Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments − 3D discrete

numerical analyses of the interaction and mobilization mechanisms
Tuan A. Pham a, b, *, Quoc-Anh Tran c, Pascal Villard d, Daniel Dias d, e, f
a
School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure and Society, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK
b
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Tokyo, Hongo-Bunkyo, Tokyo, Japan
c
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
d
Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, 3SR, 38000 Grenoble, France
e
Antea Group, Antony, France
f
School of Automotive and Transportation Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Three-dimensional numerical analyses using the discrete element method are conducted to investigate several
Piled embankment fundamental aspects related to soil-structure interaction and mobilization mechanisms in the geosynthetic-
Geosynthetic reinforced and pile-supported embankments. The contributions of the soil arching, tensioned membrane ef­
Numerical analysis
fect, friction interaction, subsoil support, and punching failure are investigated. The results indicated that the
Soil arching
inclusion of the geosynthetic enhances the stress transfer from the subsoil to piles due to the tensioned membrane
Soil-structure interaction
Load transfer mechanism action, and the stress distribution is more uniform as compared to piled embankment without geosynthetic.
Discrete element model However, the tension distribution in geosynthetic is not uniform and the maximum tension occurs near the pile
Design methods edge. Numerical results also proved that the subsoil provides substantial support and reduces the reinforcement
tension while shear stresses are mobilized along the upper and lower sides of soil-geosynthetic interfaces. These
mechanisms should be considered in theoretical models to produce a more realistic approach. Finally, ten
available design methods are reviewed and compared to the numerical results to assess the performance of
analytical models. The results showed that the design method of Pham, CUR 226 design guideline, and EBGEO
design standard agree well with the numerical results and are generally better than the results of all other
methods.

presented a semi-spherical arching model to describe the load transfer

1. Introduction
Geosynthetic reinforced and pile-supported (GRPS) embankments
are increasingly used in highway construction on soft soil to reduce
settlements, minimize soil yield above pile caps, and enhance the load
transfer efficiency (Fig. 1). Many case histories were reported in the
literature over recent years [1–8].
Because the use of the GRPS solution is increasing rapidly, some
researchers proposed analytical models to investigate the GRPS
embankment behavior [9–18]. Terzaghi [9] presented an arching
analysis to account for the three-dimensional shape of the settling soil
mass in the embankment above the foundation soil between columns
and proposed a friction arching model. Guido et al. [10] showed that the
load spread angle through the geogrid-reinforced cohesionless soil is at
least equal to 45 degrees from the vertical. Hewlett and Randolph [11]
mechanism based on their three-dimensional model tests. This model
was adopted into the BS 8006 [12]. Low et al. [13] improved the method
of Hewlett and Randolph by considering a body force into the plane-
strain differential equation of equilibrium. Miki and Nozu [14] pre­
sented a model to predict the arching soil in GRPS embankments based
on laboratory model test results. The model considered the arching
shape change by using a variable arching angle in calculations. It was
implemented in PWRC [15]. Kempfert et al. [16] presented a new design
method derived from 1:3 laboratory models of piled embankment
problems. Before estimating the reinforcement tension necessary to
carry the embankment load, the method firstly estimates the soft soil
load magnitude with no reinforcement included. This analysis method
was adopted into EBGEO [17]. Van Eekelen et al. [18] presented a new
model, namely, the concentric arches model. This model consists of a set
of concentric hemispheres and arches. It is used by CUR 226 [19]. Pham

