Geosynt het i c s and y

Rei nf or c ed Soi l St r uc t ur es
Geosynt het i c Rei nf or c ed Pi l e Pl at f or ms
Dr. K. Rajagopal
f f C Professor of Civil Engineering
IIT Madras, Chennai, India
e-mail: gopalkr@iitm.ac.in
Construction on Soft Foundation Soil
Problems
(a) Slope instability
(b) Unacceptable vertical settlements
(From Lawson,2012)
(From Lawson,2012)
2
(c) Localised differential settlements at
embankment surface
(d) Difficulty to move the construction
equipment
( Concept- Lawson,2012)
Methods of Ground Improvement
Soil Replacement
Preloading Preloading
Light Weight Fill
Preloading ith Vertical Drain Preloading with Vertical Drain
Vacuum Preloading
Stone Column-OSC,ESC
Piled Raft
Basal Reinforcement
Piled Embankment
Geosynthetic Reinforced Pile Supported
Embankment
3
Geosynthetic Reinforced y
Piled Embankments
Rail/Road embankment Rail/Road embankment
Soft
clay
Pil I li d Piles Inclined
Piles
Firm stratum
Advantages of Geosynthetic Reinforced Piled g y
Embankments
Faster construction-Loading rate not dependent on the
rate of consolidation of soil
Eliminates differential settlements especially for large
height embankments
Slope stability
Relatively small pile caps and no need for raking piles
Low long term maintenance costs
5
Embankment Piling
CFA (Continuous Flight Auger) piles
Load Transfer Platform at Second Severn Crossing
13
Load Transfer Platform at Second Severn Crossing
(Tensar, UK brochure)
Measured data from Measured data from
Second Severn, UK
(Tensar, UK brochures)
14
( )
Application areas
Bridge abutment approach roads
(Buchanan 1984) (Buchanan,1984)
Airport runways (Hossain and Rao, 2005)
Subgrade improvement (Han, 1975)
Minimize differential settlements under storage
tanks (Alzamora et al. 2000)
Segmental retaining wall (Alzamora et al. 2000)
Widening of the existing roadway embankment
(Han and Gabr 2002)
To construct confined embankment structures
(Lawson 2012)
15
Construction Sequence
Installing piles with certain grid formation in the soft soil up to
a certain depth.
Geosynthetic material is laid on top of a thin layer (0.1 m) of
l t i l granular material.
After placing the geosynthetic p g g y
layer, the embankment fill is
constructed to the required
height in stages.
Fi ll th t ti h Finally the construction such as
railway or road pavement is
built on top of the embankment
16
built on top of the embankment
Geosynthetic Reinforced Piled Embankment System
Plan Layout of the Piles
L t ( ) S d (b) T i l
(a) (b)
Layout (a) Square and (b) Triangular
Geosynthetic Layout
(a) (b)
17
Optimal geosynthetic layout (a) direction of placing the layers and (b) direction of load
(Lawson,2012)
Load Transfer Mechanism
(b) Membrane action of geosynthetic
(a) Soil Arching
(b) Membrane action of geosynthetic
(Russell and Pierpoint,1997)
(a) Soil Arching
( ) C t ti f t d th il d t th (c) Concentration of stresses around the pile due to the
stiffness difference between the soft foundation
soil and the rigid pile
18
soil and the rigid pile
Design Methods
(a) British Standard-BS8006:1995
This is the most widely used method and is very conservative This is the most widely used method and is very conservative.
Based on Marstons (1913) formula for positive projecting ased o a s o s ( 9 3) o u a o pos ve p ojec g
conduits, Jones et al.(1990) developed an empirical relationship
for the ratio of average vertical stress acting on the pile caps to
the average vertical stress acting across the base of the
embankment .
where
c c
v
v
p C a
H
H
o
o
'
'
= =
'
p
c
'=Arched vertical stress on top of the pile

v
'=Average vertical stress on top of the pile
19
C
c
= Arching Coefficient (Marston 1913)
a = size of pile caps
Positive Projecting Conduit
(Marston,1913)
BS8006 adopted Jones et al.(1990) for the design of piled
b k t embankments.
BS8006 gives empirical equations for arching coefficient
as follows
c
C
as follows
c
End bearing piles,C 1.95 0.18
H
a
=
c
Friction piles,C 1.5 0.07
a
H
a
=
a
BS8006 considers two cases
1. Embankment height is below the
critical height of 1.4(s-a):
Arching is not fully
developed
Partial arching
20
Partial arching
Here A= Load acting on the piles due to arching, B= Load taken by the geosynthetic and
C= Load acting on the soft subsoil
( ) ( )
For 0.7 1.4 , s a H s a s s
( )
2 2
2 2
Load on the geosynthetic,
fs q s
c
T
v
s f H f w
p
W s a
s a

o
+ (
| |
=
( |

(
\ .

( ) 1
Geosynthetic Tension T 1
v
T
W s a
(
\ .

= +
r
Geosynthetic Tension, T 1
2 6
where is the geosynthetic strain
f are the partial fact
a
f
c
c
= +
ors used in the design
fs
f , are the partial fact
q
f ors used in the design
b k h i h i b 2. Embankment height is above
the critical height of 1.4(s-a):
Full arching is developed
21
Full arching
Height of embankment above arching height plays no Height of embankment above arching height plays no
role in the tension developed on the geosynthetic.
Same is the case with surcharge
( )
For H>1 4 s a
( )
( )
For H>1.4 ,
1 4
s a
sf s a

(
| | ( )
2 2
2 2
1.4
fs
c
T
v
sf s a
p
W s a
s a

o
(
| |
=
( |

(
\ .

( )
r
1
Geosynthetic Tension, T 1
2 6
T
W s a
= +
2 6 a c
22
Horizontal force at the slope
,| ,|
Horizontal force at the embankment slope after BS8006
(Satibi,2009)
Geosynthetic tensile load needed to resist the horizontal
f f th b k t i T
0.5 ( 2 )
h
rs a fs q
T K f H f q H = +
force of the embankment is T
rs
a
where
K Active lateral earth pressure coefficient
, = partial factors used in the design
fs q
f f
=
23
, p g
fs q
f f
(b) Hewlett and Randolph Method(1988)
This theory is based on limit state of soil in
hemispherical domed region over piles. p g p
The stability of arch at the crown and at the pile top of
h h i h i l d d d i h i the hemispherical dome formed defines the entire
stability.
24
Hemispherical domes (Hewlett & Randolph, 1997)
Stress Reduction Ratio ( S
3D
) defined as the ratio of the Stress Reduction Ratio ( S
3D
) defined as the ratio of the
average vertical stress acting on the reinforcement to
the overburden pressure due to the embankment fill was
1
used to check the stability.
( )
3
1
2
2
1
at the crown of the arch
2
1 1 1 1
1
p
D
k
p
p
S
k
a a a a
k
k

=
(
| |
| |
| | | || |
( + +
|
| | | |
|
\ . \ .\ .
(
\ .
( )
( )
( )
( )
2 1 k
( (
2
1
p
p
k s s s s
| | | |
|
+
\ . \ .\ .
(
\ .
\ .

( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
2 1
3
2 1 2 1
at the pile top 1 1
2 2 3 2 2 3
p
k
p p
D
p p
s k s a k
a
S
s
H k H k

( (

| |
( ( = +
|
\ . ( (

( ) ( )

- Largest value is the critical S
3D
25
(c) The new German Method (EBGEO 2004)
In the old German approach the arching model
developed by Hewlett and Randolph (1988) was used to
calculate the stresses generated due to arching.
EBGEO 2004 adopts the m lti shell arching theor EBGEO 2004 adopts the multi-shell arching theory
based on the work of Zaeske (2001).
26
Multi shell arching theory adopted in New German Method
(Kempfert,2004)
3-dimensional soil element is considered and the
equilibrium of forces about the radial direction is used
to calculate the vertical stress coming onto the soil
, zo k
o
( ) ( )
2
2
2 2
, 1 1 2 1 1 2
4
g
zo k g g g
h
p
h h h h
h
_
_ _
_
k
k

o

| |
| |
| |
| |
|
|
= + + + + +
|
|
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
( ) ( )
,
4
g g g
h
|
|
|
|
\ .
\ .
\ .
\ .
where
( )
( )
2 2
2
2
1 21
2
where
1
1 2 ( )
, K=tan 45 , ,
2 8 8
crit
k
a K
s a s a
s a
s
|
_

'
+
(
= + = =
(

In the second step the vertical stress acting on the top of
, zo k
o
p g p
the subsoil is used to calculate the vertical load F
k
on
the geosynthetic.
27
Load distribution on the geosynthetic for rectangular pile layout
(Kempfert,2004)
( )
2
x,k ,
1
, F
2 2 180
y
Lx x y Lx zo k
x
s
a
A s s atn A
s
t
o
(
= =
(

( )
2
y,k ,
1
, F
2 2 180
x
Ly x y Ly zo k
y
s a
A s s atn A
s
t
o
(
= =
(
(

28
y

The maximum strain c
k
is obtained from the
dimensionless design graphs (EBGEO 2004)
k
J
w
L
Ers
b
dimensionless design graphs (EBGEO, 2004).
Here,
J t il tiff f th J
k
= tensile stiffness of the
geosynthetic (kN/m)
L
w
= (s-a)= pile clear spacing
b
Ers
= width of support
29
(EBGEO,2004)
Horizontal force at the slope
The additional horizontal force in the reinforcement The additional horizontal force in the reinforcement
beneath the embankment slope is given by
( ) ( )
1
E E h k P h k
| |
A
|
( ) ( )
,
ah
2
where K Active earth pressure coefficient
k ah k k k ah
E E h k P h z k
| |
A = = +
|
\ .
=
30
(d) The Dutch Method (CUR 226)
Introduced in 2009.
Adopts major parts of the German EBGEO 2004.
Flat terrain-thin embankments are constructed and
therefore the EBGEO method was modified to suit the therefore the EBGEO method was modified to suit the
requirements. (Eekelen et al.2010)
Main difference from EBGEO-Different set of load-
and-resistance factors were adopted in the Dutch
G id li Guideline.
31
(e) Guido Method
Guido et al. (1987) observed that the inclusion of stiff
biaxial geogrid within a granular fill improved the
bearing capacity of the foundation soil bearing capacity of the foundation soil.
Concluded that the angle of load spread through a Concluded that the angle of load spread through a
granular fill reinforced with geogrid would be at an
angle of 45 degrees.
The approach is mainly for a
single layer of geosynthetic at
the base of the embankment
fill.
( )
3
Stress Reduction Ratio=
D
s a
S

=
32
3
Stress Reduction Ratio
3 2
D
S
H
(f) The Swedish Method
Carlsson (1987) considered a wedge of soil with an
internal angle at the apex of the wedge equal to 30. g p g q
Valid in two-dimensional model.
Carlsson adopted a critical height of 1.87(s-a).
Miriam and George (2003)
presented the expression for p p
S
3D
for this model as per
Hewlett & Randolph (1997)
( ) ( )
( )
3
2
6 tan15
D
s a s a
S
H
+
=
+

