Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Experimental Analysis of Embankment On Ordinary and Encased Stone Columns
Experimental Analysis of Embankment On Ordinary and Encased Stone Columns
Abstract: This work investigated the behavior of embankment models resting on soft soil reinforced with ordinary and encased stone col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
umns (ESCs). Model tests were performed with different spacing distances between stone columns and two length-to-diameter ratios ðL=dÞ of
the stone columns, in addition to different embankment heights. A total of 39 model tests were performed on soil with an undrained shear
strength of 10 kPa. The system consisted of a stone column–supported embankment at different spacing-to-diameter ratios (s/d) of stone
columns. Earth pressure cells were used to measure directly the vertical stress on the column for all models, and another cell was placed at the
base of the embankment between two columns to measure directly the vertical stress in reinforced soft soil. For embankment models con-
structed on soft clay reinforced with ESCs, it was found that whether a column was floating or end bearing (resting on a rigid stratum), encase-
ment of the column by a geogrid was most effective in improving the bearing ratio of reinforced soil by approximately 1.29, 1.39, and 1.63
times and 1.4, 1.57, and 1.83 times that of untreated soil, reducing the settlement by approximately 0.71, 0.67, and 0.62 times and 0.63, 0.6,
and 0.45 times that of untreated soil for 200-, 250-, and 300-mm embankment heights with L=d = 5 and 8, respectively, and spacing s ¼ 2:5d.
The bearing improvement ratio (bearing capacity of treated-to-untreated soil) increased with decreasing spacing of stone columns for a given
embankment. A higher improvement ratio was achieved for the models reinforced with stone columns at s ¼ 2:5d at any embankment height.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000579. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Stone columns; Soft clay; Embankment; Laboratory models; Geogrid.
two, three, and four), L=d ratio and undrained shear strength of bed Two column-wall approaches based on matching either column
soil on the stress concentration ratio n (which is generally defined as geometry or column properties were compared by Zhang et al.
the ratio of stress in the column to stress in the surrounding soil), (2014) and verified by three-dimensional numerical results in the
and the bearing improvement ratio ðqtreated =quntreated Þ of stone col- stability evaluation of the stone column–supported embankment
umns. The experimental tests showed that the stone columns with over soft soils. The study also investigated the 2D numerical models
L=d ¼ 8 provided stress concentration ratios n of 1.4, 2.4, 2.7, and using the column-wall method and the equivalent area method con-
3.1 for soil with shear strength cu ¼ 6 kPa and reinforced with sin- sidering the factors of stress concentration, area replacement ratio,
gle, two, three, and four columns, respectively. The stress concen- and soil conditions under short- and long-term conditions. The nu-
tration ratios n decreased to 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8 with L=d ¼ 6. The merical results showed that the equivalent area method resulted in a
values of n increased when the shear strength of the treated soil was continuous critical slip surface in the stone column–supported
increased to 9 and 12 kPa. The bearing improvement ratios embankment over soft soil; however, no continuous slip surface
decreased when the shear strength of the treated soil increased. developed using the column-wall method. Under the short-term
A two-dimensional (2D) finite-difference method was adopted condition, the computed FS by the equivalent area model with or
by Abusharar and Han (2011) to estimate the factor of safety (FS) without considering the stress concentration effect was greater than
against deep-seated failure of embankments over stone column– that computed by the column-wall model. However, their difference
improved soft clay based on individual column and equivalent area became smaller under the long-term condition.
models. In the equivalent area model, the equivalent parameters Based on the unit-cell concept, analytical solutions were pre-
(unit weight, cohesion, and friction angle) for the improved area sented by Zhang and Zhao (2014) to predict deformation behaviors
were estimated based on the area average of the parameters from of geotextile-ESCs at any depth below the top plane of the columns.