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ta.pham@hw.ac.uk (T.A. Pham).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112337
Received 28 November 2020; Received in revised form 14 March 2021; Accepted 30 March 2021
Available online 30 May 2021
0141-0296/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.A. Pham et al.
Nomenclature
A tributary area of one column cap (m2)
As area covered by the soft ground (m2)
a equivalent width of square pile cap (m)
D thickness of soft subsoil (m)
dc diameter of circular pile cap (m)
E total efficacy (dimensionless)
Ea efficacy component from arching effect (dimensionless)
Em efficacy component from the membrane effect
(dimensionless)
Es modulus of soft subsoil (kPa)
FGRsquare total vertical load exerted by the 3D hemisphere on their
square subsurface (kN)
FGRstrip total vertical load exerted by the 2D arches on the GR strips
(kN)
hg arching height (m)
H height of embankment (m)
JGR tensile stiffness of geosynthetic (kN/m)
KP passive earth pressure coefficient (dimensionless)
K earth pressure coefficient at rest (dimensionless)
Pc load component distributed on pile cap by arching effect
[20–22] presented a simplified method for GRPS embankment analyses
considering a combination of the fill soils arching theory, the tensioned
geosynthetic membrane theory, and soil-structure interaction. However,
all design procedures still contain some simplifying assumptions.
The geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankment are
integrated systems combining various elements such as embankment
soils, geosynthetic, piles, platform, and, subsoil. So, the response of
GRPS embankments is affected by the interactions between these ele­
ments. Pham [21] noted that the load transfer mechanism in GRPS is a
combination of the following five phenomena: (1) stress transfer from
the soft soil to the piles due to their stiffness difference or so-called soil
arching, (2) geosynthetic stretching to transfer the load from the subsoil
to the pile cap, so-called tensioned geosynthetic membrane effect, (3)
support of the subsoil that reduces the load carried by the geosynthetic,
(4) frictional interaction along with the upper and lower sides of
geosynthetic-soil interfaces, and (5) interaction between the piles and
soils. The complexity of the load transfer mechanism in GRPS em­
bankments is shown in Fig. 2. Although this technique is widely used,
Fig. 1. Geosynthetic reinforced and pile-supported (GRPS) embankment.
2
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
(kN)
Ps load part resting on the geosynthetic and subsoil (kN),
q surcharge (kPa)
SRRa stress reduction ratio induced by arching (dimensionless)
s center-to-center pile spacing (m)
sx , s y center-to-center pile spacing in directions x and y (m)
s′ clear spacing (m)
sd diagonal pile spacing (m)
T maximum tension in geosynthetic (kN/m)
y maximum deflection of geosynthetic (m)
γ unit weight of embankment soils (kN/m3)
σc total vertical stress acting on the pile cap by both arching
and membrane effect (kPa)
σ as vertical stress acting on the geosynthetic and subsoil by
arching effect (kPa)
θ arching angle (degree)
ϕ friction angle of embankment soils (degree)
ε strain of geosynthetic (dimensionless)
εf strain of geosynthetic due to skin friction (dimensionless)
δ deflected angle (degree)
the precise mechanism by which the load is transferred to piles, how­
ever, remains poorly understood.
In the past decade, various modeling studies were reported to
improve the understanding of the behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced
and pile-supported embankments. When compared with small-scale,
full-scale, or large-scale experimental studies, numerical studies are
economic, time-efficient, and flexible. They are also a very powerful tool
to investigate and get insights into the behavior of GRPS embankments.
The first approach often used is the finite element method (FEM).
Numerous numerical studies were conducted with the finite element
method [23–40]. Ariyarathne and Liyanapathirana [23] conducted nu­
merical modeling with the finite element program ABAQUS under three-
dimensional and two-dimensional plane-strain conditions. The main
finding was that the formation of soil arches is visible in the three-
dimensional model as a dome which is supported by piles, and in the
two-dimensional model as arches that span along the pile walls. Lo et al.
[24] performed a numerical study of a GRPS embankment considering
the time-dependent interaction between a stone column and the
T.A. Pham et al.
a Uniform surcharge, q
a
s T
Pile cap Pile cap
Soft subsoil
Pile
Vertical stress acting on upper
c surface of reinforcement
+ +
Pile cap
Pile
Ground reaction
(a) soil arching, (b) tensioned membrane effect, (c) subsoil support, (d) friction interaction
Fig. 2. Sketch of load transfer mechanism in GRPS embankment.
surrounding soft clay. They found that the stone columns’ role in sup­
porting the fill loading evolves with time. Zhuang and Ellis [25] con­
ducted a finite element analysis of a piled embankment considering the
subsoil contribution. As expected, the subsoil support effect on the
reinforcement tension reduction was showed. Wu et al. [26] performed a
three-dimensional numerical model to analyze the performance of a
piled embankment using Prefabricated high-strength concrete (PHC)
piles. Ariyarathne et al. [27] suggested that the geosynthetic layer ten­
sion was close to the 3D one when truss elements were used. Therefore,
the equivalent area method used with the truss element for the geo­
synthetic reinforcement layer can be considered as the most appropriate
2D idealization method. Borges and Marques [28] conducted a numer­
ical analysis to study the time-dependent behavior of geosynthetic-
reinforced and jet grout column-supported embankments on soft soils.
The cylindrical unit cell formulation was used and, the numerical model
incorporated the consolidation theory and critical state constitutive re­
lations. Jamsawang et al. [29] presented a three-dimensional numerical
analysis of a column-supported embankment for a highway, in which the
consolidation behavior was simulated by coupling a three-dimensional
mechanical and hydraulic model. Oliveira et al. [30] analyzed the
behavior of an embankment constructed on deep mixing columns (DMC)
using a couple soil–water formulations. Due to the arching effect, the
load applied by the embankment was concentrated on the DMC, the
effective stresses increase on the soil being negligible. Rowe and Liu [31]
conducted a three-dimensional finite element modeling of a full-scale
geosynthetic-reinforced, in which a fully 3D coupled model was used
with a consolidation analysis and the Drucker–Prager cap material
behavior. Yadav et al. [32] presented a comparative study on floating
and fixed sand compaction piles (SCPs), in which the settlement and
pore water pressure behaviors were studied using a soil–water coupled
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
b
Embankment
r
+
H
s/2
T
Pile cap Pile cap
deflected
Pile geosynthetic
Pile
d
T T
Geosynthetic reinforcement
top
Pile cap
bottom
finite element method with an elastoplastic constitutive model. Jiang
et al. [33] presented a numerical analysis of a monitored pile–slab-
supported embankment for a high-speed railway. A coupled two-
dimensional mechanical and hydraulic numerical model was used.
Meena et al. [34] studied the soil arching phenomenon in a granular
embankment subjected to train loadings using two-dimensional finite
element approaches. A 2D plane strain idealization was used to convert a
real three-dimensional case into 2D. Yoo [35] presented a numerical
investigation of geosynthetic-encased stone columns performance. A
three-dimensional finite-element model was employed to carry out a
parametric study on some governing factors. Potts and Zdravkovic [36]
presented finite-element analyses of a geosynthetic-reinforced pile-
supported embankment. An updated Lagrangian large displacement
formulation was utilized to mobilize the geosynthetic membrane above
the void.
The second approach usually used is the Finite different method
(FDM). The finite element method has the same features as the finite
difference one as both are methods to solve differential equations. A
three-dimensional numerical analysis was done by Das and Deb [41] to
investigate the time-dependent behavior of an end-bearing stone col­
umn–supported embankment. Indraratna et al. [42] conducted a nu­
merical analysis with a finite-difference model to analyze the behavior
of a stone column–supported embankment, adopting the free strain
approach, and considering soil arching, clogging of the stone column.
Jenck et al. [43] performed a 3D finite-difference analysis of a piled
embankment. However, no relative displacements were considered at
the interface between the piles and the soft soil, which did not permit to
study of the positive and negative skin friction along with the piles.
Huang et al. [44] presented three-dimensional numerical analyses of a
column-supported embankment using the finite difference method.
3
T.A. Pham et al.
Numerical calculations were performed for a unit cell and a half-
embankment model for the lateral spreading case. Yu and Bathurst
[45] simulated a GRPS embankment using a full-width model consid­
ering small- and large-strain modes. Numerical analyses showed that the
reinforcement tensile loads from the modified unit cell model are in
good agreement with those from the full-width model. Han and Garb
[46] conducted a numerical study by using a finite difference method to
investigate the pile-soil-geosynthetic interactions.
The finite element method or finite difference method achieved great
success in obtaining the soil arching in piled-supported embankments.
Nevertheless, FEM or FDM methods are based on the framework of
continuum mechanics. Therefore, DEM modeling is an alternative
method to numerical simulations of granular soils as it can consider the
interaction of the particles, allowing the soil response to be analyzed at
the particle level in detail. FEM of FDM cannot be employed to inves­
tigate the particle shape effect. The discrete element method (DEM) is an
alternative for the investigation of fundamental soil behavior. It has
made significant contributions to the study of granular materials over
the last decades. Several researchers used DEM to explore the behavior
of soil arching in pile-supported embankments [47–53]. Badakhshan
et al. [47] presented 3D discrete element simulations to explore the
arching mechanism in piled embankments. Resulted showed that
considering the arching process kinematic, the discrete nature of the
utilized numerical model for soil allows a good description of the load
recovery evolution and contact forces within the granular material.
Chen et al. [48] conducted numerical simulations using DEM to inves­
tigate the particle shape effects on soil arching. The particle shape can
significantly affect the development of soil arching, while it less has an
impact on the ultimate soil arching. Nevertheless, the particle shape has
a slight influence on the ultimate soil arching. Lai et al. [49] conducted
discrete element method models for trapdoor tests in a total of 131 cases
to present the soil arching effect, stress state, and deformation behaviors
of piled embankments. In-depth discussions on the composition and
mobilization mechanisms of soil the arching were analyzed. Rui et al.
[50] simulated a series of 2D multiple trapdoor systems using the
discrete element method. The contact forces between the particles
formed a strong chain force network enveloping a triangular and tower-
shaped deformation region. Force chains within the deformation region
supported the load coming from outside of this region. Han et al. [51]
also conducted numerical simulations of unreinforced and reinforced
pile-supported embankments using the discrete element method. The
mechanical behavior of a platform over piles in soft soil was investigated
through DEM modeling and a numerical continuum model by Jenck
et al. [52]. They summarized that the particle contact friction coefficient
and the particle contact bond of the fill had a preponderant influence on
the pile load transfer. Chareyre and Villard [53] investigated the
behavior of soil-inclusion systems using the discrete element method.
The movement of the inclusion was considered as a dynamic process and
computed step by step in the same way as in the DEM.
It should be noted that the discrete element method based on a
Newtonian approach which uses rigid bodies, can consider the interac­
tion between soil particles, thus allowing transfer load mechanisms of a
particle to another. This model is therefore well adapted to simulate the
behavior of granular materials. However, in DEM modeling it is not so
easy to simulate the tensioned geosynthetic membrane mechanism and
the soil-structure interface behavior. In contrast, the continuous
approach is effective in describing the geosynthetic sheet structure and
its interface behavior. Thus, a coupled model between a continuous
approach and a discrete approach has to be considered to overcome the
DEM numerical problems. Le Hello and Villard [54] used a numerical
model based on the coupling between finite and discrete element
methods to simulate the behavior of GRPS embankments. The compar­
ison with experimental results based on a true scale experiment showed
that the numerical model can consider the geosynthetic sheet membrane
behavior considering a finite element and the mechanisms acting in the
soil embankment by the use of discrete elements. Anh Tran et al. [55]
4
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
investigated the soil-arching phenomenon between piles by adopting
two different numerical methods: the discrete-element method and the
finite-difference method. A finding was that for high embankments
subjected to small deformations, the FDM numerical results were
equivalent to those of the DEM. Indraratna et al. [56], and Gholaminejad
et al. [57] presented a coupled model of a discrete and finite difference
method to study the deformation of a single stone column. This model is
interesting as it combines the advantages of the discrete and continuum
methods and facilitates the exchange of interface contact forces and
displacements between the discrete and continuum boundaries. The
contact forces and moments at the interface were obtained from the
discrete domain and transferred to the continuum zone as nodal forces,
while the interface displacements were obtained from the continuum
boundaries and transferred to the discrete zone. However, the number of
numerical studies using the coupled model was still limited. Most of the
presented studies focused on the stress transfer between the soil and the
piles while the interaction between piles, subsoil, and the geosynthetic,
the subsoil support, frictional behavior, and tensioned geosynthetic
membrane mechanism was not been well investigated. They should be
considered for a better understanding of the complex behavior and load
transfer mechanism in geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported
embankments.
Analytical methods are available. They usually allow designing
geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments using two sepa­
rate calculation steps. In step 1, the stress redistribution with a load on
the reinforcement is calculated, and in step 2, the membrane action of
the reinforcement is defined. No interaction of the soil and the tensioned
membrane is considered. So, a better understanding of the complete
behavior is necessary. In this paper, a DEM numerical study is conducted
showing the fundamental aspects related to the behavior and interaction
between the soil-structure elements of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-
supported embankments. The contributions of the soil arching,
tensioned membrane effect, friction interaction, subsoil, and punching
failure are investigated. Results are presented as a discussion related to
stress, settlement, efficacy, and tensile forces. The analysis is extended
with a comparison between the available design methods for different
values of embankment heights. Thus, the results of this study are
intended to provide a better understanding of the interaction behavior of
systems composed of an embankment, a geosynthetic, soft soil, and piles
and to bring insight into the mobilization mechanisms in such systems.
2. Load transfer mechanisms
Under the embankment weight and surcharge, the geosynthetic
Fig. 3. Interaction mechanism between pile-soil-geosynthetic.
T.A. Pham et al.
reinforcement deflects. The deflection has two effects as shown in Fig. 3.
The first effect is the soil layer bending which generates arching inside
the soil and induces a redistribution of stresses on the stiffer elements.
This phenomenon is known as “soil arching”. Another effect is the
geosynthetic material stretching which induces mobilization of a
portion of its strength. It is known as the “tensioned membrane effect”.
In any case, the settlement between piles is larger than on the top of
them, this generates tensile forces in the horizontal geosynthetic rein­
forcement. Therefore, the geosynthetic layer is clamped like a mem­
brane over the piles. The deflection of the geosynthetic layer will then
increase the load transference to the piles. Only small residual stresses
will be present in the soil between the piles. The membrane support
effect was confirmed by experimental investigations [58–66]. However,
the basal reinforcement effect on the settlement improvement was not
studied.
In the case of very soft soil with high organic content, additional
loadings can cause large primary and secondary consolidation dis­
placements. Providing that the contact is maintained between the geo­
synthetic layer and the subsoil, the subsoil will carry some small loading
amount. Assessing the magnitude of this support is complex due to the
soil-structure interaction. The subsoil compressibility can also vary
locally. The magnitude of the support will be time-dependent in short
term due to the excess pore pressure dissipation and in the long term due
to the secondary creep. Several 2D analytical methods were developed,
and some were extended to three-dimensional cases. Most of these
methods were developed for embankments over soft soils where the
upwards ground counter-pressure on the geosynthetic is negligible.
However, in the case of a medium compressibility subsoil, ignoring this
counter-pressure may result in a significant overestimation of the
required geosynthetic tensile strength.
On the other hand, the friction interactions between the geo­
synthetic, soil, and, piles are still a matter of discussion. Due to the
stresses transfer from the soil to the piles, the soil stresses decrease along
with the pile depth based on the mobilized shear stresses acting. As the
geosynthetic deflects, a relative movement between the geosynthetic
and the surrounded soils will occur and the shear stresses will therefore
be mobilized, as illustrated in Fig. 4. There is still no evidence provided
to show this interaction aspect. The main reason may come from the
difficulty in describing the interaction behavior at the geosynthetic-soil
interfaces.
3. Numerical analysis
A geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankment system
consisted of piles, embankment, platform layer, geosynthetic, and sub­
soils is considered. The main objective of this study is to consider the
influence of the soil-structure interaction on the load transfer mecha­
nisms, and therefore only a quarter of the square mesh is modeled. The
GRPS model using DEM was validated with the full-scale experiment
[54,59,66,67]. A square mesh is modeled with a center-to-center pile
T T
Original surface
upper
Pile cap Deformed geosynthetic
lower
Interface friction
Pile
s
Fig. 4. Friction mobilization mechanism along interface of deformed geosynthetic.
5
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
spacing of 3 m. The width of the square pile cap is 0.6 m which yields an
improvement area ratio equal to 4%, as shown in Fig. 5.
The embankment is modeled by discrete elements. The number of
particles varies within the range of 16,000–54,000 which corresponds
respectively to a minimum embankment height of 0.75 m and a
maximum embankment height of 3 m. Kozicki et al. [68] showed that
clustering particles can better replicate the mechanical behavior of
granular materials. Therefore, each particle is created by two clumped
spheres (distance between the centroid of two clumped spheres equal to
0.8D where D represents the single sphere diameter) with sphere di­
ameters distributed from 0.01 m to 0.04 m. The micro-parameters of the
DEM particles are shown in Table 1 for three different soil states
including loose, medium, and dense. Through numerical simulations
triaxial tests, the macro-parameters are calibrated with the DEM pa­
rameters as shown in Table 2.
The compressible subsoil under the geosynthetic sheet is assumed to
be compressible. To account for the ground reaction, the action of the
underlying soil is modeled using spheres arranged regularly according to
a plan and Winkler’s spring model, in which spheres and springs are
positioned under the geosynthetic sheet. Spheres are used to allow
friction between the soft soil and the geosynthetic. Similarly, the pile
elements are modeled using elastic springs with a subgrade reaction
modulus which is significantly higher than the subsoil one.
The considered geosynthetic sheet is a non-woven geotextile with a
tensile stiffness of 3000 kN/m reinforced in the two perpendicular di­
rections. Three-node structural elements are used to define the geo­
synthetic sheets. To guarantee the regularity and the continuity of the
contact surface between the triangular elements and the soil particles
during the sheet deformation, cylinders, and spheres are respectively
placed on the side and nodes of each triangle, as shown in Fig. 6.
To consider the interaction between the soil-structure elements,
specific interaction laws are used to characterize the interface behavior
between the soil particles and the sheet elements. Hence, a microscopic
contact friction angle is modelled to consider a relative roughness be­
tween the sheet elements and the soil particles. The boundary conditions
include four frictionless vertical rigid walls to fix the horizontal dis­
placements because of the symmetric condition. Fig. 7 shows a sche­
matic diagram of the DEM model with the interaction description
between the pile-soil-geosynthetic elements.
4. Result discussion
The results obtained by the discrete numerical study are presented in
the following sections. It should be noted that the main goal of this
section is to present the important findings of the soil-structure inter­
action and mechanisms for mobilizing geosynthetic reinforcement. So
that, a representative case of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported
embankments was therefore selected for discussion. The fundamental
parameters of this reference case are listed in Table 3.
Pile cap
Pile
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

