Next Article in Journal
An Experimental Study on the Bearing Characteristics of Stone Columns in Stratified Transparent Soil
Previous Article in Journal
An Experimental Investigation of the Effects of Adding Polymer and Basalt Fibers on the Mechanical Properties and Durability of Lightweight Concrete
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Study on Load-Bearing Characteristics and Engineering Applications for Cement–Soil Pipe Pile

1
School of Transportation Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
2
Innovation Research Institute, Shandong Hi-Speed Group Co., Ltd., Jinan 250101, China
3
School of Civil Engineering, Shandong Jianzhu University, Jinan 250101, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(6), 912; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060912
Submission received: 5 February 2025 / Revised: 25 February 2025 / Accepted: 5 March 2025 / Published: 14 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Building Structures)

Abstract

The cement–soil pipe pile is a novel blend of cement and soil, designed to enhance load-bearing capabilities while cutting down on the need for cement. Its tubular construction is key to its strength. To delve into how the pile’s cross-sectional size affects its load-bearing properties, we took into account the soil–cement’s strain-softening behavior. Laboratory tests examined the load-bearing properties of piles. We created an exponential decay Mohr–Coulomb model in ABAQUS for further development, performed field tests, and built a numerical model incorporating wall thickness, pile diameter, and length. The unit volume ultimate bearing capacity was used to evaluate pile performance, with a focus on a 600 mm diameter pile. The results show that wall thickness minimally affects load-bearing capacity, needing to be at least a quarter of the diameter. Larger diameters increase the ultimate bearing capacity, but the capacity per unit volume declines. The 600 mm diameter pile boasts the highest unit volume ultimate bearing capacity. The pile’s effective length is roughly 10 m. Beyond this, extending the pile length increases the single pile’s ultimate bearing capacity by less than 5%, but the unit volume capacity starts to dwindle.

1. Introduction

As an economical, convenient, and effective measure for soft ground reinforcement treatment, cement–soil mixing piles have been widely used in highway engineering [1], railway engineering [2], support engineering [3], offshore engineering [4,5], and hydraulic structure engineering [6]. Hydraulic soil mixing piles have really taken off in highway engineering because they are a relatively cheap option. That being said, it is not all sunshine and roses. One major snag is that the soil’s, shall we say, personality, layer by layer, can really throw a wrench into the pile formation process. And if the quality takes a nosedive, the piles might not be able to shoulder the load they are meant to. So, there is a real and pressing need to come up with a new and improved way of building cement–soil piles that gives us tighter control over quality as we are building, gets the most bang for our buck in terms of materials, and gives those piles a serious boost in load-bearing capacity.
Cement–soil pipe piles represent an innovative approach to composite foundation treatment, building upon traditional cement–soil mixing piles to enhance soft ground stability. This technique offers a range of advantages, such as a higher load-bearing capacity, optimized material usage, and enhanced construction efficiency. The formation of cement–soil pipe piles involves a tubular design that is an improvement over traditional mixing drill bits (refer to Figure 1). Specifically, this method requires an increase in the slurry spraying pressure and a modification of the spray nozzle’s position. Consequently, the soil within the pile’s core remains intact, while a layer of cement slurry coats the soil core, running from the spray nozzle down to the length of the mixing rod, thereby creating a cylindrical cement–soil pipe pile. Utilizing the same quantity of materials, this approach permits a larger pile diameter and improved load-bearing capability. By boosting the bearing capacity of each individual pile, we can also widen the spacing between them, which in turn diminishes the overall number of piles needed. To address the problem of the poor pile formation quality of soil-mixed piles, Liu Songyu et al. [7,8,9,10] investigated the ultimate single-pile bearing capacity, damage model, and optimum shape design of expanding head of nail-type bi-directional mixing piles by means of indoor tests, field tests, and numerical simulations. However, considering the differences in the structural forms of the above solid-core piles and cement–soil pipe piles, the bearing mechanism is obviously different from that of cement–soil pipe piles. The large-diameter cast-in-place concrete pipe piles have a high similarity with cement–soil pipe piles in terms of pile structure. The former is a rigid pile, and the latter is a flexible pile. Liu Hanlong et al. [11,12,13,14] have systematically elaborated the development, design, and field application of this technology, which is a useful reference for the study of this paper. Wang Zhe and colleagues [15] investigated how the soil core within large-diameter cast-in-place concrete pipe piles affects the load-bearing capacity of the piles themselves. They suggested that the section of the soil core contributing to inner friction resistance is roughly one-third of the pile’s length from the bottom and that the bearing capacity derived from the soil core represents approximately 7% of the overall load-bearing capacity. J Xu [16,17] considered the influence of different model parameters on relative displacement and stress, which is a useful reference for the study of this paper. Cement–soil pipe piles improve soft ground reinforcement through a tubular design, enhancing pile quality and load capacity while reducing cement and pile quantity, yielding economic benefits. Addressing the insufficient understanding of hydraulic clay’s strain-softening in bearing capacity [18,19], this study combines in situ testing and numerical modeling to analyze the impact of pipe pile dimensions on load-bearing capabilities. The results will inform practical engineering applications, providing both theoretical and practical guidance.

