YJGE #1698218 VOL 00, ISS 00

Settlement analysis of geosynthetic encased granular column treated soft clay deposits
Jayapal Jayarajan and Rajagopal Karpurapu

QUERY SHEET
This page lists questions we have about your paper. The numbers displayed at left are hyperlinked to the location of the query in
your paper.
The title and author names are listed on this sheet as they will be published, both on your paper and on the Table of Contents.
Please review and ensure the information is correct and advise us if any changes need to be made. In addition, please review your
paper as a whole for typographical and essential corrections.
Your PDF proof has been enabled so that you can comment on the proof directly using Adobe Acrobat. For further information
on marking corrections using Acrobat, please visit http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/acrobat.asp;
https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/how-to-correct-proofs-with-adobe/
The CrossRef database (www.crossref.org/) has been used to validate the references. Changes resulting from mismatches are
tracked in red font.

AUTHOR QUERIES
Q1 The ORCID for Jayapal Jayarajan has been taken from CATS and verified against the public API, and was found to be
invalid. Please supply the correct ORCID.
Q2 The abstract is currently too long. Please edit the abstract down to no more than 150 words.
Q3 Please check whether the Head levels has been set correctly.
Q4 Please check that reference “Alexiew et al. 2013” is cited in text but complete information is not present in the reference
list. Please provide the same.
Q5 The disclosure statement has been inserted. Please correct if this is inaccurate.
Q6 The PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and CrossRef (www.crossref.org/) databases have been used to
validate the references. Mismatches between the original manuscript and PubMed or CrossRef are tracked in red font.
Please provide a revision if the change is incorrect. Do not comment on correct changes.
Q7 Please provide missing Conference location for the “Alexiew and Thomson, 2013” references list entry.
Q8 The reference “Alexiew and Thomson, 2014” is listed in the references list but is not cited in the text. Please either cite the
reference or remove it from the references list.
Q9 Please provide missing Publisher location/Year of publication for the “AS 4678-2002, 0000” references list entry.
Q10 The reference “Galli and Prisco Di, 2013” is listed in the references list but is not cited in the text. Please either cite the
reference or remove it from the references list.
Q11 Please provide missing Conference location for the “Ghionna and Jamiolkowski, 1981” references list entry.
Q12 Please provide missing Publisher location/Publisher name for the “IS 15284-Part1, 2003” references list entry.
Q13 Please provide missing volume number for the “Jaky, 1944” references list entry.
Q14 Please provide missing volume number for the “Priebe, 1995” references list entry.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1698218

Settlement analysis of geosynthetic encased granular column treated soft clay

deposits
Jayapal Jayarajan and Rajagopal Karpurapu
Q1 Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India

5 ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Granular column technique is successfully adopted globally to address the problems related to soft clay Received 30 September 2019
deposits in onshore and offshore projects. This paper addresses the use of geosynthetic encasement Accepted 22 November 2019
provided to granular columns for reducing the settlement of the treated ground. The settlement KEYWORDS
behaviour is analysed and discussed subsequently by considering the design of a full-scale field problem Settlements; granular
10 using the currently available design procedure. The influence of different parameters influencing the column; geosynthetics; soft
settlement of encased granular columns in soft clays is studied in this paper. The design procedure is also clay; geosynthetic
examined for ordinary granular columns without encasement and the results are compared with encasement
previously published results. The results clearly indicate the advantage of geosynthetic encasement in
reducing the settlements compared to ordinary granular columns. Further, maximum improvement is
15 observed with granular columns arranged in triangular pattern. The simplified design charts obtained
through the parametric analysis will be useful for geotechnical engineers in quickly deciding the
Q2 settlement improvement of encased granular column treated soft clays.

Abbreviations: OGC: Ordinary Granular Column; EGC: Encased Granular Column; SIF: Settlement
Improvement Factor

20 Introduction to Ordinary Granular Columns (OGC) Han 2015; Jeludin et al. 2016; Gupta and Sharma 2018, etc.) have
reported on various aspects like load bearing capacity, settlement
Q3 Terzaghi and Peck (1967) defined the shear strength (Su) of
performance and mode of failure of granular columns. 50
very soft clays as less than 25 kPa and for soft clays between 25
©
and 50 kPa. When these deposits are thin (1–2 m) often they
are excavated and replaced, but if the thickness is greater than Limitations of the ordinary granular columns and the
25 5 m a suitable ground improvement technique has to be need for encasement
adopted for economical design of foundations. A large variety
Despite the proven performance of granular columns, some
of ground improvement techniques are available to improve
authors have reported the failure of the same in very soft clays,
soft clay deposits starting from preloading, granular columns,
e.g. McKenna, Eyre, and Wolstenholme (1975) and Chummar 55
PVD©s, and most recently vacuum induced consolidation
(2000). The possible reasons stated for the poor performance of
30 methods. These techniques can be either adopted singly or in
granular columns are insufficient lateral confinement by the
combination to suit the particular site conditions.
surrounding soft clays and mixing up of soft clay with aggregate
Out of all the above mentioned techniques, granular columns
leading to reduced drainage function and strength of the granular
(also known as stone columns and granular piles) are one of the
columns. 60
most effective techniques of ground improvement. This techni-
In order to avoid the above said limitations, the granular
35 que is often used to support flexible structures like embankments
columns can be encapsulated with geosynthetic layers. The
and liquid storage tanks. Unlike other methods, this technique
encased granular columns have several advantages over conven-
has twin advantages, namely reinforcement and drainage func-
tional ordinary granular columns, such as increased stiffness,
tions with which soft clays are effectively treated. The granular
reduced loss of aggregates into the surrounding soil and good 65
columns act as reinforcement thereby increasing the stiffness of
filtration thereby preserving the drainage function of the gran-
40 the deposit and additionally as vertical drains and accelerates the
ular column. Pioneering attempts have been made by Van Impe
consolidation. Several researchers (Greenwood 1975; Hughes,
(1989) followed by Raithel and Kempfert (2000) and several
Withers, and Greenwood 1975; Datye and Nagaraju 1975;
other researchers (Alexiew, Sobolewski, and Pohlmann 2000;
Priebe 1978, 1995; Aboshi et al. 1979; Balaam and Booker 1981;
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi 2003; Murugesan and Rajagopal 70
Barksdale and Bachus 1984; Rao and Ranjan 1985; Bergado et al.
2006, 2010; Castro and Sagaseta 2011, 2013; Ali, Shahu, and
45 1990; Wood, Hu, and Nash 2000; Sivakumar et al. 2004; Black et
Sharma 2013; Zhang and Zhao 2014; Mohapatra and Rajagopal
al. 2006; Ambily and Gandhi 2007; Najjar, Sadek, and Maakaroun
2017; Cengiz and Guler 2018) have extensively studied the
2010; Shahu and Reddy 2011; Fattah, Shlash, and Al-Waily 2013;

