Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No.

Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone

column-reinforced ground
C. Yoo1 and S.-B. Kim2
1
Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, 300
Chun-Chun Dong, Jan-An Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do, Korea 440-746, Telephone: +82 31 290 7518,
Telefax: +82 31 290 7549, E-mail: csyoo@skku.edu
2
Graduate Student, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University,
300 Chun-Chun Dong, Jan-An Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do, Korea 440-746, Telephone: +82 31 290 7518,
Telefax: +82 31 290 7549, E-mail: ksb9677@hanmail.net

Received 14 October 2008, revised 10 January 2009, accepted 11 January 2009

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a comparative study on different finite element
modeling approaches for modeling geosynthetic-encased stone column-reinforced ground for use in
rapid embankment construction. The specific models considered include: (1) an axisymmetric unit
cell; (2) a three-dimensional (3D) column; and (3) a full 3D model. The validity of the unit cell
model was tested by comparison with the results from the 3D models. The applicability of
continuum elements for modeling the geosynthetic encasement was also investigated. The results
show that the 3D column model yielded practically identical results when compared with those of
the full 3D model whereas the two-dimensional axisymmetric unit cell model tended to yield
results that were 10 to 20% larger in terms of the vertical effective stress and lateral deformation
of the stone column. It is also shown that a layer(s) of continuum elements can be used to model
the geosynthetic encasement instead of membrane elements which are not readily available in
commercial software for geotechnical analysis, provided that the axial stiffness of the geosynthetic
encasement is taken into consideration. Based on the results of analysis, the effect of geosynthetic
encasement on the performance of stone columns installed in soft ground under embankment
loading is also discussed.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Stone column, Finite element method, Membrane effect, Consolidation

REFERENCE: Yoo, C. and Kim, S.-B. (2009). Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone
column-reinforced ground. Geosynthetics International, 16, No. 3, 116126.
[doi: 10.1680/gein.2009.16.3.116]

