Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Technical note

3-Dimensional numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased granular

columns
Sunil Ranjan Mohapatra, PhD a, K. Rajagopal, PhD a, *, Jitendra Sharma, PhD, PEng b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, 600 036, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, York University, Toronto, M3J 1P3, Canada

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

Article history: In this paper, series of three-dimensional (3-d) numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased granular
Received 24 June 2016 columns were performed both in model and prototype scale using FLAC3D software to understand the
Received in revised form lateral load carrying capacity of ordinary and geosynthetic encased granular columns (OGC and EGC). In
5 December 2016
the first part of the study, numerical modeling of direct shear tests were carried out. The soil in the direct
Accepted 2 January 2017
Available online 21 February 2017
shear box was reinforced with two different diameters of granular columns (50 mm and 100 mm) and
three different patterns of arrangement (single, triangular and square) to study the effect of group
confinement. The numerical simulations were carried out at four different confining pressures namely
Keywords:
Geosynthetics
15, 30, 45 and 75 kPa. From the numerical simulations it was observed that higher shear stresses are
Granular column mobilized inside the granular column due to geosynthetic encasement and the magnitude of shear stress
Geosynthetic encasement increases with increase in the normal pressure. It was found that the tensile forces in the geosynthetic
Lateral load encasement were mobilized both in circumferential and vertical directions, which helps in mobilizing
Direct shear test additional confinement in the granular column. In the second part, the influence of the geosynthetic
Factor of safety encasement of granular column treated soft ground was demonstrated through 3-dimensional slope
stability analyses.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction This helps in accelerating the rate of pre-consolidation of founda-

The granular columns are primarily used to improve the bearing
capacity of marginal soils by replacing a part of it with sand or
aggregate columns. Typical area replacement ratio (Ar) for this type
of granular column treatment varies from 10 to 30% (Barksdale and
Bachus, 1983). The area replacement ratio is defined as the plan
area of the granular columns to the total plan area within the
treated zone of soil. Choice of optimum value of Ar depends on the
load intensity, properties of the foundation soil and the time
available for pre-treatment of the soil. The granular columns are
primarily used to support flexible and rigid structures like em-
bankments, oil storage tanks, buildings etc. (Deb and Mohapatra,
2013; Gniel and Bouazza, 2009, 2010; Murugesan and Rajagopal,
2006, 2007, 2008). Apart from improving the bearing capacity,
the granular columns also act as vertical drains by virtue of their
high coefficient of permeability compared to the surrounding soil.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: siluuce@gmail.com (S.R. Mohapatra), gopalkr@iitm.ac.in
(K. Rajagopal), jit.sharma@lassonde.yorku.ca (J. Sharma).
tion soil and reduces the post-construction settlements
(Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2008; Ali et al., 2012; Dash and Bora,
2013; Rajesh, 2016). The granular columns derive their strength
from the confinement offered by the surrounding soil, which in
turn depends on the undrained shear strength (cu) of clay soil
(Hughes and Withers, 1974; Hughes et al., 1975). In the case of very
soft clay soils (cu
15 kPa) with high ground water table, instal-
lation of granular columns becomes difficult (Raithel et al., 2002). In
such conditions, they are likely to get clogged with fine soil parti-
cles, which may reduce their load carrying capacity and water
discharge capacity (Weber et al., 2010; Indraratna et al., 2012). To
improve the performance of ordinary granular column (OGC) in
very soft clay, geosynthetic encasement can be used. This provides
additional confinement leading to mobilization of higher shear
resistance of the foundation soil. The encasement doubles up as a
filter and prevents the clogging of granular columns (Murugesan
and Rajagopal, 2008; Castro and Sagaseta, 2011).
The granular columns located below the centerline of an
embankment are primarily subjected to vertical loading. Literature
is available in plenty towards understanding their mechanism

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.01.004
0266-1144/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
132 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141
under vertical loads (e.g. di Prisco et al., 2006; Murugesan and
Rajagopal, 2006, 2007, 2010; Yoo and Kim, 2009; Gniel and
Bouazza, 2009, 2010; Lo et al., 2010; Khabbazian et al., 2010;
Pulko et al., 2011; Elsawy, 2013; Ali et al., 2012, 2014;
Keykhosropur et al., 2012; Dash and Bora, 2013; Ghazavi and
Afshar, 2013 Almeida et al., 2015). However below the toe of the
embankment, granular columns are primarily subjected to lateral
loads and studies are rarely available in the literature to understand
the mechanism of OGC and EGC subjected to lateral loading.
Murugesan and Rajagopal (2008) carried out laboratory tests
using plane-strain tank and found that encased granular column
(EGC) performed better compared to OGC when subjected to shear
loading. However, the effect of column diameter was not consid-
ered in their study. Abusharar and Han (2011) carried out two
dimensional slope stability analysis of stone column supported
embankment using FLAC2D. From their study it was concluded that,
shear failure is the most common mode of failure in the case of
stone columns. Chen et al. (2015) carried out laboratory tests and
three dimensional (3-d) numerical modeling to understand the
mechanism of embankment loading on soft soils reinforced with
geosynthetic-encased stone column and concluded that encased
columns undergo bending instead of shear failure. From the 3-
d numerical modeling, it was observed that stone columns below
the toe of the embankment undergo large lateral displacements
compared to the columns closer to the center line of the embank-
ment. However, the effect of column diameter and stiffness of
encasement were neglected in their study. Mohapatra et al. (2016)
carried out large direct shear (LDS) tests with granular columns and
reported that OGC undergo rupture failure along the shear plane
and their shear resistance can be significantly improved due to
geosynthetic encasement. They also compared the load carrying
capacity of group granular columns with single granular column
having the same Ar and found that group columns perform better
compared to single column. However, the mechanism of load
transfer from soil to the granular column and the magnitude of
tensile force mobilization in the geosynthetic encasement were not
addressed by them.
From the above discussion it is quite clear that encasing the
granular column improves the lateral load carrying capacity to a
great extent. However, the load transfer mechanism, magnitude of
confinement generated in the intervening soil in case of group
arrangement, magnitude tensile forces mobilized in the geo-
synthetic encasement and its direction needs to be investigated in
detail. This data is required to design the geosynthetic encasement
material.
This paper presents the results of a series of 3-d numerical
simulations performed on geosynthetic-encased granular columns,
both in model and prototype scale using finite difference software
FLAC3D to understand the lateral load carrying capacity of OGC and
EGC. In the first part of the study, numerical modeling of LDS tests
were carried out using FLAC3D software (version 3.1) to identify the
load transfer mechanisms involved in the interaction behaviour of
granular column(s), surrounding soil and geosynthetic encasement.
In the second part of the study, 3-d slope stability analyses of
granular column supported embankment were carried out using
FLAC3D software (version 5.0). Higher factor of safety (FS) was
found to be mobilized in case of EGC compared to OGC supported
embankment.
1.1. Large Direct Shear (LDS) tests
This paper focuses on the numerical modeling of LDS tests car-
ried out by Mohapatra et al. (2016) on OGC and EGC, the details of
which are briefly presented here for completeness. Plan area of the
shear box used was 305 mm  305 mm and sample height inside
the shear box was 140 mm. The tests were carried out at different
normal pressures varying from 15 kPa to 75 kPa which corresponds
to 1 me5 m height of fill material on top of the soil. The normal
pressure was applied through an inflatable air bladder. The input air
pressure was controlled manually to maintain constant normal
pressure during the progress of the tests.
Two different diameters of granular columns, 50 mm and
100 mm were used in the study. The tests were carried out on both
single and group (triangular 50T and square 50S) granular columns
(Fig. 1). For group arrangement, 50 mm diameter granular columns
were installed at a center-to-center spacing of 100 mm. The gran-
ular columns were installed in a sand bed prepared at 1.66 g/cm3
dry density which corresponds to a relative density of 72%. The
aggregates were compacted to a dry density of 1.75 g/cm3 and
1.65 g/cm3 for 100 mm and 50 mm diameter granular columns
respectively. A woven geotextile having ultimate tensile strength
(ASTM D4595-05, 1986) of 34 kN/m at 37% strain was used to
fabricate the encasement using quick setting epoxy adhesive. The
ultimate tensile strength of the seam was 2.2 kN/m and secant
modulus at 5% strain was found to be 29 kN/m. All the tests were
carried out at a strain rate of 1 mm/min. Details of the LDS testing
program are presented in Table 1. Detailed explanations about the
sample preparation procedure for OGC and EGC are given by
Mohapatra et al. (2016).
2. Numerical modeling
3-d numerical modeling of the above described laboratory tests
were carried out using FLAC3D software to capture the failure
mechanism. The FLAC3D is a 3-d finite difference program that uses
explicit Lagrangian calculation scheme. The Lagrangian formula-
tions are capable of modeling plastic collapse and flow due to large
305 mm 305 mm
305 mm
305 mm
50 mm diameter 100 mm diameter
Granular Column Granular Column
50C; Ar = 2.11 % 100C; Ar = 8.44 %
(a) Schematic of single granular column
50 mm diameter
Granular Columns
305 mm 305 mm
100 mm
305 mm
305 mm
100 mm
100 mm 100 mm
100 mm
50T; Ar= 6.33% 50S; Ar= 8.44%
(b) Schematic of group granular column
Fig. 1. Different arrangements of granular column inside the shear box.
 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141
Table 1
Details of the large direct shear testing program.
Test arrangement
Dense sand
50 mm diameter granular column at center
100 mm diameter granular columns at center
50 mm diameter granular columns in triangular pattern
50 mm diameter granular columns in square pattern
shear deformations accurately.
2.1. Model description
Size of the model was kept identical to the sample size inside the
large direct shear box (305 mm  305 mm  140 mm). Very fine
meshes were used along the shear plane to improve the solution
accuracy (Fig. 2). The rigid direct shear box was intentionally kept
out of the model to reduce the computational effort; instead, the
following procedure was used to simulate the relative shear de-
formations between the upper and boxes.
(i) The grid points on the lateral and bottom boundary of the
lower box were given equal horizontal displacements (in x-
direction). The grid points on the lower surface were pre-
vented from moving laterally so as to simulate the rough
rigid surface at the bottom of the shear box.
(ii) All the grid points on the vertical boundaries of the upper
box were constrained from moving in the x-direction to
simulate the fixity of the upper shear box.
Similar boundary conditions were also used by Potts et al. (1987)
for two dimensional finite element analysis of the direct shear test.
In the current model, x-velocity of 2  104 mm/time step was
applied to all the boundary nodes on the bottom box and the model
was allowed to run for 200 000 time steps to achieve 40 mm
horizontal displacement. This value of the incremental velocity was
finalized after several trials to achieve good agreement with the
test results. It was found that if the incremental velocity is high, it
leads to stiffer initial response while the time taken for solution
increased drastically for very low velocity values. The unbalanced
forces generated due to the displacement of the bottom box were
added up and divided by the plan area of the shear box
(305 mm  305 mm) to determine the shear stress corresponding
to different shear displacements. The effect of air bladder in the
Fig. 2. Isometric view of the model showing different dimensions.
133
Notation Area replacement ratio Ar (%)
Sand 0
50C 2.11
100C 8.44
50T 6.33
50S 8.44
tests was simulated approximately by applying uniform pressure
on top of the model. This is reasonable as the bladder pressure was
maintained constant during the tests.
Cylindrical-shaped mesh and radially graded mesh were used to
discretize the granular columns and the surrounding soil respec-
tively. In the case of EGC, interface elements, modeled using normal
stiffness (kn) and shear stiffness (ks) were used between the contact
surface of soil-geosynthetic encasement and column-geosynthetic
encasement. The value of kn and ks were given as 1  104 MPa/m
based on the modulus of the soil and the size of the grid around the
interface (Itasca, 2003).
2.2. Material properties and boundary conditions
Strain softening (SS) Mohr-Coulomb model was used to simulate
the dense sand bed and granular columns. Material parameters
used for the study are listed in Table 2. Geosynthetic encasement
was modeled as geogrid type shell element available in FLAC3D
which behaves as an isotropic, linear elastic material. They are
three-noded flat elements capable of resisting membrane forces
but do not resist bending/flexural loads. The thickness of the geo-
synthetic encasement was kept as 1 mm which is the same as the
thickness of woven geotextile encasement used in the laboratory
tests.
All the numerical simulations were performed using a desktop
computer equipped with Intel (R) core (TM) i5-4570 3.20 GHz
central processing unit, 16 GB RAM and with 64 bit operating sys-
tem. It was able to arrive at the solution in about 4e48 h depending
on the type of the model (sand, OGC, EGC, single and group
arrangement). For instance it took about 4 h to solve the sand
model without granular columns whereas it was 6e8 h in case of
single OGC (50C and 100C) and 16 h for EGC. EGC group arrange-
ments (50T and 50S) took longer time in the range of 36e48 h to
arrive at a solution.
134 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141

Table 2
Properties of different materials used in the direct shear modeling.
σ Yield point
Parameters Values ElasƟc region
Sand
Young's modulus, E (MPa) 10
Poisson's ratio, n 0.3
Cohesion, c (kPa) 0
Unit weight, g (kN/m3) 16.3
Aggregate for 50 mm diameter granular column
Young's modulus, E (MPa) 100
ε
Poisson's ratio, n 0.3 ε=ε e
ε=ε +εe p
Cohesion, c (kPa) 0
Unit weight, g (kN/m3) 16.2
Aggregate for 100 mm diameter granular column (a) Stress-strain curve
Young's modulus, E (MPa) 100
Poisson's ratio, n 0.3
Cohesion, c (kPa) 0
Unit weight, g (kN/m3) 17.2
Geosynthetic encasement
5% secant modulus of seam (kN/m) 29
Poisson's ratio, n 0.33
φ,ψ
Thickness (mm) 1

2.3. Constitutive model

εP
Choice of the constitutive model plays an important role in
representing the behaviour of geomaterials. It is well established (b) Variation of φ/ψ with εp
that the dense granular materials (sand and aggregates) show
strain softening behaviour beyond yield point. Similar behaviour is
observed from the LDS tests of Mohapatra et al. (2016). It can be
assumed that up to the yield point, total strain (ε) in the soil is
purely elastic (ε ¼ εe) and both elastic and plastic strains (ε ¼ εe þεp)
are mobilized after the yield point as shown in Fig. 3 (a). Therefore,
to simulate the realistic post-yield behaviour of granular media,
φ,ψ
elasto-plastic constitutive model is preferred over purely elastic
model. This model can be modified by taking into account the
variation of strength parameters (c, f and j) with the accumulated
plastic strain. In the present numerical analysis, strain softening εP
Mohr-Coulomb (SS) model was used to accommodate this behav-
iour exhibited by granular materials during the direct shear tests.
The SS model is based on non-associative flow rule (j <f). In the SS (c) Piece wise inear variation of φ/ψ with εp
model the shear strength parameters like c, f and j reduce after
Fig. 3. Schematic representation of strain softening model.
the yield point and reach a critical state (zero incremental volu-
metric strain state) at large strain, Fig. 3b. The user can define the
aforementioned shear strength parameters as piecewise linear 40 mm shear displacement respectively and sn is the applied
function with respect to plastic shear strain (εp) in a tabular normal pressure.
manner, as explained in Fig. 3 (c). As suggested by Houlsby (1991), friction angle of granular ma-
terials reduces with increase in normal pressure. In the case of
2.4. Validation of the numerical model granular materials, dilation angle (j) reduces with the increase in
stress level, which results in the reduction of peak friction angle. In
It is well established that in numerical modeling of geotechnical the present study, the saw-tooth model is used to evaluate the
engineering problems, accuracy of the input parameters is crucial. dilation angle in case of non-associated dilatancy, which obeys the
These parameters should be chosen carefully for better prediction equation proposed by Newland and Allely (1957). Susila and Hryciw
of the engineering behaviour. In the present numerical analyses, (2003) also used the same equation to simulate the cone penetra-
the input parameters (f and j) are obtained from the results of LDS tion test in sand. As per Newland and Allely (1957) for direct shear
tests conducted by Mohapatra et al. (2016). From the shear stress test on sand,
vs. shear strain plot of LDS tests, friction angle at peak (fpeak ) and
40 mm shear displacement (f40 ) are obtained using eq. (1) and eq. fpeak ¼ fcv þ j (3)
(2).
During LDS tests, Mohapatra et al. (2016) could not measure the
1 tpeak volume change due to the limitations of the experimental setup. In
fpeak ¼ tan (1)
sn the present numerical model, an attempt was made to calculate the
dilation angle corresponding to each normal pressure (15 kPa,
t40 30 kPa, 45 kPa, 75 kPa) using eq. (3). Dilation angle of sand reduces
f40 ¼ tan1 (2) from maximum value at peak shear stress (t) to zero at critical
sn
state. Angles fpeak and f40 of sand were back calculated from the
Where tpeak and t40 are the shear stresses mobilized at peak and at shear stress vs. shear displacement response shown in Fig. 4 using
 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141 135

70
75 kPa 45 kPa
Experimental
60 Numerical 30 kPa 15 kPa

50

Shear stress (kPa) 40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm)

Fig. 4. Shear stress vs. shear displacement in case of sand.

eq. (1) and eq. (2). The actual variation of f and j used in the forces are mobilized both in circumferential direction (tensile
present numerical model corresponding to different normal pres- force-1) and in vertical direction (tensile force-2). It can be seen
sures is presented in Table 3. that with an increase in normal pressure, higher forces are mobi-
lized in the encasement which helps in the mobilization of higher
shear stresses. It is worth noting that at lower normal pressure
3. Results and discussions (15 kPa), the forces in the encasement are developed at smaller
shear displacements compared to those at higher normal pressure
3.1. Mechanism of single granular columns (75 kPa). With the increase in normal pressure, the surrounding soil
offers higher resistance to the deformation of the granular column
Fig. 5 shows the lateral stress mobilized at the center of the due to which higher shear displacement is necessary to mobilize
granular column (100C) above the shear plane at 15 kPa and 75 kPa the forces in the encasement.
confining pressures, as a function of the shear displacement. It can
be observed that due to the installation of OGC, higher lateral stress
is mobilized inside the granular column by virtue of its higher 3.2. Mechanism of group granular columns
friction angle and the resulting passive forces. With an increase in
normal pressure, higher lateral stresses (sxx) are mobilized inside From the observations made from the LDS tests, Mohapatra et al.
the granular column. It can be seen that the stress generated attains (2016) reported mobilization of higher shear stresses in the case of
a maximum value which corresponds to the peak shear stress group arrangement of granular columns (T50 and S50) compared to
mobilized during the direct shear test and then reduces to a con- single columns (C50 and C100). The higher shear stresses mobilized
stant value due to the strain softening behaviour of OGC. In the case in the intervening soil between the granular columns in a group is
of EGC it can be observed that the geosynthetic encasement helps due to the confinement effect which is absent in the case of single
to mobilize additional lateral stress (sxx) inside the granular col- granular column (Mohapatra et al., 2016). The results from the
umn due to its confinement effect and the stresses are found to present numerical study could possibly explain this phenomenon.
increase continuously with shear displacement. It helps in understanding and comparing the efficiency of different
Fig. 6 shows the forces mobilized in the geosynthetic encase- patterns of arrangement in plan (triangular and square).
ment for single granular column (100C) at different confining The present numerical analyses indicate that higher shear
pressures. As the encasement is essentially a cylindrical membrane, stresses are mobilized in the soil zone between the columns, which
may be attributed to the confinement provided by the group
arrangement (Fig. 7). Encasement of granular column provides
Table 3 higher confinement compared to OGC resulting in mobilization of
Variation of f and j values with normal pressures in case of sand (direct shear
modeling).
higher resistance against shear failure. Fig. 7 demonstrates the
generation of higher stresses in the case of EGC (50T and 50S)
Plastic strain; εp (%) Friction angle f ( ) Dilation angle j ( ) compared to OGC (50T and 50S) due to the presence of geosynthetic
Normal pressure (kPa) encasement. It can be seen that compared to square arrangement,
15 30 45 75 15 30 45 75 triangular arrangement provides better confinement to the inter-
vening soil. The stresses developed in the case of OGC declines after
0 53 47 46 41 13 13 14 11
1.63 49 43 43 38 9 9 9 9 reaching a peak value and becomes constant due to the rupture
3.02 45 39 39 35 6 6 6 6 failure of the granular columns. It is interesting to notice that the
4.21 42 36 36 32 3 3 3 3 maximum value of stresses developed in the soil in case of OGC
6 40 34 32 30 0 0 0 0 corresponds to the peak shear stress mobilized during the direct
8 40 34 32 30 0 0 0 0
shear test. In the case of EGC (50T and 50S), higher stresses are
136 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141
500
450
400
350
140
108
300
σxx (kPa)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 10
Shear displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Lateral stress (sxx) developed inside the granular column; 100C.
developed in the soil compared to OGC due to the increase in
stiffness of granular columns and the stresses continue to increase
due to the hardening behaviour exhibited by EGC. The group
mechanism of granular column subjected to lateral loading needs
to be studied in prototype scale, which will help to improve the
current design procedure.
3.3. Failure mechanism of granular columns
From the LDS tests conducted, Mohapatra et al. (2016) observed
that OGC undergo complete rupture failure along the shear plane.
Similar failure mechanism is observed from the present numerical
analysis at all the normal pressures. Due to shear failure of OGC, top
and bottom portion of the column gets separated, leading to
reduction in vertical load carrying capacity of the system
(soil þ column). This may lead to generation of larger total and
differential settlements of the super structures. Hence the OGCs are
recommended to be encased with geosynthetic encasement, which
apart from increasing the lateral load capacity, will also prevent
rupture failure of columns (Mohapatra et al., 2016).
The results of numerical analyses show that the failure mecha-
nism of EGC depends on the normal pressure. At low normal
pressures (e.g. 15 kPa), EGC was found to tilt like a rigid body as a
result of lateral soil movement (Fig. 8a). In real constructions, this
behaviour is expected for granular columns near the toe of em-
bankments (Chen et al., 2015). With an increase in normal pressure,
tilting of granular column is restricted and a distinct flexural
deformation is observed along the predefined failure plane as
shown in Fig. 8b. From the deformed shapes of EGC, it can be
concluded that the geosynthetic encasement holds the granular
materials together during the lateral movement of surrounding
soil. This feature of EGC can be helpful in maintaining the conti-
nuity of drainage path even after large shear deformations.
3.4. 3-D slope stability analysis
Numerical analysis of direct shear tests helped in understanding
the complex soil structure interaction between the granular col-
umn, surrounding soil and the geosynthetic encasement. The study
EGC-75 kPa
Shear plane
OGC-75 kPa
EGC-15 kPa
OGC-15 kPa
Sand-15 kPa
20 30 40
shows the comparative performance of EGC with respect to OGC
when subjected to lateral loading, which is an important factor
while designing the granular column treated soft foundation soil
below the toe of the embankment. However, since the scale of the
test setup is small, the results from the above study cannot be
directly extrapolated to field conditions.
The second part of this paper discusses 3-d slope stability
analysis of granular column supported embankment with regards
to the stability of the embankment supported on OGC and EGC. For
the present study, granular columns of 1.0 m diameter at a center to
center spacing of 2.5 m were considered, which corresponds to
Ar ¼ 12.56%. Sensitivity analysis was carried out to fix the extent of
side boundary and mesh size of the model (Mohapatra and
Rajagopal, 2016). Finer meshes were used for granular column
and the soil mass surrounding it, where shear stress is expected to
be very high due to the deep seated failure of embankment. For soil
mass beyond the toe size of mesh increases with distance (Fig. 9).
Coarser meshing was used to model the embankment fill. For all the
analysis water table was assumed to be at the ground level which is
common in case of soft clay.
In the present model all the displacements in x, y and z di-
rections were restrained at the bottom surface. For the four vertical
surfaces, displacements perpendicular to the surfaces were
restrained. All the analyses were carried out for undrained condi-
tion which is more critical for embankments constructed on soft
clay. The properties of different materials used in the numerical
modeling are presented in Table 4. Mohr-Coulomb elastic perfectly
plastic constitutive model was used to model the clay, embankment
soil and granular column. The geosynthetic encasements were
modeled as geogrid elements as described previously (Itasca, 2003,
2005). The model was validated using the field study reported by
Forsman et al. (1999). The details regarding the modeling tech-
niques and validation are explained in Mohapatra and Rajagopal
(2016).
Fig. 9a and b shows the contour of maximum shear strain of OGC
and EGC supported embankment respectively. In the case of OGC
(Fig. 9a) FS of 0.9 was mobilized. In case of OGC shear strain con-
tours pass through the foundation soil indicating deep seated
failure. The continuous shear strain contours indicate the rupture
 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141 137