Fig. 5. A quarter of the mesh for simulation.

Table 1
Micro-parameters in the DEM model for granular materials.
Samples Numerical Porosity Kn (MN/m2) kn/kt ϕ

Loose (L) 0.41 10 1 40o

Medium (M) 0.38 10 1 40o
Dense (D) 0.34 10 1 40o Granular
embankment

Upper Interface
Table 2
Interpretation of macro-parameters from the DEM model.
Sample ϕp (degrees) ϕcs (degrees) m Lower Interface
Geosynthetic
o o
Loose (L) 34 26 0.36 Soft soil
Medium (M) 40o 26o 0.36
Dense (D) 46o 26o 0.36 Soft spring
Rigid pile
Rigid spring

Fig. 7. Scheme of the numerical model of a reinforced piled embankment.

Table 3
Parameters for Control case.
Height of embankment H = 0.75–3.0 m
Unit weight of embankment fill γ = 18.5 kN/m3
Soft soil stiffness Ks = 0.2 MPa/m
Friction angle of embankment fill 40◦
Pile center-to-center spacing 3.0 m
Width of pile cap or diameter 0.6 m
Young’s modulus of pile 2000 MPa
Stiffness of geosynthetic 3000 kN/m
The friction angle of the interface soil/geosynthetic 26◦
Fig. 6. Interaction simulation between soil and geosynthetics (Le Hello and
Villard, 2009).
4.1. Vertical stress distribution

Concerning the load transfer mechanisms to the piles, there is a

major difference between piled embankments with geosynthetic (rein­
forced case) and without geosynthetic (unreinforced). Fig. 8 compares

6
T.A. Pham et al.
1000
Vertical stress distribution (kPa)
900
Pile cap
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.2
Horizontal distance away from the centerline of pile (m)
Fig. 8. Vertical stress distribution for the reinforced and unreinforced cases.
the vertical stress distribution obtained over the piles considering rein­
forced and unreinforced cases. As it can be seen, the direct load transfer
mechanisms within the granular embankment are disturbed by the
presence of the reinforcement: the vertical stress above the geosynthetic
in the reinforced case is significantly lower than the unreinforced case
one within the pile head range. However, in the reinforced case, the
vertical stress below the geosynthetic increases and the total vertical
stress distributed on the pile cap is, therefore, higher than the unrein­
forced one. Besides, due to the action of the geosynthetic at the pile
edge, the load distribution acting on the pile head is strongly affected
leading to the higher stress concentration at the periphery of the piles. In
fact, the geosynthetic reinforcement induces a more efficient load
transfer mechanism to the piles. This phenomenon can be explained by
the geosynthetic stretching mechanism. Under embankment loads, the
geosynthetic deflects to mobilize a portion of the geosynthetic’s strength
and acts as a clamping membrane to attract loads onto the pile cap
[20,21].
It should be noted that due to the use of a geosynthetic, the vertical
stress distributions above and below the geosynthetic are different.
Fig. 9 shows the vertical stress distribution considering a three-
dimensional view. The vertical stresses above the geosynthetic are
uniformly distributed along the pile cap side edge while the vertical
stresses below the geosynthetic are significantly concentrated at the pile
edge along the diagonal line. Furthermore, the vertical stress below the
geosynthetic is higher than above it. The difference can be explained by
the fact that the vertical stress above the geosynthetic is mainly induced
Fig. 9. 3D Surface of vertical stress distribution: (a) above geosynthetic, (b) below geosynthetic.
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
Above geosynthetic
Peak point
Below geosynthetic
Unreinforced case
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
by soil arching, while the stress distribution below the geosynthetic is
influenced not only by the soil arching but also by the tensioned geo­
synthetic membrane effect.
4.2. Punching shear failure
The punching failure can be categorized into two types, namely, the
local punching failure and overall punching failure. Due to the stiffness
difference between the pile and subsoil, the soft subsoil between piles
tends to settle more than piles. Hence, pile heads can penetrate the
embankment layers, which is known as the local punching shear failure.
In the case where overall punching shear failure occurs (high surface
differential settlements), it can be visible at the embankment crest. An
irregular surface with “humps” at the pile locations and “depressions”
in-between piles could then be observed. Punching failure can be
identified from excessive shear strains above the columns, and excessive
differential settlements at the embankment base in numerical modeling.
The overall punching failure is critical for low embankments while the
local punching failure is often crucial for high embankments.
If the vertical stress acting on the pile cap due to arching is too large,
the high reaction pressure from the pile can cause punching shear fail­
ure. Compared with an unreinforced case, the vertical stresses above the
geosynthetic within the pile cap range are lower than in the unrein­
forced case (Fig. 8). The benefit of reducing the vertical stresses above
the piles induces also a reduction of the risk by the soil yielding or
punching failure into the embankment fill. Meanwhile, increasing the
7
T.A. Pham et al.
vertical stresses below the geosynthetic induces a tensioned membrane
effect increases, more loads are then transferred to the piles. The nu­
merical results suggest that placing a stiffer geotextile immediately at
the pile top can mitigate the local punching failure or yielding soil. The
overall punching failure can be minimized by increasing the efficacy of
piles, improving the piles covering ratio, placing geosynthetics, and
adjusting the thickness of the load transfer platform by adding more
layers of geosynthetics.
4.3. Geosynthetic-soil friction interaction
The behavior of GRPS embankments strongly depends on the inter­
action of the soil-structure elements. One of the important interaction
mechanisms which have not yet been understood well is the skin friction
mobilization along with the soil-geosynthetic interfaces. For large dif­
ferential settlements, the shear resistance is accumulated and mobilized
along with the geosynthetic interfaces. Fig. 10 indicates that the shear
stresses are mobilized in a horizontal direction along with the lower side
of the soil-geosynthetic interface. However, the shear stresses decrease
and become rather small in the central geosynthetic area between piles.
This trend can be explained by the relationship between slope, slip, and
friction [20]. At a distance from the pile cap edge, the slope is suffi­
ciently large to increase the relative soil movements along with the
geosynthetic interface, and friction is significantly mobilized. In
contrast, the relative movements between soil and geosynthetic
decrease when it approaches the geosynthetic middle and, the skin
friction decreases (from 1.3 m in this analysis).
4.4. Subsoil support
Pham and Dias [1] concluded that the analytical methods which
consider the subsoil support are able to produce results that are in a
better agreement with experimental data if compared to other methods
which do not consider it. Several experimental studies also suggested
that the subsoil provides a substantial support, and reduces the pressure
acting on the geosynthetic [69–71]. Fig. 10 shows the upward vertical
stresses distribution within the soft subsoil range. Numerical results
proved that a portion of the load is supported by the soft subsoil. It
should be noted that the subsoil reaction curve increases with the dis­
tance away from the pile cap edge. It reaches a constant value starting
from 0.7 m in this analysis. According to physical equilibrium laws, it is
obvious that the embankment load is often received a portion by subsoil,
and the rest of the load will be carried out by geosynthetic. This finding
gives an important insight into the soft subsoil role. A possible upward
soft subsoil counter pressure should be considered when calculating the
GR strain. Among the existing design methods, EBGEO assumed that
15
Reaction of subsoil
Shear stress
Stress distribution along interface (kPa)
10
-5
-10
-15
-20
0.3 0.5 0.7
Horizontal distance away from the centerline of pile (m)
Fig. 10. Mobilization of the shear stress and subsoil reaction along with the geosynthetic interfaces.
8
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
only a part of the subsoil under the GR strips area is mobilized while
CUR226 suggests that the subsoil below the entire GR area should be
considered.
4.5. Differential settlements
In any case, the subsoil settlement between piles is larger than pile
settlement. It causes differential settlements. However, these differential
settlements also generate strains in the horizontal geosynthetic rein­
forcement, and the geosynthetic is therefore clamped like a membrane
over piles. The effect of the basal reinforcement on the settlement
improvement is considered in this study. The differential settlement at
the pile head is defined as the settlement difference between the pile
center and the mid-span of the pile spacing. A comparison of the dif­
ferential settlements for the reinforced and unreinforced cases is shown
in Fig. 11. According to the results, the differential settlements at the
elevation of the pile heads increase with the embankment fill height. The
geosynthetic considerably reduces the differential settlements. Howev­
er, the geosynthetic role in reducing the differential settlements is more
evident as the embankment height increases. It is noted that the geo­
synthetic significantly reduces the differential settlement of the GRPS
embankment, from 16.1% for the embankment of 0.75 m and 23.2% for
the embankment of 3.0 m. The results proved that placing geosynthetic
layers above the pile head is a good way to reduce the differential
settlements.
The geosynthetic deflection is shown in a three-dimensional plane
for the embankment height of 1.5 m. As presented in Fig. 12, the
maximum settlement occurs at the mid-between point of the diagonal
line in an area covered by geosynthetic. At this position, the compression
of the subsoil under the embankment fill weight, and the surcharge is the
20
18
Reinforced case
Unreinforced case
Differential settlement (cm)
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Embankment height (m)
Fig. 11. Differential settlement in reinforced and unreinforced case.
0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5
T.A. Pham et al.
Fig. 12. 3D surface of settlement in reinforced case.
larger one while the developed tensile force in the geosynthetic is the
smaller one. It should be noted that the deflected geosynthetic surface is
not completely smooth. It probably can be explained by the fact that the
subsoil is modeled by springs with a defined spacing and by the local
action of large particles.
The numerical results suggested that the geosynthetic improves the
overall bearing capacity of the soil-geosynthetic system in four different
ways: (i) enhance the uniform stress distribution, (ii) increase the sub­
grade bearing capacity by changing the failure mode, (iii) reduction of
the maximum applied stress due to an applied surface load redistribu­
tion below the geosynthetic (i.e the load is redistributed over a wider
area), and (iv) supplementary support due to membrane effect, such as
the deformed geotextile provides an equivalent vertical support.
4.6. Stress transfer mechanisms
The performance of a geosynthetic reinforced and pile-supported
embankment can be assessed through the efficacy parameter which is
defined as the proportion of the embankment load carried by the pile
caps. The main difference between the unreinforced and reinforced
cases is due to the geosynthetic inclusion. For the unreinforced case, the
efficacy is only due to the soil arching (Ea). Meanwhile, the reinforced
case efficacy is not only induced by soil arching (Ea), but also by the
geosynthetic membrane effect (Em). The total efficacy in the reinforced
case is calculated by the following expression [20].
E = Ea + Em
As presented in Fig. 13, the efficacy increases with an increase in the
embankment height. At a low embankment height, and for unreinforced
or reinforced cases, the shear resistance in the embankment fill is not
large enough to develop arching and reduce the pressure applied on the
50
45
40
35
Efficacy (%)
30
25
20
15 Reinforced-Membrane
Reinforced-Arching
10
Reinforced-Total efficacy
5 Unreinforced-Total efficacy
0
0.75 1.5 2.25
Embankment height (m)
Fig. 13. Efficacy contribution in the piled embankment.
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
soil foundation or the geosynthetic. With the increase of the embank­
ment height, more shear resistance will be developed to enhance the soil
arching development. The efficacy approaches a constant value when
the embankment height increases (in this analysis, this value is equal to
3 m).
The efficacy component by arching in a reinforced case is lower than
in the unreinforced case. The reduction of the differential settlements by
including a geosynthetic can be considered as a possible explanation. It
is therefore confirmed that geosynthetic plays a role in soil arching. The
geosynthetic inclusion and tensioned membrane effect can be consid­
ered as an explanation of why less soil arching is developed. However,
due to the tensioned geosynthetic membrane effect, the total efficacy in
the reinforced case is still greater than the unreinforced case one.
Fig. 14 shows the influence of subsoil stiffness on the efficacy of
arching. The results confirmed that the soil arching is in a dependent
relationship with the subsoil stiffness. It is observed that an increase of
the subgrade reaction modulus reduces the efficacy by arching, and a
lower stiffness of the subsoil induces a higher soil arching effect. It is also
interesting to note that the subsoil stiffness influence on arching be­
comes more significant with the embankment height increase. An in­
crease of the subgrade reaction modulus from 0.2 to 1.0 MPa/m induces
a reduction of 35% and 50% for respectively embankment heights of
0.75 m and 3 m. For low embankment heights, the differential settle­
ments are small, and less arching is mobilized.
In the existing design methods, the geosynthetic stiffness influence
was not considered when calculating arching. However, the geo­
(1)
synthetic stiffness plays a role in the load transfer mechanism as shown
in Fig. 15. The total efficacy increases with the tensile geosynthetic
Figure 13. Efficacy contribution in piled embankment
40
H = 0.75m
H = 1.5m
35 H = 2.25m
H = 3.0m
30
Efficacy by arching (%)
25
20
15
10
3
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Subgrade reaction moduluus (kPa/m)
Fig. 14. Influence of subgrade reaction modulus on efficacy by arching.
9
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

80 40

Max. Tension in geosynthetic(kN/m)

Total - (1) + (2)
70 35 By skin friction (1)
By stretching (2)
30
60

25
Total efficacy (%)

50
20
40
15
30 10
H = 0.75m
H = 1.5m
20 5
H = 2.25m
H = 3.0m
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 0.75 1.5 2.25 3
Tensile stiffness of Geosynthetic (kN/m) Embankment height(m)

Fig. 15. Influence of geosynthetic stiffness on efficacy with different embank­
ment height.
stiffness and then approaches a constant at approximately 2,000 kN/m.
These results are in good agreement with the findings obtained by Pham
[20,21]. In this case, the load transfer mechanism to piles is maximized
by the geosynthetic layer. The geosynthetic contribution can be
explained by the increased stiffness of the earth platform and the
additional vertical component of the geosynthetic tension. It induces
more stress transfer from the soil to the pile.
4.7. Tension in geosynthetic
For design purposes, the maximum tension in geosynthetic is of great
interest to geotechnical engineers. The distribution of geosynthetic
tension as a function of the distance from the pile center is shown in
Fig. 16. Results indicate that the tension is not uniform along the geo­
synthetic and that the maximum tension occurs at the pile cap edge. It is
noted that the smallest load on the GR strips often occurs at the strip
midway center between the piles while the largest load is located close
to the pile cap edges.
A non-linear relationship between the maximum geosynthetic ten­
sion and the embankment height showed that the skin friction contrib­
uted to the geosynthetic deformation, as shown in Fig. 17. In this study,
the strain component due to the skin friction was calculated from total
skin friction along the upper and lower sides of the soil-geosynthetic
interfaces, which like the suggestion of Pham [20]. The tensile force
due to skin friction is determined by considering the shear stress at the
interfaces and the length of deformed geosynthetic curvature. The re­
sults in Fig. 17 indicate that the geosynthetic tension by skin friction
increases with the embankment height. This can be explained by the
increase of the embankment sliding resistance and the decrease of the
grain rolling movements by interlocking with the embankment height
increase. The resistance to sliding at each contact point is proportional
to the normal force at that contact, and hence the overall frictional
resistance increases as the vertical stress increases.
20
Pile cap
18
Tension in geosynthetic (kN/m)
Fig. 17. Maximum tension in geosynthetic with embankment height.
5. Review of the available design methods
5.1. Load calculation methods
There are at least ten different methods currently available for the
design of GRPS embankments. Not all these methods were initially
developed for designing GRPS embankments, but they were later
adopted for this goal. This section presents a description of ten different
methods for calculating the load distribution. The performance of the
load transfer mechanism by arching is assessed through the term effi­
cacy while some researchers prefer to use the stress reduction ratio.
The stress reduction ratio, which is defined as the ratio of the average
vertical stress acting on the soft ground to the average embankment
weight and surcharge. SRRa = 0 represents a complete soil arching while
SRR = 1 represents no soil arching.
σ as
SRRa = (2)
γH + q
where SRRa is the stress reduction ratio induced by arching, σas is the
vertical stress acting on the soft subsoil by the arching effect, γ is the unit
embankment fill weight, H is the height of the embankment and q is a
uniform surcharge.
The second term is efficacy, which represents the total embankment
load proportion by the column caps. The total efficacy is the result of two
components: the efficacy by arching (Ea), and the efficacy by the GR
membrane effect (Em). In contrast to the stress reduction ratio, Ea =
0 represents no soil arching while Ea = 100% represents a complete soil
arching
Pac
Ea = (3)
(γH + q) × s2
These two parameters are related by the following equation:
As
Ea = 1 − .SRRa (4)
A
Subsoil area where A is the tributary area of one column cap (A = sx⋅sy), As is the area
covered by the soft ground (As = sx⋅sy –a2), s is the center-to-center pile

spacing.
16

5.1.1. Terzaghi method [9]

The arching theory developed by Terzaghi [9], is based on the trap
14

12
door experiment. It was used by many authors to describe the load
transfer mechanism in pile-supported embankments. Assuming a prism
10 of soil with shearing on the vertical sides above a trapdoor, the following
equation is derived:
8 ( )
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 (s2 − a2 )γ − 4aHKtanφ q − 4aHKtanφ

Distance from the center of pile, m σ as = 1 − e (s2 − a2 ) + e (s2 − a2 ) (5)

4aKtanφ γH + q
Fig. 16. Distribution of the geosynthetic tension.