CONTACT Jayapal Jayarajan jayapal.jp@gmail.com Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU
behaviour of geosynthetic encased granular columns through
75 laboratory, field and numerical simulations.
Motivation for the present work
The practical design of encased granular columns in soft clays
has not been discussed much in detail in the published
literatures so far, except by Raithel and Kempfert (2000).
80 The recently published German design guideline EBGEO
(2011) is also based on the works of Raithel and Kempfert
(2000) and Ghionna and Jamiolkowski (1981). Numerical
and full scale field results by Riccio, Almeida, and
Hosseinpour (2012) and Almeida, Hosseinpour, and Riccio
85 (2013) have supported the analytical design procedure by
Raithel and Kempfert (2000). However, only one design
chart is available from the works of Raithel et al. (2005)
which is deficient in certain practical aspects. Hence it was
felt by the authors to address the deficiencies by analysing
90 and extending the design procedure of encased granular
columns by Raithel and Kempfert (2000) through detailed
parametric studies. Settlements of encased granular columns
are observed to be more critical when compared to their load
bearing capacity. And hence, this paper attempts to study the
95 influence of various parameters on the settlement behaviour
of encased granular column treated soft clay deposits. Based
on these parametric studies, more comprehensive design
charts are presented to help the designers.
Load transfer and settlement behaviour of Ordinary
100 and Geosynthetic Encased Granular Columns (OGC-
EGC)
A discussion on the load transfer and settlement behaviour of
both ordinary- and geosynthetic-encased granular columns is
presented here briefly. The granular columns made up of unce-
105 mented aggregates derive their load carrying capacity by the
passive resistance mobilized by lateral bulging of the column
and surcharge effects, IS 15284 Part 1 (2003). Three different
granular column arrangements are suggested by Balaam and
Booker (1981), namely, triangular, square and hexagonal. Out
110 of all the three patterns, the triangular pattern is accepted and
universally adopted because of optimal coverage compared to the
other two patterns. The settlement of the improved ground is
quantified by a term called settlement reduction ratio (β), which is
defined as the ratio of the settlement of granular column treated
115 ground to that of the untreated soil. The settlement of the
untreated ground is determined using conventional settlement
analysis methods. The settlement of the treated ground is esti-
mated using the settlement reduction factor (β), which is depen-
dent on the area replacement ratio (as) and the stress
120 concentration factor (n). The area replacement ratio (as) quanti-
fies the amount of soil replaced by the stone aggregates and
defined as the ratio of area of stone column to the area of the
ground surrounding the column within a unit cell. The stress
concentration factor (n) can be defined as the ratio of the stress
125 carried by the granular column to that of the surrounding soil
within the unit cell. The settlement reduction criteria suggested by
Priebe (1995) is the inverse of (β), also called as improvement
factor (If). Raithel and Kempfert (2000) have also employed the
settlement reduction criteria of Priebe (1995) for estimating the
settlements of the encased granular column treated grounds. 130
The load bearing mechanism of encased granular column has
to be visualized©with the limitation of applicability of ordinary
granular column, in which the surrounding soft clay may not
offer sufficient confinement in supporting the applied loads.
When the granular column is subjected to vertical load, the 135
column bulges due to which soil exerts passive pressure on the
column. If the resistance offered by the surrounding soil is not
sufficient, the column may fail by excessive bulging. However, in
the case of encased granular column, the confinement helps in
maintaining the integrity of the aggregate column even when the 140
lateral support from the surrounding soil is low. The bulging of
the column induces hoop tension in the reinforcement leading to
radial compression in the granular column. The hoop tension
force depends on the tensile modulus and strains in the geosyn-
thetic encasement. Due to the additional confining pressure gen- 145
erated in the column, the strength and stiffness of the granular
column increases leading to larger load share thus reducing the
loads transferred into the surrounding soft soil.
Estimation of settlements of encased column treated
ground (EBGEO©2011); Raithel and Kempfert©2000)) – 150
Analytical procedure
A unit cell model for a geosynthetic encased granular column
after Raithel and Kempfert (2000) is shown in Figure 1
Assumptions in the model are as follows,
● The loading size at the surface of the soil is much larger 155
than the thickness of the soft soil such that the stress
increment remains constant over the full depth of soil.
● Surface settlements on the granular column and the soft
clay soil are equal.
● The toe of the column is resting on a hard stratum with- 160
out any settlements.
● The column is in active earth pressure state.
● The geosynthetic encasement has linear elastic behaviour.
● The granular column is incompressible (i.e. its volume
©
remains constant). 165
● The design is based on drained conditions.
● The in situ soil is in at rest stress state. For excavation
type installation method, the earth pressure coefficient of
the soil is Ko = 1 – sin ϕs (where ϕs is the friction angle of
the soft clay soil). For a displacement type installation 170
method a larger earth pressure coefficient may be
applicable.
● The radial stresses in the column and the soil are con-
tributed by the over burden pressures and the additional
confining stresses on them are as follows 175
σ r;c ¼ Δσ

c Ka;c þ σ z0;c Ka;c 
1 1  as
¼ Δσ z  Δσ s Ka;c þ σ z0;c Ka;c (1)
as as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

Figure 1. Unit cell model for a geosynthetic – encased column (Raithel and Kempfert 2000).