Numerical modeling can be used as an effective tool

1. INTRODUCTION
Stone columns are recognized as an effective means of
improving soft ground for rapid embankment construc-
tion. It is known that for a single granular pile, such as a
stone column, the most probable failure mechanism is
bulging failure regardless of whether it is floating or
bearing on a firm layer (Madhav 2006). Recently, the
concept of encasing individual granular piles with geosyn-
thetics over the full or partial length of the columns in
order to increase their load-carrying capacity has been
acknowledged by numerous researchers (Raithel and
Kempfert 2000; Alexiew et al. 2005; Murugesan and
Rajagopal 2006, 2007; Yoo et al. 2007). Another example
of the use of geosynthetics in stone column applications
involves the concept of a geosynthetic-reinforced load
transfer platform for improving the performance of
rammed aggregate columns in embankment construction
(Abdullah and Edil 2007).
1072-6349 # 2009 Thomas Telford Ltd
when investigating the effect of geosynthetic encasement in
stone column applications for soft ground improvement, as
it can reasonably simulate the relevant mechanisms by
adopting the stresspore pressure coupled formulation.
Embankment construction on stone column-reinforced
ground is a three-dimensional (3D) problem that may
require a 3D modeling approach to represent the mechani-
cal behavior of the inner and outer columns. The unit cell
approach (Barksdale and Bachus 1983; Kempton et al.
1998; Han and Gabr 2002), however, has often been
adopted to represent the interior portions of the embank-
ment, away from the influence of the embankment side
slopes. Therefore, the unit cell modeling approach may also
be adopted when modeling the geosynthetic-encased stone
column application in soft ground improvement. The
appropriateness of the unit cell approach for modeling
geosynthetic-encased stone columns (GESC) in soft ground
improvement application needs further examination.
116
Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-reinforced ground
One of the key features in numerical modeling of the
geosynthetic-encased stone columns is perhaps the model-
ing of the geosynthetic encasement. The membrane effect
provided by the geosynthetic encasement needs to be
correctly taken into consideration in a numerical model if
realistic results are to be obtained. As indicated by Smith
and Filz (2007), structural elements, such as beam and
cable elements, may be used to represent geosynthetic
reinforcement in plane strain models but cannot be used in
an axisymmetric model. Murugesan and Rajagopal (2006),
in particular, used a layer(s) of continuum elements to
represent the geosynthetic reinforcement in their study on
the effect of stone column encasement in terms of
improving the short-term load-carrying capacity of stone
columns. Such a modeling approach, however, needs to be
further examined for its appropriateness to establish a
sound numerical modeling strategy for the geosynthetic-
encased stone columns.
In this paper, the results of a comparative study of
different modeling approaches for geosynthetic-encased
stone column-reinforced ground are presented. The model-
ing approaches examined include an axisymmetric unit
cell model, a 3D column model, and a full 3D model. The
appropriateness of the axisymmetric unit cell and the 3D
column models was first examined by making compari-
sons with the results from the full 3D model. The
applicability of a thin layer(s) of continuum elements for
modeling the geosynthetic encasement was also examined
by comparing the results from the axisymmetric model in
which continuum elements were used for the encasement
with results from the same model but with membrane
elements, which are specifically applicable for modelling
the membrane effect provided by the geosynthetic reinfor-
cement. The fundamental working mechanisms of the
geosynthetic-encased stone column were also investigated.
The following sections describe the unit cell and the 3D
column representations of GESC-reinforced ground, nu-
merical models, the validation of the numerical model,
and comparisons between axisymmetric and 3D modeling
of an example GESC-supported embankment.
2. CASE CONSIDERED
A hypothetical embankment construction on GESC-rein-
forced ground was considered. Details of the case are
given in the following sections. Stone columns without
encasement are referred to herein as ordinary stone
columns (OSC).
2.1. General description
The embankment geometry with the geosynthetic-encased
stone column-reinforced ground is shown in Figure 1,
representing the right half of the domain on account of the
line of symmetry about its center. As can be seen in this
figure, the embankment, filled with sandy soil, is 45 m
wide and 6 m high with a 1V : 2H side slope. The clay
layer, which is 10 m deep overlying a firm layer, was
assumed to be very soft with a standard penetration test
blow count N value less than 3, or cone penetration test
tip resistance less 5 MPa. A 1.0 m thick sand layer was
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
117
assumed to be placed as a sand mat after construction of
GESCs.
2.2. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns
Referring to Figure 1, 0.8 m diameter, crushed-stone-filled
GESCs were assumed to extend to the firm layer. The
GESCs were arranged in a square grid pattern with 2.4 m
center-to-center spacing, giving an area replacement ratio
(aE ) of 9%. It was assumed that the stone columns were
fully encased with geosynthetics having an average axial
stiffness of J 2500 kN/m. The groundwater table was set
at the top surface of the clay layer. Construction of the
embankment was assumed to be done in 2 m increments,
each lift of which was completed in 15 days with another
10 days of waiting period for consolidation.
3. FINITE ELEMENT MODELING
3.1. Constitutive models
With regard to the constitutive modeling, the soft clay was
modeled using the Modified Cam Clay material model. A
linear-elastic, perfectly plastic model with the Mohr
Coulomb failure criterion was used to model the crushed
stone, the sand, and the fill. The geosynthetic was
modeled as a linear elastic material. Note that a grid of
linear elastic material was used to model geosynthetic
reinforcement for out-of-plane behavior by Smith and Filz
(2007). A summary of the constitutive model parameters
of the materials is given in Table 1.
3.2. Description of finite element models
A commercial finite element code, Abaqus (Abaqus
2006), was selected for the analysis in order to take
advantage of its robustness in numerical solution strategy
for soil nonlinearity and stresspore pressure coupled
problems. The first author has successfully used Abaqus
for modeling a number of stresspore pressure coupled
problems (Yoo 2005; Yoo and Jung 2007) as well as
geosynthetic-reinforced earth walls (Yoo and Song 2006;
Yoo and Kim 2008).
Three modeling approaches were considered in this
study: an axisymmetric unit cell modeling, a 3D column
modeling, and an equivalent full 3D modeling. An
axisymmetric unit cell and the 3D column representation
regions are shown in Figure 2. The diameter of the
axisymmetric unit cell model was selected to produce
exactly the same area for the 3D column model so that the
two models would have the same area replacement ratio.
In the full 3D modeling, only the center row portion of
the domain was considered as the embankment usually
spans a considerable distance with approximately uniform
cross-sectional geometry in the direction normal to the
plane. Figure 3 shows the models considered. In all
models, the meshes were arranged in order to have the
same element size vertically to eliminate any possible
errors arising from the mesh arrangement.
Figure 3(a) shows the axisymmetric unit cell model.
The model was horizontally fixed on the vertical sides and
full fixity on the base was assumed. For the hydraulic
118 Yoo and Kim

CL
45 m El. (m)

6.0
Hemb 6 m Embankment 1
2 0.0
1.0 m Sand mat
1.0

Hc 10 m
Soft clay
GESC
11.0
800 mm diameter GESCs with area replacement ratio of 9% Firm layer

Figure 1. Cross section of GESC-reinforced ground

Table 1. Summary of constitutive model parameters for stone column, clay, and sand/fill materials

Property Stone column Clay Sand/fill

Model type

MohrCoulomb Modified cam clay MohrCoulomb

Unit weight (kN/m3 ) 19 18 19

Youngs modulus (kPa) 40 000 15 000
Poissons ratio 0.3 0.3 0.3
Cohesion, c9 (kPa) 5 3
Friction angle,
9 (8) 40 28
Dilation angle, (8) 20 10
Critical state stress ratio, M 1.0
Logarithmic hardening constant for plasticity, 0.2
Logarithmic bulk modulus for elastic material behavior, k 0.02
Initial yield surface size, ao , (kPa) 50
Initial void ratio, eo 1.0
Permeability, k (m/s) 1.2 3 10
2 1.2 3 10
6 1.2 3 10
2

Stone column not to scale

B 1.185 m

Soil

r 0.4 m r 0.4 m

B 1.185 m Duc 1.338 m

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. Three-dimensional column and unit cell representations: (a) stone column layout; (b) 3D column; (c) axisymmetric
unit cell

boundary condition, the phreatic level was set at the top axisymmetric elements (CAX8P) were used to represent
surface to generate a hydrostatic pore water pressure the clay layer and the stone column.
profile in the domain with the top boundary of the clay In the 3D column representation, only one-quarter of
layer having a zero pore pressure boundary condition to the column and its tributary area, bounded by four vertical
model free drainage. The embankment loading was simu- planes of symmetry for which there were no horizontal
lated by adding layers of elements representing the displacements in the directions perpendicular to the
embankment. Eight node stresspore pressure coupled symmetry planes (Figure 3(b)), was modeled. Similar to
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-reinforced ground 119

the axisymmetric model, the vertical side boundaries were
horizontally fixed with full fixity at the base. The same
hydraulic boundary condition and the loading condition
were imposed on the model. The model was discretized
using 20 node stresspore pressure coupled brick elements
with reduced integration (C3D20RP).
With reference to Figure 3(c), the equivalent full 3D
model had a width of 55 m covering the lateral portion of
the domain but with only one row of stone columns. The
same displacement and hydraulic boundary conditions
were imposed as those in the 3D column model. Similar
to the 3D column model, 20-node stresspore pressure
elements with reduced integration (C3D20RP) were used
to represent the clay layer and the stone column, while 20-
node stress only elements (C3D20R) were used for the
embankment fill.
The geosynthetic reinforcement was modeled using the
membrane elements, MAX2 and M3D8R, respectively, in
both the axisymmetric and the 3D modeling, available in
Abaqus. The membrane elements shown in Figure 4(a) are
surface elements that offer strength in the plane of the
element but have no bending stiffness, and are known to
be particularly useful in modeling the geosynthetic encase-
ment as they offer resistance against out-of-plane bulging.
Referring to Figure 4(a), the top surface of a membrane
is the surface in the positive normal direction and is called
the SPOS face for contact definition while the bottom
surface is in the negative direction along the normal and is

Sand Sand
mat mat

Embankment
Stone
Stone Sand mat
column
column

Soft clay

Soft Soft
clay clay

Stone columns &

Geosynthetic geosynthetics encasement
Geosynthetic
encasement encasement

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3. Finite element models considered: (a) axisymmetic unit cell; (b) 3D column; (c) equivalent full 3D

Stone column

n face SPOS
4 3

n 3
12

Geogrid
Z
Y
face SNEG 1
X 2

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Membrane element and geosynthetic encasement modelling: (a) membrane element; (b) geosynthetic encasement
modeling (3D)
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
120 Yoo and Kim

called the SNEG face. In the 3D modeling, the membrane
elements were used to wrap around the stone columns as
shown in Figure 4(b). Details of the two-dimensional and
3D membrane elements can be found in Abaqus (2006).
The applicability of continuum elements for modeling the
geosynthetic reinforcement was also examined using the
axisymmetric model.
3.3. Simulation procedure
After establishing the initial stress and pore pressure
conditions with appropriate boundary conditions, the stone
columns and the geosynthetic reinforcement were acti-
vated as wished-in-place. The embankment construction
was then simulated in three equal stages with 2 m fill
placement. The embankment loading was simulated by
adding layers of elements simulating the fill in all models.
Each embankment fill placement was assumed to be
completed in 15 days, followed by a 10-day consolidation
period. After full placement of the embankment, the
analysis was carried out until the excess pore water
pressure fell below a specified near zero value (i.e. 1 kPa).
3.4. Model validation
A case history concerning OSC-reinforced ground for
rapid embankment construction, reported by Tan et al.
(2008) was used to validate the modeling approach, with
particular reference to the stresspore pressure coupled
The basis of comparison for the numerical model
adopted in this study and for the field measurements of
the test embankment was the settlement at the center of
the embankment. A comparison was also made between
the current model and that of Tan et al. (2008) using the
pore water pressure at the mid-depth of the clay layer. In
Figure 5(a) in which the time-settlement relation obtained
from the current full 3D model is compared with the field
measurements, it can be observed that the current model
appears to capture the general trend of the measured data
well. Furthermore, the time-excess pore water pressure
relation obtained from the current model agrees fairly well
with that from the 3D model by Tan et al. (2008) as
shown in Figure 5(b). These results demonstrate that the
proposed model is appropriate for modeling the stone
column-reinforced ground.
0
Field measurement
Present study
20
Settlement (mm) Tan et al. (2008)
40
60

formulation. Tan et al. (2008) reported the measured

settlement as well as the 3D modeling results for the test 80
embankment. The stone columns were arranged in a 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (days)
square grid pattern at a 2.4 m spacing, covering a distance
(a)
from the embankment base to a depth of 6 m. Details of
the test embankment can be found in Tan et al. (2008). 20
In this study, the full 3D modeling approach, described Present study
Excess pore pressure (kPa)

in the previous section, was adopted for analysis of the 16 Tan et al. (2008)
test embankment, following the simulation procedure
adopted by Tan et al. (2008) in their 3D analysis of the 12
test embankment using Plaxis (Brinkgreve et al. 2006).
The materials, including the clay, were assumed to follow 8
the MohrCoulomb (MC) failure criteria as assumed by
Tan et al. (2008). Table 2 summarizes the material 4
parameters used in the analysis. The embankment con-
struction was done in three equal stages, namely a 0.6 m 0
increment in embankment height. Each stage of embank- 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Time (days)
ment construction was simulated with a 3 day consolida- (b)
tion period. The simulation was terminated when the
excess pore water pressure fell below 1 kPa. Details of the Figure 5. Comparison between field measurements and 3D
simulation procedure can be found in Tan et al. (2008). model: (a) settlement; (b) pore pressure

Table 2. Material parameters used for model validation

Material t (kN/m3 ) sat (kN/m3 ) v E (kPa) kh (m/s) kv (m/s) C9 (kPa)
9 (8)

Fill 18 20 0.3 15 000 1.16 3 10
5 1.16 3 10
5 3 33

Crust 17 17 0.3 15 000 3.47 3 10
7 1.16 3 10
7 3 28
Soft clay 15 15 0.3 1100 3.47 3 10
9 1.16 3 10
9 1 20
Stiff clay 18 18 0.3 40 000 3.47 3 10
9 1.16 3 10
9 3 30
Stone column 19 19 0.3 30 000 1.16 3 10
4 1.16 3 10
4 5 40

E, Youngs modulus; t , total unit weight; sat , saturated unit weight; kh , horizontal permeability coefficient; kv , vertical permeability coefficient.

Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3

Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-reinforced ground 121
80
Embankment Ht. 6 m
4. UNIT CELL MODEL VERSUS 3D Replacement ratio 9%

Eff. str. increase, v,cl (kPa)

MODELS Full encasement
60
The results from the aforementioned three models were
compared in terms of settlement, geosynthetic strains, and
40 3D Column
stresses in the ground. Note that the geosynthetic rein-
forcement was modeled using membrane elements in all Full 3D

three models, and therefore any discrepancies between the 20

Axis. unit cell
models solely represent the differences in the different Full 3D
(w/o goegrid)
modeling approaches. The results for the OSC-reinforced
ground, obtained using the full 3D model, are also 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
presented to illustrate the effect of the encasement. It Elapsed time (days)
should be noted that the results from the full 3D model (a)
represent those for the interior columns.
5.0
4.1. Settlement and excess pore water pressure
Figure 6 shows the development of the excess pore water 4.0

Str. concen. ratio, v,sc

pressure (u) and the surface settlement (Sc ), the former 3D Column
of which was measured at mid-depth of the clay layer 3.0
Full 3D
between two adjacent stone columns. The variations of
Axis. unit cell
vertical effective stress increase in the clay layer at mid- 2.0
Full 3D
depth 9v,cl and the stress concentration ratio SCR at the Embankment Ht. 6 m (w/o goegrid)
same location with time are shown in Figure 7. Note that 1.0 Replacement ratio 10%
SCR is defined as the ratio of vertical effective stress in Full encasement
the stone column (9v,sc ) to 9v,cl , by which the degree 0.0
of the embankment load transfer to the stone columns can 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed time (days)
be quantified. The results for the OSC case using the full
(b)
3D model are also shown.
In Figure 6, it can be seen that the 3D column and the Figure 7. Development of vertical effective stress and stress
concentration ratio: (a) effective stress; (b) SCR
10
Embankment Ht. 6 m 3D Column
Replacement ratio 9% Full 3D PEMAG PEMAG
Excess pore pr., u (kPa)

8 Full encasement (Avg: 75%) (Avg: 75%)

Axis. unit cell 8.0e02 8.0e02
7.3e02 7.3e02
Full 3D 6.7e02 6.7e02
6 6.0e02
(w/o goegrid) 6.0e02
5.3e02 5.3e02
4.7e02 4.7e02
4.0e02 4.0e02
4 3.3e02
3.3e02
2.7e02
2.0e02 2.7e02
1.3e02 2.0e02
6.7e03 1.3e02
2 0.0e00 6.7e03
0.0e00

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed time (days)
(a)