2. Field Experiment

The field application of cement–soil pipe piles was carried out in conjunction with a specific project in Shandong Province, and a field test pile was carried out prior to the project application. The test pile site was the open space on the inner side of the ramp where the project application was to be carried out. The overburdened soil layer at the site was mainly powdery clay, chalk, and silt, which is Quaternary Holocene (Q4).
The mixer pile driver was ZGZ-B type with a main motor power of 55 kW; the mud pump was ZB2-100 type. The motor power was 15 kW, the rated pressure was 20 Mpa, and the flow rate was 70 L/min. The construction process of cement–soil pipe pile was as follows:
(1)
The pipe pile should adopt a special pipe pile churning and spraying drill bit, and it is preferable to adopt the sinking drilling and spraying method as a priority.
(2)
When the driving pipe pile spraying and stirring bit sinks into the ground, start the high-pressure mud pump to supply cement slurry to the nozzle, and turn off the mud pump while drilling and spraying and stirring until the designed depth is reached; the value of the cement slurry spraying pressure is 10 Mpa–12 Mpa (adjusted according to the wall thickness).
(3)
Stirring and lifting at the same time, turn on the mud pump for re-spraying and re-stirring when it reaches a height of 2.5 m from the top of the pile. Stop the slurry after the drill is lifted to the ground elevation.
Improvements can be made to traditional cement–soil pipe pile construction equipment to enhance its effectiveness. First, it is essential to reposition the drill bit nozzle and modify its dimensions so that the distance from the nozzle to the end of the stirring rod matches the thickness of the pile wall (refer to Figure 1). Additionally, the high-pressure nozzle should be adjusted to a size between 1.5 and 2.2 mm to maintain optimal slurry spraying pressure. A high-pressure pump should be employed for the slurry application. The construction method consists of two stirring actions followed by one spraying action: While the pile driver’s drill bit penetrates the ground, the slurry is both sprayed and stirred; when the drill bit is being retracted, only stirring occurs. The drilling lift speed should be regulated between 45 and 80 cm/min, depending on the soil layer characteristics, while the spraying pressure needs to be maintained at 10–12 Mpa. Throughout the construction process, it is crucial to monitor any fluctuations in spraying pressure and ensure the drilling rod’s vertical alignment. Work should be halted if any irregularities arise, allowing time to diagnose issues, rectify faults, and adjust parameters before resuming construction. If the spraying and stirring processes need to be temporarily paused, it is important to restart the spraying with an overlap of at least 0.3 m. Keeping detailed construction records is vital for maintaining quality standards throughout the project.
Two groups of Φ600 mm and Φ800 mm diameters were selected for the in situ test, and each group of two piles was formed into three piles with a length of 10 m. The static load test of single pile bearing capacity and core drilling sampling were carried out. The on-site testing method refers to the “Code for the Design of Building Foundations” (GB50007-2011). The field test pile excavation and core drilling test are shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, respectively, and the results of single pile ultimate bearing capacity test are shown in Figure 4.
Twenty-eight days following the conclusion of the testing, the in situ test piles on-site underwent evaluation through pile head excavation and core drilling sampling. As illustrated in Figure 2, these in situ test piles yielded promising results, thanks to an enhanced construction methodology that resulted in hydraulic clay piles shaped in a tubular form. The core samples retrieved from the drilling exhibited completeness, with the majority being columnar in shape and a minor portion appearing lumpy, all while maintaining a uniform mixture. The anticipated objectives were successfully met. Figure 4 presents the displacement curves for the bearing capacity of single piles with diameters of 600 mm and 800 mm. Notably, the ultimate bearing capacity for the 600 mm tubular piles stands at 430 kN, while the 800 mm counterparts reach 785 kN, representing increases of 53% and 180%, respectively, over the original design requirement of 280 kN. It is important to highlight that the cement material quantity for the 600 mm piles matches that of the originally designed 500 mm solid piles, which is set at 60 kg/m. In contrast, the cement requirement for the 800 mm piles is only 92% higher than the original design, with the former requiring 60 kg/m and the latter 115 kg/m.

3. Physical Model Testing

Combined with the actual engineering situation, simplifying the related engineering into a similar model with similar materials, and carrying out targeted multi-parameter, multi-angle, and multi-condition analysis, can solve the disadvantages of irreversible and susceptible environmental impact of field tests. Based on the similar model test, the key parameter information can be obtained in an all-round and three-dimensional way by embedding relevant monitoring elements in advance, and the bearing characteristics of the pile foundation and the deformation characteristics of the soil can be intuitively and vividly revealed.

3.1. Model Testing System

The model test system determined by the bearing characteristic test consists of three parts: the model tank, loading system, and measurement system. Among them, the loading system is used for the bearing characteristic test research of the stirred pile, the measurement system is mainly based on the bearing capacity and stress-strain testing technology, real-time measurements of the pile force, soil deformation, and strain are carried out in the test process, the model tank is the main part of the model test to carry out and implement the model test, and it is possible to simulate different test sites by changing the filling materials in the tank. The indoor model test system is shown in Figure 5. In the field test, the length of the mixing pile is 10 m; in order to increase the operability of the model test, the volume of the test model cannot be too large, and at the same time, in order to ensure the accuracy of the test, the volume of the test model cannot be too small. According to the literature and on-site construction experience, the geometric similarity ratio was Cl = 15, the severe similarity ratio was Cγ = 1, the length of the model pile was 66.7 cm, and the pile diameter was 40 mm. The model box was 1.5 m in length, width, and height.

3.2. Test Conditions

The load-bearing characteristic test conditions are shown in Table 1.

3.3. Model Building

(1) Model pile making
The model pile is made by 3D printing, after research; in many materials, white resin has stable performance and is easy to mold, other materials are too hard and close to the rigid body, and white resin is relatively soft, which can better simulate the bearing characteristics of the hydraulic soil cylinder pile, so it is determined that the material is white resin, which simulates the bearing characteristics of the hydraulic soil cylinder pile. The product parameters are shown in Table 2 and Table 3.
(2) Test fill
The source of soil used in this test was standard sand. The model arrangement of the single pile bearing characteristic test is shown in Figure 6.

3.4. Test Methods

The interior of the model trench was filled with on-site soil in layers from the bottom to the top, and every 10 cm of fill was rolled in layers and compacted according to the similarity coefficient of dry density Cγ. After filling to the design depth, model piles were installed. One strain gauge was set at 10 cm intervals on the pile side of the model pile, and a total of seven sets of strain gages were set.
The loading test was carried out using the loading system, which employed a displacement control method to apply the vertical load. The entire setup is secured to the sliding rail of the model tank via a crossbeam and a detachable bracket. At the front end of the hydraulic system, a spoke-type pressure transducer and a micrometer were installed. Throughout the loading test, strain gauges and pressure transducers were linked to the data acquisition system to track the variations in load, displacement, and stress parameters during the loading phase.

3.5. Test Steps

Before the start of the test, the bottom of the test should be filled in advance and reserve a good space for burying the test pile and the prepared fill soil uniformly and symmetrically filled to the model box and layered paving, Model box pre-filled soil as shown in Figure 7.
Currently, there are two ways of burying model piles, i.e., the press-in type and the buried type. The press-in type is generally used to simulate soil crowding piles; the specific method is to first fill the soil to a predetermined pile top height position and then press the model pile into the soil. The buried type is mainly used to simulate non-extruded piles; the specific method is to first fill the soil to a predetermined height of the pile end, place the model pile in the specified position and fix it, and then continue to fill the soil to a predetermined height of the top of the pile. The buried type was used in this test.
Positioning the model stakes is a very important step in the process of burying the model stakes. Before burying the model pile, first set out the tempered glass around the model box and the centerline of the model pile. In order to ensure the accurate positioning of the model piles, the centerline of the tempered glass and the centerline of the model piles should be made to coincide with each other in the process of burying the model piles.
Soil filling in the model box must be performed with care to minimize the effect of soil filling on the positioning of the model piles. Complete the preparatory work of the model pile as shown in Figure 8.
The data measurement system of this model test include the following two aspects: pile top settlement and pile stress measurement. Among them, the settlement of the pile top is measured by the percentage meter arranged at the top of the pile, as shown in Figure 9. And the strain measurement of the pile body adopts the DH3618N static strain testing system produced by Donghua Testing Co. (Suzhou, China).
Vertical loading tests were performed on the model piles after all preparations were made. The status of all work completion is shown in Figure 10.
The specific operation steps are as follows:
This model test was loaded step by step during the test, 200 N for each level, and then the next level of load was added after each level of load reached relative stability, until a certain level of load of the model pile reached twice the settlement of the previous level of load. Finally, according to the termination loading condition of Article 2 of 6.3.4 in the “Technical Code for Building Foundation Testing” JGJ 340-2015 (under a certain level of load, the settlement of the pile top is greater than 2 times the settlement of the previous level of load), the ultimate bearing force standard was set in the laboratory test.
(1)
The control model pile is loaded with 200 N until the ultimate load is obtained.
(2)
The settlement observation specification stipulates that the next level of loading shall not be carried out when the subsidence is not stabilized. The observation time of each level of loading is as follows: Each level of loading should be observed immediately after loading, and then in the first hour, it is observed every 15 min; in the second hour, it is observed every 30 min; from the third hour onwards, it is observed every 1 h.
(3)
Stabilization standard of settlement: If the amount of subsidence of each level of load is not more than 0.1 mm in the last 30 min, the settlement can be regarded as stabilized, and the next level of load can be applied.
(4)
The termination of loading and the value of limit load: The loading can be terminated when the sinking amount of the current load is equal to or greater than 2 times the sinking amount of the previous load.
The specific case of loading is shown in Figure 11.

3.6. Experimental Results and Analysis

For this experiment, four identical piles were constructed, each divided into equal sections. The displacement of the pile’s apex was monitored using a percentage meter installed at the top, while the load pressure was regulated with a pressure transducer.
Analyzing the test outcomes for each model pile allows for a comparison of the pile top load–settlement curves (P-S curves), as illustrated in Figure 12.
From the “Technical Specification for Pile Foundation of Construction”, it is reasonable to consider the uppermost layer of the preceding stack, where the settlement induced by a specific load is double that of the load before it, as the ultimate bearing capacity for the model pile. From this, we can conclude that the vertical ultimate bearing capacity of the PS model pile (a uniformly solid pile) is 1000 N, the PT-1 model pile (equal-section cylindrical pile) is 1400 N, the PT-2 model pile (equal-section cylindrical pile) is 1800 N, the PT-3 model pile (equal-section cylindrical pile) is 2400 N, and the ST-1 model pile (variable-section cylindrical pile) is 2400 N.
According to the strain results of this indoor model test, the distribution law of pile body axial force can be analyzed. The strain value at the corresponding position of the pile body is measured by the resistance strain gauges attached to the pile body at the corresponding position, and then the axial force at the corresponding cross-section position can be obtained by the stress–strain conversion formula in the mechanics of materials:
Q i = E A ε i
Type: Qi is the pile body axial force (N); E is the modulus of elasticity of the pile body (2.1 GPa); A is the cross-sectional area of the pile body (m2); and εi is the axial strain at pile body I (με).
The axial force data and the distribution of the axial force of each model pile under different loading levels can be obtained from the conversion of the strain data of the pile.
As illustrated in Figure 13, there is a noticeable trend: As the load on the pile top rises, the relative movement between the pile and the surrounding soil also steadily increases. Additionally, the axial force experiences a gradual uptick, with the upper section of the pile showing a significantly quicker rise in axial force compared to the lower section. This indicates that the axial force within the pile is progressively being transmitted from the top toward the bottom, ultimately reaching the pile’s tip.
As illustrated in Figure 14, both the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile and the unit volume bearing capacity of equal-section cylindrical piles surpass those of solid piles. Furthermore, it is evident that the ultimate bearing capacity of these cylindrical piles tends to increase with a larger outer diameter. This enhancement occurs because a greater outer diameter expands the contact area between the pile and the surrounding soil, both on the sides and at the pile’s base, with a notable increase on the lateral surfaces. However, calculations reveal that a larger outer diameter does not always equate to better performance. Specifically, when evaluating cylinder piles with outer diameters of 40 mm, 47 mm, and 53 mm, the respective ultimate bearing capacities per unit volume were found to be 2.23 N, 2.05 N, and 2.02 N. Notably, the 53 mm diameter pile exhibited a reduction of approximately 10% in ultimate bearing capacity per unit volume compared to the 40 mm pile. Therefore, it is crucial to judiciously select the outer diameter of cylindrical piles in practical applications.

4. Computational Modeling

4.1. Mohr–Coulomb Model for Exponential Decay of Hydraulic Soils

Conventional soil constitutive models are unable to simulate the strain-softening characteristics of hydraulic soils under loading [18,20]. As illustrated in Figure 15, Yapage et al. [20,21] put forth a single-fold strain softening model. In this model, strain softening initiates when the plastic shear strain hits the critical threshold, denoted as εd0. At this point, the material’s microelemental strengths—specifically the internal friction angle and cohesion—exhibit a linear decline towards their residual values, while the shear expansion angle tapers off to zero in a linear fashion. Although this approach is straightforward and effective, it falls short since the reduction of hydraulic soil strength parameters is not linear [22,23]. To more accurately capture the strain-softening behavior of hydraulic soil, an exponential decay model was proposed, as presented in Equation (2):
C = C 0 e ε ε d 0 D c + ( 1 e ε ε d 0 D c ) C r
Calculation formula: C0 is the initial value of microelement strength, such as cohesion, the friction angle, etc.; εd0 is the softening onset critical plastic shear strain; Cr is the residual value of microelement strength after softening; and DC is the decay parameter.