σ r;s ¼ Δσ s K0;s þ σ z0;s Ko;s (2) The compatibility of the radial deformations in both gran-
ular column and geosynthetic encasement requires
Where
 
σ zo;c ¼ Overburden stress in the granular column; Δrc ¼ Δrg þ rg  rc (4)
σ zo;s ¼ Overburden stress in the soft clay soil;
Δσ c ¼ Additional vertical stress in the column; The radius of the geosynthetic encasement, rg, can be smaller,
180 Δσ s ¼ Additional vertical stress in the soft clay soil; equal, or larger than the radius of the steel installation casing, rc.
Ko;s = at-rest earth pressure co-efficient in the soft clay soil. In most cases of granular columns, rg ¼ r© c (Alexiew and 190
Thomson 2013).
The hoop tensile force in the geosynthetic encasement is,
The radial stress on the geosynthetic encasement equivalent
to the hoop tensile force is
Δrg  
Tg ¼ J  (3) Tg Δrg Δrc  rg  rc
rg σrg ¼ ¼J 2 ¼J (5)
rg rg r2g
Where Δrg is the increase in radius of the geosynthetic
encasement, rg is the radius of the geosynthetic encasement Where rc is the radius of the granular column and Δrc is the
185 and J is the modulus of the geosynthetic reinforcement. increase in radius of the granular column. 195
 4 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU

The radial stress difference between the column and the However, this procedure is complicated and requires the devel-
soil is opment of a computer programme.
A constant Ds value may be assumed for the soil sub-layer at 225
Δσ r ¼ σ r;c  σ r;s  σ r;g (6) the corresponding vertical stress level as shown in Equation 14
The radial displacement, Δrc, can be calculated based on below. Near the ground surface, the soil is likely to be over-
Ghionna and Jamiolkowski (1981) for a radially and axially consolidated. Under such situations, the re-compression
200 loaded hollow cylinder: index, C©r should be used instead of Cc.

 0
2:303 ð1 þ e0 Þσ z0
Δσ r 1 Ds ¼ (14)
Δrc ¼  1 rc (7) Cc
E as
Where e0 is the initial void ratio of the soil, 230

 0
σ z0 is the effective overburden stress,
1 1 1
E ¼ þ ES (8) #s is the Poisson’s ratio of soil.
1  #s 1 þ #s as
The improvement factor for a geosynthetic-encased col-
umn-foundation is
ð1 þ #s Þð1  2#s Þ
Es ¼ Ds (9) Δσ zh
1  #s If ¼ (15)
Ds S0
Where Ds is the constrained modulus of the soil, which is
Based on the measured data, Raithel et al. (2005) obtained the 235
equal to m1v;s , mv;s is the coefficient of volumetric compressibility
improvement factors for granular columns with and without
of soil, Es is the elastic modulus of the soil, #s is the Poisson’s geosynthetic encasement as shown in Figure 2. It is shown that
ratio of the soil. the encasement with higher modulus leads to larger improve-
205 By substituting Equations 5 and 6 into Equation 7 results in, ment factor.
ðrg rc ÞJ
σ r;c  σ r;s þ r 2g
Δrc ¼ (10) Parametric analyses 240
asE
ð1as Þr c þ J
r 2g
A soft clay deposit of 10 m depth is proposed to be improved.
Since the radial stress difference results in the column The soft clay is normally consolidated and underlain by a
expansion, the settlement of the soft soil, Ssl can be obtained competent strata. The water table is assumed to be at the
as follows (Ghionna and Jamiolkowski 1981) ground surface. The properties of the soil are assumed based

  on the range of values suggested in EBGEO (2011) as the 245
Δσ s 2 #s constrained modulus (Ds) of 1300 kPa, Saturated unit weight
Ssl ¼   Δσ r h (11)
Ds E 1  #s (γs) of 15 kN/m3, Poisson’s ratio (υs) of 0.47, effective friction
angle (ϕ’©s) of 18°©. An embankment is proposed to be con-
Where ‘h’ is the thickness of the soil or length of the
structed for 3°m height with unit weight (γ) of 18 kN/m3.
210 column.
Geosynthetic encased granular columns having 0.5°m dia- 250
Based on the constant volume assumption, the following
meter are proposed to be installed in a triangular pattern at a
equation for the settlement of the column can be obtained
centre to centre (c/c) spacing of 1.25 m. The granular columns
corresponding to the changes in radius of column.
have a unit weight (γc) of 18 kN/m3 and effective friction angle
" #
r2c (ϕ’©c) of 34°©; the tensile modulus of the geosynthetic encase-
Scl ¼ 1  h (12) ment (J) is 2500 kN/m; the diameter of the geosynthetic enca- 255
ðrc þ Δrc Þ2 sement has the same diameter as the installation pipe. The
Based on the equal strain assumption for the column and settlement of the ground with and without ground improve-
215 the soil (i.e. Ssl = Scl = S’©). The following equation can be ment and the improvement factor needs to be estimated.
established: To understand the effect of different parameters influencing
the settlement behaviour of encased granular columns, para- 260


Δσ s 2 #s r2c metric studies were conducted by developing an EXCEL spread-
  Δσ r ¼ 1  (13) sheet programme based on the Raithel and Kempfert (2000)
Ds E 1  #s ðrc þ Δrc Þ2
procedure. Equations (1)–(13) and (15)–(18) were coded in the
Substitution of Equation 10 in Equation 13 results in an equa- EXCEL programme and solved by trial and error to estimate the
tion with only one unknown, Δσs, which can be solved math- settlement improvement factor (SIF). The©SIF©is the ratio of 265
ematically. As the constrained modulus Ds is stress dependent settlement of untreated ground to that of the treated ground
220 (Raithel and Kempfert 2000), the above equation is to be solved similar to improvement factor (If) as proposed by Priebe (1995).
by iteration. The settlement of the geosynthetic-encased col- The parameters varied are, diameter of the granular column (D),
umn foundation, S’©, can be calculated using Equations 10–12. centre to centre (c/c) spacing of the granular columns (S), friction
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

Figure 2. Improvement factors for geosynthetic – encased granular columns (Raithel et al. 2005).

2
270 angle of the aggregate in granular column (ϕ), modulus of the D
geosynthetic (J), height of embankment (H), depth of soil (d), as ¼ 0:907  (16)
S
constrained modulus (Ds), and at rest earth pressure coefficient
(Ko). The above mentioned parameters were varied accordingly
2
based on the range of values suggested in EBGEO (2011). D
as ¼ 0:785  (17)
275 Further, an attempt has also been made to see the effect of S
installation patterns of triangular, square and hexagonal by
modifying the existing procedure with Equations (16)–(18) sug-
2
D
gested by Balaam and Booker (1981) as described below. For as ¼ 0:592  (18)
S
quick understanding, the detailed calculations for the above said
280 design problem are given in the Appendix.