14
75 kPa
140 mm Shear plane
12 76 mm

10 45 kPa

Tensile force-1 (kN/m) 8

30 kPa

2
15 kPa

0
0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm)

(a) Tensile force in circumferential direction

140 mm Shear plane 75 kPa

6 76 mm

5
Tensile force-2 (kN/m)

45 kPa
4

3 30 kPa

15 kPa
1

0
0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm)

(b) Tensile force in vertical direction

Fig. 6. Forces mobilized in the encasement at different normal pressure (100C).

failure of granular columns. To prevent the rupture failure of OGCs,
geosynthetic encasement was used which increases the lateral load
carrying capacity thereby helping mobilization of higher FS of 1.29
(Fig. 9b). From the figures it can be seen that in the case of EGC
(J ¼ 2500 kN/m) failure surface shifts upward and passes through
the toe of the embankment, which is in contrast to the deep seated
failure observed in the case of OGC. The advantage of geosynthetic
encasement of granular columns is clearly seen from this result
wherein the factor of safety against slip circle failure is increased by
nearly 43% and the deep seated failure through the soft foundation
soil is avoided.
4. Conclusions
The present numerical modeling of direct shear test and 3-
d slope stability analysis helps in understanding the load transfer
mechanism of granular columns subjected to lateral loading.
Different mechanisms are clearly explained to understand the
138 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141

400

50T EGC
350

300

50S EGC
250
σxx (kPa)

200 50T OGC

50S OGC
150
Sand
100

50

0
0 10 20 30 40
Shear displacement (mm)

Fig. 7. Lateral stress (sxx) developed in the intervening soil between the columns (sn ¼ 75 kPa).

Fig. 8. Mode of failure of 50C EGC at different normal pressures.

 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141 139

Fig. 9. Stability analyses of embankment supported on granular column.

behaviour of OGC and EGC subjected to lateral load. The following
conclusions are made from the current study:
1. While the soil treated with OGC reaches limit state, the one with
EGC exhibits strain hardening behaviour due to continuous in-
crease in confining stresses in both granular columns and the
intervening soil.
2. In the case of EGC, larger shear stresses are mobilized inside the
granular column compared to those in OGC due to the
confinement provided by the geosynthetic encasement.
3. The geosynthetic encasement in the EGC starts mobilizing ten-
sile forces only after the soil reaches limit state. Tensile forces
are mobilized both in circumferential and vertical directions.
140 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141

Table 4
Properties of different materials used for 3-dimensional slope stability analysis.