4.2. Triaxial Test Validation

In order to verify the accuracy of the above exponential decay model, numerical simulations were carried out based on triaxial tests in the literature [20,21]. The model is axisymmetric, and the material parameters are consistent with the literature (Young’s modulus E, peak cohesion c, post-peak cohesion Cr, peak friction angle φ, post-peak friction angle φr, and softening onset critical plastic shear strain εd0). The mesh is a four-node axisymmetric quadrilateral cell (CAX4P).
Figure 16 presents the simulation results alongside findings from the literature. It is evident from this figure that the conventional Mohr–Coulomb model falls short in capturing the strain-softening behavior of hydraulic soil. Initially, when loading begins and the hydraulic soil has yet to enter the softening phase, both the single-fold strain softening model and the exponential decay model exhibit similar stress–strain behavior. However, as loading progresses and the soil transitions into the softening stage, the exponential decay model aligns more closely with the deformation patterns observed in hydraulic soil, thereby providing a more accurate representation of its strain softening characteristics compared to the single-fold strain softening model.

4.3. Field Test Validation

The numerical analysis presented in this paper is grounded in the field test outlined in Part 2, utilizing the exponential decay Mohr–Coulomb model as previously described and executed using the ABAQUS 2022 finite element software. To enhance the accuracy of the model outcomes and address the impact of boundary effects, as well as the challenges posed by axisymmetric vertical forces acting on the pile, we have made sure the soil’s width is at least 20 times broader than the pile’s size. Moreover, the gap between the pile’s top and the soil’s bottom is usually maintained at more than 10 times the pile’s width. A two-dimensional axisymmetric numerical model has been created, illustrated in Figure 17. The dimensions of the foundation soil are 20 m (33 d) by 40 m (66 d), with the soil layers in the model accurately reflecting actual depths while being reasonably simplified. The pile dimensions correspond to those obtained from the in situ testing.
In this model, we establish the contact interface between hydraulic soil and regular soil. The tangential friction at this interface is characterized by a “penalty” method, with a friction coefficient defined as tanφ = 0.45, where φ represents the internal friction angle [24,25]. The contact surface is treated as hard contact in the normal direction, which effectively prevents penetration during the calculations. The contact pair is defined by stiffness, with the hydraulic soil designated as the master surface due to its higher stiffness, while the soil body functions as the slave surface [24,25]. The soil body itself is modeled using the Mohr–Coulomb approach. Displacements in the X and Y directions at the model’s bottom boundary are fixed at zero, as are the X direction along the pile axis and the left and right boundaries of the soil model. The loading strategy follows an incremental force control method based on field tests, with initial geostatic stress settings and equilibrium adjustments in place. The model employs a four-node axisymmetric cell, referred to as CAX4.
The parameters of each soil layer and pile body in the calculation model are selected according to the parameters determined by the field geological investigation data and related literature [26,27,28,29], and the summary values of the parameters of the calculation model are shown in Table 4.
The ratio of Cr/C0 in Equation (2) is defined as the residual softening index. Based on the research of Yapage et al. [20,21], and combined with field tests, the residual softening index is taken as 0.6 in the numerical simulation of this paper. According to the research of scholars, such as Navin and Filz [30,31,32], the cement–soil pipe pile is taken to be 100–300 times its unconfined compressive strength, which is taken to be 225 MPa (150 qu, indoor measured qu = 1.5 MPa). The internal friction angle of cement soil is generally 25~45° [33,34], which is taken as 35° in this paper, the cohesion cp is obtained with Equation (3) [33,34], and the material parameters for the numerical simulation of the cement–soil pipe pile are shown in Table 5.
c p = q u 2 tan 45 + ϕ p / 2
In the calculation equation, cp is the cohesive force (kPa) of the hydraulic soil, and φp is the angle of internal friction of the hydraulic soil.
Table 6 presents the numerical simulation findings regarding the ultimate load capacity of individual piles. Initially, the Q-S behaviors for the Φ600 mm and Φ800 mm cement–soil piles, derived from both the exponentially decaying Mohr–Coulomb model and the ideal Mohr–Coulomb model, are quite similar during the early loading phase. The ultimate bearing capacities identified for the single piles are 445 kN and 670 kN, respectively. This similarity is attributed to the fact that, at this stage, the cement–soil piles have yet to enter the soft decay phase, as illustrated by the consistent results from both models. As vertical loading continues to rise, the Φ600 mm pile begins to soften once the external load surpasses 563.2 kN, while the Φ800 mm pile enters the softening phase when the load exceeds 760 kN. Notably, the exponential decay Mohr–Coulomb model, which accounts for diminishing internal friction angles and cohesive forces in response to increasing external loads, proves to be more representative of real-world engineering scenarios compared to the traditional Mohr–Coulomb model.

4.4. Calculate the Operating Conditions

The cross-sectional dimensions of a cement–soil pipe pile represent a novel structural form that greatly affects its load-bearing capacity. To explore how varying cross-section sizes impact the pile’s performance, a comparative analysis was conducted. This study examined the ultimate bearing capacity of the pile under different lengths, diameters, and wall thicknesses, drawing on data obtained from in situ tests conducted at the site. A summary of the calculated working conditions is presented in Table 7.

5. Analysis of Calculation Results

In order to enable a more accurate comparison and analysis of the load-bearing capabilities of different cement–soil pipe pile sections, we propose the idea of the ultimate bearing capacity per unit volume. This concept is calculated by taking the ultimate bearing capacity of an individual pile and dividing it by the pile’s total volume. Essentially, this gives us a way to gauge the ultimate bearing capacity relative to the volume of the pipe pile itself. This index acts as a benchmark for assessing the load-bearing efficiency of each cement–soil pipe pile. The resulting variation curves, which depict the correlation between a single pile’s ultimate bearing capacity and its ultimate bearing capacity per unit volume, are illustrated in Figure 18, Figure 19 and Figure 20, showcasing various soil core diameters, pile diameters, and lengths.

5.1. Analysis of the Influence of Cement Soil Pipe Pile Wall Thickness on Bearing Capacity

In order to perform a comparative study on the impact of wall thickness on the load-bearing capacity of piles, a diameter of 600 mm was selected for the piles, with wall thicknesses ranging from 150 mm to 300 mm at increments of 50 mm for the solid core variants. As depicted in Figure 18a, the ultimate bearing capacity of the individual pipe piles varies with the different wall thicknesses. The findings indicate a steady increase in the ultimate bearing capacity as the wall thickness rises, with recorded values of 445 kN, 465 kN, 475 kN, and 476 kN, respectively. However, the rate of increase diminishes with each increment. Additionally, while thinner walls result in lower bearing capacity, they also require less cement material. To enhance our comprehension of the load-bearing characteristics of pipe pile structures, a comparative study was undertaken to examine how variations in wall thickness affect both the ultimate bearing capacity of individual piles and the ultimate bearing capacity per unit volume. As depicted in Figure 18b, the ultimate load-bearing capacity of a single pile shows a steady increase with a greater wall thickness. In contrast, the ultimate load-bearing capacity per unit volume decreases consistently, with measurements of 209 kN/m3, 185 kN/m3, 172 kN/m3, and 168 kN/m3 for wall thicknesses between 250 mm and 300 mm. Notably, the reduction in the ultimate load-bearing capacity per unit volume remains relatively insignificant within this range. However, when the wall thickness is increased from 150 mm to 250 mm, the ultimate capacity per unit volume decreases significantly by about 17%. Considering the low strength of hydraulic clay material, unlike cement concrete, the thin wall of a tubular pile easily causes damage to the hydraulic clay pile body [35]; therefore, the minimum thickness of tubular wall selected in this paper is 1/4 of the pile diameter.

5.2. Analysis of the Effect of Pile Diameter on Bearing Capacity

To investigate the impact of varying pile diameters on their bearing properties, calculations were performed to determine the ultimate bearing capacity of single piles with diameters ranging from Φ600 mm to Φ1000 mm. The internal core diameter was kept between 300 mm and 500 mm, while the wall thickness was maintained at 1/4 of the diameter (D). As depicted in Figure 19a, a noticeable trend emerges: The ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile increases with a larger diameter. Specifically, the recorded ultimate bearing capacities for diameters of Φ600 mm, Φ700 mm, Φ800 mm, and Φ1000 mm are 445 kN, 562 kN, 686 kN, and 986 kN, respectively. Furthermore, Figure 19b illustrates the connection between the ultimate bearing capacity of a single pile and the ultimate bearing capacity per unit volume as the diameter increases. Although the ultimate bearing capacity rises with increasing diameter, so does the overall volume of the pile and the cement required. As a result, the ultimate bearing capacity per unit volume decreases with larger diameters; notably, as the pile diameter grows from 600 mm to 1000 mm, the values drop to 209 kN/m3, 194 kN/m3, 182 kN/m3, and 161 kN/m3, indicating an approximate 23% decrease at the maximum. Therefore, from a cost-effective standpoint, opting for a cement–soil pipe pile with a diameter of Φ600 mm emerges as the most advantageous option, offering the greatest bearing capacity contribution for each unit of cement consumed.

5.3. Analysis of the Effect of Pipe Pile Length on Bearing Capacity

Figure 20 presents a comparison and analysis of how varying the lengths of tubular piles affect their load-bearing capabilities. As illustrated in Figure 20a, extending the pile length from 6 m to 12 m results in a rise in the ultimate bearing capacity of an individual pile, escalating from 336 kN to 407 kN, then to 445 kN, and finally reaching 456 kN. This translates to increases of 21%, 32%, and 35%, respectively. The effect of bearing capacity improvement is gradually smaller with the increasing length of the pile. This result indicates that for this study, an effective pile length also exists for cement–soil pipe piles, which are around 10 m long. It is consistent with the results of existing studies on effective pile length under embankment loading [36]. Figure 20b outlines the evolving trends in the ultimate load-bearing capacity of an individual pile and the ultimate load-bearing capacity per cubic unit of pipe pile, taking into account various lengths. As the length of the pile grows, its ultimate load-bearing capacity rises, while its capacity per unit volume decreases. This suggests that the unit mass of cement contributes less to the overall load-bearing capacity. Moreover, the effective pile length is influenced by a multitude of factors, such as the soil characteristics surrounding the pile, the composition of the pile material, and the loading circumstances. It is not a static value [37].

6. Engineering Applications

To further validate the use of cement–soil pipe piles, we built upon prior research findings and took into account the specifics of the current project. We opted for 600 mm diameter cement–soil pipe piles, aligning their length with the original design parameters—long piles measuring 11 m and short piles at 7 m. The site’s geological conditions were outlined in section one. The characteristic single-pile bearing capacity for the 600 mm piles was estimated at 215 kN. The spacing between the piles was determined using the replacement ratio “m” derived from the composite foundation bearing capacity calculation formula, with the final results presented in Table 8. This replacement ratio allowed us to calculate the spacing for the pipe piles, which is also detailed in Table 8. The original design indicated pile spacings of 1.2 m, 1.5 m, and 1.8 m, whereas the new cement–soil pipe piles were spaced at 1.5 m, 1.8 m, and 2.2 m. Consequently, the total length of the pile extensions decreased from 11,256 m in the original design to 7475 m, a reduction of 3781 m, which represents over a 33% decrease. Additionally, the quantity of cement utilized dropped from 617 tons to 447 tons, a savings of 170 tons or more than 27%. In comparison to the initial design, the overall project costs have been lowered by over 25%, yielding significant economic and social advantages, along with considerable potential for future application and promotion.
To validate the efficacy of the tubular pile design, a series of field tests were carried out to evaluate the load-bearing capabilities of both individual piles and integrated foundations. The outcomes of these evaluations are depicted in Figure 21 and Figure 22. The data suggest that the load-bearing capacities of both the single piles and the composite foundations within three distinct regions meet the established design criteria. Specifically, the settlement measurements for the single pile bearing capacity were recorded as 14.92 mm in Zone A, 2.66 mm in Zone B, and 2.22 mm in Zone C, yielding an average settlement of 6.60 mm. For the composite foundation bearing capacity, the settlement values were 9.35 mm in Zone A and 4.59 mm in both Zone B and Zone C, leading to an average settlement of 6.43 mm. Notably, the settlement values associated with the 600 mm cement–soil pipe piles were lower, indicating a more effective foundation treatment.