stone columns and soft clay. The factors influencing the FS against Under vertical loads at the tops of the stone columns, an axial com-
deep-seated failure of embankments over stone column–improved pression deformation occurred that was often accompanied by a lat-
soft clay were investigated, including the spacing, size, and friction eral expansion near the top. This deformation characteristic of stone
angle of stone columns; cohesion of soft clay; friction angle and columns was incorporated directly into the proposed analytical
height of embankment fill; and existence of ground water. Based on method. The shear stress between the ESC and the surrounding soil
the numerical results, a reduction factor was proposed to account in the vertical direction also was taken into account. In this method,
for the difference in the FS when the individual column model was the confining pressure provided by the soil was analyzed based on
converted to the equivalent area model. The effects of the influence an analogy with passive earth pressure. The method was verified by
factors on the reduction factor were also investigated. The compara- comparison with two other analytical solutions. Parametric studies
tive study showed that the FS values obtained by the equivalent area were conducted to investigate the effects of geotextile encasement,
model were higher than those obtained by the individual column vertical applied stress, and column spacing and diameter on the de-
model. The results of these analyses were summarized in a series of formation behaviors of columns. The results indicated that geotex-
design charts that can be used in engineering practice. A reduction tile encasement with a higher stiffness has a beneficial effect on
factor for a FS of 0.90 is appropriate to convert the calculated FS by reducing column bulging and settlement. Moreover, selection of
the equivalent area model to that by the individual column model geotextile stiffness for ESCs should be done in relation to column
based on the study. Furthermore, the existence of the water table diameter and spacing because increased column diameter and
results in lower FS values than the cases without considering a decreased spacing have a great effect on settlement reduction.
water table, because the groundwater reduces the shear strength of Etezad et al. (2015) stated that columns are made of compacted
the improved foundation. aggregate and are installed in weak soil as reinforcements to
The reduction factor for a FS of 0.9 was suggested based on sta- increase the shear resistance of the soil mass and, accordingly, its
tistical analysis. bearing capacity. Whereas a single stone column mostly fails from
An axial compression was generated in a stone column under bulging, a group of stone columns together with the surrounding
vertical loads on its top and was often accompanied by a radial soil may fail from a general, local, or punching shear mechanism,
expansion against the surrounding soil near the top portion of the depending on the soil/columns/geometry of the system. The mode
column. Considering this deformation characteristic of the stone of failure of the reinforced ground could be identified based on the
column, an analytical solution for the settlement of the composite ground geometry and strength parameters of both the stone column
foundations reinforced with stone columns was presented by Zhang and soft soil. Etezad et al. (2015) presented an analytical model to
et al. (2013). The load sharing between the column and the soil and predict the bearing capacity of soft soil reinforced with stone col-
the distribution of column–soil interfacial shear stresses were also umns under rigid raft foundation subject to a general shear-failure
incorporated into the solution. From the present solution, the verti- mechanism. The model uses the limit-equilibrium method and
cal settlement and lateral bulging of the column under any applied the concept of composite properties of reinforced soil. The pro-
loads can be evaluated at any depth. The validity of the solution was posed theory was validated for bearing capacity of footings on
Property Value
Maximum dry unit weight ðkN=m Þ 3
15.7
Minimum dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ 13
Dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ at
Dr ¼ 55% 14.4
D10 ðmmÞ 3.8
D30 ðmmÞ 6
Fig. 1. Experimental test container and loading system
D60 ðmmÞ 7.5
Coefficient of uniformity ðCu Þ 1.97
Coefficient of curvature ðCc Þ 1.26
factors, such as spacing between columns, diameter of columns, L/d
Angle of internal friction ð f ; degreesÞ 41.5
of columns, stiffness of columns, and embankment friction angle
Specific gravity ðGs Þ 2.65
and height (Fattah et al. 2014).
Note: Dr = relative density; D10, D30, and D60 = diameters corresponding In this study, the behavior of the stone column–supported
to 10%, 30%, and 60% finer particle-size distribution curves, respectively. embankment system with and without reinforcement was investi-
gated. The degree of foundation system improvement depended on
Table 3. Physical and Chemical Properties of the Subbase Material Used several variables: the depth of encasement, the diameter of the stone
column, the volume of soft soil around the stone column, the load-
Property Value ing level, and the loading conditions. Earth pressure cells were used
California Bearing Ratio (%) 51 to measure directly the vertical stress on the column for all models,
Maximum dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ 21.84 whereas another cell was placed at the base of the embankment
Optimum moisture content (%) 6.3 between two columns to measure directly the vertical stress in rein-
D10 ðmmÞ 0.15 forced soft soil. This process was done for the first time.
