Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers
Ground Improvement 161
May 2008 Issue GI2
Pages 55–63
doi: 10.1680/grim.2008.161.2.55

Paper 700042
Received 29/10/2007
Accepted 30/10/2007
Keywords: foundations/
geotechnical engineering/
Tahar Ayadat
Research Associate, Department of
Building, Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Concordia University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Adel M. Hanna
Professor, Department of Building,
Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Concordia University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Ammar Hamitouche
Lecturer, Department of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering
Sciences, M’Sila University, Algeria

Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns

T. Ayadat PhD, A. M. Hanna PhD, FASCE and A. Hamitouche MSc

Granular columns have been used as an effective q2 carrying capacity for a reinforced sand column
technique for improving the engineering behaviour of q1 carrying capacity of a sand column without
soft clays and loose sand deposits. This paper presents reinforcement
the results of an experimental investigation on sand q, q 1 and q 2 acting pressures on the reinforcing element
columns internally reinforced with horizontal wire S spacing of columns
meshes made of plastic, steel and aluminium materials. W module of resistance of the inclusion
Loading tests were performed on prototype reinforced Æ angle of sliding surface with the horizontal
sand columns in a stress-controlled chamber that ªc unit weight of the clay
contained normally consolidated clay. The objective of ˜ó additional pressure that contributes to the
this investigation was to establish the load-carrying reinforcement of the column
capacity of these columns in light of the presence and ó9r lateral effective stress in the sand mass
intensity of the reinforcement. The performance of the ó9ro effective lateral stress of the soil before
reinforced sand mass was examined, by direct shear installing the column
testing, in terms of angle of shearing resistance, strains ó9v vertical stress acting on the column
to peak strength, bearing ratio, and brittleness of the j angle of shearing resistance of the sand in shear
system post-peak. A theoretical model is proposed to box tests
predict the load-carrying capacity of these columns. The j9c angle of shearing resistance of soil (clay)
values predicted by the proposed theory compared well j9s angle of shearing resistance of column material
with the results of the present experimental ł angle of the coned wedge under the foundation
investigation as well as those available in the literature.
A design procedure is presented for practitioners.
1. INTRODUCTION
NOTATION The increasing value of land and the limited availability of
A cross-section of the surface of failure sites for construction is greatly encouraging engineers to
Acol cross-section of the column consider in situ improvement of weak soil deposits. In the
Ao cross-section of the mesh literature, different methods can be found to stabilise weak and
As ratio of the area of stone columns to compressible soils using stone columns, deep compaction,
unreinforced soil preloading, densification, geogrids, freezing and chemical and
B width/diameter of the foundation thermal methods. These methods are categorised according to
c9 drained cohesion of clay the depth in the ground that needs to be improved, the costs
D diameter of the stone column and durability. Whereas deep compaction is an effective
h distance between the position of the inclusion improvement technique for loose cohesionless soils, it does not
and the head of the column produce satisfactory results with cohesive soils. Cohesive soils
hi distance between the position of the inclusion i can quite often be improved by partially replacing the ground
and the head of the column with stronger gravel-sized stone columns for increasing the
k coefficient 1 (k ¼ 4) load-carrying capacity and enhancing the consolidation
ko coefficient of earth pressure at rest characteristics. 2,3 Such a system is ideal for light structures and
L length of the stone column highways.

L length of the inclusion on the upper part of the
sheared column Stone columns were first used in 1830 by French military
M bending moment on the inclusion engineers to support the heavy foundations of the ironworks at
m number of elements reinforcing the sheared the artillery Arsenal in Bayonne. 1 After almost a century, stone
section columns were rediscovered as a by-product of the
N normal effort on the inclusion vibroflotation technique for compacting granular soils. In the
Pu ultimate carrying capacity early 1960s, the vibroflotation technique started to form stone
q surcharge on the ground surface of the soil columns as a viable technique to improve compressible soils. 4

Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al. 55
 Stone columns share the foundation load with the surrounding
soils. Under axial loading, the stone column dilates and applies
lateral stress to the surrounding soil, creating a high level of
passive resistances, which in return will increase the load-
carrying capacity of the ground.5–7 Hughes et al.8 reported that
the performance of the soil–column system depends mainly on
the in situ lateral stress in the soil and the angle of shearing
resistance of the column material. Often stone columns are
reinforced externally by encapsulating the column with a
geofabric 9–13 or internally by stabilisation of the column
material using concrete plugs, chemical grouting 14–16 or by
adding internal inclusions. 17 Although external reinforcement
will prevent the column failing by bulging or by shear, it will
not allow the column to dilate and accordingly to increase the
in situ stresses. On the other hand, internal reinforcement will
stiffen the column and increase the lateral stresses in the
surrounding soil, and accordingly its bearing capacity.
In this investigation, an experimental study was undertaken to
investigate the performance of sand columns reinforced
internally by rigid and plastic rods in the form of circular
meshes placed horizontally in the upper portion of the column.
The shear characteristics of the sand mass reinforced by these
inclusions were examined. A design theory based on the
deduced failure mode was developed to predict the load-
carrying capacity of these columns for given levels and
intensity of the internal reinforcements.
2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
In this investigation, two series of tests were conducted. In the
first series, direct shear tests were performed on sand reinforced
with rigid and plastic rods. The objective of this series was to
evaluate the influence of the reinforcement on the strength and
strain characteristics of the sand. The second series consisted of
loading tests performed on prototype internally reinforced sand
columns in a stress-controlled chamber that contained
normally consolidated clay.
The material used in the direct shear box tests was dry fine
silica sand, having a particle size in the range 0.08–2 mm,
consisting of 85% of particles less than 0.5 mm. The uniformity
coefficient of this sand was 2.08, and the coefficient of
curvature was 0.66. The maximum and the minimum unit
weights were 19.5 and 15.9 kN/m3 respectively and the specific
gravity was 2.56.
The sand used to form the columns was coarse, uniform (1.18–
2.36 mm), with maximum and minimum unit weights of 19.8
and 14.5 kN/m3 , respectively. The sand was compacted to a
relative density of 80%, and the angle of shearing resistance of
the compacted sand was j9s ¼ 448. The clay used was kaolin
clay with 78% of particles less than 2
m. The unconfined
compressive strength of the clay was 35 kN/m2 , the liquid and
plastic limits were 72 and 40%, respectively, and the specific
gravity was 2.6. The drained angle of shearing resistance of the
clay was j9c ¼ 218.
In this investigation, steel, aluminium and nylon rods were
used as reinforcement materials in both series. The steel and
nylon rods had diameters of 1.5 and 1.0 mm, respectively,
whereas the aluminium fibres were in the form of thin plates
2.4 mm wide and 0.6 mm thick. For the direct shear tests, rods
56 Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns
of length 16 mm were placed perpendicular to the sliding
surface of the sand. The percentage of the inclusions was 1% of
the cross-section of the sand bed. In addition, tests were
conducted on sand reinforced with 2% steel rods. For tests on
the sand column, the rods were horizontally embedded in the
form of meshes; each consisted of six rods and placed in two
layers. The rods had the same diameter as the column and were
attached to each other by welding in the case of steel and by
special strong glue in the case of nylon and aluminium. The
sand columns were tested by single, double and triple meshes
of reinforcement. The single mesh was installed at 1D, 2D and
3D from the top of the column (roughly in the middle of the
critical depth). The double meshes were installed at 2D and 4D,
and the three meshes were placed at 1.5D, 3D and 4.5D (Fig. 1).
The direct shear tests were performed on samples having
dimensions of 60.5, 60.5 and 20.5 mm (width, length and
thickness, respectively), split horizontally at the centre of the
soil specimen. After preparing the sample the shearing force
was applied at a rate of 0.123 mm/min. Sets of reading of a
proving ring and dial gauges were taken every 15 s for the first
2 min, and then every 30 s until the sample reached the peak
load and the proving ring readings started to decrease. The soil
was compacted in three layers using a special impact hammer
designed to deliver the desired energy per unit volume of
compacted soil. Preliminary tests were performed to establish
the laboratory relationship between the sand unit weight and
the degree of compaction. The number of blows per layer of
sand was then selected to produce the desired dry densities of
the sand. The compaction hammer was composed of two parts:
one part was restrained from movement and the other was
unrestrained. The restrained component consisted of a square
plate, 14 mm thick, which was screwed to one end of a 290 mm
solid rod with 14 mm diameter. The plate had approximately
the same dimensions as the box (58.5 3 58.5 3 14 mm3 ). The
other part of the hammer was free to slide along the rod from a
fixed height of 200 mm. In order to obtain loose, medium-
dense and dense sands, three different numbers of blows per
layer were selected (namely 2, 15 and 40 blows), giving dry
P
3D
4·5D
Reinforcing
element
L
φD
Sand column
Fig. 1. Sand column reinforced internally with horizontal
meshes
Ayadat et al.
unit weights of 16.7, 17.7 and 18.4 kN/m3 and angles of 55

