanism in CMC is

TECHNIQUES
The choice of suitable ground improvement
techniques is governed by environmental constraints,
a tight construction schedule and the soft ground
conditions. Since the bridge abutments have already
been constructed before commencement of any
ground improvement work, the choice of ground
improvement technique is limited to techniques that
exhibit minimum vibration and minimum lateral soil
movement during works to avoid potential damage to
the completed bridge abutments and the foundations.
Vibro stone columns or any casing driven granular
columns will cause excessive ground vibration during
installation works. Also, due to the low shear strength
of the underlying soft soils, there will be excessive
column bulging and possible column failure during
loading. Vertical drains and surcharging requires
illustrated in Figure 4. Since the ratio of stiffness
between CMC and the soil is between 1:1,000 to
1:10,000 it is necessary to consider the vertical
deformation separately for the CMC and the soil. The
deformation of a point inside the CMC at a given
initial depth is different from an adjacent point at the
same depth in the soil. In other words, there exists a
different field of deformation between the CMC and
the surrounding soil as explained below:
 Stage 1: Due to the transfer of imposed stress
to the soil (soil) through the load distribution
layer (sand blanket), vertical deformation
(settlement) of the soil (soil) occurs due to
consolidation.
 Stage 2: As a result of consolidation
settlement, stress is transferred from the

3
International Conference on Geotechnics
surrounding soil to the CMC. The
deformation at the same given depth (except
at neutral plane) in the soil (soil) is different
from the CMC (CMC) due to different
stiffness (ECMC > Esoil) and that soil > CMC,
negative skin friction is developed in the
CMC.
 Stage 3: At greater depth, the point
deformation CMC > soil resulting in a stress
transfer from the CMC back to the competent
soil. This induces positive skin friction and
base resistance.
 Stage 4: Overall, an equilibrium state of load
distribution is achieved where the tip
resistance, friction resistance and soil
resistance is equals to the total load.
Figure 5 shows the locations of the neutral plane
where point deformation of CMC and soil is the same.
At this location, the CMC column carries the
maximum stress.
Figure 4. Design concept for CMC
4
Figure 5. Graphs of vertical displacement, shear
stresses and vertical stresses
3.2 CMC Design
Numerical analysis using Plaxis 2D was carried out to
estimate the deformation and slope stability. The 2D
analysis was checked against 3D model. The results
show minimum difference.
Axisymmetric 2D model with long-term stiffness
material is used to determine maximum vertical
settlement and 2D plane strain model with short-term
stiffness is used to excess slope stability.
The analysis is carried out using three different
models that is, a) drained and undrained axisymmetric
b) single plane strain d) full plane strain.
Results of SPT and CPT tests were used for the soil
properties. They are compared with the laboratory test
results.
3.2.1 Long-term settlement
For long term settlement, axisymmetry model was
used.
CMC was modeled as a soil volume and inside the
CMC a “dummy” plate was assigned. In doing so, the
result of axial and shear forces on the CMC can be
accessed.
In the field, CMCs were installed in square grid
pattern while in the axisymmetry model, it is circular.
Hence, necessary correction is made based on area
ratio. The result of stress inside the CMC and stress at
CMC head were extracted and compared with plane
strain model. To be conservative strength increase due
to installation effect to the adjacent soil is not taken
into the design. Maximum stress inside the CMC
occurs at the neutral plane, and this value was used to
determine the compressive strength of the cement
grout. Typical example of settlement obtained from an
axisymmetric model is shown in Figure 6.
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Fictious
CMC as plate CMC

CMC as
Soil
Volume
CMC model
as embedded
beam row

Neutral plane

Figure 7. Single unit plane stain with fictive extension at

CMC head

Stress Inside CMC

Figure 6. Vertical displacement result CMC axisymmetric - 2,000 4,000 6,000
model 4.0
2.0
3.2.2 Short term for stability 0.0
Step 1: Model Single plane strain -2.0
Elevation (mRL)