33
( )
6 tan15 s a H +
Two dimensional model by Carlsson,1987
Rogbeck et al. (1998) modified this model into a 3D form
which is an inverted truncated pyramid
h di i l d l b b k l 1998
Modified form of this 3D arching model was adopted by
Three dimensional model by Rogbeck et al. ,1998
(Lawson,2012)
g p y
Nordic authorities (Svan et al.2000).
I N di d i th hi l id d t i l d
34
In Nordic design the arching angle was widened to include
an angle of arching between 68-75.
A i i U i C ll (R ll d Pi i 1997 H
Numerical Analyses-Different approaches
Axisymmetric Unit Cell (Russell and Pierpoint 1997, Han
and Gabr 2002, Yoo and Kim 2009)
3D Column (Yoo and Kim 2009, Jenck et al. 2009)
Full three dimensional analyses (Huang et al.2005,Liu et
al.2007)
3DColumn
Pile
Full Embankment
3
5
Axisymmetric unit cell
Major Numerical Work-3D Column
Russell and Pierpoint (1997) carried out a numerical study using Russell and Pierpoint (1997) carried out a numerical study using
FLAC
3D
to compare the different analytical methods.
-Terzaghi (1943), Hewlett and Randolph (1988) and BS 8006 g ( ), p ( )
Two cases were considered-The A13 piled embankment
(heavily reinforced) and the Second Severn Crossing
embankment (minimal reinforcement).
Design methods predicted differently for different embankment
geometries geometries
Tension force calculated by different design methods
Design Methods A13 Embankment
(Reinforcement Tension,
kN/ )
Second Crossing
(Reinforcement Tension,
kN/ ) kN/m) kN/m)
BS8006 73 491
Ter aghi 104 297
36
Terzaghi 104 297
Hewlett & Randolph 104 280
Han and Gabr (2002)
Major Numerical Work-Axisymmetric unit cell
Han and Gabr (2002)
investigated the influence
of the tensile stiffness of
the geosynthetic, the height
of the fill, and the elastic
modulus of the pile
material.
One layer of geosynthetic
was used and a full bond
was assumed between the
geosynthetic and the soil.
Major findings are given
below
Pile Layout and the axisymmetric model considered
for the analysis (Han and Gabr,2002)
37
below.
(a) (b)
Effect of (a) pile modulus and (b) geosynthetic stiffness on the maximum settlements
(Han and Gabr,2002)
The influence of geosynthetic tensile stiffness becomes less
important when the stiffness exceeds 4,000 kN/m.
( , )
For a pile of elastic modulus of 30,000 MPa, the maximum
ttl t f th i f d d d b 20% f
38
settlement for the reinforced case was reduced by 20% from
that for the unreinforced case.
(a) (b)
Effect of geosynthetic (a) Stress Concentration Ratio(b) Tensile force distribution
(Han and Gabr,2002)
(a) (b)
The inclusion of geosynthetic reinforcement enhances the
stress transfer from the soil to the piles.
Tension is not uniform along the geosynthetic and the
maximum tension occurs at the edge of the pile.
39
maximum tension occurs at the edge of the pile.
Major Numerical Work-Full three dimensional
Geogrid Reinforced Pile supported highway embankment Geogrid Reinforced Pile supported highway embankment
located in Shanghai China-Liu et al. (2007)
Case history back analyzed by 3D fully coupled finite-
element analysis.
Instrumented cross section of the embankment
40
Instrumented cross section of the embankment
(Liu et al.,2007)
Full three dimensional model developed
(Li l 2007) (Liu et al.,2007)
Significant load transfer from the soil to the piles due to soil g p
arching-contact pressure acting on the pile was 14 times
higher than that acting on the soil located between the piles.
Lateral displacements considerably reduced- stability of the
embankment increased significantly
41
embankment increased significantly.
Design of Geosynthetic Reinforced Piled Embankment
- Example
Pulverized fly ash filled
embankment
9 m
= 14kN/m
3
Pile caps
(1.1 m square) ( q )
Soft clay
(Without piles
settlement = 700 mm)
4 m
)
Embankment Details
Reinforcement details Reinforcement details
Low creep reinforcement
Tensile safety factor = 3.0
Peak extension at failure = 12%
Geotextiles
Longitudinal
Strength (kN/m)
Transverse
Strength (kN/m) g ( ) g ( )
A 1000 50 A 1000 50
Circular arc Deformation analysis
A
a = 4-1.1 = 2.9 m
A
2u
Geosynthetic
R
G
Assuming
b = 0.2 0.7= 0.14 m
T T
b 0.2 0.7 0.14 m
From the geometry
b
T
T
T
T
2
1
2
b
tan
a
u
=
a
11 03
2
.
a R sin
u
u
=
= 2
7 58
G
G
a R sin
R . m
u =
=
( )
1
2
T
R b
G
Weight of the fill , W =
52 08 W . kN m
T
=
Considering the reaction force as g
0 15 18.9 kN m
B
W . h = =
( )
The tension in the geosynthetic,
( )
251.5 kN/m
Consider a single layer of geosynthetic (Optimal)
T G T B
T R W W = =
Consider a single layer of geosynthetic (Optimal),
total strength = 1050 kN/m
The strain in the ge
G
251 5
otextile, 12 2 87
1050
.
% . % c = =
( )
G
From the geometry 90 0 6
G
R a . % c tu = =
As
G
< the predicted
G
p
Try with b = 0.19 m
u 14 93 u= 14.93
R
G
= 5.63 m
W
T
= 38.08 kN/m
T
T
= 108 kN/m
T
For this the strain
G,
from the load deformation data = 1.23%
F h 1 2% From the geometry,
G
= 1.2%
As these two are compatible the tension in the geosynthetic
T
T
= 108 kN/m.

