Advertisement

Numerical Study of Embankments Supported by Ordinary and Encased Granular Columns in Peat

  • J. JayapalEmail author
  • K. Rajagopal
Conference paper
  • 41 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 56)

Abstract

Highway and railway embankments form a major part of infrastructure in the transportation sector, but often these embankments rest on weak and problematic deposits with low load-bearing capacities and are prone to high settlements. An attempt has been made to study the performance of an embankment constructed over a weak organic deposit, namely, peat with granular columns as foundation elements. Granular columns have provided effective and promising solutions for flexible loading conditions, especially with soft soils. This ground improvement technique along with geosynthetic encasement is used in the numerical study in assessing and comparing the performance of the embankment in relation to stability. Some parametric studies are also conducted by varying the soil properties say cohesion of the in situ deposit, friction angle of granular column, spacing of granular column, etc., to understand the failure mechanism due to slope instability. The findings from the numerical study revealed the improved performance of embankments founded on geosynthetic encased granular columns.

Keywords

Geosynthetics Granular columns Ground improvement Embankment Peat 

References

  1. 1.
    Ambily AP, Gandhi SR (2007) Behavior of stone columns based on experimental and FEM analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(4):405–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Almeida MSS, Hosseinpour I, Riccio M, Alexiew D (2015) Behaviour of Geotextile—encased granular columnssupporting test embankment on soft deposit. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 141:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexiew D, Raithel M (2015) Geotextile—encased columns case studies over twenty years, Ground Improvement case histories: Embankments with special reference to consolidation and other physical methods. pp 451–475Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Han J, Parsons RJ, Sheth AR, Huang J (2005) Factors of safety against deep-seated failure of embankments over deep mixed columns. In: Proceedings of deep mixing conference, vol 1.2. Sweden, pp 231–236Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Huat BB, Prasad A, Asadi A, Kazemian S (2014) Geotechnics of organic soils and peat, 1st edn. CRC Press. The NetherlandsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malarvizhi SN, Ilamparuthi K (2004) Load versus settlement of clay bed stabilized with stone and reinforced stone columns. In: Asian regional conference on geosynthetics. GeoAsia, pp 322–329Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madhira M, Rao L (2010) Evaluation of optimum spacing of stone columns. In: Indian geotechnical conference. Geotrendz, Mumbai, pp 759–762Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mohapatra SR, Rajagopal K (2016) Analysis of failure of geosyntheticencased stone column supported embankments. In: Proceedings of 3rd Pan-American conference on geosynthetic. Miami Beach, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2007) Model tests on geosynthetic encased stone columns. Geosynth Int 24(6):349–358Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Navin MP (2005) Stability of embankment founded on soft soil improved withdeep-mixing-method column. A PhD thesis submitted to Virginia Polytechnique Institute and State University, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Impe WF (1989) Soil improvement techniques and their evolution. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, pp 63–66Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations