applied
sciences
Article
Using Geogrid Encased Granular Columns for Embankment’s
Slope Protection: 3D-Finite Difference Analysis
Omar Hamdi Jasim 1, *
Citation: Jasim, O.H.; Tonaroğlu, M.
Using Geogrid Encased Granular
Columns for Embankment’s Slope
Protection: 3D-Finite Difference
Analysis. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
app13042448
Academic Editor: Daniel Dias
Received: 28 December 2022
Revised: 24 January 2023
Accepted: 5 February 2023
Published: 14 February 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13042448
and Murat Tonaroğlu 2
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, 34220 Istanbul, Turkey
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Yildiz Technical University, Esenler, 34220 Istanbul, Turkey
* Correspondence: ojasim37@gmail.com or omar.jasim@std.yildiz.edu.tr
Abstract: The stability of the embankment’s slopes is a critical aspect of geotechnical engineering and
it is essential to guarantee the effectiveness of the factor of safety to prevent any potential failures
in the slope both during and post-construction. The current study consists of two parts; the first
part is the study of the behavior of the geogrid-encased granular columns and their interaction with
the soil at the shear surface generated by the slippage of the soil, while the second part is a study
of the stability of slopes by changing several factors, including the area replacement ratio (Ar %) of
the granular columns, the angle of the embankment slope (β), and different elastic modulus (Eg ) of
geogrid on the stability of an embankment. About 90 analyses were conducted on a clayey sand
embankment over a clayey layer. The area replacement ratios (Ar %) were changed by using different
values of the diameter of the column; from 50 to 100 cm. The angle of the embankment slope was
changed from 28 to 36 degrees. Furthermore, three different values, 0.12, 2.625, and 6.552 GPa, of
modulus of elasticity were used. The results show that increasing the modulus of elasticity of the
geogrid increases the normalized shear strength and decreases the lateral displacement in the column.
Furthermore, the factor of safety was increased as the stiffness ratio between the geogrid and the
materials increased. However, the factor of safety was noted to decrease when the angle of the
embankment slope was increased.
Keywords: slope stability; factor of safety; FLAC3D ; granular column; geogrid; stiffness ratio
1. Introduction
The stability of slopes is a crucial topic in the field of engineering because a failure in a
slope can result in severe consequences for adjacent structures and infrastructure, therefore,
in the current study, protection of slopes of an embankment was studied. The failure of
the slope is mainly related to the amount of shear strength along the slip surface in the
soil. Failure happens once the shear stress exceeds the shear strength of the soil. Some
solutions, such as passive piles, retaining walls, soil nailing, deep mixing columns etc.,
have been proposed by different researchers to increase the dragging forces at the slip
surface [1–7]. However, the bearing capacity and the stability of the soft soil under the
embankment can also be improved by using rigid inclusions. Using geosynthetic-encased
granular columns to oppose the path of the slip surface and reduce the potential failure of
the slope has recently attracted the attention of some researchers. Granular columns that
stabilize slopes behave similarly to passive piles [8]. Their stiffness is the main difference
between them [8]. There is a piece of good evidence that granular columns have been
used to increase the bearing capacity and the safety against sliding [9–14]. Vekli et al. [15]
used a small-scale model to examine the effect of granular column inserted vertically in
the clay and it was concluded that the factor of safety was increased by 1.18–1.62 times,
also using granular columns increased the bearing capacity and decreased the settlement.
Raee et al. [8] conducted an experimental and numerical analysis to study the impact of
slope-stabilizing granular columns on the bearing capacity of a rigid strip footing installed
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 2 of 17