7. Conclusions and Prospects

7.1. Conclusions

Field in situ test research and numerical simulation calculations have been carried out for the self-developed new cross-sectional form of cement–soil pipe piles to analyze the influence of the change in the cross-sectional dimensions of the pipe piles on the bearing characteristics of the pile body and to further carry out on-site engineering validation, and the following conclusions have been drawn:
  • Drilling head and construction techniques for cement–soil pipe piles were developed, their reliability through on-site testing was validated, and a novel method for composite foundation treatment was proposed.
  • As the diameter of equal cross-section cylinder piles increases, their single-pile bearing capacity rises, while the unit volume bearing capacity initially increases and then decreases, with the axial force showing a pattern of larger results upwards and smaller downwards.
  • An exponential decay model using plastic shear strain was introduced, where cohesion, friction angle, and shear expansion angle decrease exponentially with shear plastic strain, effectively modeling strain softening in cement–soil pipe piles. The model’s validity was confirmed by triaxial tests and on-site single-pile bearing assessments.
  • The diameter of cement–soil pipe piles significantly influences bearing capacity, with an increase from 600 mm to 1000 mm enhancing capacity by 2.14 times, while wall thickness has a minimal impact. The typical effective length is around 10 m. Larger diameters improve overall capacity but decrease per unit volume. A 600 mm diameter and 150 mm wall thickness are optimal for efficient material use.
  • This study explores how the dimensions of cement–soil pipe piles affect their load-bearing capacity. Future research will address factors like lateral friction, end resistance, axial load, and soil core influence on bearing properties, enhancing understanding of load-bearing mechanisms.

7.2. Prospects

Due to the limited time and energy of the authors, this study has certain limitations; the laboratory experiment has not been damaged, so this research can be carried out here in the future, and other materials can be tried for research.

