International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Design and analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced

and floating column-supported embankments

Tuan A. Pham

To cite this article: Tuan A. Pham (2022) Design and analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and
floating column-supported embankments, International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
16:10, 1276-1292, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2021.1997209

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1997209

Published online: 30 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 344

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 4 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
2022, VOL. 16, NO. 10, 1276–1292
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2021.1997209

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Design and analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and floating column-supported

embankments
a,b
Tuan A. Pham
a
School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK; bDepartment of Civil Engineering, The University of
Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported system is an economic and effective solution to support Received 24 August 2020
embankments constructed on soft soils. In this solution, both end-bearing and floating columns are Accepted 20 October 2021
commonly used in practice. For deep soil foundation depths, floating columns are more economical than KEYWORDS
end-bearing piles. The design of a floating column foundation involves complex soil–structure interac­ Column-supported
tions and there are still no clear uniform guidelines available for the design of embankments supported embankment; floating
by floating columns. The main focus of this paper is to present a design method for the geosynthetic- column; geosynthetic
reinforced floating column-supported (GRFCs) embankments. The main features of the proposed method reinforcement; soil-structure
are combining the bearing capacity theory for the floating columns, the arching theory for fill soils, the interaction; foundation
tensioned membrane theory for the geosynthetic, and considering interaction models between geosyn­ bearing capacity; design
thetic, soil, and piles. Using the proposed method, the influences of the pile geometry, soft clay, method
geosynthetic, and embankment fills properties were investigated. It was observed that the geosynthetic
membrane inclusion enhances the load transfer mechanism and reduces significantly the differential
settlements of floating pile-supported embankments. The floating columns with a higher ultimate
bearing capacity cause more soil arching. In general, the soil shear strength properties and column
geometry (length, diameter, column spacing) have a strong influence on the GRFCs embankment
behaviour. Finally, the proposed method is compared with the BS 8006–1 and EBGEO design standards
considering several experimental and numerical models to investigate its validity. The results showed
that the proposed method is able of very good prediction performance and allows conducting the design
optimization of GRFCs embankment.

1. Introduction
Ground improvement techniques are increasingly used to
overcome significant problems related to the structural stabi­
lity and deformations of embankments such as their bearing
capacity, durability, large differential settlements when works
are carried out on very soft soils (Pham and Dias 2021a).
Geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported (GRCS) embank­
ment is a well-known technique that uses column elements
and a geosynthetic reinforcement to support constructions on
soft soils. The GRCS system has been used for a long time and
is becoming more popular nowadays, for highways, railways,
and construction activities.
Stiff soils are always preferable as foundations for embank­
ments and buildings. However, this kind of soil foundation is
not always available on the construction sites, many areas are
underlain by a thick, soft soil layer, which can reach 50 m of
thickness or even more (Satibi 2009). Considering soft clay soils,
providing end-bearing piles is not economically feasible (Poulos
2007). In such cases, floating columns or friction piles, where
the column tip does not reach the hard stratum is an attractive
soft soil support technique, especially, in the southeast Asian
region. Figure 1 illustrates the difference between embankments
constructed on end-bearing and floating columns.
The design of GRCS embankments usually includes two
calculation steps. In the first step, the fill arching effect is
calculated. It divides the total vertical load into two parts.
One load part is distributed directly on the column cap, and
the residual load is distributed on the geosynthetic and subsoil.
It is noted that arching often occurs in soil, especially when
there is inclusion with a higher stiffness than the soil one. Soil
arching is a term used to describe a range of phenomena in
which stresses within the soil between piles are redistributed as
the soil tries to establish an equilibrium by transferring loads to
the stiffer elements and decrease loads on the soft subsoil. As a
result, structural arrangements of the particles are created.
This arrangement and stress redistribution can lead to a struc­
tural arch on the pile top. Many analytical models were pro­
posed for the arching calculation (Terzaghi 1943; Hewlett and
Randolph 1988; BS 8006-1 2010; EBGEO 2011; Van Eekelen,
Bezuijen, and Van Tol 2013; Pham 2020a, 2020b; Pham,
Wijesuriya, and Dias 2021). The second calculation step
describes the load-deflection behaviour of the geosynthetic
reinforcement. In this calculation step, the residual load is
applied to the geosynthetic between each pair of adjacent
columns as an external load to determine the geosynthetic
reinforcement (GR) strain and differential settlement. Some