on a sand slope in which concrete piles and ordinary and encased granular columns were
investigated. According to the outcomes of the study, the bearing capacity of the soil under
the footing was reported to be increased as the stiffness and granular column spacing
decreased. The use of geotextile-encased granular columns (GECs) as a reinforcement
method for sandy slopes is a promising approach for improving slope stability. Geotextile-
encased granular columns are similar to ordinary granular columns, but they are wrapped
in a layer of geotextile material, which can help to improve the performance of the columns
and increase their effectiveness as a reinforcement method. According to Nasiri et al. [16],
the use of GECs was found to significantly increase the factor of safety of a sandy slope,
with an increase of up to 37%. The GECs were also found to increase the bearing capacity of
the slope foundation by 1.66 times compared to using ordinary granular columns (OGCs)
without a geotextile wrap. These results suggest that GECs can be an effective way to
reinforce sandy slopes and improve their stability and performance. Hajiazizi et al. [17,18]
carried out a research project that compared the effectiveness of ordinary and rigid granular
columns in improving the stability of sandy slopes. The findings indicated that placing
the granular columns in the middle of the slope was most effective, as this is where the
greatest displacements occur. The use of rigid granular columns resulted in a significant
increase in the factor of safety and provided a 1.41 times greater shear strength than
ordinary granular columns. Additionally, the use of rigid granular columns improved the
stability of the slope by 40.6% in comparison to using only ordinary granular columns.
Mohapatra et al. [19] reported that the use of GECs was found to increase the lateral load-
carrying capacity of granular columns in both model and prototype scale. Furthermore,
Mohapatra et al. utilized numerical modeling techniques, including three dimensional
simulations with the FLAC3D software [19], and the behavior of geosynthetic encased
granular columns (GECs) was examined under various conditions. The findings indicated
that the geosynthetic encasement of the GECs caused higher shear stresses to be mobilized
within the granular column, and the magnitude of these shear stresses increased with an
increase in normal pressure. Additionally, the study found that the tensile forces in the
geosynthetic encasement were mobilized in both the circumferential and vertical directions,
providing additional confinement to the granular column. Overall, the study suggests that
GECs can be an effective way to reinforce slopes and improve their stability and bearing
capacity. It is worth mentioning that, the effectiveness of GECs can depend on a variety
of factors, including the soil conditions, the size and spacing of the columns, and the load
conditions. It is also important to consider the costs and other practical considerations
when deciding whether to use GECs in a particular project. Mohapatra and Rajagopal [20]
conducted a numerical analysis to understand the behavior of inserting OGC and GEC on
the embankment’s stability constructed on soft clay, it was concluded that GECs contributes
to increase the safety factor and the overall stability of the system. Analyzing the soil-
column interaction at the slip−surface can help engineers to understand how the soil
and column behave under lateral load and to design the structure appropriately, there
have been a number of experimental and numerical investigations into the performance of
geosynthetic encased granular columns under both horizontal and vertical loads. These
studies have consistently shown that geosynthetic encased granular columns enhanced
lateral load resistance and reduced lateral displacement compared to ordinary granular
columns, as well as improved shear strength [21–25]. The failure mode of the columns was
reported in different patterns; ordinary and encased granular columns may fail in different
modes under combined horizontal and vertical loads, with failure at the center line of the
embankment due to bulging and failure at the toe of the embankment due to bending or
shear [9,22,26]. Researchers have devoted a significant amount of attention to the use of
geosynthetic granular columns to strengthen the soil beneath embankments. However,
the issue of shallow slope failure has not received as much attention. The current study
aims to address this by considering slope protection for both deep-seated and shallow
failure in order to enhance the stability of the embankment overall. In order to achieve
the mentioned goal, two models were employed; the first model aimed to determine the
 achieve the mentioned goal, two models were employed; the first model aimed to deter
mine the normalized shear stress of the soil and the normalized lateral displacement o
the columns resulting from soil movement along the shear plane. Additionally, a slope
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 model was simulated to analyze the impact of various factors, including the stiffness 3 of 17 ratio
between the geogrid and the soil, area replacement ratio of the granular columns, and the
angle of the embankment slope on the values of factor of safety. It is widely acknowledged
normalized shear stress
that the stability of the soil and the
of embankments normalized after
immediately lateralconstruction
displacement is
of the columns
crucial, thus short
resulting from soil movement along the shear
term analysis were considered in this analysis. plane. Additionally, a slope model was
simulated to analyze the impact of various factors, including the stiffness ratio between
the geogrid and the soil, area replacement ratio of the granular columns, and the angle of
2. Validation of the Numerical Model
the embankment slope on the values of factor of safety. It is widely acknowledged that
The model
the stability has been validated
of embankments based
immediately on construction
after an experimental study
is crucial, conducted
thus by Moha
short-term
patra etwere
analysis al. [22]. A large-scale
considered direct shear box with the dimensions of (305 mm length ×
in this analysis.
305 mm width × 140 mm depth) was modeled using FLAC3D. The upper part of the box
2. Validation of the Numerical Model
is fixed whereas the lower part is movable to simulate the behavior of the shear box as in
Theexperiment.
the lab model has beenThevalidated basedison
shear plane an experimental
located at 76 mmstudy fromconducted
the bottom byand
Mohapa-
the used soi
tra et al. [22]. A large-scale direct shear box with the dimensions of (305 mm length × 305
was dense sand. A 50 mm ordinary and geosynthetic encased granular column has been
mm width × 140 mm depth) was modeled using FLAC3D . The upper part of the box is fixed
constructed using rad-cylinder code at the center of the box, the geosynthetic encasemen
whereas the lower part is movable to simulate the behavior of the shear box as in the lab ex-
was defined
periment. as a plane
The shear cylinder withat176mm
is located mmthickness. Strain
from the bottom softening
and Mohr
the used soil was−dense
Coulomb (SS
model) was used to describe the granular column and the soil. After
sand. A 50 mm ordinary and geosynthetic encased granular column has been constructed running the program
the model
using was cycled
rad-cylinder to the
code at reach theof
center equilibrium
the box, the by the self-weight.
geosynthetic Moreover,
encasement 75 kPa of the
was defined
as a cylinder
vertical with
stress was1 mm thickness.
applied on theStrain
uppersoftening
part ofMohr −Coulomb
the box and the(SS model)
model waswas used to reach
cycled
to
the equilibrium again. The applied horizontal velocity on the lower movablewas
describe the granular column and the soil. After running the program, the model part is 2 ×
cycled to reach the
10−4 mm/step. 2 ×equilibrium by theapplied
105 steps were self-weight. Moreover,
to achieve a 4075mm
kPa horizontal
of the vertical stress
movement. The
was applied on the upper part of the box and the model was cycled to reach the equilibrium
numerical model was described in further details by Mohapatra et al. [19]. Table 1 presents
again. The applied horizontal velocity on the lower movable part is 2 × 10−4 mm/step.
the material properties adopted in the analysis. The results of the experimental study were
2 × 105 steps were applied to achieve a 40 mm horizontal movement. The numerical model
consistent
was describedwithin those
furtherobtained
details by through numerical
Mohapatra analysis,
et al. [19]. Table 1aspresents
depictedtheinmaterial
Figure 1.
properties adopted in the analysis. The results of the experimental study were consistent
Tablethose
with 1. The characteristics
obtained throughofnumerical
the materials used as
analysis, [19].
depicted in Figure 1.
Parameter
Table 1. The Unit used [19].
characteristics of the materials Granular Column Sand
Strain softening Mohr- Strain softening
Model
Parameter -
Unit Granular Column Sand
Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Strain softening Strain softening
Unit
Model weight kN/m
- 3 16.2
Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
16.3
Modulus of elasticity
Unit weight MPa
kN/m 3 16.2100 16.3 10
Modulus of elasticity
Cohesion MPa
kPa 100 0 10 0
Cohesion kPa 0 0
Poisson’s
Poisson’s ratio
ratio -
- 0.3
0.3 0.3
0.3
Angle
Angle of friction
of friction Degrees
Degrees 61 61 41 41
Dilation
Dilation angle
angle Degrees
Degrees 20 20 11 11

80

70
Shear stress (kPa)

60

50

40

30

20

10 Numerical analysis (FLAC3D)

Experimentally (Mohapatra et al., 2016)
0
0 10 20 30 40

Horizontal displacement (mm)

Figure1.1.Shear
Figure Shearstress-
stress- horizontal
horizontal displacement
displacement curvecurve to validate
to validate the numerical
the numerical model [22].
model [22].
Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2023,
2023, 13,
13, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 44 of
of 16
16

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 4 of 17

3. Description
3. Description of of the
the Geometry
Geometry and and Mesh
Mesh Generation
Generation
This paper
This paper consists
consists ofof two
two parts;
parts; thus,
thus, two
two different
different models
models were
were simulated,
simulated, the
the first
first
3. Description
model
model is aa shear
is of model
shear the Geometry
model to and Mesh
to represent
represent Generationinteraction
the soil-columns
the soil-columns interaction at
at the
the shear
shear plane.
plane. Fur-
Fur-
thermore,
thermore, aa slope
This paper slopeconsists
stabilityofmodel
stability model to study
to study
two parts; thetwo
the
thus, effect
effect of inserting
of inserting
different geogrid
geogrid
models were encased
encased columns
columns
simulated, the
on
firststability
on stability
model is of the
ofathe slope.
slope.
shear model to represent the soil-columns interaction at the shear plane.
Furthermore, a slope stability model to study the effect of inserting geogrid encased
3.1. The
3.1. The First
columns First Model—Shear
Model—Shear
on stability Model
of the Model
slope.
An upper
An upper sandysandy soilsoil with
with the the dimensions
dimensions of of (7
(7 m length ×
m length × 3.85
3.85 m width ×
m width × 4.5
4.5 mm
3.1. The and
depth) Firstlower
Model—Shear
sandy soil Model
soil with the the dimensions
dimensions of of (8(8 m length ×
m length × 3.85
3.85 m width ×
m width × 4.5
4.5 mm
depth) and lower sandy with
depth)
depth) Anmesh
upperwas
mesh sandy
was soil with
created.
created. thegranular
Four
Four dimensions
granular of (7 min
columns
columns inlength × 3.85
aa square
square m width
pattern
pattern with
with ×aa4.5 m depth)
spacing
spacing SS ==
and
2.5Dlower
2.5D (centersandy
(center to soil with
to center)
center) were
werethe used
dimensions
used as seenofin
as seen in(8Figures
m length
Figures ×
22 and
and3.85 m width
3, where
3, where ×
SS is 4.5
them
is the depth)center
spacing
spacing mesh
center
was
to created.
center Four
between granular
the columnscolumns and Din a
is square
the pattern
diameter with
of
to center between the columns and D is the diameter of the granular columns. The shear the a spacing
granular S = 2.5D
columns. (center
The to
shear
center)
plane was
plane were used
was predefined as
predefined at seen in
at 4.5 Figures
4.5 mm from 2
from the and 3, where
the bottom S is
bottom elevation the
elevation to spacing center
to consider
consider the to center
the worst-case between
worst-case sce- sce-
the
nariocolumns
nario whereand
where the D is the diameter
the applied
applied force has
force hasof the horizontal
pure
pure granular
horizontal columns.
effects on
effects The
on shear
the
the shear
shearplane
plane.
plane.wasBy Bypredefined
using the
using the
at 4.5 m from
symmetry
symmetry the bottom
provided
provided by elevation
by FLAC
FLAC 3D, a to
3D half
, a half consider
of the
of the worst-case scenario
the above-mentioned
above-mentioned geometry
geometry where was
was the applied
created
created to
to
force has pure
minimize
minimize the horizontal
the time
time required
required effects
for on the shear
for solutions.
solutions. Theplane.
The By using
extensions
extensions of the
of therequired
the symmetry
required soilprovided
soil were made
were by
made
FLAC 3D , a half of the above-mentioned geometry was created to minimize the time required
by using
by using aa brick
brick element.
element. For For the
the geogrids—6336
geogrids—6336 nodes—havenodes—have been been created
created in in addition
addition to to
for solutions.
50535 nodes
nodes for The
for theextensions
the soil
soil and
and theof the
the granularrequired
granular columns. soil were
columns. Moreover,made by
Moreover, 8736 using
8736 nodesa brick
nodes have element.
have been For
been used
used
50535
the geogrids—6336
to construct
construct nodes—have
the interface
interface between beenthecreated
sand and in addition
and to 50,535
the geogrid.
geogrid. nodes
The same for the soil in
same properties
properties and the
Table
to the between the sand the The in Table
granular columns. Moreover, 8736 nodes have been used to construct the interface between
11 were
were used
used in in the
the current
current study,
study, however,
however, different
different values
values forfor the
the angle
angle of of friction
friction and
and
the sand angle
dilation and the forgeogrid.
the column
column Thematerial
same properties
and the in Table
the sand
sand were1used;were(43,
used; used 37)inandthe (13,
and current study,
7) degrees,
degrees,
dilation angle for the material and were (43, 37) (13, 7)
however, different values for the angle of friction and dilation angle for the column material
receptively.
receptively.
and the sand were used; (43, 37) and (13, 7) degrees, receptively.

Figure2.
Figure
Figure 2.Slope
2. Slopeprotection
protectionby
protection bygranular
by granularcolumns.
granular columns.
columns.

Figure3.
Figure
Figure 3.Cross
3. Crosssection
Cross sectionfor
section forgeometry
for geometryand
geometry andmesh
and meshof
mesh ofthe
of theproblem.
the problem.
problem.
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16

3.2. Expanding the Model—Stability of a Clayey Sand Embankment over a Clayey Soil
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 A clayey sand embankment constructed over a clay is considered in the present anal- 5 of 17
ysis. The embankment is treated and reinforced with granular columns encased with ge-
ogrid. The height of the embankment was considered to be 4.0 m. The angle of the slope
of 34° (3H:2V slope). The height of clay is 4.0 m. Due to the similarity in the geometry, a
3.2. Expanding the Model—Stability of a Clayey Sand Embankment over a Clayey Soil
half embankment was analyzed to save computation time. In this study, a single row of
A clayey
granular columnssandwasembankment constructedits
analyzed to understand over a clayand
behavior is considered
effectivenessin in
the present
support-
analysis. The embankment is treated and reinforced with granular columns
ing the weight of an embankment or other structure as shown in Figure 4. The granular encased with
geogrid. The height of the embankment was considered to be 4.0 m. The angle of the slope
columns were arranged in a square pattern, with a center-to-center spacing of 2.5 times
of 34◦ (3H:2V slope). The height of clay is 4.0 m. Due to the similarity in the geometry, a
the diameter of the columns. The diameter of the columns was chosen to be 1.0 m. It is
half embankment was analyzed to save computation time. In this study, a single row of
important to carefully consider the boundary conditions when analyzing the behavior of
granular columns was analyzed to understand its behavior and effectiveness in supporting
a structure, as they can have a significant impact on the results. In this study, the boundary
the weight of an embankment or other structure as shown in Figure 4. The granular columns
conditions were chosen such that they would not significantly affect the calculated factor
were arranged in a square pattern, with a center-to-center spacing of 2.5 times the diameter
of safety (FoS) value. According to Navin [27], the boundary beyond the toe of the em-
of the columns. The diameter of the columns was chosen to be 1.0 m. It is important to
bankment should extend at least twice the height of the embankment in order to accu-
carefully consider the boundary conditions when analyzing the behavior of a structure, as
rately calculate the FoS. Therefore, in this study, the vertical boundary was placed 10 m
they can have a significant impact on the results. In this study, the boundary conditions
beyond the toe of the embankment, ensuring that the boundary condition effects on the
were chosen such that they would not significantly affect the calculated factor of safety
FoS value were minimized. To reduce the computational time and make the analysis more
(FoS) value. According to Navin [27], the boundary beyond the toe of the embankment
efficient, a bracketing
should extend at least solution
twice theapproach
height of was used. In this in
the embankment approach, if an approximate
order to accurately calculate
range
the FoS. Therefore, in this study, the vertical boundary was placed 10 m beyond the by
for the FoS value is known beforehand, then the number of trials can be reduced toe
specifying the stable and
of the embankment, unstable
ensuring thatstates at the beginning
the boundary of the
condition simulation.
effects on the FoSBy specifying
value were
aminimized.
range for theToFoS valuethe
reduce at the start of the analysis,
computational time andthe number
make of trials needed
the analysis to reacha
more efficient,
abracketing
solution can be greatly reduced, making the process more efficient. The
solution approach was used. In this approach, if an approximate range for the following
boundary
FoS valueconditions are appliedthen
is known beforehand, to the numerical
the number of models.
trials can be reduced by specifying the
(1) The
stable andbottom boundaries
unstable states at are
the fixed in all of
beginning of the
the simulation.
directions (uBy
x =specifying
0; uy = 0; uaz =range
0) ; for the
(2)
FoS It is assumed
value that
at the start ofthe
the vertical
analysis,boundaries
the numberare smooth
of trials uy = to
needed 0, reach
same aprocedure
solution can wasbe
greatly reduced, making the process more efficient. The following boundary
used by [9,20,28]. The water table was assumed to be at ground surface [20]. conditions are
applied to the numerical models.

Figure
Figure4.4.Details
Detailsofofthe
theproblem.
problem.

(1) The
Theconstitutive behavior,are
bottom boundaries or fixed
the way in of
in all which a material(u
the directions responds
x = 0; uy to external
= 0; uz = 0);loads,
of the embankment soil, foundation soil, and granular columns was modeled
(2) It is assumed that the vertical boundaries are smooth uy = 0, same procedure using was
the
Mohr—Coulomb model. This model is particularly well-suited for determining
used by [9,20,28]. The water table was assumed to be at ground surface [20]. the factor
of safety (FoS) of a slopes and embankments using the strength reduction technique. The
The constitutive behavior, or the way in which a material responds to external loads,
properties of the materials were given in Table 2, and parametric studies were performed
of the embankment soil, foundation soil, and granular columns was modeled using the
by altering the properties of the geogrid, as indicated in Table 3. To accurately represent
Mohr—Coulomb model. This model is particularly well-suited for determining the factor
of safety (FoS) of a slopes and embankments using the strength reduction technique. The
properties of the materials were given in Table 2, and parametric studies were performed
by altering the properties of the geogrid, as indicated in Table 3. To accurately represent
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 6 of 17

the granular columns and the surrounding soft soil, both a cylindrical mesh and radially
graded meshes were utilized in the modeling process.

Table 2. Properties of the used materials in the FoS analysis.

Parameter Unit Granular Column [29] Clayey Sand [30] Clay [15]
Model - Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Unit weight kN/m3 20 18 17
Cohesion kPa 1 5 20
Angle of friction Degrees 40 35 5
Angle of dilation Degrees 10 5 0
Modulus of elasticity MPa 50 15 5
Poisson’s ratio - 0.3 0.3 0.45

Table 3. Geogrid properties used for numerical analysis.

No. Elastic Modulus Unit Poisson’s Ratio Reference

E1 0.120 GPa 0.33 * [31]
E2 2.625 GPa 0.33 * [32]
E3 6.552 GPa 0.33 * [32]
* Poisson’s ratio has been assumed.

4. Results and Discussion

The effect of various parameters on the factor of safety (FoS) value against slope
failure of embankments constructed from clayey sand soil over clayey layer treated with
granular columns is analyzed. The variables taken into account in the current analysis are
area replacement ratio, angle of the embankment slope and the modulus of elasticity of
the geogrid.

4.1. Soil-Column Interaction at the Slip-Surface

The effect of geogrid modulus on shear behavior-soil movement was studied using the
finite differences method for different lengths of ordinary and encased granular columns
(L/D = 8, 10 and end bearing); here L = the length of the column and D represents
the diameter of the column. Figures 5–7 explain the variations of the normalized shear
stress (which is the shear stress after improvement divided by the shear stress of the
soil (τimp /τsoil )), with the normalized soil movement ((δ/D) where δ is the lateral soil
movement) behavior of sand improved with ordinary granular columns (OGC) and geogrid
encased granular columns (GECs). Different values of the modulus of elasticity have been
used in the analysis as shown in Table 3. It concluded that increasing the modulus of
elasticity of geogrid contributes to increasing the overall resistance of the soil against lateral
movement easpecaiily at the shear plane as shown in Figures 5a, 6a and 7a, the reason
behind that is the overall stiffness of the granular columns was increased [21,22,33]. The use
of geogrid encased columns can also improve the load distribution in the soil, which can
lead to a reduction in the shear stress on soil particles [33,34]. It was noticed that the largest
effect of geogrid occurred on end bearing geogrid encased granular columns. The values
of shear strength were increased by (17.7)%. Furthermore, it was found that the geogrid
has a positive effect on the value of the lateral displacement of the column. Increasing the
modulus of elasticity of the geogrid led to an increase in the overall resistance to lateral
diplacement as shown in Figures 5b, 6b and 7b.
13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 16
13, x FORAppl.
PEERSci.
REVIEW
2023, 13, 2448 7 of 16 7 of 17