Author Contributions

Writing—original draft, C.Z., X.Z. and S.Z.; Writing—review & editing, C.L., Y.Y. and J.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Yaohui Yang was employed by the company Shandong Hi-Speed Group Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, B.; Zhang, Y. Analysis of settlement characteristics of cement-soil mixed pile roadbed in soft soil area. Highway 2021, 66, 107–114. [Google Scholar]
  2. Zhao, C.; Hu, J.; Huang, Q.; Lang, F.; Leng, W.; Chen, L. Model Test on railway embankment reinforced with inclined soil-cement piles. J. China Railw. Soc. 2021, 43, 136–141. [Google Scholar]
  3. Sun, M.; Zhang, N.; Xiao, J.; Liu, M. Application of cement-soil mixing piles in embankment landslide treatment. Yellow River 2016, 38, 120–122. [Google Scholar]
  4. Lv, G.; Ge, J.; Xiao, H. Treatment of coastal soft foundation with cement-soil mixing pile. J. Shandong Univ. (Eng. Sci.) 2020, 50, 73–81. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bai, Y.; Jiang, C.; Zhao, D. Application of cement-soil mixing pile in soft soil foundation reinforcement. Yellow River 2022, 44, 280–281. [Google Scholar]
  6. Wang, X.; Cheng, Q.; Pang, J.; Wang, Q.; Liu, F. Engineering properties of waterproof curtain from cement mixing piles. Chin. J. Undergr. Space Eng. 2015, 11, 706–712. [Google Scholar]
  7. Liu, S.; Xi, P.; Chu, H.; Gong, N. Research on practice of bidirectional deep mixing cement-soil columns for reinforcing soft ground. Rock. Soil Mech. 2007, 28, 560–564. [Google Scholar]
  8. Liu, S.Y.; Du, Y.J.; Yi, Y.L. Field Investigations on Performance of T-Shaped Deep Mixed Soil Cement Column–Supported Embankments over Soft Ground. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012, 138, 718–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Yi, Y.; Liu, S.; Zhao, W.; Sun, H.; Chen, W.; Li, H. Installation of variable diameter soil-cement double mixed column. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2010, 32 (Suppl. 2), 387–390. [Google Scholar]
  10. Xi, P.; Liu, S. Load transmission law of T-shaped cement-soil mixing piles. Build. Struct. 2014, 44, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
  11. Liu, H.; Fei, K.; Ma, X.; Gao, Y. Cast-in-situ concrete thin-wall pipe pile with Vibrated and steel tube mould technology and its application (I): Development and design. Rock. Soil Mech. 2003, 24, 164–168. [Google Scholar]
  12. Liu, H.; Hao, X.; Fei, K.; Chen, Y. Field pour concrete thin wall cased pile technology and its application (II): Application and in-situ test. Rock. Soil Mech. 2003, 24, 372–375. [Google Scholar]
  13. Liu, H.; Tao, X.; Zhang, J.; Chen, Y. Behavior of PCC pile composite foundation under lateral load. Rock. Soil Mech. 2010, 31, 2716–2722. [Google Scholar]
  14. Liu, H.; Zhou, M.; Chen, Y.; Xie, S.; Sun, H. Field test of railway soft clay subgrade reinforced by PCC piles. Rock. Soil Mech. 2012, 33, 3201–3207. [Google Scholar]
  15. Wang, Z.; Gong, X.; Ding, Z.; Zhou, J. Research on influence of soil core on load bearing character of large-diameter tubular pile using cast-in-situ concrete. Chin. J. Rock. Mech. Eng. 2005, 24, 3916–3921. [Google Scholar]
  16. Xu, J.; Zheng, L.; Yu, Z.; Li, Y.; Cai, G. Effects of bending stiffness and interface roughness on tunnel-embedded wall interaction. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2025, 155, 106209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, J.; Gao, M.; Wang, Y.; Yu, Z.; Zhao, J.; DeJong, M. Numerical investigation of the effects of separated footings on tunnel-soil-structure interaction. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2025. accepted. [Google Scholar]
  18. Quiroga, A.J.; Thompson, Z.M.; Muraleetharan, K.K.; Miller, G.A.; Cerato, A.B. Stress–strain behavior of cement-improved clays: Testing and modeling. Acta Geotech. 2017, 12, 1003–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Aniroot, S.; Suksun, H. Evaluation of cement stabilized recycled asphalt pavement/lateritic soil blends for soft soil improvement. Rock Soil Mech. 2023, 43, 3305–3315. [Google Scholar]
  20. Yapage, N.N.S.; Liyanapathirana, D.S. A review of constitutive models for cement-treated clay. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 13, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Yapage, N.N.S.; Liyanapathirana, D.S.; Poulos, H.G.; Kelly, R.B.; Leo, C.J. Numerical modeling of geotextile-reinforced embankments over deep cement mixed columns incorporating strain-softening behavior of columns. Int. J. Geomech. 2015, 15, 04014047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Porcino, D.D.; Marcianò, V. Bonding degradation and stress–dilatancy response of weakly cemented sands. Geomech. Geoengin. 2017, 12, 221–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kamruzzaman, A.H.; Chew, S.H.; Lee, F.H. Structuration and destructuration behavior of cement-treated Singapore marine clay. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2009, 135, 573–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Helwany, S. Applied Soil Mechanics with ABAQUS Applications; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fei, K.; Peng, J. Detailed Explanation of ABAQUS Geotechnical Engineering Examples; Posts and Telecom Press: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  26. Wang, Z. Study on Stability of Approach Channel Embankment of Baishan Junction Reinforced by Intelligent Bidirectional Djm Piles. Master’s Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yang, H. Experimental research on bearing capacity of single pile of cement-soil mixed pile composite foundation. Master’s Thesis, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  28. Feng, W. Research on Bearing Characteristics of Improved Deep Cement Mixing Pile Composite Foundation inYellow River Flooding Area. Ph.D. Thesis, Shandong University, Jinan, China, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sophana, K.T. Numerical Analysis of T-Shaped Deep Mixed Soil Cement Columns Supported Embankment. Ph.D. Thesis, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, China, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  30. Navin, M.P.; Filz, G.M. Statistical analysis of strength data from ground improved with DMM columns. In Proceedings of the Deep Mixing’05: Proceedings, International Conference on Deep Mixing Best Practice and Recent Advances, Stockholm, Sweden, 23–25 May 2005; pp. 145–154. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bruce, D.A. An Introduction to the Deep Mixing Methods as Used in Geotechnical Applications, Volume III: The Verification and Properties of Treated Ground; Bibliogov: Asheville, NC, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  32. Porbaha, A.; Shibuya, S.; Kishida, T. State of the art in deep mixing technology. Part III: Geomaterial characterization. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Ground Improv. 2000, 4, 91–110. [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, S.; Qian, G.; Zhang, D. The Principle and Applicationof Dry Jet Mduingcomposite Foundation; China Building Industry Press: Beijing, China, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  34. Yi, Y. Sustainable Novel Deep Mixing Methods and Theory. Ph.D. Thesis, Southeast University, Nanjing, China, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  35. Wang, H.; Chen, F.; Huang, J.; Song, M. Investigation into progressive failure mechanisms of geosynthetic-reinforced pile supported embankment considering strain softening behaviors of cement soils. J. Basic Sci. Eng. 2023, 31, 197–209. [Google Scholar]
  36. Zhao, D. Effective length of deformable pile composite foundation under embankment. J. Hebei Eng. Tech. Coll. 2013, 20–23+65. [Google Scholar]
  37. Ge, X.; Gong, X.; Zhang, X. Discussion on design calculation method of long-short pile composite foundation. Build. Struct. 2002, 32, 3–5. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Piling machine of cement–soil pipe pile.