Parameter Unit Granular column Clay Embankment soil

Bulk unit weight kN/m3 19 15 18

Poisson's ratio e 0.3 0.45 0.3

Friction angle 38 0 32
Cohesion kPa 0 10 0
Geosynthetic encasement J ¼ 2500 kN/m n ¼ 0.33 t ¼ 1 mm

4. Larger shear stresses are mobilized in the intervening soil be- 50S 50 mm diameter granular columns in square
tween the individual columns in a group due to the confinement arrangement (four columns)
effects compared to single granular column. Triangular
arrangement is found to provide better confinement to the soil
References
compared to the square arrangement.
5. At lower normal pressures, EGC tilts like a rigid body. With the ASTM D4595, 1986. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by
increase in normal pressure the deformation of EGC is distinctly the Wide-width Strip Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
flexural at the failure plane. Larger tensile forces are mobilized USA.
Abusharar, S.W., Han, J., 2011. Two-dimensional deep-seated slope stability analysis
in the encasement due to flexural type deformations rather than of embankments over stone column-improved soft clay. Eng. Geol. 120,
the tilting behaviour. The higher tensile forces in the encase- 103e110.
ment help in mobilizing larger shear resistance within the Ali, K., Shahu, J.T., Sharma, K.G., 2012. Model tests on geosynthetic-reinforced stone
columns: a comparative study. Geosynth. Int. 19 (4), 292e305.
granular columns. Ali, K., Shahu, J.T., Sharma, K.G., 2014. Model tests on single and groups of stone
6. Geosynthetic encasement helps to mobilize higher Factor of columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement arrangement. Geosynth. Int.
Safety even in very soft foundation soil due to increase in 21 (2), 103e118.
Almeida, M.S.S., Hosseinpour, I., Riccio, M., Alexiew, D., 2015. Behaviour of
strength and stiffness of granular column. geotextile-encased granular columns supporting test embankment on soft de-
posit. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (3), 04014116.
Acknowledgements Barksdale, R.D., Bachus, R.C., 1983. Design and Construction of Granular Columns.
Report No. FHWA/RD-83/026. Federal Highway Administration Office of Engi-
neering and Highway Operations Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
The first author is thankful to the Ministry of Human Resources Castro, J., Sagaseta, C., 2011. Deformation and consolidation around encased stone
Development, Government of India, New Delhi for the financial columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (3), 268e276.
Chen, J.-F., Li, L.-Y., Xue, J.-F., Feng, S.-Z., 2015. Failure mechanism of geosynthetic-
assistance provided during his Ph.D. program at the Indian Institute encased stone columns in soft soils under embankment. Geotext. Geomembr.
of Technology Madras, Chennai. The help and suggestion provided 43 (5), 424e431.
by Mr. Nithin S, Mr. Balu George, Mr. Amiya Prakash Dash and Mr. Dash, S.K., Bora, M.C., 2013. Influence of geosynthetic encasement on the perfor-
mance of stone columns floating in soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 50 (7), 754e765.
Soumyaranjan Mishra during the numerical modeling are highly Deb, K., Mohapatra, S.R., 2013. Analysis of stone column-supported geosynthetic-
appreciated. reinforced embankments. Appl. Math. Model. 37 (5), 2943e2960.
Elsawy, M.B.D., 2013. Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and
geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study. Geosynth. Int. 20 (4),
Notations and abbreviations 276e285.
Forsman, J., Honkala, A., Smura, M., 1999. Hertsby case: a column stabilised and
C Cohesion (kPa) geotextile reinforced road embankment on soft subsoil. In: Bredenberg, H.,
Holm, G., Broms, B.B. (Eds.), Dry Mix Method for Deep Soil Stabilization. Bal-
E Young's modulus (MPa)
kema, Rotterdam, pp. 263e268.
J secant modulus of geosynthetic encasement (kN/m) Gniel, J., Bouazza, A., 2009. Improvement of soft soils using geogrid encased
ki Interface shear modulus (MPa/m) granular columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 27 (3), 167e175.
g Unit weight (kN/m3) Gniel, J., Bouazza, A., 2010. Construction of geogrid encased granular columns: a
new proposal based on laboratory testing. Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (1), 108e118.
n Poisson's ratio (dimensionless) Ghazavi, M., Afshar, J.N., 2013. Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone
Ar Area replacement ratio (dimensionless) columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 38, 26e36.
sn Applied normal pressure (kPa) Hughes, J.M.O., Withers, N.J., 1974. Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with granular
columns. Ground Eng. 7 (3), 42e49.
ε Total strain (dimensionless) Hughes, J.M.O., Withers, N.J., Greenwood, D.A., 1975. A field trial of the reinforcing
