Analysis of stone column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced embankments

Deb, Kousik; Mohapatra, Sunil Ranjan

doi:10.1016/j.apm.2012.07.002

Cited by 75 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rigid arch models include Scandinavian models such as Carlsson (1987), Rogbeck et al (1998, modified by Van Eekelen et al, 2003, Svanø et al (2000), the enhanced arch model described in, for example, Collin (2004), the design method of the Public Work Research Center in Japan (2000, discussed in Eskiş ar et al, 2012. The models that consider the behaviour of the separate mechanical elements and match their boundaries are described in, for example, Filz et al (2012), Deb (2010), Deb and Mohapatra (2013) and Zhang et al (2012). The present paper focuses on the last family of arching models: limit equilibrium models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of analytical models for the design of basal reinforced piled embankments

Eekelen

Bezuijen

Tol

2015

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t Van Eekelen et al. (2012a,b, 2013 have introduced an analytical model for the design of the geosynthetic reinforcement (GR) in a piled embankment. This paper further validates this model with measurements from seven full-scale tests and four series of scaled model experiments. Most of these measurements have been reported earlier in the literature.The new model describes arching with the "Concentric Arching model" (CA model). This model is an extension of the single arch model of Hewlett and Randolph (1988) and the multi-scale model of Zaeske (2001), which is also described in Kempfert et al. (2004). For load-deflection behaviour, Van Eekelen et al. (2012a,b, 2013) proposed the use of a net load distribution that is inverse triangular instead of uniform or triangular. These authors also proposed the inclusion of all the subsoil support beneath the GR in the calculations.On the basis of comparisons between the measurements and calculations, it is concluded that the CA model matches the measurements better than the models of Zaeske or Hewlett and Randolph.Where there is no subsoil support, or almost no subsoil support, the inverse triangular load distribution on the GR strips between adjacent piles gives the best match with the measurements. Cases with subsoil support generally lead to less GR strain. In the cases with significant subsoil support, the load distribution is approximately uniform. In the cases with limited subsoil support, it should be determined which load distribution gives the minimum GR strain to find the best match with the measurements.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of analytical models for the design of basal reinforced piled embankments

Eekelen

Bezuijen

Tol

2015

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dash S. K. et al [11] tested the effects of geocell reinforcement on the bearing capacity of gravel-pilesupported composite foundation by performing a model test and found that using a reinforced cushion was more effective than lengthening the piles and reducing the spaces between piles in increasing the bearing capacity of the foundation. Deb K. et al [12] examined the soil arch effect of the geosynthetic-reinforced cushion and gravel-pile-supported composite foundation via a theoretical analysis and proposed a formula for calculating the settlement of the composite foundation. Several influencing factors have also been discussed in the literature.…”

Section: State Of the Artmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Study on the Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced and Tapered Pile- Supported Composite Foundation

Li¹,

Zhen-bin²,

He³

et al. 2017

JESTR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reinforced cushion and pile are two important components of the geosynthetic-reinforced and pile-supported (GRPS) composite foundation. Studies on the traditional GRPS composite foundation with uniform section piles have compared the performance of GRPS before and after the reinforcement of cushion yet neglects the effects of reinforcement type and pile shape on this composite foundation. To address this problem, the geosynthetic-reinforced and tapered pile-supported (GRTPS) composite foundation with section-variable piles was proposed in this study as a new form of the GRPS composite foundation. The settlement of the proposed composite foundation and the stress distribution on piles and soil under three cushion conditions (gravel cushion (GC), geogrid-reinforced cushion (GGRC), and geocell-reinforced cushion (GCRC)) were analyzed through a static test by using three models of specimens with nine piles. Test results demonstrate that under the test load, the pile-soil settlement differences under GGRC and GCRC are 43.4% to 49.8% and 34.7% to 39.8% of that under GC. Meanwhile, the pile-soil stress ratios under GGRC and GCRC are 1.47 to 1.88 and 1.77 to 2.08 times of that under GC. The reinforced cushion can effectively reduce the settlement of the composite foundation and the pile-soil settlement difference, increase the pile-soil stress ratio, and relieve stress concentration in some piles. GCRC can improve the performance of the GRTPS composite foundation more effectively than GGRC under the same conditions. No negative friction region is observed on the upper piles in the GRTPS composite foundation. The tapered piles are better than the uniform section ones as well as can increase the bearing capacity and decrease the settlement of the composite foundation. The findings of this work can provide references for the engineering design and application of the GRTPS composite foundation.

show abstract

“…The rigid arch models include Scandinavian models such as Carlsson (1987), Rogbeck et al (1998, modified by Van Eekelen et al, 2003), Svanø et al (2000), the enhanced arch model described in, for example, Collin (2004), the design method of the Public Work Research Centre in Japan (2000, discussed in Eski ar et al , 2012). The models that consider the behaviour of the separate mechanical elements and match their boundaries are described in, for example, Filz et al (2012), Deb (2010), Deb and Mohapatra (2013) and Zhang et al (2012). The present paper focuses on the last family of arching models: limit equilibrium models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Design Guideline Basal Reinforced Piled Embankments

Eekelen¹,

Brugman²

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analysis of stone column-supported geosynthetic-reinforced embankments

Cited by 75 publications

References 17 publications

Validation of analytical models for the design of basal reinforced piled embankments

Validation of analytical models for the design of basal reinforced piled embankments

Experimental Study on the Performance of Geosynthetic-Reinforced and Tapered Pile- Supported Composite Foundation

Design Guideline Basal Reinforced Piled Embankments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About