Figure 1. Piling machine of cement–soil pipe pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g001
Figure 2. The excavation picture of cement–soil pipe pile.
Figure 2. The excavation picture of cement–soil pipe pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g002
Figure 3. Core sample of cement–soil pipe pile.
Figure 3. Core sample of cement–soil pipe pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g003
Figure 4. The Q-S curve of cement–soil pipe pile.
Figure 4. The Q-S curve of cement–soil pipe pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g004
Figure 5. Test setup for single pile bearing characteristics of cylindrical pile.
Figure 5. Test setup for single pile bearing characteristics of cylindrical pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g005
Figure 6. Elevation diagram of single pile bearing characteristic model arrangement.
Figure 6. Elevation diagram of single pile bearing characteristic model arrangement.
Buildings 15 00912 g006
Figure 7. Model box pre-fill.
Figure 7. Model box pre-fill.
Buildings 15 00912 g007
Figure 8. Model piles and buried model piles.
Figure 8. Model piles and buried model piles.
Buildings 15 00912 g008
Figure 9. Pilot test equipment.
Figure 9. Pilot test equipment.
Buildings 15 00912 g009
Figure 10. Completion of preparations.
Figure 10. Completion of preparations.
Buildings 15 00912 g010
Figure 11. Vertical loading process of model pile.
Figure 11. Vertical loading process of model pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g011
Figure 12. Load–settlement curves for each model pile.
Figure 12. Load–settlement curves for each model pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g012
Figure 13. Axial force distribution of model pile.
Figure 13. Axial force distribution of model pile.
Buildings 15 00912 g013
Figure 14. Ultimate bearing capacity of single pile and bearing capacity per unit volume for piles of various equal cross sections.
Figure 14. Ultimate bearing capacity of single pile and bearing capacity per unit volume for piles of various equal cross sections.
Buildings 15 00912 g014
Figure 15. The different kinds of constitutive models.
Figure 15. The different kinds of constitutive models.
Buildings 15 00912 g015
Figure 16. Numerical simulation and measurement value comparison [20,21].
Figure 16. Numerical simulation and measurement value comparison [20,21].
Buildings 15 00912 g016
Figure 17. The numerical simulation model.
Figure 17. The numerical simulation model.
Buildings 15 00912 g017
Figure 18. The influence on bearing capacity of cement–soil pipe pile with different wall thickness.
Figure 18. The influence on bearing capacity of cement–soil pipe pile with different wall thickness.
Buildings 15 00912 g018
Figure 19. The influence on bearing capacity of cement–soil pipe pile with different diameters.
Figure 19. The influence on bearing capacity of cement–soil pipe pile with different diameters.
Buildings 15 00912 g019
Figure 20. The influence on bearing capacity of cement–soil pipe pile with different lengths.
Figure 20. The influence on bearing capacity of cement–soil pipe pile with different lengths.
Buildings 15 00912 g020
Figure 21. Q-S curves of single pipe pile in different zones.
Figure 21. Q-S curves of single pipe pile in different zones.
Buildings 15 00912 g021
Figure 22. P-S curves of composite foundation with pipe piles in different zones.
Figure 22. P-S curves of composite foundation with pipe piles in different zones.
Buildings 15 00912 g022
Table 1. Test program for single pile bearing characteristics.
Table 1. Test program for single pile bearing characteristics.
Working ConditionSerial
Number
OD/mmID/mmPile Length/mmNote
PSPS3333667
PT-14020667effect of cylinder pile size
PTPT-24723667
PT-35327667
Note: PS—plain solid core pile; PT—equal cross-section cylindrical pile.
Table 2. Physical properties—liquid material.
Table 2. Physical properties—liquid material.
AppearanceWhite
Density1.11~1.15 g/cm3 @25 °C
Viscosity280~420 cps @ 25 °C
Dp0.135~0.158 mm
Ec8.1~9.0 mJ/cm2
Building 1ayer thickness0.05~0.12 mm
Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Post-Cured Material.
Table 3. Mechanical Properties of Post-Cured Material.
MeasurementTest MethodValue
90 min UV post-cure
Hardness Shore DASTM D 224076~88
Flexural modulus MpaASTM D 7902692~2775
Flexural strength MpaASTM D 79069~74
Tensile modulus MPaASTM D 6382589~2695
Tensile strength MPaASTM D 63838~56
Elongation at breakASTM D 6388~12%
Poisson’s ratioASTM D 6380.4~0.44
Impact strength notched Izod, J/mASTM D 25632~38
Heat deflection temperature, °CASTM D 648@66 PSI39~52
Glass transition, Tg °CDMA, E” peak40~57
Coefficient of thermal expansion/°CTMA(T)90~103 × 106
Density g/cm3 1.12~1.18
Dielectric constant
60 Hz
ASTM D 150-984.2~5.0
Dielectric constant
1 kHz
ASTM D 150-983.3~4.2
Dielectric constant
1 MHz
ASTM D 150-983.2~4.0
Dielectric strength
kV/mm
ASTM D 1549-97a12.8~16.1
Table 4. The parameters of numerical simulation model for soil.
Table 4. The parameters of numerical simulation model for soil.
Profundity/mMaterial TypeSevere/
(kN/m3)
Cohesion/
kPa
Internal
Friction
Angle/°
Young’s Modulus/
MPa
Poisson’s Ratio
0–5Silty Clay17322824.50.3
5–10Dust182020.522.50.3
10–40Silt18.5122817.50.3
Table 5. The parameters of numerical simulation model for cement–soil pipe pile.
Table 5. The parameters of numerical simulation model for cement–soil pipe pile.
Modulus of Elasticity
(kPa)
Cohesion
(kPa)
Angle of Internal Friction
(°)
Residual Value of Cohesion
(kPa)
Residual Value of Angle of Internal Friction (°)Cr/C0Critical Plastic Shear Strain εd0
(%)
225 × 10341235164.8210.61
Table 6. Numerical simulation and field measurement value comparison table.
Table 6. Numerical simulation and field measurement value comparison table.
Φ600 mm Single Pile Bearing Capacity (kN)Φ800 mm Single Pile Bearing Capacity (kN)
On-Site MeasurementExponential Decay Mohr–Coulomb Mohr–CoulombOn-Site MeasurementExponential Decay Mohr–Coulomb Mohr–Coulomb
430445445785670670
Table 7. The conditions of numerical simulation.
Table 7. The conditions of numerical simulation.
Operating ConditionOuter Diameter/mmInner Diameter/mmPile Length/mPipe Wall Thickness/mm
1600010300 (Solid Core Pile)
260030010150
360020010200
460010010250
570035010175
680040010200
7100050010250
86003006150
96003008150
1060030012150
Table 8. Comparison between the original design scheme and present design scheme.
Table 8. Comparison between the original design scheme and present design scheme.
ZonesPile Spacing/mEigenvalue of Bearing Capacity of Single Pile/kNEigenvalues of Bearing Capacity of Composite Foundations/kPaNumber of Piles/mCement Usage/t
DevisePipe PileDevisePipe PileDevisePipe PileDevisePipe Pile
A1.21.5140213180112567475617447
B1.51.8140213145
C1.82.2140213135
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zhou, C.; Zheng, X.; Zhang, S.; Li, C.; Yang, Y.; Han, J. Study on Load-Bearing Characteristics and Engineering Applications for Cement–Soil Pipe Pile. Buildings 2025, 15, 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060912

AMA Style

Zhou C, Zheng X, Zhang S, Li C, Yang Y, Han J. Study on Load-Bearing Characteristics and Engineering Applications for Cement–Soil Pipe Pile. Buildings. 2025; 15(6):912. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060912

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhou, Chong, Xiangzhuo Zheng, Sifeng Zhang, Chao Li, Yaohui Yang, and Jianyong Han. 2025. "Study on Load-Bearing Characteristics and Engineering Applications for Cement–Soil Pipe Pile" Buildings 15, no. 6: 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060912

APA Style

Zhou, C., Zheng, X., Zhang, S., Li, C., Yang, Y., & Han, J. (2025). Study on Load-Bearing Characteristics and Engineering Applications for Cement–Soil Pipe Pile. Buildings, 15(6), 912. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15060912

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop