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

net/publication/335826824

The effect of stone column geometry on soft soil bearing capacity

Article  in  International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering · September 2019

DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2019.1666557

CITATIONS READS

6 1,762

3 authors:

Hamzh Alarifi Hisham Mohamad

Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS
9 PUBLICATIONS   20 CITATIONS    47 PUBLICATIONS   819 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mohd fairus Yusof

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
22 PUBLICATIONS   67 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

final year project View project

Marine clay improvement using blended ceramic tiles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamzh Alarifi on 15 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

The effect of stone column geometry on soft soil

bearing capacity

Alarifi Hamzh, Hisham Mohamad & Mohd Fairus Bin Yusof

To cite this article: Alarifi Hamzh, Hisham Mohamad & Mohd Fairus Bin Yusof (2019): The effect
of stone column geometry on soft soil bearing capacity, International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1666557

Published online: 14 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1666557

The effect of stone column geometry on soft soil bearing capacity

a
Alarifi Hamzh , Hisham Mohamada and Mohd Fairus Bin Yusofb
a
Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia; bDepartment of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, Parit Raja, Malaysia

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Stone columns are one of the common types of ground improvement methods that applied to reduce the Received 22 April 2019
settlement and increase the stability of structures. This paper focuses on the non-uniform diameters of the Accepted 8 September 2019
stone column and aimed at providing some practical insights into the design by reducing the constructing KEYWORDS
material of the stone column with increasing the bearing capacity of the soft soil. In this study, two Stone column; bearing
dimensional (2D) Finite Element analyses through PLAXIS 2D were performed to investigate the bearing capacity; non-uniform
capacity of uniform and non-uniform stone columns in soft soil. A Mohr-Coulomb constitutive soil model was column; numerical analysis;
adopted in the numerical analyses. The non-uniform stone columns modelling by creating two different PLAXIS-2D
diameters and lengths. The upper diameter d1 was always larger than the lower half diameter d2 with
investigated ratio d2: d1 of 1:2, 1:4 and 1:5. The columns were 10 m long but varied in diameter length with
nine different length ratios (l1: l2). By comparing between uniform and non-uniform shapes, one can determine
the optimum column’s design. The highest bearing capacity obtained by the non-uniform stone column was
one with the d2:d1 ratio equals to 1:5. The most economical shape for the stone column (the least volumes
used to construct stone columns) was achieved at a ratio of d2:d1 = 1:2 and a length ratio of l1:l2 = 3:7.

1. Introduction model (e.g. Samanta and Bhowmik 2017). Many researchers

used 2D PLAXIS software to calculate the bearing capacity of
The stone column is one of the best-suited techniques to
the stone column and soft clay (e.g. Samanta and Mohanty 2015;
improve soil conditions. By utilization stone columns in the
Ambily, Ph, and Gandhi, 2007). 2D FEM on the basis of axisym-
soft soil, it is possible to control the maximum settlement and
metric analysis also known as the unit cell method assumes the
build the desired load capacity. The gravel column technique
single stone column is able to present the field behaviour of
can likewise function as a method to drain pore water pressure,
many stone columns loaded under the same amount. Aboshi
accelerate consolidation settlement and diminish the soil lique-
et al. (1979) stated that the Equilibrium approach is useful for
faction (Arman et al. 2009). However, the soft soil behaviour
prediction of sand compaction piles and stone column as soil
must be considered and ought to be cautiously investigated to
improvement techniques. The theory of equilibrium is based on
produce an appropriate design of the ground enhancement, so
subsequent assumptions: 1. Utilize Unit cell concept, 2. The
the stabilization for any class of the soft soil must be evaluated
vertical load in unit cell axi-symmetry is equalled to the force
during the design stage for the geotechnical structures.
that carried by stone column and surrounding soil, 3. Vertical
Researches on soft soil behaviour have been expanded in the
settlement of the stone column and surrounding soil are at the
area of ground improvement, which can be studied experimen-
same value, 4. The external loading occurs through column
tally (e.g. Rashid et al. 2017b), numerical modelling (e.g. Ye, Cai,
length, which results in the same vertical stress.
and Zhang 2016), and fieldwork (e.g. Sadaoui and Bahar 2017).
The idea of unit cell method was investigated by Balaam
A series of issues in geotechnical design and analysis are
and Booker (1981) to study the behaviour of granular piles
being explored utilizing numerical analysis, predominantly
under rigid raft. Ambily, Ph, and Gandhi (2007) showed their
finite elements (e.g. Sexton et al. 2016). In the late decade,
experimental results were comparable with Finite Element
many factors such as bearing capacity (Rashid et al. 2017a),
analyses which were performed using the unit cell concept.
settlement (Ng 2017), and water movement (Liu et al. 2017)
More recently Sakr et al. (2017) modelled stone columns with
had been examination through Finite Element Method in geo-
variation of length to diameter ratios. The authors concluded
technical designing applications. This is further reviewed below.
that bearing capacity of stone column depends on whether
the soils behaved drained or undrained conditions.
1.1 Finite element method in stone columns
Numerical investigation of the stone column can be modelled in 1.2 Failure mechanism of stone column
few methodologies, (i) an axisymmetric unit cell model (e.g.
Shien 2013), (ii) Two dimensional (2D) plane strain model (e. Barksdale and Bachus (1983) proposed that the bearing capa-
g. Liu and Hutchinson 2018), (iii) Three dimensional (3D) city for a set of stone columns can be obtained by multiplying

CONTACT Alarifi Hamzh hamzh_hmd@yahoo.com Civil & Environmental Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar, Perak
32610, Malaysia
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 A. HAMZH ET AL.

the number of columns in the carrying capacity of one col-

umn. Three types of failures can occur for the stone columns,
which are (i) general shear failure, (ii) Punching failure, and
(iii) Bulging failure.
Under axial loading, long stone columns tend to bulge
failure while the punching occurs more in short columns.
Many researchers have studied the bearing capacity based
on bulging failure in stone columns (e.g. Hughes, Withers,
and Greenwood 1975; Wissmann 1999).
Hughes, Withers, and Greenwood (1975) tested the beha-
viour of a single stone column in clay utilizing radiography
method. They reported that the bulging failure occurs in the
floating stone column when the length is more than three
times of the diameter. In addition, the authors reported that
the main factor that controls the bearing capacity of the
floating stone column is the bulging failure. Hughes,
Withers, and Greenwood (1975) concluded that the bulging
in the floating column usually occurs at the uppermost zone
unless there is a punching failure, and because of the lateral Figure 1. The geometry of the stone column.
resistance is less than axial load. However, the bulging failure
does not have the potential to occur in the lower part of the
stone column due to the increase of confining stress with Table 1. The lengths and different ratios of diameters.
depth (Alkhorshid 2012). Diameter d2 Diameter, d1 Length l1 Length l2 Total length
No (m) (m) (m) (m) L (m)
The interface element between the stone column and the soil
The lengths and diameters for ratio (1:2)
is usually not applied in numerical studies because the stone 1 0.30 0.60 1.0 9.0 10.0
column material will interlock with the soil during the construc- 2 2.0 8.0
tion. That leads to reduce the possibility of occurring shear or 3 3.0 7.0
4 4.0 6.0
punching failure in the stone column while there is a high 5 5.0 5.0
expectation for bulging failure (Ambily et al. 2007). 6 6.0 4.0
7 7.0 3.0
8 8.0 2.0
2. Method of analysis 9 9.0 1.0
The lengths and diameters for ratio (1:4)
Based on Equilibrium approach (see sec. 1.1), the bearing 1 0.30 1.20 1.0 9.0 10.0
capacity of the stone column is calculated in PLAXIS program 2 2.0 8.0
3 3.0 7.0
by applying a vertical displacement on the unit cell axisym- 4 4.0 6.0
metry which is equalled to the force that carried by stone 5 5.0 5.0
column and surrounding soil. The vertical settlement of stone 6 6.0 4.0
7 7.0 3.0
column and surrounding soil are at the same values to 8 8.0 2.0
achieve Equilibrium theory. In this study, only floating col- 9 9.0 1.0
umns are considered. Figure 1 shows the geometry of stone The lengths and diameters for ratio (1:5)
columns in soft soil comprised of uniform and non-uniform 1 0.30 1.50 1.0 9.0 10.0
2 2.0 8.0
shapes. The variation of geometry between the columns such 3 3.0 7.0
as diameters and lengths is listed in Table 1. 4 4.0 6.0
5 5.0 5.0
6 6.0 4.0
2.1. Uniform stone columns 7 7.0 3.0
8 8.0 2.0
The standard stone column with a uniform shape (single 9 9.0 1.0
diameter shaft) will be used in this research as a reference
to evaluate the new design which is the non-uniform shape
uniform shape (0.6 m, 1.2 m and 1.5 m), but for the second
(dual diameter shaft) of the stone column. The diameters of
segment of the stone column, the diameter (d2) is fixed at
the standard stone columns are 0.60 m, 1.20 m and 1.50 m, all
0.3 m for all non-uniform shapes as shown in Figure 1(b). The
with 10 m in length (L = 10 m), as shown in Figure 1(a).
upper diameter (d1) is changed in relation to the lower diameter
(d2) in such that the ratio d2: d1 = 1:2, 1:4 and 1:5.
2.2. Non-uniform stone columns
In non-uniform shapes, the whole length is constant same the
2.3. The grid pattern of stone columns
length of the uniform stone column (L = 10 m), but in this case,
is divided into two segments (l1 & l2), also the diameter as (d1 & Generally, there are three patterns to construct the stone
d2). The upper diameter (d1) is same diameter size of the columns; (i) Triangular pattern, (ii) Square pattern, and (iii)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

Figure 2. The typical layout of the patterns (Balaam and Booker 1981).