CONTACT Tuan A. Pham anhtuanpham2703@gmail.com School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh EH14
4AS, UK
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Embankment
Geosynthetics
Platform
Floating column
Soft soil
Stiff soil layer
Figure 1. Scheme of embankment resting on floating and end-bearing columns.
models based on the tensioned membrane theory were pro­
posed in the literature for this calculation step (Low, Tang, and
Choa 1994; Collin, Han, and Huang 2005; Abusharar et al.
2009; Pham 2019, 2020c).
Unfortunately, the existing design procedures for floating
columns currently used in practice are relatively limited.
Except from the BS 8006-1 (2010), almost all existing methods
were developed initially for end-bearing piles and less atten­
tion was given to the design of embankments on floating
columns. It should be noted that the design standard BS
8006–1 gives only a limited guide for the design of embank­
ments supported by floating columns. According to BS8006-1,
the arching coefficient, Cc used for end-bearing piles is reduced
to consider an arching factor that reduces the arching action of
the floating columns. Consequently, this design procedure
usually produces conservative results (Satibi 2009; Bhasi and
Rajagopal 2015). In the design guideline EBGEO (2011), the
need for further researches for the embankment design of
floating columns was stated. Moreover, the design of geosyn­
thetic-reinforced floating column-supported (GRFCs)
embankments often involves a complex soil/structure interac­
tion and there are no clear uniform guidelines available for the
design of embankments supported on floating columns.
Currently, several researchers carried out numerical or
experimental models to investigate the behaviour of embank­
ment on floating columns, but the number of researches is
relatively limited. A well-designed field experiment was car­
ried out to enhance the understanding of a geogrid-
reinforced floating column-supported embankment by Cao
et al. (2016). The results indicated that the downward move­
ments of the floating column allowed the fill load to be
transferred from the column to the subsoil and counter sup­
port from the subsoil is then mobilized. It was also proved
that floating columns with a limited embedment depth are
sufficient to control both the total settlements and lateral
displacements. In addition, the results also showed that the
existing design procedures are excessively conservative for
GRFCs embankments. Xu, Song, and Han (2016) also con­
ducted small-scale model tests to investigate the load transfer
mechanisms in embankments resting on floating columns.
The results demonstrated that when end-bearing or floating
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1277
End-bearing
Pile
columns were used, the loads on the columns increased
during the embankment construction. However, when float­
ing columns started to penetrate the underlying soil under a
higher load, the column efficacy decreases with the embank­
ment and the surcharge load. Pongsivasathit, Chia, and
Bergado (2011) conducted large-scale model tests to investi­
gate the consolidation behaviour of floating soil–cement col­
umns improved grounds, and found that floating column
foundation is an economically and technically effective solu­
tion for the thick soft ground.
Other researchers conducted numerical modelling to
investigate the behaviour of GRFCs embankments (Satibi
2009; Ng and Tan 2014; Bhasi and Rajagopal 2015;
Şahinkaya, Vekli, and Çadır 2017; Ong, Sim, and Leung
2018; Kahyaoğlu and Vaníček; Samanta and Bhowmik 2019;
Pham and Dias 2021b; Pham et al. 2021). Ng and Tan (2015)
conducted two-dimensional (2D) finite element analyses on
floating stone columns using the unit cell concept to investi­
gate the settlements and the consolidation characteristics of
an improved foundation system. The results indicated that
the key parameters relevant to the floating stone columns
design include the area replacement ratio, the column friction
angle, the loading intensity. Bhasi and Rajagopal (2015) pre­
sented a numerical study of GRFCs embankments. The
results indicated that the use of floating columns could con­
siderably reduce the settlements. The embankment loads
transferred onto the piles depend a lot on the pile length.
This aspect needs to be accounted for when the arching factor
is deduced from empirical equations. Ong, Sim, and Leung
(2018) concluded that floating columns instead of end-
bearing ones could be the optimal ground improvement
solution in areas with thick, soft clay deposits.
However, the studies on GRFCs embankment are still rela­
tively limited. The precise interaction mechanism between the
constitutive elements in the case of floating column-supported
foundation was not still well understood. Several design meth­
ods exist, but till now none of them is really able to capture the
key characteristics of floating column-supported embankments.
The main purpose of this paper is to present a novel
approach for the design of geosynthetic-reinforced floating
column-supported embankments. The proposed method is
1278 T. A. PHAM

established from the combination of several different theories
such as the arching theory for fill soils, the tensioned mem­
brane theory for geosynthetic reinforcement, the bearing capa­
city theory for the floating column, and the friction theory to
consider the soil-column-geosynthetic interaction. The results
from the proposed method are compared to 3D numerical
modelling and experiment models. Finally, a parametric
study using the proposed method is presented to assess the
influence of some important factors on the behaviour of
GRFCs embankments.
2. Theoretical analysis of floating column-supported
embankments
In the proposed model, several simplified assumptions are
used as follows: i) the embankment material is homoge­
neous and isotropic, ii) the geosynthetic reinforcement is
homogenous, isotropic, and can only act in tension, iii) the
shaft friction and tip resistance of the columns are fully
mobilized.
2.1. Column – soil interaction mechanism
For the columns effect installation, it is considered that the full
fine-grained soils friction is mobilized for settlements between
0.2% and 0.8% of the column diameter while the full end-
bearing is mobilized for settlements in the range of 2% to 5%
of the column diameter (Reese and O’Neill 1988). In practice,
the ultimate load capacity, Qult, of a pile is divided into two
parts. One part is due to friction, called the skin friction
resistance, Qf, and the other is due to end bearing at the base
or tip of the pile, Qb. In addition, the floating column is
subjected to negative skin friction, Qnf that is called downdrag
as shown in Figure 2.

a) Embankment
Soil arching

Geosynthetics

Downdrag
Subsoil
reaction
Shaft friction

Floating
column

Soft soil

Stiff soil layer

Pca
b)

fn

L
fs

Qb Qs
fb (Base resistance) (Shaft resistance)

Figure 2. Load transfer mechanism: a) Soil arching, b) soil-column interaction.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1279

The ultimate bearing capacity of a floating column can be is carried by the column cap (Pc) and the residual load part is
expressed as follows: received by the subsoil (Ps). The total loads distributed on the
column cap are the results of soil arching (Pca), and the ten­
Qult ¼ Qf þ Qb Qnf (1)
sioned membrane effect of geosynthetic (Pcm). Considering the
Full-scale field tests on piles are preferred, but such tests are mechanical equilibrium condition, the following equation can
expensive. For columns in clay, a total stress analysis is there­ be obtained:
fore often used where the ultimate capacity is calculated from
W ¼ Pca þ Pcm þ Ps (7)
the undrained soil shear strength (Burland 1973). The skin
friction resistance, Qf can be determined as follows: where
Qf ¼ fs � As ¼ fs � Cs � L (2) Pca ¼ Qult þ ðγH þ qÞAc (8)
where fs is the unit skin friction resistance over the pile shaft
surface area (kPa), As is the column shaft surface area (m2), Cs Pm ¼ 8aT sin θ (9)
is the circumference of a column (m), L is the column
length (m). Ps ¼ ðyEs =DÞðA Ac Þ (10)
The unit skin friction resistance tends to decrease with the
embedment depth (Budhu 2010). The unit skin friction resis­ where W is the total embankment fill weight and uniform
tance can be predicted by using Eq. (3) for short-term condi­ surcharge on the embankment top (kN), q is the surcharge
tions in fine-grained soils while Eq. (4) can be used to estimate (kPa), Pca is the load portion attracted directly to the column
the unit skin friction resistance for long-term conditions. cap through arching effect (kN), Pcm is the load part trans­
� � ferred to the column cap through the tensioned membrane
0 0:3 40 0:2 effect (kN), Ps is the load part received by the soft subsoil (kN),
fs ¼ 0:55s0:7
u ðσ zo Þ (3)
L=d T is the maximum tension in geosynthetic (kN/m), Tv is the
vertical tensile force (kN/m), θ is the deflected angle (degree), y
fs ¼ ð1 sin φcs Þ � tan φi � ðOCRÞ0:5 � σ 0zo (4) is the deflection of geosynthetics (m), Es is the soft soil elastic
modulus (kPa), D is the soft soil thickness (m), a is the column
where su is the undrained shear strength (kPa), σ’z0 is the cap width (m), A is the column contributary area (m2), Ac is
vertical effective stress (kPa), d is the column diameter (m), the column cap area (m2).
OCR is the over-consolidation ratio (dimensionless), φcs is the Figure 3 describes the geosynthetic stress distribution due
critical state friction angle of soils (degrees),φi is the interfacial to the arching and subsoil reaction pressure from the subsoil.
friction value (degrees) which is often in the range between The expression of the stress components that induce the strain
0.9φcs to φcs for concrete columns (Budhu 2010). in reinforcement can be expressed as follows.
The end bearing capacity can be deduced by analogy with
shallow foundations and is expressed as follows: W Pca Pcm yKs
σ GR ¼ ¼ σ as (11)
s2 a2 U
Qb ¼ fb � Ab ¼ Nc ðsu Þb Ab (5)
where fb is the base resistance (kPa), Nc is a bearing capacity ðγH þ qÞs2 Qult
σ as ¼ (12)
coefficient, (su)b is the average undrained soil shear strength at s2 a2
the column tip (kPa), and Ab is the column base cross-sectional where σ as is the total stress distributed on the geosynthetic and
area (m2). subsoil by arching effect (kPa), s is the centre-to-centre pile
The negative friction resistance is usually calculated over a spacing (m), Ks is the subgrade reaction modulus (Ks = Es/D).
soft soil thickness Lnf. Because negative skin friction should be
computed for long-term conditions, Eq. (4) should be used to
predict the unit-negative friction resistance, fns. The expression Stress applies on top
for the negative friction resistance can be written as follows: of reinforcement

Qnf ¼ fns � Cs � Lnf (6)

where, fns are the unit-negative friction resistance (kPa), Lnf is
the soft soil thickness for the negative friction calcula­
tion (kPa). T T

Column cap Column cap

2.2. Soil arching and force equilibrium model
Reaction below the
For GRFCs embankments, the performance of soil arching Column reinforcement
depends mainly on the column resistance. The loads distrib­
uted on the column are assumed to be equal to the ultimate
s
column load capacity. It should be noted that the total
embankment weight can be divided into two parts: one part Figure 3. Stress distribution on geosynthetic and subsoil.
1280 T. A. PHAM

2.3. Tensioned membrane theory for the geosynthetic 2.4. Geosynthetic-soil frictional interaction model
Sloan, Filz, and Collin (2011) recommended that a parabolic The tensile forces in the geotextile reinforcement are a func­
shape should be assumed as the geosynthetic deflection as it is tion of strains, which are induced by the applied loads and skin
in good agreement with published numerical results as well as friction (Pham 2020c; Pham, Wijesuriya, and Dias 2021). The
experimental tests in the literature. Eskişar, Otani, and total tensile force in the geosynthetic can be calculated by the
Hironaka (2012) showed that the deformed shape of geotex­ following expression:
tiles is closer to a parabola from data obtained by an X-ray CT
Δld τ:s0
scanner. The parabolic shape is also currently used in analy­ T ¼ JGR þ (17)
tical models due to its simplicity (BS 8006-1 2010; Iglesia, s0 4
Einstein, and Whitman 2013, Pham 2019, 2020a). For floating where JGR is the geosynthetic tensile stiffness (kN/m), T is the
piles, the geosynthetic deflection can be large. It is therefore maximum geosynthetic tension (kN/m), τ is the total shear
helpful to adopt the parabolic shape to determine the geosyn­ resistance along with the geosynthetic soil interface (kPa),
thetic strains and differential settlements. As a starting point, s’ = s – a is the clear spacing (m).
in this paper, the geosynthetic deformed shape is assumed to The shear stresses are a result of the skin friction along the
be a parabola (Figure 4). top and bottom sides of the soil-geosynthetic interfaces as
The general form of a parabola is y = kx2 considering x shown in Figure 5.
= (s-a)/2, where x is the spacing from the pile edge to the centre
yKs
of two successive piles. Therefore, the following equation τ ¼ τ top þ τ bottom ¼ αp tan φp σ GR þ αs tan φs þ 0:1cs (18)
shows how the parabola factor angle factor can be obtained: U
where φp is the interaction soil friction angle at the interface top
y 4y
k¼ ¼ (13) side (degrees), φs is the interaction soil friction angle at the
x2 ðs aÞ2 interface bottom side (degree), cs is total cohesion along with
both the upper and lower geosynthetic-soil interfaces (kPa).
where, y is the maximum deflection of the geosynthetic or
Substituting (18) back into (17), an expression of the geo­
differential settlement at the mid-span between columns (m).
synthetic tension is obtained..
The deflection angle θ can be evaluated by using the
approximation method as follows: 8
T ¼ λ2 � JGR þ 0:85
3 � �
4λ s a ðs aÞλKs
sin θ � (14a) � αp tan φp σ GR þ αs tan φs : þ 0:1cs
1 þ 7:84λ2 4 U
(19)
λ ¼ y=ðs aÞ (14b)
Assuming a uniform tension along the geosynthetic reinforce­
ment, the vertical equilibrium requires that: T T
Geosynthetic reinforcement
2T sin θ ¼ σ GR ðs aÞ (15)
top
Substituting Eqs. (11), (12), and (14) into Eq. (15) gives the
following expression: bottom
� �
1 þ 7:84λ2 a λðs aÞKs s'
T¼ σs ðs aÞ (16)
8λ U
Figure 5. Shear stress at interfaces of soil-geosynthetic (Pham 2020c).

Embankment Tv T

arch Th
Column
T T cap

Column cap y Column cap a

s
Subsoil
y Tv T

s Th y
a s'/2 s'/2 a (s-a)/2 x

Figure 4. Definition sketch for analysis of geosynthetic strain.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1281

2.5. Determination of the required properties properties were determined by a plate loading test (PLTs) and
static cone penetration tests (CPTs). Details of the site condi­
Combination of Eqs. (16) and (19), and grouping similar items
tion, construction, instrumentation, and monitoring were
into brackets leads to a cubic equation with an unknown
reported by Cao et al. (2016). The input parameters for the
parameter λ as follows:
analytical model are summarized in Table 1.
aλ3 þ bλ2 þ cλ þ d ¼ 0 (20) A comparison between the proposed method with two
design standard methods and measured results is presented
In which, in Table 2. It can be observed that the proposed method is in
a ¼ 64JGR U þ 23:52Ks ðs aÞ2 good agreement with the measured results for both the max­
imum deflection and tension in the geosynthetic. The relative
; error is approximately equal to 2.9% for the maximum GR
tensile force. It should be noted that the BS 8006–1 method
b ¼ 5:1Ks αs tan φs ðs aÞ2 23:52ðs aÞUσ as provides conservative results when compared to measured
; data. Meanwhile, the EBGEO method gives an overprediction
of the GR deflection and a significant underprediction for the
c ¼ 5:1αp tan φp ðs aÞUσ as þ 3Ks ðs aÞ2 þ 0:51cs Uðs aÞ geosynthetic tension. It can be concluded that the proposed
method shows good performance and is generally better than
; the other methods in predicting the geosynthetic strain for
d¼ 3ðs aÞUσ as GRFCs embankments.

After solving Equation (20), the maximum geosynthetic

deflection can be determined by the relationship 3.2. Results comparison with a large-scale experiment
y ¼ λ:ðs aÞ (21) model

Replacing the λ value into Eqs. (16) or (19) to find the max­
imum geosynthetic tension.
The total efficacy, which is the proportion of the total embank­
ment load carried by the column caps can be expressed as follows:
E ¼ Ea þ Em
Xu, Song, and Han (2016) carried out a large-scale experimental
model to investigate the performance of floating rigid piles. In
this model test, the subsoil was placed and compacted into a
model box. Displacement transducers and dial gauges were
connected to settlement plates to measure and monitor the
(22)

Table 1. Input parameters for analytical methods from full-scale test model (Cao
Qult et al. 2016).
Ea ¼ (23)
ðγH þ qÞ:A Parameters Unit Value
Embankment fill
8aT sin θ Height of embankment H (m) 2.4
Em ¼ (24) Unit weight γ (kN/m3) 19.5
ðγH þ qÞA Internal friction angle φ (degree) 35
Soft ground
where E is the total efficacy, Ea is the efficacy component by soil Depth of soft ground D (m) 13.5
arching, Em is the efficacy component by tensioned membrane Unit weight γs (kN/m3) 17.5
effect. Critical friction angle φcs (degree) 21.51
Undrained shear strength su (kN/m2) 90
Geosynthetic reinforcement
Friction angle at the upper of interface φp (degree) 38
3. Validation of the proposed model Friction angle at the lower of interface φs (degree) 38
Tensile stiffness JGR (kN/m) 6000
For validation purposes, this section describes several case Subgrade reaction modulus Ks (kN/m3) 571
studies from a full-scale field experiment to a large-scale test Column geometry 0.5
Column diameter d (m)
model and a numerical analysis. The important parameters for Width of column cap a (m) 1.0
the design are the maximum deflection and tensile force of the Centre-to-centre pile spacing s (m) 1.6
geosynthetic that will be discussed here. Column length L (m) 13.5
Surcharge q (kPa) 48.0
Load

3.1. Results comparison with the full-scale experimental

model
Table 2. Comparison results for the full-scale test case of Cao et al. (2016).
A field experimental test was carried out by Cao et al. (2016) to Design Design
enhance the understanding of a geogrid-reinforced floating method method
pile-supported embankment constructed on soft soil. In this Proposed BS 8006-1 EBGEO Field
Parameters method (2010) (2011) measurement
field test, cement-fly ash-gravel (CFG) piles with a cap width of
Maximum GR 7.20 96.7 18.59 4.2
1 m were used to support the embankment. The piles were deflection (mm)
arranged in a triangular pattern with a centre-to-centre spa­ Maximum GR tension 2.47 20.77 0.26 2.4
cing of 1.6 m. The soft subsoil is made of silty clay, and the soil (kN/m)
1282 T. A. PHAM

subsoil settlements between the pile caps. Model test No. 1 is 3.3. Results comparison with a numerical analysis
chosen for comparison in this analysis. The result of the max­
A case of GRFCs embankment considering numerical modelling
imum tension in geosynthetic from the experimental test was
was presented by Bhasi and Rajagopal (2015). The numerical
not given but was derived from the GR deflection. The input
model was conducted for different column lengths, A summary
parameters for the analytical model are summarized in Table 3.
of the analytical model input parameters is presented in Table 5.
The comparison between the analytical and experimental
A comparison of the differential settlements for different
results for this case study is presented in Table 4. It can be seen
column lengths is shown in Table 6. According to the compar­
that an excellent agreement between the proposed method and
ison data, a good agreement between the proposed method
measured results is obtained with a relative error lower than
and the numerical results can be observed. It should be noted
0.9%. Meanwhile, the BS 8006–1 and EBGEO methods give a
that the performance of the proposed method increases with
high overestimation of the differential settlement. The pro­
increasing the geosynthetic tensile stiffness. However, it is also
posed method produces a more accurate prediction of the
observed that the agreement between the proposed method
GRFCs embankment deformation than the BS 8006–1 and
and the numerical model is lower with the column length
EBGEO methods.
increase. For example, the relative error between the predicted
and numerical results is close to 4.2% for a column length of 15
m. It is smaller when compared to the column length case of 22
m with a 23.2% the difference. This is because the proposed
method assumes a full shaft friction resistance mobilization
Table 3. Input parameters for analytical methods from large-scale test model (Xu, along the entire column length while the numerical model
Song, and Han 2016). considers the friction resistance mobilization based on the
Parameters Unit Value relative displacements between the soil and column.
Embankment fill
Height of embankment H (m) 0.4
Unit weight γ (kN/m3) 17.9 4. Parametrical studies
Internal friction angle φ (degree) 38
Soft ground The design parameters for the parametrical study are based on
Depth of soft ground D (m) 1.2
Unit weight γs (kN/m3) 17.2
the reference case described by Bhasi and Rajagopal (2015).
Critical friction angle φcs (degree) 27 The columns network is based on a square mesh, the spacing
Undrained shear strength su (kN/m2) 180 between the columns is equal to 2.2 m, the column length is
Geosynthetic reinforcement
Friction angle at the upper of interface φp (degree) 38
equal to 18 m, and an embankment fill height of 4 m is chosen
Friction angle at the lower of interface φs (degree) 38
Tensile stiffness JGR (kN/m) 500
Subgrade reaction modulus Ks (kN/m3) 1200 Table 5. Input parameters for analytical methods from numerical modelling
Column geometry (Bhasi and Rajagopal 2015).
Column diameter d (m) 0.1
Parameters Unit Value
Width of column cap a (m) 0.3
Centre-to-centre pile spacing s (m) 0.5 Embankment fill
Column length L (m) 1.0 Height of embankment H (m) 4.0
Surcharge Unit weight γ (kN/m3) 19
Load q (kPa) 20 Internal friction angle φ (degree) 30
Soft ground
Depth of soft ground D (m) 34
Unit weight γs (kN/m3) 17
Critical friction angle φcs (degree) 28
Undrained shear strength su (kN/m2) 61
Table 4. Comparison of results in the large-scale test case of Xu, Song, and Han Geosynthetic reinforcement
(2016). Friction angle at the upper of interface φp (degree) 25
Friction angle at the lower of interface φs (degree) 25.82
Design Design Tensile stiffness JGR (kN/m) 1200
method method Subgrade reaction modulus Ks (kN/m3) 2000
Proposed BS 8006-1 EBGEO Field Column geometry
Parameters method (2010) (2011) measurement Column diameter d (m) 0.6
Maximum GR 4.36 10.81 10 4.34 Width of column cap a (m) 0.532
deflection (mm) Centre-to-centre pile spacing s (m) 2.2
Maximum GR tension 1.06 3.95 3.4 (0.8) Column length L (m) 18
(kN/m) Surcharge
Note: The number in the parenthesis () is derived from the deflection of geosynthetic Load q (kPa) 20

Table 6. Comparison of maximum GR deflection for different cases.

Geosynthetic stiffness JGR = 1200kN/m Geosynthetic stiffness JGR = 4000kN/m
Proposed Numerical Difference Proposed Numerical Difference
Length of column method results percentage method results percentage
15 m 218.4 209.5 4.2% 164.1 160.1 2.5%
18 m 208.2 176 18.3% 157.7 147.2 10.5%
22 m 193.5 148.8 23.1% 148.4 136.3 8.87%
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1283

90
Width of column cap
a = 0.6m
a = 0.7m
80
a = 0.8m

Total efficacy (%)

70

60

50

40
10 100 1000 10000

Tensile stiffness of geosynthetics (kN/m)

Figure 6. Influence of geosynthetic stiffness on the efficacy.

300

250
Differential settlement (mm)

200

150 Width of column cap

a = 0.6m
a = 0.7m
a = 0.8m
100
10 100 1000 10000
Tensile stiffness of geosynthetics (kN/m)

Figure 7. Influence of geosynthetic stiffness on differential settlement.

for the baseline case. Only one parameter was changed each
time, while the others were kept equal to the baseline case
values.
4.1. Influence of the geosynthetic stiffness
The geosynthetic tensile stiffness influence on the total efficacy
for different column cap widths is shown in Figure 6. The
evolution tendency confirms that higher tensile stiffness
induces higher loads. The geosynthetic stiffness directly gov­
erns the membrane effect. It can also be seen that the total
efficacy increases with the column width cap increase.
However, the column cap width influence becomes of less
importance when the geosynthetic stiffness increases.
Figure 7 shows the relationship between the differential
settlement and tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic. It
should also be noted that the differential settlements
decrease with an increase of the geosynthetic tensile
1284 T. A. PHAM

150
Width of column cap
a = 0.6m
a = 0.7m
a = 0.8m

Max. tension in geosynthetics (kN/m) 100

50

0
10 100 1000 10000
Tensile stiffness of geosynthetics (kN/m)

Figure 8. Influence of geosynthetic stiffness on maximum tension in geosynthetic.

