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

net/publication/345809795

Performance of polypropylene textile encased stone columns

Article  in  Geotextiles and Geomembranes · November 2020

CITATIONS READS

0 477

3 authors:

Deendayal Rathod Mohammed Shakeel Abid

National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli National Institute of Technology Tiruchirappalli
25 PUBLICATIONS   55 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sai K. Vanapalli
University of Ottawa
303 PUBLICATIONS   6,036 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Soil-pipeline system behavior extending the principles of saturated and unsaturated soil mechanics View project

Simple Approaches for Predicting Resilient Modulus of Ontario Pavement Materials Considering the Influence of Temperature and Moisture Changes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Deendayal Rathod on 15 December 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Performance of polypropylene textile encased stone columns

Deendayal Rathod a, *, Mohammed Shakeel Abid a, Sai K. Vanapalli b
a
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Tiruchirappalli, 620 015, Tamilnadu, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Canada, Ottawa, ON, K1N 6N5, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper explores the potential use of a woven polypropylene textile for encapsulating stone columns and
Stone columns improving performance of a local soft soil in Warangal city of India. A series of axial load tests were performed on
Geotextiles stone columns of various diameters and under various encapsulation conditions that include single and double
Encasement
layers and other combinations. Load carrying capacity of stone column increased twice its original capacity when
Woven polypropylene textile
Axial loading
encapsulated with different geofabric materials. Performance enhancement strongly correlated to the tensile
Lateral thrust strength of encasement material and encapsulation condition. In addition, the influence of lateral thrust on group
of stone columns arranged in square and triangular patterns were investigated. Irrespective of the material used,
lateral displacement reduced by half for encased stone columns. Apart from tensile strength of encasing material,
the amount of material used for encasement in the form of additional encasement layer was found to be crucial.
The cost of using the polypropylene encasing material is only a third of the commercial geotextiles; however, the
performance is inferior to woven geotextiles but far superior to non-woven geotextiles.

1. Introduction
Geotechnical engineers widely use natural resources for ground
modifications to improve the stability and deformation behavior of soft
soils. For example, stabilization using lime and cement are used in soft
soils even for achieving a moderate increase in the bearing capacity.
Such ground improvement techniques are expensive. In recent years,
several researchers have promoted using alternative materials that are
cheaper but still effective in improving the soft soil behavior such as the
coir, jute, bamboo and polypropylene fibers (Ghosh et al., 2005; Pun­
thutaecha et al., 2006; Hegde and Sitharam, 2015a, 2015b; A. Hegde
and Sitharam, 2015; Lal et al., 2017; Burragadda and Thyagaraj, 2019).
The use of sustainable and recycled materials has been steadily
increasing in the 21st century in the construction industry for addressing
challenging problems associated with the improvement of soft ground in
various countries A. Hegde and Sitharam, 2015; Soleimanbeigi, 2015;
Fu. Et al., 2018; Meguid and Youssef, 2018; Chai et al., 2019). In recent
years, the focus of using recycled materials has been directed towards
developing innovative methods that contribute to savings in the con­
struction projects. For example, Zhou et al. (2002) adopted lime and
lime - fly ash columns to improve weak fly ash ground, Santos et al.
(2013) constructed a wrapped face geosynthetic wall using recycled
construction and demolished waste as a backfill material, Mazumder
et al. (2018) replaced granular material with building debris and
shredded tire chips partially or totally for construction of stone columns,
Terzi et al. (2018) encased stone columns using waste tires replacing
commercial geosynthetics, Alkhorshid et l. (2019) simulated conven­
tional geosynthetic encased stone columns with column constructed
using recycled construction and demolished waste and encased with
geosynthetic, Selvakumar and Soundara (2019) reused expanded poly­
styrene (EPS) beads for the formation of geofoams granules column to
arrest swelling behavior of expansive clays. In addition, several re­
searchers during the last three decades have used various sustainable
alternatives to improve soft soils behavior to a depth of 30 m that were
cost efficient (Balaam and Booker, 1981, 1985; Bergado and Lam, 1987;
Ayadat and Hanna, 2005; Guetif, 2007; Castro and Karstunen, 2010; Deb
et al., 2010; Babu et al., 2012; Najjar, 2012; Zhang et al., 2019).
Several studies suggest that stone columns can be effectively used in
improving soft soils behavior whose undrained shear strength lies be­
tween 15 kPa and 50 kPa (Huges. et al., 1975; Murugesan and Rajagopal
2006; 2007; Shahu and Reddy 2011). The confining support that is
provided with stone columns is a key factor in the improvement of the
soil behavior. Soft soils with undrained shear strength less than 15 kPa
are not capable of providing the requisite confining support to the stone
columns; they typically fail by bulging, punching or in shear. In­
adequacy of the surrounding confining pressure also leads to the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: deendayal@nitt.edu (D. Rathod), mdshakeelabid@gmail.com (M.S. Abid), Sai.Vanapalli@uottawa.ca (S.K. Vanapalli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.025
Received 27 March 2020; Received in revised form 9 October 2020; Accepted 27 October 2020
Available online 13 November 2020
0266-1144/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Rathod et al.
Table 1
Cost comparison and properties of encasing materials.
Parameters Woven Non-woven Woven
geotextile geotextile polypropylene
textile
Ultimate tensile MD 20 12 14
strength (kN/m)
CMD 17 10.2 11.5
Thickness (mm) 1.0 2.0 0.64
Mass per unit area 200 250 125
(g/m2)
Ultimate elongation >50% >50% >50%
Punching strength 1850 1700 1500
from CBR plunger
test (N)
Cost/m2 in INR 54 30 8 have a special capability to form into composites with various natural
MD – Machine direction; CMD – Cross machine direction; INR – Indian Rupees.
displacement of aggregate material into the surrounding soils (Mur­
ugesan and Rajagopal, 2010; Indraratna et al., 2013; Miranda et al.,
2015; Almeida et al., 2015; Fattah et al., 2016; Tai et al., 2018). A
geosynthetic encasement to stone columns enhances the circumferential
confinement and avoids displacement of aggregates in the surrounding
soil. Zhang and Zhao (2013, 2015) studied the deformation character­
istics of stone columns under axial loads. Their results suggest that there
is an increase in the stiffness with the use of the encasing material that
contributes in the reduction in bulging and settlement of the stone col­
umns. Studies of several researchers suggest that stone columns with
geosynthetic encasement contribute to an increase in stiffness of column
and a decrease of excess pore pressures and stress concentration on the
surrounding soil (Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2007; Yoo, 2010, 2015;
Yang et al., 2016; Castro 2012, 2014a, 2014b, 2017).
Various materials were used by many researchers for encasing stone
columns. Several researchers (Gniel and Bouazza, 2009; Deb et al., 2011;
Gu et al., 2016) conducted laboratory tests on stone columns encased
with geogrid and studied methods of overlap. Their results suggest that a
ratio of 1:2 can be used for the length of the stone column to that of its
depth of encasement. The stone columns are strengthened with vertical
circumferential nails and random fibers, exhibited greater load carrying
capacity and stiffness in comparison to stone columns that were not
encased (Shivashankar et al., 2010; Basu et al., 2016; Rezaei et al.,
2019). The effective depth of encasement was observed to be three times
to that of diameter of the stone column from these test results. Black
et al. (2007) reported enhanced performance of weak deposits modified
with stone columns that were reinforced with tubular wire mesh, con­
crete plug and metal rod, with respect to load carrying capacity and
settlement behavior. The load carrying capacity and stiffness charac­
teristics of laterally reinforced stone columns significantly increased by
using geotextiles (Hasan and Samadhiya, 2016a, 2016b; Ghazavi et al.,
2018). In addition, reduction of lateral bulging, which was attributed to
effective interlocking between the column and reinforcing materials was
reported from these studies. Lateral movements frequently occur in field
loading conditions that can cause displacement of column material in
surrounding soil and shear deformations in the stone columns. Such
problems observed in engineering practice applications can be signifi­
cantly reduced or alleviated with geosynthetic encasement to stone
columns that contribute towards the shear strength of the stone column
until the material ruptures. (Sivakumar et al., 2004; Murugesan and
Rajagopal, 2008; Basack et al., 2017; Mohapatra et al., 2016a, 2016b;
Miranda et al., 2016).
The summarized literature encourages the use of geotextiles in
encased stone columns, which promote their behavior to function as
223
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
rigid piles. Geosynthetic encased stone columns can be effectively and
economically replace pile foundations, where a modest increase in
bearing capacity is required. In this paper, woven polypropylene textiles
were used to encase stone columns for enhancing the stone columns
performance. Encasing numerous stone columns in field requires a
massive quantity of geotextiles, which has to be specifically manufac­
tured, based upon the design requirements without having a longitudi­
nal joint, which significantly increases the project cost. The woven
polypropylene textile, which is widely used for packing cement and
agricultural products, can serve as a sustainable and economical alter­
native for low and medium cost projects. The recycled polypropylene
textiles can be used for reinforcement and separation purposes in
highway embankments, stabilization of slopes etc. These textiles also
and commercial materials. The cost comparison and the properties of the
commercial synthetic textiles and woven polypropylene textile used in
the current study is summarized in Table 1. The woven polypropylene
textiles with adequate tensile strength that are available in the local
market of Warangal, India, were chosen for the encasement of stone
column, in the current study. Their performance is compared with stone
column encased with woven and non-woven geotextiles. Investigations
were carried out on encased stone columns with different encapsulation
conditions by using an additional encasement layer to the existing one.
In addition, investigations were also carried to study the impact of
lateral thrust, which usually occurs in the field due to lateral movements
of soil or due to earthquakes. Finally, group of stone columns arranged
in different patterns (square and triangular), were subjected to the
induced lateral forces and their effect on stone columns were also
examined. A comprehensive comparison is provided between conven­
tional geotextiles and woven polypropylene textile both from their
performance and associated economics. The recycled woven poly­
propylene can be used for different applications in soft ground engi­
neering instead of conventional geotextiles for low and moderate costs
projects.
1.1. Experimental program and test setup
Extensive experimental studies were carried out in this study to
investigate the use of woven polypropylene material for encasing stone
columns in place of conventional geotextiles. The woven polypropylene
material used in this study is widely manufactured in India and can be
purchased from local markets; for example, in Warangal city of India
where the present study has been undertaken. These materials are easily
available in comparison to commercial geotextiles, which are not
available in local markets and are expensive. In this study, both com­
mercial woven geotextiles and non-woven geotextiles were used for
encasing stone columns to investigate their technical performance and
for cost comparisons. Three different encapsulating conditions were
chosen for testing, which include: (i) encasement with single layer; (ii)
encasement with double layer; and (iii) encasement with halfway length
double and halfway length single layer as depicted in Fig. 1. A series of
axial load tests were carried out on soil samples constructed using soil
collected from Bhadrakali lakebed of Warangal city, India and modified
with stone column in a specially designed test tank made of cast iron
with dimensions 650 mm × 650 mm x 650 mm and thickness 8 mm. One
side of the tank has a provision of detachable wall, with a nut-bolt
mechanism, which was helpful for removal of soil after conduction of
the test with relative ease. Stone column with three different diameters
of 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm with an area replacement ratio Ar, which
is defined as the ratio of area of stone column (Asc ) to that of area of unit
cell (Au )
 D. Rathod et al.
224

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of investigated encapsulation conditions.
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Table 2 1.2. Material properties