Hexagonal pattern (Balaam and Booker 1981). Figure 2 2.4. Material properties and constitutive model
shows the three typical layouts of the patterns and the
This study adopts the same properties (unit weight, shear
equation of each one to determine the effective diameter of
strength and stiffness) of soft clay and stone column in numer-
the unit cell. For example, the effective diameter of the unit
ical modelling to what have been reported by Sakr et al. (2017).
cell in the square pattern can be calculated based on the
Table 2 shows the important geotechnical parameters used in
spacing between the stone columns (Sc) (centre to centre) as
this study on the basis of Mohr-coulomb constitutive model.
(De = 1.13*Sc). In this study, the square pattern is used with
a fixed spacing of 2.65 m centre-to-centre of the columns as
shown in Figure 3. The diameters used as mentioned in the 2.5. Finite element geometry & boundary conditions
geometry of the stone column section refer to the ratio of
As previously mentioned, this study uses axisymmetry unit
each other (d2: d1). By determining the spacing between the
cell model. Due to the axisymmetry, only half of the column
columns, the effective unit cell diameter De is equal to 3 m.
and soil elements in the y-axis is considered. That means the
So, for the axisymmetry, only half of the effective diameter
uniform stone column is installed at the edge of soft soil
will be applied which is equalized to the radius of the unit
model with half of the diameter, D/2 and the total length,
cell (re = 1.5 m).
L while the non-uniform stone columns are installed at the
edge of the soft soil model with half the two diameters (d1/2
& d2/2) and the whole lengths (l1 & l2) of the stone columns.
The boundary for axisymmetriy area as without shear or

Table 2. The material properties (after Sakr et al. 2017).

Type of soil Stone Soft clay
Constitutive model Mohr-Coulomb Mohr-Coulomb
Soil condition Drained Drained
Unit weight γd (kN/m3) 18 16
γsat (kN/m3) 19 17
Shear strength Cu, kPa 0 10
parameters ϕ, ο 42 0
ψ, ° 12 0
Soil stiffness E 100000 3000
Parameters υ 0.35 0.45
Figure 3. The plane view of the square pattern.
4 A. HAMZH ET AL.
Figure 4. (a) The boundary conditions (b) mesh of uniform shape (c) mesh of non-uniform shape.
radial development at the horizontal sides and block the
bottom from both horizontal and vertical movement as dis-
played in Figure 4(a).
The 15 nodes element is utilized to model the clay and the
stone column with medium mesh for uniform and non-
uniform shapes of the stone column (see Figure 4(b,c)).
Since the stone interlocks with the soil and no important
shear happens among the stone column and the clay, no
interface is created around the stone column and no water
level is established (see Ambily et al., 2007). Hence in the
current study, a trial was made to improve structure metho-
dology by considering the load sharing among column and
clay. A plate was activated at a position above the stone
column and clay (ground surface) to trans the loads with
a diameter 140 mm (this is roughly equivalent to double of
the largest diameter of the stone column in the present
study).
Figure 5. Deformed meshes of non-uniform shapes (a) Bulging failure (b) Punching failure.
3. Numerical results
This section presents the numerical results of load-bearing capa-
city of the stone column embedded in clay. During the analyses of
d2: d1 = 1:2, most non-uniform shapes of the stone columns are
deformed by bulging failure as shown in Figure 5(a). The bulges
occurred in the upper part of the stone column at 2 to 4 times of
the diameter from the ground surface, except for the shapes l1: l2 =
2:8 & 3:7 which failed due to punching failure in the upper parts.
For the cases d2: d1 = 1:4, all non-uniform stone columns failed
due to the punching except the length ratios 9:1 which experi-
enced bulging failure in the upper segment.
In the third case of d2: d1 = 1:5, the punching is the main
failure for all ratios of l1: l2. When l1 is less than l2, the bulging
occurred in the upper part of the non-uniform column. On
the other hand, the bulging can also take place in both upper
and lower parts when (l1 = l2) or l1 is greater than l2 (l1 > l2) as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

Table 3. The failure mechanism based on diameter and length ratios.