Role of area replacement ratio (as) in the design of
Encased Granular Columns (EGC)
The area replacement ratio (as) indicates the amount of gran-
ular material used to replace the soft soil within a single unit
285 cell. It can be computed using Equations (16)–(18) for differ-
ent installation patterns. Assuming that 1 m diameter (D)
granular columns are installed at a c/c spacing of 2 m (S) in
triangular, square and hexagonal patterns, the area replace-
ment ratio comes to 22.67%, 19.62% and 14.77%©for the three
290 patterns, respectively. It is clear that the triangular pattern
offers the best performance due to higher area replacement
ratio followed by square and hexagonal arrangement as indi-
cated by Balaam and Booker (1981). The equivalent areas of
the unit cell for the three patterns are respectively 0.866 S2, S2
295 and 1.3 S2.
Parametric studies
Effect of diameter of granular columns (D)
Three different diameters of granular columns were used
in the present analysis as suggested by EBGEO (2011) viz.
0.5 m, 0.75 m and 1 m. In the present study, the spacing 300
to diameter ratio was kept constant at 2.5. Figure 3 shows
the variation of SIF with increase in diameter of the
©
granular columns with and without encasements for the
three different arrangements. With a steady increase in
diameter of the granular columns, a decrease in SIF is 305
© ©
observed for all the three plan patterns. This is due to
reduced hoop tension forces in the geosynthetic encase-
ment for larger diameters of granular columns at the same
axial strains, Murugesan and Rajagopal (2006). The figure
also reveals that the triangular pattern yields higher values 310
 6 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU
Figure 3. Variation of settlement improvement factor with diameter of the granular column.
of SIF over the other patterns due to a higher degree of
packing coupled with increased area replacement ratios.
The percentage reduction in SIFs for triangle, square and
©
hexagon are 40, 38 and 34 for an increase in diameter
315 from 0.5©to 1 m.
On the other hand, as the diameter to spacing ratio is
kept constant, the SIF values are almost the same for
ordinary granular columns installed in all patterns.
Effect of friction angle of granular column (ϕ’c)
© with ©SIF is shown in Figure 5. Rao and Madhav (2010)
320 Figure 4 shows the ©SIF with the variation of friction
angle of the aggregate in the granular columns. Only
friction angles greater than 30°© are used as per the
EBGEO (2011) guidelines for the granular fill materials.
The friction angle of the granular material was varied
325 between 34°© and 42°© to evaluate its influence on the
settlement behaviour. It is clear that the increase in fric-
tion angle leads to larger SIFs for both ordinary and
©
encased granular columns. Additionally among the three
patterns, the triangular pattern showed the highest per-
330 formance with increasing SIF values ranging from 3.65 to
5.15. Whereas, SIF values range between 3.26©and 4.5 for
square and 2.6 to 3.55 for hexagonal arrangements,
respectively. Unlike in the case of encased granular col-
umns, the effect of pattern of arrangement did not have
335 significant influence on the ©SIF of ordinary granular
columns. Only a slight increase is observed for all the
three arrangements with SIF ranging between 1.32 and
1.9. On an average, the improvement in SIF is 2.5 times
higher for granular columns with encasement when com-
pared to ordinary granular columns for the range of 340
friction angles considered in the present analysis.
Effect of spacing of the granular columns (S)
The effect of spacing of 0.5 m diameter granular columns
reported that the optimum spacing of granular columns 345
is between 2 and 3 times the diameter (D) of the granular
©
columns. In the present study, the variation is extended
upto 4 times the diameter to evaluate the performance of
geosynthetic encased granular columns over ordinary
granular columns. Beyond 3D spacing, the group effect 350
is found to be minimal and the granular columns tend to
behave as single columns lacking additional confinement.
The analysis shows clearly that beyond 2.5 D spacing of
OGC the ©SIF is nearly the same for all the patterns of
arrangement, but for EGC considerable variation in SIF is 355
©
seen amongst the patterns until a spacing of 3.5 D. This
shows that the encased granular columns can function
better even at higher spacings which leads to a lesser
area replacement ratio. It is to be noted that the area
replacement ratio as reduces by 50% when the spacing is 360
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

Figure 4. Variation of settlement improvement factor with friction angle of granular column.

Figure 5. Variation of settlement improvement factor with spacing of the granular columns.
 8 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU

increased from 2.5© to 3.5 D for a given diameter and Effect of modulus of the soft clay (Ds)
installation pattern. The results from Figure 5 also indi-
According to EBGEO (2011), the usual field application range of
cate that the influence of pattern becomes important only
constrained modulus for adopting geosynthetic encased stone
after adequate lateral support is provided by the soil and
column technique ranges between 0.5 and 3 MPa. Figure 7 390
365 with closer spacings. The geosynthetic encasement can be ©
shows the variation of©SIF with the constrained modulus. The
used to substantially improving the performance and
constrained modulus is inverse of the coefficient of volume com-
reducing the use of aggregates.
pressibility (mv). Irrespective of the arrangement of the granular
column, the©SIF decreases with increase in constrained modulus
of the foundation soil for encased granular columns. With 395
Effect of depth of the soft clay (d)
increase in the constrained modulus value of the soft clay from
The influence of the depth of soil (d) with©SIF is shown in 0.5©to 1.5 MPa, the©SIFs decrease by 52%, 51% and 49% for the
370 Figure 6. The depth of the foundation soil was varied between 5 three types of granular column arrangement presented. As the
©
value of constrained modulus increases, the soil becomes stiffer
©and 30 m considering the length of encased granular columns
from the reported case histories of Alexiew and Raithel (2015). leading to reduced settlements. Hence, the influence of the enca- 400
Irrespective of the granular column arrangement, a gradual sement is lesser for soils with higher modulus. On contrary, the
increase in©SIF ranging between 2.6©and 4 is observed for SIF of ordinary granular columns is relatively constant at all
375 encased granular columns in comparison to 1.3 to 1.7 for constrained modulus values.
ordinary granular columns. Higher the depth of foundation
soil, higher is the SIF invariably for both OGC and EGC©s.
Practically the L/d ratio of the columns influence the load Effect of earth pressure coefficient (Ko)
bearing capacity of the granular column foundation system; The variation of SIF with at rest earth pressure coefficient of
© 405
380 however, the increase in SIF values with increase in depth of the foundation soil for ordinary and geosynthetic encased
soft clay clearly shows the limitation of the design procedure to granular columns for three different patterns is shown in
capture the influence of L/d ratio on the performance of the Figure 8. The at rest earth pressure coefficient was computed
EGC–OGC foundation system in soft clays. It should also be based on the equation of Jaky (1944). The earth pressure
remembered that the design of encased granular columns coefficient values were obtained by assuming the friction 410
385 based on Raithel and Kempfert (2000) is for end bearing angle of the soft clay soil to range from 6° to 24°. These
© ©
conditions only and not suitable for floating columns. Ko values pertain to those of typical normally consolidated

Figure 6. Variation of settlement improvement factor with depth of soft clay.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9

Figure 7. Variation of settlement improvement factor with constrained modulus.

Figure 8. Variation of settlement improvement factor with at rest earth pressure.

 10 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU
Figure 9. Variation of settlement improvement factor with height of embankment.
soft clay soils AS 4678 (2002). With increase in earth pres-
sure coefficient, the ©SIF increases for both ordinary and
415 encased granular columns. The increase is more prominent
for encased granular columns compared to the ordinary
granular columns. This could be due to a combination of
two reasons, viz. larger confining pressures exerted on the
granular columns with lower friction angle and lesser load
420 bearing capacity of the soil. Due to these two reasons, the
influence of the granular columns on the settlements
increases as the Ko value increases. Between the ordinary
and encased granular columns, the influence is more on the
encased columns as the encasement develop larger forces as
425 the columns undergo larger lateral strains due to weaker
surrounding soil. The larger tensile forces in the encasement
lead© to larger confining pressures on the granular column
leading to higher axial load capacities and lesser settlements
of the ground.
430 Effect of height of embankment (H)
Figure 9 shows the variation of the©SIF with increase in the
height of the embankment fill for different arrangement pat-
terns for both ordinary and encased granular columns. The
height of the embankment is varied between 2©and 6 m in the
435 analyses. It can be noticed that the©SIF remains nearly the same
for both ordinary and encased granular columns at all the
heights. Additionally, the influence of granular column
arrangement is prominently observed only in the case of
EGC unlike OGC where there is not much of the influence of
arrangement. The high SIF values for geosynthetic encased 440
granular columns indicate the efficacy of improvement offered
by them in soft clays when compared to ordinary granular
columns.
Effect of secant modulus of the geosynthetic (J)
The variation of©SIF with modulus of the geosynthetic for 445
three column arrangements is depicted in Figure 10. The
range of secant modulus of the encasement was varied
from 100 to 10,000 kN/m in the present analysis. A linear
response is observed from Figure 10 between©SIF and the
secant modulus of the geosynthetic. This linear response 450
clearly indicates the control offered by geosynthetic mod-
ulus on the performance of the encased granular column.
So, higher the value of tensile modulus, higher is the
confinement offered in resisting the hoop stresses and
consequently higher is the©SIF. The secant modulus values 455
commonly adopted in the design calculations normally
range between 1500 ©and 6500 kN/m for about 5% to
10% strains© (Alexiew et al. ©2013). Further, it can be Q4
observed that the effect of granular column arrangement
with respect to©SIF is prominent only for modulus values 460
more than 3000 kN/m.

Figure 10. Variation of settlement improvement factor with Tensile Modulus of the Geosynthetic.
Comparison with published results
Design charts in Figures 11–13 show the variation of©SIF
with increase in the area ratio for three different granular
465 column arrangement and diameters. The friction angle (°©)
of the aggregate in granular columns was varied between
35°© and 45°©. The granular columns were spaced at a
distance of 2©–4 times the diameter. The term ‘area ratio’
is the inverse of area replacement ratioðas© Þ (Priebe 1995).
470 This terminology was used to compare the results
obtained presently with previously published design charts
(Priebe 1995). The markers in all the figures for cases (a),
(b) and (c) are used appropriately for triangular, square
and hexagonal patterns. The comparison has also been
475 made for both ordinary and geosynthetic encased granular
columns. A good agreement exists between the results
obtained for ordinary granular columns in the present
parametric analysis with Priebe (1995), which indicates
that the settlement analysis by Raithel and Kempfert
480 (2000) is in line with the findings of Priebe (1995).
Figure 11(a) indicates the ©SIF to decrease exponentially
with increase in area ratio irrespective of the arrangement
of the granular column. For a given increase in friction
angle from 35°© to 45°© the increase in ©SIF for a 0.5 m
485 diameter encased granular column are 1.52, 1.47 and 1.4
times higher for triangular, square and hexagonal arrange-
ments. Correspondingly, when the column diameter is
increased from 0.5© to 1 m there is a reduction in the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 11
improvement of SIF values due to reduced hoop tension
forces in the encasement, which are respectively 1.44, 1.40 490
and 1.32 for the three different patterns of granular col-
umn arrangement.
Based on the field observations, Raithel et al. (2005)
reported area replacement ratios ranging between 4% and
30% for encased granular columns. However, the recommen- 495
dations from EBGEO (2011) suggest a minimum value of 10%
for the area replacement ratio, which corresponds to a spacing
of 3 times diameter in the case of triangular pattern. From the
present study, the triangular pattern offers the highest©SIF
followed by square and hexagon. 500
Summary and conclusions
The foregoing discussions described the settlement beha-
viour of soft clay soils treated with geosynthetic encased
granular columns. Parametric studies were conducted to
understand the influence of each parameter on the ©SIF. 505
The obtained results are compared with previously published
results from the literature in the form of design charts.
Unlike the design chart proposed by Raithel et al. (2005)
(Figure 2), the design charts presented in Figures 11–13 will
be instrumental for the design engineers to quickly deter- 510
mine the likely settlement improvement that can be achieved
by adopting an encased granular column for a particular
diameter, range of friction angles and a pattern of
 12 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU

Figure 11. Effect of installation pattern of granular columns on settlement improvement factor for 0.5 m diameter granular columns: (a) Triangular (b) Square (c)
Hexagonal.