stiffness. With the membrane effect increase, more loads is 4.3. Influence of the column length
transferred onto the columns, and the differential settle­
The column length influence is investigated through the ratio
ment tends to decrease.
of the column length to its diameter (L/d), in which the
Figure 8 shows the geosynthetic stiffness influence on the
column diameter remains at a constant value of 0.6 m.
geosynthetic tension for different column cap widths. The
Figure 12 shows the influence of the L/d ratio on the total
geosynthetic tensile force increases with the geosynthetic stiff­
efficacy for both reinforced and unreinforced cases. According
ness increase. The column cap width effect on the geosynthetic
to the results, the total efficacy increases with the L/d ratio. The
tensile force is negligible.
increasing slope of the total efficacy with the L/H ratio for the
reinforced case is higher than for the unreinforced one. The
4.2. Influence of the column spacing column with a higher friction resistance is able to carry more
load, and therefore the total efficacy increases.
The column spacing influence is investigated through the ratio
Figure 13 shows the L/d ratio influence on the differential
of the column spacing to the embankment height (s/H). The
settlements. The differential settlement decreases with the s/H
embankment height remains constant and equal to 4 m.
ratio increase. The geosynthetic effect on the differential set­
Figure 9 shows the influence of this ratio on the total
tlement becomes less important when the pile length increases.
efficacy for two different column cap sizes. According to the
Columns with a larger length induce a higher friction resis­
results, the total efficacy decreases considerably with an
tance mobilization and the bearing capacity of the column is
increase of the ratio s/H. It reaches a threshold value for
therefore enhanced.
large column spacings. The reduction of the coverage area
Figure 14 shows the L/d ratio influence on the geosynthetic
ratio by increasing the column spacing can explain this
tension. As expected, the geosynthetic tension decreases signifi­
trend. The total efficacy for the reinforced case is higher than
cantly with the L/d ratio increase. The columns with larger
the unreinforced case one. The geosynthetic enhanced the load
lengths have a higher bearing capacity, and the pressure on
transfer from the soft soil to the column caps through the
the geosynthetic is reduced. Consequently, the geosynthetic
tensioned membrane effect.
tension decreases with the column length increase.
Figure 10 shows the s/H ratio influence on the differential
settlements for both reinforced and unreinforced cases. The
differential settlement increases with the s/H ratio increase. It
4.4. Influence of the column diameter
also reaches a threshold value for large column spacings.
The geosynthetic tension considerably increases with the s/ The column diameter influence is studied through the ratio
H ratio increase (Figure 11). It can be concluded that the of the column spacing to its diameter (s/d). The column
column spacing has a significant influence on the GRFCs spacing is kept constant at a value of 2.2 m. For the case
embankments behaviour. More loads are applied on geosyn­ study, the pile diameter values are considered to be in the
thetic and the tension in geosynthetic is therefore increased range from 0.36 m to 0.88 m. It corresponds to an s/d ratio
with increasing column spacing. range between 2.5 and 6.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1285

80
Reinforced (a = 0.6m)
Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
70
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)

Total efficacy (%) 60

50

40

30

20

10
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of column spacing to embankment height, s/H

Figure 9. Influence of column spacing on total efficacy.

450

400
Differential settlement (mm)

350

300

250

200
Reinforced (a = 0.6m)
Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
150
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)
100
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of column spacing to embankment height, s/H

Figure 10. Influence of column spacing on differential settlement.

Figure 15 shows the s/d ratio influence on the total unreinforced cases is equal to 2% for an s/d ratio of 2.5.
efficacy. It can be observed that the total efficacy decreases However, the difference percentage increases to 35% for an
with the column diameter decrease. It reaches a threshold s/d ratio of 6.
value for large s/d ratios. The geosynthetic influence Figure 16 shows the s/d ratio influence on the differen­
becomes more important with the s/d increase. For exam­ tial settlements. The differential settlement increases con­
ple, the total efficacy difference between the reinforced and siderably with the s/d ratio increase that corresponds to the
1286 T. A. PHAM

80

Max. tension in geosynthetics (kN/m)

70

60

50

Width of column cap

a = 0.6m
a = 0.8m
40
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Ratio of column spacing to embankment height, s/H

Figure 11. Influence of column spacing on maximum tension in geosynthetic.

column diameter decrease. The differential settlement for 4.5. Influence of the undrained soft soil shear strength
the unreinforced case is higher than for the reinforced one,
Figure 18 presents the undrained shear strength influence on
and the gap is widened when the pile diameter decreases.
A similar trend can also be observed in terms of the the total efficacy. As expected, the efficacy increases with the
maximum GR tensile force in Figure 17. The results indicate undrained soil shear strength. The total efficacy of the rein­
that the geosynthetic tension increases with the s/d ratio forced case is higher than the unreinforced one, but the dif­
increase, which corresponds to a pile diameter decrease. ference decreases with the undrained shear strength increase.

80

70
Total efficacy (%)

60

50

Reinforced (a = 0.6m)
40
Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)
30
25 30 35 40 45
Ratio of column length to column diameter, L/d

Figure 12. Influence of column length on total efficacy.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1287

350

300

Differential settlement (mm)

250

200

Reinforced (a = 0.6m)
150
Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)
100
25 30 35 40 45
Ratio of column length to column diameter, L/d

Figure 13. Influence of column length on differential settlement.

70

60
Max. tension in geosynthetics (kN/m)

50

40
Width of column cap
a = 0.6m
a = 0.8m
30
25 30 35 40 45
Ratio of column length to column diameter, L/d

Figure 14. Influence of column length on maximum tension in geosynthetic.

Figure 19 shows the undrained shear strength influence on Figure 20 shows the undrained shear strength influence
the differential settlements. The results indicated that the dif­ on the geosynthetic tension. The geosynthetic tension
ferential settlement decreases with the undrained shear decreases significantly with the undrained shear strength
strength increase due to the column resistance is also increase. The column bearing capacity increases and is
increased. Moreover, it is noted that the undrained shear able to carry more loads. The pressure on the geosyn­
strength influence on the differential settlement for the unrein­ thetic is reduced with the undrained shear strength
forced case is more important than for the reinforced one. increase.
1288 T. A. PHAM

100
Reinforced (a =0.6m)
90 Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
80 Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)

70
Total efficacy (%)

60

50

40

30

20

10
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Ratio of column spacing to column diameter, s/d

Figure 15. Influence of column diameter on the efficacy.