d2: d1 1:2 1:4 1:5
l1: l2 Bulging Punching Bulging Punching Bulging Punching
1:9 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower
2:8 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower
3:7 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower
4:6 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower
5:5 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower ✓ ✓
6:4 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower ✓ ✓
7:3 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower ✓ ✓
8:2 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower ✓ ✓
9:1 upper ✓ ✓ ✓
lower ✓
uniform - ✓ ✓ ✓

shown in Figure 5(b). It can be generally concluded that the
dual-diameter columns are exposed to bulging and punching
failures depending on certain ratios as summarized in
Table 3.
3.1. The effect of different shapes of the stone column
on loading bearing capacity
The loading capacity of the stone columns has been analysed
with three cases as (d1 = 2d2), (d1 = 4d2), (d1 = 5d2) and each
case has different ratios of lengths (l1 & l2) with a column’s
total length fixed at 10 m.
3.1.1. The loading bearing capacity of (d1 = 2d2) with
different ratios of lengths
Figure 6 displays the relation of loading bearing capacity with
the settlement for dual-diameter columns of d1 = 2d2 (the top
diameter is twice larger than the bottom diameter) with nine
different lengths ratio (l1:l2) of 1:9, 2:8, 3:7, 4:6, 5:5, 6:4, 7:3, 8:2,
9:1, the regular column, and the original capacity of soft soil
(without any stone column). It is not surprising to observe that
the highest bearing capacity came from the regular column
(92.52 kN/radian) since it carries the largest surface area (larger
skin friction and end bearing capacities) as compared to the
highest value achieved by the non-uniform-shaped columns
(91.89 kN/radian). The latter cases have smaller skin friction
and end bearing capacities due to the smaller diameter (d2 < d1)
at the lower halves. Nevertheless, all the non-uniformed col-
umns performed almost similar (matched load-displacement
curve) with that of single diameter column capacity, except for
length ratios 1:9 and 2:8 which improve the bearing capacity by
11.70% and 18.46%, respectively. Table 4 summarizes the
improvement of bearing capacity of the soft soil with the
inclusion of stone columns of irregular shapes (different dia-
meter ratios) as well as the standard one. It can be concluded
from Figure 6 alone that, for the same bearing capacity but with

Loading (kN/radian)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(l1:l2)
0.00
(1:9)
0.01
(2:8)
0.02
(3:7)
0.03
Settlement (m)

(4:6)
0.04
(5:5)
0.05
(6:4)
0.06
(7:3)
0.07
(8:2)
0.08
(9:1)
0.09
uniform
0.10
soft soil
0.11
Figure 6. The loading bearing capacity of the diameter ratio (1:2).
6 A. HAMZH ET AL.

Table 4. The loading bearing capacity of (d1 = 2d2) with different ratios of Table 5. The loading bearing capacity of (d1= 4d2) with different ratios of
lengths. lengths.
Shape (d2: d1) = (1:2) = (0.3m: 0.6m) Percentage Shape (d2: d1) = (1:4) = (0.3m:
l1 (m) l2 (m) Loading (kN/radian) of improvements 1.2m) Percentage
1 9 83.18 11.70 l1 (m) l2 (m) Loading (kN/radian) of improvements (%)
2 8 88.22 18.46 1 9 88.82 19.27
3 7 91.47 22.83 2 8 98.71 32.55
4 6 91.54 22.92 3 7 108.45 45.63
5 5 91.79 23.26 4 6 117.24 57.43
6 4 91.92 23.43 5 5 125.15 68.05
7 3 91.76 23.22 6 4 131.28 76.29
8 2 91.88 23.38 7 3 138.08 85.42
9 1 91.89 23.39 8 2 142.95 91.96
10 0 92.52 24.24 9 1 148.46 99.36
Soft soil 74.47 - 10 0 150.19 101.68
Soft soil 74.47 -

lower material cost (less stone volume), a column of l1: l2 = 3:7

and d1 = 2d2 can be chosen for this soft soil.
3.1.2. The loading bearing capacity of (d1 = 4d2) with
different lengths ratios
In this section, the top diameter of the column is made four
times larger than the lower diameter (d1 = 4d2). Figure 7 illus-
trates the mechanical behaviour of the load-bearing capacity of
dual-diameter columns with a similar number of length ratios as
before. As usual, the highest ultimate bearing capacity is
recorded through the uniform shape column with a value of
150.19 kN/radian. The ultimate bearing capacities from the non-
uniform columns generally increase when the upper portion
length (l1 of larger diameter) increases and the lower diameter
decreases. The percentage of improvements is summarized in
Table 5. In the previous analysis of d1 = 2d2, many of the column
length ratios (l1: l2) matched with the regular column bearing
capacity. However, in the case of d1 = 4d2, none of the dual-
diameter columns able to achieve a similar bearing capacity of
the standard column. The best performance was obtained from
a length ratio of 9:1 which is 148.46 kN/radian.
3.1.3. The loading bearing capacity of (d1 = 5d2) with
different ratios of lengths
In the third case, the upper diameter ratio is increased to five
times than the lower diameter (d1= 5d2). The improvement of
ultimate bearing capacity for the standard column is even
more (159%) with a value of (193.24 kN/radian) since it has
the biggest diameter (1.5 m as compared to 0.6 m and
1.2 m from the previous two cases). Hence, the differences
in ultimate bearing capacity of each length ratios from the
non-uniform columns widen. The column with l1: l2 = 9:1 has
the next highest bearing capacity of (183.12 kN/radian) as
shown in Figure 8 and Table 6.
Figure 9 summarizes the values of loading capacity for all
ratios used in this research. The values of the loading capacity
for the non-uniform shapes decreased as the ratio d2/d1
increased. The highest values of the loading capacity are
obtained when d2: d1 = 1:5 whereas the lowest values came when
(d2/d1 = 0.5). The non-uniform columns have almost the same
values of loading bearing capacity for all length ratios (l1: l2)
when d2/d1 = 0.5.
3.2. The economic design for non-uniform shapes of
stone column
For an economic design, the column with the least volume
(less material cost) but at the same time achieves high bear-
ing capacity is highly desirable. Tables 7–9 list the volumes
of the uniform and non-uniform shaped columns with
a reduction percentage of volume and loading capacity for
d2: d1 ratios of 1:2, 1:4 and 1:5, respectively. To calculate the

Loading (kN/radian)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
0.00 (l1:l2)
(1:9)
0.01
(2:8)
0.02
(3:7)
0.03
(4:6)
Settlement (m)

0.04
0.05 (5:5)

0.06 (6:4)

0.07 (7:3)

0.08 (8:2)

0.09 (9:1)

0.10 uniform

0.11 soft soil

Figure 7. The loading bearing capacity of the diameter ratio (1:4).

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

Loading (kN/radian)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210
0.00 (l1:l2)

0.01 (1:9)

0.02 (2:8)

0.03 (3:7)

Settlement (m)
0.04 (4:6)

0.05 (5:5)

0.06 (6:4)

0.07 (7:3)

(8:2)
0.08

(9:1)
0.09

uniform
0.10

soft soil
0.11

Figure 8. The loading bearing capacity of the diameter ratio (1:5).

Table 6. The loading bearing capacity of (d1 = 5d2) with different ratios of The relations between the loading bearing capacity and
lengths.
the volume of stone columns are plotted in Figure 10. For
Shape (d2: d1) = (1:5) = (0.3m: 1.5m) Percentages % each curve, it represents a constant ratio l1: l2 plotted
l1 (m) l2 (m) Loading (kN/radian) of improvement over three different diameter ratios d2: d1. Interestingly,
1 9 92.63 24.39 all the curves converged within a single trend-line despite
2 8 105.54 41.72
3 7 118.32 58.88 having various column dimensions. This means, it is pos-
4 6 129.96 74.51 sible to utilize this figure to design an economic stone
5 5 143.67 92.92 column (i.e. least material volume) that matches the
6 4 152.08 104.22
7 3 160.52 115.55 same performance (bearing capacity) of a single diameter
8 2 171.80 130.70 stone column. The method will be further explained in the
9 1 183.12 145.90 next section. Figures 11–13 show the same chart but
10 0 193.26 159.51
Soft soil 74.47 - plotted at different scales so as to differentiate different
curves easily.

total loading for the whole circle of the stone column and
the surrounding soil, the loading should be multiplied by 2π 4. Application and worked example
since the axisymmetric models are only calculated for 1 A working example is provided below to demonstrate the
radian (Anon 2019). applicability of design chart shown in Figure 10. The objective

200
(l1:l2)
190
(1:9)
180
(2:8)
170
(3:7)
160
Loading (kN/radian)

(4:6)
150

140 (5:5)

130 (6:4)

120 (7:3)
110
(8:2)
100
(9:1)
90
Uniform
80
0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55

Figure 9. The loading bearing capacity for overall ratios of diameters and lengths.
8 A. HAMZH ET AL.