Peak angle of shearing resistance, φ: degrees

shearing resistance j ¼ 30, 35 and 408, respectively.
50
The sand columns were tested in a cylindrical chamber made of
45
steel with diameter 390 mm and depth 520 mm. The set-up
used in this investigation was similar to that used by Ayadat 40
and Hanna. 13 The tests were carried out under controlled
conditions of soil density and surcharge pressure using sand 35
columns with diameter 23 mm and 470 mm long (full
30 Sand unreinforced
penetration). Static loads were applied by means of a stress- 1% steel
controlled loading system. A surcharge pressure of 100 kN/m2 25
1% nylon
1% aluminium
was applied on the clay surface. The vertical movements of the 2% steel
top of the column and the clay surface were monitored by two 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
linear variable differential transformers. In this investigation,
Relative density: %
each test was repeated twice to ensure repeatability of test data.
Fig. 2. Peak angle of shearing resistance plotted against relative
3. TEST RESULTS density
Table 1 presents the test results on the direct shear box. In
Table 1, the values of the peak angle of shearing resistance (j),
strains at the peak strength (åf ), bearing ratio (Br ), which is the reinforced sand plotted against the relative density of the
defined as the ratio of the shear strengths of reinforced and un- sand as deduced from the shear box test results (Table 1). It can
reinforced sand, and the brittleness of the system, which is be seen from Fig. 2 that the presence of inclusions, placed
defined as the ratio of the difference between the peak and the perpendicular to the shearing surface, improved the shear
residual strengths to the peak strength (Bf ) are given. It can be strength of the sand. The peak angle of shearing resistance was
seen from Table 1 that, in general, the performance of increased for loose sand by 98 for steel, 88 for nylon and 128
aluminium rod inclusions was superior to those of steel and for aluminium, which corresponds to 30, 27 and 40%,
nylon. This was due to the fact that aluminium rods were made respectively. For dense sand, the increase noted was 78 for
of plates, which generated higher passive earth pressure in steel, 68 for nylon and 118 for aluminium (i.e. an increase of
comparison with steel or nylon bars. Furthermore, aluminium 17, 15 and 30%, respectively).
material is ductile, which allows more flexibility than rigid
steel and nylon rods. Figure 3 presents the strains at the peak strength (åf ) plotted
against the relative density of the sand. It can be seen from Fig.
In this series, direct shear tests were also carried out on sand 3 that for loose sand åf was increased by 75, 87 and 120% for
reinforced by inclusions randomly distributed. The results steel, nylon and aluminium respectively, and by 30, 76 and
showed that this random reinforcement did not improve the 108% for dense sand. It can be stated herein that the
shear strength of the sand. For 5% reinforcement of the cross- characteristics of the sand were considerably improved, notably
section of a column made of medium-density sand, the angle for the loose state.
of shearing resistance of the sand was increased by 1% for
nylon, 2% for aluminium and 3.5% for steel. Figure 4 presents the bearing ratio (Br ) plotted against the
relative density of the sand. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that the
Figure 2 presents the peak angle of shearing resistance (j) of bearing ratio increased due to the presence of the inclusions. In
the case of loose sand, this
increase reached 42% for
Type of reinforcement Relative Properties investigated steel, 37% for nylon and 60%
density: % for aluminium rods, whereas
j: degrees år : mm Br Bf
for dense sand, the increase
was slightly lower at 30, 25
Sand unreinforced 25 30 1.985 1.000 0.0250
and 50%, respectively. Fig. 5
55 35 1.110 1.000 0.1580
75 41 .
0 800 .
1 000 .
0 2760 presents the brittleness factor
1% steel 25 39 .
3 479 .
1 420 .
0 0200 (Bf ) plotted against the
55 43 1.615 1.320 0.1200 relative density of the sand. It
75 48 1.044 1.300 0.2100 can be seen from Fig. 5 that
1% nylon 25 38 3.717 1.370 0.0170
the brittleness factor (Bf )
55 42 2.011 1.260 0.0750
75 47 .
1 407 .
1 250 .
0 1500 decreases due to the presence
1% aluminium 25 42 3.817 1.598 0.0115 of the inclusions. In case of
55 47 2.453 1.530 0.0400 loose sand, the decrease was
75 53 1.667 1.500 0.0900 20% for steel, 32% for nylon
2% steel 25 42 3.576 1.598 0.0180
and 54% for aluminium rods,
55 46 1.723 1.466 0.1050
75 51 .
1 133 .
1 425 .
0 1920 whereas for dense sand the
decrease was slightly higher
Table 1. Summary of test results: direct shear tests at 24, 45 and 67%,
respectively.

Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al. 57
 4·5 sand column. The columns were tested without/with
Sand unreinforced reinforcements with a single mesh placed at 3D from the top of
4 1% steel
1% nylon the column. It can be seen from Fig. 6 that the presence of the
Strain to peak strength, εf: mm

3·5 1% aluminium sand column has improved the load-carrying capacity of the
2% steel
3 clay deposit. This capacity was further increased when the sand
columns were reinforced. Furthermore, at a given displacement,
2·5
the carrying load increases due to the presence of the
2 reinforcement. Once again, it can be confirmed that the
1·5 carrying load of sand columns reinforced with aluminium
1
mesh is higher than those for steel and plastic reinforcements.
In addition, the performance was significantly enhanced by the
0·5
increase of the number of meshes (Fig. 7) due to the increase in
0 the confining pressure on the column. It can be seen from Fig.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
7 that the load on the reinforced columns increased with
Relative density: %
settlement linearly up to approximately 30% of the ultimate
load, beyond which the column exhibited relatively larger
Fig. 3. Strain to peak strength plotted against relative density
amounts of settlement due to a small increase in the load.

Table 3 presents the carrying load at 1 mm settlement on

columns reinforced with aluminium meshes. It can be seen
1·8 from Table 3 that the carrying load of these columns was
1·6 increased by 38, 54 and 75% for single, double and triple
meshes, respectively in comparison with clay deposit without
1·4
sand columns. Once again, these rates were relatively lower for
Bearing ratio, Br

1·2 steel meshes and much lower for plastic. It can therefore be
concluded that, in general, internal reinforcement by inclusions
1·0
provided a better alternative to external reinforcement by
0·8 Sand unreinforced encapsulation.
1% steel
0·6 1% nylon In order to demonstrate the effect of reinforcement on the
1% aluminium
0·4
2% steel load-carrying capacity of a sand column, the term carrying
capacity ratio, CCR, is introduced, as defined by Ayadat and
0·2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Hanna. 13
Relative density: %
q2
Fig. 4. Bearing ratio plotted against relative density 1 CCR ¼
q1

where q1 is the carrying capacity of a sand column without

reinforcement and q2 is the carrying capacity for a reinforced
0·3 sand column.
Sand unreinforced
1% steel
0·25 1% nylon Figure 8 presents the deduced values of CCR from the present
1% aluminium experimental investigation plotted against the number of
2% steel
Brittleness factor, Bf

0·2 meshes used as inclusions in a sand column. It can be seen

from Fig. 8 that the ratio CCR is significantly increased due to
0·15 an increase in the number of meshes placed in the column.

0·1 4. THEORY
Figure 9 presents a sketch of a stone column internally
0·05 reinforced by inclusion and subjected to shear failure. At
failure, the inclusion is subjected to passive and frictional
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
forces produced by the surrounding sand (Fig. 9(a)). Under this
Relative density: % loading condition, the failure of the column–inclusion system
will take place by either rotation of the mesh when the passive
Fig. 5. Brittleness factor plotted against relative density and the frictional forces are mobilised or within the material of
the mesh when the tensile stress acting on the mesh reaches the
ultimate tensile strength of that material.
The results of the loading tests performed on internally
reinforced sand columns are given in Table 2. In this Assuming a well embedment of the inclusion in the sand mass,
investigation, the method of Chin 18 was used to predict the the mesh will be subjected to a uniformly distributed pressure,
load-carrying capacity (Pu ) of the sand columns. Fig. 6 presents q (Fig. 9(b)), having the two components as shown in Fig. 9(c).
load–settlement curves for clay deposit tested without/with Therefore, the resisting shear stress on the sliding surface is

58 Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al.
 Test Type of Type of foundation support Mesh emplacement Carrying capacity, Pu : N
number reinforcement

1 Not reinforced Clay alone N/A 77

2 Sand column in clay bed N/A 93
3 Sand column/single mesh 1D 101
4 Sand column/single mesh 2D 105
5 Steel Sand column/single mesh 3D 111
6 Sand column/double meshes 2D and 4D 138
7 Sand column/triple meshes 1.5D, 3D and 4.5D 152
8 Sand column/single mesh 1D 97
9 Sand column/single mesh 2D 100
10 Nylon Sand column/single mesh 3D 106
11 Sand column/double meshes 2D and 4D 127
12 Sand column/triple meshes 1.5D, 3D and 4.5D 143
13 Sand column/single mesh 1D 109
14 Sand column/single mesh 2D 118
15 Aluminium Sand column/single mesh 3D 129
16 Sand column/double meshes 2D and 4D 145
17 Sand column/triple meshes 1.5D, 3D and 4.5D 179

Table 2. Summary of test results: carrying capacity of reinforced/unreinforced sand columns

220 220
Clay alone Clay alone
200 Sand column in clay bed 200 Sand column in clay bed
Column with single mesh (aluminium) Column with single mesh (at 3D)
180 Column with single mesh (steel) 180 Column with triple meshes
Column with single mesh (nylon) Column with double meshes
160 160
140 140
Load: N

Load: N

120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 Mesh installed at 3D 20
0 0
0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7 0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7
Settlement: mm Settlement: mm

Fig. 6. Load settlement for different foundation supports Fig. 7. Load settlement for sand column reinforced with
aluminium meshes

composed of the soil-resisting shear stress (ô9f 1 ) and the

resisting stress provided by the inclusion (ô f 2 ).
P
Po
Type of foundation support Load, P: N
The resisting shear stress provided by the granular material can Po
be expressed by
Clay alone 50 –
óv
ór cosj9s sinj9s Sand column in clay bed 70 –
2 ô9f 1 ¼ cosj9s ¼ ó9r Sand column/single mesh 97 0.38
2 1
sinj9s
Sand column/double meshes 108 0.54
Sand column/triple meshes 122 0.75

Since Po ¼ load for unreinforced sand column.

1 þ sinj9s Table 3. Values of load corresponding to 1 mm settlement of

3 ó9v ¼ ó9r sand column reinforced/unreinforced by aluminium meshes
1
sinj9s

where ó9v is the vertical effective stress in the sand mass and ó9r
is the lateral effective stress in the sand mass. N M
4 ó¼ þ
Ao W
The resisting stress provided by the inclusion can be
determined as follows with

Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al. 59
 2·2
Therefore, at failure and by substituting equations (5) and (6) in
equation (4), the following equation can be written
2·0

Carrying capacity ratio, CCR

L cosÆ L2 sinÆ
7 q þ ¼ óa
1·8 2 Ao 8W

1·6
The shearing force provided by the inclusion and acting on the
failure surface can be expressed by
1·4

Nylon
L móa
1·2 Steel T2 ¼ mq ¼

Aluminium 8 2 cosÆ L sinÆ
þ
1 Ao 4W
0 1 2 3 4
Number of reinforcing meshes
where m is the number of elements reinforcing the sheared
Fig. 8. Carrying capacity ratio (CCR) plotted against number section.
of reinforcing meshes
The apparent shearing resistance of the system can then be

T1 þ T2 T2
9 ôf ¼ ¼ ôf1 þ
A A
L L
5 N ¼ q1 ¼ q cos Æ
2 2 where A is the cross-sectional area of the surface of failure
(A ¼ Acol /cos Æ) and A col is the cross-section of the column.

L2 L2 By substituting equations (2) and (8) in equation (9), we obtain

6 M ¼ q2 ¼ q sin Æ
8 8
cosj9s sinj9s móa
ô9f ¼ ó9r þ

where N is normal stress acting on the inclusion, M is the 10 1
sinj9s cosÆ L sinÆ
bending moment on the inclusion, Ao is the cross-sectional A: þ
Ao 4W
area of the mesh, L is the length of the inclusion on the
sheared part of the column (equation (23)), Æ is the angle of
sliding surface with the horizontal, W is the module of or
resistance of the inclusion and q, q 1 and q 2 are the acting
pressures on the reinforcing element as shown in Fig. 9(c). cosj9s sinj9s móa
ô9f ¼ ó9r þ

11 1
sinj9s Acol cosÆ L sinÆ
The stress determined by equation (4) must be less or equal to þ
cosÆ Ao 4W
the allowable tensile stress of the inclusion material, óa .

q q2
α q1 α
α
q1 ⫽ q.cos α
Reinforcing q2 ⫽ q.sin α
element Failure surface

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 9. Shear failure of a sand column internally reinforced by inclusion: (a) sheared column;
(b) shearing effect on inclusion; (c) loading distribution on inclusion

60 Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al.
The percentage of the reinforcement in the cross-sectional area

ª L
can be defined by 20 ó9ro ¼ k0 q þ c
2
mAo
12 X¼
Acol where ó9ro is the effective lateral stress of the soil before
installing the column, c9 is the drained cohesion of the soft
soil, ko is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, ªc is the unit
By substituting equation (12) into equation (11), the following weight of the clay, q is the surcharge applied on the ground
equation can be written surface, L is the length of the stone column and k is the
coefficient 1 (k ¼ 4).
cosj9s sinj9s X óa
ô9f ¼ ó9r þ It is worth noting that the angle Æ can be taken to be equal to
13 1
sinj9s L tanÆ Ao
1þ the angle ł reported by Etezad et al. 19 and defined previously
4W
as

The internal reinforcement increases either the confinement  

21 Æ ¼ ł ¼ As ðj9c
j9s Þ=2 þ ð
=4 þ j9s =2Þ
level or the angle of shearing resistance of the granular
material. By considering the first hypothesis, thus
The length of inclusion in the sheared part (L) for a single
cosj9s sinj9s inclusion can be estimated by
14 ô9f ¼ ðó9r þ ˜ó Þ
1
sinj9s

22 L ¼ D
h cotÆ
where ˜ó is the additional pressure produced by the
reinforcement of the column.
where h is the distance between the position of the inclusion
Equating equations (13) and (14) gives and the head of the column.

X óa 1
sinj9s In the case of several meshes, it is taken as the average lengths

˜ó ¼ as follows
15 L tanÆ Ao cosj9s sinj9s
1þ
4W
X
m
23 L¼ ð D
h i cotÆÞ
The compressive stress (carrying capacity), which can be i¼1
supported by a stone column reinforced internally by
inclusions, in the form of meshes, can be estimated from the
where h i is the distance between the position of the inclusion i
following equation
and the head of the column and m is the number of inclusions


 (meshes).

j9s X óa 1 þ sinj9s
ó9v ¼ ó9r tan2 þ þ
16 4 2 L tanÆ Ao cosj9s sinj9s 5. VALIDATION OF THE THEORY
1þ
4W In order to validate the proposed theory, the results of the
present experimental investigation and those available in the
literature were compared with the predicted values by the
Since
proposed theory. These comparisons are given in Table 4 in the


 form of the load-carrying capacity of these columns. It can be

j9s 1 þ sinj9s noted from this table that the theory predicted the load-
17 tan2 þ ¼
4 2 1
sinj9s carrying capacity of these columns well, with deviations of 7–
18%. It is important to report herein that the higher deviation
values were noted for single mesh reinforcements. Although
Thus these results are within an acceptable range in the field of
geotechnical engineering, the discrepancies reported could be
18 Pu ¼ ó9v Acol due to different effects such as the non-homogeneity of the
clay bed tested, disturbance due to column installation, and
consideration of the maximum strength of the inclusion in the
Based on the work of Hughes and Withers 1 and Hughes et al.8 computation of the load-carrying capacity.
it can be assumed that
In geotechnical engineering, due to lack of field data, carefully
19 ó9r ¼ ó9ro þ kc9 conducted laboratory testing on prototype models is often
sufficient to validate design theories; furthermore, it
encourages researchers to conduct full-scale field tests for more
and validation.

Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al. 61
 Inclusions Ultimate carrying capacity, Pu : N

Type Strength: kN/m Number Laboratory test results Present theoretical

results
Sharma et al. 17 Present investigation

Biaxial geogrid 2 104 123

(D* ¼ 60 mm) 7.68 3 116 134
5 127 143
Nylon meshes Single at 3D 106 129
(D* ¼ 23 mm) 90 Double 127 146
Triple 143 166
Steel meshes Single at 3D 111 133
(D* ¼ 23 mm) 200 Double 138 151
Triple 152 176
Aluminium meshes Single at 3D 129 155
(D* ¼ 23 mm) 160 Double 145 171
Triple 179 197

D* ¼ diameter of the column.

Table 4. Comparison between computed capacities and laboratory test results

6. DESIGN PROCEDURE internally by single mesh. This performance was

In this section a step-by-step procedure is provided for the
design of stone columns installed in soft soil and reinforced
internally by inclusion.
(a) Determine the soil’s characteristics, including: unit weight
(ªc ), angle of shearing resistance (j9c ), cohesion (c9), and
the coefficient of earth pressure at rest (ko ).
(b) Determine the angle of shearing resistance of column
material (j9s ) and its geometry (i.e. diameter, D and
length, L).
(c) Determine the parameters of the reinforcement material,
which are needed for the computation of the load-carrying
capacity of the columns; these are L, Ao , W, óa , X and Æ.
(d ) Use the concept of the unit cell; determine the axial load
applied on the stone column (Pa ) and the surcharge (q)
acting on the surrounding soil. The acting domain of the
column should be taken as a circle of effective diameter De
equal to1.05S and 1.13S for triangular and square
arrangement respectively, where S is the spacing between
columns.
(e) Verify the stability of the reinforced column with regard to
the applied load. The carrying capacity of the column is
calculated using equation (20).
significantly enhanced by increasing the number of meshes
in the column; for columns reinforced with three
aluminium meshes, the load-carrying capacity was
increased up to 75%, as compared to 54 and 38% for two
and single mesh reinforcement, respectively. This increase
is relatively lower for steel and much lower for plastic
meshes.
(b) Ductile materials in the form of plates were proven to be
the best reinforcement arrangements for these columns.
The superior performance of the sand–aluminium
inclusions remained unchallenged, when compared with
2% of steel fibres.
(c) A theoretical model was proposed to predict the load-
carrying capacity of sand columns reinforced internally by
inclusions (meshes). This model takes into account the
geometric characteristics, spacing and strength of the
reinforcing elements and the surrounding soft soils. A
design procedure is presented for use in practice.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial support from the Natural Science and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and
Concordia University is acknowledged.

7. CONCLUSION
Experimental investigation on the load-carrying capacity of
sand columns reinforced internally by rigid steel or plastic and
flexible aluminium inclusions was conducted. Loading tests
were performed on prototype internally reinforced sand
columns in a stress-controlled chamber that contained
normally consolidated clay. The performance of the reinforced
sand mass was first examined, by direct shear testing, in terms
of angle of shearing resistance, strains to peak strength,
bearing ratio, and brittleness of the system post-peak. Based on
the results of this study, the following conclusions can be
drawn.
(a) The presence of granular columns has improved the load-
carrying capacity of soft soil. This performance was
improved further when these columns were reinforced
REFERENCES
1. HUGHES J. M. O. and WITHERS N. J. Reinforcing of soft
cohesive soils with stone columns. Ground Engineering,
1974, 7, No. 3, 42–49.
2. PRIEBE H. J. Abschätzung des Setzungsverhaltens eines
durch Stopfverdichtung verbesserten Baugrundes. Die
Bautechnik, 1976, 53, No. H.5, 160–162.
3. RANJAN G. Ground treated with granular piles and its
response under load. Indian Geotechnical Journal, 1989,
19, No. 1, 1–86.
4. DULLAGE C. R. An Investigation into the Feasibility of
Small-scale Tests on Granular Piles in Clay. PhD thesis,
University of Wales, Swansea, 1969.
5. GREENWOOD D. A. Mechanical improvement of soils below
ground surface. Proceedings of the Ground Engineering

62 Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al.
 Conference, Institute of Civil Engineering, London, 1970,
pp. 9–20.
6. THORBURN S. Building structures supported by stabilized
gorund. Géotechnique, 1975, 25, No. 1, 83–94.
7. MITCHELL J. K. and KATTI R. K. Soil improvement state-of-
the-art report. Proceedings of the 10th ICSMFE, Stockholm,
Sweden, 1981, 261–317.
8. HUGHES J. M. O., WITHERS N. J. and GREENWOOD D. A. A
field trial of the reinforcing effect of a stone column in
soil. Géotechnique, 1975, 25, No. 1, 31–44.
9. ALAMGIR M. Analysis and Design of Plain and Kacheted
Stone Columns in Clays. MSc Eng. thesis, Department of
Civil Engineering, BLET, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 1989.
10. BAUER G. E. and AL-JOULANI N. Strengthening of marginal
soils by confined stone columns. Proceedings of the 7th
International Cold Regions Engineering Specialty
Conference, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 7–9 March 1994,
97–117.
11. ZHIGANG Z. and QISEN Z. Analysis on the bearing capacity
of geogrid reinforced stone-column. Chinese Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 1997, 19, No. 1, 58–62.
12. ZAYYAT M. M., JACKSON A. W., TANAKA T., HINO T. and
MATSUBA Y. Foundation soil improvement using vibro
compaction combined with geo grids. Geo-Frontiers, 2005,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 130–142, 1929–
1938.
13. AYADAT T. and HANNA A. M. Encapsulated stone
columns as a soil improvement technique for collapsible
soil. Ground Improvement Journal, 2005, 9, No. 4,
137–147.
14. RAO B. G. and BHANDARI R. K. Skirting—a new concept in
design of heavy storage tank foundation. Proceedings of
the 6th South-East Conference on Soil Engineering, Taipei,
Taiwan, 1980, 283–300.
15. BROMS B. B. and ANTTIKOSKI U. Soil stabilization.
Proceedings of the European Conference on Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering, General Report, Speciality
Session 9, Helsinki, Finland 1983, Vol. 3, pp. 1289–1315.
16. SEN B. Soil improvement by geotextiles stone columns and
chemical grouting. A review of the state-of-the-art.
Bulletin of the Institution of Engineers, India—Supplement,
1990, 40, No. 6, 13.
17. SHARMA R. S., PHANI KUMAR B. R. and NEGENDRA G.
Compressive load response of granular piles reinforced
with geogrids. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2007, 41,
No. 1, 187–192.
18. CHIN F. K. The inverse slope as a prediction of ultimate
bearing capacity of piles. Proceedings of the 3rd South-East
Asian Conference on Soil Engineering, Hong Kong, 1972,
83–91.
19. ETEZAD M., HANNA A. M. and AYADAT T. Analytical model
for a group of stone columns in soft soil. Proceedings of
the 33rd CSCE, Annual Conference of Civil Engineering,
Toronto, Canada June 2–4 2005.

What do you think?

To comment on this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineers and related professionals, academics and students. Papers
should be 2000–5000 words long, with adequate illustrations and references. Please visit www.thomastelford.com/journals for author
guidelines and further details.

Ground Improvement 161 Issue GI2 Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns Ayadat et al. 63