G
= 1.2 %
G
Catenary Deformation analysis
From the Equation of the catenary, the tension in the
geosynthetic is given by g y g y
( )
2
1
1
a
T WT WB +
( )
( ) ( )
2
2 2
1
1
16 2
1
16 4 16
1 1 1
T
a
T WT WB a
b
b a b b
l
= +
(
( ) ( ) 2 2
1
16 4 16
1 1 1
8
2
G e
b a b b
log
b a
a a
c
(
+ = + + + +
(

1 69
Loading coefficient 0 12
c
c
. h
C .
B
=
c
1DArching: Pressure ratio = C B /h 1D Arching: Pressure ratio = C
c
B
c
/h
2DArching: Pressure ratio = (Cc B /h)
2
2D Arching: Pressure ratio = (Cc B
c
/h)
2
Loading Coefficient,
1 69
0 12 13.71
c
c
. h
C .
B
= =
Pressure ratio (1D) = C
c
B
c
/h = 1.676
Pressure ratio (2D) = (1.676)
2
= 2.809
In any 4 square piles,
o Pile area = 1.21 m
2
T l 16
2
o Total area = 16 m
2
o Soil area = 14.79 m
2
Total load = 16149 = 2016 kN Total load = 16149 = 2016 kN
Load on the pile = 1.211492.809 = 428 kN
Load on soil = 2016 428 = 1588 kN = 107 4 kN/m
2
Load on soil = 2016-428 = 1588 kN = 107.4 kN/m
2
W 107 4 kN/ W
T
= 107.4 kN/m
W
B
= 0.15 h = 18.9 kN/m
As per the equations shown earlier
T = 309 8 kN/m T
T
= 309.8 kN/m
From load-extension data
G
= (309.8/1050)12 = 3.5 %
Using the equation for 1+
G
as shown earlier,
G
= 3.4 %
As the two values are in close agreement further iteration is not As the two values are in close agreement further iteration is not
necessary.
BS 8006-1995 Method
According to BS8006, the minimum height of embankment
required is 0.7 (s-a) and for full arching to develop the height of the
embankment should be greater than 1.4 (s-a)
In the present case, 0.7(4 1.1) = 2.03 m < 9 m and
1.4(4-1.1)=4.06 m < 9 m
- Full arching develops in this case
The Arching coefficient (considering end bearing pile).
1 95
0 18
. H
Cc .
a
=
The vertical stress on the pile cap
= 15.77
2
2
15 77 1 1
C a
(

(
2 15 77 1 1
14 9 468 1 kN/m
9
c
c v
C a
. .
p .
H
o
(

(
= = =
(
(


For H > 1.4(s-a), The distributed load carried by the geosynthetic
reinforcement
( )
1 4s s a
(
| |
( )
2 2
2 2
1 4
176 85 kN/
c
T
v
. s s a
p
W s a
s a

(
| |
=
|
(
\ .

(Serviceability condition, partial factors in the equations are given a value of 1)
= 176.85 kN/m
Tension in the reinforcement (BS8006-Design strain is 5%)
( )
1
1 486 2 kN/m
T
W s a
T

= + =
Tension due to lateral thrust,
1 486.2 kN/m
2 6
r
T
a c
= + =
0 5 170 1 kN/m
L
T . Ka H . = =
Total tension = 656.3 kN/m
7 /
L

