See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/280385983

Experimental study of Tunis soft soil improved by deep mixing column.

Conference Paper · April 2015

CITATION READS

1 211

4 authors:

Wissem Frikha Habib Zargayouna

University of Tunis El Manar 2 PUBLICATIONS   9 CITATIONS   
45 PUBLICATIONS   252 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Samia Boussetta Mounir Bouassida

9 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS   
University of Tunis El Manar
309 PUBLICATIONS   1,621 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Characterisation of Tunis soils View project

Behavior of foundations on soil reinforced by columns View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mounir Bouassida on 30 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soils and Foundations ]]]];](]):]]]–]]]

HOSTED BY The Japanese Geotechnical Society

Soils and Foundations

www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sandf

Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil

reinforced by a group of sand columns
Wissem Frikhan, Fakhr Tounekti, Wassim Kaffel, Mounir Bouassida
Université de Tunis El Manar – Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis, LR14ES03-Ingénierie Géotechnique, BP 37 Le Belvédère, 1002 Tunis, Tunisia
Received 29 January 2014; received in revised form 12 August 2014; accepted 21 October 2014

Abstract

An experimental investigation has been conducted to study the mechanical properties of remolded Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand
columns. The tested soft soil, extracted from the city center of Tunis at a depth of 15 m, has poor mechanical properties, and its moisture-
sensitivity is very important. Specimens were initially slurry mixed at 1.5 times their liquid limit. They were then remolded at an initial K0
consolidation path up to a vertical stress of 140 kPa. The holes, initially made in the specimens, were afterwards filled with standard sand which
simulated the reinforcing column material. All the reinforced soil specimens were then subjected to consolidated undrained triaxial shear tests
with measured excess pore-pressure (CU þu). Three confining pressures of 100, 200, and 300 kPa were applied during the consolidation phase.
In addition to the unreinforced control specimen, three different types of reinforced specimens were used, namely, reinforced specimens with a
single column, three columns, and four columns. All the reinforced specimens had the same area replacement ratio. The test results have shown
that the number of reinforcing columns has a significant effect on the mechanical characteristics of the reinforced soft soil.
& 2015 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Group stone columns; Tunis soft soil; Triaxial test; Undrained shear strength; Friction angle

1. Introduction thorough study of both the short-term and long-term behaviors.

The soil of the plateau of Tunis, Tunisia is composed of
three main formations: a 7-m fill layer (from a depth of 1 to
8 m), soft soil (from a depth of 8 to 70 m), and a sandy-clay
layer that is assumed as a rigid substratum (Touiti et al., 2009;
Tounekti et al., 2008).
The first twenty meters of the Tunis soft soil layer is used as
the foundation level for the majority of buildings in Tunis City.
Tunis soft soil is considered as a problematic soil because of its
low strength and high compressibility. For this reason, the
design of foundations to be built on Tunis soft clay requires a
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: frikha_wissem@yahoo.fr (W. Frikha).
Peer review under responsibility of The Japanese Geotechnical Society.
According to the results of classification tests performed by
Klai and Bouassida (2009), Tunis soft clay is a very plastic
muddy soil with a high proportion of silt and varied clay
fractions. Saturated Tunis soft clay is classified as a highly
plastic silt with a very low consistency (Bouassida, 2006).
Building on such a problematic soil requires the use of deep
piles with lengths that can reach up to 50 m. Thus, for
economic reasons, soil-improvement techniques could present
a solution to problems encountered when founding on Tunis
soft soil. Among the various current methods for improving in-
situ soils, stone columns are considered to be a cost-effective
soil-improvement technique especially for soft soils (Andreou
et al., 2008; Frikha et al., 2014). The use of reinforcing tech-
niques that apply stone or sand columns results in an increase
in bearing capacity as well as a reduction and acceleration in

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
0038-0806/& 2015 The Japanese Geotechnical Society. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
2 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Nomenclature
A total cross-sectional reinforced area
AC cross-sectional area of stone columns
B Skempton coefficient
Cu coefficient of uniformity
cU qmax/2
cs shear strength of untreated soil (shear strength)
cc shear strength of stone column constitutive
material
Dc diameter of column
H length of column
IP plasticity index
n column number
M slope of critical state line
Pc perimeter of single column
Pt perimeter of reinforced soil (composite cell)
p ¼ σ 1 þ 2σ 3 =3 mean stress
p0 effective mean stress
consolidation settlement. Furthermore, the rapid installation
process has made this technique quite competitive compared to
other soil-improvement techniques (Frikha et al., 2008; Frikha
and Bouassida, 2014).
Several laboratory investigations have been conducted to
estimate the performance of soft soil reinforced by granular
columns (Juran and Guermazi, 1988; Bouassida, 1996; Wood
et al., 2000; Sivakumar et al., 2004; Black et al., 2007;
Andreou et al., 2008; Frikha et al., 2013, 2014). The main
objectives of these studies were to validate some theoretical
results and to evaluate the effects of the main design
parameters on the overall behavior of the reinforced soil, such
as the applied load, the improvement area ratio, the boundary
conditions, the column installation techniques, the grain size
distribution of the column material, the column length, etc.
(Frikha, 2010).
The group effect of stone—column reinforcement was
studied using field tests (Goughnour and Bayuk, 1979;
Munfakh et al., 1984, etc.) and centrifuge tests to evaluate
the general failure mechanisms (Terashi et al., 1991) and the
extent of the improvement (Kimura et al., 1983).
Kaffezakis (1983) performed triaxial tests on clay specimens
reinforced by a group of stone columns. He reported a
significant increase in the lateral stress developing within the
stone columns which increased as the number of columns
within the group increased.
Bachus and Barksdale (1984) concluded that there is only a
slight increase in the ultimate load bearing capacity per column
when the number of columns increases. However, in their
tests, the effect of lateral confinement was more significant
since the reinforcing columns were set close to the borders of
the testing box.
Hu (1995) built a laboratory-scale model to examine
the behavior of a cohesive soft soil reinforced by a group of
stone columns supporting a rigid footing. He found that
Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
q ¼ σ 1  σ 3 deviator stress
qmax peak deviator stress
R radii of total cross-sectional reinforced area
RC n radii of cross-sectional area of one stone column
S spacing between columns
SLC lateral surface of single column of radius RC
SLCi lateral surface of one column belonging to group
of n columns having same radius RCn
u excess pore water pressure
ω natural water content
ωl liquid limit
ωp plastic limit
σ03 triaxial confining pressure
σ1 axial pressure
εa axial strain
φ0 effective friction angle
η area replacement ratio
γd dry unit weight
χ contact coefficient
reinforcement by a group of columns is more effective than
that by an isolated column. The interaction between the
columns and the soft clay was found to efficiently contribute
to the enhancement of the load bearing capacity and to provide
a wider transfer of loading.
Wood et al. (2000) commented on the tests performed by
Hu (1995) and confirmed that the mode of failure for each
column, in the case of group-column reinforcement, depends
on its location within the group, its length, and the type of
loading. Their results showed that the pre-failure mechanisms
and the failure modes of a stone-column group are different
from those observed for a single column. They reported that
the area replacement ratio affects the extent of the columns'
interaction and the load transferred to the soft clay in between
the columns. This research concluded that a significant
improvement in the bearing capacity depends on a minimum
area replacement ratio of 25%.
Black et al. (2007) found that clay specimens reinforced by
a single end-bearing column (fully penetrating column over the
specimen length) show a 33% increase in strength. They noted
that the installation of a group of columns, with the same area
replacement ratio, does not provide any particular difference in
load-carrying capacity. With regard to the settlement under
drained conditions, a group of columns brings about a
significant difference in the stiffness of the composite material.
The results, presented by Black et al. (2007), indicate that a
group of columns can lead to a possible reduction in stiffness
when compared to a single column with similar area replace-
ment ratios.
Ambily and Gandhi (2007) reported that the stiffness of a
single column and that of a group of six columns (spaced apart by
more than 3 times the column diameter) are almost comparable. It
has been noted, using the unit cell concept, that the behavior of a
single column can simulate the field behavior of an interior
column belonging to a group of columns.
 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
In conclusion, some authors found that, for a given replace-
ment area ratio, an increase in the number of columns does
improve the strength characteristics of reinforced soil, while other
researchers confirmed that there is no difference between the
behavior of a single column and that of a group of columns.
The main goals of this paper are to evaluate the effect of
reinforcement by a single column and by a group of sand
columns on the strength characteristics of Tunis soft soil and to
examine the effect of the contact surface between the columns
and the soft soil on the shear strength of the improved soil. To
achieve these objectives, an experimental study using con-
solidated undrained triaxial tests with excess pore pressure
measurements (CU þ u) were carried out on remolded Tunis
soft soil specimens reinforced with sand columns.
Due to the enhanced drainage property of reinforcing sand
columns, the consolidation of soft soil is highly accelerated.
Hence, at this stage, the reinforced soil can be considered
consolidated. As the applied load occurs rapidly, this second
phase simulates the undrained behavior of reinforced soil.
Therefore, it is more appropriate to study the experimental
behavior of reinforced soil using the CU þ u triaxial test, since
it reproduces the in-situ construction conditions during which
non-negligible excess pore pressure is measured. Furthermore,
the CU þ u test enables the determination of the short-term
strength characteristics of the reinforced soil and the deduction
of the long-term shear strength properties.
The above tests were performed by varying the number of
columns (one, three, and four) and the confining stress
0 diameter of the stone columns in in-situ practice (80–120 cm)
(σ 3 ¼ 100, 200, and 300 kPa) for a fixed area replacement
ratio denoted as “η”. The column diameters of the specimens
reinforced by one, three, and four columns were 3.40, 2.00,
and 1.60 cm, respectively. The results of the tests are discussed
and compared with the results of tests performed on an
unreinforced soft soil specimen.
The performance is quantified by a prediction of the strength
properties to evaluate the safety factors of the improved soil
(after the column installation), and the homogeneous equiva-
lent values of the shear strength parameters (c and φ) replacing
the real composite material (soft soil-stone columns). As
suggested by Christoulas et al. (1997), the equivalent strength
characteristics can be determined using the law of mixtures as
c ¼ ð1 ηÞcs þ ηcc
tan φ ¼ ð1  ηÞ tan φs þ η tan φc
where
cs and φs are the shear strength parameters of the soft soil
(cohesion and friction angle, respectively), cc and φc are the
shear strength parameters of the constitutive material of the
columns, η is the area replacement ratio (AC/A), A is the total
cross-sectional loaded area, and AC is the cross-sectional area
of the stone columns.
Note that Eqs. (1) and (2) predict the equivalent shear strength
characteristics of the reinforced soil only from the shear strength
characteristics of the soft soil and the column material. Such a
consideration relies on the expressions proposed by Bouassida
et al. (1995) who demonstrated, in the limit analysis framework,
Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
3
that the homogenized strength characteristics of the reinforced
soil only depend on the shear strength of the initial soil and
column material and on the area replacement ratio. It is noticed
that Frikha et al. (2014) found a reasonable agreement between
the predicted equivalent characteristics and the experimental
results obtained for clayey soil reinforced by a sand column.
However, Bergado et al. (1996), for example, suggested that the
homogenized strength characteristics also depend on the stress
concentration ratio that describes the behavior of reinforced soil
in the pre-failure phase.
2. Studied soil
The tested soft soil is gray in color, contains shell debris,
and has a characteristic smell. The material used to make the
reinforcing columns is siliceous sand classified as CEN in
accordance with the European standards EN 196-1. The sand
particles are generally isometric and rounded in shape. The
coefficient of uniformity of the CEN sand is Cu ¼ 6 and its dry
unit weight is γd ¼ 16 kN/m3. The grain size distributions of
Tunis soft soil and CEN Standard sand are depicted in Fig. 1.
It is noticed that 60% of the particles of Tunis soft soil are
smaller than 2 μm and 98.3% are smaller than 80 μm.
As seen in Fig. 1, the mean particle diameter, D50, of the
CEN Standard sand is 0.7 mm. To justify the sand, a
comparison between the ratio of the diameters of the scale-
tested column (1.6 cm, 2.0 cm, and 3.4 cm) and the average
is considered. This ratio (Dmodel/Din-situ), between 0.013 and
0.043, is considered to be equal to the ratio of the mean
particle diameter, D50, of the scale test and the in-situ columns
(D50model/D50in-situ). The grain size of the stone column
material, commonly used in the field, is of the order of 0.8–
4 cm (Standard NF P 11-212, Dhouib and Blondeau, 2005). It
is noted that the sand employed in the scaled tests corresponds
to granular material with D50 ¼ 1.6–5 cm (i.e., D50/0.013 
D50/0.043), which conforms to the practiced grain size.
The friction angle of normalized CE sand is φ0 ¼ 41.81 that
also satisfies the Standard NF P 11-212. This standard
recommends minimum values for the friction angle of stone
column material equal to φ0 ¼ 401 for crushed material and
ð1Þ
Gravel Coarse sand Fine sand Silt Clay
ð2Þ 100
90 Tunis Soft Soil
80
Percentage passing (%)
70
60
50
CEN standard Sand
40
30
20
10
0
1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
Grain size (mm)
Fig. 1. Gradation curve of tested materials (Tunis soft soil and normalized CE
sand).
4 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
φ0 ¼ 381 for rolled material. The friction angle for the standard
sand was chosen to be high enough to essentially provide a
satisfactory increase in shear strength, as specified in the
French Standard [reference].
The properties of Tunis soft soil are a liquid limit of ωl ¼
66.5%, a plastic limit of ωp ¼ 23.9%, a plasticity index of
IP ¼ 42.6%, a natural water content of ω ¼ 74%, a compression
index of Cc ¼ 0.64, and an oedometer modulus of E ¼ 1700
kPa. According to the French Standard XP P 94-011 classifi-
cation, the tested soft soil is classified as a highly plastic clay.
3. Experimental procedure
The first step consists of wet sieving the natural soft soil
through a 100-mm sieve. Then, the sieved soft soil is air-dried
until its moisture content reaches 100%, which represents
approximately 1.5ωl.
The second step is to subject the slurry material to a vertical
pre-consolidation pressure of K0 in a special mold (consolid-
ometer container). The consolidometer is a metallic hollow
cylinder, 7 cm in internal diameter and 25 cm in height
(Fig. 2). It is equipped with either 1, 3, or 4 vertical thin
mold tubes covered by filter paper to create the holes where the
normalized sand columns are subsequently installed. The
diameters of the inner mold tubes are deduced from the fixed
value of the area replacement ratio (η ¼ 22%) and the number
of columns. In fact, to calculate the column radius, the
following equation is used:
∑ Aci
2
i nACn RC n
η¼ ¼ ¼n ð3Þ
A A R
where n is the number of columns, R is the radius of the total
cross-sectional reinforced area, and RCn is the radius of the
cross-sectional area of a single column.
Therefore, from Eq. (3), the radius of the cross-sectional
area of a single column is
rffiffiffi
η saturated in the triaxial cell under three isotropic confining
RCn ¼ R : ð4Þ
n pressures, namely, σ 03 of 100, 200, and 300 kPa.
R = 1.7 cm R = 1.0 cm
25 cm
7 cm 7 cm
Fig. 2. K0 consolidation apparatus.
Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
In the case of a single column configuration (n ¼ 1), Eq. (4)
becomes
pffiffiffi
RC ¼ R η: ð5Þ
From Eqs. (4) and (5), the radius of the inner mold tubes,
used for the reinforcement of clayey specimens with one,
three, and four columns, are 1.70, 1.00, and 0.80 cm, respec-
tively (Fig. 2).
The inner surface of the consolidometer is lubricated with
silicone grease prior to the slurry placement in order to reduce
the effects of roughness, and therefore, allow an easy
unmoulding of the specimens. The inner surface of the
consolidometer is also lined with filter paper to accelerate
the consolidation. The slurry is then carefully placed into the
mold, using a spoon, where it is frequently tamped with a
plastic tamper to avoid the formation of air during the filling
phase. When the predetermined specimen height is attained,
the consolidation loading cap is placed to start the loading
phase. The specimens are consolidated under a vertical stress
of 140 kPa for at least ten days. At the end of the consolidation
phase, the specimen height is 14 cm and the diameter is 7 cm.
During the pre-consolidation phase, drainage is allowed at the
top and bottom of the specimen through the installed upper and
lower porous stones. A dial gauge on the loading cap is used to
measure the axial deformation of the tested specimen. The
consolidation is considered to be complete when quasi-
constant axial deformation is recorded. The pressure is then
reduced to zero and the loading cap is removed. The tubes are
then gently removed and the soft clay sample is placed in the
triaxial cell.
The cavities of the pre-consolidated specimen (after unmold-
ing and removing the internal tubes) are filled with a dry sand
in small layers (20 gr of sand per layer), in order to attain the
final length of the column (140 mm). Each layer is compacted
by a plastic tamper. The same weight (20 g) of dense
compacted sand is considered for the column installation in
all tests. Fig. 3 presents the reinforced samples in post pre-
consolidation and the installation of the columns.
The reinforced soil specimen is finally reconsolidated and
R = 0.8 cm
7 cm
 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 5

Fig. 3. Example of reinforced sample after préconsolidation and installation of columns.

Table 1
Summary of test data.

Test name σ0 (kPa) σ3 (kPa) Repetition Number of columns Substitution ratio η

M_CU100_0C 140 100 2 0 0

M_CU200_0C 140 200 2 0 0
M_CU300_0C 140 300 2 0 0
M_CU100_1C 140 100 2 1 22%
M_CU200_1C 140 200 2 1 22%
M_CU300_1C 140 300 2 1 22%
M_CU100_3C 140 100 1 3 22%
M_CU200_3C 140 200 1 3 22%
M_CU300_3C 140 300 1 3 22%
M_CU100_4C 140 100 1 4 22%
M_CU200_4C 140 200 1 4 22%
M_CU300_4C 140 300 1 4 22%

σ0: Vertical preconsolidation pressure applied before triaxial test.

Fig. 4. (a) Stress–axial strain curve during triaxial shear test for unreinforced specimen. (b) Pore pressure–axial strain curve during triaxial shear test for
unreinforced specimen.

Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
6 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

4. Triaxial tests expansion of the reinforcing column. Such behavior results

from typical triaxial loading where failure is due to the increase
The experimental program included 13 tests, as summarized in deviator stress.
in Table 1. An axial displacement rate of 0.03 mm/min was
used in accordance with the AFNOR NF P 94-074 (1994).
These tests comprised the following steps:

Step 1: The specimen is subjected to full saturation so that

the recorded Skempton coefficient defined as B ¼ Δu=Δσ 3
is 4 95%.
Step 2: The specimen is subjected to isotropic consolida-
tion, under confining pressures of б0 3 ¼ б1 ¼ 100, 200 or
300 kPa until a quasi-constant volume variation is observed.
Step 3: Shear loading is applied at a constant confining
pressure under undrained conditions with the measured
excess pore pressure up to specimen failure.

As observed in Table 1, most of the tests were performed Fig. 6. Observed failure of Tunis soft soil specimen reinforced by four sand
twice to assure testing repeatability, and therefore, to validate columns subjected to triaxial test.
the experimental procedure and testing equipment.
350
M_CU100 (σ '=100kPa) M_CU200(σ '=200kPa) M_CU300 (σ '=300kPa)
5. Results and interpretation 300

Figs. 4 and 5 present typical results of the triaxial tests carried 250
qmax(kPa)

out on unreinforced and reinforced specimens with single, three, 200

and four columns subjected to different confining pressures. These
150
figures show the variations in deviator stress, q ¼ б 1  б 3 ¼
0 0
б 1  б 3 , calculated as the difference in total stress between the 100
axial principal stress and the radial principal stress, and the excess
50
pore pressure (Δu), respectively, with respect to the calculated axial
strain under undrained conditions. Axial strain εa is calculated as 0
0 1 2 3 4
the measured displacement divided by the specimen's initial height.
Fig. 6 shows a cross-section of a Tunis soft soil specimen Number of columns
reinforced by sand columns in the post-failure phase. This Fig. 7. Peak values of deviatoric stress versus number of columns for
figure illustrates well that the soft soil yielded due to the lateral б0 3 ¼ 100 kPa, б0 3 ¼200 kPa, and б0 3 ¼ 300 kPa.

350 M_C U100_1C M_C U200_1C M_C U300_1C 160 M_C U100_1C M_C U200_1C M_C U300_1C
M_C U200_3C M_C U200_3C M_C U300_3C
M_C U200_3C M_C U200_3C M_C U300_3C
M_C U200_4C M_C U200_4C M_C U300_4C
M_C U200_4C M_C U200_4C M_C U300_4C
300 140

250 120
Deviator q (kPa)

100
Δu (kPa)

200
80
150
60
100
40

50
20

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Axial strain εa(%) Axial strain εa(%)
Fig. 5. (a) Stress–axial strain curve during triaxial shear test for specimen reinforced with columns. (b) Pore pressure–axial strain curve during triaxial shear test for
specimen reinforced with columns.

Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
160
140
120
Δumax(kPa)
100
80
60
40
20 M_CU100 (σ '=100kPa) M_CU200(σ '=200kPa)
0 0
0 1 2 3
Number of columns
Fig. 8. Peak values of pore pressure versus number of columns for б0 3 ¼100 kPa,
б0 3 ¼ 200 kPa, and б0 3 ¼300 kPa.
The variations in deviator stress and excess pore pressure
peaks, as a function of the number of columns, are drawn in
Figs. 7 and 8, respectively, for different confining stresses. It is
clear that for all confining stresses, the values of the peak
deviator stresses increase with the number of columns (n Z1),
although the area replacement ratio is kept constant (η=22%).
When the number of columns increases from one to three, the
peak deviator stress increases by 14%, 9%, and 6% for
confining stresses of 100, 200, and 300 kPa, respectively.
Moreover, when the number of columns increases from one to
four, the peak deviator stress increases successively by 31%,
24%, and 16%, respectively, for the same confining stresses. It
can then be noticed that as the confining stress decreases, the
number of columns has a greater effect on the ultimate
capacity of the reinforced Tunis soft soil. It can also be
deduced that for small confining stress, in the in-situ practice
of stone–column reinforcement, the effect of the increase in the
number of columns on the shear strength (ultimate bearing
capacity) is more pronounced at the soil surface than deeper in
the foundation.
The experimental study performed by Ambily and Gandhi
(2007) showed that the stiffness behavior of improved soil
with a single column is comparable to that of soil reinforced by
a group of six columns (arranged with spacing more than 3
times the column diameter). In addition, they noted that the
single column behavior can simulate the field behavior for an
interior column when a large number of columns is simulta-
neously loaded. The area replacement ratio adopted in their
tests is η ¼ 10%, whereas, in the present tests, for the same
ratio of spacing to diameter of the columns, denoted as S/Dc
(3.03 and 3.09 for improved Tunis soft soil with groups of
three and four columns, respectively) and with a fixed area
replacement ratio (η ¼ 22%), it can be observed that the
ultimate bearing capacity of the soil improved by the columns
is more significant when the number of columns increases.
Black et al. (2007) have compared the bearing load-capacity
under the undrained loading conditions of clay specimens
reinforced by a single column and a group of three sand
columns with an area replacement ratio of 10% and 12%,
respectively. The reinforcing effect by three columns at
η ¼ 12% is more significant than the effect given by a single
Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
7
120
M_CU_0C
100 M_CU_1C
M_CU_3C
M_CU_4C
80
60
qmax
40
20
M_CU300 (σ '=300kPa)
0
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
4
σ3 (kPa)
Fig. 9. Peak values of deviatoric stress versus confining stress.
column at η ¼ 10% (the bearing load-capacity varied from
70 kPa to 87 kPa). However, Black et al. (2007) proposed
taking into account the higher area replacement ratio (almost
20%) of the three reinforced column specimens and stated that
the relative increase in strength is independent of the column
configuration. In the present results, however, using the same
ratio of H/D (¼ 4.1 to 8) for the tested specimens as in the
Black et al. (2007) tests, only the variation in the number of
reinforcing columns was considered and the improvement area
ratio was kept constant (η ¼ 22%); that is different from the
values considered by Black et al. (2007) (η ¼ 10% and 12%).
Therefore, the increase in bearing capacity is interpreted
differently for the two experiments.
Hu (1995) and Wood et al. (2000) compared the effect of
the columns' group configuration with respect to the single
column and concluded that the behaviour of a group of
columns is different from that observed for a single column,
namely, the interaction between the columns and the clay tends
to improve the load bearing capacity more efficiently and
provide a wider load transfer. Note that, for a single column,
the load is only applied on a section of the column.
It can also be observed from Fig. 9 that, for all specimens,
the peak deviator stress (qmax) increases when the confining
stress increases from 100 to 300 kPa. For unreinforced speci-
mens, peak deviator stress qmax increases by 246% (from 54.80
to 135.10 kPa) when the confining stress increases from 100 to
300 kPa. For reinforced specimens with one, three, and four
columns, qmax increases by 267% (from 95.31 kPa to 254.10),
265% (from 107.99 to 270.30 kPa), and 237% (from 124.11 to
295.12 kPa), respectively, when the confining stress increases
from 100 to 300 kPa. It can be noticed, however, that there is a
slight decrease in excess pore pressure for all specimens, due
to the increase in the number of columns, as well as in the
confining stress.
For a saturated soil, the variation in excess pore pressure, u,
must be equal to that of the mean total stress under undrained
isotropic loading conditions. Fig. 10 shows in the (p, q) and
(p0 , q) planes the measured total and effective stress paths
during different types of undrained triaxial shear tests carried
out on reinforced Tunis soft soil. The total mean stress is
p ¼ σ 1 þ 2σ 3 =3) and p0 denotes the effective mean stress,
namely, p0 ¼ p–u.
8 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]

200 Total stress (σ'=100kPa) Effective stress (σ '=100kPa)

Total stress (σ'=200kPa)
Total stress (σ'=300kPa)
400
Total stress (σ'=100kPa) Effective stress (σ '=100kPa)
Effective stress (σ '=200kPa)
350 Total stress (σ'=200kPa) Effective stress (σ '=200kPa)
Effective stress (σ'=300kPa)
Total stress (σ'=300kPa) Effective stress (σ'=300kPa)

150 M=0.671 300 M=0.944

M_CU_1C

q (kPa )=(σ - σ )
q (kPa )=(σ - σ )

M_CU_0C 250

100 200

150

50 100

50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
p (kPa) and p' (kPa) p (kPa) and p' (kPa)

400 400
Total stress (σ'=100kPa) Effective stress (σ '=100kPa) Total stress (σ'=100kPa) Effective stress (σ '=100kPa)
350 Total stress (σ'=200kPa) Effective stress (σ '=200kPa) 350 Total stress (σ'=200kPa) Effective stress (σ '=200kPa)
Total stress (σ'=300kPa) Effective stress (σ'=300kPa) M=0.980
Total stress (σ'=300kPa) Effective stress (σ'=300kPa)
M=0.966
300 300
q (kPa )=(σ - σ )

q (kPa )=(σ - σ )
M_CU_4C
250 M_CU_3C 250

200 200

150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
p (kPa) and p' (kPa) p (kPa) and p' (kPa)

Fig. 10. Effective and total stress paths for (a) unreinforced specimen of clay, (b) specimens reinforced with single column, (c) specimens reinforced with three
columns, and (d) specimens reinforced with four columns under consolidation stresses of 100 kPa, 200 kPa, and 300 kPa.

The critical line corresponds to the state where the soil

26
specimen yields at a constant volume. The state of the effective
stress is characterized by the slope of the critical line. Using 24
the Mohr–Coulomb yield, coefficient M is written as a function
of effective friction angle φ' as follows:
ϕ'(degrees)

22
0
6 sin φ
M¼ : ð6Þ 20
3 sin φ0
drained frictional angle ϕ' (°)
Fig. 10 a, b, c, and d presents the critical line results in the 18
(p0 , q) plane for an unreinforced clay specimen, and reinforced
soil specimens with one, three, and four columns, respectively, 16
0 1 2 3 4 5
tested at different confining stresses. From these figures, the
Number of columns
slope of the critical line is M ¼ 0.67 (i.e., φ0 ¼ 17.61) for the
unreinforced specimen, M¼ 0.944 (i.e., φ0 ¼ 24.11) for the Fig. 11. Drained frictional angle versus number of columns.
specimen reinforced with a single column, M¼ 0.966 (i.e.,
φ0 ¼ 24.61) for the specimen reinforced with three columns,
and M¼ 0.981 (i.e., φ0 ¼ 24.91) for the specimen reinforced Using the law of mixtures (Eq. (2)) with an area replacement
with four columns. These results indicate that the effective ratio of 22% and a sand friction angle of 41.81, the equivalent
friction angle of a specimen reinforced with a single column is friction angle is φ0 ¼ 23.951, that is, slightly lower than the
37% higher than that of unreinforced specimen. Such results measured friction angle of the specimen reinforced with a
illustrate well the importance of the granular column technique single column (φ0 ¼ 24.11). It can be observed that the law of
by increasing the effective friction angle of Tunis soft soil. mixtures provides an acceptable approximation of the effective
In addition, Fig. 11 shows that the effective friction angle friction angle of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a single sand
increases with the number of columns. In fact, when the column. However, a correction should be made for the
number of columns increases from one to three, the friction prediction of the friction angle of clayey soil reinforced with
angle increases slightly by 2%, and when the number of several columns. Indeed, as the number of reinforcing columns
columns increases from one to four, the friction angle increases increases from one to four, with a fixed area replacement ratio,
slightly by 3%. the friction angle increases slightly.

Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]] 9

200 200
M_CU100 (σ '=100kPa) mesured M_CU100 (σ '=100kPa) calculated M_CU100 (σ '=100kPa) mesured M_CU100 (σ '=100kPa) calculated
M_CU200 (σ '=200kPa) mesured M_CU200 (σ '=200kPa) calculated M_CU100 (σ '=200kPa) mesured M_CU100 (σ '=200kPa) calculated
M_CU300 (σ '=300kPa) mesured M_CU300 (σ '=300kPa) calculated M_CU100 (σ '=300kPa) mesured M_CU100 (σ '=300kPa) calculated

150 150

cU(kPa)
cU(kPa)

100
100

50
50

0
0 0 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 χ
Νumber of columns
Fig. 14. Undrained shear stress versus coefficient χ for б0 3 ¼ 100 kPa, 200 kPa,
Fig. 12. Undrained shear stress versus number of columns for б0 3 ¼100 kPa, and 300 kPa.
200 kPa, and 300 kPa.

1.3

cU(n)/cU(n=1)and Δu(n)/Δu(n=1)
0.50 c (n )
1.2 c (n = 1)
Mesured values of tanϕ
Proposed model 1.1
0.48 tan ϕ ′(χ ) = tan ϕ ′(χ = 1) + 0.016(χ − 1)
tanϕ'

1.0

0.9 Δu (n )
0.46 Δu (n = 1)
c (n)/c (n=1) (σ '=100kPa) Δu(n)/Δu(n=1) (σ '=100kPa)
0.8 c (n)/c (n=1) (σ '=200kPa) Δu(n)/Δu(n=1) (σ '=200kPa)
η=22% c (n)/c (n=1) (σ '=300kPa) Δu(n)/Δu(n=1) (σ '=300kPa)

0.44 0.7
1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.00
χ χ
Fig. 13. Drained frictional angle versus χ. Fig. 15. Ratios cU(n)/cU(n¼1) and Δu(n)/Δu(n ¼1) versus coefficient χ for
б3 ¼ 100 kPa, 200 kPa, and 300 kPa.

Moreover, for consolidated undrained triaxial tests (CU þ u), soil and a single column is defined by
the undrained shear strength is defined as half of the peak
deviator stress ðcU ¼ ðqmax =2Þ ¼ ðσ 1  σ 3 =2ÞÞ, the law of mix-
n
∑ SLCi


2πRCn H RCn
tures (1), with an area replacement ratio of 22%, leads to an χ ðnÞ ¼ i ¼ 1
SLC ¼n ¼n ð7Þ
2πRC H RC
equivalent undrained shear strength that depends on the
confining stress when varied from 100 kPa to 200 kPa to where SLC is the lateral surface of a single column of radius
300 kPa, as shown in Fig. 12. The predicted values for the RC, SLCi is the lateral surface of one column belonging to a
undrained shear strength are also comparable to those mea- group of n columns having the same radius RCn , and H is the
sured for a specimen reinforced by a single column. A length of a column.
correction should also be made when predicting the undrained Substituting Eqs. (4) and (5) into Eq. (7), the contact
shear strength of Tunis soft soil reinforced with several coefficient “χ ” is identified as the square root of the number
columns. It is found that the undrained shear strength is also of columns, namely,
higher as the number of reinforcing columns increases from
pffiffiffi
one to four. χ ðnÞ ¼ n ð8Þ
When the number of columns increases at a fixed area
replacement ratio “η”, the contact surface between the reinfor- For the present study, the value of contact coefficient “χ”
cing columns and the clayey soil increases and results in an varied between 0 (unreinforced soil) and 2 (case of a group of
increase in the soil–column interface friction, which enhances 4 columns). The strength characteristics of the reinforced soil
the strength properties of the reinforced soft clayey soil. To are studied subsequently as a function of coefficient “χ”.
take into account the variation in contact surface between the Fig. 15 shows the variation in drained friction angle versus
sand columns and the surrounding Tunis soft soil when the contact coefficient “χ”. It is noticed that the friction angle
number of column increases, a coefficient of contact denoted increases quasi-linearly with coefficient “χ”. Based on the
as “χ” is proposed. For a given replacement area ratio, the ratio measured data, shown in Fig. 13, the drained friction angle φ0
of the total contact surface between the clayey soil and the of the reinforced Tunis soft soil with a group of columns was
group of columns to the contact surface between the clayey correlated with contact coefficient “χ” and the friction angle of

Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
10 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
reinforced Tunis soft soil with single column tan φ0 ðχ ¼ 1Þ
0 0
tan φ ðχ Þ ¼ tan φ ðχ ¼ 1Þþ 0:016ðχ  1Þ
Fig. 14 shows the variation in undrained shear strength as a
function of contact coefficient “χ” for different confining
stresses. It is noticed that the undrained shear strength
increases quasi-linearly with coefficient “χ” (for n Z 1).
The ratios cU(n)/cU(n ¼ 1) and Δu(n)/Δu(n ¼ 1) represent the
normalized undrained shear strength and the unit pore pressure
peak variations for nZ 1, respectively. The variations in these
normalized ratios, as a function of contact coefficient “χ”, are
sketched in Fig. 15.
The ratio of normalized undrained shear strength cU(n)/
cU(n¼ 1), of the specimen reinforced by a single column,
increases with contact coefficient “χ” and decreases with the
confining stress. The maximum value of ratio cU(n)/cU(n¼ 1)
equals 31% when reinforcement by 4 columns is considered
with a confining pressure of 100 kPa. Moreover, it is observed
that the effect of the number of columns is more pronounced at
a lower confining pressure, i.e., between 1 and 4 columns, the
undrained cohesion increases by 31% for a confining stress of
100 kPa and by 20% for confining pressure of 300 kPa,
whereas a decrease in the normalized pore pressure peak is
more pronounced at a higher confining stress when the number
of reinforcing columns increases.
From Fig. 15, it is deduced that the undrained shear strength
values of Tunis soft soil reinforced with a group of granular
columns depends on the surface contact between the granular
columns and the Tunis soft soil. This contact surface increases
with the number of columns, and therefore, leads to the
improvement of the strength properties of the reinforced soil.
6. Conclusion
The group of column models was tested without any
reproduction. The experimental work presented herein consti-
tutes a first attempt to see whether or not the group effect has
some influence on the bearing capacity of reinforced clayey
soil by the granular group of columns. The results of the
various tests have led to the following conclusions:
 For a fixed area replacement ratio value (η ¼ 22%), the
increase in reinforcing columns leads to the improvement of
the undrained shear strength and the effective friction angle
due to the decrease in pore pressure.
 The interaction between a group of columns and the soft
clay tends to improve the distribution of the load bearing
capacity.
 The results exhibit that the effective friction angle for a
single column specimen is 37% higher than the obtained
value for unreinforced Tunis soft soil specimen. This
demonstrates interest for reinforcing Tunis soft soil.
 The friction angle increases slightly with the number of
columns.
 The improvement in the undrained shear strength of the
specimen reinforced by a group of columns, compared to
that reinforced by a single column, cU(n)/cU(n¼ 1),
Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
increases with the number of columns and decreases with
ð9Þ the confining stress.
 The effect of the number of columns seems to be more
pronounced at small levels of confining pressure However,
the decrease in peak pore pressure is more pronounced at
higher confining stress when the number of columns
increases.
 A coefficient of contact, “χ”, was introduced to take into
account the contact surface between the columns and the
soft soil. Both the increase in the total undrained shear
strength and the drained friction angle have been predicted,
at a fixed area replacement ratio, when the reinforcement is
made by several columns.
References
AFNOR, NF P 94-074, 1994. Sols: reconnaissance et essais. Essais à l0 appareil
triaxial de révolution. Appareillage, Préparation des éprouvettes et Essais
(UU), (CUþ u) et (CD), French Standard, October 1994.
Ambily, P., Gandhi, S.R., 2007. Behavior of stone columns based on
experimental and FEM analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (4),
405–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241.
Andreou, P., Frikha, W., Frank, R., Canou, J., Papadopoulos, V., Dupla, J.-C.,
2008. Experimental study on sand and gravel columns in clay. In:
Proceedings of the ICE – Ground Improvement, vol. 161, 4,
pp. 189–198, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/grim.2008.161.4.189.
Bachus, R.C., Barksdale, R.D., 1984. Vertical and lateral behavior of model
stone columns. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on In-situ
Soil and Rock Reinforcement, Paris, pp. 99–110.
Bergado, D.T., Anderson, L.R., Miura, N., Balasubramaniam, A.S., 1996. Soft
Ground Improvement in Lowland and Other Environments. ASCE, New York.
Black, J., Sivakumar, V., McKelvey, D., 2007. Performance of clay samples
reinforced with vertical granular columns. Can. Geotech. J. 89–95 (44)
(10.1139/t06-081).
Bouassida, M., de Buhan, P., Dormieux, L, 1995. Bearing capacity of a
foundation resting on a soil reinforced by a group of columns. Géotechni-
que 45 (1), 25–34.
Bouassida, M., 1996. Étude expérimentale du renforcement de la vase de Tunis
par colonnes de sable. Application pour la validation de la résistance en
compression théorique d'une cellule composite confinée. Rev. Fr. Géotech.
2ième Semestre 75, 3–12.
Bouassida, M., 2006. Modeling the behavior of soft clays and new contribu-
tions for soil improvement solutions. In: Bujang, Pinto, Jefferson (Eds.),
Keynote Lecture. Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. on Problematic Soils. December
3-5th 2006. Petaming Jaya, Salengor, Malaysia, pp. 1–12.
Christoulas, S.T., Giannaros, C.H., Tsiambaos, G., 1997. Stabilization of
embankment foundations by using stone columns. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 15,
247–258. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00880828.
Dhouib, A., Blondeau, F., 2005. Colonnes Ballastées. Presses de l0 Ecole
Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées (ENPC), Paris (264 pp., ISBN: 13: 978-
2-85978-401-0).
Frikha, W., 2010. Approche expérimentale sur modèle pour l0 évaluation
d’une argile molle renforcée par colonnes ballastées (Ph.D. thesis).
Editions Universitaires Européennes, ENIT, Tunisia, ISBN: 978-613-1-
55837-5 (276 pp.).
Frikha, W., Bouassida, M., 2014. Prediction of stone column ultimate bearing
capacity using expansion cavity model. In: Proceedings of the ICE –
Ground Improvement, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/grim.13.00045.
Frikha, W., Bouassida, M., Canou, J., 2014. Parametric study of a clayey
specimen reinforced by a granular column. Int. J. Geomech. (10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000419, 04014078.).
Frikha, W., Bouassida, M., Canou, J., 2013. Observed behavior of laterally
expanded stone column in soft Soil. Geotech. Geol. Eng.,
2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-9624-8.
 W. Frikha et al. / Soils and Foundations ] (]]]]) ]]]–]]]
Frikha, W., Bouassida, M., Canou, J., 2008. Calibration of an elastoplastic
model for the prediction of stone column ultimate bearing capacity. In:
Rebby, K.R. et al., (Eds.), Proceedings of Selected Sessions of Geo
Congress 2008. Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation. Special
Publication ASCE Institute (invited paper), USA, pp. 604–611, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1061/40971(310)75.
Goughnour, R.R., Bayuk, A.A., 1979. A field study of long-term settlements of
loads supported by stone column in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, pp. 279–285.
Hu, W., 1995. Physical Modelling of Group Behavior of Stone Column
Foundations (Ph.D. thesis). University of Glasgow.
Juran, I., Guermazi, A., 1988. Settlement response of soft soils reinforced by
compacted sand columns. ASCE Geotech. Eng. 114 (8),
930–943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:8(930).
Kaffezakis, G.J., 1983. A model test investigation of the behavior of stone
columns. Special Research Problem, Georgia Institute of Technology.
Atlanta, USA.
Kimura, T., Nakase, A., Saitoh, K., Takemura, J., 1983. Centrifuge tests on
sand compaction piles. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asian Regional
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, vol. 1,
pp. 255–260.
Klai, M., Bouassida, M., 2009. Comparison between behavior of undisturbed
and reconstituted Tunis soft clay. In: Atalar et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of the
Please cite this article as: Frikha, W., et al., Experimental study for the mechanical characterization of Tunis soft soil reinforced by a group of sand columns.
Soils and Foundations (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2014.12.014
View publication stats
11
2nd International Conference New Develop. SMGE, NEU, Nicosia, 28–30
May, pp. 414–419.
Munfakh, G.A., Sarkar, S.K., CasteIli, R.C., 1984. Performance of a test
embankment founded on stone columns, Piling and Ground Treatment.
Thomas Telford Ltd., London.
Sivakumar, V., McKelvey, D., Graham, J., Hughes, D., 2004. Triaxial tests on
model sand columns in clay. Can. Geotech. J. (41), 299–312
(10.1139/t03-097).
Terashi, M., Kitazume, M., Minagawa, S., 1991. Bearing capacity of improved
ground by sand compaction piles. In: Deep Foundation Improvements:
Design, Construction, and Testing. Las Vegas, 25 January 1990. Publ.
Philadelphia: ASTM, 1991 (ASTM Special Technical Publication N1089,
pp 47–61).
Tounekti, F., Bouassida, M., Klai, M., Marzougi, I., 2008. Etude expérimentale
en vue d'un modèle de comportement pour la vase de Tunis. Rev. Fr.
Géotech. 114 (122), 25–36.
Touiti, L., Bouassida, M., Van Impe, W., 2009. Discussion on Tunis soft soil
sensitivity. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 27, 631–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-009-9263-2.
Wood, M., Hu, D.W., Nash, D.F., 2000. Group effects in stone column
foundations. Géotechnique 50, 689–698. http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2000.50.6.689.