Abstract
The utilization of geosynthetic-encased granular columns is an advantageous and environmentally friendly technique for enhancing fine-grained soil foundations, particularly for supporting footings in specific conditions. These conditions may include collapsible and porous soils, serving as a viable alternative to conventional concrete piles. This study evaluates the geomechanical behavior of GECs as an improvement technique of fine-grained soils beneath shallow foundations, with a particular emphasis on evaluating the impact of encasement length and footing diameter. The investigation involves laboratory tests using 1-g small-scale models of granular columns subjected to incremental static load stages. These models were instrumented not only to measure the applied loads and resulting settlements, but also to assess the earth pressures developed along the depth. This approach was adopted for a comprehensive understanding of the stress transfer mechanisms inherent in employing partial encasement techniques. The responses of these models contribute to the development, calibration, and validation of a numerical model, based on the finite element method, facilitating further analyses to explore the impact of encasement length and granular column diameter in relation to footing dimensions. The findings demonstrate that employing partial encasements in granular columns effectively prevents columns bulging within shallow depths, concurrently improving stress transfer mechanisms in deeper soil strata. Additionally, the study highlights the critical influence of the encasement length concerning the column height (R/L) and the ratio between footing and column diameters (D/d). These factors significantly affect column failure mechanisms, thus bearing substantial implications for the design of shallow foundations supported by columns.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data used in this study will be made available from the corresponding author on request.
Abbreviations
- \({\upgamma }_{b}\) :
-
Soil bulk unit weight (kN/m3)
- \({\upgamma }_{d}\) :
-
Soil dry unit weight (kN/m3)
- \({\upgamma }_{d,max}\) :
-
Soil maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3)
- δv :
-
Vertical displacement (m)
- ɛh :
-
Horizontal strain (%)
- ɛv :
-
Vertical strain (%)
- \({\upnu }_{ur}\) :
-
Poisson’s ratio for unloading–reloading (−)
- σh :
-
Total horizontal stress (kPa)
- σv :
-
Total vertical stress (kPa)
- \(\phi\) :
-
Soil internal friction angle (degree)
- Ψ:
-
Soil dilatancy angle (degree)
- b :
-
Column radius of influence (m)
- BCR :
-
Bearing capacity ratio (−)
- c :
-
Soil cohesion intercept (kPa)
- D :
-
Rigid footing diameter (m)
- D s :
-
Soil particle diameter (m)
- d :
-
Column diameter (m)
- D/d :
-
Diameter quotient (−)
- \({E}_{50}^{ref}\) :
-
Secant stiffness in standard drained triaxial test (kPa)
- \({E}_{oed}^{ref}\) :
-
Tangent stiffness for primary oedometer loading (kPa)
- \({E}_{ur}^{ref}\) :
-
Unloading–reloading stiffness (kPa)
- G s :
-
Specific gravity of solids (−)
- \({K}_{0}^{NC}\) :
-
K0-Value for normal consolidation (−)
- K c :
-
Degree of compaction (−)
- L :
-
Column depth (m)
- m :
-
Power for the stress-level dependency of stiffness (−)
- N :
-
Vertical loading effort (kN)
- \({p}^{ref}\) :
-
Reference stress for stiffness (kPa)
- PI :
-
Plasticity index (%)
- Q GC :
-
Load transmitted through the granular column (kN)
- Q FS :
-
Load transmitted through the foundation soil (kN)
- R :
-
Geotextile encasement length (m)
- R/L :
-
Encasement proportion (−)
- w :
-
Water content (%)
- w L :
-
Liquid limit (%)
- w opt :
-
Optimum water content (%)
- w P :
-
Plastic limit (%)
References
Aboshi H, Ichimoto E, Enoki M, Harada K (1979) The compozer: a method to improve characteristics of soft clays by inclusion of large diameter sand columns. Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil reinforcement, Reinforced Earth and Other Techniques, Paris, vol.1, pp 211-216
Albino JL, Pierozan RC, Portelinha FHM (2022) Lateritic soil improved with partially reinforced granular columns using recycled sand and geosynthetics. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 8:22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-022-00367-1
Alkhorshid NR, Araujo GLS, Palmeira EM, Zornberg JG (2019) Large-scale load capacity tests on a geosynthetic encased column. Geotext Geomembr 47(5):632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103458
Alkhorshid NR, Araujo GL, Palmeira EM (2020) Large scale tests on geotextile encased stone columns. In Proc. 4th Pan American Conference on Geosynthetics (pp 1–7). Rio de Janeiro: IGS
Alkhorshid NR, Araujo GL, Palmeira EM (2021) Consolidation of soft clay foundation improved by geosynthetic-reinforced granular columns: numerical evaluation. J Rock Mech Geotec Eng 13(5):1173–1181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2021.03.004
Almeida MSS, Hosseinpour I, Riccio M (2013) Performance of a geosynthetic-encased column (GEC) in soft ground: numerical and analytical studies. Geosynth Int 20(4):252–262
Araujo GLS, Palmeira EM, Cunha RP (2009) Behaviour of geosynthetic-encased granular columns in porous collapsible soil. Geosynth Int 16(6):433–451. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2009.16.6.433