CMC was modeled as embedded beam row (EBR). -4.0

neutral plane
EBR is not fixed or attached to the soil which allows -6.0
the soil to flow through. EBR can carry axial force -8.0
and bending moment value unlike soil volume. The
-10.0
top and bottom of the CMC was set to be free to
move. The shaft resistance value was pre-defined -12.0
based on initial soil stress. -14.0
CMC
-16.0
𝜏𝑠 = 2𝜋𝑟𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 (𝑧) (1) Axisymmetry Model
Plain Strain Model
where s is shaft resistance, r is the column radius, tmax
is shear resistance Figure 8. Comparison stress to CMC in Axisymmetric and
Plain strain model
𝑡𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 [𝑐 ′ +𝜎 ′ (𝑧) tan 𝜃′ ] (2)
In this model the position of the neutral plane was
Since the EBR is a single line it cannot capture load located at elevation -6.0mRL.
transfer to the column surface to account for arching.
To simulate this, a fictitious CMC head was modeled Step 2: Full plane strain model
by extending the top of the CMC (Figure 7). At the
top tskin was pre-defined based on value obtained from After calibrating the single plane strain model with the
previous axisymmetric model. In EBR CMC spacing, axisymmetric model, a full plain strain model can be
axial skin friction was modelled in an elastic-plastic made with actual embankment shape. In this model
behaviour. The stress inside the CMC was then steel wire mesh and CMC with steel bar were
compared with the axisymmetric model as shown in included. For the steel bar inside the CMC, a limit
Figure 8. plastic moment, Mp of 33 KN.m was assigned based
on steel bar size and the numbers of bars used. For
CMC without steel bar, a very low value of Mp was
used. Figure 9 belows a typical full plane strain
model.

5
International Conference on Geotechnics

15 KPa

Two layer steel

Fill
wire mesh on LTP
FH

𝑅𝑡;𝑇

Figure 11. Results of vertical deformation

CMC with steel

CMC without steel bar inside bar inside

Figure 9. Full plane strain model

Due to the lesser load below embankment slope CMC

length is shorter than the centre. Due to the higher
tensile force at the embankment edge, steel
reinforcement bar was placed inside CMC at a certain
depth.

The stress distribution below the embankment is

gradually reduced with depth, taking an example at
10m depth, the stress reduces 30% and at 25m depth,
stress is reduced by more than half (Figure 10). Due to Figure 12. Results of axial force inside CMC
this, CMC length at the edge is shorter and wider.

Figure 10. Stress distribution below embankment without

CMC

The results of a full plain strain analysis are shown in

Figure 11 to Figure 16 Figure 13. Results of bending moment inside CMC

The results show maximum vertical and horizontal

settlement of 8.5cm and 3.0cm respectively (Figure
11)

6
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

the requirement of the allowable wire mesh strength

greater than the lateral active force, (RtT > FH).
𝐾𝑎 𝛾𝐻 2
𝐹𝐻 = 2
(3)

where Fh is the lateral active force, ka is the coefficient

of active earth pressure of the embankment,  is the
unit weight of the embankment fill and H is the height
of the embankment at the crest.

And
𝜋𝑑𝑦2
𝑓𝑒
Figure 14. Axial force of the steel wire mesh 𝑅𝑡;𝑇 = 𝛽
. 𝑛. 4
(4)

where fe is the steel yield stress, β is the reduction

factor for the wire mesh soil interaction (= 1.25), n is
the number of steel bars per meter width of mesh, d is
the diameter of steel bar in the longitudinal direction.

3.2.4 CMC with steel reinforcement bar

CMC without steel reinforcement is good in
compression but not in tension. When subject to
embankment loading CMC will experience both axial
and bending moment at the same time. Thus, it is
Figure 15. Slope displacement pattern
necessary to check the capacity of the CMC column in
resisting lateral load. In cases where the lateral force
is large, tensile reinforcement is needed in the CMC
columns. Steel reinforcement is incorporated into the
CMC columns. Excessive lateral force in CMC
columns is normally found near the toe of a high
embankment slope. Calculation for the resistance
capabilities of CMC on lateral loads can be done
according to BS EN 1992-1-1.2004 12.

a) Calculate the axial design load and design

moment.