(a)
(a) (b) (b)
Figure 5.
Figure 5. Soil—column
Soil—column interaction
interaction atatthe shear
the shearplane. (a)(a)
plane. Normalized
Normalizedheight vs. normalized
height lateral
vs. normalized
Figure 5. Soil—column interaction at the shear plane. (a) Normalized height vs. lateral
normalized lateral
displacement. (b) Normalized
displacement. (b) Normalized shear
shearstrength vs. normalized
strength vs.shear
normalized soil movement in end bearing columns.
displacement. (b) Normalized strength soil movementsoil
vs. normalized in end bearing
movement in columns.
end bearing columns.

(a) (b)
(a)
Figure 6. Soil—column interaction (b)
at the shear plane. (a) Normalized height vs. normalized lateral dis-
Figure 6. Soil—column interaction at the shear plane. (a) Normalized height vs. normalized lateral
placement.
Figure (b) Normalized
6. Soil—column shear strength
interaction thevs. normalized soilNormalized
movement in embedment ratio L/Dlateral
= 10.
displacement. (b)atNormalized
shear plane. (a)
shear strength height
vs. normalized soilvs. normalized
movement in embedmentdis-
ratio L/D = 10.
placement. (b) Normalized shear strength vs. normalized soil movement in embedment ratio L/D = 10.
4.2. Effect of Area Replacement Ratio (Ar %) of the Granular Columns on the Factor of Safety (FoS)

The current analysis examined the impact of varying the diameter of granular columns
on the factor of safety (FoS). Seven diameters (50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 100 cm) were selected,
representing 5.815–11.63% area replacement ratio. Results showed that using low elastic
modulus geogrid (E = 0.120 GPa) resulted in an average 13% increase in FoS across all
embankment angles (as seen in Figure 8a). Using medium strength elastic modulus ge-
ogrid (E = 2.625 GPa) led to a 20% increase in FoS compared to the low elastic modulus
geogrid (Figure 8b). Additionally, the contribution of encasement to FoS values decreased
as the embankment angle increased (Figure 8c). Using high modulus geogrid had a very
minor effect on FoS compared to medium strength elastic modulus. The findings sug-
gest that increasing the area replacement ratio improves slope stability by increasing the
shear resistance and dissipating energy generated by soil movement. This is achieved

(a) (b)

(a) (b)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 8 of 17

by increasing the sheared area, which reduces the distribution of shear forces and strains
along the failure line [20,25,35]. Fattah and Majeed [11] found that increasing the area
(a)
replacement ratio significantly improved the bearing capacity of encased (b) floating stone
columns, especially when the area replacement ratio exceeded 0.25. They also observed
Figure
that6.using
Soil—column interaction
a geogrid at the
encasement shear plane.reduced
significantly (a) Normalized height vs. normalized
lateral displacement compared lateral
to dis-
placement. (b) Normalized shear
using ordinary stone columns. strength vs. normalized soil movement in embedment ratio L/D = 10.

(a) (b)

Figure 7. Soil—column interaction at the shear plane. (a) Normalized height vs. normalized lateral
displacement. (b) Normalized shear strength vs. normalized soil movement in embedment ratio L/D = 8.

4.3. The Relationship between Stability Number (m) and Factor of Safety (FoS)
The stability number is a dimensionless parameter that is used to evaluate the stability
of an embankment against failure”. The value of the stability number was calculated
as follows
c
m=
γ×H
where (c) is the cohesion of the embankment soil, (γ) is the unit weight of the soil and (H)
is the height of the slope.
The variation of the factor of safety (FoS) of a clayey sand embankment with the
stability number (m) for various geogrid elastic moduli (E) at various values of the slope
angle (β) is addressed in Figure 9a–c. It has been observed that the factor of safety (FoS)
tends to rise linearly as the stability number (m) increases. Furthermore, it is discovered
that the FoS is inversely proportional to the slope angle (β), which means that a rise in the
slope angle causes a fall in the FoS [36].

4.4. Effect of Material’s Stiffness Ratio on the Factor of Safety (FoS)

The stiffness ratio represents the different characteristics between the stiffness of the
geogrid with respect to the stiffness of the materials. In this study, the elastic modulus
of embankment (Em ), clay (Ec ) and the granular columns (Ecol ) was kept constant, and
the stiffness of the geogrid (Eg ) was changed (Table 3) to represent the stiffness ratio
corresponding to each one of them as follows, Eg /Em , Eg /Ec , and Eg /Ecol , respectively.
Figures 10–12 show that at the relatively high angle of embankment slope (β). It was
observed that factor of safety (FoS) values increases with an increase in the stiffness ratio
of the geogrid with respect to the other materials (i.e., embankment, clay, and column).
On the other hand, very minor effect for the area replacement ratio (Ar %) was recorded
on the factor of safety in the high stiffness values. At low angle of embankment slope
(β) values, the stiffness ratio values have led to positive effects on the stability of the
 led to a 20% increase in FoS compared to the low elastic modulus geogrid (Figure 8b). Addi-
tionally, the contribution of encasement to FoS values decreased as the embankment angle
increased (Figure 8c). Using high modulus geogrid had a very minor effect on FoS compared
to medium strength elastic modulus. The findings suggest that increasing the area replace-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 ment ratio improves slope stability by increasing the shear resistance and dissipating 9 of 17
energy
generated by soil movement. This is achieved by increasing the sheared area, which reduces
the distribution of shear forces and strains along the failure line [20,25,35]. Fattah and Majeed
embankment.
[11] The amount
found that increasing theofarea
increase (as comparing
replacement to high β values)
ratio significantly was found
improved to be ca-
the bearing
higher. The reason behind this is that the geogrid increases the length of the slip
pacity of encased floating stone columns, especially when the area replacement ratio exceededsurface
and increases the friction along the shear plane. Furthermore, in high stiffness values, the
0.25. They also observed that using a geogrid encasement significantly reduced lateral dis-
geogrid granular columns GECs contribute to delay the plastic (yielding behavior) in the
placement
soil [8] bycompared
mobilizingtohigher
usingforces
ordinary stone [22].
(stresses) columns.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 8. Effect of area replacement ratio (Ar %) on factor of safety using (a) E1 of geogrid = 0.12 GPa
(b) E2 of geogrid = 2.625 and (c) E3 of geogrid = 6.552 GPa.