450

400

350
Differential settlement (mm)

300

250

200

150

100 Reinforced (a = 0.6m)

Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
50 Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)
0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Ratio of column spacing to column diameter, s/d

Figure 16. Influence of column diameter on differential settlement.

5. Conclusion theory. Soil–structure interfaces are also considered to produce

A new model considering the soil–structure interaction is
presented for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced floating
column-supported embankments. In this model, the column
bearing capacity theory and the tensioned membrane geosyn­
thetic theory are combined with the frictional interaction
a comprehensive method for the design of GRFCs
embankments.
The results obtained from the proposed method are com­
pared with two design standards considering experimental
and numerical models. The proposed method agrees well
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1289

100

Max. tension in geosynthetics (kN/m)

50

Width of column cap

a = 0.6m
a = 0.7m
a = 0.8m
0
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Ratio of column spacing to column diameter, s/d

Figure 17. Influence of column diameter on maximum tension in geosynthetic.

70

60

50
Total efficacy (%)

40

30

20
Reinforced (a = 0.6m)
Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
10
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Undrained shear strength of soft soil, su (kPa)

Figure 18. Influence of undrained shear strength on the efficacy.

with measured and numerical results. It has also a better
prediction performance than the BS 8006–1 and EBGEO
methods.
The proposed model is very useful for the analysis and
design of geosynthetic-reinforced floating pile-supported
embankments. The influences of the column geometry, soft
ground properties, geosynthetic properties, and soft soils fric­
tion resistance were presented considering this model. The
inclusion of a geosynthetic enhances the load transfer mechan­
ism in the embankments and reduces significantly the floating
pile-supported embankments differential settlements.
Furthermore, the soil shear strength properties and column
1290 T. A. PHAM

500
Reinforced (a = 0.6m)
Reinforced (a = 0.8m)
450
Unreinforced (a = 0.6m)
Unreinforced (a = 0.8m)
400
Differential settlement (mm)

350

300

250

200

150
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Undrained shear strength of soft soil, su (kPa)

Figure 19. Influence of undrained shear strength on differential settlement.

100
Width of column cap

a = 0.6m

90 a = 0.8m
Max. tension in geosynthetics (kN/m)

80

70

60

50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Undrained shear strength of soft soil, su (kPa)

Figure 20. Influence of undrained shear strength on maximum tension in geosynthetic.

geometry (length, diameter, column spacing) have a strong Notes on contributor

influence on the GRFCs embankment behaviour.
Tuan A. Pham currently is a research assistant at Heriot-Watt University,
UK. He has been graduated postgraduate program at the University of
Disclosure statement Grenoble Alpes, France, and the University of Tokyo, Japan. His research
interests are ground improvement, civil materials, unsaturated soils, and
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). foundation technique
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 1291

