Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Applied Mathematical Modelling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apm

Analysis of stone column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced

embankments
Kousik Deb ⇑, Sunil Ranjan Mohapatra
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the present paper, the behavior of stone column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced
Received 23 May 2011 embankments has been studied. The soil arching effect is incorporated in the study to
Received in revised form 5 June 2012 determine the stresses acting on stone columns as well as soft soil. The effect of stiffness
Accepted 3 July 2012
of the stone column is also incorporated in the present study. Based on the stress action
Available online 14 August 2012
in the improved ground, stress concentration ratio, axial strain of geosynthetic reinforce-
ment, tension developed in it and settlement of the improved soft ground are determined
Keywords:
by using the developed methodology. Present analytical method is also verified with sev-
Embankments
Geosynthetic reinforcement
eral current design methods. It is observed from parametric studies that modular ratio or
Modular ratio stiffness of the stone columns, spacing to diameter ratio, height of the embankment, depth
Stone columns of the soft soil, stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcement significantly affect the behavior
Soil arching of geosynthetic-reinforced stone column-supported embankments resting on soft soil.
Settlement ratio Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Construction of embankments on soft soil is very challenging task due to possible bearing failure, excessive settlement
and local and global instability. The use of geosynthetic reinforcement at the base of the embankment along with stone col-
umns provides an economic and effective solution when rapid construction and small deformation are required. Use of stone
columns below the embankments reduces the excessive settlement, improves the stability and increases the bearing capac-
ity of soft foundation soil. Application of geosynthetic reinforcement reduces the maximum as well as differential settlement
and helps to transfer stresses from soft soil to stone columns.
Soil arching [1] plays an important role in the analysis of stone column or pile-supported geosynthetic-reinforced or unre-
inforced embankments resting on soft soil. The embankment soil in between stone columns has a tendency to settle more as
compared to the soil above stone column due to stiffness difference between stone columns and soft soil. The downward
movement of the embankment soil is restricted by shear resistance from the soil above stone columns. Due to this shear
resistance, the stress coming on the soft soil or geosynthetic layer is reduced and the stress acting on the stone columns
is increased. This load transfer phenomenon is called ‘‘soil arching’’. Several researches have been carried on pile-supported
geosynthetic-reinforced or unreinforced embankments resting on soft soil [2–13]. Very limited studies have been conducted
on stone column-supported embankments resting over soft soil. Murugesan and Rajagopal [14] conducted numerical anal-
ysis on geosynthetic-encased stone columns and observed that as encasement stiffness or height of the embankment in-
creases, stress on the stone columns increases. It was further observed that stress on stone columns increases as the
diameter of encased stone columns decreases. However, the effect of basal reinforcement on settlement improvement
was not studied. Deb [15] developed a mathematical model to study the soil arching effect in stone column-supported

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 3222 283434.

E-mail addresses: kousik@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in, kousik_deb@rediffmail.com (K. Deb).

0307-904X/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.07.002
2944 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Notations

as area replacement ratio

Ac cross-section areas of the column (m2)
As cross-section areas of the surrounding soft soil (m2)
dc = 2b width of stone column (m)
Es elastic modulus of soft soil (kN/m2)
Ec elastic modulus of stone column material (kN/m2)
Gs shear modulus of soft ground (kN/m2)
He height of embankment (m)
Hs depth of soft soil (m)
Kg tensile stiffness of geosynthetic (kN/m)
Kp Rankine passive earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless)
L no of horizontal division of unit section (dimensionless)
n spacing ratio (=S/dc) (dimensionless)
nc stress concentration ratio (dimensionless)
N no of vertical division of unit section (dimensionless)
q uniform surcharge acting on embankment fill (kN/m2)
S center to center spacing of stone columns (m)
S0 clear spacing between the stone columns (m)
T tension force in geosynthetic (kN/m)
w thickness of geosynthetic (m)
wcz deformation of stone column (m)
wxz deformation of soft soil (m)
acz, bc displacement parameter
Dl change in length of geosynthetic (m)
DH smallest division of stone column (H/L)
g multiplying factor depends on modular ratio (dimensionless)
/e angle of shearing resistance of the embankment fill (degree)
/s angle of shearing resistance of soft soil (degree)
eg axial strain in geosynthetic (dimensionless)
c unit weight of embankment soil (kN/m3)
k factor which varies from 0.7 to 0.9 (dimensionless)
mc Poisson’s ratio of stone column (dimensionless)
ms Poisson’s ratio of soft soil (dimensionless)
l multiplication factor varies from 0.8 to 1 (dimensionless)
rs1 vertical stress acting on soft soil (for unreinforced embankment) or top of the geosynthetic reinforcement (for
reinforced embankment) (kN/m2)
r0s1 vertical stress acting on soft ground or bottom of the geosynthetic reinforcement (for reinforced embankment)
(kN/m2)
rc1 vertical stress acting on stone column at the surface of improved ground (for unreinforced embankment) (kN/
m2)
r0c1 vertical stress acting on stone column at the surface of improved ground (for reinforced embankment) (kN/m2)
rcj normal stress acting at the top of the jth element of stone column (kN/m2)
rcj+1 normal stress acting at the bottom of the jth element of stone column (kN/m2)
rsNj the normal stress acting at top of (N, j)th element (kN/m2)
rsNj+1 the normal stress acting at the bottom of the (N, j)th element (kN/m2)
sitop shear stress acting at top of geosynthetic (kN/m2)
sibottom shear stress acting at bottom of geosynthetic (kN/m2)
h angle subtended by geosynthetic at the interface between stone column and soft soil (°)

embankment resting on soft foundation soil. Consolidation effect of soft soil due to inclusions of stone columns was also
been included in the model to study its effect on soil arching. It was observed that the height of embankment, degree of con-
solidation of soft soil, stiffness of the stone column material, spacing between the stone columns, use of geosynthetic rein-
forcement and properties of soft and embankment soils (such as ultimate bearing capacity of soft soil, shear modulus and
ultimate shearing resistance of embankment soil) significantly influence the degree of soil arching. However, the effect of
soft soil depth and stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcement on the soil arching was not considered in the model. Based
on the finite element method, Borges et al. [16] conducted parametric study of an embankment resting on soft soil reinforced
with stone columns. The cylindrical unit cell formulation was used by modeling one column and its surrounding soft soil
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2945

with confined axi-symmetric behavior. Biot consolidation theory was incorporated in the numerical method. It was observed
that only replacement area ratio (ratio of the area between influence zone and stone column) and deformability ratio (ratio
between the compressibility index of the soft soil and stone column materials) significantly influence the settlement
improvement factor. Based on numerical results, a new design method was proposed, relating the settlement improvement
factor to the replacement area ratio and the deformability ratio. It was further observed that increase in the replacement area
ratio or the stiffness of the column material significantly reduces settlements and horizontal displacements, increases the
improvement factor and accelerates the consolidation. However, the study was concentrated on unreinforced embankments;
the effect of basal reinforcement was not considered.
It has been observed that very limited studies have been done on embankments resting over stone column-improved soft
soil. Even in the available studies on stone column-supported embankments, mainly unreinforced embankments have been
studied. The effect of basal reinforcement in the embankment was not considered to study the behavior of stone column-
supported embankments. Thus, there is a need to study the behavior of stone column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced
embankments resting on soft soil. In this present paper, a methodology has been developed to study the behavior of stone
column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced embankments by considering the effect of soil arching within the embankments,
depth of soft soil, stiffness of soft soil and reinforcement layer. The effect of stiffness of the stone columns is also incorpo-
rated in the present methodology as most of the available expressions for determining the stresses acting on soft soil and
pile, the stiffness of the pile material has not been considered. Parametric studies have also been conducted to show the ef-
fects of geosynthetic reinforcement tensile stiffness, height of embankment, depth of soft soil, spacing to diameter ratio and
modular ratio (ratio of elastic modulus between stone column and soft soil) on stress concentration ratio, tension and axial
strain developed in the geosynthetic reinforcement as well as the settlement of the improved ground.

2. Mathematical formulation

Fig. 1 shows geosynthetic-reinforced embankment resting on stone column-improved soft soil. The methodology pro-
posed by Alamgir et al. [17] has been used to model the stone column-improved ground with proper modification. The meth-
odology proposed by Alamgir et al. [17] has been modified from axi-symmetric unit cell condition to plain strain condition.
The effect of soil arching within the embankment fill has also been incorporated in the analysis. Similar deformation shape as
suggested by Alamgir et al. [17] has been considered for the column–soil system. The displacement of the column is assumed
to remain same over its width. The displacement of the surrounding soil increases from the column–soil interface towards
the outside boundary of the plain strain unit section. The assumed deformed shape of the column–soil system and the co-
ordinate axes for a unit section are shown in Fig. 2. The stone column and the soft soil are loaded with different uniform
loading intensity of rc1 and rs1, respectively those are coming from the embankment fill due to soil arching (as shown in
Fig. 2). The displacements of column and soil at the interface are same. The soil is assumed to behave as a linearly deformable
homogeneous material with constant modulus of deformation Es and Poisson’s ratio ms. The column material is also assumed
to behave as a linearly deformable homogeneous material with constant modulus of deformation Ec and Poisson’s ratio mc.
However, yielding of the upper part of the column (even surrounding soft soil) may occur due to low confining stress and
high loads, but for simplicity, in the present approach only elastic solution is considered. Moreover, Balaam et al. [18] sug-
gested that since very little difference between the settlement values is observed from elastic and elasto-plastic analysis, the
relative effects of various changes in a column–soil unit could be determined satisfactorily by means of elastic analysis. Thus,
by performing elastic analysis, the lengthy calculations involved in elasto-plastic analysis can be avoided [17]. Only the ver-
tical deformations of the stone columns and soft soil are considered, the horizontal deformations are assumed to be negli-
gible. The effect of consolidation of soft soil due to inclusions of stone columns has not been incorporated in the present
analysis. However, studies show that up to 20% degree of consolidation no soil arching takes place and after that as the

Fig. 1. Geosynthetic-reinforced embankment resting on stone column-improved soft soil.

2946 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Fig. 2. Assumed deformation shape for a unit section of stone column-improved ground.

consolidation of soft soil progresses soil arching also increases [15]. In the present study, 2-D plane strain analysis has been
done for stone column-supported embankments. Similar plane strain analysis has been carried out for vertical drain beneath
embankments on soft ground [19–21]. However, in the field stone columns are placed in a square or triangular pattern. Thus,
the axi-symmetric unit-cell model has to be converted to equivalent plane-strain model. Two methods of conversion are de-
scribed by Tan et al. [22]. In the first method, to obtain equal flow path length normal to the column perimeter, the width of
the column (in plane-strain condition) can be taken equal to the diameter of the column (in axi-symmetric condition). This
transformation has also been applied by Indraratna and Redana [23] in the permeability-matching approach for the plane-
strain conversion of vertical drains. In this approach, the diameter of drainage area can also be taken equal to the equivalent
plane-strain width. The plane-strain material stiffness can be determined by the suggested relationship based on the match-
ing of the column–soil composite stiffness as [22]: Ec,plas,pl + Es,pl(1  as,pl) = Ec,axas,ax + Es,ax(1  as,ax), where Ec and Es are elas-
tic moduli of the stone column material and the soft soil, respectively and subscripts pl and ax denote plane-strain and axi-
symmetric conditions, respectively. Area replacement ratio, as = Ac/(Ac + As) where Ac and As are cross-section areas of the col-
umn and the surrounding soft soil, respectively. According to the suggestion of Tan et al. [22], for simplicity, Es,pl = Es,ax and
hence Ec,pl can be determined accordingly. In case of rate of consolidation calculation, the matching of soil permeability can
be done by using the suggested analytical equation [24]. However, in the present study, the soft soil consolidation effect is
not considered. In the second method, geometrical transformation can be done based on the equivalence of the column
drainage capacity in both axi-symmetric and plane-strain conditions as proposed by Indraratna and Redana [21] to convert
vertical drain system into the equivalent plane-strain drain walls. The half width of the column (in plane-strain condition) is
given as: b = B (rc2/R2) and R = 1.13B (for square pattern), where B is the half equivalent plane-strain width of the drainage
zone, R is the axi-symmetric radius of the drainage zone, rc is the radius of the stone column. In this method, the same mate-
rial properties can be used for both axi-symmetric and plane-strain geometry. In the present study, the width of the stone
column and unit section in plain strain condition are taken equal to the diameter of stone column and spacing between the
stone columns, respectively. However, second method can also be incorporated in the analysis by changing the width of the
column and influenced or drainage zone.
The mode of deformation of the stone column-reinforced ground as shown in Fig. 2 can be expressed by the following
equation [17]
hx x
i
wxz ¼ wcz þ acz  ebc ðb1Þ for b 6 x 6 S=2; ð1Þ
b
where b and S/2 are the half width of column and unit section, respectively, S is the spacing between the stone columns, x is
the horizontal distance measured from the center of column, wxz is the displacement of the soil at a depth z and at a hori-
zontal distance x, wcz is the displacement of the column element at a depth z, acz and bc are the displacement parameters.
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2947