4.5. Failure Mode of the Geogrid Encased Granular Columns

As reported in Figure 13, the failure mode identified in the slope prior to reinforcement
was deep-seated slope failure. Inserting of ordinary and geogrid encased granular columns
contributed to changing the type of failure from deep-seated failure to shallow slope failure
with higher factor of safety. Further analysis revealed that the OGCs reinforcing the slope
failed due to bending, while the OGCs reinforcing the body of the embankment failed as
a result of bulging [9,20,23], as shown in Figure 14. On the other hand, GECs (geogrid
encased columns) failed due to bending failure. Increasing the stiffness of the geogrid
decreases the bending failure of the column. Granular columns at the embankment’s
centerline experienced substantially lower lateral movement compared to those supporting
 as follows
c
m
γ×H
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 where (c) is the cohesion of the embankment soil, γ is the unit weight of the 10 ofsoil
17 and
(H) is the height of the slope.
The variation of the factor of safety (FoS) of a clayey sand embankment with the sta-
the inclined
bility numberportion
(m) forof various
the embankment
geogrid(the toe). moduli
elastic More pronounced lateralvalues
(E) at various displacements
of the slope
were seen in the GECs on the slope than in the embankment’s body. The column—soil
angle (β) is addressed in Figure 9a–c. It has been observed that the factor of safety (FoS)
system’s overall stiffness tends to rise due to the confinement effect given by the geogrid
tends to rise linearly as the stability number (m) increases. Furthermore, it is discovered
encasement. Thus, the safety of the slopes generally increases. The surface settlement of the
that the FoS is inversely proportional to the slope angle (β), which means that a rise in the
embankment was found to be improved during using geogrid encased granular columns
slope anglein
as shown causes
Figurea15.
fall in the FoS [36].

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 9. The relationship between stability number and factor of safety (a) E1 of geogrid = 0.12 GPa
Figure 9. The relationship between stability number and factor of safety (a) E1 of geogrid = 0.12 GPa
(b) E2 of geogrid = 2.625 GPa and (c) E3 of geogrid = 6.552 GPa.
(b) E2 of geogrid = 2.625 GPa and (c) E3 of geogrid = 6.552 GPa.
 on the factor of safety in the high stiffness values. At low angle of embankment slope (β)
values, the stiffness ratio values have led to positive effects on the stability of the embank-
ment. The amount of increase (as comparing to high β values) was found to be higher.
The reason behind this is that the geogrid increases the length of the slip surface and in-
creases the friction along the shear plane. Furthermore, in high stiffness values, the ge-
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 11 of 17
ogrid granular columns GECs contribute to delay the plastic (yielding behavior) in the soil
[8] by mobilizing higher forces (stresses) [22].

(a) (b)

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 16

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 10. Effect of Egeogrid/Eembankment (Eg/Eem) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34, (c) β =
Figure 10. Effect of E /Eembankment (Eg /Eem ) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34,
32 (d) β = 30 and (e) βgeogrid
= 28.
(c) β = 32 (d) β = 30 and (e) β = 28.
 (e)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 12 of 17
Figure 10. Effect of Egeogrid/Eembankment (Eg/Eem) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34, (c) β =
32 (d) β = 30 and (e) β = 28.

(a) (b)

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 16

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 11. Effect of Egeogrid/Eclay (Eg/Ec) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34, (c) β = 32 (d) β
Figure 11. Effect of Egeogrid /Eclay (Eg /Ec ) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34, (c) β = 32
= 30 and (e) β = 28.
(d) β = 30 and (e) β = 28.
 (e)
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 13 of 17
Figure 11. Effect of Egeogrid/Eclay (Eg/Ec) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34, (c) β = 32 (d) β
= 30 and (e) β = 28.

(a) (b)

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 16

(c) (d)

(e)
Figure 12. Effect of Egeogrid/Ecolumn (Eg/Ecol) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34, (c) β = 32
Figure 12. Effect of Egeogrid /Ecolumn (Eg /Ecol ) stiffness ratio on (FoS) for (a) β = 36, (b) β = 34,
(d) β = 30 and (e) β = 28.
(c) β = 32 (d) β = 30 and (e) β = 28.
4.5. Failure Mode of the Geogrid Encased Granular Columns
As reported in Figure 13, the failure mode identified in the slope prior to reinforce-
ment was deep-seated slope failure. Inserting of ordinary and geogrid encased granular
columns contributed to changing the type of failure from deep-seated failure to shallow
slope failure with higher factor of safety. Further analysis revealed that the OGCs rein-
forcing the slope failed due to bending, while the OGCs reinforcing the body of the em-
bankment failed as a result of bulging [9,20,23], as shown in Figure 14. On the other hand,
GECs (geogrid encased columns) failed due to bending failure. Increasing the stiffness of

Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448
ment’s centerline experienced substantially lower lateral movement compared to those
supporting the inclined portion of the embankment (the toe). More pronounced lateral
displacements were seen in the GECs on the slope than in the embankment’s body. The
column—soil system’s overall stiffness tends to rise due to the confinement effect given
by the geogrid encasement. Thus, the safety of the slopes generally increases. The surface
settlement of the embankment was found to be improved during using geogrid encased 14 of 17
granular columns as shown in Figure 15.

Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2023,
2023, 13,
13, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 14
14 of
of 16
16
Figure 13.
Figure The failure
13. The failure mode
mode in
in the
the slope
slope of
of the
the embankment
embankment before
before the
the reinforcement
reinforcement with
with geogrid
geogrid
encased columns.
encased columns.

Figure 14. Failure

Figure 14. Failure modes
modes of
of ordinary
ordinary granular
granularcolumns.
columns.

Figure
Figure 15.
15. Bending
Bending failure
failure mode
mode in
in the
the geogrid
geogrid encased
encased columns.
columns.
Figure 15. Bending failure mode in the geogrid encased columns.

5.
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
The
The current
currentstudy
current studyis
study isisaa three-dimensional
athree-dimensional
three-dimensional finite-difference
finite-difference
finite-differenceanalysis
analysis on
on the
analysis theoneffect
the of
effect of insert-
insert-
effect of
ing GECs
ing GECsGECs
inserting on the
on theonshear
shear behavior
the behavior
shear behavior of the soil,
of the soil, with
with
of the a particular
a particular
soil, emphasis
emphasis
with a particular on the
on the use
emphasis use of
on of GECs
theGECs
use of to
to
improve
improve
GECs stability
stability under
to improve under
stabilitydifferent
underscenarios.
different scenarios. through
through changes
different scenarios. changes
through in various
various factors
inchanges factors such
in various as
as the
suchfactors the
area
area replacement
replacement ratio
ratio of
of granular
granular columns,
columns, the
the angle
angle of
of the
the embankment
embankment slope, slope, and
and different
different
elastic
elastic moduli
moduli ofof geogrid.
geogrid. The The analyses
analyses were
were conducted
conducted on on aa clayey
clayey sand
sand embankment
embankment over over aa
clayey
clayey layer.
layer. The
The results
results indicate
indicate that that increasing
increasing the
the modulus
modulus of of elasticity
elasticity of
of the
the geogrid
geogrid leads
leads
to
to an increase in normalized shear strength and a decrease in lateral displacement in the col-
an increase in normalized shear strength and a decrease in lateral displacement in the col-
umn.
umn. Additionally,
Additionally, the the factor
factor of of safety
safety increases
increases as
as the
the stiffness
stiffness ratio
ratio between
between the the geogrid
geogrid and and
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 15 of 17

such as the area replacement ratio of granular columns, the angle of the embankment
slope, and different elastic moduli of geogrid. The analyses were conducted on a clayey
sand embankment over a clayey layer. The results indicate that increasing the modulus of
elasticity of the geogrid leads to an increase in normalized shear strength and a decrease
in lateral displacement in the column. Additionally, the factor of safety increases as the
stiffness ratio between the geogrid and the materials increases. However, the factor of
safety decreases as the angle of the embankment slope increases. The following points can
be concluded:
• Using geogrid encased granular columns (GECs) can significantly increase the shear
strength along the failure plane. The geogrid acts as a reinforcement material that
helps to distribute more load and prevent failure.
• The angle of the embankment plays a critical role in determining the failure mode of
the slope. As the angle decreases, the failure mode shifts from deep seated, to face
failure. This is due to the fact that at lower angles, the soil is less likely to slide.
• The modulus of elasticity of the geogrid can also impact the performance of GECs. At
very high modulus of elasticity, the effect of area replacement ratio on the value of
factor of safety, is minimal.
• As the angle of the embankment slope decreases, the performance of GECs improves.
• The margin of safety increases as the stability number (m) increases. A higher stability
number indicates a more stable slope.
• It is generally not recommended to use GECs for slope protection if the angle of the
slope is more than 34 degrees with the horizontal. This is because at steeper angles the
soil is more likely to move, and GECs is not effective in preventing failure.
• It was found that the most significant factors affecting the factor of safety are the angle
of the slope of the embankment, the modulus of elasticity of the geogrid, the area
replacement ratio, and the stability number respectively. These factors were found to
have the greatest impact on the overall safety and stability of the embankment.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, O.H.J. and M.T.; methodology, O.H.J. and M.T.; software,
O.H.J.; validation, O.H.J.; formal analysis, O.H.J.; investigation, O.H.J. and M.T.; resources, O.H.J. and
M.T.; data curation, O.H.J.; writing—original draft preparation, O.H.J.; writing—review and editing,
O.H.J. and M.T.; visualization, O.H.J.; supervision M.T.; project administration, M.T. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Poulos, H.G.; Chen, L.T.; Hull, T.S. Model tests on single piles subjected to Lateral soil movement. Soils Found 1995, 35, 85–92.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Han, J.; Oztoprak, S.; Parsons, R.L.; Huang, J. Numerical analysis of foundation columns to support widening of embankments.
Comput. Geotech. 2007, 34, 435–448. [CrossRef]
3. Li, J.; Tham, L.G.; Junaideen, S.M.; Yue, Z.Q.; Lee, C.F. Loose Fill Slope Stabilization with Soil Nails: Full-Scale Test. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2008, 134, 277–288. [CrossRef]
4. Low, B.K.; Zhang, J.; Tang, W.H. Efficient system reliability analysis illustrated for a retaining wall and a soil slope. Comput.
Geotech. 2011, 38, 196–204. [CrossRef]
5. Zhang, G.; Cao, J.; Wang, L. Centrifuge model tests of deformation and failure of nailing-reinforced slope under vertical surface
loading conditions. Soils Found 2013, 53, 117–129. [CrossRef]
6. Ye, G.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, Z. Numerical study on load transfer effect of Stiffened Deep Mixed column-supported embankment over
soft soil. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 2017, 21, 703–714. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 16 of 17