𝑁𝑒𝑑 = 𝑁𝑝𝑙𝑥 𝑠𝛾𝐺 (5)

𝑀𝑒𝑑 = 𝑀𝑝𝑙𝑥 𝑠𝛾𝐺 (6)

Figure 16. Factor of safety for slope stability
where Ned and Med is the axial and bending moment
3.2.3 Steel wire mesh acting on the CMC respectively. Nplx and Mplx is the
Figure 9 also shows the load transfer platform layer axial and bending moment obtained from Plaxis
reinforced with steel wire mesh. The wire mesh calculation results. S is the column spacing and G is
consists of transversal and longitudinal steel bars. The the factor of safety between 1.2 to 1.4.
longitudinal steel bars enable to “absorb” the lateral
b) Eccentricity e (Figure 17), with the following
forces caused by the active earth pressure of the
equation
embankment. The longitudinal bars also serve to limit
lateral soil displacements and thus any lateral 𝑁
𝑒 = 𝑀𝑒𝑑 (7)
displacement of the CMC. The transversal bars enable 𝑒𝑑
to mobilize friction at the soil-wire mesh interface.
Wire mesh also enhances the efficiency of load
transfer distribution to the CMC thus will minimize
the arching effect. The wire mesh design shall meet

7
International Conference on Geotechnics

If reinforcement is required, then the CMC

reinforcement need to be designed using Med.

4 CONSTRUCTION OF CMC
CMC columns are constructed by soil displacement
using a displacement auger. During auger penetration
drilling, the lower screw section which has a conical
screw-bit shape with variable auger flight pitches
(Figure 19) will cut and loosen the soil and transport
the soil to the displacement body section. The
Figure 17. Illustration of eccentrical load distance displacement body is a cylindrical shape with the
same diameter as the lower screw section which
c) Calculate resistance area (Aref) with following prevents soil from passing through and thus, pushing
equation (Figure 18) (or displacing) the soil towards the borehole wall. The
counter screw section above the displacement body
has opposite direction flight. Soil collapsed from the
above during drilling is brought downward to the
𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 = 𝑅 2 (2𝜃 − 𝑠𝑖𝑛2𝜃) (8) displacement body and pushed towards the borehole
𝑒
wall. With this technique, there is minimum spoilt at
𝜃 = arccos(𝑅) the ground surface.

where R is the radius of CMC

Counter
screw section

Displacement
body

Lower screw
section

End cap

Figure 19. Full displacement auger

When the drilling auger reaches the design depth,

Figure 18. Illustration of resistance area (Aref)
d) Calculate axial resistance (Nrd) with the following
equation
𝑁𝑟𝑑 = 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑓𝑐𝑑
where Aref is the area resistance and fcd is the grout
strength
e) Check if reinforcement is required: if Nrd>Ned,
reinforcement is not required. If Nrd<Ned,
reinforcement is required.
grout is pumped through a flexible rubber hose and
through the hollow steam attached to the displacement
auger. The grout pumping pressure is monitored and
auger-lifting speed is controlled by the CMC rig
operator.
(9) Electronic and mechanical sensors are fitted to the
CMC drilling rig to ensure a good column installation.
Figure 20 shows the on-board computer monitoring
system fitted with various sensors. A monitor display
is installed inside the cabin to display real-time
monitoring installation parameters. These parameters
include:
a) Depth of installation (m)

8
International Conference on Geotechnics, 24-26 July, 2018 Yogyakarta, Indonesia

b) Installation and extraction time (sec, min) deeper or shallower than initial design. CMC auger
c) Penetration rate (m/hr) drilling is work by mean of penetration so it can give
d) Rotational torque (Bar) verification to the in situ test. The actual CMC depth
e) Injection grouting pressure (Bar) is determine by live display drilling record by using
f) Auger lifting speed (m/hr) penetration rate and torque.
g) Grout volume (m3)
h) Computed CMC column profile Before commencement of full production work, trial
installation of CMC columns is carried out to calibrate
the operation parameters. The optimum grouting
pressure and the ideal speed of auger retraction during
grout pumping are determined from the trial
installation. Fast auger retraction causes necking of
columns and slow auger retraction causes grout
blockage in the rubber hose. Adequate grouting
pressure recorded indicates the lateral resistance from
the surrounding soil and that the grout has filled the
entire augering and drilling volume.

To ensure flowability of the fresh grout during auger

retraction and grout pumping, high slump grout is
needed. To prevent blockage during auger retraction
each truck delivery is tested for slump value. In this
project slump value between 23± 2cm is adopted.

For the reinforced CMC columns, the reinforcement

steel bars were placed into the columns shortly after
completion of the grouting works.

Figure 20. Onboard computer monitoring system fitted to

the CMC rig

For a 12m length CMC column, it takes about 11

minutes that is, about 5 mins for drilling and about 6
mins for grouting. Shorter columns will take shorter
construction time. The average production is about
600 to 1,400 linear meters per 10-hour working day
per rig. The supply of cement grout and the condition
of the working platform greatly influence the
production rate.

Figure 21 shows a typical installation record. The

drilling rig was operated with torque 0 to 35 bar at
depth 3m and at constant maximum torque of 40bar to
15m. The penetration rate was constant at 400m/hr
from beginning till 13m and gradually drops to 7m/hr
at 15m depth. At 13m below, it was substantial
drilling resistance cause auger rotation decrease
substantially and reducing penetration rate.

This is consistence with the borehole result which

indicates at the first 3m is soft soil (NSPT  4), and
continue with firm soil do the depth 12m. At the depth
13m below, borehole indicate a layer of very dense
sand which make auger difficult to penetrate.
Figure 21. Typical CMC drilling record
The CMC length is pre-determine from Nspt, it is
likely during installation the termination of CMC is

9
International Conference on Geotechnics
5 PLATE LOADING TEST
Plate load tests (PLT) were carried to maximum load
of 75 ton or 110% of maximum stress induced in the
CMC column. The tests were carried out after 28
days. A total of nine PLT tests was carried out; one
for each area of treatment. The objectives of the
carrying out the tests were to obtain the load bearing
capacity of the columns; compare the PLT results with
those obtained from Plaxis analysis; and back
calculation of design values to refine further the
numerical analysis.
A typical PLT results is shown in Figure 22. PLT was
carried out for a 42cm diameter column and column
length of 20m. The column was installed through a
layer of soft to firm silt layer and terminated at hard
clay with Nspt = 20. Since the test column was not
tested to failure, Chin Method was used to determine
the ultimate load capacity. An ultimate load capacity
of 88 tons was obtained. The PLT test was modelled
using Plaxis with a soil stiffness modulus Ey equals to
750 Nspt and soil-CMC interface factor of 0.8. The
numerical analysis indicated an ultimate load capacity
of 83 tons. The difference between the two methods is
deemed acceptable.
Load (tons)
0 20 40 60
0 on in situ, (pp. 29-33). Paris.
5
head displacement (mm)
10
15
20
25
FEM
30
PLT
35
Figure 22. Load -Settlement result from PLT
The bearing capacity is also compared alpha-cu
method and the result is summarised in Table 1.The
alpha -cu give very close to PLT value.
Table 1. Bearing capacity comparison
Plate
Load
test
Ultimate bearing capacity
87.7
(ton)
10
6 CONCLUSION
Presented numerical modelling gives the possibility to
correctly design 3D problem using 2D plane strain
model. The result of the back-calculation PLT using
FEM gives a gain in confidence to the predict CMC
bearing capacity. Even though no settlement
instrument installed, observation shows no indication
of the differential settlement, soil heaving near the
slope toe and instability when embankment rises
rapidly. This project has demonstrated the successful
application of CMC column to treat thick layer
compressible soil and high fill embankment close to
the newly constructed bridge abutment within given
performance specification. The project also
successfully completed within given time frame and
budget.
7 BIBLIOGRAPHY
ASIRI. (2011). Soil improvement with rigid
inclusions. Paris: IREX.
Chin, F. (1970). Estimation of the Ultimate Load of
Piles from Tests not Carried to Failure.
Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference.
Chin, F. (1983). Bilateral plate bearing tests.
80 100 Proceedings of the International Symposium
Combarieu, O. (1988). Amélioration des sols par
inclusions rigides verticales application à
l'édification de remblais sur sols médiocres.
Revue Française de Géotechnique, (pp. 44,
57-79).
Plomteux, C. a. (2000). Embankment construction on
extremely soft soils using. Proceedings of the
16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical
Conference. Kuala Lumpur.
Yee, K. (2012). Controlled Modulus Columns (CMC):
A New Trend in Ground Improvement and
Potential Applications to Indonesian Soils.
ISSMGE Technical Committee TC 211
International Symposium on Ground
Improvement. Brussels, Belgium: ISSMGE.
FEM alpha -
Zhao, R. F. (1982). Estimation par les paramètres
pressiométriques de l'enfoncement sous
Plaxis cu
charge axiale de pieux forés dans des sols
83.3 81.0
fins. Bulletin Laison Laboratoire Central des
Ponts et Chaussees, (pp. 119, 17-24).