D30 ðmmÞ 1.5
D60 ðmmÞ 12
Coefficient of uniformity ðCu Þ 80 Experimental Work
Coefficient of curvature ðCc Þ 1.25
Angle of internal friction ( f , degrees) 40 The experimental work consisted of two parts. Part 1 aimed to deter-
mine the physical and mechanical properties of the clay and stone
Note: D10D30D60.
column materials. Part 2 included experiments performed on model
embankments resting on soft clay strengthened by geogrid-ESCs.
homogeneous soil and via the laboratory and numerical results A brown clayey silt soil was brought from a depth of 5 m from a
available in the literature. Design procedure and charts are pre- site within the city of Al-Basrah located in southern Iraq. The soil
sented for practicing purposes. was subjected to routine laboratory tests to determine its properties,
This work investigated the behavior of embankments constructed including grain size distribution (sieve analysis and hydrometer
on soft clay improved by OSCs and geogrid-ESCs. Direct measure- tests) according to ASTM D422 (ASTM 2003c) specifications,
ments of stresses carried by columns were done by pressure cells. Atterberg limits (liquid and plastic limits) according to ASTM
Past researchers indicated that stone columns are most often D4318 (ASTM 2003b), and specific gravity according to ASTM
used in soft clay soil improvement because stone columns (1) D854 (ASTM 2003d) specifications. The results showed that the soil
reduce ground settlement and accelerate consolidation by function- consisted of 6% sand, 46% clay, and 48% silt. The soil was classified
ing as sand drains and (2) increase the bearing capacity of the site. according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as CL.
The bearing capacity of the improved site is governed by the degree Table 1 shows the physical and chemical properties of the soil used.
of lateral bulging of the stone column that occurs during loading. In The crushed stone was chosen in accordance with the guidelines
addition, past researchers discussed that the stress concentration suggested by Al-Shaikhly (2000), in which the particle size is
and load transferring within stone columns depend on several approximately 1/7 to 1/9 of the diameter of stone columns. The
Fig. 6. Stone columns after failure: (a) stone columns (s ¼ 3d, L=d ¼ 8); (b) geogrid ESCs (s ¼ 4d, L=d ¼ 5)
Dial gauge
Footing 250 x 600 mm
Embankment
Stone columns
Load
cells
Piezometer
Strain
gages
gauges
All dimensions in mm, s = spacing between stone columns (2.5d, 3d, 4d)
d = diameter of stone columns (70 mm).
h = embankment height (200, 250, 300 mm)
maximum stress that could be applied on a model footing (250 readout (Geokon, Inc.) provided six excitation positions (A–F) with
500 mm) reached approximately 400 kPa. The pressure was calcu- a display resolution of 0.1 digit.
lated from the load measured by a load cell 50 kN in capacity con-
nected to the digital load indicator.
Fig. 2 shows the earth pressure cell Model 4800 (Geokon, Inc., Preparation of Model Tests
Lebanon, NH) which was used in this study. Earth pressure cells
were constructed from two thin stainless-steel plates welded to- Preparation of Soil
gether around their periphery and separated by a narrow gap filled
with hydraulic fluid. A length of stainless steel tubing connected the Prior to the preparation of the soil bed in the container, the variation
fluid-filled cavity to a pressure transducer that converted the fluid of shear strength of the clayey soil versus time after mixing at differ-
pressure into an electrical signal transmitted by cable to the readout, ent liquidity indices should be obtained. Therefore, six samples
which was also connected to a computer. Earth pressure cells could with different liquidity indices were prepared individually; each
be positioned in the fill at different orientations so that soil pressure sample was placed in five layers inside a California Bearing Ratio
could be measured in two or three directions. The Model GK404 (CBR) mold. Each day, the undrained shear strength was measured
Parameter Value(s)
Embankment height (H) 200, 250, and 300 mm
Type of stone columns Ordinary, geogrid encased
L=d 5 (floating stone columns)
8 (end-bearing stone columns)
Spacing between columns (s) 2.5d (175 mm)
3d (210 mm)
4d (280 mm)
No. of stone columns 9 ðs ¼ 2:5dÞ
9 ðs ¼ 3dÞ
6 ðs ¼ 4dÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Table 8. Settlement Improvement Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with OSCs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The results of Fig. 9 show the effect of OSCs on the bearing ratio
of soil. The spacing ratio s=d ¼ 2:5 demonstrated a higher bearing
ratio at failure compared with the spacing ratio s=d ¼ 4. The mode
of failure tended to be a general type. Such behavior may be
explained by the confinement effect provided by the surrounding
soil and the adjacent stone columns. As the spacing ratio decreased,
the confinement stress provided by the surrounding soil increased.