Es
After differentiating Eq. (1) with respect to x and substituting the value of shear modulus Gs = 2ð1þ ms Þ, the expression for
shear stress (sxz) can be written as:
Es acz  x
sxz ¼ 1  bc ebc ðb1Þ :

ð2Þ
2ð1 þ ms Þ b
Due to symmetry (as shown in Fig. 2), the shear stress at the outside boundary of unit section is assumed to be zero i.e. at
x = S/2, sxz = 0. Applying this condition to Eq. (2) and noting that axz, is not equal to zero, we can get

bc ebc ðn1Þ  1 ¼ 0: ð3Þ

It is observed from Eq. (3) that bc depends only on the spacing to diameter ratio n (n = S/2b = S/dc, where dc is the diameter
or width of the stone columns) of the columns. Based on Eq. (3) and the chart presented by Alamgir et al. [17], the value of bc
for different n values can be determined.
The load transferred mechanism of a stone column-supported embankment plays a very important role for its analysis.
Due to soil arching effect, the stress on soft soil reduces and the stress acting on stone columns increases. Compared to unre-
inforced embankments, the inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement reduces the displacement of the embankment fill be-
tween the pile caps or stone columns which causes reduction in differential settlement (difference between the
settlement on the middle of the stone column or pile and center between two piles or stone columns). Thus, due to appli-
cation of geosynthetic reinforcement, soil arching also reduces. Therefore, the load transfer to the pile-caps or stone columns
due to soil arching is minimized. However, in such case the load on stone column or pile is increased due to transfer of stress
from soft soil to stone columns by the geosynthetic reinforcement layer. In case of perfectly rigid geosynthetic reinforced
platform (for multilayered reinforced system), there is no differential settlement is observed. Thus, no soil arching and ten-
sioned membrane effect have been observed. However, in that case transfer of load from soil to piles or stone columns is
occurred due to the stiffness difference between pile-caps or stone columns and soft soil [5]. The stress transfers from
the soil to the relatively stiffer and stronger column through the interaction shear stresses at the column–soil interface
[17]. To obtain the solutions, the column is divided into L number of elements in vertical direction having equal thickness,
DH (=Hs/L, where Hs is the depth of the soft soil). A typical column element and the stresses acting on it are shown in Fig. 3(a).
From the equilibrium of vertical forces on a typical element under plain strain conditions leads to
drcz 2scz
¼ : ð4Þ
dz dc

Fig. 3. (a) Stresses acting on the jth column element and (b) stresses acting on the soil elements.
2948 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Combining Eqs. (2) and (4) for x = b and by numerical integration, the normal stress acting on the jth element of column is
obtained as

ðDbHÞð1  bc ÞEs acj

rcjþ1 ¼ rcj þ ; ð5Þ
2bð1 þ ms Þ
where rcj and rcj+1 are the normal stresses acting at the top and bottom of the jth element of column, respectively, j varies
from 1 to L.
The vertical deformation of each element of column is related to the stress acting at the mid section of that element and
elastic modulus of the column material. Thus, the deformation of the jth element of the column, wcj can be written as
DH2
DH ð1  bc Þacj Es
 
b
wcj ¼ rcj þ : ð6Þ
Ec 4ð1 þ ms Þ Ec
Due to transfer of stresses from soil to column, the stresses on the soil decrease along the depth on the basis of the mobi-
lized shear stresses acting at the vertical planes. The shear stress is maximum at the column–soil interface and decreases
with horizontal distance and becomes zero at the outside boundary of the unit section [17]. Due to the symmetry only half
portion of the unit section is considered as shown in Fig. 3(b). Similar to the stone columns, the soil is divided vertically into L
number of elements and further subdivided horizontally into N number of elements having a horizontal width equal to Dx
[=((S/2)  b)/N]. From the equilibrium of vertical forces acting on the Nth element of the soil shown in Fig. 3(b), one gets

drsNz ssNz
¼ ; ð7Þ
dz Dx
where ssNz is the shear stress acting depth z. Combining Eq. (2) with Eq. (7) and after numerical integration, the normal stress
acting at the Nth element is obtained as:
D H 
x
b
rsNjþ1 ¼ rsNj  1  bc ebc ðb1Þ Es acz ;
 
ð8Þ
2Dxð1 þ ms Þ
where rsNj and rsNj+1 are the normal stresses acting at the top and bottom of the (N, j)th element, respectively.
The vertical deformation of each supporting soil element surrounding the column is obtained from the uniform vertical
stress acting at the mid section of the soil element and the elastic modulus of the soil. Deformation of the (N, j)th element of
soil (i.e. x = S/2  Dx or x/b = n  DX), wsNj is derived from Eq. (8) and expressed as:
D H 2 
1  bc ebc ðnDX1Þ acj

DH b
wsNj ¼ rsNj  ; ð9Þ
Es 4DXð1 þ ms Þ
where DX = Dx/b.
The displacement compatibility between the column and the soil element as suggested by Alamgir et al. [17] is used to
determine the displacement parameter acj : For no slip condition at the interface between the stone column and soft soil, the
compatibility of column and soils along the full depth are considered. At x/b = n  DX/2, the displacement of the jth element
of column, wcj and (N, j) element of soil, wsNj can be related as:

DX

DX
wsNj ¼ wcj þ acj n   ebc ðn 2 1Þ : ð10Þ
2
Putting the value of wcj and wsNj in Eq. (10), acj is obtained as:
rsNj rcj


Es
 Ec
DH
acj ¼ ; ð11Þ
A1 þ A2 þ A3
where
DH2
ð1  bc Þ Es
 
b
A1 ¼ ; ð12aÞ
4ð1 þ ms Þ Ec

DH2
b
½1  bc ebc ðnDX1Þ 
A2 ¼ ; ð12bÞ
4ð1 þ ms ÞDX

DX DX
A3 ¼ n   ebc ðn 2 1Þ ; ð12cÞ
2
where Ec/Es is modular ratio.
The stress acting on the top of the geosynthetic reinforcement layer placed at the base of the embankment can be deter-
mined by considering soil arching in the embankment. Due to soil arching, the stresses acting on the soft soil and stone col-
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2949

1.6

Upper limit for high embankment height

1.4

Multiplying factor ( η )
Average line
1.2

Lower limit for low embankment height

0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
E c /E s

Fig. 4. Variation of multiplying factor (g) with modular ratio.

umn are not same. Considering soil arching, the stress acting on soft soil (for unreinforced embankment) in plane-strain con-
dition can be determined by the expression proposed by Low et al. [3] as (which is originally developed for pile supported
embankment):
ðK p  1Þð1  dÞS S S
 
rs1 ¼ lgcHe þ ð1  dÞðKp1Þ 1   ; ð13Þ
2He ðK p  2Þ 2He 2He ðK p  2Þ
where d = dc/S; dc is width of the stone columns, S is spacing between the stone columns, Kp = (1 + sin /e)/(1  sin /e); /e is
angle of shearing resistance of the embankment soil; He is height of the embankment; c is unit weight of the embankment
soil, l (0.8 6 l 6 1) is a multiplying factor which is used to convert experimental efficiency into theoretical efficiency as sug-
gested by Low et al. [3]. It is assumed that same stress (rs1) will act on all the nodes (j = 1–N) at the surface of improved soil.
From the above expression of rs1, it is observed that the effect of modular ratio (Ec/Es) is not incorporated in the expression.
However, from the study it is observed that modular ratio has a significant effect on the soil arching [15]. Therefore, another
multiplying factor g is introduced to incorporate the effect of modular ratio in the expression suggested by Low et al. [3]. The
value of g can be determined from Fig. 4. The range of modular ratio is taken as 5–100 [15,17]. From the results of Deb [15], it
is observed that as the stiffness of stone column material increases soil arching also increases. Thus, as the modular ratio
decreases the stress on the soft soil increases due to less soil arching. Because of this reason as the modular ratio decreases
g value increases indicating more stress acting on soft soil. In Fig. 4, for modular ratio 100 the g value is considered as one
and as the modular ratio decreases g value becomes greater than one. As the increase in embankment height increases the
soil arching, the variation of g with modular ratio is also more in case of higher embankment height as compared to the low-
er embankment height. An average value can also be used (as shown in Fig. 4) during determination of stress acting on soft
soil. However, after applying multiplying factor g, the value of rs1 cannot be greater that cHe at any condition (if no surcharge
is applied).
From the geometry, the stress on stone column at the surface of the improved ground can be determined as (for unrein-
forced embankment):
S rs1 S
  
rc1 ¼ cHe  1 : ð14Þ
dc cHe dc
The geosynthetic layer is modeled as suggested by Abusharar et al. [8]. Assuming uniform tension, the vertical equilib-
rium of forces (as shown in Fig. 5) on the deformed length of geosynthetic can be expressed as:
1
T¼ S0 ðrs1  r0s1 Þ; ð15Þ
2 sin h
where rs1 and r0s1 are acting on the top and bottom of the reinforcement layer, respectively, T is the mobilized tension in the
geosynthetic layer and S0 ¼ S  dc : In case of reinforced embankment Eq. (13) can be used to calculate the stress action on top
of the reinforcement layer.
Soil–geosynthetic interface shear stress can be defined as [8]:
s ¼ sitop þ sibottom ¼ kðrs1 tan /e þ kr0s1 tan /s Þ; ð16Þ
where /e and /s are the internal friction angle of the embankment soil and soft soil, respectively and k is a factor which varies
between 0.7 and 0.9, depending on the type of geosynthetic [25]. In the present study, the effect of adhesion between the soft
soil and geosynthetic reinforcement is neglected due to low cohesion value of the soft soil.
2950 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Fig. 5. Soil-geosynthetic interface shear and vertical stresses.

From the geometry in Fig. 5, for small displacement, cos h = S0 /L, where S0 and L are the initial and final length of the geo-
synthetic layer after axial strain.
The axial strain in the geosynthetic eg is given by
Dl L  S0 1  cos h
eg ¼ ¼ ¼ : ð17Þ
S0 S0 cos h
Equilibrium of horizontal forces leads to
S0 =2
T  sx
Z
Dl ¼ 2 dx; ð18Þ
0 Kg
where Kg = Egw = tensile stiffness of geosynthetic, Eg and w are the elastic modulus and thickness of the reinforcement layer,
respectively.
Now,
S0 =2 S0 =2
2T 2s
Z Z
eg S0 ¼ dx  x dx: ð19Þ
Kg 0 Kg 0

Substituting the values of s, eg and solving Eq. (19), one can get
kS0 ðrs1 tan /e þ r0s1 tan /s Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
T¼ 1 þ tan h2  1 K g þ : ð20Þ
4
Equating Eqs. (15) and (20), one can get
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 þ tan h2 0 1 þ tan h2 0 0 kS0 ðrs1 tan /e þ r0s1 tan /s Þ
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
S rs1  S rs1 ¼ 1 þ tan h2  1 K g þ :
2 tan h 2 tan h 4
Thus,
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
1þtan h2
1 þ tan h2  1 Sg0  krs1 tan
K /e
2 tan h
rs1  4
r0s1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð21Þ
1þtan h2
2 tan h
þ k tan4 /s
After rearranging Eq. (21), one can get
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
1þtan h2 K
rs1 2 tan h
 4k tan /e  Sg0 1 þ tan h2  1
r0s1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi : ð22Þ
1þtan h2
2 tan h
þ 4k tan /s
From geometry, the stress acting on the stone column at the surface of the improved ground can be determined as (for
reinforced embankment):
S r0 S
  
r0c1 ¼ cHe  s1 1 : ð23Þ
dc cHe dc
The stress concentration ratio at the surface of the improved ground can be determined as:
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2951

rc1
nc ¼ for unreinforced embankment; ð24Þ
rs1
r0c1
nc ¼ for reinforced embankment: ð25Þ
r0s1
In case of embankment subjected to uniform surcharge loading (q), the stress acting on soft soil (for unreinforced
embankment) or top of the geosynthetic layer (for reinforced embankment) can be determined as [8]:
ðK p  1Þð1  dÞS q S S
 
rs1 ¼ lgcHe þ ð1  dÞðKp1Þ 1 þ   : ð26Þ
2He ðK p  2Þ cHe 2He 2He ðK p  2Þ
From geometry, the stress acting on the stone column at the surface of the improved ground can be determined as:

S q S rs1 S0
 
rc1 ¼ cHe þ  for unreinforced embankment; ð27Þ
dc cHe dc cHe dc

S q S r0 S0
 
r0c1 ¼ cHe þ  s1 for reinforced embankment: ð28Þ
dc cHe dc cHe dc
Using rs1 or r0s1 and rc1 or r0c1 , acj can be solved for all the elements, i.e. j = 1–L. Once the values of bc and acj are known,
the displacements, shear stress, stresses on the column and soft soil for all elements can be determined from Eqs. (1), (2), (5),
and (8), respectively. Since the stresses on the soil surrounding the column vary with depth and horizontal distance, the
stress concentration ratio nc, (ratio of stress on column to stress on soil), varies with depth and horizontal distance as:
rcj
nc ¼ : ð29Þ
rsij
The overall settlement at the surface of the stone column-reinforced ground is evaluated by adding the displacement of
all elements (j = 1 to L). Thus the general equation for the settlement (Sti) of the column-treated ground is obtained as:
j¼l
X
Sti ¼ wij : ð30Þ
j¼1

In case of unreinforced embankment, first rs1 is calculated at all the nodes on top surface of the soft soil by using Eq. (13)
and then stress on stone column is determined based on rs1 by using Eq. (14). After that stress concentration ratio (at the top
of the stone column) and overall settlement of the improved ground are determined. In case of reinforced embankment, first
the overall settlement of the stone column-improved ground is determined by applying assumed r0s1 at all the nodes on top
surface of soft soil (the stress on stone columns is determined based on the assumed r0s1 ). Once overall settlement is deter-
mined, the slope (=tan h) of the deformed shape at x = b is determined by using finite difference method. Once the slope is
determined, revised r0s1 and r0c1 values are determined. Thus, an iterative solution scheme has been used to solve the gov-
erning equations with a tolerance value 104. Once final value of r0s1 is determined, stress action on stone column (r0c1 ), stress
concentration ratio, axial strain and tension in the geosynthetic reinforcement, settlement of the improved ground are
determined.

3. Results and discussion

Based on the formulation as described in Section 2, programs are developed. The governing equations are solved in an
iterative manner. Results are obtained for a range of parameters to illustrate the influence of various parameters on the
behavior stone column-supported embankments. The unit section is divided into 350 equal vertical elements and the sur-
rounding soil is also subdivided into 350 equal horizontal elements.
To validate the present methodology, the results are compared with the available design methods of pile-supported
embankments. The value of different parameters used for the comparison are [8]: S = 2.52 m, He = 1.39 m, dc = 1.13 m,
c = 20 kN/m3, Es = 2200 kN/m2, /e ¼ 300 , /s ¼ 90 , k ¼ 0:8, q = 12 kPa, Hs = 25 m, Kg = 1700 kN/m. In the available design meth-
ods, the effect of modular ratio (Ec/Es) has not been considered which is incorporated in the present study. Again all the other
methods are developed for pile-supported embankments, whereas the present method is developed for stone column-sup-
ported embankments. Thus, during comparison with the available methods, very high value of modular ratio is taken to
make the stone column very stiff (equivalent to a pile). During the comparison, l is chosen as 1.0 and 0.8. The results ob-
tained from several current design methods are compared with the results obtained from the present method and summa-
rized in Table 1. Detail description of the different design methods is presented by Abusharar et al. [8].
Results show that BS8006 [4] method over predicts the vertical stress acting on the geosynthetic reinforcement, whereas
Abusharar et al. [8], Low et al. [3] and Guido et al. [26] under predict it in case of l = 1, but it is in good agreement with Guido
et al. [26] for l = 0.8. Similarly BS8006 [4] method and Guido et al. [26] underestimate the stress concentration ratio,
whereas Low et al. [3] and Abusharar et al. [8] over predict it. The present method underestimates the mobilized tension
2952 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Table 1
Comparison of results from available design methods and present study (for reinforced embankments).

Parameters Present method Present method Abusharar et al. [8] Low et al. [3] BS8006 [4] Guido et al. [26]
(with l = 0.8) (with l = 1)
Settlement ratio 0.77 0.74 0.36 0.41 – –
Vertical stress on pile/stone 69.81 66.69 69.30 70.92 71.83 63.05
column (kN/m2)
Vertical stress on 19.66 24.58 15.81 14.49 34.68 20.90
geosynthetic (kN/m2)
Tension in geosynthetic 21.27 28.37 39.18 34.00 44.40 30.55
reinforcement (kN/m)
Stress concentration ratio 3.55 2.71 4.38 4.89 2.07 3.02

Note: In the available design methods, the value of different parameters are taken from Abusharar et al. [8].

in the geosynthetic layer as compared to the other methods. In this method settlement ratio (ratio between the maximum
overall settlement at the midpoint between two piles or stone columns for geosynthetic-reinforced embankment and for
unreinforced embankment) is much higher compare to other methods. However, from the numerical analysis of geosyn-
thetic-reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil similar higher settlement ratio is observed [5]. It is ob-
served that present method predicts higher settlement ratio, vertical stress on stone column and stress concentration
ratio and lower vertical stress on geosynthetic and tension in geosynthetic reinforcement for l = 0.8 as compared to
l = 1.0. Overall the results of present method are in good agreement with the results of Guido et al. [26] as compared to
the other methods.
Studies have been performed for a range of parameters to show the influence of various parameters on the behavior stone
column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced embankments. The range or value of the parameters is chosen based on the value
and range presented by Abusharar et al. [8] and Almagir et al. [17]. The values of parameters consider are k ¼ 0:8, /e = 30°,
/s = 9°, ms = 0.45, l = 0.8, q = 0.

3.1. Effect of embankment height

Fig. 6 shows the effect of embankment height on stress concentration ratio for different values of n. The stress concen-
tration ratio is calculated at the surface of the improved ground. It is observed that stress concentration ratio increases with
the increase in embankment height. In case of unreinforced embankments (as shown in Fig. 7), similar trend is observed but
for a particular n value, stress concentration ratio is higher in case of reinforced embankment as compared to the unrein-
forced embankment. This is due to the fact that for shallow embankments, the embankment height is not enough to mobilize
the arching mechanism. Thus, as the height of the embankment increases more shear resistance has been accumulated
which helps the development of soil arching [5] that causes more transfer of stress onto the stone column. Use of geosyn-
thetic reinforcement enhances the load transfer from soft soil to stone column. Thus, for a particular n value, stress concen-
tration ratio is more in case of reinforced embankments as compared to unreinforced embankment. It is further observed
that stress concentration ratio decreases with the increase in n value as smaller spacing between the stone columns pro-
motes higher soil arching effect.
Figs. 8 and 9 show the influence of embankment height on axial strain and tension of geosynthetic reinforcement, respec-
tively. It is observed that axial strain and tension increase with the increase in embankment height. This increment is more at
higher n value. It is further observed that axial strain and tension increase with increase in n value. Similar results have been
reported by Abusharar et al. [8] and Han and Gabr [5] for pile-supported geosynthetic-reinforced embankments. For n = 2,

7
Stress concentration ratio

6 n =2

5 3
4
4 5

3
K g = 1700 kN/m, E c /E s = 10, H s /b = 10, E s = 2200 kN/m2

2
1 2 3 4 5
H e /S

Fig. 6. Effect of embankment height on stress concentration ratio.

 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2953

Stress concentration ratio

5 n= 2

4
3
4
5
3
2
K g = 1700 kN/m, E c /E s = 10, H s /b = 10, E s = 2200 kN/m

2
1 2 3 4 5
H e /S

Fig. 7. Effect of embankment height on stress concentration ratio (unreinforced embankment).

Fig. 8. Effect of embankment height on axial strain of geosynthetic reinforcement.

Fig. 9. Effect of embankment height on tension in geosynthetic reinforcement.

the axial strain is increased by 2.3 times as He/S value increases from 1 to 5, whereas for n = 5 the increment is 9 times. Sim-
ilarly for n = 2, the tension in the geosynthetic reinforcement is increased by 2.5 times as He/S value increases from 1 to 5,
whereas for n = 5 the increment is 5 times.
Fig. 10 shows the effect of embankment height on settlement ratio. It is observed that there is decrease in the value of
settlement ratio with increase in embankment height. It is further observed that settlement ratio decreases with decrease
in n value. This is due to the fact that as the height of the embankment increases and n value decreases more soil arching
is occurred that helps transfer of stress on stone column. Use of reinforcement enhances the stress transfer process and
causes more reduction in the settlement.
2954 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

0.98
2
K g = 1700 kN/m,E c /E s = 10, H s /b = 10, E s = 2200 kN/m

0.96

Settlement ratio
0.94

0.92 5
4
0.9 n =3

0.88
1 2 3 4 5
H e /S

Fig. 10. Effect of embankment height on settlement ratio.

7
n =2
Stress concentration ratio

3
5
4
5
4

3
2
H s /b = 20, H e /S = 1, E s = 2200 kN/m , K g = 1700 kN/m
2
0 20 40 60 80 100
Modular ratio (E c /E s )

Fig. 11. Effect of modular ratio on stress concentration ratio.

0.012
5

0.01 4

3
0.008
Axial strain

0.006
n =2
0.004

0.002
2
H s /b = 20, H e /S = 1, E s = 2200 kN/m , K g = 1700 kN/m
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Modular ratio (Ec /E s )

Fig. 12. Effect of modular ratio on axial strain of geosynthetic reinforcement.

3.2. Effect of modular ratio

Fig. 11 shows the effect of modular ratio (Ec/Es) on stress concentration ratio for different values of n. It has been observed
that the stress concentration ratio increases with the increase in modular ratio up to a certain value and after that it becomes
constant. It is further observed that stress concentration ratio decreases with the increase in n value. This is due to the fact
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2955

50
2
H s /b = 20, H e /S = 1, E s = 2200 kN/m , K g = 1700 kN/m

40 5

Tension (kN/m)
30 4

20 3

10 n =2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Modular ratio (Ec /E s )

Fig. 13. Effect of modular ratio on tension in geosynthetic reinforcement.

0.96
2
H s /b = 20, H e /S = 1, E s = 2200 kN/m , K g = 1700 kN/m

0.92 5
Settlement ratio

4
0.88

3
0.84

n =2
0.8
0 20 40 60 80 100
Modular ratio (E c /E s )

Fig. 14. Effect of modular ratio on settlement ratio.

that as the modular ratio or stiffness of the stone column increases the soil arching effect also increases and more stress is
transferred on the stone column. Use of geosynthetic reinforcement enhances the load transfer from soft soil to stone col-
umn. Thus, stress concentration ratio increases due to the increase in modular ratio.
Figs. 12 and 13 show the effect of modular ratio on axial strain and mobilized tension in geosynthetic reinforcement,
respectively. It is observed that as the modular ratio increases axial strain and tension in geosynthetic reinforcement also
increase at lower value of modular ratio (Ec/Es 6 10) and after that these become constant. This is due to the fact that the
increase in modular ratio causes more differential settlement and due to this reason higher axial strain and tension are in-
duced in the geosynthetic layer.
Fig. 14 shows the effect of modular ratio on settlement ratio. It is observed that as the modular ratio increases settlement
ratio decreases. This is due to the fact that as the modular ratio increases more stress is transferred onto stone columns due
to soil arching and use of geosynthetic reinforcement helps this stress transfer process due to stiffness difference between
the stone column and soft soil. From the study on pile-supported geosynthetic-reinforced embankment [5] it is observed that
as the modulus of the pile increases the differential settlement also increases up to a certain value and beyond that there is
no change in the total and differential settlement is noticed. As differential settlement does not change with modulus of the
pile or stone column, the axial strain and tension in the geosynthetic layer and stress concentration ratio do not change also.
Thus, the effect of modular ratio becomes unchangeable for higher values of Ec/Es.

3.3. Effect of soft ground depth

Fig. 15 shows the effect of soft ground depth on stress concentration ratio for different values of Ec/Es. It is observed that
stress concentration ratio increases with the increase in soft ground depth up to a certain value of Hs/b and after that it
becomes constant. However, the increment is more for higher modular ratio value as compared to the lower modular ratio
value. Figs. 16 and 17 show the effect of soft ground depth on axial strain and tension of geosynthetic reinforcement,
2956 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

Stress concentration ratio

100
5 50

20
4

10
3
E c /E s =5

H e /S = 1, n = 3, E s = 2200 kN/m2, K g = 1700 kN/m

2
10 20 30 40 50
H s /b

Fig. 15. Effect of soft ground depth on stress concentration ratio.

0.012 100
Axial strain

0.008 10

E c /E s =5
0.004

H e /S = 1, n = 3, E s = 2200 kN/m2, K g = 1700 kN/m

0
10 20 30 40 50
H s /b

Fig. 16. Effect of soft ground depth on axial strain of geosynthetic reinforcement.

30
100
25
Tension (kN/m)

20 10

E c /E s =5
15

10
H e /S = 1, n = 3, E s = 2200 kN/m2, K g = 1700 kN/m

5
10 20 30 40 50
H s /b

Fig. 17. Effect of soft ground depth on tension in geosynthetic reinforcement.

respectively. It is observed that axial strain and tension increase with the increase in soft ground depth up to a certain value
of Hs/b and after that these become constant. Thus, the greater depth of soft soil increases the differential settlement which
causes more strain and tension in the geosynthetic reinforcement and more soil arching in the embankment. However, the
rate of increment is more for higher value of Ec/Es.
Fig. 18 shows the effect of soft ground depth on settlement ratio. It is observed that settlement ratio decreases with the
increase in soft ground depth up to a certain value of Hs/b and after that it becomes constant. It can be concluded that no
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2957

E c /E s =5

Settlement ratio
0.9
10

20
0.8
50
100
2
H e /S = 1, n = 3, E s = 2200 kN/m , K g = 1700 kN/m
0.7
10 20 30 40 50
H s /b

Fig. 18. Effect of soft ground depth on settlement ratio.

5.5
2
5 H e /S = 1, H s /b = 20, n = 3, E s= 2200 kN/m
Stress concentration ratio

100
4.5
50
4
20
3.5
10
3

2.5 E c /E s =5

2
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
K g (kN/m)

Fig. 19. Effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on stress concentration ratio.

0.011

100
0.009
Axial strain

0.007
10
2
H e /S = 1, H s /b = 20, n = 3, E s= 2200 kN/m
0.005

E c /E s =5

0.003
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
K g (kN/m)

Fig. 20. Effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on axial strain of geosynthetic reinforcement.

effect of depth of soft soil on stress concentration ratio, axial strain and tension in the geosynthetic reinforcement and set-
tlement ration is observed beyond the value of Hs/b = 30. However, for lower soft soil depth, variation of settlement ratio,
stress concentration ratio, axial strain and tension in the geosynthetic layer is less as compared to the higher soft soil depth
when modular ratio increases from 5 to 100.
2958 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

30
100
25

Tension (kN/m)
20 10

15 E c /E s =5

10
2
H e /S = 1, H s /b = 20, n = 3, E s= 2200 kN/m
5
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
K g (kN/m)

Fig. 21. Effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on tension of geosynthetic reinforcement.

1
2
H e /S = 1, H s /b = 20, n = 3, E s= 2200 kN/m
0.95 E c /E s =5
Settlement ratio

10
0.9

0.85
100

0.8

0.75
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
K g (kN/m)

Fig. 22. Effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on settlement ratio.

Fig. 23. Normalized settlement profile for reinforced and unreinforced embankment for Ec/Es = 5.

3.4. Effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness

Fig. 19 shows the effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on stress concentration ratio for different values of modular ratio
(Ec/Es). It has been observed that stress concentration ratio increases with the increase in geosynthetic tensile stiffness. Thus,
for stiffer reinforcement layer, more stress is transferred from soft soil to stone columns. Fig. 20 shows the effect of geosyn-
thetic tensile stiffness on axial strain of geosynthetic reinforcement. It is observed that axial strain decreases with the
 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960 2959

increase in geosynthetic tensile stiffness. Fig. 21 shows the effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on tension in geosynthetic
layer. It is observed that as the tensile stiffness of the reinforcement increases tension in geosynthetic reinforcement also
increases. Fig. 22 shows the effect of geosynthetic tensile stiffness on settlement ratio. It is observed that settlement ratio
decreases with the increase in geosynthetic tensile stiffness.

3.5. Settlement profile

Fig. 23 shows a typical settlement profile for geosynthetic-reinforced and unreinforced embankment resting on stone col-
umn-improved soft soil with Ec/Es = 5. It is observed that use of reinforcement reduces the settlement of soft soil and in-
creases the settlement of the stone columns. Thus, geosynthetic reinforcement reduces both total as well as differential
settlements. This is due to the fact that as the stiffness of the stone column increases stress on the soft soil decreases and
stress on the stone column increases and use of reinforcement enhances the stress transfer process which causes the reduc-
tion of settlement for soft soil. Thus, stress on stone column is more in case of geosynthetic-reinforced embankment as com-
pared to the unreinforced embankments. Because of this reason settlement of the stone column is more in case of reinforced
embankment as compared to the unreinforced embankment for lower stiffness of the stone column. However, for higher
stiffness of the stone column more stress is transferred from soft soil to stone column that causes reduction in settlement
of soft soil and the stress on the stone column for reinforced embankment is more as compared to the unreinforced embank-
ment, but due to higher stiffness almost same settlement of the stone column is observed for both reinforced and unrein-
forced embankments [27]. The higher stiffness of the stone column will not allow significant settlement due to the
additional stress on the stone column because of the application of geosynthetic reinforcement.