ASTM C136–06 (2015) In: standard test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates. The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 5. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0136-06
ASTM D1557-12e1 (2012) In: standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lbf/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 14. https://doi.org/10.1520/D1557-12E01
ASTM D3080/D3080M-11 (2011) In: Direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 6. https://doi.org/10.1520/D3080_D3080M-11
ASTM D421-85 (2007) In: standard practice for dry preparation of soil samples for particle-size analysis and determination of soil constants. The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 2. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0421-85R07
ASTM D4287-17e1 (2017) In: standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 10. https://doi.org/10.1520/D2487-17E01
ASTM D4318-17e1 (2017) In: standard test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of soils. The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 20. https://doi.org/10.1520/D4318-17E01
ASTM D4595-17 (2017) In: standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the wide-width strip method. The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 13. https://doi.org/10.1520/D4595-17
ASTM D698-12e2 (2012) In: Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of soil using standard effort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 13. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0698-12E02
ASTM D854-14 (2014) In: standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. The American Society for Testing and Materials, p 8. https://doi.org/10.1520/D0854-14
Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of stone columns – vol. I – Report No. FHWA/RD-83/026. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, p 194
Castro J (2014) Numerical modelling of stone columns beneath a rigid footing. Comput Geotech 60(1):77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.03.016
Cengiz C, Guler E (2018) Shaking table tests on geosynthetic encased columns in soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 46(6):748–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.07.009
Cengiz C, Guler E (2020a) A laminar box apparatus for 1g testing of granular columns embedded in soft clay. Int J Phys Modell Geotech 20(1):38–54. https://doi.org/10.1680/jphmg.18.00047
Cengiz C, Guler E (2020b) Load bearing and settlement characteristics of geosynthetic encased columns under seismic loads. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 136(1):106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106244
Chen JF, Li LY, Zhang Z, Zhang X, Xu C, Rajesh S, Feng SZ (2021) Centrifuge modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-supported embankment over soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 49(1):210–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.021
Chen JF, Zhang X, Yoo C, Gu ZA (2022) Effect of basal reinforcement on performance of floating geosynthetic encased column-supported embankment. Geotext Geomembr 50(4):566–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.01.006
Dar LA, Shah MY (2021) Three dimensional numerical study on behavior of geosynthetic encased stone column placed in soft soil. Geotech Geol Eng 39(3):1901–1922
EBGEO (2011) Recommendations for design and analysis of earth structures using geosynthetic reinforcements, 2nd edn. The German Geotechnical Society, Berlin, p 314. https://doi.org/10.1002/9783433600931
Geng L, Tang L, Cong SY, Ling XZ, Lu J (2017) Three-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic-encased granular columns for liquefaction mitigation. Geosynth Int 24(1):45–59. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.16.00014
Greenwood DA (1970) Mechanical improvement of soils below ground surface. In: Proceedings of ground improvement conference. Institute of Civil Engineering, pp 9–29
Han J (2015) Recent research and development of ground column technologies. Ground Improv 168(4):246–264. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.13.00016
Hedge AM, Sitharam TG (2015) Three-dimensional numerical analysis of geocell-reinforced soft clay beds by considering the actual geometry of geocell pockets. Can Geotech J 52(9):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0387
Hosseinpour I, Almeida MSS, Riccio M (2015) Full-scale load test and finite-element analysis of soft ground improved by geotextile-encased granular columns. Geosynth Int 22(6):428–438. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.15.00023
Hosseinpour I, Almeida MSS, Riccio M (2021) Field-measured Poisson’s ratio of geotextile-encased granular column. Ground Improv 174(2):63–69. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgrim.18.00097
Hughes JMO, Withers NJ (1974) Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone columns. Ground Eng 7(3):42–49
Kumar R, Sawaishi M, Horikoshi K, Takahashi A (2019) Centrifuge modeling of hybrid foundation to mitigate liquefaction-induced effects on shallow foundation resting on liquefiable ground. Soils Found 59(6):2083–2098
Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 27(4):281–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.02.001
Liu K, Qiu R, Yan T, Wu B, Fan J, Yue F, Mei G (2022) Model test of clogging effects on composite foundation of geosynthetic-encased steel slag column. Geotext Geomembr 50(5):858–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.05.001
Madhav MR, Vanitha L (2006) Analysis and design of granular pile reinforced ground. In: Proceedings of ATC-7 workshop on stone column in soft deposits. Busan, Korea, pp 1–17
Mohapatra SR, Rajagopal K, Sharma J (2017) 3-Dimensional numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased granular columns. Geotext Geomembr 45(3):131–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.01.004
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2007) Model tests on geosynthetic-encased stone columns. Geosynth Int 14(6):346–354. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.346
Nagula SS, Nguyen DM, Grabe J (2018) Numerical modelling and validation of geosynthetic encased columns in soft soils with installation effect. Geotext Geomembr 46(6):790–800. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.07.011
Pham TA, Tran QA, Villard P et al (2023) Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankments considering integrated soil-structure interactions. Geotech Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02564-9
Van Eekelen SJM, Brugman MHA (2016) Basal reinforced piled embankments – design guideline, 1st edn. CRC Press, New York, p 156. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315389806
Xu Z, Zhang L, Zhou S (2021) Influence of encasement length and geosynthetic stiffness on the performance of stone column: 3D FEM-FDM coupled numerical investigation. Comput Geotech 132(1):103993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103993
Xue J, Liu Z, Chen J (2019) Triaxial compressive behaviour of geotextile encased stone columns. Comput Geotech 108:53–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2018.12.010
Yang FO, Zhang JJ, Liao WM, Han JW, Tang YL, Bi JB (2017) Characteristics of the stress and deformation of geosynthetic-encased stone column composite ground based on large-scale model tests. Geosynth Int 24(3):242–254. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.16.00028
Yang FO, Fan G, Wang K, Yang C, Lyu W, Zhang J (2021) A large-scale shaking table model test for acceleration and deformation response of geosynthetic encased stone column composite ground. Geotext Geomembr 49(5):1407–1418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2021.05.013
Yoo C (2010) Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in embankment construction: numerical investigation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(8):1148–1160
Yoo C, Abbas Q (2020) Laboratory investigation of the behavior of a geosynthetic encased stone column in sand under cyclic loading. Geotext Geomembr 48(4):431–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.02.002
Yoo C, Kim SB (2009) Numerical modeling of geosynthetic encased stone column. Geosynth Int 16(3):116–126
Zhang L, Xu Z, Zhou S (2020) Vertical cyclic loading response of geosynthetic-encased stone column in soft clay. Geotext Geomembr 48(6):897–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.07.006
Zhang X, Yoo C, Chen JF, Gu ZA (2022) Numerical modeling of floating geosynthetic-encased stone column-supported embankments with basal reinforcement. Geotext Geomembr 50(4):720–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2022.03.012
Zhou Y, Kong G, Yang Q, Li H (2019) Deformation analysis of geosynthetic-encased stone column using cavity expansion models with emphasis on boundary condition. Geotext Geomembr 47(6):831–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103498
Zhou Y, Kong G, Wen L, Yang Q (2021) Evaluation of geosynthetic-encased column-supported embankments with emphasis on penetration of column toe. Comput Geotech 132(1):104039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104039
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support provided by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—CAPES, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development—CNPq, and the State of São Paulo Research Foundation—FAPESP (Processes No. 17/06295-3 and No. 19/07453-7).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
VK: analysis and manuscript writing, checking results and manuscript finalization. AMPV: checking results, review, editing, and manuscript finalization RCP: checking results, review, editing, and manuscript finalization; FHMP: checking results, review, editing, and manuscript finalization.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no any conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kumar, V., Vieira, A.M.P., Pierozan, R.C. et al. Numerical analysis of a laboratory-modelled geosynthetic-partially encased columns applied as shallow foundation support in frictional-cohesive soils. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 10, 3003–3022 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-023-01943-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-023-01943-8