arrangement. The soft soil area to be replaced by granular
515 columns is also found out quickly by taking the inverse of
area ratio. The charts also reveal the likely reduction in©SIF
with increase in diameter of the encased granular column.
Further, an estimation in terms of settlement improvement
achieved by adopting EGC when compared to OGC can also
520 be obtained.
The key conclusions from the parametric study are as
follows,
(1) The settlement reduction is higher with geosynthetic
encased granular columns compared to ordinary gran-
ular columns. 525
(2) Triangular arrangement of the columns gives the high-
est©SIF compared to other plan arrangements for the
same area replacement ratio.
(3) The©SIF for ordinary granular columns increases with
increase in diameter of the granular column (for the 530
same c/c spacing of columns). However, the geosynthetic

Figure 12. Effect of installation pattern of granular columns on settlement improvement factor for 0.75 m diameter granular columns: (a) Triangular (b) Square (c)
Hexagonal.
encased columns show better performance with smaller
diameters due to larger hoop confinement effects.
(4) With increase in diameter of the encased granular col-
535 umns from 0.5©to 1 m (for the same area replacement
ratio), the percentage reductions in©SIFs are 40, 38 and
34 for triangle, square and hexagonal patterns,
respectively.
(5) The granular material with higher friction angles resulted
540 in higher©SIFs for columns with and without encasement.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 13
The influence of installation pattern on the©SIF was pro-
minent only with encased granular columns.
(6) The group effect is reduced substantially beyond a spacing
of 2.5D (14.5% area replacement ratio) in the case of
ordinary granular columns and about 3.5D (7.40% area 545
replacement ratio) in the case of encased granular
columns.
(7) The influence of the encasement on the©SIF is more
significant in the case of softer soils as the surrounding
 14 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU

Figure 13. Effect of installation pattern of granular columns on settlement improvement factor for 1 m diameter granular columns: (a) Triangular (b) Square (c)
Hexagonal.

550 soil cannot give adequate lateral support to the columns C Constant applied for a given granular column
on its own. arrangement. 560
(8) The ©SIFs vary linearly with secant modulus of the D Diameter of the granular column
Ds Constrained modulus of the soil
geosynthetic encasement. Beyond a secant modulus of Es Elastic modulus of the soil
3000 kN/m, the influence of the installation pattern S Spacing of the granular column at c/c
555 becomes more prominent. H - Height of the Embankment 565
If Improvement factor of encased granular column
foundations or (SIF)
List of symbols J Modulus of the geosynthetic encasement
K0;s At-rest earth pressure coefficient in the soft clay soil
as Area replacement ratio Su Undrained shear strength of the soft clay. 570
h Thickness of the soil Ssl Settlement of the soft soil
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 15