ORCID References
Tuan A. Pham http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9937-3442 Abusharar, S. W., J. J. Zheng, B. G. Chen, and J. H. Yin. 2009. “A
Simplified Method for Analysis of A Piled Embankment Reinforced
with Geosynthetics.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (1): 39–52.
Abbreviation doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.002.
Bhasi, A., and K. Rajagopal. 2015. “Numerical Study of Basal Reinforced
CFG = cement-fly ash-gravel Embankments Supported on Floating/end Bearing Piles considering
PLTs = plate loading tests Pile-soil Interaction.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 43 (6): 524–536.
CPTs =static cone penetration test doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.05.003.
GRFCs = geosynthetic-reinforced and floating column-supported BS 8006-1. 2010. Code of Practice for Strengthened/reinforced Soils and
GRCS = Geosynthetic-reinforced and column-supported Other Fills. British Standards Institution BSI:London, UK. ISBN. 978-
GR = Geosynthetic reinforcement 0-580-53842-1.
Budhu, M. 2010. Soil Mechanics and Foundation–3rd Edition. John Wiley
& Sons Inc. ISBN 978-040-55684–9
Burland, J. B. 1973. “Shaft Friction Piles in Clay—a Simple Fundamental
Notation Approach.” Ground Eng 6 (3): 30–42.
a= width of column cap (m), Cao, W. Z., J. J. Zheng, J. Zhang, and R. J. Zhang. 2016. “Field Test of a
A= contributary area of a column (m2), Geogrid-reinforced and Floating Pile-supported Embankment.”
Ac= area of the column cap (m2), Geosynthetics International 23 (5): 348–361. doi:10.1680/
Ab= cross-sectional area of the column base (m2), jgein.16.00002.
A s= shaft surface area of a column (m2), Collin, J. G., J. Han, and J. Huang (2005). Geosynthetic Reinforced Column
cs= total cohesion along both upper and lower sides of geosynthetic- Support Embankment Design Guidelines. In Proceedings, the North
soil interfaces (degree), America Geosynthetics Society Conference, USA (pp. 1–15).
Cs= circumference of a column (m), EBGEO, 2011. Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth
d= column diameter (m), Structures Using Geosynthetic Reinforcements. Digital in English.
D= thickness of soft ground (m), German geotechnical society. ISBN: 978-3-433-60093-1.
Es= elastic modulus of the soft ground (kPa), Eskişar, T., J. Otani, and J. Hironaka. 2012. “Visualization of Soil Arching
fb= base resistance (kPa), on Reinforced Embankment with Rigid Pile Foundation Using X-ray
f s= unit skin friction resistance (kPa), CT.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 32: 44–54. doi:10.1016/j.
fns= unit-negative friction resistance (kPa), geotexmem.2011.12.002.
JGR= tensile stiffness of the geosynthetic (kN/m), Hewlett, W. J., and M. F. Randolph. 1988. “Analysis of Piled
Ks= subgrade reaction modulus (kPa/m), Embankments.” Ground Engineering 22 (3): 12–18.
L= column length (m), Iglesia, G. R., H. H. Einstein, and R. V. Whitman. 2013. “Investigation of
Lnf= thickness of soft soil for negative friction calculation (kPa), Soil Arching with Centrifuge Tests.” Journal of Geotechnical and
N c= bearing capacity coefficient (dimensionless), Geoenvironmental Engineering 140 (2): 04013005. doi:10.1061/
OCR= over-consolidation ratio (dimensionless), (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000998.
Pca= portion of load attracted directly to pile cap through arching effect Low, B. K., S. K. Tang, and V. Choa. 1994. “Arching in Piled
(kN), Embankments.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 120 (11):
Pcm= part of load transferred to pile cap through tensioned membrane 1917–1938. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:11(1917).
effect of reinforcement (kN), Ng, K. S., and S. A. Tan. 2014. “Design and Analyses of Floating Stone Columns.”
Ps= part of load received by soft subsoil (kN), Soils and Foundations 54 (3): 478–487. doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2014.04.013.
q= surcharge (kPa), Ong, D. E. L., Y. S. Sim, and C. F. Leung. 2018. “Performance of Field and
Qult= ultimate load capacity (kN), Numerical Back-analysis of Floating Stone Columns in Soft Clay consid­
Qf= skin friction resistance (kN), ering the Influence of Dilatancy.” International Journal of Geomechanics
Qb= end-bearing base resistance (kN), 18 (10): 04018135. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001261.
Qnf= negative skin friction (kN), Pham, T. A. 2019. “Analysis of Soil-foundation-structure Interaction to
su= average undrained shear strength of soils along column shaft (kPa), Load Transfer Mechanism in Reinforced Piled Embankments.” Aust
(su)b= undrained shear strength of soil at the column tip (kPa), Geomech J 54 (1): 85–100.
s= center-to-center pile spacing (m), Pham, T. A. 2020a. “Analysis of Geosynthetic-reinforced Pile-supported
s’= clear spacing (m), Embankment with Soil-structure Interaction Models.” Computers and
T= maximum tension in geosynthetic (kN/m), Geotechnics 121: 103438. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103438.
Tv= vertical tensile force (kN/m), Pham, T. A. 2020b. “Behaviour of Piled Embankment with
y= maximum deflection of geosynthetic or differential settlement (m), Multi-interaction Arching Model.” Géotechnique Letters 10 (4):
W= total weight of embankment fill and uniform surcharge (kN), 582–588. doi:10.1680/jgele.20.00084.
θ= deflected angle (degree), Pham, T. A. 2020c. “Load-deformation of Piled Embankments considering
σ’z0= vertical effective stress (kPa), Geosynthetic Membrane Effect and Interface Friction.” Geosynthetics
σ as = total stress distributed on geosynthetic and subsoil by arching International 27 (3): 275–300. doi:10.1680/jgein.19.00030.
effect (kPa), Pham, T. A., and D. Dias. 2021a. “Comparison and Evaluation of
τ= total shear resistance along interfaces of geosynthetic-soils (kPa), Analytical Models for the Design of Geosynthetic-reinforced and
ϕcs = critical state friction angle of soils (degree), Pile-supported Embankments.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49
ϕp= interaction friction angle of soil at the top side of the interface (3): 528–549. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.11.001.
(degree), Pham, T. A., and D. Dias. 2021b. “3D Numerical Study of the
ϕs= interaction friction angle of soil at the bottom side of the interface Performance of Geosynthetic-reinforced and Pile-supported
(degree), Embankments.” Soils and Foundations 61 (5): 1319–1342.
ϕi = interfacial friction value (degree) doi:10.1016/j.sandf.2021.07.002.
1292 T. A. PHAM

Pham, T. A., Wijesuriya, K., and Dias, D. 2021. Analytical Model for the Design of Samanta, M., and R. Bhowmik. 2019. “3D Numerical Analysis of Piled
Piled Embankments considering Cohesive Soils. Geosynthetics International Raft Foundation in Stone Column Improved Soft Soil.” International
1–45. doi:10.1680/jgein.21.00034. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 13 (5): 474–483. doi:10.1080/
Pham, T. A., Q. A. Tran, P. Villard, and D. Dias. 2021. “Geosyntheticreinforced 19386362.2017.1368139.
Pile-supported Embankments– 3D Discrete Numerical Analyses of the Satibi, Syawal. Numerical Analysis and Design Criteria of Embankments
Interaction and Mobilization Mechanisms.” Engineering Structures 242: on Floating Piles. Diss. MSc thesis, Inst. fur Geotechnik, Univ.
112337. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112337. Stuttgart, 2009.
Pongsivasathit, S., J. C. Chia, and D. T. Bergado (2011). Laboratory Model Sloan, J., G. Filz, and J. Collin. 2011. “A Generalized Formulation of the
Test on the Behavior of Floating Soil-cement Column Improved Adapted Terzaghi Method of Arching in Column-supported
Ground. In Proceedings of the 14th Asian Regional Conference on Soil Embankments.” In Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Hong Kong, China. Engineering, 798–805. Texas, USA: Geo-Frontiers Congress.
Poulos, H. G. 2007. “Design Charts for Piles Supporting Embankments on Terzaghi, K. 1943. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: Wiley.
Soft Clay.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering Van Eekelen, S. J. M., A. Bezuijen, and A. F. Van Tol. 2013. “An
133 (5): 493–501. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:5(493). Analytical Model for Arching in Piled Embankments.” Geotextiles
Şahinkaya, F., M. Vekli, and C. C. Çadır. 2017. “Numerical Analysis and Geomembranes 39: 78–102. doi:10.1016/j.
under Seismic Loads of Soils Improvement with Floating Stone geotexmem.2013.07.005.
Columns.” Natural Hazards 88 (2): 891–917. doi:10.1007/s11069- Xu, C., S. Song, and J. Han. 2016. “Scaled Model Tests on Influence
017-2897-0. Factors of Full Geosynthetic-reinforced Pile-supported
Reese, L. C., and M. W. O’Neill. 1988. Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures Embankments.” Geosynthetics International 23 (2): 140–153.
and Design Methods. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, USA. doi:10.1680/jgein.15.00038.