4. Conclusions

The present work pertains to the development of an analytical method to study the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced
stone column-supported embankments. The effects of soil arching, stiffness of the stone column, depth of soft soil, tensile
stiffness of the geosynthetic reinforcement are incorporated in the analysis. The results of the present analytical method
are verified against several current design methods and good agreement is observed. It is observed that the stress concen-
tration ratio increases with the increase in modular ratio up to a certain value and after that it becomes constant, whereas it
decreases with the increase in n value. As the stiffness of the stone column increases more stress is transferred from soft soil
to stone column and use of reinforcement enhances the stress transfer process. Thus, the stress concentration ratio is more in
case of reinforced embankment as compared to the unreinforced embankment. As the modular ratio increases, axial strain
and tension in geosynthetic reinforcement also increase at lower value of modular ratio (Ec/Es 6 10) and after that these be-
come constant. Differential settlement increases as the modular ratio increases which causes more strain and tension in the
geosynthetic layer. It is further observed that axial strain and tension increase with the increase in spacing between the
stone columns. The settlement ratio value is decreased as the modular ratio increases or spacing to diameter ratio decreases.
Stress concentration ratio, axial strain and tension increase with the increase in soft ground depth, whereas settlement ratio
decreases with the increase in soft ground depth. No effect of depth of soft soil on stress concentration ratio, axial strain and
tension in the geosynthetic reinforcement and settlement ration is observed beyond the value of Hs/b = 30. Stress concentra-
tion ratio, axial strain and tension the geosynthetic reinforcement increase with the increase in embankment height. How-
ever, settlement ratio decreases as the height of the embankment increases. Stress concentration ratio and tension in
geosynthetic reinforcement increase with the increase in geosynthetic tensile stiffness. It can be said that for stiffer rein-
forcement layer, more stress is transferred from soft soil to stone columns. However, axial strain and settlement ratio de-
crease with the increase in geosynthetic tensile stiffness. It is observed that use of reinforcement reduces the settlement
of soft soil and increases the settlement of the stone columns for lower modular ratio value. Thus, use of geosynthetic rein-
forcement reduces both total as well as differential settlements.

References

[1] K. Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics, Wiley, New York, 1943.

[2] W.J. Hewlett, M.F. Randolph, Analysis of piled embankments, Ground Eng. 21 (3) (1988) 12–18.
[3] B.K. Low, S.K. Tang, V. Choa, Arching in piled embankments, J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (11) (1994) 1917–1938.
[4] BS8006, Code of Practice for Strengthened/Reinforced Soils and Other Fills, 1995.
[5] J. Han, M.A. Gabr, Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile supported earth platforms over soft soil, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE
128 (1) (2002) 44–53.
[6] O. Jenck, D. Dias, R. Kastner, Two-dimensional physical and numerical modeling of a pile-supported earth platform over soft soil, J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 133 (3) (2007) 295–305.
[7] Y.M. Chen, W.P. Cao, R.P. Chen, An experimental investigation of soil arching within basal reinforced and unreinforced piled embankments, Geotext.
Geomembr. 26 (2) (2008) 164–174.
[8] S.W. Abusharar, J.J. Zheng, B.G. Chen, J.H. Yin, A simplified method for analysis of a piled embankment reinforced with geosynthetics, Geotext.
Geomembr. 27 (1) (2009) 39–52.
[9] K.A. Halvordson, R.H. Plaut, G.M. Filz, Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile-supported embankments. Part II: 3D cable-net model, Geosynth.
Int. 17 (2) (2010) 68–76.
[10] R.H. Plaut, G.M. Filz, Analysis of geosynthetic reinforcement in pile supported embankments. Part III: Axisymmetric model, Geosynth. Int. 17 (2) (2010)
77–85.
2960 K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra / Applied Mathematical Modelling 37 (2013) 2943–2960

[11] V.J. Potts, L. Zdravkovic, Finite-element study of arching behavior in reinforced fills, Inst. Civil Eng. 163 (G14) (2010) 217–229.
[12] Y. Zhuang, E.A. Ellis, H.S. Yu, Plane strain FE analysis of arching in a piled embankment, Inst. civil Eng. 163 (G14) (2010) 207–215.
[13] S.J.M. van Eekelen, A. Bezuijen, A.F. van Tol, Analysis and modification of British standard BS8006 for the design of piled embankments, Geotext.
Geomembr. 29 (3) (2011) 345–359.
[14] S. Murugesan, K. Rajagopal, Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: numerical evolution, Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (3) (2006) 349–358.
[15] K. Deb, A mathematical model to study the soil arching effect in stone column-supported embankment resting on soft foundation soil, Appl. Math.
Model. 34 (12) (2010) 3871–3883.
[16] J.L. Borges, T.S. Domingues, A.S. Cardoso, Embankments on soft soil reinforced with stone columns: numerical analysis and proposal of a new design
method, Geotech. Geologic. Eng.: Int. J. 27 (6) (2009) 667–679.
[17] M. Alamgir, N. Miura, H.B. Poorooshasbh, M.R. Madhav, Deformation analysis of soft ground columnar inclusions, Comput. Geotech. 18 (4) (1996) 261–
290.
[18] N.P. Balaam, H.G. Poulos, P.T. Brown, Settlement analysis of soft clays reinforced with granular piles, in: Proceedings of the 5th Asian Regional
Conference, Bangkok, vol. 1, 1977, pp. 81–92.
[19] C.C. Hird, I.C. Pyrah, D. Russell, Finite element modeling of vertical drains beneath embankments on soft ground, Geotehnique 42 (3) (1992) 499–511.
[20] J.C. Chai, N. Miura, S. Sakajo, D.T. Bergado, Behavior of vertical drain improved subsoil under embankment loading, Soils Found. 35 (4) (1995) 49–61.
[21] B. Indraratna, I.W. Redana, Plane-strain modeling of smear effects associated with vertical drains, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 123 (5) (1997)
474–478.
[22] S.A. Tan, S. Tjahyono, K.K. Oo, Simplified plane-strain modeling of stone-column reinforced ground, J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., ASCE 134 (2) (2008)
185–194.
[23] B. Indraratna, I.W. Redana, Numerical modeling of vertical drains with smear and well resistance installed in soft clay, Can. Geotech. J. 37 (1) (2000)
132–145.
[24] S.A. Tan, K.K. Oo, Stone column FEM modeling—2D and 3D considerations illustrated by case history, in: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Tsunami Reconstruction with Geosynthetics, ACSIG, Bangkok, Thailand, 2005, pp. 157–169.
[25] G.P.T.M. Van Santvoort, Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1995.
[26] V.A. Guido, J.D. Kneuppel, M.A. Sweeny, Plate loading tests on geogrid reinforced earth slabs, in: Proceedings of the Geosynthetics ’87, New Orleans,
USA, IFAI, 1987, pp. 216–225.
[27] K. Deb, S.R. Mohapatra, Settlement response of stone column-improved soft soil due to embankment loading, in: K.K. Phoon, S.H. Goh, R.F. Shen, H.H.
Zhu (Eds.), Advances in Ground Technology & Geo-Information, Research Publishing, Singapore, 2012, pp. 333–340.