0
Embankment Ht. 6 m
Replacement ratio 9%
100 Full encasement
Settlement, Sc (mm)

(a) (b)
200 3D Column
Full 3D Figure 8. Plastic strain magnitude (PEMGA) contour plots:
300 (a) GESC; (b) OSC
Axis. unit cell
Full 3D
400 (w/o geogrid)

full 3D models essentially gave the same results in terms

500 of u and Sc . The axisymmetric unit cell model however
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 gave slightly larger values for u and Sc (0.7 kPa and
Elapsed time (days)
(b)
12 mm, respectively) than the 3D column model, although
the area replacement ratios of the two models were kept
Figure 6. Development of excess pore pressure and the same. Such disparities suggest that the geometrical
settlement: (a) pore water pressure; (b) settlement conversion from rectangularity in the 3D column model to
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
122 Yoo and Kim

the unit cell could have caused some errors in u and Sc , condition, the embankment load level in addition to the
although the area replacement ratios were the same. replacement and the modulus ratios should therefore be
Nevertheless, the unit cell and the 3D column modeling considered.
approaches appear to provide the results in parallel with The effect of encasement can also be observed in Figure
the full 3D model, in terms of the excess pore water 8, in which the magnitudes of plastic strain (PEMAG) in
pressure and the settlement. Figure 7(a) also shows that the clay, which are defined as
the three different models yielded almost identical results r
2 pl
in the embankment load-induced effective stress increase  :  pl
9v,cl . On the other hand, for the stress concentration ratio 3
SCR at the final stage, the unit cell model yielded a
slightly larger SCR value than the 3D models, namely 4.7 where  pl is the plastic strain and the symbol (:) denotes a
for the unit cell model and 4.2 for the 3D models. The scalar product operation, are compared. It can be seen that
difference in SCR was in fact caused by an 11% larger the plastic strains for the GESC case were only one-
effective stress increase in the stone column 9v,sc in the quarter of those for the OSC case, owing to the added
unit cell than in the 3D models with no difference in lateral confinement effect provided by the encasement and
9v,cl . Although the difference in SCR of 0.5 may not be the reduced vertical stresses.
of practical importance, a slightly larger SCR should be
expected when adopting a unit cell model rather than a 3D 4.2. Lateral deformation of stone column and
model. geosynthetic strains
The effect of geosynthetic encasement on the perform- Geosynthetic encasement provides resistance to lateral
ance of stone column-reinforced ground is shown in bulging of a stone column when loaded with an embank-
Figures 6 and 7. For example, in Figure 6(a), the maxi- ment fill. The geosynthetic strains, hoop strains in parti-
mum u for the OSC was approximately 9 kPa whereas cular, need to be accurately evaluated for a given loading
less than 3 kPa of u was developed for the GESC, the condition to check the adequacy of the geosynthetic rein-
difference in which was a direct consequence of less forcement in terms of rupture. Any numerical model
embankment load transfer to the clay layer. Such a trend evaluating the performance of GESC-reinforced ground
is well supported in the progressive development of Sc , as needs to have the ability to correctly predict strains in the
shown in Figure 6(b), in which the final settlement of the geosynthetic encasement.
GESC was reduced by more than half when compared Figures 9 and 10 illustrate the lateral deformation (h )
with the OSC. The reduced settlement for the GESC is of the stone column and the geosynthetic hoop strain h
thought to be a direct consequence of the increased profiles at the selected embankment loading stages. Figure
stiffness of the stone column by the geosynthetic encase- 11 presents the development of h,max with time. Note that
ment. In addition, Figure 7 shows that the added confine- the hoop strain was defined as h h /ro, where ro is the
ment effect by the geosynthetic encasement also decreased initial radius of the encasement. As expected, comparisons
9v,cl , as much as 10 kPa, and the stress concentration between the different models in terms of h and h
ratio from 4.8 to 4.2. This trend is important in terms of profiles reveal that the results from the 3D column model
design in that the stress concentration ratio is not constant were almost identical to those from the full 3D model.
but increases with the embankment load level (fill height). The axisymmetric unit cell model however yielded
When selecting a stress concentration for a given design 10,20% larger h and h than the 3D models, in terms of

12 12 12
Embankment Ht. 2 m Embankment Ht. 4 m Embankment Ht. 6 m

3D Column 3D Column
3D Column
Full 3D Full 3D Full 3D
Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

Axis. unit cell Axis. unit cell Axis. unit cell

8 8 Full 3D 8
Full 3D Full 3D
(w/o goegrid) (w/o goegrid) (w/o goegrid)
Replacement ratio 9% Replacement ratio 9%
Replacement ratio 9% Full encasement Full encasement
Full encasement
4 4 4

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 0 5 10 15 20 25
Geogrid lateral deflection (mm) Geogrid lateral deflection (mm) Geogrid lateral deflection (mm)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 9. Lateral deformation of stone column for different embankment fill heights: (a) Hemb 2 m; (b) Hemb 4 m;
(c) Hemb 6 m
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-reinforced ground 123
12 12 12
Embankment Ht. 2 m Embankment Ht. 4 m Embankment Ht. 6 m
3D Column
Full 3D
Axis. unit cell
Replacement ratio 9%
Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

8 8 Full encasement 8

3D Column
Full 3D
Axis. unit cell 3D Column
4 4 4
Full 3D
Axis. unit cell Replacement ratio 9%
Replacement ratio 9% Full encasement
Full encasement

0 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Geogrid hoop strain (%) Geogrid hoop strain (%) Geogrid hoop strain (%)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 10. Hoop strains in goesynthetic encasement for different embankment fill heights: (a) Hemb 2 m; (b) Hemb 4 m;
(c) Hemb 6 m

their maximum values. A similar observation can be seen trend shown in the lateral deformation plot. Such a trend
in Figure 11 which shows that the axisymmetric unit cell has an important implication in terms of selection of
model yielded 20% larger h,max than the 3D models, geosynthetic encasement depth (Denc ) for design as it has
although the general trends were identical. been reported in the studies by Murugesan and Rajagopal
The effect of geosynthetic encasement is clearly illu- (2006, 2007) concerning the short-term load-carrying
strated in Figure 9 as the OSC exhibited considerable capacity of geosynthetic-encased stone columns that the
lateral bulging, as great as 22 mm, whereas the maximum optimum Denc beyond which no further benefit in terms of
lateral bulging of the GESC was limited to only 2.5 mm. the encasement effect could be obtained was 2D. This
Another interesting trend is the location of the maximum suggests that different optimum encasement depths should
lateral deformation. For example, for a relatively low be adopted for different loading conditions, i.e., short or
embankment height, namely Hemb 2m, the bulging long term. Further study is needed in this area.
mainly occurred in the upper 3D zone, where D is the
diameter of stone column. The bulging zone then moved
downward, as the embankment height increased, with the
5. MODELING OF GEOSYNTHETIC
maximum bulging occurring 8D below the top of the stone
ENCASEMENT
column, suggesting that the encasement needs to be The applicability of a layer(s) of continuum elements in
provided beyond a depth of 8D to ensure the maximum modeling the geosynthetic encasement was examined
effect. Such a trend can also be observed in Figure 10. For using the axisymmetric model by comparing the results
example, the maximum hoop strain of h,max 0.2% from the same model but with membrane elements. When
occurred at 1,2D below the top when Hemb 2m. The modeling the geosynthetic encasement with continuum
maximum hoop strain h,max then increased to 1.0% at the elements, the axial stiffness J was kept the same as that of
final embankment height of 6 m, occurring at a depth of the membrane elements. Note that J is the secant stiffness
8D below the top of the stone column, which supports the of the geosynthetic, which is the ratio of tensile force per
unit width to the average strain in the geosynthetic and is
1.2 defined as J Et, where E is the elastic modulus and t is
the thickness of the layer of continuum elements repre-
Embankment Ht. 6 m
1.0
Replacement ratio 9%
senting the geosynthetic encasement. Note that the thick-
Full encasement ness of the layer of continuum elements representing the
Hoop strain, h (%)

0.8
geosynthetic encasement was assigned as t 15 mm with
an elastic modulus of 1.7 3 105 kPa, yielding
0.6
3D Column J 2500 kN/m.
0.4 Full 3D In Figure 12, the progressive development of settlement
Axis. unit cell Sc at the embankment base and the stress concentration
0.2 ratio SCR during the embankment construction are illu-
strated. As shown, no significant discrepancies between
0.0 the two models in Sc and SCR are apparent, suggesting
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Elapsed time (days) that a layer(s) of continuum elements can produce almost
the same results as the membrane elements, provided that
Figure 11. Development of maximum hoop strain with time the axial stiffness of the layer(s) of continuum elements is
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
124 Yoo and Kim
0
of the stone column as well as the geosynthetic hoop
Membrane element
strain profiles from the two models are practically iden-
40 Solid element
tical.
Settlement, St (mm)

Based on the results presented in this section, it can be

80 Embankment Ht. 6 m
Replacement ratio 9%
concluded that a layer(s) of continuum elements can
Full encasement represent the geosynthetic encasement when modeling
120 J 2500 kN/m GESC-reinforced ground if the axial stiffness of the
geosynthetic encasement is properly taken into considera-
160 tion.

200
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 6. CONCLUSIONS
Elapsed time (days)
(a)
The results of a comparative study on different approaches
for modeling geosynthetic-encased stone column-rein-
5.0
forced ground for use in rapid embankment construction
are presented. In particular, the appropriateness of the unit
Str. concen. ratio, v,sc / v,cl

4.0 cell modeling approach was fully examined by comparing

3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 20
Figure 12. Development of settlement and maximum hoop
strain with time (continuum versus membrane elements):
(a) settlement; (b) stress concentration ratio
made the same as that of the membrane elements simulat-
ing the geosynthetic encasement. Such a conclusion is
fully supported by the lateral deformation profiles of the
stone column and the geosynthetic hoop strains for differ-
ent embankment loading stages, shown in Figures 13 and
14, respectively. As shown, the lateral deformation profiles
the results from axisymmetric and 3D column models with
Membrane element
those from a full 3D model in terms of settlement,
Solid element
stresses, lateral deformation, and geosynthetic strains. The
applicability of continuum elements for modeling the
Embankment Ht. 6 m geosynthetic encasement was also examined by comparing
Replacement ratio 9%
Full encasement the results with those from otherwise the same model but
J 2500 kN/m with membrane elements, which is known to be valid
for modeling geosynthetics. The fundamental working
40 60 80 100 120
mechanisms of the geosynthetic-encased stone columns
Elapsed time (days)
(b)
were also investigated. The following conclusions can be
drawn based on the findings from this study.
1. The results of the 3D column model showed good
agreement with those from the full 3D model in all
aspects, i.e., excess pore pressure, settlement, vertical
stress, lateral deflection, and geosynthetic strains.
The axisymmetric unit cell model, however, tended
to give 10,20% larger results than the 3D models,
particularly for the vertical effective stress and lateral
deformation of the stone column, and the geosyn-
thetic strains, partly because of the error caused by
the geometrical conversion from rectangularity in the

12 12 12
Embankment Ht. 2 m Embankment Ht. 4 m Embankment Ht. 6 m
Membrane element
Solid element
Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

8 8 8

Membrane element Membrane element

Solid element Solid element
4 4 4 Embankment Ht. 6 m
Embankment Ht. 6 m Embankment Ht. 6 m Replacement ratio 9%
Replacement ratio 9% Replacement ratio 9% Full encasement
Full encasement Full encasement J 2500 kN/m
J 2500 kN/m J 2500 kN/m

0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Lateral deflection (mm) Lateral deflection (mm) Lateral deflection (mm)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 13. Lateral deformation of stone column for different embankment fill heights (continuum versus membrane elements:
(a) Hemb 2 m; (b) Hemb 4 m; (c) Hemb 6 m
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
Numerical modeling of geosynthetic-encased stone column-reinforced ground 125
12 12 12
Embankment Ht. 2 m Embankment Ht. 4 m Embankment Ht. 6 m

Membrane element
Solid element
Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

Depth from top of SC (m)

8 8 8
Membrane element
Membrane element
Solid element
Solid element

Embankment Ht. 6 m Embankment Ht. 6 m

4 Replacement ratio 9% 4 Replacement ratio 9% 4
Full encasement Full encasement Embankment Ht. 6 m
J 2500 kN/m J 2500 kN/m Replacement ratio 9%
Full encasement
J 2500 kN/m

0 0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Geogrid hoop strain (%) Geogrid hoop strain (%) Geogrid hoop strain (%)
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 14. Hoop strains in geosynthetic encasement for different embankment fill heights (continuum versus membrane
elements): (a) Hemb 2 m; (b) Hemb 4 m; (c) Hemb 6 m

3D column model to the unit cell, although the area encasement depth of two to three times the stone
replacement ratios were the same. The absolute column diameter in a short-term loading condition. It
magnitudes of the discrepancies between the axisym- appears that different optimum encasement depths
metric unit cell and the 3D models were, however, of should be adopted for different loading conditions,
little practical importance, and therefore it can be i.e., short- or long-term, although further study is
stated that the axisymmetric unit cell and the 3D needed in this area.
column modeling approaches are adequate for
modeling GESC-reinforced ground in rapid embank-
ment construction for interior columns.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2. In modeling the geosynthetic encasement, a layer(s) This work was supported by the Korea Ministry of Con-
of continuum elements gave practically the same struction and Transportation under grant C105A1000017-
results in comparison with the membrane elements, 05A0300-01700 and by the Basic Research Program of the
thus suggesting that continuum elements can be used Korea Science & Engineering Foundation under grant
as alternatives to membrane elements, which are not R01-2004-000-10953-0. This financial support is gratefully
readily available in commercial softwares for geo- acknowledged. Special thanks go to my former student
technical analysis, provided that the axial stiffness of A.-R. Song.
the geosynthetic encasement is taken into considera-
tion.
3. For geosynthetic-encased stone columns installed in
NOTATIONS
soft ground for embankment construction, the use of Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
geosynthetic encasement decreased the embankment
load-induced excess pore water pressures as well as aE replacement ratio (dimensionless)
vertical stresses in the ground, thereby decreasing the ao initial yield surface size (Pa)
associated settlement. Such a trend is attributed to c9 effective cohesion (Pa)
the increased stiffness of the stone column due to the E Youngs modulus (Pa)
added level of confinement provided by the eo initial void ratio (dimensionless)
encasement. Denc encasement depth (m)
4. The stress concentration ratio was not constant but Hc thickness of clay layer (m)
increased with the level of embankment load. When Hemb height of embankment (m)
selecting a stress concentration for a given design J axial stiffness of geogrid (N/m)
condition, the embankment load level in addition to k permeability (m/s)
the replacement and the modulus ratios should be kh horizontal permeability coefficient (m/s)
considered. kv vertical permeability coefficient (m/s)
5. For GESC-reinforced ground in rapid embankment M critical state stress ratio (dimensionless)
construction, the maximum lateral bulging of the ro initial radius of encasement (m)
stone column tended to occur at the bottom end of Sc settlement of embankment (m)
the stone column, suggesting full encasement is SCR stress concentration ratio (dimensionless)
needed to achieve the maximum encasement effect. t thickness of encasement (m)
Such a trend is contrary to the reported critical t total unit weight (N/m3 )
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
126
sat saturated unit weight (N/m3 )
9v,sc effective stress increase in stone column (Pa)
9v,sl effective stress increase in clay (Pa)
h lateral deformation of stone column (m)
logarithmic hardening constant for plasticity
(dimensionless)
h hoop strain in geosynthetic (dimensionless)
 pl plastic strain (dimensionless)
k logarithmic bulk modulus for elastic material
behavior (dimensionless)