7. Galli, A.; Salice, M.; Becci, B. Analytical Solutions for Ultimate Stabilizing Action of Anchored Piles in Cohesive Soil Layers. Int. J.
Geomech. 2022, 22, 1–11. [CrossRef]
8. Raee, E.; Hataf, N.; Barkhordari, K.; Ghahramani, A. The Effect of Rigidity of Reinforced Stone Columns on Bearing Capacity of
Strip Footings on the Stabilized Slopes. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2019, 17, 673–685. [CrossRef]
9. Abusharar, S.W.; Han, J. Two-dimensional deep-seated slope stability analysis of embankments over stone column-improved soft
clay. Eng. Geol. 2011, 120, 103–110. [CrossRef]
10. Fattah, M.Y.; Majeed, Q.G. Finite Element Analysis of Geogrid Encased Stone Columns. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2012, 30, 713–726.
[CrossRef]
11. Mohanty, P.; Samanta, M. Experimental and Numerical Studies on Response of the Stone Column in Layered Soil. Int. J. Geosynth.
Ground Eng. 2015, 1, 1–14. [CrossRef]
12. Fattah, M.Y.; Zabar, B.S.; Hassan, H.A. Experimental Analysis of Embankment on Ordinary and Encased Stone Columns. Int. J.
Geomech. 2016, 16, 1–13. [CrossRef]
13. Fattah, M.Y.; Al-Neami, M.A.; Shamel Al-Suhaily, A. Estimation of bearing capacity of floating group of stone columns. Eng. Sci.
Technol. Int. J. 2017, 20, 1166–1172. [CrossRef]
14. Grizi, A.; Al-Ani, W.; Wanatowski, D. Numerical Analysis of the Settlement Behavior of Soft Soil Improved with Stone Columns.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5293. [CrossRef]
15. Vekli, M.; Aytekin, M.; Banu İkizler, S.; Çalik, Ü. Experimental and numerical investigation of slope stabilization by stone columns.
Nat. Hazards 2012, 64, 797–820. [CrossRef]
16. Nasiri, M.; Hajiazizi, M. An experimental and numerical investigation of reinforced slope using geotextile encased stone column.
Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 1–10. [CrossRef]
17. Hajiazizi, M.; Nasiri, M. Experimental and numerical study of earth slope reinforcement using ordinary and rigid stone columns.
Int. J. Min. Geo-Eng. 2018, 52, 23–30. [CrossRef]
18. Hajiazizi, M.; Nasiri, M. Earth Slopes Reinforced by Stone Column and Geotextile. Geotech. Eng. 2019, 46, 5828.
19. Mohapatra, S.R.; Rajagopal, K.; Sharma, J. 3-Dimensional numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased granular columns. Geotext.
Geomembr. 2017, 45, 131–141. [CrossRef]
20. Mohapatra, S.R.; Rajagopal, K. Undrained stability analysis of embankments supported on geosynthetic encased granular
columns. Geosynth. Int. 2017, 24, 465–479. [CrossRef]
21. Murugesan, S.; Rajagopal, K. Shear load tests on stone columns with and without geosynthetic encasement. Geotech. Test. J. 2009,
32, 76–85.
22. Mohapatra, S.R.; Rajagopal, K.; Sharma, J. Direct shear tests on geosynthetic-encased granular columns. Geotext. Geomembr. 2016,
44, 396–405. [CrossRef]
23. Cengiz, C.; Kilic, I.E.; Guler, E. On the shear failure mode of granular column embedded unit cells subjected to static and cyclic
shear loads. Geotext. Geomembr. 2019, 47, 193–202. [CrossRef]
24. Naeini, S.A.; Gholampoor, N. Effect of Geotextile Encasement on the Shear Strength Behavior of Stone Column-Treated Wet Clays.
Indian Geotech. J. 2019, 49, 292–303. [CrossRef]
25. Hosseinpour, I.; Ghorbani, A.; Zarei, J.; Ranjan Mohapatra, S. Experimental study on the behaviour of granular column-treated
soft clay under shear loading. Geomech. Geoengin. 2022, 1–12. [CrossRef]
26. Chen, J.F.; Li, L.Y.; Xue, J.F.; Feng, S.Z. Failure mechanism of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft soils under embankment.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2015, 43, 424–431. [CrossRef]
27. Navin, M.P. Stability of Embankments Founded on Soft Soil Improved with Deep-Mixing-Method Columns. Psychol. Sci. 2005,
25, 1682–1690.
28. Zheng, G.; Yu, X.; Zhou, H.; Wang, S.; Zhao, J.; He, X.; Yang, X. Stability analysis of stone column-supported and geosynthetic-
reinforced embankments on soft ground. Geotext. Geomembr. 2020, 48, 349–356. [CrossRef]
29. Zahmatkesh, A.; Choobbasti, A.J. Settlement evaluation of soft clay reinforced with stone columns using the equivalent secant
modulus. Arab. J. Geosci. 2012, 5, 103–109. [CrossRef]
30. Bergado, D.T.; Alfaro, M.C.; Chai, J.C.; Balasubramaniam, A.S.; Shivashankar, R. Interaction behaviour of steel grid reinforcements
in a clayey sand. Geotechnique 1993, 43, 589–603. [CrossRef]
31. Hussein, M.G.; Meguid, M.A. A three-dimensional finite element approach for modeling biaxial geogrid with application to
geogrid-reinforced soils. Geotext. Geomembr. 2016, 44, 295–307. [CrossRef]
32. Dong, Y.L.; Han, J.; Bai, X.H. Numerical analysis of tensile behavior of geogrids with rectangular and triangular apertures. Geotext.
Geomembr. 2011, 29, 83–91. [CrossRef]
33. Nazariafshar, J.; Aslani, M. Effect of Stress Concentration Ratio on Shear Strength of Soft Soils Improved with Stone Columns.
Iran. J. Sci. Technol.—Trans Civ. Eng. 2020, 45, 315–334. [CrossRef]
34. Fattah, M.Y.; Shlash, K.T.; Al-Waily, M.J. Experimental evaluation of stress concentration ratio of model stone columns strength-
ened by additives. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2013, 13, 79–98. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2448 17 of 17

35. Jiang, Y.; Han, J.; Zheng, G. Numerical analysis of consolidation of soft soils fully-penetrated by deep-mixed columns. KSCE J.
Civ. Eng. 2013, 17, 96–105. [CrossRef]
36. Abdalla, J.A.; Attom, M.F.; Hawileh, R. Prediction of minimum factor of safety against slope failure in clayey soils using artificial
neural network. Environ. Earth Sci. 2015, 73, 5463–5477. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.