10
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

K = 1 − sinφ (6) Eamin = min(Eacap , Eacrown ) (13)

where a is the pile cap width, K is the coefficient of earth pressure at
A
rest, ϕ is the friction angle of fill soils. σ as = (γH + q) × (1 − Ea ) × (14)
As
5.1.2. Method of Guido and co-workers [10]
This method derives from laboratory plate loading tests carried out 5.1.6. German EBGEO method [17]
by Guido et al. [10] on samples of geogrid-reinforced sand in a confined, The calculation method in EBGEO [17] is established from the lower
rigid box. The method emphasizes the significant support of subsoil and bound plasticity theory, pilot-scale tests, and numerical analyses. The
therefore reduces the mobilization of arching. However, in situations principles of the EBGEO method are adopted from the ground arching
where there is no support from the underlying soil or very small support, equilibrium model proposed by Kempfert et al. [16]. In this model, a
the method may considerably underestimate the quantity of required triangular pressure distribution is assumed for the calculations and
reinforcement. elastic subsoil support is suggested to examine the bearing mechanism of
the pile-geosynthetic-soils systems.
σ as =
(s − a)γ
√̅̅̅ (7) According to the German design guideline EBGEO [17], The vertical
3 2 stress acting on the soft subsoil by the arching effect, σ as , is determined as
follows:
5.1.3. Method of Low and co-workers [13] [ (( )− X
( q) ( )− X
Based on observations from model tests, Low et al. [13] developed an a X 2
h2g λ2
σ s = λ1 γ + H λ1 + hg λ2 + hg λ1 +
analytical solution to investigate the arching in a geosynthetic- H 4
reinforced pile-supported embankment. In this method, a semi- )]
( )− X
cylindrical arch with a thickness equal to the half-width of the cap − λ1 + h2g λ2 (15)
pile is considered. The vertical stress acting on the soft subsoil by the
arching effect,σ as , according to the method of Low and co-workers can be [ ]
expressed as follows: s2 − a2 (( ) s2
Ea = γH + q) − σ a
s + σ a
s (16)
[ ( )] (γH + q)s2 s2 − a2
γ(s − a)(Kp − 1) (s − a)Kp − 1 γs 1
σ as = + q + γH − 1+ (8) d(Kp − 1)
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
2(Kp − 1) s 2 Kp − 2 λ1 = 18(sd − d)2 ; X = λ2 sd ; sd = s2x + s2y

1 + sinφ ( φ) hg = s2d for H⩾s2d or hg = H for H < s2d where hg is the arching height, sd
KP = = tan2 450 + (9) is the diagonal distance, sx and sy is center-to-center pile spacing in di­
1 − sinφ 2
rections x and y.
where KP is the coefficient of passive earth pressure.
5.1.7. Dutch CUR 226 method [19]
5.1.4. Naughton method [72] The Dutch Design Guideline CUR 226 [19] uses the Concentric
The Naughton Method calculates the critical height of an embank­ arches model proposed by Van Eekelen et al. [18]. This model was
ment assuming that the vertical shear plane in the embankment fill due developed based on a series of laboratory tests. According to the
to arching is of log spiral shape with an initial radius equal to half the concentric arches model, the vertical load calculation consists of a set of
clear spacing between columns and final radius equal to the critical 2D and 3D concentric arches. Details of the concentric arches model can
height. According to the Naughton Method, the vertical stress acting on be found in CUR 226 [19], as well as in the paper of Van Eekelen et al.
the soft subsoil by the arching effect σ as is determined by: [19], and Pham [21]. In this paper, only the final equation of this
method is represented herein.
(γH + q)(s − a) π2tanφ
σ as = .e (10)
2H Ps = FGRsquare + FGRstrips (17)

5.1.5. British BS 8006 method (2010) [12] Pc = (γH + q).sx .sy − FGRsquare − FGRstrips (18)
An updated version of British Standard (BS 8006) was released in
2010. This updated version includes two methods for analyzing the Ea =
Pc
(19)
vertical stress on the geosynthetic reinforcement. One is the Hewlett and (γH + q)s2
Randolph method for a three-dimensional analysis while the Marston
formula has remained for two-dimensional analysis. In this study, the where Pc is the load part transferred directly to the pile by arching effect
method of Hewlett and Randolph is selected to represent BS 8006. Using (kN), Ps is the load part resting on the geosynthetic and subsoil (kN),
this method, the efficacy at the crown of the arch and the top of the FGRsquare is the total vertical load exerted by the 3D hemisphere on their
column can be respectively determined by Eqs. (11) and (12). square subsurface (kN), FGRstrip is the total vertical load exerted by the
[ 2D arches on the GR strips (kN).
(a)2 ](
Eacrown = 1 − 1 − X1 − X1 X2 + X3 ) (11)
s 5.1.8. Swedish method (2005)
[ ] [ ] The Swedish Method considers a wedge of soil under the arch formed
2K − 2 2K − 2
X1 = [1 − a/s]2(Kp − 1) ; X2 = √̅̅s 2Kp − 3 ; X3 = √s−̅̅a 2Kp − 3
2H p 2H p
between the columns. The arching angle within the soil is equal to 75
degrees from the horizontal. It adopts a critical height approach such
β that any additional overburden above the top of the wedge (above the
Eacap = (12)
1+β critical height) is transferred directly to the columns. In this method, the
[( ] critical height is 1.87 times the clear spacing between pile caps [73].
2Kp a)− Kp ( a) The vertical stress acting on the soft subsoil by the arching effect,σas ,
β=( ) 1− − 1 + Kp
Kp + 1 (1 + a/s) s s is determined as follows:
The critical pile efficacy is the lower of the two values, which can be (s − a)γ
σ as = (20)
used to determine the vertical stress on the geosynthetic reinforcement. 4.tan150

11
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

following expression:
5.1.9. Japanese PWRC method [15]
The total embankment volume is divided into the embankment T = JGR ε (26)
volume that acts on the improved ground and the unimproved ground or
geosynthetic. The shape of the soil volume supported by the unimproved where JGR is the tensile stiffness of geosynthetic, and ε is a strain of
ground is complex. This method was adopted by the Japanese Public geosynthetic.
Works Research Center (PWRC). Case histories and supporting infor­ In the method of Low and co-workers, some equations and charts
mation are available in Japanese. were developed to evaluate the tension and mobilized strains in the
geosynthetic reinforcement layer. The deflection and tension in geo­
( )2 [ ]
( √̅̅̅ )
π
(s − dc )2
tanθ(5dc + 4s) + (4 − π ) s s− dc
tanθ + s
2 − 1 tanθ synthetic can be obtained from the following equation:
96 2 2 6
a
σs = γ ( )
2Tsinδ yEs
(27)
2
s2 − π4dc = σ as −
s− a D
(21)
√̅̅̅ 4(y/(s − a))
dc = 2a/ π sinδ = (28)
1 + 4[y/(s − a)]2

where δ is the deflected angle, y is the maximum geosynthetic deflection,

θ = 45 + ϕ/2 for embankments without geosynthetic
θ = 45 - ϕ/2 for embankments with geosynthetic
where dc is the circular pile cap diameter, a is the square pile cap width,
θ = arching angle corresponding to the inclination concerning the hor­
izontal of the tangent line through each end of the arch spanning width.
5.1.10. Method of Pham [20]
Pham [20] presented a simplified method for the analysis of
geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankment. This method
is the result of a combination of different models, including the
Concentric Arch model to describe arching for the soil layer, and extends
the tensioned membrane action for the geosynthetic with the frictional
mechanism (for geosynthetic-soil interaction). The expression for the
vertical stress acting on the soft subsoil by the arching effect,σ as , is:
FGRsquare + FGRstrips
σ as =
sx .sy − a2
Es is the soft subsoil modulus, D is the soft subsoil thickness.
In the method of Pham [20], the version of the circular deformation
model is adapted in this study,
aλ3 + bλ2 + cλ + d = 0 (29)
In which,
a = 21.33JGR + 4Ks (s − a)2 ; b = 1.7Ks αs tanφs (s − a)2 − 4(s − a).σas ;
c = 1.7αp tanφp (s − a)σas + Ks (s − a)2 + 1.7αc cs .(s − a); d =
− (s − a).σas where Ks is subsoil reaction modulus (subsoil stiffness), ϕp is
friction angle of soil at the upper side of the interface (platform layer), ϕs
is friction angle of soil at the lower side of the interface (subsoil), cs is
total adhesion value of upper and lower sides of geosynthetic interfaces,
α is interaction coefficient between the reinforcement material and the
surrounding proposed soils. Value αc is relatively small (αc = 0.1).
The maximum deflection of geosynthetic is obtained from the
following equation:
(22)
(30)
′
y = λ.s = λ.(s − a)

(γH + q).sx .sy − FGRsquare − FGRstrips The maximum tension in geosynthetic is determined by the following
Ea = (23)
(γH + q)s2 expression:

FGRsquare is the total vertical load exerted by the 3D hemisphere on [ ]1 + 4λ2

T = σ as − yKs (s − a) (31)
their square subsurface (kN), FGRstrip is the total vertical load exerted by 8λ
the 2D arches on the GR strips (kN). FGRsquare and FGRstrip are determined
like the method of CUR226. 6. Comparison of the design methods with the numerical results