9 effective internal friction angle (8)
dilation angle (8)
REFERENCES
Abaqus Inc. (2006). ABAQUS Users Manual, version 6.7. Abaqus, Inc.,
Pawtucket, Providence, RI, USA.
Abdullah, C. H. & Edil, T. B. (2007). Behaviour of geogrid-reinforced
load transfer platforms for embankment on rammed aggregate piers.
Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 3, 141153.
Alexiew, D., Brokemper, D. & Lothspeich, S. (2005). Geotextile encased
columns (GEC): load capacity, geotextile selection and pre-design
graphs. Proceedings of the Geo-Frontiers Conference, Austin,
Texas, USA, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, Geotechnical Special
Publication, pp. 497510.
Barksdale, R. D. & Bachus, R. C. (1983). Design and Construction of
Stone Columns. Report No. FHWA/RD-83/026, Office of Engineer-
ing and Highway Operations Research and Development, Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Broere, W. & Waterman, D. (2006). Plaxis 2D-
Version 8. Plaxis bv, Delft, The Netherlands.
Han, J. & Gabr, M. A. (2002). Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-
reinforced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 128, No. 1,
4453.
Kempton, G., Russell, D., Pierpoint, N. D. & Jones, C. J. F. P. (1998).
Two- and three-dimensional numerical analysis of the performance
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 December 2009.
Geosynthetics International, 2009, 16, No. 3
Yoo and Kim
of piled embankment. Proceedings of the 6th International
Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, GA, USA, International
Geosynthetics Society, pp. 767772.
Madhav, M. R. (2006). Engineering of ground by stone columns/granular
piles. Proceedings, ATC-7 Workshop on Stone Column in Soft
Deposits, Busan, Korea, Korean Geotechnical Society, pp. 117.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2006). Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: Numerical evaluation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
24, No. 6, 349358.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2007). Model tests on geosynthetic-
encased stone columns. Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 6,
346354.
Raithel, M. & Kempfert, H. G. (2000). Calculation models for dam
foundations with geotextile-coated sand columns. Proceedings of
GeoEngineering 2000, Melbourne, Technomic Publishing, Lan-
caster, PA, USA, p. 347.
Smith, M. & Filz, G. (2007). Axisymmetric numerical modeling of a unit
cell in geosynthetic-reinforced, column-supported embankments.
Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 1, 1322.
Tan, S. A., Tjahyono, S. & Oo, K. K. (2008). Simplified plane-strain
modeling of stone-column reinforced ground. Journal of Geo-
technical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134, No. 2, 185194.
Yoo, C. (2005). Interaction between tunneling and groundwater-numerical
investigation using three dimensional stress-pore pressure coupled
analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 131, No. 2, 240250.
Yoo, C. & Song, A. R. (2006). Effect of foundation yielding on
performance of two-tier geosynthetic-reinforced segmental retaining
walls: a numerical investigation. Geosynthetics International, 13,
No. 5, 181194.
Yoo, C. & Jung, H. Y. (2007). Case history of geosynthetics reinforced
segmental retaining wall failure. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132, No. 12, 15381548.
Yoo, C. & Kim, S. B. (2008). Performance of a two-tier geosynthetic
reinforced segmental retaining wall under a surcharge load: Full-
scale load test and 3D finite element analysis. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 26, No. 6, 460472.
Yoo, C., Song, A. R., Kim, S. B. & Lee, D. Y. (2007). Finite element
modeling of geogrid-encased stone column in soft ground.
Journal of Korean Geotechnical Society, KGS, 23, No. 10, 133150.