Experimental program of axial and lateral force test on stone column.
Axial Load Tests Locally procured crushed stone aggregates of size 2–10 mm were
used for the construction of stone column (Ghazavi and Afshar, 2013;
Test Description Encasing material Diameter of the stone
column Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2010). Angular shape aggregates were
preferred for better interlocking and strength. The soil used in the study
50 75 100
mm mm mm
is classified as clay with intermediate plasticity (CI) as per ASTM D2487.
Fig. 3 shows the grain size distribution of the soil along with crushed
Unmodified clay bed
stone aggregates used for construction of clay bed and stone column.
– – – –
Unencased stone column – ✓ ✓ ✓
Single layer encased stone Woven geotextile ✓ ✓ ✓ The properties of the soil and stone aggregates used in the experimental
column Non-woven ✓ ✓ ✓ study are summarized in Table 3. Commercial geotextiles used for
geotextile encasing stone columns were obtained from Strata Geosystems Pvt Ltd.,
Woven ✓ ✓ ✓ India. Unused polypropylene textiles of mass 125 g/m2 formed by warp
polypropylene
textile
and weft process and with melting point of 167 ◦ C was procured from a
Full length double layer ✓ ✓ ✓ local manufacturer. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) and Energy
encased stone column Woven geotextile dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX) were carried to investigate the
Non-woven ✓ ✓ ✓ microstructure of the woven polypropylene textile and quantify the
geotextile
concentration of elements present. Fig. 4 shows the SEM image and
Woven ✓ ✓ ✓
polypropylene EDAX results of the woven polypropylene material. Results from EDAX
textile shows presence of carbon (C) content of 79% and oxygen (O) content of
21% in the polypropylene textile. SEM image of polypropylene textile
Halfway double and Halfway Woven geotextile ✓ ✓ ✓ displays its distinct texture with uneven and irregular surface that
single encased stone column Non-woven ✓ ✓ ✓
geotextile
contributes to roughness of the material, which was an imperative
Woven ✓ ✓ ✓ property of the material for choosing it. The surface roughness of the
polypropylene material contributes to the interfacial shear strength and mobilization of
textile confining pressure (Sudarsanan et al., 2018). The mechanical interlock
between the soil and encasing material contributes to surface roughness
Lateral Force Tests
Unencased stone column Woven geotextile – ✓ – which resists displacements (Tang et al., 2010). The surface roughness of
Woven ✓ – the polypropylene material was found to be greater than commercial
polypropylene geotextiles and hence can be used as a candidate for encasing material to
textile enhance the confining support. The cost of polypropylene material was
Halfway double & Halfway Woven geotextile – ✓ –
3.5 and 6 times less in comparison to that of non-woven and woven
single encased stone column Woven – ✓ – geotextiles, respectively. To encase stone columns, a longitudinal joint
polypropylene with an overlap of 20 mm is been catered using an epoxy adhesive in the
textile encasing material (Miranda and Costa, 2016). It is acknowledged that
creating a longitudinal joint in the encasing material develops weaker
Asc section in the encasing material. For this reason, it is suggested that
Ar = (1) these encasing materials are to be specially manufactured without any
Au
joints to improve their performance in the field. The tensile strength of
of 11, 25 and 44% respectively were tested under vertical loads. Ratio of materials used for encasement with an overlap joint was determined by
length of the stone column (l) to that of its diameter (dsc) i.e. l/dsc was standard width tension tests (ASTM D4595 2001). Fig. 5 shows the
maintained at a constant value of 4, in all the tests. Columns shorter than tensile load-strain behavior of the materials used for encasement with
critical length (i.e. 4 times the diameter of the stone column) fails in and without longitudinal joint. It is evident from the figure that tensile
shear and punching (IS. 2003). The critical length defined above is strength of the encasing material decreases up to 50%, when catered
relevant for single columns subjected to smaller footing size. Whereas, with a longitudinal joint. The failure in commercial geotextiles may be
the critical length varies with an increase in the size of footing. More­ attributed to the split in the longitudinal joint. The polypropylene textile
over, the stress due to the applied load transfers to a depth of 2.5–3 times behaved linearly elastic and demonstrated a significant increase in the
the diameter of the stone column (Dash and Bora, 2013a, 2013b). The stress with elongation without rupture at longitudinal joint.
detailed program of axial and lateral force tests conducted on stone
columns is summarized in Table 2. A circular steel plate of 150 mm 1.3. Preparation of prototype/model ground
diameter (D) and thickness 20 mm was used as a model footing. A me­
chanical jack consisting of rotating wheel to facilitate its forward and The undrained shear strength Su, of soil was maintained at 15 kPa in
backwards movement was mounted against the self-reacting frame for the testing tank to represent typical soft soil conditions in the field
loading the footing. A thin layer of sand was placed under the footing (Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2010). A series of unconfined compressive
such that the footing base is rough. A proving ring of capacity 20 kN was tests were conducted on cylindrical specimens of height 76 mm and
fastened to the mechanical jack to measure the applied load on to the diameter 38 mm, to determine the moisture content at which soil ex­
footing. A special ball bearing arrangement was made to place the hibits an undrained shear strength Su, of 15 kPa. The variation of un­
spindle of another dial gauge to measure the corresponding displace­ drained shear strength with respect to water content is plotted in Fig. 6.
ments. The schematic view of axial load test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The results summarized in this figure suggest that a water content of
about 31% has to be used in the test tank to achieve an undrained shear
strength of 15 kPa. Soil was mixed with required water content in

225
D. Rathod et al.
Fig. 2. Schematic view of test setup for axial load tests.
addition to the existing moisture content achieving a total moisture
content of 31%. The soil after mixing with water was placed and spread
on a plastic sheet and covered with another plastic sheet for 72 h to
achieve uniform moisture content conditions throughout the sample
(Ghazavi and Afshar, 2013). Later, the soil was filled in a test tank in
three layers of 200 mm acquiring a total height of 650 mm, while
retaining bulk unit weight of 19 kN/m3. The inner faces of the walls of
tank were coated with lubricant to curtail friction between the wall and
soil. A uniform compactive effort of 300 J was applied using a rectan­
gular face rammer of weight 10 kgs and height of fall of 300 mm. The
water content, density and undrained shear strength of soil in the tank
was monitored at regular intervals by collecting undisturbed samples
from each layer and conducting unconfined compressive tests. No sig­
nificant variation in properties of the soil in the tank was observed from
their original soil properties. The settlement of the soil was monitored
using dial gauges with an accuracy value of 0.01 mm. The recorded
settlement of the soil was close to zero. The discussed method was fol­
lowed for performing all the tests in the test tank of the present study.
226
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
1.4. Installation and testing of stone column under axial loads
The stone columns were installed by replacement method. Stone
column were designed maintaining constant l/dsc ratio of 4 to avoid
bulging failure, as excessive bulging breaks the interlocking between
stone aggregates in addition to contributing to a decrease in the strength
and stiffness of the column (Barksdale and Bachus, 1983). A clearance
distance of 2.5dsc was maintained from center of stone column to the
walls of the tank, as well as at the bottom, to nullify the effect of wall on
to the stone column (Dash and Bora, 2013a,b). The same clearance
distance was maintained from one column to the other in case of group
of columns, which were tested under lateral thrust. A PVC pipe of outer
diameter equal to the diameter of the stone column was used as a casing
pipe. The outer and the inner surface of casing pipe were coated with
lubricant to facilitate ease in penetration and extraction from the soil.
The casing pipe was driven vertically into the soil gradually until it
penetrates to the required depth, with a minimal interruption to the
surrounding soil. The soil inside the casing pipe was extracted with the
help of helical augers. At a time, 50 mm depth of soil was extracted to
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 3. Grain size distribution of clay and crushed stone aggregates.

mm and was observed close to zero in all the tests.

Table 3
In case of encased stone column, encasing material was wrapped
Properties of soil and crushed stone aggregates.
over a circular wooden block of diameter slightly lesser than the
Parameters Quantity diameter of casing pipe. A wooden block inserted into the casing pipe
Soil was extracted back leaving the encasing material inside the casing pipe.
Liquid limit (%) 42.49 Reuse of materials for formation of soil bed, construction and encasing
Plastic limit (%) 19.22
stone column were avoided for all the consequent tests, for alleviating
Plasticity index (%) 23.27
Undrained shear strength, Su (kPa) 15
errors in the results. Load on model footing was applied using me­
Unified soil classification symbol CI chanical jack and corresponding load-displacement values were read
Bulk unit weight (kN/m3) 19 from proving ring and dial gauge. The axial loading was continued with
Specific gravity 2.60 a constant displacement rate of 1 mm/min on model footing until a
Crushed stone aggregates
displacement of 50 mm was attained (Ghazavi and Afshar, 2018).
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 16
Specific gravity 2.69
Void ratio 1.17
D10, D30 & D60 (mm) 5.8, 7.0 &9.8 1.5. Testing of stone column under lateral thrust
Gradation symbol as per USCS GP
Angle of internal friction 40 ͦ
The test setup was devised accordingly to stimulate the stone col­
umns subjected to lateral soil movements under embankments. The
diameter and length of stone column were 75 mm and 300 mm main­
minimize the disruption to the surrounding soil (Ghazavi and Afshar, taining a constant l/dsc ratio of 4 in all the tests. Lateral forces were
2018). The quantity of coarse aggregates required for the installation of created using the dead weights of 10 kPa. An incremental vertical
stone column was pre-measured and charged into the casing pipe in five loading of 10 kPa was applied through a 10 mm thick loading plate of
equal layers, building required height of stone column. The stone ag­ size 150 mm × 650 mm, on the surface adjacent to the group of stone
gregates were compacted in five equal layers, using 25 blows with a columns with a clear gap of 100 mm. Fig. 7 shows the schematic for the
tamping rod of 10 mm diameter made of steel under a drop height of lateral thrust tests on group of stone columns. Tests were conducted on a
200 mm for each layer. This method of light compaction was helpful in group of four stone columns arranged in a square pattern with
avoiding lateral bulging and displacement of aggregates into the sur­ replacement ratio As, of 25%. The calculated replacement ratio is
rounding soil. After compaction of the aggregates, the PVC pipe was confined to the column group. In addition, in a different set up, three
simultaneously lifted slowly, maintaining an overlap of 25 mm with the stone columns arranged in triangular pattern with replacement ratio As,
existing layer of aggregates, to minimize the disturbance from the sur­ of 44%, with a center-to-center distance of 2.5dsc, were used as shown in
rounding soil. This procedure was followed until the required height of Fig. 8. The vertical load applied on the soil adjacent to the stone column,
stone column is formed. The deformation of stone column after instal­ impacts lateral movements in the soil due to lateral thrust that exerts on
lation was monitored for 24 h by a dial gauge with a sensitivity of 0.01 stone column. Comparisons were made between group of stone columns
without encasement to those encased with woven polypropylene textile

227
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 4. a) SEM image b) EDAX image of woven polypropylene fabric.

228
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 5. Load-elongation behavior of the encasing materials a) woven geotextile. b) non-woven geotextile c) woven polypropylene textile.

229
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 6. Undrained shear strength Su, for corresponding water content.

Fig. 7. Schematic view of group of stone columns tested under lateral thrust.

and woven geotextile. Similar methodology for construction of soil
sample and stone column were followed for axial load tests. Based on
results achieved from axial load tests, lateral thrust tests were carried on
stone columns without encasement and encased with halfway double
and halfway single encasement. Incremental load of 2 kPa were applied
each time, and displacements were measured at hourly intervals until
steady displacement reading of 1 mm/h were observed, followed by
further stage of loading such that the total applied load for all the tests
was 10 kPa.
2. Results and discussion
2.1. Load-settlement behavior of axially loaded stone columns
Figs. 9–11 summarize the axial load-settlement response of stone
column with diameters 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm encased with
various materials under different encapsulation conditions. There is a
strong relationship between the load carrying capacity of soil modified
with stone column, tensile resistance of encasing material and number of
encasing layers. The loading on unmodified clay had shown a well-

230
D. Rathod et al.
Fig. 8. Arrangement of group of stone columns of 75 mm diameter in square and triangular pattern for tests under lateral thrust.
defined failure before significant raise in pressure, where as a soil
modified with unencased stone column did not show any sign of failure
despite an increase in twice the pressure compared to that of unmodified
clay. Significant increase in load carrying capacity was observed when
soil was modified with stone columns encased with different encasing
materials. An increase in load carrying capacity of about 1.5 and 1.8
times was observed when a single and double encasement layers were
used with both polypropylene textiles and non-woven geotextiles,
correspondingly. Whereas, in case of stone column encased with woven
geotextiles, increase in load carrying capacity of about 1.8 and 2 times
was observed when a single and double encasement layers were used.
Woven polypropylene textile used for encasement performed on par
with non-woven geotextiles, but under performed when compared with
woven geotextiles. Such a behavior may be attributed to the tensile
strength of the encasing material. The additional confining support
offered by the encasing material improved the load carrying capacity.
An appreciable reduction in the settlement was also observed for the
applied load in stone column encased with various encasing materials. It
was observed that woven geotextile due to its greater tensile strength
was much efficient than the other materials used for encasement. The
summarized results suggest polypropylene textiles can be effectively
used for encasing stone columns where a modest increase in confining
pressure is required, replacing non-woven geotextiles.
2.2. Deformation and failure mode
The deformed shapes of stone column with and without encasement
were observed after execution of tests, by careful extraction of aggre­
gates and replacing the cavity with a paste of plaster of paris
(CaSO4.0.5H2O) as shown in Fig. 12. Failure pattern of the stone column
is strongly dependent on the l/dsc ratio. Typically, failure is due to shear
and punching when stone columns length is less than the critical length
i.e. l/dsc = 4 (IS. 2003); however, when stone columns length is greater
than the critical length, failure is typically associated with bulging.
When the pressure is applied on stone column without encasement, the
stresses induced were resisted by stone column stiffness, which can be
attributed to the interlocking mechanism of the aggregates. The
231
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
interlocking between aggregates however breaks down due to aggre­
gates dilation, which laterally displaces the surrounding soil leading to
excessive settlements when there is an increase in the limiting pressure.
Whereas, in case of stone columns encased with various materials, the
aggregates dilate and form a bulge due to encasement. The aggregates
develop interlocking mechanism again after bulging to resist the addi­
tional stresses induced. Fig. 13 shows typical failure pattern of stone
column with and without encasement. The predominant displacement
and bulging were observed at a depth equal to 1/3rd from the head of
the stone column, which is around 1.5 to 2 times the diameter of stone
column. These results are consistent with studies of other researchers
(Black et al., 2011; Dash and Bora, 2013a, 2013b; Hanna et al., 2013).
Post-test deformed behavior of stone columns with different diameters
encased with various materials under different encapsulation conditions
are shown in Fig. 14, in terms of radial strain, which is ratio of difference
of deformed radius and original radius, to original radius of stone
column.
(rd − ro )
Radial strain = (2)
ro
Maximum amount of radial strains was observed in unencased stone
columns, which was followed by single layer encased stone column
irrespective of encasing material. Such a behavior highlights the
requirement for an additional layer of encasement. Provision of geo­
fabric with higher stiffness or catering an additional encasement layer
for encasement transmits stresses at deeper depths of the column con­
tributes to a reduction in excessive bulging (Hong 2016). Hence, stone
columns were also tested by providing an additional encasement layer.
Decrease in radial strains was observed in stone columns due to the use
of an additional layer of encasement.
2.3. Effect of diameter of stone column on load-settlement response
Fig. 15 shows the variation of load carrying capacity of stone col­
umns with different diameters. The load-settlement responses signifi­
cantly improved with respect to stresses versus settlement behavior
when diameter of the stone column was increased from 50 mm to 75 mm
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 9. Pressure-settlement behavior of 50 mm dia. stone column a) Single layer encasement b) Double layer encasement c) Halfway double layer and halfway
single layer.

232
D. Rathod et al.
Fig. 10. Pressure-settlement behavior of 75 mm dia. stone column a) Single
layer encasement b) Double layer encasement c) Halfway double layer and
halfway single layer.
in all the cases, with effective increase in confining support and better
interaction of column and encasing materials. Further increment in the
diameter of the stone column only contributed to a limited enhancement
in load carrying capacity of stone columns. It was observed that the load
carrying capacity of encased stone columns has no significant increase
with increase in the diameter of stone columns, which is consistent with
the studies of Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2006, 2007. Effective mobili­
zation of tensile forces was observed in case of 75 mm diameter stone
column encased with various encasing materials, where significant in­
crease in load carrying capacity was ascertained.
An increment in diameter of stone column decreased effective utili­
zation of tensile strength of encasing material; similar observations were
reported by Ayadat and Hanna (2005). Mode of failure of stone column
is influenced by the area replacement ratio, Ar. Depth of bulge increases
with increase in area replacement ratio. Failure of column material is
233
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
Fig. 11. Pressure-settlement behavior of 100 mm dia. stone column a) Single
layer encasement b) Double layer encasement c) Halfway double layer and
halfway single layer.
expected prior to the failure of encasing material, as more stresses are
mobilized by the column material rather than encasing material, while
using greater diameter stone columns. The column diameter can be
reduced for achieving effective mobilization of confining pressure in the
encasing material. An additional encasement layer can be catered
through halfway depth of stone columns, when geofabric of low tensile
strength is used or greater pressures are expected on stone column.
2.4. Effect of vertical encapsulation
The influence of vertical encapsulation was investigated by testing
stone columns of different diameters under different encapsulation
conditions. Encasement of stone column with single encasing layer
produced significant enhancement in the load carrying capacity of stone
column. This was mainly observed in case of stone columns encased with
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 12. Failure aspect of stone columns encased with woven polypropylene textile a) Single layer encasement b) Double layer encasement c) Halfway double layer
and halfway single layer.

234
D. Rathod et al.
Fig. 13. Schematic view showing mode of failure of stone column with and without encasement.
woven polypropylene textile. To avoid failure of encasing material due
to extreme loading conditions, it was resolved to provide an additional
layer encasement to stone column. The use of a double layer not only
increased the load carrying capacity; however, it increased the cost of
encasement materials. Hence, the stone columns were encapsulated
using a single layer of geotextile throughout its depth and an additional
encasement layer to half of its depth from the top (halfway double
encased and halfway single encased). To draw the comparison between
enhanced load carrying capacities with different encapsulation condi­
tions, a non dimensionless parameter, load carrying capacity improve­
ment factor If, was measured and is shown in Table 4.
load carrying capacity of reinforced ground(qr )
If =
load carrying capacity of unreinforced ground(qo )
Load improvement factor is measured as ratio of load carrying ca­
pacity of reinforced ground, qr (clay modified with stone column) to the
load carrying capacity of unreinforced ground qo (unmodified clay).
Fig. 16 shows the load improvement factor (If) of stone column of
diameter 50 mm, 75 mm and 100 mm encased with woven poly­
propylene textile, under various encapsulation conditions, with respect
to settlement of the footing. It is evident from the figure; that the
maximum value of improvement factor was attained when stone column
was encapsulated with double encasement layers. The stresses due to the
applied load influence the stone column up to a depth of twice the
diameter of stone column along its depth (Ghazavi and Afshar, 2013).
Hence, for an economical design and to utilize the tensile strength of the
encasing material effectively, stone columns were encapsulated with
halfway double and halfway single encasement layers, whose
improvement factor values were found to be close to that of stone col­
umn which are encapsulated with double encasement layers. Enhance­
ment in load improvement factor of stone column with halfway double
and halfway single encased was observed to be 1.4 times to that of stone
columns that were not encased. Hence, this method of encapsulation can
be effectively used in the field for surpassing performance of stone
columns, where the required encasing material can be specifically
designed by the manufacturer.
2.5. Influence of lateral thrust on group of stone columns
Comparisons between performance of four stone column group in
square pattern and three stone column group in triangular pattern
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
encased with woven polypropylene textile & woven geotextiles are
shown in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18. An appreciable increase in lateral/shear
resistance on provision of an encasement to the stone columns was
observed. The applied axial loads catered lateral thrust in the tank and
enforced the stone columns to displace in the upward direction. Similar
conditions can also be observed in the field due to heavy structural loads
constructed nearer to stone columns. In case of stone columns arranged
in square pattern with and without encasement, the displacements were
observed to be higher in the columns (column 1 & column 2), which
were nearer to the loading and minimum in the columns (column 3 &
column 4), which were away from the zone of applied stress. The column
close to loading (column 1) experienced larger displacements when the
(3) stone columns were aligned in a triangular pattern in comparison to
isolated columns. However, displacement in other columns (column 2
and column 3) were comparatively less. Such a behavior may be
attributed to enhanced grouping operation of stone columns arranged in
a triangular pattern that contributes to an increase in the stiffness to­
wards the center (Wood et al., 2000). The grouping operation of stone
columns arranged in square pattern were comparatively less to that
arranged in triangular pattern.
Stone columns without encasement loses its stability due to the
induced stresses associated with loading that contribute to the separa­
tion of aggregates. Resistance to lateral displacement was observed in
encased stone columns due to increment in stiffness of column initially,
which is due to confinement of aggregates within the column. The
encased columns were intact and acted as a semi rigid pile. The
increased stiffness of encased stone column restrained the lateral
movement of soil. Despite an increase in the pressure, the resistance to
the lateral displacements was due to mobilization of tensile forces by the
encasing material. Significant reduction in displacements were observed
when stone columns were encased with woven geotextiles over those
encased with woven polypropylene textiles and unencased stone col­
umns, which can be attributed to greater tensile strength of woven
geotextile.
3. Conclusions
Performance of stone column encased with local woven poly­
propylene material, woven geotextile and non-woven geotextiles, under
different encapsulation conditions, subjected to axial and lateral forces
were studied.
235
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 14. Post-test deformed aspect of stone column a) Single layer encasement b) Double layer encasement c) Halfway double layer and halfway single layer.

236
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 15. Variation of pressure with diameter of stone column a) Single layer encasement b) Double layer encasement c) Halfway double layer & halfway single
layer encasement.

Table 4
Improvement factors under different cases.
Bearing capacity improvement factor (IF)

Area replacement ratio (Ar) Single encasement Double encasement Halfway double encased & Halfway single encased

(%) NWG WPT WG NWG WPT WG NWG WPT WG

11 2.70 2.73 3.09 3.09 3.30 3.59 3.15 3.26 3.60

25 3.41 3.60 3.94 3.71 3.76 4.19 3.53 3.67 4.14
44 3.60 3.65 4.05 3.86 3.95 4.27 3.65 3.74 4.25

NWG – Nonwoven geotextile; WPT – Woven polypropylene textile; WG – Woven geotextile.

237
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Fig. 16. Load improvement factor of stone column encased with polypropylene textile a) 50 mm dia. b) 75 mm dia. C) 100 mm.

238
D. Rathod et al.
Fig. 17. Displacement behavior of 4 column group of 75 mm dia. arranged in square pattern a) Unencased b) Encased with woven polypropylene textile c) Encased
with woven geotextile.
The load carrying capacity and stiffness of stone column increased to
a significant extent, when encased with different encasing materials
compared to un-encased stone column that displayed softer response
with greater radial displacements. Enhancement in load carrying ca­
pacity and reduction in settlement is predominantly dependent on the
tensile strength of encasing materials, which generates higher confining
pressures and caters additional stiffness to stone column. The increase in
load carrying capacity on single and double encasement with non-
woven geotextile and polypropylene textile was 1.5 and 1.8 times
respectively. Whereas, in case of woven geotextiles, the increase in load
carrying capacity was observed to be 1.8 and 2 times for single and
double encapsulation conditions. For a better economical design, the
239
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
encapsulation can be done with single encasement layer throughout the
depth of stone column and double encasement for the halfway depth
from the head of the stone column, whose performance was observed
closed to stone columns encased with double encasement layers.
Displacement of aggregates due to shear movement caused curtail­
ment in stability of stone columns without encasement. Remarkable
increase in resistance to lateral displacement of about 50% was observed
in case of encased stone columns, when compared with unencased stone
columns. For greater loads, the resistance to lateral displacements was
due to effective mobilization of confining support provided by the
encasing material.
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

24
22 Column 1
20 Column 2

Displacement (mm)
18 Column 3
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pressure (kPa)

24
22 Column 1
20 Column 2
18 Column 3
Displacement (mm)

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pressure (kPa)

24
22 Column 1
20 Column 2
Displacement (mm)

18 Column 3
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Pressure (kPa)
Fig. 18. Displacement behavior of 3 column group of 75 mm dia. arranged in triangular pattern a) Unencased b) Encased with woven polypropylene textile c)
Encased with woven geotextile.

240
D. Rathod et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242

Acknowledgements (SERB), a statutory body of Department of Science & Technology (DST),

Government of India, under Grant No. TAR/2019/000274. The financial
This work was assisted by Science and Engineering Research Board supports are gratefully acknowledged.

Notation

l Length of stone column

dsc Diameter of stone column
D Diameter of model footing
s Settlement of footing
s/D Footing settlement ratio
Ar Area replacement ratio
As Replacement ratio for column group
Su Undrained shear strength
rd Deformed radius of stone column
ro Original radius of stone column
If Load carrying capacity improvement factor
qo Load carrying capacity of unreinforced ground
qr Load carrying capacity of reinforced ground
Ts Tensile strength of geotextile

References Castro, J., 2017. Groups of encased stone columns: influence of column length and
arrangement. Geotext. Geomembranes 45, 68–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2016.12.001.
Alkhorshid, N.R., Araujo, G.L., Palmeira, E.M., Zornberg, J.G., 2019. Large-scale load
Chai, J., Shrestha, S., Hino, T., 2019. Failure of an embankment on soil-cement
capacity tests on a geosynthetic encased column. Geotext. Geomembranes 47,
column–improved clay deposit: investigation and analysis. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
632–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.103458.
Eng. 145, 05019006 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0002118.
Almeida, M.S.S., Hosseinpour, I., Riccio, M., Alexiew, D., 2015. Behavior of geotextile-
Dash, S.K., Bora, M.C., 2013a. Improved performance of soft clay foundations using stone
encased granular columns supporting test embankment on soft deposit. J. Geotech.
columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geotext. Geomembranes 41, 26–35. https://doi.
Geoenviron. Eng. 141, 04014116 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.09.001.
5606.0001256.
Dash, S.K., Bora, M.C., 2013b. Influence of geosynthetic encasement on the performance
ASTM, 2011. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the Wide-
of stone columns floating in soft clay. Can. Geotech. J. 50, 754–765. https://doi.org/
Width Strip Method. ASTM D4595, Int, West Conshohocken.
10.1139/cgj-2012-0437.
Ayadat, T., Hanna, A.M., 2005. Encapsulated stone columns as a soil improvement
Deb, K., Basudhar, P.K., Chandra, S., 2010. Extensible geosynthetics and stone-column-
technique for collapsible soil. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers -
reinforced soil. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground
Ground Improvement 9, 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2005.9.4.137.
Improvement 163, 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.2010.163.4.231.
Babu, M.R.D., Nayak, S., Shivashankar, R., 2012. A critical review of construction,
Deb, K., Samadhiya, N.K., Namdeo, J.B., 2011. Laboratory model studies on unreinforced
analysis and behaviour of stone columns. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31, 1–22. https://doi.
and geogrid-reinforced sand bed over stone column-improved soft clay. Geotext.
org/10.1007/s10706-012-9555-9.
Geomembranes 29, 190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.004.
Barksdale, R.D., Bachus, R.C., 1983. Design and Construction of Stone Column. Report
Fattah, M.Y., Zabar, B.S., Hassan, H.A., 2016. Experimental analysis of embankment on
No.FHWA/RD-83/026. National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
ordinary and encased stone columns. Int. J. GeoMech. 16, 04015102 https://doi.
Virginia.
org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000579.
Balaam, N.P., Booker, J.R., 1981. Analysis of rigid rafts supported by granular piles. Int.
Fu, R., Baudet, B.A., Madhusudhan, B., Coop, M., 2018. A comparison of the
J. Numer. Anal. Methods GeoMech. 5, 379–403. https://doi.org/10.1002/
performances of polypropylene and rubber fibers in completely decomposed granite.
nag.1610050405.
Geotext. Geomembranes 46, 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Balaam, N.P., Booker, J.R., 1985. Effect of stone column yield on settlement of rigid
geotexmem.2017.09.004.
foundations in stabilized clay. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods GeoMech. 9, 331–351.
Ghazavi, M., Afshar, J.N., 2013. Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610090404.
Geotext. Geomembranes 38, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Basu, P., Samadhiya, N.K., Dalal, S.S.D., 2016. An experimental study on random fiber
geotexmem.2013.04.003.
mixed granular pile. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Ghazavi, M., Yamchi, A.E., Afshar, J.N., 2018. Bearing capacity of horizontally layered
19386362.2016.1235813.
geosynthetic reinforced stone columns. Geotext. Geomembranes 46, 312–318.
Basack, S., Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., Siahaan, F., 2017. Modeling the stone
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.01.002.
column behavior in soft ground with special emphasis on lateral deformation.
Ghosh, A., Ghosh, A., Bera, A., 2005. Bearing capacity of square footing on pond ash
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143, 04017016 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)
reinforced with jute-geotextile. Geotext. Geomembranes 23 (2), 144–173. https://
gt.1943-5606.0001652.
doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2004.07.002.
Bergado, D.T., Lam, F.L., 1987. Full scale load test of granular piles with different
Gniel, J., Bouazza, A., 2009. Improvement of soft soils using geogrid encased stone
densities and different proportions of gravel and sand on soft Bangkok clay. Soils
columns. Geotext. Geomembranes 27, 167–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Found. 27, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf1972.27.86.
geotexmem.2008.11.001.
Black, J.A., Sivakumar, V., Madhav, M.R., Hamill, G.A., 2007. Reinforced stone columns
Gu, M., Zhao, M., Zhang, L., Han, J., 2016. Effects of geogrid encasement on lateral and
in weak deposits: laboratory model study. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133,
vertical deformations of stone columns in model tests. Geosynth. Int. 23, 100–112.
1154–1161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2007)133:9(1154).
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.15.00035.
Black, J., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., 2011. The settlement performance of stone column
Guetif, Z., Bouassida, M., Debats, J., 2007. Improved soft clay characteristics due to stone
foundations. Geotechnique 61, 909–922. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.9.p.014.
column installation. Comput. Geotech. 34, 104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Buragadda, V., Thyagaraj, T., 2019. Bearing capacity of jute geotextile-reinforced sand
compgeo.2006.09.008.
bed. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering 5 (4). https://
Hanna, A.M., Etezad, M., Ayadat, T., 2013. Mode of failure of a Group of stone columns
doi.org/10.1007/s40891-019-0178-6.
in soft soil. Int. J. GeoMech. 13, 87–96.
Castro, J., Karstunen, M., 2010. Numerical simulations of stone column installation. Can.
Hasan, M., Samadhiya, N.K., 2016a. Soft soils improvement by granular piles reinforced
Geotech. J. 47, 1127–1138. https://doi.org/10.1139/t10-019.
with horizontal geogrid strips. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 12, 101–108. https://doi.org/
Castro, J., Sagaseta, C., 2012. Pore pressure during stone column installation.
10.1080/19386362.2016.1252139.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Ground Improvement 165, 97–109.
Hasan, M., Samadhiya, N.K., 2016b. Soft soils improvement by granular piles reinforced
https://doi.org/10.1680/grim.9.00015.
with horizontal geogrid strips. Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 12, 101–108. https://doi.org/
Castro, J., 2014. Numerical modelling of stone columns beneath a rigid footing. Comput.
10.1080/19386362.2016.1252139.
Geotech. 60, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.03.016.
Hegde, A., Sitharam, T.G., 2015. Use of bamboo in soft-ground engineering and its
Castro, J., Karstunen, M., Sivasithamparam, N., 2014. Influence of stone column
performance comparison with geosynthetics: experimental studies. J. Mater. Civ.
installation on settlement reduction. Comput. Geotech. 59, 87–97. https://doi.org/
Eng. 27, 04014256 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001224.
10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.03.003.

241
D. Rathod et al.
Hegde, A., Sitharam, T.G., 2015. Experimental and analytical studies on soft sand beds
reinforced with bamboo cells and geocells. International Journal of Geosynthetics
and Ground Engineering 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-015-0015-5.
Hughes, J.M.O., Withers, N.J., Greenwood, D.A., 1975. A field trial of the reinforcing
effect of a stone column in soil. Geotechnique 25, 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.1975.25.1.31.
Hong, Y., Wu, C., Yu, Y., 2016. Model tests on geotextile-encased granular columns under
1-g and undrained conditions. Geotext. Geomembranes 44 (1), 13–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.06.006.
Indraratna, B., Basack, S., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., 2013. Numerical solution of stone
column–improved soft soil considering arching, clogging, and smear effects.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139, 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-
5606.0000789.
Lal, D., Sankar, N., Chandrakaran, S., 2017. Effect of reinforcement form on the
behaviour of coir geotextile reinforced sand beds. Soils Found. 57, 227–236. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.12.001.
Mazumder, T., Rolaniya, A.K., Ayothiraman, R., 2018. Experimental study on behaviour
of encased stone column with tyre chips as aggregates. Geosynth. Int. 25, 259–270.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.18.00006.
Meguid, M.A., Youssef, T.A., 2018. Experimental investigation of the earth pressure
distribution on buried pipes backfilled with tire-derived aggregate. Transportation
Geotechnics 14, 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2017.11.007.
Miranda, M., Costa, A.D., Castro, J., Sagaseta, C., 2015. Influence of gravel density in the
behaviour of soft soils improved with stone columns. Can. Geotech. J. 52,
1968–1980. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2014-0487.
Miranda, M., Costa, A.D., 2016. Laboratory analysis of encased stone columns. Geotext.
Geomembranes 44, 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.12.001.
Mohapatra, S.R., Rajagopal, K., Sharma, J., 2016. Direct shear tests on geosynthetic-
encased granular columns. Geotext. Geomembranes 44, 396–405. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.geotexmem.2016.01.002.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2006. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: numerical
evaluation. Geotext. Geomembranes 24, 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2006.05.001.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2007. Model tests on geosynthetic-encased stone columns.
Geosynth. Int. 14, 346–354. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.346.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2008. Shear load tests on granular columns with and
without geosynthetic encasement. Geotech. Test J. 32 (1), 35e44.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2010. Studies on the behavior of single and group of
geosynthetic encased stone columns. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136, 129–139.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000187.
Najjar, S.S., 2012. A state-of-the-art review of stone/sand-column reinforced clay
systems. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 31, 355–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-012-
9603-5.
Punthutaecha, K., Puppala, A.J., Vanapalli, S.K., Inyang, H., 2006. Volume change
behaviors of expansive soils stabilized with recycled ashes and fibers. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 18, 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0899-1561(2006)18:2(295).
Rezaei, M.M., Lajevardi, S.H., Saba, H., Ghalandarzadeh, A., Zeighami, E., 2019.
Laboratory study on single stone columns reinforced with steel bars and discs.
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering 5. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40891-019-0154-1.
Santos, E.C., Palmeira, E.M., Bathurst, R.J., 2013. Behaviour of a geogrid reinforced wall
built with recycled construction and demolition waste backfill on a collapsible
242
View publication stats
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 49 (2021) 222–242
foundation. Geotext. Geomembranes 39, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2013.07.002.
Selvakumar, S., Soundara, B., 2019. Swelling behaviour of expansive soils with recycled
geofoam granules column inclusion. Geotext. Geomembranes 47, 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.08.007.
Shahu, J.T., Reddy, Y.R., 2011. Clayey soil reinforced with stone column group: model
tests and analyses. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137, 1265–1274. https://doi.org/
10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000552.
Shivashankar, R., Babu, M.R.D., Nayak, S., Manjunath, R., 2010. Stone columns with
vertical circumferential nails: laboratory model study. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 28,
695–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9329-1.
Sivakumar, V., Mckelvey, D., Graham, J., Hughes, D., 2004. Triaxial tests on model sand
columns in clay. Can. Geotech. J. 41, 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1139/t03-097.
Soleimanbeigi, A., Edil, T.B., 2015. Compressibility of recycled materials for use as
highway embankment fill. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141, 04015011 https://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0001285.
Sudarsanan, N., Mohapatra, S.R., Karpurapu, R., Amirthalingam, V., 2018. Use of natural
geotextiles to retard reflection cracking in highway pavements. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
30, 04018036 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002195.
Tai, P., Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., 2018. Experimental simulation and
mathematical modelling of clogging in stone column. Can. Geotech. J. 55, 427–436.
https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2017-0271.
Tang, C.-S., Shi, B., Zhao, L.-Z., 2010. Interfacial shear strength of fiber reinforced soil.
Geotext. Geomembranes 28, 54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
geotexmem.2009.10.001.
Terzi, N.U., Erenson, C., Yilmazturk, F., Kara, M.E., Ozsoy, M.U., 2018. Tire encasement
and granular column stability. J. Test. Eval. 48, 20170125. https://doi.org/10.1520/
jte20170125.
Wood, D.M., Hu, W., Nash, D.F.T., 2000. Group effects in stone column foundations:
model tests. Geotechnique 50, 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1680/
geot.2000.50.6.689.
Yang, F.O., Zhang, J.J., Liao, W.M., Han, J.W., Tang, Y.L., Bi, J.B., 2016. Characteristics
of the stress and deformation of geosynthetic-encased stone column composite
ground based on large-scale model tests. Geosynth. Int. 1–13. https://doi.org/
10.1680/jgein.16.00028.
Yoo, C., 2010. Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in embankment
construction: numerical investigation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 136,
1148–1160. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gt.1943-5606.0000316.
Yoo, C., 2015. Settlement behavior of embankment on geosynthetic-encased stone
column installed soft ground – a numerical investigation. Geotext. Geomembranes
43, 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.07.014.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., Zhao, H., 2013. Settlement calculation of composite
foundation reinforced with stone columns. Int. J. GeoMech. 13, 248–256. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000212.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., 2015. Deformation analysis of geotextile-encased stone columns. Int.
J. GeoMech. 15, 04014053 https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)gm.1943-5622.0000389.
Zhou, C., Yin, J.-H., Ming, J.-P., 2002. Bearing capacity and settlement of weak fly ash
ground improved using lime - fly ash or stone columns. Can. Geotech. J. 39,
585–596. https://doi.org/10.1139/t02-011.
Zhang, Z., Ye, G., Cai, Y., Zhang, Z., 2019. Centrifugal and numerical modeling of
stiffened deep mixed column-supported embankment with slab over soft clay. Can.
Geotech. J. 56, 1418–1432. https://doi.org/10.1139/cgj-2018-0180.