S0 Settlement of the improved ground with granular Analytical Studies.” Geosynthetics International 20 (4): 252–262.
column with or without encasement doi:10.1680/gein.13.00015. 630
Tg Hoop tensile force in the geosynthetic encasement. Ambily, A. P., and S. R. Gandhi. 2007. “Behavior of Stone Columns Based
575 rg Radius of the geosynthetic element on Experimental and FEM Analysis.” Journal of Geotechnical and
rc Radius of the granular column Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 133 (4): 405–415. doi:10.1061/
φ0c Effective friction angle of the granular column (ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(405).
φ0s Effective friction angle of the soft soil AS 4678-2002. Earth Retaining Structures. Australian Standard. 635
#s Poisson’s ratio of the soil Balaam, N. P., and J. R. Booker. 1981. “Analysis of Rigid Rafts Supported Q9
580 σ z0;c Overburden stress of the granular column; by Granular Piles.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
σ z0;s Overburden stress of the soft clay soil; Methods in Geomechanics 5: 379–403. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9853.
Δσ c Additional vertical stress in the column Barksdale, R. D., and R. C. Bachus. 1984. “Design and Construction of
Δσ s Additional vertical stress in the soft clay soil Stone Columns.” Report No. FHWA/RD-83/026. Washington, D.C: 640
Δσ r Radial stress difference between column and soil Federal Highway Administration Office of Engineering and Highway
585 σrg Radial stress in the geosynthetic element Operations Research and Development.
σrc Radial stress in the granular column Bergado, D. T., N. Singh, S. H. Sim, B. Panichayatum, C. L. Sampaco, and A.
γs Unit weight of soil S. Balasubramaniam. 1990. “Improvement of Soft Bangkok Clay Using
γw Unit weight of water Vertical Geotextile Band Drains Compared with Granular Piles.” 645
γe Unit weight of embankment or fill Geotextiles and Geomembranes 9 (3): 203–223. doi:10.1016/0266-1144
(90)90054-G.
Black, J. A., V. Sivakumar, M. R. Madhav, and B. A. McCabe. 2006. “An
Improved Experimental Test Set-up to Study the Behaviour of Granular
590 Disclosure statement
Columns.” Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM 29 (3): 193–199. 650
Q5 No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. Castro, J., and C. Sagaseta. 2011. “Deformation and Consolidation around
Encased Stone Columns.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (3): 268–
276. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.12.001.
Castro, J., and C. Sagaseta. 2013. “Influence of Elastic Strains during
Notes on contributors Plastic Deformation of Encased Stone Columns.” Geotextiles and 655
Geomembranes 37: 45–53. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.01.005.
Jayapal Jayarajan, Ph.D Research Scholar, Department of Civil
Cengiz, C., and E. Guler. 2018. “Seismic Behaviour of Geosynthetic Encased
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India
Columns and Ordinary Stone Columns.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes
595 600036 (corresponding author).
46 (2018): 40–45. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.10.001.
Email: jayapal.jp@gmail.com; Tel: +91-44-22574263, Mob: +91-
Chummar, A. V. 2000. “Ground Improvement Using Stone Columns: 660
9843640390
Problems Encountered.” In An International Conference on Geotechnical
Dr. Rajagopal Karpurapu, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Geological Engineering, GeoEng2000, Melbourne, Australia.
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, India 600036 Datye, K. R., and S. S. Nagaraju. 1975. “Installation and Testing of
600 Email: gopalkr@iitm.ac.in; Rammed Stone Columns.” In: Proceedings of IGS speciality session,
5th ARC on SMFE, Bangalore, 101–104 665
EBGEO. 2011. Recommendations for Design and Analysis of Earth
Structures Using Geosynthetic Reinforcements. Essen-Berlin: German
ORCID Geotechnical Society (DGGT), Ernst & Sohn.
Jayapal Jayarajan http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8429-2439 Fattah, M. Y., K. T. Shlash, and M. J. M. Al-Waily. 2013. “Experimental
Evaluation of Stress Concentration Ratio of Model Stone Columns 670
Strengthened by additives.” International Journal of Physical
References Modelling in Geotechnics 13 (3): 79–98. doi:10.1680/ijpmg.12.00006.
Galli, A., and C. Prisco Di (2013) “Geoencased Columns: Toward a
Aboshi, H., II., E. Ichimoto, M. Enoki, and K. Harada. 1979. “The Displacement Based Design.” In Proceedings of the 18th International
605 Compozer - A Method to Improve Characteristics of Soft Clays by conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris, 2473– 675
Inclusion of Large Diameter Sand Columns.” In Proceedings of the 2476. Q10
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement: Reinforced Earth and Ghionna, V., and M. Jamiolkowski. 1981. “Colonne Di Ghiaia”. In X
Q6 Other Techniques, Paris, 211–216. (I). Ciclo di conferenze dedicate ai problemi di meccanica dei terreni
Alexiew, D., and M. Raithel. 2015. “Geotextile-Encased Columns.” In eingegneria delle fondazioni metodi di miglioramento dei terreni,
610 Embankments with Special Reference to Consolidation and Other 507. Politecnico di Torino Ingegneria, atti dell’istituto di scienza 680
Physical Methods, edited by B. Indraratna, C. Jian, and R. Cholachat, delle costruzioni. Q11
451–477. Kidlington, Oxford: Elsevier. Greenwood, D. A. 1975. “Vibrofloatation: Rationale for Design and
Alexiew, D., J. Sobolewski, and H. Pohlmann 2000. “Projects and Practice.” In Methods of Treatment of Unstable Ground, edited by F.
Optimized Engineering with Geogrids from “Non-usual” polymers.” G. Bell, 189–209. London: Newness- Buttersworth.
615 In Proc. 2nd European Geosynthetics Conference, Bologna, 239–244. Gupta, P., and J. K. Sharma. 2018. “Settlement Analysis of Non-homo- 685
Alexiew, D., and G. Thomson. 2013. “Foundations on Geotextile Encased geneous Single Granular Pile.” Indian Geotechnical Journal 48 (1): 92–
Granular Columns: Overview, Experience, and Perspectives.” In 101. doi:10.1007/s40098-017-0240-z.
Proceedings of International Symposium on Advances in Foundation Han, J. 2015. Principles and Practices of Ground Improvement. Hoboken,
Q7 Engineering (ISAFE 2013). K.K. Phoon, T.S. Chua. New Jersy: John Wiley and Sons.
620 Alexiew, D., and G. Thomson. 2014. “Geotextile Encased Columns Hughes, J. M. O., N. J. Withers, and D. A. Greenwood. 1975. “Field Trial 690
(GEC): Why, Where, When, What,how?” In Fourth International of the Reinforcing Effect of a Stone Column in Soil.” Geotechnique 25
Conference on Geotechnique,Brisbane, Australia 484–489. (1): 31–44. doi:10.1680/geot.1975.25.1.31.
Q8 Construction Materials and Environment. IS 15284-Part1. 2003. Indian Standard - Design and Construction for
Ali, K., J. T. Shahu, and K. G. Sharma. 2013. “M1odel Tests on Ground Improvement –Guidelines. Part – 1 Stone Columns. Q12
625 Geosynthetic-reinforced Stone Columns: A Comparative Study.” Jaky, J. 1944. “The Coefficient of Earth Pressure at Rest. In 695
Geosynthetics International 19 (4): 292–305. doi:10.1680/gein.12.00016. HungarianA Nyugalmi Nyomas Tenyezoje.” Journal Society
Almeida, M. S. S., I. Hosseinpour, and M. Riccio. 2013. “Performance of a Hungarian Engineering Architecture. (Magyarmernok Es Epitesz-
Geosynthetic- Encased Column(GEC) in Soft Ground: Numerical and Egylet Kozlonye) 355–358. Q13
 16 J. JAYARAJAN AND R. KARPURAPU
Jeludin, H. G. P., V. Sivakumar, B. C. O’ Kelly, and Mackinnon. 2016.
700 “Experimental Observations of Footing Supported on Soft Clay
Reinforced with Granular Columns: Laboratory Model Study.” Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 142 (1): 405–
415.
Malarvizhi, S. N., and K. Ilamparuthi. 2003. “Load versus Settlement of
705 Claybed Stabilized with Stone and Reinforced Stone Columns.” In
Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, Geo-Asia, 2004, 322–329.
McKenna, J. M., W. A. Eyre, and D. R. Wolstenholme. 1975.
“Performance of an Embankment Supported by Stone Columns in
Soft Ground.” Geotechnique 25 (1): 51–59. doi:10.1680/
710 geot.1975.25.1.51.
Mohapatra, S. R., and K. Rajagopal. 2017. “Undrained Stability Analysis of
Embankments Supported on Geosynthetic Encased Granular Columns.”
Geosynthetics International, 24, no. 5: 465–479. doi:10.1680/
jgein.17.00015.
715 Murugesan, S., and K. Rajagopal. 2006. “Geosynthetic Encased Stone
Columns: Numerical Evaluation.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24
(6): 349–358. doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.05.001.
Murugesan, S., and K. Rajagopal. 2010. “Studies on the Behavior of Single
and Group of Geosynthetic Encased Stone Columns.” Journal of
720 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (1): 129–139.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000187.
Najjar, S. S., S. Sadek, and T. Maakaroun. 2010. “Effect of Sand Columns
on the Undrained Load Response of Soft clays.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 136 (9): 1263–1277. doi:10.1061/
725 (ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000328.
Priebe, H. 1978. “Abschatzung Des Scherwiderstandes Eines Durgh
Stopfverdichtung Verbesserten Baugrundes.” Die Bautechnik 55 (9):
281–284.
Priebe, H. J. 1995. “The Design of Vibro Replacement.” Ground
730 Engineering December. 31–37.
Q14 Raithel, M., and H. G. Kempfert. 2000. “Calculation Models for Dam
Foundations with Geotextile Coated Sand Columns.” In International
Conference on Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, GeoEng2000,
Melbourne.
Raithel, M., A. Kirchner, C. Schade, and E. Leusink. 2005. “Foundation of 735
Constructions on Very Soft Soils with Geotextile Encased columns—
State of the Art.” In Innovations in Grouting and Soil Improvement,
Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 136, edited by V. R. Schaefer, D.
A. Bruce, and M. J. Byle, 1–11. Reston,VA: ASCE.
Rao, B. G., and G. Ranjan. 1985. “Settlement Analysis of Skirted Granular 740
Piles.” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 111 (11): 1264–1283.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:11(1264).
Rao, L., and M. R. Madhav. 2010. “Evaluation of Optimum Spacing of
Stone Columns.” In Geotrendz Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Bombay. 745
Riccio, M., M. S. S. Almeida, and I. Hosseinpour 2012. “Comparison of
Analytical and Numerical Methods for the Design of Embankments on
Geosynthetic Encased Columns.” In Second Pan American
GeosyntheticsConference and Exhibition, GeoAmericas, Lima, Peru.
doi:10.1094/PDIS-11-11-0999-PDN. 750
Shahu, J. T., and Y. R. Reddy. 2011. “Clayey Soil Reinforced with Stone
Column Group: Model Tests and Analyses.” Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 137 (12): 1247–1265.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000552.
Sivakumar, V., D. McKelvey, J. Graham, and D. Hughes. 2004. “Triaxial 755
Tests Onmodel Sand Columns in Clay.” Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 41 (2): 299–312. doi:10.1139/t03-097.
Terzaghi, K., and R. Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
2nd ed. New York: John Wiley.
Van Impe, W. F. 1989. Soil Improvement Techniques and Their Evolution. 760
Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A. Balkema.
Wood, D. M., W. Hu, and F. T. Nash. 2000. “Group Effects in Stone
Column Foundations: Model Tests.” Geotechnique 50 (6): 689–698.
doi:10.1680/geot.2000.50.6.689.
Zhang, L., and M. Zhao. 2014. “Deformation Analysis of Geotextile Encased 765
Stone Column.” International Journal of Geomechanics 05: 1–10.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 17