6.1. Efficacy
5.2. Deflection and strain of geosynthetic
The prediction results of efficacy by arching obtained from the
To find the tension developed in the geosynthetic layer, the following methods of CUR 226 and Pham are identical because the same model is
equation given in the British standard BS 8006 is used. A design strain of used. Therefore, for efficacy discussion, only the name of the CUR 226
5% is recommended for calculations. method is mentioned for representative in this section.
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
σ as 1
T= 1+ (24) 6.1.1. Unreinforced case
2a 6ε
Pile efficacies, obtained from the design techniques, are compared
The geosynthetic deflection is determined using the parabolic model with the numerical model results. As discussed in the previous section,
with a small strain assumption. the efficacy in the unreinforced case is contributed by only the arching
√̅̅̅̅̅ effect. The variation in efficacy with the embankment height is shown
3ε
y = (s − a) (25) for three different soil densities, namely, loose soils (ϕ = 34◦ ), medium
8
soils (ϕ = 40◦ ), and dense soils (ϕ = 46◦ ). The comparison results be­
These equations were used to calculate the deflection and tension of tween analytical and numerical models for efficacy are presented in
the geosynthetic reinforcement for the methods of Terzaghi, Guido, Figs. 18–20. According to the results, almost all methods give incon­
Naughton, Swedish, and PWRC. sistent results over the whole selected parameter range. It is interesting
The reinforcement strain for the EBGEO method was calculated by to note that the CUR 226 and Pham methods produce the best agreement
the graphs provided by EBGEO [17] assuming a support from the soil with the whole numerical results when compared to other methods. It is
foundation. Then, Eq. (24) was used to calculate the reinforcement observed that the agreement degree between the Pham, CUR 226, and
tension. Similarly, the reinforcement strain for the CUR 226 method was numerical methods increases with the fill friction angle reduction. The
calculated by the graphs provided by CUR 226 [19] or the Excel second-best choice is the EBGEO method. It is noted that the EBGEO
spreadsheet. Then, the reinforcement tension is calculated by the

12
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

90
Unreinforced case Terzaghi
80 Loose soil Guido
Ks = 0.2 MPa
70 Low
Naughton
60
Efficacy (%) Swedish
50 BS8006
EBGEO
40
CUR226
30 PWRC

20 Pham
Numerical
10

0
0.75m
1 1.50m
2 2.25m
3 3.0m 4

Embankment height

Fig. 18. Efficacy comparison for unreinforced case with loose soil (ϕ = 34◦ ).

90
Unreinforced case Terzaghi
80 Medium soil Guido
Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
70
Naughton
60 Swedish
Efficacy (%)

50 BS8006
EBGEO
40
CUR226
30 PWRC
Pham
20
Numerical
10

0
0.75m
1 1.50m
2 2.25m
3 3.0m
4
Embankment height

Fig. 19. Efficacy comparison for unreinforced case with medium soil (ϕ = 40◦ ).

90
Unreinforced case Terzaghi
80 Dense soil Guido
Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
70 Naughton
60 Swedish
Efficacy (%)

BS8006
50 EBGEO
CUR226
40
PWRC
30 Pham
Numerical
20

10

0
0.75m
1 1.50m
2 3
2.25m 3.0m
4
Embankment height

Fig. 20. Efficacy comparison for unreinforced case with dense soil (ϕ = 46◦ ).

13
T.A. Pham et al.
method shows a larger difference with numerical results when compared
to the CUR 226 one. It should be noted that both the arching calculation
methods in EBGEO and CUR 226 are 3D-arching models based on the
limit state equilibrium theory. However, the main difference is that the
EBGEO method assumes a multi-arching model while the CUR 226 one
assumes a concentric arch model.
None of the remaining design methods yields results that are in good
agreement with the three-dimensional model results. Regarding the
Guido method, a high over-prediction is observed with a relative error of
102%. The method of Guido was established with a simplifying
assumption that the soil wedge is like a pyramid and only depends on the
pile spacing. This method is therefore too simple but not practical to use
in design calculation. The remaining methods (Terzaghi, Low, Naugh­
ton, Swedish, BS8006, PWRC) significantly underpredict the arching
efficacy. The average relative errors between the design methods and
numerical models are as follows: 77% for the Terzaghi method, 48% for
the method of Low, 91% for the method of Naughton, 74.2% for the
method of Swedish, 64% for the method of BS8006 and 75% for the
method of PWRC. It should be noted that except the BS8006 method, all
remaining methods are two-dimensional arching models based on plane-
strain equilibrium theory and are not adapted for considered embank­
ment thickness. However, the design method’s performance is increased
with the embankment height increase and the fill friction angle
decrease. It can be concluded that the EBGEO and CUR 226 methods
have the best match with numerical results when compared to other
methods.
A similar analysis can be observed in Figs. 21–23 which shows the
efficacy variation with different subsoil stiffnesses for the selected
design techniques. The numerical results indicated that the efficacy
decreases with the subsoil reaction modulus increase. Furthermore, the
subsoil stiffness influence on the efficacy becomes more important when
the fill friction angle increases. It can be observed that the efficacy
reduction with increasing the subsoil stiffness for loose, medium, and
dense soils are respectively equal to 50%, 61%, and 75%. However, the
subsoil modulus influence was not considered in the current design
methods. This is the reason why the efficacy value obtained from the
design methods is constant. Unfortunately, the comparison results
indicated that none of the selected design methods yields results that are
in good agreement with the numerical model results. The difference in
results between numerical and theoretical methods becomes higher
when the subsoil reaction modulus increases.
6.1.2. Reinforced case
Efficacy obtained from the design techniques is compared with the
100
Unreinforced case
90 Loose soil
H=3m
80
70
Efficacy (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1MPa 0.2 MPa
2 0.5 MPa
Subsoil reaction modulus, Ks
Fig. 21. Efficacy comparison with different subsoil stiffness for loose soil (ϕ = 34◦ ).
14
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
numerical results for different embankment heights considering the
porosity of the soil, as shown in Figs. 24–26. The efficacy value used for
the comparison in this study is the total efficacy, which is contributed
due to soil arching, and geosynthetic membrane effect. According to the
results, the methods of EBGEO and CUR 226 agree better with the nu­
merical results than the other methods. The EBGEO method provides the
best agreement with the numerical results for the loose soil case. How­
ever, the EBGEO method produces inconsistent results in the cases of
medium and dense soils. It is found that the CUR 226 method shows a
better match than EBGEO when the fill friction angle increases. A similar
overestimation can be observed for the Guido method while all the other
design methods give overly conservative efficacy results.
As presented in Figs. 27–29, the total efficacy also decreases with
increasing the subgrade subsoil reaction modulus. It is noted that the
comparison between the unreinforced cases (Figs. 21–23) and the
reinforced ones showed that the increase in total efficacy by using a
reinforcement layer is more effective for low subsoil reaction modulus
values. Besides, the results indicated that none of the selected design
methods yields consistent results compared with the numerical results
when the subgrade reaction modulus varies. The method of Naughton
under-predicts significantly while the method of Guido highly over-
predicts the efficacy among all considered cases. The other methods
over-predict the total efficacy when the subgrade reaction modulus in­
creases. It should be noted that the subsoil stiffness influence on arching
was not considered in the theoretical solutions. However, the numerical
results indicate that the subsoil stiffness plays a role in the total efficacy.
An increase in the subsoil stiffness reduces the total efficacy for both
unreinforced and reinforced cases. In other words, a smaller subsoil
stiffness promotes a higher soil arching effect and geosynthetic mem­
brane effect, and the efficacy is therefore increased.
6.2. Geosynthetic tension
Geosynthetic tension results, obtained using the selected design
techniques, are compared with the numerical results in Fig. 30 for
different embankment heights. The methods of Naughton, Swedish, and
PWRC (using Eq. (24)) produce a significant over-prediction and
therefore are not shown in this figure. According to the results, all the
other design methods give conservative results for the tension developed
in the geosynthetic reinforcement, yielding uneconomical designs. The
average relative error of three prominent methods, namely, CUR 226,
EBGEO, and BS 8006 are 55.42%, 219.46%, 282.69% respectively. The
CUR 226, EBGEO, and Pham methods agree well with the numerical
results and better than the other design methods. The subsoil support is
Terzaghi
Guido
Low
Naughton
Swedish
BS8006
EBGEO
CUR226
PWRC
Pham
Numerical
3 1 MPa
4
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

100 Terzaghi
Unreinforced case
90 Medium soil Guido
H=3m Low
80
Naughton
70
Swedish
Efficacy (%) 60 BS8006
50 EBGEO
CUR226
40
PWRC
30 Pham
20 Numerical

10

0
0.11 MPa 0.2 2MPa 0.5 MPa
3 4
1 MPa
Subsoil reaction modulus, Ks

Fig. 22. Efficacy comparison with different subsoil stiffness for medium soil (ϕ = 40◦ ).

100
Unreinforced case Terzaghi
90 Dense soil Guido
H=3m Low
80
Naughton
70 Swedish
BS8006
Efficacy (%)

60
EBGEO
50 CUR226
PWRC
40
Pham
30 Numerical
20

10

0
0.11MPa 0.2 2MPa 3 MPa
0.5 14MPa
Subsoil reaction modulus, Ks

Fig. 23. Efficacy comparison with different subsoil stiffness for dense soil (ϕ = 46◦ ).

90 Terzaghi
Reinforced case
80 Loose soil Guido
Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
70 Naughton
Swedish
60
BS8006
Efficacy (%)

50 EBGEO
CUR226
40
PWRC
30 Pham
Numerical
20

10

0
0.75m
1 1.50m
2 2.25m
3 43.0m
Embankment height

Fig. 24. Efficacy comparison for reinforced case with loose soil (ϕ = 34◦ ).

15
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

90
Reinforced case Terzaghi
80 Medium soil Guido
Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
70
Naughton
60 Swedish
Efficacy (%)
BS8006
50
EBGEO
40 CUR226
PWRC
30
Pham
20 Numerical

10

0
1
0.75m 1.50m
2 2.25m3 3.0m
4
Embankment height

Fig. 25. Efficacy comparison for reinforced case with medium soil (ϕ = 40◦ ).

90
Reinforced case Terzaghi
80 Dense soil Guido
Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
70
Naughton
60 Swedish
BS8006
Efficacy (%)

50
EBGEO
40 CUR226
PWRC
30
Pham
20 Numerical

10

0
0.75m
1 1.50m
2 2.25m
3 3.0m4
Embankment height

Fig. 26. Efficacy comparison for reinforced case with dense soil (ϕ = 46◦ ).

100 Terzaghi
Reinforced case
90 Loose soil Guido
H=3m Low
80
Naughton
70 Swedish
BS8006
60
EBGEO
50
Efficacy (%)

CUR226
40 PWRC
Pham
30
Numerical
20

10

0
0.11MPa 0.22MPa 0.53MPa 1 4MPa
Subsoil reaction modulus, Ks

Fig. 27. Efficacy comparison with varying subsoil stiffness for reinforced-loose soil (ϕ = 34◦ ).