Because the stone columns were stiffer than the surrounding soil,
the stress concentration on the stone columns increased by decreas-
ing the spacing of the stone columns and embankment height due to
soil arching and increased confinement of the surrounding soil. The
results of Fig. 9 and Tables 6 and 10 are in agreement with the
results obtained by Juran and Guermazi (1988), Craig and Al-
Khafaji (1997), Al-Waily (2008), and Fattah et al. (2011).
Fig. 12. Bearing ratio versus settlement ratio for a 200-mm-high The results of Fig. 14 imply a decrease in the settlement reduction
embankment model resting on soft soil reinforced with ESCs ratio as the bearing ratio increased to q=cu = 1.48–2.8. Then a gradual
increase in the settlement reduction ratio took place, and the decrease
in the settlement reduction ratio showed the level of improvement.
model. Similar results were obtained for embankments 250 and 300 This behavior may be attributed to the fact that the decrease in the set-
mm high. For ESCs, there was a decrease in the settlement reduc- tlement reduction ratio to q=cu = 1.48–2.8 was associated with an
tion ratio from 1 to 0.15 at q=cu of approximately 1.0-1.5 and a sig- increase in the bearing ratio and that, beyond these values, the excess
nificant increase was observed in the settlement reduction ratio with bulging led to a decrease in load-carrying capacity and a decrease in
an increasing bearing ratio after 1.5 until the end of the test. This settlement. Also, the lower improvement values in bearing capacity
means that geogrid encasement was more effective in reducing the (high degree of improvement in settlement) were observed when the
settlement of treated soil. Also, as L=d increased, the settlement embankment model was reinforced with OSCs at s=d ¼ 2:5 com-
reduction ratio decreased. The St =Sunt values of ESCs for two L=d pared with the model reinforced with columns at s=d ¼ 4, which
ratios were lower than the values of OSCs. revealed a high settlement reduction ratio for different heights of
embankment. This can be attributed to the differences in strength
Stress on Column versus Settlement between the stone column material and the surrounding soft soil;
The stress-settlement behavior of the stone columns for all spacing when s=d ¼ 4, the spacing was large, and there was load transfer to
ratios was found to be the same. Fig. 15 shows the stress-settlement the surrounding soil. This revealed low levels of bearing improve-
relation for the 200-mm-high embankment model. Similar results ment compared with settlement improvement.
were obtained for embankments 250 and 300 mm high. The Initially, the stones were dense and well packed, and this gran-
improvement of stress carried by stone columns was attributed to ular packing was able to withstand loading. The confining effect
the geogrid encasement, which increased the stiffness of the overall by the clay and the geogrid was limited or nil. The peak observed
stone columns. This led to an increase in the stress concentration at a 2%–4% settlement typically corresponded to a maximum re-
and the stress transfer to the ESCs due to the mobilization of hoop sistance of the column under low confinement. At this stage, the
stresses in the geogrid. amplitude of this confinement mainly depended on the spacing
distance, whereas the contribution from the geogrid was negligi-
ble (the geogrid was insufficiently loaded to mobilize hoop ten-
Discussion of Results sion). With a small spacing distance, the stress developing
between two columns was higher for the same settlement (or lat-
The results show an increase in the surface settlement with increas- eral expansion). To some extent, the strain in the clay could not
ing spacing of columns for applied pressure. The maximum bearing develop around the column because of the proximity of other col-
capacity of soil was observed for soft soil improved with stone col- umns. This constrained strain resulted in a higher stress state in
umns at s=d ¼ 2:5, and the minimum bearing capacity for soft soil the clay and thus in a higher confinement on the column.
improved with stone columns at s=d ¼ 4. This may be explained by As settlement increased, the stone packing was rearranged and
the reduction in the area ratio (which is defined as the area of the progressively destabilized (so-called yielding), resulting in a
clay foundation replaced by a stone column) from 12.53% to decrease in bearing capacity.
4.89%. Similar conclusions were obtained by Han and Gabr (2002) Fig. 11 and Tables 9 and 13 show that the highest vertical
and Murugesan and Rajagopal (2006). In addition, a higher stress was obtained when the least spacing ðs=d ¼ 2:5Þ was used
Table 12. Settlement Improvement Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs
Table 13. Vertical Stress on Stone Column at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs
7.3%–11.6%, 8%–12%, and 13%–16% than those for OSCs for one at 6%. The first trend was observed when s was small: it can be
embankment heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respectively. When assumed that there was no real interaction between stone columns.
the length ratio increased, the effect of the ESC became more visible, In contrast, a peak around 2% occurred when stone columns were at
and a clear increase in q=cu was noticed for different embankment smaller distances from each other. This was also observed in the ab-
heights. The end-bearing ESC with L=d ¼ 8 exhibited a load- sence of geogrid, which suggests that the 2% settlement peak was
carrying capacity 1.2 times that of the floating column with L=d ¼ 5. due to the interaction between the columns. When the distance was
Table 12 summarizes the settlement reduction ratio at failure. higher between the columns, this confining increase was less.
The efficiency of ESCs compared with OSCs was more pro- Comparison of Figs. 10 and 13 shows that the geogrid mainly
nounced in embankment models constructed over stone columns modified the response for large settlements.
at spacing ratios of 2.5 and 3. These results are in close agreement
with the results of Wu and Hong (2008) and Gniel and Bouazza Stress Concentration Ratio versus Bearing Ratio
(2009), who indicated a significant reduction in column vertical
settlement when ESCs were used. The settlement reduction ratio The ratio of the vertical stress in the stone column to the vertical
for ESCs was decreased by approximately 24%–14% more than stress in the surrounding soft soil is defined as the stress concen-
for OSCs at a given embankment height. tration ratio. In this study, these stresses were measured directly,
The vertical stress on the ESCs increased and the settlement and the change in pore-water pressure was considered; therefore,
decreased with a decreasing spacing ratio of the stone columns, as the stress concentration ratio was measured in terms of effective
tabulated in Table 13. These results are in good agreement with stresses (s 0 ¼ s u, where s 0 is the effective stress; s is the
those presented by Keyhosropur et al. (2011), who found that the total stress; and u is the pore-water pressure) (Table 14). The
geosynthetic encasement increased the stiffness of a stone column. stress concentration ratio increased with an increasing load incre-
The vertical stress on ESCs was greater than that on OSCs by ment until it reached a maximum value, beyond which it
approximately 9.7%–11.8%, 11.1%–12.4%, and 23.3%–28.3% for decreased with an increasing load until it reached minimum val-
embankment heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respectively. The ues, which tended to increase at the test end. This was observed
increase in the length of the column caused an increase in the stress for 200-mm-high embankment models, which may be attributed
transferred to the column, but the increase was not linear. to the increasing stress on the column, whereas the stress in the
Furthermore, the increase was higher for end-bearing ESCs (L=d = surrounding soil became constant as the load increased. This find-
8) compared with floating ESCs (L/d = 5). ing is in agreement with the results obtained by Stewart and
Figs. 10 and 13 can be also discussed as follows. Two different Fahey (1994). In addition, as shown in Figs. 11 and 15, the spac-
trends can be observed in terms of peak S/B values shown in Fig. ing between columns can reduce the maximum settlement and
13. Three curves exhibited peaks greater than 6% in settlement. increase the stress concentration ratio from an increase in bearing
Two curves exhibited a peak less than 3%. The last curve (corre- capacity by preventing bulging of the stone columns. In this way,
sponding to s ¼ 2:5d and L=d ¼ 8) can be considered as a combi- the geosynthetic ESC behaves like a semirigid pile. Also, the
nation of the two previous trends: there was a local peak at 2% and improvement by using ESCs at large spacings ðs ¼ 3dÞ was
similar to the improvement at s ¼ 2:5d for OSCs, which was 2. The bearing ratio increased with decreasing spacing distance
attributed to mobilization of the hoop stresses in the geogrid. This between the stone columns at any embankment height. The rate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
can provide an economical improvement. The stress concentra- of increase in the bearing ratio of treated models was found to
tion ratios are shown in Table 14; there was a decrease in the be within the ranges of 1.08–1.2, 1.23–1.42, and 1.37–1.65 of
stress concentration ratio below 1.0 as spacing between columns untreated models for embankment model heights of 200, 250,
increased because of the geogrid column yielding and the and 300 mm, respectively.
increase in the stiffness and strength of the surrounding soft soil 3. The bearing improvement ratio increased with decreasing spac-
during consolidation. This also can be caused by measuring con- ing ratio of stone columns for a given embankment. A higher
ditions. The results illustrate that the stress concentration ratio improvement ratio was achieved for the models reinforced with
increased gradually by increasing L=d. stone columns at s ¼ 2:5d at any embankment height. The
The results obtained compare well with the results obtained by higher values of qt =qunt were found to be 1.21, 1.44, and 1.7 for
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2006, 2007), who performed a series embankment model heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respec-
of experimental studies. Their analysis showed that the stress con- tively, whereas the lowest improvement was observed at spac-
centration in an ESC was higher than that in a conventional stone ing s ¼ 4d, especially for an embankment height of 200 mm.
column. Chen et al. (2008a) performed plane strain 1-g laboratory 4. The improvement in the settlement ratio increased as the spac-
tests to investigate soil arching in piled embankments with or with- ing ratio of stone columns increased. The lowest settlement
out reinforcement. They stated that the use of reinforcement to reduction ratio at failure was observed at s ¼ 2:5d for a given
improve the stress concentration ratio was more effective as the embankment height, which represents a higher degree of
spacing decreased. This conclusion was verified in this study by improvement.
direct measurement of stress in stone columns and the surrounding 5. There was a decrease in the stress concentration ratio below 1.0
soil. as spacing between columns increased because of the geogrid
The concept of arching of granular soil over an area in which column yielding and the increase in the stiffness and strength
there is partial loss of support from an underlying stratum has long of the surrounding soft soil during consolidation. The results
been recognized in the study of soil mechanics (Terzahgi 1943). Its illustrate that the stress concentration ratio (n) increased gradu-
effect is widely observed, for instance, in piled embankments. ally with increasing L=d.
Although this effect has been investigated for many decades, it
remains poorly understood. There are a number of different models
from different theoretical mechanisms for piled embankment, but References
these models were not considered for embankments resting on stone
columns. Abusharar, S. W., and Han, J. (2011). “Two-dimensional deep-seated slope
Maximum arching occurs when the vertical loading on the stability analysis of embankments over stone column-improved soft
underground structure reaches a minimum. clay.” Eng. Geol., 120(1–4), 103–110.
Al-Shaikhly, A.A. (2000). “Effect of stone grain size on the behavior of
The figures presented in this paper illustrate that the embank-
stone column.” M.Sc. thesis, Building and Construction Engineering
ment height and spacing ratio play a considerable part in the design
Dept., Univ. of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
of a piled (stone-column) embankment system. Al-Waily, M. J. (2008). “Stress concentration ratio of model stone columns
It was observed that, for different magnitudes of embankment improved by additives.” Ph.D. thesis, Building and Construction
height, the stress concentration ratio increased and reached a Engineering Dept., Univ. of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
maximum value and then maintained a nearly constant value. A ASTM. (2003a). “Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under
higher embankment height at L=d ¼ 8 results in a higher stress consolidated drained conditions.” D3080, West Conshohocken, PA.
concentration ratio, which is caused by the soil arching effect. A ASTM. (2003b). “Standard test method for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
higher stress concentration ratio indicated that a higher percent- plasticity index of soils.” D4318, West Conshohocken, PA.
age of the embankment load was transferred to the stone columns. ASTM. (2003c). “Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.”
These results reveal that the stress concentration ratio was influ- D422, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2003d). “Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by
enced by the embankment height and spacing ratio between
water pycnometer.” D854, West Conshohocken, PA.
columns. ASTM. (2003e). “Standard test methods for determining tensile properties
of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile method.” D6637, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Conclusions
Bauer, G. E., and Al-Joulani, N. (1996). “Laboratory and analytical investi-
gation of sleeve reinforced stone columns.” Geosynthetics: Application,
The following points were drawn from the test results: design and construction, Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 463–
1. The mode of failure for an embankment model resting on 466.
untreated, very soft clay with cu 10 kPa was close to local Britton, E., and Naughton, P. (2008). “An experimental investigation of
shear failure, whereas the mode gradually changed toward the arching in piled embankments.” Proc., 4th European Geosynthetics
general shear failure when using stone columns. Conf., Paper 106, 1–8.
Comparison of centrifuge tests and predictive methods–part 1 of 2.” Raithel, M., Kirchner, A., Schade, C., and Leusink, E. (2005). “Foundation
Ground Eng., 42(6), 34–38. of construction on very soft soils with geotextile encased columns—
Etezad, M., Hanna, A. M., and Ayadat, T. (2015). “Bearing capacity of a State of the art.” Proc., Geofrontiers, Austin, TX.
group of stone columns in soft soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061 Sharma, R. S., Kumar, B. P., and Nagendra, G. (2004). “Compressive load
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000393, 04014043. response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids.” Can. Geotech. J.,
Fattah, M. Y., Shlash, K. T., and Al-Waily, M. J. (2011). “Stress concentration 41(1), 187–192.
ratio of model stone columns in soft clays.” Geotech. Test. J., 34(1), 61–71. Shlash, K. T., Fattah, M. Y., and Al-Waily, M. J. M. (2009). “Laboratory
Fattah, M. Y., Zabar, B. S., and Hassan, H. A. (2014). “An experimental investigation on efficiency of model stone column groups.” Eng. Tech.
analysis of embankment on stone columns.” J. Eng., 20(7), 62–84. J., 27(9), 1673–1690.
Gniel, J., and Bouazza, A. (2009). “Improvement of soft soils using geogrid SORB (Iraqi State Organization for Roads and Bridges). (2003). Standard
encased stone columns.” Geotext. Geomembr., 27(3), 167–175. specification for roads and bridges, Iraqi General Specification for
Han, J., and Gabr, M. A. (2002). “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-rein- Roads and Bridges, Baghdad, Iraq.
forced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil.” J. Geotech. Stewart, D., and Fahey, M. (1994). “An investigation of the reinforcing
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:1(44), 44–53. effect on stone columns in soft clay.” Vertical and horizontal defor-
Hewlett, W. J., and Randolph, M. F. (1988). “Analysis of piled embank- mations of foundations and embankments, Geotechnical special pub-
ments.” Ground Eng., 21(3), 12–18. lication 40, A. T. Yeung and G. Y. Felio, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA,
Juran, I., and Guermazi, A. (1988). “Settlement response of soft soils rein- 513–524.
forced by compacted sand columns.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061 Terzahgi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley and Sons,
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:8(930), 930–943. New York.
Kempfert, H. G., and Gebreselassie, B. (2006). Excavations and founda- Wu, C. S., and Hong, Y. S. (2008). “The behavior of a laminated reinforced
tions in soft soils, Springer, Berlin. granular column.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(4), 302–316.
Keyhosropur, L., Soroush, A., and Imam, R. (2011). “A study on the behav- Zhang, L., and Zhao, M. (2014). “Deformation analysis of geotextile-
iour of a geosynthetic encased stone columns group using 3D numerical encased stone columns.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943
analysis.” 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conf., Amerkabir Univ. of -5622.0000389, 04014053.
Technology, Tehran, Iran, 1–7. Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., and Zhao, H. (2013). “Settlement calculation
Low, B. K., Tang, S. K., and Choa, V. (1994). “Arching in piled embank- of composite foundation reinforced with stone columns.” Int. J.
ments.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120: Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000212, 248–256.
11(1917), 1917–1938. Zhang, Z., Han, J., and Ye, G. (2014). “Numerical investigation on factors
Malarvizhi, S. N., and Ilamparuthi, K. (2004). “Load versus settlement of for deep-seated slope stability of stone column-supported embankments
clay-bed stabilized with stone and reinforced stone columns.” Proc., 3rd over soft clay.” Eng. Geol., 168, 104–113.