Results of Design
By Circular arc method
T
T
= 108 kN/m;
G
= 1.2 %; W
T
= 38.08 kN/m
T
;
G
;
T
By Catenary deformation method y y
T
T
= 310 kN/m;
G
= 3.4 %; W
T
= 107.4 kN/m
By BS 8006 1995 method
T
T
= 656.3 kN/m;
G
= 5 %; W
T
= 176.85 kN/m
T
656.3 N/ ;
G
5 %; W
T
76.85 N/
54
References
1. Alzamora, D., M. H. Wayne and J. Han (2000) Performance of SRW supported by geogrids and jet
grout columns Proc., ASCE Specialty Conf. on Performance Confirmation of Constructed Geotechnical
Facilities, Geotechnical Special Publication, 94, 456466.
2 British Standards BS8006: 1995 Code of practice for strengthened/Reinforced soilsand other fills 2. British Standards BS8006: 1995 Code of practice for strengthened/Reinforced soilsand other fills.
Section 8.3.3 British Standard Institution.
3. Carlsson, B. Reinforced soil, principles for calculation, Terratema AB, Linkping (in Swedish), 1987.
4. CUR 226 2010(2010) Dutch CUR design guideline for piled embankments. ISBN 978 90376-0518-1. ( ) g g f p
5. EBGEO (2004): Bewehrte Erdkrper auf punkt - und linienfrmigen Traggliedern, Entwurf Kapitel
6.9, 05/16/2004 version.
6. Guido, V.A., J.D. Knueppel, and M.A .Sweeny (1987) Plate loading tests on geogrid - reinforced
earth slabs Proceedings of Geosynthetics 87 Conference, New Orleans, 216-225.
7. Han, R. (1975) Piled Embankment Supported by Single Pile Caps. Proceedings of the Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Istanbul, 1,283-290.
8 Han J and MA Gabr (2002) Numerical analysis of geosynthetic reinforced and pile supported earth 8. Han, J. and M.A. Gabr (2002) Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported earth
platforms over soft soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,128(1),
44-53.
9. Hewlett, W.J. and M.F. Randolph (1988) Analysis of piled embankments. Ground Engineering, 21(3),
12-18.
10. Hossain, S. and K.N. Rao (2006) Performance Evaluation and Numerical Modeling of Embankment
over Soft Clayey Soil Improved with Chemico-Pile. Transportation research record, USA, Issue
Number: 1952, 80-89.,267274.
55
Number: 1952, 80 89.,267 274.
References
11. Huang, J., J.G. Collin, and J. Han (2005) 3D Numerical Modelling of a Geosynthetic
Reinforced Pile-Supported Embankment- Stress and Displacement Analysis16
th
International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan, 12-16. Confe ence on Soil echanics and Geotechnical nginee ing, Osa a, Japa , 6.
12. Kempfert, H.G., C.Gobel,D.Alexiew and C. Heitz (2004) German Recommendations for
Reinforced Embankments on Pile-Similar Elements. Proceedings of the EuroGeo3,Munich
DGGT,279-284
13. Jones, C.J.F.P., C .R. Lawson, and D.J. Ayres Geotextile reinforced piled embankments. , pp 155-
160. In Den Hoed (eds.) International Conf. Geotextiles, Geomembranes and related products,
Balkema, Rotterdam, 1990.
14. Lawson, C.R. (2012) Role of Modelling in the Development of Design Methods for Basal
R i f d Pil d E b k b bli h d i h P di f E F 2012 D lf h Reinforced Piled Embankments, to be published in the Proceedings of EuroFuge 2012, Delft, the
Netherland.
15. Liu, H.L., W. W. Charles, and K. Fei (2007) Performance of a geogrid-reinforced and pile-
supported highway embankment over soft clays-Case study. Journal of Geotechnical and
G i t l E i i ASCE 133(12) 1483 1493 Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133(12), 1483-1493.
16. Marston, A. and A.O. Anderson (1913) The theory of loads on pipes in ditches and tests of cement
and clay drain tile and sewer pipe. Engineering experiment station, Bulletin No.31.
17 Miriam E S and MF George (2003) Influence of Clay Compressibility on Geosynthetic Loads 17. Miriam, E.S., and M.F. George (2003) Influence of Clay Compressibility on Geosynthetic Loads
in Bridging Layers for Column-Supported Embankments.Geotechnical Special Publication, no
130-142, 447-460.
56
References
18. Reid, W. M. and N. W. Buchanan(1984)Bridge approach support piling. Piling and Ground
Treatment, Thomas Telford Ltd., London Treatment, Thomas Telford Ltd., London
19. Rogbeck, Y., S. Gustavsson, I. Sodergren and D. Lindquist(1998) Reinforced Piled
Embankments in Sweden-Design Aspects. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
on Geosynthetics, 2, 755-762.
20. Russell, D. and N. Pierpoint (1997) An assessment of design methods for piled
embankments. Ground Engineering, 30(11), 39-44.
21. Satibi, S. (2009) Numerical analysis and design criteria of embankments on floating piles. A
h h b d h f S S G PhD thesis submitted to the Universitt of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany.
22. Yoo, C. and S.B. Kim (2009) Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-
reinforced ground. Geosynthetics International, 16(3), 116-126.
23 Z k D (2001) Z Wi k i b h t d 23. Zaeske, D. (2001). ZurWirkungsweise von unbewehrten und
bewehrtenmineralischenTragschichtenu

berpfahlartigenGru

ndungsetementen.
SchriftenreiheGeotechnik,University of Kassel, Germany, Heft 10, February.
57
THANK YOU ! THANK YOU !
58