16
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

100 Terzaghi
Reinforced case
90 Medium soil Guido
H=3m Low
80
Naughton
70 Swedish
BS8006
60
EBGEO
Efficacy (%)

50 CUR226
40 PWRC
Pham
30
Numerical
20

10

0
0.11 MPa 0.2 MPa
2 0.5 MPa
3 14MPa
Subsoil reaction modulus, Ks

Fig. 28. Efficacy comparison with varying subsoil stiffness for reinforced-medium soil (ϕ = 40◦ ).

100 Terzaghi
Reinforced case
90 Dense soil Guido
H=3m Low
80 Naughton
70 Swedish
Efficacy (%)

BS8006
60
EBGEO
50 CUR226
40 PWRC
Pham
30 Numerical
20

10

0
0.11MPa 0.2 MPa
2 0.5 MPa
3 1 4MPa
Subsoil reaction modulus, Ks

Fig. 29. Efficacy comparison with varying subsoil stiffness for reinforced-dense soil (ϕ = 46◦ ).

considered for the GR strain calculation of these three methods. A better
agreement is found when compared to methods that neglected the
subsoil support. This observation agrees with the findings of Pham and
Dias [1]. To find a reasonable explanation for the significant difference
between the selected design methods in predicting the geosynthetic
tensile force, special attention should be paid to the design methods
principle. In the EBGEO model, only the subsoil underneath the GR strip
between the adjacent piles is considered. This model also assumes that
the vertical load distribution on the GR strips is approximately trian­
gular (minimum load value at the pile edge). In the models of CUR 226
and Pham, the subsoil support is underneath all the areas covered by GR.
Besides, the CUR 226 model also assumes that when there is no subsoil
support, the vertical load distribution is like an inverse triangular one
(maximum load value at the pile edge) while a uniform load distribution
is used if significant subsoil support is considered. Regarding all other
models, the load distribution is assumed to be uniform as well as they do
not consider the subsoil support.
6.3. Comparison of using geosynthetic deflection
The analysis was carried out for four different embankment heights,
and a comparison of the maximum geosynthetic deflection is shown in
Fig. 31. According to the results, the Pham, EBGEO, and CUR 226
methods provide a good agreement with the numerical results. This
agreement remains valid when the embankment heights change from
0.75 to 3 m. The methods of CUR 226 and EBGEO under-predict 3.37%
and 0.95% respectively while the method of BS 8006 highly over-
predicts the geosynthetic deflection with an average relative error of
126%. All remaining methods over-predict significantly the geo­
synthetic deflection. This study, therefore, suggests that the theoretical
models should include the subsoil support in calculating the geo­
synthetic strain and deflection. It will allow to improve and define a
more realistic and accurate approach for the analysis of load-
deformation behavior of GRPS embankments.
7. Conclusion
This paper presents a study about the load transfer mechanism in a
geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankment by conducting
three-dimensional DEM numerical analyses. The study is then compared
with ten currently available design methods for designing GRPS em­
bankments. Several main conclusions can be drawn from this analysis as

17
T.A. Pham et al. Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337

400
Reinforced case Terzaghi

Max. Tension in geosynthetic (kN/m)

Medium soil Guido
350 Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
BS8006
300 EBGEO
CUR226
250 Pham
Numerical
200

150

100

50

0
0.75m
1 1.50m
2 2.25m
3 3.0m
4
Embankment height

Fig. 30. Comparison between analytical and numerical methods for maximum GR tensile force.

600
Reinforced case Terzaghi
Medium soil Guido
500 Ks = 0.2 MPa Low
BS8006
EBGEO
Max. GR deflection (mm)

400 CUR226
Pham
Numerical
300

200

100

0
1
0.75m 2
1.50m 3
2.25m 3.0m
4
Embankment height

Fig. 31. Comparison between analytical and numerical methods for maximum GR deflection.

follows:
Numerical results confirmed that the geosynthetic reinforcement
induces an efficient load transfer mechanism to the piles. The in­
clusion of the geosynthetic enhances the stress transfer from the
subsoil to piles due to the tensioned membrane action. Therefore, the
inclusion of geosynthetic in earth platforms could reduce the dif­
ferential settlements as well as the possibility of soil yielding above
the pile cap.
Due to the use of geosynthetics, the vertical stress distribution above
and below the geosynthetic is different. The results indicated that
vertical stresses below the geosynthetic are significantly concen­
trated at the corner of the pile cap, while vertical stresses above the
geosynthetic are more uniform. When compared with the vertical
stress magnitude for an unreinforced case, the vertical stress above
the geosynthetic in the reinforced case is significantly lower than the
unreinforced one. However, the vertical stress below the geo­
synthetic increases and the total vertical stress distributed on the pile
cap in the reinforced case is, therefore, higher than the unreinforced
one.
The distribution of tension in the geosynthetic layer indicates that
tension is not uniform along the geosynthetic and that the maximum
tension occurs at the pile cap edge. The total geosynthetic tension is
induced due to two components, one is by the stretching of the
geosynthetic under the arching loads and another one is by the skin
friction along with interfaces.
Numerical results showed that the underlying soil reaction pressure
between the rigid pile elements is mobilized. Therefore, the sup­
porting soft soil upwards counter-pressure between piles should be
introduced into the design methods to produce a more realistic
approach.

