Indian Geotech J

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-024-01010-8

TECHNICAL NOTE

Differential Settlement of Cement Fly‑Ash Gravel

and Cement–Soil Compacted Piles
Xuansheng Cheng1 · Kai Ding1 · Lijun Gong2 ·
Haodong Sun2

Received: 3 February 2024 / Accepted: 15 June 2024

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Indian Geotechnical Society 2024

Abstract Due to the special characteristics of loess, the Introduction

foundation of a high-speed railway is easy to compress and
settle, and reasonable treatment of the foundation can reduce Due to the particularity of loess and large collapsibility, the
the settlement of the foundation. Based on the test section foundation of a high-speed railway is easy to be compressed
of Yinxi high-speed Railway and the finite element method, and settled, which causes the embankment to lose stability or
the differential settlement problem of CFG (cement fly-ash even collapse. Reasonable selection of foundation treatment
crushed stone) pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite methods can effectively reduce foundation settlement. Pile
foundation in a collapsible loess area is studied. The results composite soil gene can control the differential settlement
show that: (1) The soil settlement between the cement–soil of the foundation after construction and has been paid more
compacted pile and pile is synchronized, and the soil settle- and more attention.
ment between the embankment center line and pile can reach Based on the finite element method, the settlement of
18 mm. The soil settlement difference between CFG pile composite foundations was studied by some researchers
and pile is large, and the maximum settlement of the road- [1–4]. Lu et al. [5, 6] studied the in situ stress deformation
bed center line is ± 0.000 m. (2) The soil settlement between distribution characteristics of the variable-stiffness com-
piles is the largest at the center line of the embankment, the posite pile and the soil around the pile through numerical
settlement away from the center line of the embankment simulation and field load tests. Feng et al. [7, 8] created a
gradually decreases, and the settlement at the same obser- railway BP neural network prediction model and a numerical
vation point decreases with the increase in depth. (3) The analysis model to predict the settlement of the foundation.
loading test results show that the settlement of the CFG pile Based on an engineering example, Lai et al. [9] studied the
and soil–cement compacted pile is small, and the settlement effect of the CFG pile method on treating soft soil founda-
of the CFG pile is smaller than that of the soil–cement com- tions. Yu et al. [10], through field experiments, much work
pacted pile, both meet the requirements of the code. has been done on the pile composite foundation settlement.
Li et al. [11] measured the ultimate bearing capacity of the
Keywords Collapsible loess · High-speed railway · CFG pile and its composite foundation through an in situ
Composite foundation · Differential settlement static load test. Guan et al. [12] carried out a model test of
railway screw pile composite foundations under train load.
Zhang et al. [13–16] studied the settlement characteristics
of the composite foundation. Cheng et al. [17, 18] studied
* Xuansheng Cheng
[email protected]; [email protected]
the dynamic characteristics of CFG and soil–cement pile
1
composite foundations during operation.
Key Laboratory of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation
in Civil Engineering of Gansu Province, Lanzhou University
In summary, many scholars have studied the settlement
of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China law of pile composite foundations, but there are few studies
2
Western Engineering Research Center of Disaster Mitigation
on the differential settlement of CFG + CSC pile composite
in Civil Engineering of Ministry of Education, Lanzhou foundations in the collapsible loess area with large thick-
University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050, China nesses. Based on the design, construction, and field load test

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Indian Geotech J

of a test section of Yinxi Railway in collapsible loess area, a

three-dimensional finite element model is established in this
paper. Combined with the field test, the differential settle-
ment of the composite foundation of CFG pile and cement
compacts pile is analyzed, aiming to provide reference for
practical projects.

Analysis of Composite Foundation Settlement

Composite Foundation Geometry Model

Three-dimensional finite element model was established by

ABAQUS. The soil element is the CAX4R solid element,
and the pile element is the CAX4 solid element. The diam-
eter of the piles is 0.4 m, and the spacing is 2 m. The base
width of the composite foundation is 32 m, and the calcu-
lated width of the foundation soil is 2.5 times that of the
base width of the composite foundation, so the entire width Fig. 2  CFG pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite foundation
finite element model
of the foundation in the calculation model is 80 m. The den-
sity of the soil around the pile side is the same as that of the
piles. In the calculation, the displacements in the x, y, and z plane, − 9.120 m plane, − 12.540 m plane, − 13.680 m
directions of the bottom edge of the soil, the x directions of plane, and − 17.100 m plane); among them, to conveni-
the left and right sides, and the y directions of the front and ently and intuitively describe the settlement changing law
back sides are limited. The tangential contact between pile of the CFG pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite
side and foundation soil is friction contact, and the contact foundation at each position, observation points are arranged
characteristics between pile side and soil are hard contact in at both the horizontal and vertical directions of the model;
normal direction. The bottom of the pile body is bound to accordingly, the odd number point is the observation point
the bottom of the pile hole. The contact between pile top and of CFG piles and soil between the cement–soil compacted
mattress bottom is hard contact. The CFG pile + cement–soil piles, and the even number point is the observation point on
compacted pile composite foundation model is shown in the cement–soil compacted pile; the distribution of points
Fig. 1. Since the model is symmetrical, only half of it is is shown in Fig. 3, and the top view of the pile and the soil
taken for analysis, and the finite element model is shown between piles are shown in Fig. 4
in Fig. 2.
The observation points are laid on different planes of the The Parameters of the Model
cement–soil compacted pile, CFG pile, and the soil between
the piles (namely, ± 0.000 m plane, − 1.440 m plane, − 2.880 According to the field geotechnical tests and engineer-
m plane, − 3.420 m plane, − 4.560 m plane, − 5.700 m ing experience, the calculation parameters of the CFG
pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite foundation
model are shown in Table 1.

Settlement Simulation of Piles and Soil Between Piles

Cement–Soil Compacted Pile

It can be seen from Fig. 5 that the soil–cement compac-

tion pile and soil between piles settle almost simultaneously
and the settlement amount of soil at the top surface of the
foundation (0.000 m surface) is the largest. The settlement
amount of soil at points 5, 9, 13, 17, 25, and 29 between
piles is smaller than that at the same plane, and the settle-
Fig. 1  CFG pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite foundation ment amount is the largest in the range from the embank-
model ment center line to the embankment shoulder, and the

13
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 3  Section view of the

observation points of piles and
soil between piles

Cement-soil
CFG pile
Soil between the maximum, that is, the puncture of the top of the CFG
pile is 6 mm, and the settlement difference between the
compacted pile piles
0 40
X(m)
seventh CFG pile (observation point 27) and soil between
piles (observation point 29) is 1.5mm. Seven CFG piles
(observation point 3, point 7, point 11, point 15, point 19,
point 23, and point 27) were on different planes along the
4
Y(m)
Soil between piles Cement-soil compacted CFG pile observation
pile length, and the vertical settlement was between 8 and
observation point pile observation point point 4 mm. The maximum settlement of ± 0.000 m surface at the
center line of the embankment is 14 mm, and the settle-
Fig. 4  Top view of piles and soil between piles about the composite ment decreases from 14 to 4.2 mm along the pile body to
foundation
− 15.960 m surface.

vertical settlement amount is the largest in the range from

the pile top plane to 4 m below the pile top. The settlement Differential Settlement Field Test of Composite
of the cement–soil compaction pile at the center line of the Foundations
embankment and the soil between piles can reach 18 mm.
The soil settlement between piles and piles at the edge of the To verify the accuracy of the numerical simulation of the
embankment center line is 1–4 mm. differential settlement of the CFG pile + cement–soil com-
pacted pile composite foundation, the differential settle-
CFG Pile ment field test of the composite foundation was conducted.
The field test is located in Qingyang City, and the overall
It can be seen from Fig. 6 that there is a large difference terrain is high in the west and low in the east. The stratum
in the settlement amount of CFG pile and soil between is aeolian sandy loess and fine gravel soil of Upper Pleis-
piles. The settlement difference between the first CFG pile tocene of the Fourth system, and the underlying bedrock is
(observation point 3) and soil between piles (observation Lower Cretaceous sandstone with mudstone. To simplify
point 5) at the center line of the embankment is 6 mm at the experiment, the vertical static load test of a single pile

13
 Indian Geotech J

Table 1  The calculation parameters of CFG pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite foundation model
Name Density (kg/ Elastic Poisson’s Internal fric- Dilatancy Cohesion Lateral Thickness Constitutive
m3) Modulus ratio tion angle angle (°) (kPa) pressure (m) model
(kPa) (°) coefficient

Bed surface 2000 1 × ­104 0.23 30 0 20 – 0.7 Mohr–Cou-

lomb
Bottom bed 1950 8 × ­104 0.26 32 0 30 – 3.5 Mohr–Cou-
lomb
Cushion 2000 2 × ­105 0.3 – – – – 0.8 Elasticity
CFG pile 2500 2.55 × ­107 0.17 – – – 0.2 15 Elasticity
Cement–soil 2000 1 × ­105 0.23 – – – 0.2 8 Elasticity
compacted
pile
Sandy loess 1900 2 × ­104 0.3 25 0 35 0.5 20 Mohr–Cou-
lomb
Fine gravel 2200 0 0.28 35 – 0 0.5 4 Mohr–Cou-
lomb
Mudstone 2435 5 × ­107 0.30 34 – 50 0.5 1 Mohr–Cou-
lomb
Sandstone 2530 7 × ­107 0.25 35 – 0.5 5 Mohr–Cou-
lomb

Fig. 5  Settlement of observa-

tion points about cement–soil 0.018 +0.000m plane
compacted pile and soil between -1.140m plane
piles at different planes 0.016 -2.280m plane
-3.420m plane
-4.560m plane
0.014
-5.700m plane
-9.120m plane
0.012 -12.540m plane
Settlement (m)

-13.680m plane
0.010 -17.100m plane

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39
Observation point

was carried out separately. According to TB10106 [19] The vertical static load test of the CFG pile and
and TB10751 [20], the requirement of the single pile load cement–soil compacted pile is conducted by using the
test about composite foundation reveals that the vertical slow maintenance load method. For the CFG piles test,
ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile is calculated the designed total test load is 1250 kN; 125 kN is loaded
according to the load value corresponding to the total set- for each time, and after each loading, the cumulative load
tlement of the pile top s = 40 mm. The designed maximum is maintained for two hours, until the maximum load
load of the CFG pile is 1250 kN, and the designed maxi- is reached; finally, the unloading starts step by step, and
mum load of the cement–soil compacted pile is 660 kN. 250 kN is unloaded each time and, after each loading,

13
Indian Geotech J

Fig. 6  Settlement of observa- 0.016

tion points about CFG piles and +0.000m plane
soil between piles at different -1.140m plane
0.014 -2.280m plane
planes -3.420m plane
-4.560m plane
-5.700m plane
0.012 -9.120m plane
-10.260m plane
-11.140m plane
0.010

Settlement (m)
-12.540m plane)
14.820m plane
-15.960m plane
0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Observation point

maintained for one hour, until the unloading is completed. Table 2  Load test of CFG pile (pile number: f6-46)
For the cement–soil compacted pile test, the designed total Number Load (kN) Duration (min) Settlement (mm)
test load is 660 kN; 82 kN is loaded each time, and after each
loading, the cumulative load is maintained for two hours, Level Accumulative Level Accumulative
until the maximum load is reached; finally, the unloading 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00
starts step by step, and 165 kN is unloaded each time and, 1 125 120 120 0.88 0.88
after each loading, maintained for 1 h, until the unloading 2 250 120 240 1.15 2.03
is completed. 3 375 120 360 1.36 3.39
4 500 120 480 2.07 5.46
Load Test of CFG Pile 5 625 120 600 1.42 6.88
6 750 120 720 2.18 9.06
To make it more simplified, only the loading and unloading 7 875 120 840 2.31 11.37
process of pile f6-46 is given, as shown in Table 2. The field 8 1000 120 960 2.44 13.81
vertical static load test result of CFG piles (numbers: f6-46 9 1125 120 1080 2.79 16.60
pile, g6-46 pile, i6-46 pile, and j6-46 pile) is obtained and 10 1250 120 1200 2.98 19.58
summarized, as shown in Table 3. 11 1000 60 1260 − 0.09 19.49
It can be known from Tables 2 and 3 that when the 12 750 60 1320 − 0.42 19.07
maximum load is 1250 kN, the average maximum settle- 13 500 60 1380 − 0.52 18.55
ment of piles is 19.60 mm, the average residual settlement 14 250 60 1440 − 0.80 17.75
is 16.46 mm after unloading, the average rebound amount 15 0 180 1620 − 1.28 16.47
is 3.15 mm, and the average rebound rate is 16.08%; the set-
Maximum load: 1250 kPa; Maximum settlement: 19.58 mm
tlement of the CFG pile is less than 150 mm, which meets
Maximum rebound: 3.11 mm; Rebound rate:
the requirements for post-construction settlement according
3.11/19.58 × 100% = 15.9%
to TB10035 [21].

Load Test of Cement–Soil Compacted Pile load test results of the 16 cement–soil compacted piles are
obtained and summarized, as shown in Table 5.
Sixteen cement–soil compacted piles at different locations of It can be seen from Table 5 that when the maximum load is
CFG pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite founda- 660.0 kPa, the average maximum settlement is 20.65 mm, the
tion are selected for vertical static load test. To make it more average residual settlement is 17.76 mm after unloading, the
simplified, only the loading and unloading process of piles average rebound amount is 2.89 mm, and the average rebound
a-5 is given, as shown in Table 4. The field vertical static rate is 13.99%; the settlement amount is less than 150 mm,

13
 Indian Geotech J

Table 3  The vertical static load test of single pile

Number Pile number (#) Maximum Maximum settlement (mm) Residual settlement Maximum rebound Rebound rate
load (kN) after unloading (mm) amount (mm)

1 f6-46 1250 19.58 16.47 3.11 15.90%

2 g6-46 1250 19.06 15.91 3.15 16.50%
3 i6-46 1250 19.95 16.80 3.15 15.80%
4 j6-46 1250 19.84 16.65 3.19 16.10%
Average: 19.60 Average: 16.46 Average: 3.15 Average: 16.08

Table 4  Load test of cement–soil compacted pile (pile number: a-5) experimental results, verifying the rationality of the finite
Number Load (kPa) Duration (min) Settlement (mm)
element simulation method.

Level Accumulative Level Accumulative

0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Conclusions

1 82 120 120 1.15 1.15
2 165 120 240 1.19 2.34 In this paper, the numerical simulation of CFG
3 247 120 360 1.53 3.87 pile + cement–soil compacted pile composite foundation
4 330 120 480 2.46 6.33 was carried out, and the field load test of CFG pile and
5 412 120 600 2.84 9.17 cement–soil compacted pile was carried out, to conclude the
6 495 120 720 3.68 12.85 uneven settlement. The specific conclusions are as follows:
7 577 120 840 4.07 16.92
8 660 120 960 4.90 21.82 (1) Soil–cement compacted pile and soil between piles
9 495 30 990 − 0.04 21.78 settle at the same time, and the soil settlement on the
10 330 30 1020 − 0.41 21.37 top of the foundation (± 0.000 m) is the largest. The
11 165 30 1050 − 0.77 20.60 settlement of soil in the center line of the embankment
12 0 30 1080 − 1.68 18.92 and between piles can reach 18 mm. Soil settlement
between piles and piles on the edge of the embankment
Maximum load: 660.0 kPa; Maximum settlement: 21.82 mm center line is 1–4 mm.
Maximum rebound: 2.90 mm; Rebound rate: (2) The difference in soil settlement between CFG pile and
2.90/21.82 × 100% = 13.3%
pile is large. The maximum settlement of the subgrade
center line (± 0.000) m is 14 mm, and the settlement
which meets the post-construction settlement requirements decreases from 14 to 4.2 mm along the pile body to
according to TB10035 [21]. At the same time, it can be seen − 15.960 m. When away from the center line of the
from Table 5 that the settlement of cement–soil compacted embankment, the soil settlement between piles is 6 mm.
piles is very small during loading and unloading, which is far (3) The load test of the composite foundation of the CFG
lower than the allowable value of the code. pile and soil–cement compacted pile in the test sec-
It can be seen that the overall differential settlement of tion shows that the settlement of the CFG pile is less
the CFG + cement–soil compacted pile composite founda- than that of the soil–cement compacted pile when the
tion is very small, and the maximum value is only about two piles are loaded to the maximum load. In addition,
18 mm; the field loading test results (Tables 3 and 5) also the settlement of CFG pile and cement compacted pile
show that the overall settlement value of the composite foun- composite foundation is small, and far below the allow-
dation is relatively small, and the maximum settlement is able value of the code.
only 22.21 mm. The simulation results are very close to the

13
Indian Geotech J

Table 5  Settlement of cement–soil compacted piles under test load

Number Pile number (#) Design value The allowable Maximum Cumulative Residual set- Rebound Rebound rate
of composite bearing capac- load value settlement tlement after amount (mm)
foundation ity of compos- (kPa) (mm) unloading
bearing capac- ite foundation (mm)
ity (kPa) (kPa)

1 a-5 328 330 660 21.82 18.92 2.90 13.3%

2 g-3 328 330 660 20.27 17.26 3.01 14.8%
3 d-16 328 330 660 20.58 17.74 2.84 13.8%
4 h-18 328 330 660 21.60 18.40 3.20 14.8%
5 a-59 328 330 660 19.43 16.81 2.62 13.5%
6 v-11 328 330 660 22.21 19.05 3.16 14.2%
7 g-54 328 330 660 20.41 17.59 2.82 13.8%
8 af-3 328 330 660 22.02 18.87 3.15 14.3%
9 ah-23 328 330 660 20.03 17.30 2.73 13.6%
10 p-75 328 330 660 19.65 16.94 2.71 13.8%
11 p-51 328 330 660 20.43 17.58 2.85 14.0%
12 b-6 328 330 660 19.64 17.08 2.56 13.0%
13 s-52 328 330 660 19.51 16.81 2.70 13.8%
14 v-26 328 330 660 20.87 17.71 3.16 15.1%
15 ae-6 328 330 660 20.07 17.32 2.75 13.7%
16 z-60 328 330 660 21.87 18.73 3.14 14.4%
Average: 0.65 Average: 17.76 Average: 2.89 Average:
13.99%

reinforcement zone following deformation of underlying layer. J

China Railw Soc 45(1):84–90
7. Feng J, Wu X, Zhu BL et al (2013) Prediction for foundation set-
tlement of high-speed railway based on GM(1,1) model. Electron J
Funding This paper was funded in part by the National Natural Sci- Geotech Eng 18:5417–5429
ence Foundation of China (52178389). 8. Feng J, Wu XY, Yang QX et al (2014) Prediction of railway founda-
tion settlement based on the BP neural network model. Electron J
Declarations Geotech Eng 19:6857–6867
9. Lai J, Liu H, Qiu J et al (2016) Settlement analysis of saturated tail-
Conflict of interest The authors declare that there are no conflicts of ings dam treated by CFG pile composite foundation. Adv Mater Sci
interest regarding the publication of this paper. Eng 6:1–10
10. Yu JL, Xu SD, Yang XM et al (2020) Settlement calculation of
concrete-cored soil-cement pile composite foundation under rigid
foundation. J Central South Univ (Natl Sci Ed) 51(08):2111–2120
11. Li XB, Zhang RY, Yang Z et al (2023) Mechanical behavior analysis
References and bearing capacity calculation of CFG pile composite foundation
on coral sand site. Front Earth Sci 11:1204989
1. Liu S, Guo PP, Li X et al (2023) Settlement behavior of composite 12. Guan W, Wu HG, Yu SJ et al (2023) Experimental study on dynamic
foundation with deep mixed piles supporting highway subgrades and bearing characteristics of part-screw pile composite foundations
in water-rich flood plains. Water 15(11):2048 under train loads. Chin J Rock Mech Eng 42(2):508–520
2. Sun Q, Zhang XD, Yang Y et al (2013) Research on settlement of 13. Zhang CL (2015) Study on load transfer and settlement mechanisms
pile-net composite foundation of highspeed railway in soft soil area. in geosynthetics-reinforced floating-pile supported embankments
J Guangxi Univ 38(01):157–164 over medium compressibility foundation. Southwest Jiaotong Uni-
3. Zhang J, Cui XZ, Huang D et al (2016) Numerical simulation of versity’s repository
consolidation settlement of pervious concrete pile composite foun- 14. Li Y, Zheng JM, Chen D et al (2020) Field test study on settlement
dation under road embankment. Int J Geomech 16(1):B4015006 control of pile-net composite foundation in deep soft soil. Chin J Gr
4. Zhu XK (2019) Study on the mechanism of CFG pile composite Improv 2(2):111–115
foundation in collapsible loess area. Xi’an University of Technology 15. Zhang KH, Shi XL, Xiong Q et al (2019) Study on bearing and set-
5. Lu QF, Han QL, Zhao YX et al (2023) Study on composite founda- tlement characteristics of screw pile composite foundation in Yinwu
tion with variable stiffness combination pile in loess and its working Passenger Dedicated Line. Subgrade Eng 1:71–75
performance. Chin J Undergr Space Eng 19(4):1289–1298 16. Li YW, He F, Song HM et al (2021) Experimental study on bearing
6. Zhao GT, Liu JF, Zhao L et al (2023) Calculation method of rigid capacity of CFG pile composite foundation in loess area. Anhui
pile composite foundation for high-speed railway based on soft soil Build 28(10):207–209

13
 Indian Geotech J

17. Cheng XS, Chen JC, Cai XD et al (2021) Dynamic response of CFG 21. TB10035 (2018) Code for design on special railway earth structure.
and cement–soil pile composite foundation in the operation stage. National Railway Administration of the People’s Republic of China,
Geomech Eng 26(4):385–399 Beijing
18. Cheng XS, Liu GN, Gong LJ et al (2020) Mechanical characteris-
tics+ differential settlement of CFG pile and cement–soil compacted Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
pile about composite foundation under train load. Geomech Eng jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
20(2):155–164
19. TB10106 (2010) Technical code for ground treatment of railway
engineering. Ministry of Railways of the People’s Republic of
China, Beijing
20. TB10751 (2018) Standard for constructional quality acceptance of
high-speed railway subgrade engineering. National Railway Admin-
istration of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing

13