Table 7. The volumes and the loading bearing capacity when d2: d1 = 1:2.
Total Total
Shape d1 l1 volume1 d2 l2 volume2 volume Load Loading
(l1: l2) (m) (m) (m3) (m) (m) (m3) (m3) Reduction percentage of volume (%) kN/radian (kN)
(1:9) 0.60 1 0.28 0.30 9 0.64 0.92 67.5 83.18 522.37
(2:8) 0.60 2 0.57 0.30 8 0.57 1.13 60.1 88.22 554.02
(3:7) 0.60 3 0.85 0.30 7 0.49 1.34 52.7 91.47 574.43
(4:6) 0.60 4 1.13 0.30 6 0.42 1.55 45.2 91.54 574.87
(5:5) 0.60 5 1.41 0.30 5 0.35 1.77 37.5 91.79 576.44
(6:4) 0.60 6 1.70 0.30 4 0.28 1.98 30.0 91.92 577.26
(7:3) 0.60 7 1.98 0.30 3 0.21 2.19 22.6 91.76 576.25
(8:2) 0.60 8 2.26 0.30 2 0.14 2.40 15.2 91.88 577.01
(9:1) 0.60 9 2.54 0.30 1 0.07 2.61 7.8 91.89 577.07
uniform 0.60 10 2.83 0.30 0 0.00 2.83 - 92.52 581.03
(10:0)

Table 8. The volumes and the loading bearing capacity when d2: d1 = 1:4.
Total Load Total
Shape d1 l1 volume1 d2 l2 volume2 volume kN/ Loading
(l1: l2) (m) (m) (m3) (m) (m) (m3) (m3) Reduction percentage of volume (%) radian (kN)
(1:9) 1.20 1 1.13 0.30 9 0.64 1.77 84.3 88.82 557.79
(2:8) 1.20 2 2.26 0.30 8 0.57 2.83 75.0 98.71 619.90
(3:7) 1.20 3 3.39 0.30 7 0.49 3.89 65.6 108.45 681.07
(4:6) 1.20 4 4.52 0.30 6 0.42 4.95 56.2 117.24 736.27
(5:5) 1.20 5 5.65 0.30 5 0.35 6.01 46.8 125.15 785.94
(6:4) 1.20 6 6.78 0.30 4 0.28 7.07 37.4 131.28 824.44
(7:3) 1.20 7 7.91 0.30 3 0.21 8.12 28.1 138.08 867.14
(8:2) 1.20 8 9.04 0.30 2 0.14 9.18 18.8 142.95 897.73
(9:1) 1.20 9 10.17 0.30 1 0.07 10.24 9.4 148.46 932.33
uniform 1.20 10 11.30 0.30 0 0.00 11.30 - 150.19 943.19
(10:0)

Table 9. The volumes and the loading bearing capacity when d2: d1 = 1:5.
Total Loading Total
Shape d1 l1 volume1 d2 l2 volume2 volume kN/ Loading
(l1: l2) (m) (m) (m3) (m) (m) (m3) (m3) Reduction percentage of volume (%) radian (kN)
(1–9) 1.50 1 1.77 0.30 9 0.64 2.40 86.4 92.63 581.72
(2–8) 1.50 2 3.53 0.30 8 0.57 4.10 76.8 105.54 662.79
(3–7) 1.50 3 5.30 0.30 7 0.49 5.79 67.2 118.32 743.05
(4–6) 1.50 4 7.07 0.30 6 0.42 7.49 57.6 129.96 816.15
(5–5) 1.50 5 8.83 0.30 5 0.35 9.18 48.0 143.67 902.25
(6–4) 1.50 6 10.60 0.30 4 0.28 10.88 38.4 152.08 955.06
(7–3) 1.50 7 12.36 0.30 3 0.21 12.58 28.8 160.52 1008.07
(8–2) 1.50 8 14.13 0.30 2 0.14 14.27 19.2 171.80 1078.90
(9–1) 1.50 9 15.90 0.30 1 0.07 15.97 9.6 183.12 1149.99
Uniform 1.50 10 17.66 0.30 0 0.00 17.66 - 193.26 1213.67
(10–0)

is to determine the minimum volume of column’s material
for a given bearing capacity:
(1) Say the required load-bearing capacity is 560 kN, so
by referring to Figure 10 or precisely Figure 11,
a vertical line which crosses the x-axis at 560 kN is
drawn.
(2) The intersection point between the vertical line and
the curve that records minimum volume is sought. In
this case, the length ratio l1: l2 = 2:8 is selected but the
diameter ratio needs to be interpolated which is about
(d2: d1 = 1: 2.08).
(3) On the other hand, if one wishes to avoid interpola-
tion, an easier approach is to select the nearest circular
marker located on the right-hand side (higher bearing
capacity) of the vertical line and that records
minimum volume. In this case, the length ratio curve
l1: l2 = 3:7 is selected with a diameter ratio d2: d1 = 1:2.
(4) To determine the corresponding volume,
a horizontal line is drawn from the marker point
to the y-axis. In this case, the measured volume is
1.34m3.
5. Conclusion
This study successfully investigated the effect of dual-
diameter stone column of various length and diameter
ratios on bearing capacity of soft soil. The method (larger
diameter at the top and smaller diameter at the lower
column) demonstrated the possibility of using smaller
volume of stone material and hence less cost but at the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9

