Soils and Rocks

www.soilsandrocks.com

ISSN 1980-9743
An International Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ISSN-e 2675-5475

Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between

numerical and experimental results
Nima Rostami Alkhorshid1# , Gregório Luís Silva Araújo2 ,
Ennio Marques Palmeira2  Article

Keywords Abstract
Geosynthetic The use of granular column is one of the ground improvement methods used for soft soils.
Embankment This method improves the foundation soils mechanical properties by displacing the soft
Granular column soil with the compacted granular columns. The columns have high permeability that can
Soft soil accelerate the excess pore water pressure produced in soft soils and increase the undrained
Finite element method shear strength. When it comes to very soft soils, the use of granular columns is not of
Laboratory test interest since these soils present no significant confinement to the columns. Here comes the
encased columns that receive the confinement from the encasement materials. In this study,
the influence of the column installation method on the surrounding soil and the encasement
effect on the granular column performance were investigated using numerical analyses and
experimental tests. The results show that numerical simulations can reasonably predict the
behavior of both the encased column and the surrounding soil.

1. Introduction The influence of encasement on the granular column

performance was appraised in various experimental studies.
Construction on soft soils is one of the most significant In these studies, partial and full encasement of the granular
challenges for geotechnical engineers. One of the solutions is the columns were investigated. The results showed that the
use of granular columns to improve the composite foundation encasement could increase the bearing capacity and reduce the
soil overall shear strength. The performance of granular settlement of the column (Yoo & Lee, 2012; Ali et al., 2012;
columns is highly dependent on the confinement provided Xue et al., 2019; Alkhorshid, 2017; Zhang et al., 2020; Cengiz
by the surrounding soil. This technique is not recommended & Guler, 2020; Chen et al., 2020; Alkhorshid et al., 2020).
in very soft soils (Su < 15 kPa), since these soils present low The Finite Element Method (FEM) is a powerful tool to
shear strength and high compressibility. In this context, the investigate geotechnical problems and can be calibrated using
lack of confinement around the column can be overcome
laboratory and field data and, consequently, be utilized for
using geosynthetic encasement. In recent years, many projects
large-scale projects (Alkhorshid, 2012; Keykhosropur et al.,
used geosynthetic encased columns to stabilize the soft soil
2012; Castro & Sagaseta, 2013; Alkhorshid et al., 2014;
foundation (De Mello et al., 2008; Araujo et al., 2009; Gniel
Mohapatra et al., 2017; Nagula et al., 2018, Alkhorshid et al.,
& Bouazza, 2009; Alexiew & Raithel, 2015; Xue et al., 2019;
Chen et al., 2020). Encased granular columns act like semi- 2021). Despite various studies that have been done to investigate
rigid piles that transfer the loads to the soil layers at specific encased granular columns, the current knowledge on their
depths capable of bearing them. Moreover, they function like performance still needs improvement. In this study, the
vertical drains and provide radial drainage to the soft soils displacement installation method’s effect on the surrounding
and accelerate the consolidation process. Besides providing soil and the encasement influence on the granular column
lateral confinement to the column, geotextiles protect them behavior were evaluated using laboratory tests and numerical
from the clogging of the granular infill material (Castro & analyzes. Laboratory tests were analyzed using PLAXIS
Sagaseta, 2011; Zhang et al., 2012; Pulko & Logar, 2017; 3D and 2D to evaluate the numerical analysis capability in
Li et al., 2020; Chen et al., 2020). predicting soft soil and column behavior.

#
Corresponding author. E-mail address: nimara@unifei.edu.br
1
Universidade Federal de Itajubá, Institute of Integrated Engineering, Itabira, MG, Brasil.
2
Universidade de Brasília, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Brasília, DF, Brasil.
Submitted on July 9, 2021; Final Acceptance on October 26, 2021; Discussion open until February 28, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.28927/SR.2021.073121
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021) 1

 Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between numerical and experimental results

2. Model test 2.3 Boundary conditions and numerical modeling

To simulate the model tests in PLAXIS 2D and 3D

2.1 Test setup (Figure 3), roller and pinned supports were applied to the
lateral and base boundaries, respectively. Thus, the soft
The test tank, with dimensions 1.6 m × 1.6 m × 1.2 soil was able to displace vertically at the tank sides, but
m (Figure 1), was covered internally by lubricated plastic horizontal and vertical displacements were restrained at
sheets to make it impermeable before placing the soft soil the base. Undrained conditions were adopted for the lateral
inside the tank and reduce friction along the internal faces and base boundaries to avoid water flow, since the tank was
of the tank. A scale factor (λ = prototype diameter/model internally covered with plastic sheets.
diameter) of 4 (Alkhorshid et al., 2019) was used to reach The Soft Soil model is an appropriate model for normally
the desired soil undrained shear strength (Su < 5 kPa), column consolidated clay, which was the case in this study. The Mohr-
diameter (dc = 0.15 m) and geotextile tensile stiffness (J < 125 Coulomb model was adopted to simulate sand, gravel and
kN/m) for laboratory modeling. The soft soil was allowed to recycled construction and demolition waste (RCDW – composed
consolidate under self-weight before the column installation. of broken bricks, concrete, and gravel) used as column infill
Four piezometers were installed in the soft soil to monitor the materials (Khabbazian et al., 2010; Keykhosropur et al., 2012;
effects of column installation on the soil pore water pressures Alkhorshid, 2012; Almeida et al., 2013; Alkhorshid et al.,
during the tests, as shown in Figure 1. 2014, 2018). The properties of materials used in the numerical
simulations, obtained from laboratory tests and back analysis,
2.2 Installation method are given in Table 1 (Alkhorshid, 2017; Alkhorshid et al.,
2019). The model geotextile encasement with the desired
The displacement method was adopted to install the diameter (dc = 0.15 m) and tensile stiffness (J < 125 kN/m)
column. The encased column was prepared outside of the was not commercially available. Therefore, three types of
test tank using vibration to reach a target relative density geotextile encasements, G1 (J = 120 kN/m), G2 (J = 107
of 85%. The column infill was placed and vibrated inside a kN/m) and G3 (J = 53.4 kN/m), were used in this study to
closed-tip (by a non-woven geotextile) geotextile encasement account for the scale factor (λ). Seam was used along the
in layers 20 cm thick. Then, the column was placed inside column length, which made it an anisotropic material, with
a PVC pipe closed at the tip. A wooden casing (Figure 2) different tensile stiffness along vertical and circumferential
was used to keep the column perpendicular to the tank base directions. Consequently, the geotextile encasements were
during installation. By driving the column inside the soft simulated using elastic material with two different values
soil, the surrounding soil displaces laterally and influences of tensile stiffness in these directions (Table 2). Interface
the soil mechanical and physical properties. elements were applied to simulate the interactions between

Figure 1. Schematic view of the equipment.

2 Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021)

 Alkhorshid et al.

the geotextile encasement and the adjacent materials (soft the soil to enable lateral prescribed displacement (equal to
soil and column infill), and the strength reduction factor the column radius, 0.075 m). Actually, the column is driven
(Rint – see Table 1) was assigned to specify these interactions. into the soil, and during penetration the soil is displaced
An axisymmetric model (6-noded elements) in PLAXIS laterally. However, in this numerical analysis, the cavity
2D was analyzed using consolidation analysis to evaluate the approach (Castro & Karstunen, 2010) was required to
installation effects (excess pore water pressure, undrained apply lateral displacements. Results of laboratory column
shear strength and soil heave) on the surrounding soil. A bearing capacity tests were back analyzed using PLAXIS
cylindrical cavity with a radius of 0.02 m was applied to 3D (Alkhorshid, 2017; Alkhorshid et al., 2019). Hence, the
prescribed settlements and their corresponding loads were
compared to the laboratory results.

3. Numerical and model tests results

3.1 Load-settlement curves

The results obtained from the laboratory tests (Figure 4a)

show conventional (uncased) column inability to bear significant
loads. The differences between the load capacities carried
by the three different columns (sand, gravel, and RCDW)
are negligible, which was predictable since these columns
received no significant confinement from the surrounding soft
soil. The numerical results are in satisfactory agreement with
those from the tests. The numerical prediction for RCDW
compared better with the test results.
Figures 4b and 4c show the importance of the geotextile
encasement in improving the column bearing capacity and
show that the numerical results compare well with those
from the tests. Still, the numerical results obtained for G3
(Figure 4b) show some differences as the load increases,
leading to an overestimation of 8.5% at the end of the test.
Figure 4c shows that the numerical results for G2 do not
perfectly fit those from the tests at the early stages of the
test. Thus, the numerical predictions underestimated the load
Figure 2. Installation of the column using a wooden casing. values by as much as 10% in these stages.

Figure 3. Numerical simulations: (a) axisymmetric model; (b) three-dimensional model.

Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021) 3

 Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between numerical and experimental results

Table 1. Material parameters used in FEM simulations.

Soft clay Sand column Gravel column RCDW column
Material Properties Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Soft Soil (SS)
(MC) (MC) (MC)

Saturated unit weight,

(
γ sat kN / m3 ) 17 20 20 19

Effective Young’s modulus, E ′ ( kPa )

- 80000 80000 35000

Effective friction angle, φ ′(o ) 25 40.5 43 42

o 0 10 12 10
Dilatancy angle, Ψ ( )
Effective cohesion, c ′ ( kPa ) 3 0.1 0.1 0.1
Effective Poisson’s ratio, ν ′ 0.15 0.3 0.3 0.3
Modified compression index, λ* 0.2 - - -
Modified swelling index, κ* 0.12 - - -
Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K 0 0.57 0.35 0.32 0.33
Hydraulic conductivity in x direction, Kx 1.39 × 10-3 7 7 7
(m/day)
Hydraulic conductivity in y direction, Ky 1.39 × 10-3 7 7 7
(m/day)
Hydraulic conductivity in z direction, Kz 1.39 × 10-3 7 7 7
(m/day)
Interface coefficient (Rint) 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.9

Table 2. Geotextile encasement parameters used in FEM simulation.

Seam (circumferential direction) No seam (vertical direction)
Properties Maximum tensile strength of seam
Tensile stiffness at 5% strain (kN/m) Tensile stiffness (kN/m)
(kN/m)
G1 30 120 950
G2 16 107 366
G3 8 53.4 160

The encased RCDW numerical prediction (Figure 4d) 1.5 to 2 hours. P3 and P4 show better comparisons between
was the least accurate regarding the results obtained in the predicted and observed results than P1 and P2. During the
tests. The predicted variation of settlement with load is quite loading stages, small values of excess pore water pressure
linear, whereas the experimental variation is a curve, resulting were obtained by the piezometers. Piezometer P1, located
in a difference of 26% at the final loading stage for G3. The at the bottom, close to the column, showed higher values of
RCDW grains were broken bricks, concrete, and gravel that excess pore water pressure, as shown in Figure 6.
may significantly influence the column mechanical properties.
3.3 Soft soil undrained shear strength
3.2 Excess pore water pressure
Predicted and observed results in Figure 7 show some
The piezometers installed show the excess pore water improvements in the undrained shear strength of the surrounding
pressure produced during the column installation. The soil after the column was installed and the excess pore pressure
column loading tests started after the excess pore pressure dissipated. The undrained shear strength (Su) in laboratory
was dissipated, which took approximately 45 hours. The tests and numerical analysis was obtained from the vane shear
numerical results compare rather well with those from the tests and principal stresses, respectively. The test results show
tests (Figure 5). The excess pore pressures reached a pick that values of Su at the depths of 20 cm, 40 cm, 60 cm, and
value during column installation and dropped down as 80 cm increased by approximately 200% at 30 mm from the
time went by for all piezometers. However, the predicted column. No increase in undrained strength was observed at 70
reductions of pore pressures are steeper, showing a difference mm from the column. Hence, the diameter of the region (ds,
of approximately 200% at 18 hours of dissipation for P1. smear zone) disturbed by the column installations was 1.8 to
When it comes to the time needed for the full dissipation, the 1.9 times the column diameter (dc). However, the numerical
difference between predicted and measured results is between analysis predicted values of ds greater than 1.9dc as the soil

4 Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021)

 Alkhorshid et al.

Figure 4. Load-settlement curves: (a) conventional columns; (b) encased gravel column; (c) encased sand column; (d) encased RCDW
column.

Figure 5. Excess pore water pressure during the column installation

(dimensions in mm). Figure 6. Excess pore water pressure during loading.

Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021) 5

 Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between numerical and experimental results

Figure 7. Changes of undrained shear strength with depth: (a) comparison between numerical and measured results and (b) numerical
results.

undrained shear strength increases when it consolidates. The underwent heave (dh), a significant difference can be noted
numerical results at 30 mm from the column depict reasonable between predicted and observed results so that the former
agreements with those from the tests. These results show that is half the latter one.
at 10 mm, the values of Su were approximately 3 times greater
than the initial values (before column installation) at the depths 3.5 Failure and deformation mechanisms
of 60 cm and 80 cm.
The loading tests were carried out to obtain the column’s
3.4 Soil heave maximum loading capacity. As shown in Figures 9a and 9b, the
column failed at a depth of 0.15 to 0.18 m (from the column
The predicted and measured results show that the column top). The load on the column top caused it to bulge, leading to
installation displaces the soil circumferentially (Figure 8), geotextile encasement failure. The numerical analyses indicated
leading to soil surface heave. These results show that the soil that the column experienced excessive bulging at the same
experienced a heave displacement approximately equal to depths, as shown in Figure 9c. Figure 10 shows that the tensile
half the column radius along the column perimeter. However, forces developed in the geotextile encasement slightly exceeded
regarding the diameter of the region around the column that or were close to the encasement maximum tensile strength

6 Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021)

 Alkhorshid et al.

Figure 8. Soil heave after column installation: (a) soil surface; (b) predicted and measured results.

Figure 9. Columns after loading: (a) and (b) exhumed columns after testing; (c) column shape obtained from numerical analyses.

(marked with red circles in Figure 10) between elevations significant shear strains (Figure 12) and confinement (from
0.07 m and 0.15 m and between elevations 0.8 m and 0.94 m. the encasement, Figure 13), which can be the reason for the
column infill breakage. Sieving tests on the infill material
3.6 Breakage of the granular column particles did not show any significant level of particle breakage in
sections 3, 4, and 5.
The gravel and RCDW columns were divided into At the end of every test, the region around the column
five sections to evaluate the breakage (Bg) of particles of top experienced an active state of stresses resulting in tension
the column infill material using Marsal’s (1967) procedure, cracks development up to a radius (RTC) of 22.5 cm (Figure 14a).
as shown in Figure 11. The results (Table 3) show that the It can also be verified by checking the tension cut-off points
gravel and RCDW columns (encased with G1) underwent in the numerical analyses that show the region in which the
particle breakage of as much as 15.89% and 20.94%, within soil fails in tension. The predicted results (Figure 14b) show
sections 1 and 2 (2dc), respectively. The numerical results that RTC extended up to a radius of 22.7 cm, which compares
predicted that within these sections the column experienced well with the test results.

Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021) 7

 Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between numerical and experimental results

Figure 10. The tensile force along the column height (a) G1; (b) G2; (c) G3.

Figure 11. Column sections used to measure particle breakage.

8 Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021)

 Alkhorshid et al.

Table 3. Particle breakage index for the encased gravel and CW column.
Geotextile Column type Section Particle breakage index – Bg (%) Average of Bg (%)
G-1 Gravel column Sec.1 14.11 15.89
Sec.2 17.67
RCDW column Sec.1 17.18 20.94
Sec.2 24.7
G-2 Gravel column Sec.1 6.82 7.04
Sec.2 7.27
RCDW column Sec.1 8.11 9.34
Sec.2 10.58
G-3 Gravel column Sec.1 1.34 1.55
Sec.2 1.77
RCDW column Sec.1 2.65 3.3
Sec.2 3.95

Figure 12. Shear strains along the column.

Figure 13. Total mean stress along the column.

Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021) 9

 Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between numerical and experimental results

Figure 14. Tension cracks at the soil surface: (a) test result; (b) numerical result.

4. Conclusions • The numerical results accurately predicted the depths

where the geotextile encasement failed. Furthermore,
This study compared finite element predictions with results the results showed that the encasement experienced
from large scale laboratory tests for a better understanding on the highest tensile forces within regions with lengths
the behavior of geosynthetic encased columns in soft soils. equal to two times the column diameter at the column
The main conclusions of the study are summarized below: top and bottom.
• The column infill type (sand, gravel, and RCDW) did
not contribute significantly to the bearing capacity
of the conventional (uncased) column. On the other Acknowledgments
hand, the bearing capacity of the encased column
was influenced by the type of infill material, with The authors would like to thank the following institutions
greater value for the gravel column; for their support in the research activities described in this paper:
• The predicted load-settlement results for the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological
conventional and encased sand and gravel columns Development (CNPq), CAPES-Brazilian Ministry of Education,
compared satisfactorily with the experimental results, University of Brasília and Federal University of Itajubá.
except for the case of RCDW infill, which can be a
consequence of higher particle breakage of RCDW;
Declaration of interest
• The results obtained by the numerical analyses
and laboratory tests showed the contribution of the
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. All
granular column in the dissipation of the excess
co-authors have observed and affirmed the contents of the
pore water pressures;
paper and there is no financial interest to report.
• The experimental results showed that the undrained
strength of the soft soil (Su) was increased up to a radial
distance of 1.9 times the column diameter (dc), after pore Authors’ contributions
pressure dissipation. On the other hand, the numerical
results predicted Su increases even beyond 1.9dc; Nima Rostami Alkhorshid: conceptualization,
• The soil heave displacement predicted by the numerical Methodology, Data curation, Software, Writing – original
analyses compared well with that measured in the draft. Gregório Luís Silva Araújo: funding acquisition,
laboratory tests. Nevertheless, the radius of the Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. Ennio
region that underwent heave in the tests was twice Marques Palmeira: supervision, Validation, Writing – review
that predicted by the numerical analysis; & editing.

10 Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021)

 Alkhorshid et al.

List of symbols Alkhorshid, N.R., Nalbantoglu, Z., & Araujo, G.L. (2014). 3D
analysis of full scale stone column reinforced soft clay:
γ sat Saturated unit weight numerical evaluation. In Proc. XVII Congresso Brasileiro
E ′ Effective Young’s modulus de Mecânica dos Solos (pp. 1-6). Goiânia: ABMS.
φ ′ Effective friction angle Almeida, M.S., Hosseinpour, I., & Riccio, M. (2013).
Ψ Dilatancy angle Performance of a geosynthetic-encased column (GEC) in
c ′ Effective cohesion soft ground: numerical and analytical studies. Geosynthetics
ν ′ Effective Poisson’s ratio International, 20(4), 252-262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
λ* Modified compression index gein.13.00015.
κ* Modified swelling index Araujo, G.L., Palmeira, E.M., & Cunha, R.P. (2009). Behaviour
K0 Lateral earth pressure coefficient of geosynthetic-encased granular columns in porous
Kx Hydraulic conductivity in x direction collapsible soil. Geosynthetics International, 16(6),
Ky Hydraulic conductivity in y direction 433-451. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.2009.16.6.433.
Kz Hydraulic conductivity in z direction Castro, J., & Karstunen, M. (2010). Numerical simulations
Rint Interface coefficient of stone column installation. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 47(10), 1127-1138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/
T10-019.
References Castro, J., & Sagaseta, C. (2011). Deformation and
consolidation around encased stone columns. Geotextiles
Alexiew, D., & Raithel, M. (2015). Geotextile-encased columns:
and Geomembranes, 29(3), 268-276. http://dx.doi.
case studies over twenty years. In B. Indraratna, J. Chu
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.12.001.
& C. Rujikiatkamjorn (Eds.), Ground improvement case
Castro, J., & Sagaseta, C. (2013). Influence of elastic strains
histories (pp. 451-477). Kidlington: Elsevier. https://doi.
during plastic deformation of encased stone columns.
org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100192-9.00017-X.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 37, 45-53. http://dx.doi.
Ali, K., Shahu, J.T., & Sharma, K.G. (2012). Model tests on
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.01.005.
geosynthetic-reinforced stone columns: a comparative
Cengiz, C., & Guler, E. (2020). Load bearing and settlement
study. Geosynthetics International, 19(4), 292-305. http://
characteristics of Geosynthetic Encased Columns
dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.12.00016. under seismic loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Alkhorshid, N.R. (2012). Numerical analysis of soft clay Engineering, 136, 106244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
reinforced with stone columns [MSc thesis, Eastern soildyn.2020.106244.
Mediterranean University]. Eastern Mediterranean Chen, J.F., Li, L.Y., Zhang, Z., Zhang, X., Xu, C., Rajesh, S.,
University’s repository. Retrieved in July 9, 2021, from & Feng, S.Z. (2020). Centrifuge modeling of geosynthetic-
http://hdl.handle.net/11129/1259 encased stone column-supported embankment over soft
Alkhorshid, N.R. (2017). Analysis of geosynthetic encased clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(1), 210-221.
columns in very soft soil [PhD thesis, University of Brasília]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.021.
University of Brasília’s repository. Retrieved in July 9, De Mello, L.G., Mondolfo, M., Montez, F., Tsukahara,
2021, from https://repositorio.unb.br/handle/10482/32033. C.N., & Bilfinger, W. (2008). First use of geosynthetic
Alkhorshid, N.R., Araujo, G.L., & Palmeira, E.M. (2018). encased sand columns in South America. In Proc. 1st
Behavior of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft Pan-American Geosynthetics Conference (pp. 1332-
clay: numerical and analytical evaluations. Soils and Rocks, 1341), Cancun, Mexico.
41(3), 333-343. http://dx.doi.org/10.28927/SR.413333. Gniel, J., & Bouazza, A. (2009). Improvement of soft soils
Alkhorshid, N.R., Araujo, G.L., & Palmeira, E.M. (2019). using geogrid encased stone columns. Geotextiles and
Large-scale load capacity tests on a geosynthetic encased Geomembranes, 27(3), 167-175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
column. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 47(5), 632-641. geotexmem.2008.11.001.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103458. Keykhosropur, L., Soroush, A., & Imam, R. (2012). 3D
Alkhorshid, N.R., Araujo, G.L., & Palmeira, E.M. (2020). numerical analyses of geosynthetic encased stone columns.
Large scale tests on geotextile encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 35, 61-68. http://dx.doi.
In Proc. 4th Pan American Conference on Geosynthetics org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.07.005.
(pp. 1-7). Rio de Janeiro: IGS. Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V.N., & Meehan, C.L. (2010).
Alkhorshid, N.R., Araujo, G.L., & Palmeira, E.M. (2021). Numerical study of the effect of geosynthetic encasement
Consolidation of soft clay foundation improved by on the behaviour of granular columns. Geosynthetics
geosynthetic-reinforced granular columns: numerical International, 17(3), 132-143. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
evaluation. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical gein.2010.17.3.132.
Engineering, 13(5), 1173-1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Li, L.Y., Rajesh, S., & Chen, J.F. (2020). Centrifuge model
jrmge.2021.03.004. tests on the deformation behavior of geosynthetic-encased

Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021) 11

 Geosynthetic Encased Column: comparison between numerical and experimental results

stone column supported embankment under undrained stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(6), 616-
condition. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, http://dx.doi. 626. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.08.003.
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.11.003. Xue, J., Liu, Z., & Chen, J. (2019). Triaxial compressive
Marsal, R.J. (1967). Large scale testing of rockfill materials. behaviour of geotextile encased stone columns. Computers
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, and Geotechnics, 108, 53-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
93(2), 27-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/JSFEAQ.0000958. compgeo.2018.12.010.
Mohapatra, S.R., Rajagopal, R., & Sharma, J. (2017). Yoo, C., & Lee, D. (2012). Performance of geogrid-encased
stone columns in soft ground: full-scale load tests.
3-Dimensional numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased
Geosynthetics International, 19(6), 480-490. http://dx.doi.
granular columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(3),
org/10.1680/gein.12.00033.
131-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.01.004.
Zhang, L., Xu, Z., & Zhou, S. (2020). Vertical cyclic loading
Nagula, S.S., Nguyen, D.M., & Grabe, J. (2018). Numerical response of geosynthetic-encased stone column in soft
modelling and validation of geosynthetic encased columns clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 48(6), 897-911.
in soft soils with installation effect. Geotextiles and http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.07.006.
Geomembranes, 46(6), 790-800. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Zhang, Y., Chan, D., & Wang, Y. (2012). Consolidation of
geotexmem.2018.07.011. composite foundation improved by geosynthetic-encased
Pulko, B., & Logar, J. (2017). Fully coupled solution for the stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, 10-
consolidation of poroelastic soil around geosynthetic encased 17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.10.006.

12 Alkhorshid et al., Soils and Rocks 44(4):e2021073121 (2021)