Appendix The change in radius of the encased granular column after subjected to
embankment loading

Solution to the problem statement ðrg rc ÞJ

σ rc  σ rs þ rg2
Δrc ¼ (4)
Step 1 asE
þ J
ð1as Þrc rg2
770 Computation of Modulus of the soft clay soil:
The effective over burden pressure is estimated at mid depth of the soft 11:698  1:67Δσs  0:690Δσs  17:91 þ 0
clay layer at 5 m depth. rc ¼
ð10:145Þ0:25 þ 0:252
0:1451423:29 2500
 
σ 0z0s ¼ γs  γw z ¼ ð15  9:81Þ  5 ¼ 25:95kPa ¼ 0:00241  0:0000576Δσs

Elastic modulus of the soil is computed by The

 radius  of granular column and geosynthetic is assumed to be same 795
rg ¼ r c
ð1 þ #s Þð1  2#s Þ ð1 þ 0:47Þð1  2  0:47Þ The lateral resistance provided by the geosynthetic encasement
Es ¼ Ds ¼  1300
1  #s 1  0:47    
¼ 216:33kPa JΔrc  rg  rc 0:00241  0:0000576Δσ s
σ rg ¼ 2
¼ 2500  2
rg 0:25
Step 2
775 Settlement of the ground without encased granular columns
σ rg ¼ 97:5  2:304Δσ s
The applied stress from embankment Δσ z ¼ γe  H ¼ 18  3 ¼ 54kPa
Settlement of the soft clay soil without EGC’s is S ¼ ΔσDs h ¼ 1300  10
z 54
The lateral stress difference between encased granular column and soft
¼ 0:415m ¼ 415mm clay soil is
Step 3
780 Settlement of the ground with encased granular columns
 2  0:5 2 Δσ r ¼ σ rc  σ rs  σ rg
The area replacement ratio as ¼ C dSc ¼ 0:907  1:25 ¼ 116:98  1:67Δσ s  0:690Δσ s  17:91  97:5 þ 2:304Δσ s
¼ 0:145 ¼ 14:50%
To bring in the effect of granular column arrangement, the area replace- Δσ r ¼ 1:57  0:056Δσ s
ment ratio as was modified in the design procedure accordingly by the
785 Equations (16)–(18). Based on equal settlement of encased granular column and the surround- 800
Elastic modulus of the soil considering the effect of granular columns ing soft clay soil
     
E ¼
1
þ
1 1
Es ¼
1
þ
1

1 Δσ s 2 #s rc2
1  #s 1 þ #s as 1  0:47 1 þ 0:47 0:145
216:33   Δσ r ¼ 1 
Ds E 1  #s ðrc þ Δrc Þ2
¼ 1423:29kPa
 
Δσ s 2 0:47
The lateral earth pressure coefficients for soil and encased granular column  ð1:57  0:056Δσ s
are 1300 1423:29 1  0:47

 0:252
¼1
34 ð0:25 þ 0:00241  0:0000576Δσ s Þ2
K0s ¼ 1  sin φ ¼ 0:690; Kac ¼ tan2 45  ¼ 0:283;
2
ByTrial and error Δσ s ¼ 16:27kPa
The effective overburden stress in the column at mid depth of clay is
  The change in radius of the geosynthetic encased granular column is back
σ 0z0c ¼ γc  γw z ¼ ð18  9:81Þ  5 ¼ 40:95kPa calculated as
790 The lateral stress in the encased granular column is Δrc ¼ 0:00241  0:0000576  16:27 ¼ 0:00147m or 1:47mm
 
1 1  as The settlement of the foundation after stabilizing the soft clay with
σ rc ¼ Δσ z  Δσ s Kac þ σ 0z0c Kac
as as encased granular columns 805
  " # " #
1 1  0:145 0 rc2 0:0625
¼  54  Δσ s 0:283 þ 40:95  0:283 S ¼ 1 h¼ 1  10 ¼ 0:117
0:145 0:145 ðrc þ Δrc Þ2 ð0:25 þ 0:00147Þ2
¼ 117 mm
σ rc ¼ 116:98  1:67Δσ s
Step 4
The lateral stress in the soil is σ rs ¼ Δσ s K0s þ σ 0z0s K0s ¼ Δσ s  0:690
Settlement Improvement Factor
þ25:95  0:690
117 ¼ 3:55;
SIF = SS0 = 415
σ rs ¼ 0:690Δσ s þ 17:91 SIF value computed from spread sheet programme is 3.658 with %
Error 2.73. 810