3/20/2021

State of the Practice of

Rigid Inclusions
Jie Han, Ph.D., PE, F.ASCE
The University of Kansas

Inclusions for Soil Improvement

“Soil Reinforcement is a special and
recent field of soil improvement. It
covers a range of techniques which
consist of placing resisting inclusions
in the soil.”

Schlosser, F., Juran, I., & Jacobsen, H. M.

(1983). Soil Reinforcement: general
report: session no. 5. In Proc. of VIII
ECSMFE: Helsinki.

1
 3/20/2021

Rigid Inclusions for Soil Improvement

Combarieu, O. 1988. Amélioration des sols par inclusions rigides verticales
(Improvement of soils by vertical rigid inclusions). Application à
l'édification de remblais sur sols médiocres. Revue Française de
Géotechnique, 44, 57-79.

Canetta, G. and Nova, R. (1989). “A numerical method for the analysis of

ground improved by columnar inclusions. “ Computers and Geotechnics,
7(1–2), 99-114.

Alamgir, M., Miura, N., Poorooshasb, H.B., Madhav, M.R. (1996).

“Deformation analysis of soft ground reinforced by columnar inclusions.”
Computers and Geotechnics, 18(4), 267-290.

Rigid Inclusions for Soil Improvement

Chu, J., Varaksin, S., Klotz, U. & Mengé,
P. (2009). State of the Art Report:
Construction Processes. 17th Int. Conf. on
SMGE: TC17 meeting ground
improvement, Alexandria, Egypt.
 Defined/highlighted rigid inclusions

Other Terminologies
 Composite ground in Japan (1950s)
 Rigid column composite ground
(Han & Ye 1991)
 Unconnected, disconnected, or IREX (2012)
non-connected piled raft (e.g.
Wong et al. 2000; Baziar et al. 2018;
Ko et al. 2019)
4

2
 3/20/2021

Definition of Rigid Inclusions

Rigid inclusions are cementitious columns that are significantly stiffer than
the surrounding soil and their stability is achieved without any lateral
confinement of the surrounding soil . The purpose of the rigid inclusions is
to improve the ground performance globally (i.e., increase bearing capacity,
reduce settlement, and improve ground stability). A load transfer cushion or
platform is typically installed between the top of the rigid inclusions and the
bottom of the superstructure, which allows for more load sharing with the
surrounding soil.
Typical rigid inclusions are concrete columns (possibly installed into the
ground with a classical piling technique), grout columns, soil mix elements
(columns, panels, trenches, blocks, etc.), grouted stone columns, etc.

Different Foundation Systems

Ground improvement

(also called pile foundation) (piled-raft foundation) (columns in the US)

(composite ground in Asia)
(unconnected pile-raft foundation)
One important feature of rigid inclusions is that they are not connected with
superstructure, often with a cushion (also called load transfer platform).
ASIRI (2012) 6

3
 3/20/2021

Different Foundation Systems

Rigid inclusions
 Pile group effect
 Factor of safety

Piles
Raft
on soil
Settlement
larger than
the allowable
Modified from Tan and Chow (2004) 7

Rigid Inclusions vs. Piled Raft

Q r Pr
r r
  P
s p Neutral P0
plane
s

Pb
s p s
pb z z z

Q r Pr
r r
  P
LTP p P0
s p Neutral Downdrag
s
plane

Pb
pb s s s
z z z
8

4
 3/20/2021

Drilling Tools for Installing

Drilled Displacement Rigid Inclusions

Basu et al. (2009)

9

Column coverage

q0
Common Applications = Ac/A x 100%
Ac A

80
Embankment
LTP Guidelines for
70 conventional pile supported embankments
(Rathmayer, 1975)
Coverage by pile (caps) (%)

60
Crushed stone fill
50
Also called column‐supported embankment Gravel fill
q0 40
Recent projects

Raft 30 Constructed geosynthetic reinforced

LTP column-supported embankments
20

10

0
Main applications: (1) embankments, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
(2) slabs or raft type structures,
Height of embankment (m)
(3) tanks, silos, and heavy storage facilities, and
(4) footings for buildings and wind turbines, etc. Modified from Han and Gabr (2002) 10

5
 3/20/2021

Design

Proposed by
A+B van Eekelen
et al. (2013)

C1 C1
A+B+C1
C2

Modified from Lee et al. (2021)

Finite element and finite

difference methods have
been increasingly used IREX (2012)
to design rigid inclusion
-improved systems.
Pan et al. (2011) 11

Rigid Inclusions vs. Piled Raft

Sand, Dr  70% 2

Tested at 65g
3
D = 0.5 m, h = 1 m
Fioravante & Giretti (2010) 4 12

6
 3/20/2021

Lateral Load Behavior

Rivera Rojas (2019) 13

Seismic Behavior

Baziar et al. (2018) 14

7
 3/20/2021

Liquefaction Mitigation
Possible benefits by rigid inclusions:
1. Densification: installation of rigid 
inclusions (e.g., lateral displacement and
vibration) may densify surrounding soil,
which should be verified by in situ tests
between inclusions.
2. Shear stress reduction:
Shear stress ratio CSR RC  CSR  K G
Stiffness effect
1 1
KG   1
G r a s  r  1  a s  / G r  1  a s
Gr = modulus ratio of rigid inclusions to soil
Rayamajhi et al. (2014)
15

Progressive Failure of Rigid Inclusions

Yu et al. (2021)

Geosynthetic

Geosynthetic reinforcement did not change the sequence of

column progressive failure but increased load capacity.
16

8
 3/20/2021

Installation Effect of Rigid Inclusions

Continuous Flight Auger Progressive Displacement Auger Rapid Displacement Auger

The cone at 1.5 m depth,

0.225 m radial distance

Limited soil property 
changes before and
after installation

Larisch (2014) 17

Performance Evaluation
Test point
Cushion
Sampling, SPT,
CPT, etc.

SPT N value
Individual column Individual column composite ground
Clay
45ft x 45ft  test area x 32ft fill high
After
installation

Sand

Before
installation

Silt
Multiple column composite ground
Masse et al. (2020) 18

9
 3/20/2021

Concluding Remarks
 The concept of rigid inclusions has been used in different countries
for many years (e.g., composite ground, unconnected piled raft, and
column-supported embankment) but become popular in the US with
different applications in recent years.
 The advancements of installation equipment and method (especially
for drilled displacement columns) and theories have promoted
the use of rigid inclusions.
 Rigid inclusions are stiffening elements in composite ground
improving global performance (increasing bearing capacity and
stability, reducing settlement) instead of piles in pile foundations.
 Load transfer platform is important for distributing superstructure load
to soils, minimizing stress concentration on superstructures, and
minimizing lateral load and bending moment on rigid inclusions.
19

Concluding Remarks
 Soil arching, tensioned membrane (if geosynthetic is used),
stress concentration, and downdrag are main load transfer
mechanisms in the system.
 Numerical methods have been increasingly used to design
the complex system.
 Rigid inclusions may have progressive bending failure close to
slope of embankment.
 Rigid inclusions may mitigate soil liquefaction by soil densification
but stiffness effect is limited.
 Different installation methods may cause different levels of
disturbances to surrounding soils and pre-installed inclusions.
 Performance verification is needed for surrounding soils,
rigid inclusions, and composite ground.
20

10
 3/20/2021

References
Chu, J., Varaksin, S., Klotz, U. & Mengé, P. (2009). State of the Art Report: Construction Processes. 17th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics & Geotechnical Engineering: TC17 meeting ground
improvement, Alexandria, Egypt, 7 October 2009, 130p.
Baziar, M.H., Rafiee, F., Lee, C.J., and Azizkandi, A.S. (2018). “Effect of superstructure on the dynamic
response of nonconnected piled raft foundation using centrifuge modeling.” Int. J. Geomech., 18(10),
04018126.
Han, J. and Ye, S. L. (1991). “Analysis of characteristics to composite grounds.” Proc. of First Young Asian
Geotechnical Engineers Conference, Thailand, 197-206.
IREX (2012). ASIRI National Project. Recommendations for the Design, Construction and Control of Rigid
Inclusion Ground Improvements.
Ko, K.W., Park, H.J., Ha, J.G., Jin, S., Song, Y.H., Song, M.J., & Kim, D.S. (2019). “Evaluation of dynamic
bending moment of disconnected piled raft via centrifuge tests.”
Can. Geotech. J. 56, 1917–1928.
Larisch, M. (2014). Behaviour of stiff, fine-grained soil during the installation of screw auger displacement
piles. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Queensland, Australia.
Masse, F., Potter-Weight, A., Swift, S., and Buschmeier, B. (2020). “Rigid inclusions: Current state of
practice in North America.” GeoCongress 2020.
Pan, J., Merry, M., Faulkner, A., and Li, T. (2011). “Design of ground improvement using continuous flight
auger columns for railway embankment.” 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference,
Rivera Rojas, A.J. (2019). Lateral Response of Stiff Column-Supported Shallow Foundations, Ph.D.
Dissertation, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA. 21

References
Rayamajhi, D.R., Nguyen, T.V., Ashford, S.A., Boulanger, R.W., Lu, J., and Elgamal, A. (2014). “Numerical
study of shear stress distribution for discrete columns in liquefiable soils.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 140(3), 04013034.
Schlosser, F., Juran, I., & Jacobsen, H. M. (1983). Soil Reinforcement: general report: session no. 5. Proc.
of VIII ECSMFE: Helsinki, 1159-1180.
Tan, Y.C. and Chow, C.M. (2004). “Design of piled raft foundation on soft ground.” GSM-IEM Forum.
Wong, I. H., Chang, M. F., and Cao, X. D. (2000). ‘‘Raft foundations with disconnected settlement reducing
piles.’’ Design application of raft foundations and ground slabs, Chap. 17, Thomas Telford, London, 469–
486.
Yu, X., Zheng, G., Zhou, H., and Chai, J. (2021). “Influence of geosynthetic reinforcement on the
progressive failure of rigid columns under an embankment load.” Acta Geotechnica.
Van Eekelen, S.J.M., Bezuijen, A., Van Tol, A.F. (2013). “An analytical model for arching in piled
embankments.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 39, 78 – 102.

22

11