εe Elastic strain (dimensionless) effect of a granular column in soil. Geotechnique 25 (1), 31e44.
εp Plastic strain (dimensionless) Houlsby, G. T., 1991. How the dilatancy of soils affect their behaviour. Report No.
OUEL-1888/91. In: 10th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Founda-
f Friction angle ( ) tion Engineering, Florence, Italy.
j Dilation angle ( ) Itasca, 2003. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC3D 3.1). Itasca Consulting
3D Three dimensional Group Inc, Minneapolis, USA.
Itasca, 2005. Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua (FLAC3D 5.0). Itasca Consulting
EGC Geosynthetic encased granular column Group Inc, Minneapolis, USA.
FS Factor of Safety Indraratna, B., Basack, S., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., 2012. Numerical solution of stone
LDS Large direct shear (305 mm  305 mm) column-improved soft soil considering arching, clogging and smear effects.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (3), 377e394.
OGC Ordinary granular column (without any geosynthetic Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V.N., Meehan, C.L., 2010. Numerical study of the effect of
encasement) geosynthetic encasement on the behaviour of granular columns. Geosynth. Int.
SS Mohr-Coulomb Strain Softening Model 17 (3), 132e143.
Keykhosropur, L., Soroush, A., Imam, R., 2012. 3D Numerical analyses of geo-
50C Single 50 mm diameter granular column at center of
synthetic encased stone columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 35, 61e68.
shear box Lo, S.R., Zhang, R., Mak, J., 2010. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft clay: a
100C Single 100 mm diameter granular column at center of numerical study. Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (3), 292e302.
shear box Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2006. Geosynthetic-encased granular columns: nu-
merical evaluation. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (6), 349e358.
50T 50 mm diameter granular columns in triangular Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2007. Model tests on geosynthtic encased granular
arrangement (three columns) columns. Geosynth. Int. 14 (6), 346e354.
 S.R. Mohapatra et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 45 (2017) 131e141
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2008. Shear load tests on granular columns with and
without geosynthetic encasement. Geotech. Test. J. 32 (1), 35e44.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2010. Studies on the behavior of single and group of
geosynthetic encased granular columns. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (1),
129e139.
Mohapatra, S.R., Rajagopal, K., Sharma, J.S., 2016. Large direct shear load test on
geosynthetic encased granular columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 44 (3), 396e405.
Mohapatra, S.R., Rajagopal, K., 2016. Analysis of failure of geosynthetic encased
stone column supported embankments, In: Proceedings of 3rd Pan-American
Conference on Geosynthetics, April, Miami Beach, USA.
Newland, P.L., Allely, B.H., 1957. Volume changes in drained triaxial tests on granular
materials. Geotechnique 7 (1), 17e34.
Potts, D.M., Dounias, G.T., Vaughan, P.R., 1987. Finite element analysis of the direct
shear box test. Geotechnique 37 (1), 11e23.
di Prisco, C., Galli, A., Cantarelli, E., Bongiorno, D., 2006. Geo-reinforced sand col-
umns: Small scale experimental tests and theoretical modeling. In: Proceedings
of the 8th International conference on geosynthetics, Yokohama, Japan, pp.
141
1685e1688.
Pulko, B., Majes, B., Logar, J., 2011. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: analytical
calculation model. Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (1), 29e39.
Raithel, M., Kempfert, H. G., Kirchner, A., 2002. Geotextile-encased columns (GEC)
for foundation of a dike on very soft soils. In: Proceedings 7th ICG International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Nice, France, pp. 1025e1028.
Rajesh, S., 2016. Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geo-
synthetic encased stone columns. Geosynth. Int. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jgein.
16.00015.
Susila, E., Hryciw, R.D., 2003. Large displacement FEM modelling of the cone
penetration test (CPT) in normally consolidated sand. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth.
Geomech. 27, 585e602.
Weber, T.M., Plotze, M., Laue, J., Peschke, G., Springman, S.M., 2010. Smear zone
identification and soil properties around stone columns constructed in-flight in
centrifuge model tests. Geotechnique 60 (3), 197e206.
Yoo, C., Kim, S.B., 2009. Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased granular
column-reinforced ground. Geosynth. Int. 16 (3), 116e126.