18
T.A. Pham et al.
Comparison results between the numerical model and analytical
models showed that these available design methods differ signifi­
cantly when predicting the stress reduction ratio, efficacy, geo­
synthetic tension, and differential settlement. All the selected design
methods provide over-predictions or under predictions depending on
the geometric properties of the embankment. The methods of Pham,
CUR 226, and EBGEO are applicable for predicting the efficacy for
both low and high embankments while methods of BS 8006, PWRC,
and Swedish are only applicable for high embankments. The
methods of Pham, CUR 226, and EBGEO produce the best agreement
with numerical results for the prediction of differential settlements.
The method of Pham and CUR226 agrees well with numerical results
in predicting the geosynthetic tension and is generally in better
agreement than the other presented methods.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Tuan A. Pham: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original
draft. Quoc-Anh Tran: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing -
original draft. Pascal Villard: Supervision, DEM devlopment, Writing -
review & editing. Daniel Dias: Supervision, Writing - review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Pham TA, Dias D. Comparison and evaluation of analytical models for the design of
geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported embankments. Geotext Geomembr
2021;49(3):528–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.11.001.
[2] Chen RP, Liu QW, Wang HL, Liu Y, Ma QL. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced
pile-supported embankment on soft marine deposit. Proc Instit Civil Engineers-
Geotech Eng; 2020. p. 1–18. doi: 10.1680/jgeen.19.00136.
[3] Ye GB, Wang M, Zhang Z, Han J, Xu C. Geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported
embankments with caps in a triangular pattern over soft clay. Geotext Geomembr
2020;48(1):52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103504.
[4] Lee T, Lee SH, Lee IW, Jung YH. Quantitative performance evaluation of GRPE: a
full-scale modeling approach. Geosynth Int 2020;27(3):342–7. https://doi.org/
10.1680/jgein.19.00017.
[5] Briançon L, Simon B. Pile-supported embankment over soft soil for a high-speed
line. Geosynth Int 2017;24(3):293–305. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.17.00002.
[6] Cao WZ, Zheng JJ, Zhang J, Zhang RJ. Field test of a geogrid-reinforced and
floating pile-supported embankment. Geosynth Int 2016;23(5):348–61. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jgein.16.00002.
[7] Liu HL, Ng CW, Fei K. Performance of a geogrid-reinforced and pile-supported
highway embankment over soft clay: case study. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2007;
133(12):1483–93. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:12
(1483).
[8] Hoppe EJ, Hite SL. Performance of a pile-supported embankment (No. FHWA/
VTRC 06-R36). Virginia Transportation Research Council; 2006.
[9] Terzaghi K. Theoretical soil mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1943.
p. 11–5.
[10] Guido VA, Kneuppel JD, Sweeney MA. Plate loading tests on geogrid reinforced
earth slabs (NewOrleans). Proc Geosynth 1987;87:216–25.
[11] Hewlett WJ, Randolph MF. Analysis of piled embankments. In: International
Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences and Geomechanics Abstracts (Vol.
25, No. 6, pp. 297–298). Elsevier Science; 1988.
[12] BS 8006-1. Code of practice for strengthened/reinforced soils and other fills.
London, UK: British Standards InstitutionBSI; 2010.
[13] Low BK, Tang SK, Choa V. Arching in piled embankments. J Geotech Eng 1994;120
(11):1917–38. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:11(1917).
[14] Miki H, Nozu, M. Design and numerical analysis of road embankment with low
improvement ratio deep mixing method. In: Geotechnical Engineering for
Transportation Projects (pp. 1395-1402); 2004.
[15] PWRC, Public Work Research Center. Manual on Design and Execution of
Reinforced Soil Method with Use of Geotextiles, second ed. Public Work Research
Center, pp. 248e256; 2000 (in Japanese).
[16] Kempfert HG, Gobel C, Alexiew D, Heitz C. German recommendations for soil
reinforcement above pile-elements. In: EUROGeo3, Third Geosynthetic
Conference, Munchen (Vol. 1, pp. 279-283); 2004.
[17] EBGEO. Recommendations for design and analysis of earth structures using
geosynthetic reinforcements. Digital in English. German geotechnical society.
ISBN: 978-3-433-60093-1; 2011.
19
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
[18] Van Eekelen SJM, Bezuijen A, Van Tol AF. An analytical model for arching in piled
embankments. Geotext Geomembr 2013;39:78–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2013.07.005.
[19] CUR 226. Design guideline basal reinforced piled embankments. Design guideline
basal reinforced piled embankments. CRC Press; 2016.
[20] Pham TA. Load-deformation of piled embankments considering geosynthetic
membrane effect and interface friction. Geosynth Int 2020;27(3):275–300. https://
doi.org/10.1680/jgein.19.00030.
[21] Pham TA. Analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankment with
soil-structure interaction models. Comput Geotech 2020;121:103438. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103438.
[22] Pham TA. Behaviour of piled embankment with multi-interaction arching model.
Géotech Lett 2020;10(4):582–8. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.20.00084.
[23] Ariyarathne P, Liyanapathirana DS. Review of existing design methods for
geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported embankments. Soils Found 2015;55(1):
17–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.002.
[24] Lo SR, Zhang R, Mak J. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft clay: a
numerical study. Geotext Geomembr 2010;28(3):292–302.
[25] Zhuang Y, Ellis EA. Finite-element analysis of a piled embankment with
reinforcement and subsoil. Géotechnique 2016;66(7):596–601.
[26] Wu JT, Ye X, Li J, Li GW. Field and numerical studies on the performance of high
embankment built on soft soil reinforced with PHC piles. Comput Geotech 2019;
107:1–13.
[27] Ariyarathne P, Liyanapathirana DS, Leo CJ. Comparison of different two-
dimensional idealizations for a geosynthetic-reinforced pile-supported
embankment. Int J Geomech 2013;13(6):754–68.
[28] Borges JL, Marques DO. Geosynthetic-reinforced and jet grout column-supported
embankments on soft soils: Numerical analysis and parametric study. Comput
Geotech 2011;38(7):883–96.
[29] Jamsawang P, Yoobanpot N, Thanasisathit N, Voottipruex P, Jongpradist P. Three-
dimensional numerical analysis of a DCM column-supported highway
embankment. Comput Geotech 2016;72:42–56.
[30] Oliveira PJV, Pinheiro JL, Correia AA. Numerical analysis of an embankment built
on soft soil reinforced with deep mixing columns: Parametric study. Comput
Geotech 2011;38(4):566–76.
[31] Rowe RK, Liu KW. Three-dimensional finite element modelling of a full-scale
geosynthetic-reinforced, pile-supported embankment. Can Geotech J 2015;52(12):
2041–54.
[32] Yadav SK, Ye GL, Khalid U, Fukuda M. Numerical and centrifugal physical
modelling on soft clay improved with floating and fixed sand compaction piles.
Comput Geotech 2019;115:103160.
[33] Jiang Y, Han J, Zheng G. Numerical analysis of a pile–slab-supported railway
embankment. Acta Geotech 2014;9(3):499–511.
[34] Meena NK, Nimbalkar S, Fatahi B, Yang G. Effects of soil arching on behavior of
pile-supported railway embankment: 2D FEM approach. Comput Geotech 2020;
123:103601.
[35] Yoo C. Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in embankment
construction: numerical investigation. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2010;136(8):
1148–60.
[36] Potts VJ, Zdravkovic L. Finite-element study of arching behaviour in reinforced
fills. Proc Instit Civil Engineers-Ground Improve 2010;163(4):217–29.
[37] Ghosh B, Fatahi B, Khabbaz H, Nguyen HH, Kelly R. Field study and numerical
modelling for a road embankment built on soft soil improved with concrete
injected columns and geosynthetics reinforced platform. Geotext Geomembr 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.12.010.
[38] Pham HV, Dias D, Dudchenko A. 3D modeling of geosynthetic-reinforced pile-
supported embankment under cyclic loading. Geosynth Int 2020;27(2):157–69.
[39] Messioud S, Okyay US, Sbartai B, Dias D. Dynamic response of pile reinforced soils
and piled foundations. Geotech Geol Eng 2016;34(3):789–805.
[40] Messioud S, Sbartai B, Dias D. Estimation of dynamic impedance of the
soil–pile–slab and soil–pile–mattress–slab systems. Int J Struct Stab Dyn 2017;17
(06):1750057.
[41] Das AK, Deb K. Experimental and 3D numerical study on time-dependent behavior
of stone column–supported embankments. Int J Geomech 2018;18(4):04018011.
[42] Indraratna B, Basack S, Rujikiatkamjorn C. Numerical solution of stone
column–improved soft soil considering arching, clogging, and smear effects.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;139(3):377–94. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000789.
[43] Jenck O, Dias D, Kastner R. Three-dimensional numerical modeling of a piled
embankment. Int J Geomech 2009;9(3):102–12.
[44] Huang Z, Ziotopoulou K, Filz GM. 3D Numerical Limiting Case Analyses of Lateral
Spreading in a Column-Supported Embankment. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2019;
145(11):04019096.
[45] Yu Y, Bathurst RJ. Modelling of geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported
embankments using 2D full-width model and modified unit cell approach. Geotext
Geomembr 2017;45(2):103–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2017.01.002.
[46] Han J, Gabr MA. Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported
earth platforms over soft soil. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2002;128(1):44–53.
[47] Badakhshan E, Noorzad A, Bouazza A, Zameni S, King L. A 3D-DEM investigation
of the mechanism of arching within geosynthetic-reinforced piled embankment. Int
J Solids Struct 2020;187:58–74.
[48] Chen RP, Liu QW, Wu HN, Wang HL, Meng FY. Effect of particle shape on the
development of 2D soil arching. Comput Geotech 2020;125:103662.
[49] Lai HJ, Zheng JJ, Cui MJ, Chu J. “Soil arching” for piled embankments: insights
from stress redistribution behaviour of DEM modelling. Acta Geotech 2020:1–20.
T.A. Pham et al.
[50] Rui R, van Tol F, Xia XL, van Eekelen S, Hu G, Xia YY. Evolution of soil arching; 2D
DEM simulations. Comput Geotech 2016;73:199–209.
[51] Han J, Bhandari A, Wang F. DEM analysis of stresses and deformations of geogrid-
reinforced embankments over piles. Int J Geomech 2012;12(4):340–50.
[52] Jenck O, Dias D, Kastner R. Discrete element modelling of a granular platform
supported by piles in soft soil–Validation on a small scale model test and
comparison to a numerical analysis in a continuum. Comput Geotech 2009;36(6):
917–27.
[53] Chareyre B, Villard P. Dynamic spar elements and discrete element methods in two
dimensions for the modeling of soil-inclusion problems. J Eng Mech 2005;131(7):
689–98.
[54] Le Hello B, Villard P. Embankments reinforced by piles and
geosynthetics—Numerical and experimental studies dealing with the transfer of
load on the soil embankment. Eng Geol 2009;106(1–2):78–91.
[55] Anh Tran Q, Villard P, Dias D. Discrete and continuum numerical modeling of soil
arching between piles. Int J Geomech 2019;19(2):04018195.
[56] Indraratna B, Nimbalkar SS, Ngo NT, Neville T. Performance improvement of rail
track substructure using artificial inclusions–Experimental and numerical studies.
Transp Geotech 2016;8:69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2016.04.001.
[57] Gholaminejad A, Mahboubi A, Noorzad A. Encased stone columns: coupled
continuum–discrete modelling and observations. Geosynth Int 2020;27(6):581–92.
[58] Huckert A, Briançon L, Villard P, Garcin P. Load transfer mechanisms in geotextile-
reinforced embankments overlying voids: experimental and analytical approaches.
Geotext Geomembr 2016;44(3):442–56.
[59] Pham TA. Analysis of soil-foundation-structure interaction to load transfer
mechanism in reinforced piled embankments. Aust Geomech J 2019;54(1):85–100.
[60] Fagundes DF, Almeida MS, Thorel L, Blanc M. Load transfer mechanism and
deformation of reinforced piled embankments. Geotext Geomembr 2017;45(2):
1–10.
[61] Tano BFG, Stoltz G, Coulibaly SS, Bruhier J, Dias D, Olivier F, et al. Large-scale
tests to assess the efficiency of a geosynthetic reinforcement over a cavity.
Geosynth Int 2018;25(2):242–58.
20
Engineering Structures 242 (2021) 112337
[62] Almeida MSS, Fagundes DF, Thorel L, Blanc M. Geosynthetic-reinforced pile-
embankments: numerical, analytical and centrifuge modelling. Geosynth Int 2020;
27(3):301–14.
[63] Wijerathna M, Liyanapathirana DS. Load transfer mechanism in geosynthetic
reinforced column-supported embankments. Geosynth Int 2020;27(3):236–48.
[64] Khansari A, Vollmert L. Load transfer and deformation of geogrid-reinforced piled
embankments: field measurement. Geosynth Int 2020;27(3):332–41.
[65] McGuire M, Sloan J, Filz G. Effectiveness of geosynthetic reinforcement for load
transfer in column-supported embankments. Geosynth Int 2020;27(2):200–18.
[66] Villard P, Huckert A, Briançon L. Load transfer mechanisms in geotextile-
reinforced embankments overlying voids: Numerical approach and design. Geotext
Geomembr 2016;44(3):381–95.
[67] Chalak C, Briançon L, Villard P. Coupled numerical and experimental analyses of
load transfer mechanisms in granular-reinforced platform overlying cavities.
Geotext Geomembr 2019;47(5):587–97.
[68] Kozicki J, Tejchman J, Mühlhaus HB. Discrete simulations of a triaxial compression
test for sand by DEM. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2014;38(18):1923–52.
[69] Lu W, Miao L, Wang F, Zhang J, Zhang Y, Wang H. A case study on geogrid-
reinforced and pile-supported widened highway embankment. Geosynth Int 2020;
27(3):261–74.
[70] Hoppe EJ, Hite SL. Performance of a Pile-Supported Embankment (No. FHWA/
VTRC 06-R36). Virginia Transportation Research Council; 2006.
[71] Xu C, Song S, Han J. Scaled model tests on influence factors of full geosynthetic-
reinforced pile-supported embankments. Geosynth Int 2016;23(2):140–53.
[72] Naughton PJ. The significance of critical height in the design of piled
embankments. In: Soil improvement (pp. 1–10); 2007.
[73] Rogbeck Y, Gustavsson S, Södergren I, Lindquist D. Reinforced piled embankments
in Sweden-design aspects. In: Proceedings, sixth international conference on
geosynthetics (Vol. 2, pp. 755–762); 1998.