Volume m3
18 (l1:l2)
(d2:d1)* (1:9)
(1:5)
16 (1:4)
(2:8)
14 (1:2)
(3:7)

12
(4:6)

10
(5:5)

8 (6:4)

6 (7:3)

4 (8:2)

2 (9:1)

Uniform
0
500 540 580 620 660 700 740 780 820 860 900 940 980 1020 1060 1100 1140 1180 1220 1260
Bearing capacity (kN)

Figure 10. The optimum volume of the stone column.

Volume m3
7 (l1:l2)

6
(1:9)
vertical line
5

(2:8)
3

2
1.34
1
(3:7)

0
560
500 540 580 620 660 700 740 780
Bearing capacity (kN)
Figure 11. Refined plots for length ratios l1: l2 = 1:9, 2:8, and 3:7.

same time able to perform similar capacity to the standard
column. A design chart is supplemented to determine the
optimum geometry of the stone column. The failure
mechanism of the non-uniform-shaped columns generally
comprised of both punching and bulging, although for the
diameter ratio = 1:5, only punching failure was observed.
The results presented in this paper are limited to soft clay
properties which are assumed homogenous and with
a fixed ratio of stone-soil stiffness. For cases like layered
soils, stiffness increases with depth, different column stiff-
ness, it is likely that the numerical results differ signifi-
cantly and require new sets of numerical simulations and
investigation.
Acknowledgments
The first author thanks Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, in parti-
cular, Dr. A Madun for facilitating the computer modelling during his
10 A. HAMZH ET AL.

Volume m3
12 (l1:l2)

10 (4:6)

6
(5:5)

2
(6:4)

0
560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 920 960 1000
Bearing capacity (kN)
Figure 12. Refined plots for length ratios l1: l2 = 4:6, 5:5, 6:4.

Volume m3
(l1:l2)
16

14 (7:3)

12

10

8 (8:2)

2 (9:1)

0
560 620 680 740 800 860 920 980 1040 1100 1160 1220
Bearing capacity (kN)
Figure 13. Refined plots for length ratios l1: l2 = 7:3, 8:2, and 9:1.

Master candidacy and Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS for the graduate
research assistantship.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Alarifi Hamzh was born and raised in Qaminis, Libya. He is currently a
Ph.D. student in Civil & Environmental Engineering Department at
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS. His current research interest includes
pipeline monitoring using fiber-optic distributed sensing, pipe-soil inter-
action, and lateral soil displacement. In 2017, Alarifi received his Master
degree in Civil & Environmental Engineering from Universiti Tun
Hussein Onn Malaysia. His master's research focused on soil improve-
ment using stone column technique.
Dr. Hisham Mohamad is an Associate Professor at Civil &
Environmental Engineering Department, Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS. He holds a PhD degree from University of Cambridge
and Masters degree from Imperial College London. Hisham specializes
in the area of Geotechnical Engineering and an expert in fibre-optic
distributed sensing. Some of his notable involvements of construction
monitoring projects using innovative fibre-optic sensing include

monitoring tunnel deformation at London King’s Cross and Singapore’s
Mass Rapid Transport (MRT) Circle Line. In 2013, Hisham joined
Geotechnics Division, Ministry of Mobility and Public Works in
Belgium for a year and was involved in monitoring ground excavation
and construction project of the world’s largest shipping lock in Antwerp.
Hisham is a Professional Engineer registered with Board of Engineers
Malaysia.
Ts. Mohd Fairus Yusof received his B.Sc. and Master degree in
Geotechnical Engineering from Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia
in 2000 and 2003 respectively. He Joined Universiti Tun Hussein Onn
Malaysia (UTHM) in 2003. Presently he is a Geotechnical lecturer in
Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering at UTHM. His research
interest is related to soft soil improvement using prefabricated vertical
drain (PVD) and numerical modelling of problematic soil using PLAXIS
software.
ORCID
Alarifi Hamzh http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6701-3816
References
Aboshi, H., E. Ichimoto, K. Harada, and M. Emoki. 1979. “The
Composer – A Method to Improve the Characteristics of Soft Clays
by Inclusion of Large Diameter Sand Columns.” Proceedings
International of Conference on Soil Reinforcement, Paris, 211–216.
Alkhorshid, N. R. 2012. “Numerical Analysis of Soft Clay Reinforced
with Stone Columns.” Doctoral Dissertation, Eastern Mediterranean
University (EMU).
Ambily, A. P., D. Ph, and S. R. Gandhi. 2007. “Behavior of Stone
Columns Based on Experimental and FEM Analysis.” Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvi- Ronmental Engineering 133 (April):
405–415. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(405).
Anon. 2019. “Reference Manual.” PLAXIS 2D Reference Manual 2019, 520.
Arman, H., S. Fırat, I. Vural, and Z. Gunduz. 2009. “Soil and Foundation
Stability Improvement by Stone Column: A Case Study in Adapazari
City, Turkey.” Scientific Research and Essay 4 (10): 972–983.
Balaam, N. P., and J. R. Booker. 1981. “Analysis of Rigid Rafts Supported
by Granular Piles.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics 5 (4): 379–403. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9853.
Barksdale, R. D., and R. C. Bachus. 1983. “Design and Construction of
Stone Columns.” Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 1: 1–210.
Hughes, J. M. O., N. J. Withers, and D. A. Greenwood. 1975. “A Field
Trial of the Reinforcing Effect of A Stone Column in Soil.”
Geotechnique 25 (1): 31–44. doi:10.1680/geot.1975.25.1.31.
View publication stats
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 11
Liu, C. Y., C. Y. Ku, J. E. Xiao, C. C. Huang, and S. M. Hsu. 2017.
“Numerical Modeling of Unsaturated Layered Soil for
Rainfall-Induced Shallow Landslides.” Journal of Environmental
Engineering and Landscape Management 25 (04): 329–341.
doi:10.3846/16486897.2017.1326925.
Liu, W., and T. C. Hutchinson. 2018. “Numerical Investigation of Stone
Columns as a Method for Improving the Performance of Rocking
Foundation Systems.” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 106:
60–69. doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.10.015.
Ng, K. S. 2017. “Settlement Ratio Of Floating Stone Columns For Small
and Large Loaded Areas Settlement Ratio Of Floating Stone Columns
For.” International Journal of Geo-Engineering 12 (2): 89–96.
Rashid, A., A. Safuan, A. H. Kueh, and H. Mohamad. 2017b. “Behaviour
of Soft Soil Improved by Floating Soil – Cement Columns.”
International Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics 18 (2):
95–116. doi:10.1680/jphmg.15.00041.
Rashid, A., A. Safuan, J. A. Black, A. H. Kueh, H. Mohamad, and
N. Noor. 2017a. “Bearing Capacity Charts of Soft Soil Reinforced by
Deep Mixing.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground
Improvement 170 (1): 12–25. doi:10.1680/jgrim.15.00008.
Sadaoui, O., and R. Bahar. 2017. “Field Measurements and Back
Calculations of Settlements of Structures Founded on Improved Soft
Soils by Stone Columns.” European Journal of Environmental and
Civil Engineering 23 (1): 85–111. doi:10.1080/19648189.2016.1271358.
Sakr, Mohamed, Marawan Shahin, Ahmed Farouk, and Khaled Moneim.
2017. “Numerical Modeling Of Stone Columns in Soft Clay for
Drained and Undrained Conditions.” Electronic Journal Of
Geotechnical Engineering 22 (6): 1907–1924.
Samanta, M., and P. Mohanty. 2015. “Experimental and Numerical Studies
on Response of the Stone Column in Layered Soil.” International Journal
of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering 1 (3): 1–14.
Samanta, M., and R. Bhowmik. 2017. “3D Numerical Analysis of Piled
Raft Foundation in Stone Column Improved Soft Soil.” International
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 13 (5): 474–483. doi:10.1080/
19386362.2017.1368139.
Sexton, B. G., B. A. Mccabe, M. Karstunen, and N. Sivasithamparam.
2016. “Stone Column Settlement Performance in Structured
Anisotropic Clays: The Influence of Creep.” Journal of Rock
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 8 (5): 672–688. doi:10.1016/
j.jrmge.2016.05.004.
Shien, N. K. 2013. “Numerical Study of Floating Stone.” Doctoral
Dissertation, National University of Singapore.
Wissmann, K. J. 1999. “Bearing Capacity of Geopier-Supported
Foundation Systems.” Technical Bulletin, (2).
Ye, G., Y. Cai, and Z. Zhang. 2016. “Numerical Study on Load Transfer
Effect of Stiffened Deep Mixed Column-Supported Embankment over
Soft Soil.” KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 21 (3): 703–714.
doi:10.1007/s12205-016-0637-8.