Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No.

Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated

geosynthetic encased stone columns
S. Rajesh1
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur,
Kanpur – 208016, India, E-mail: hsrajesh@iitk.ac.in (corresponding author)

Received 28 September 2015, revised 04 April 2016, accepted 15 June 2016, published 12 July 2016

ABSTRACT: This paper presents the results of a numerical investigation performed to examine the
time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns
(GESC). The investigation studied the influence of geosynthetic encasement, the stiffness of the
encasement and the length of the column on the deformation behaviour of GESC. The influence of
these factors is compared and rated in terms of the efficiency of the system. Results indicate a greater
reduction in the settlement, lateral displacement and time taken for dissipation of excess pore water
pressure when the stone column was encased with a geosynthetic material. The effective stress
concentration ratio (the ratio of the effective vertical stress on the column to that on surrounding soft
clay, ESCR) of the stone column was observed to increase up to a particular consolidation period,
beyond which this ratio decreases drastically. Interestingly, when the stone column was encased with
a geosynthetic material, the ESCR was found to increase during the entire period of consolidation
and the value was much higher than for an ordinary stone column (OSC). A higher value of ESCR
indicates less load being transferred from the column to the surrounding soft clay layer, hence better
performance. With an increase in the geosynthetic stiffness from 500 to 5000 kN/m, the efficiency
of GESC over OSC, considering load transfer from the column to the surrounding clay, increases
from 1.03 to 4.63. For partially penetrated GESC, a reduction in the length of GESC decreases the
ESCR drastically.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Consolidation, Finite element analysis, Ground improvement, Stone

column

REFERENCE: Rajesh, S. (2017). Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated

geosynthetic encased stone columns. Geosynthetics International, 24, No. 1, 60–71. [http://dx.doi.org/
10.1680/jgein.16.00015]

et al. 2013). In addition, radial drainage of the stone

1. INTRODUCTION
Stone columns are one of the most common techniques
adopted to improve the bearing capacity of soft clay and
reduce the time for consolidation (Greenwood 1970;
Mitchell and Huber 1985; Ghazavi and Afshar 2013;
Ali et al. 2014; Etezad et al. 2014). The higher
permeability of the column material and a shorter
drainage path induce quicker dissipation of excess pore
pressure, thereby accelerating settlements (Greenwood
1970; Hughes et al. 1975; Bergado et al. 1990). Stone
columns derive their bearing capacity through lateral
bulging, thereby inducing passive pressures in the
surrounding soft clay. Hence, the strength and stiffness
of a stone column are dependent on the effective confining
stress provided by the surrounding soil. The use of stone
columns in very soft clays (Su < 15 kPa) is limited mainly
because of the reduced mobilisation of effective confining
stress from the very soft clay, which can produce high axial
deformation of the stone column (Liu et al. 2006; Almeida
1072-6349 © 2016 Thomas Telford Ltd
column could be considerably reduced due to the smear
effect. These limitations have prompted development of a
few alternative techniques to improve very soft clays; one
such approach is to encase/wrap the stone column with a
geosynthetic material of suitable stiffness (Raithel and
Kempfert 2000; Murugesan and Rajagopal 2006; Gniel
and Bouazza 2009; Zhang et al. 2012; Dash and Bora
2013; Wu and Hong 2014; Zhang and Zhao 2015).
Geosynthetic encasement provides additional confine-
ment and hence can increase the load carrying capacity of
the stone column (Black et al. 2007; Gniel and Bouazza
2009; Yoo and Kim 2009). Moreover, geosynthetic
encasement can also prevent the lateral squeezing of the
stone column when it is installed in very soft clays, leading
to minimal loss of column material and quicker installa-
tion (Murugesan and Rajagopal 2006).
In recent years, many studies both experimental and
numerical have been carried out to understand the
behaviour of the geosynthetic encased stone column
60

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns 61

(GESC). It has been common practice to adopt either the
unit cell concept or the homogenisation technique to
understand the behaviour of the ordinary stone column
(OSC)/GESC (Barksdale and Bachus 1983; Mitchell and
Huber 1985; Ambily and Gandhi 2007; Malarvizhi and
Ilamparuthi 2007; Murugesan and Rajagopal 2007; Gniel
and Bouazza 2009; Khabbazian et al. 2010; Lo et al. 2010;
Pulko et al. 2011). Several researchers have analysed the
behaviour of OSC/GESC by placing the surcharge load
only on the top of the OSC/GESC but not the surround-
ing soil, in that way considering OSC/GESC as a load
carrying member (Murugesan and Rajagopal 2006, 2007;
Zhang et al. 2012; Dash and Bora 2013). However, in
reality, there exist greater possibilities that the surcharge
loading or geostatic stress of the embankment may be
placed on both OSC/GESC and the soft clay even after
providing a particular load transfer platform. The load
carrying capacity of OSC/GESC subjected to a surcharge
load on the entire unit cell was found to be different from
loading OSC/GESC alone (Ambily and Gandhi 2004,
2007; Gniel and Bouazza 2010). In addition, the drained
behaviour was found to be different from the undrained
behaviour of OSC/GESC (Yoo and Kim 2009; Castro
and Sagaseta 2011). The actual load transfer between
the column (OSC/GESC) and the surrounding soft
clays was found to be time-dependent, and performing
coupled hydraulic and mechanical analysis could capture
the absolute behaviour (Lo et al. 2010; Yoo 2010;
Keykhosropur et al. 2012; Almeida et al. 2013; Elsawy
Figure 1a. The properties of the column material and soft
clay used in the present study are obtained from Tan et al.
(2008), Ng and Tan (2014) and are listed in Table 1. Since
the parameters provided by Tan et al. (2008) were those of
the Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model, this model was
used to simulate the behaviour of the soft clay and stone
column materials. Fifteen node triangular elements were
used with the elastic-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model to
model the soft clay and stone column. The soft clay is
modelled as an undrained material and the stone column
is idealised as a homogenous drained material. The unit
weight of the soft clay is assumed to be equal to that of the
stone column to avoid any difference in the mean effective
stresses of the two materials during the initial geostatic
stress generation; hence, the excess pore pressure gener-
ated will only be due to the external loading (Tan et al.
2008). The geosynthetic encasement is modelled as a
slender structure having axial stiffness, but no bending
stiffness, which can sustain only tensile force (i.e., the
geogrid element in Plaxis). The elastic axial stiffness of
geosynthetics was used to model the geosynthetic encase-
ment. In the present study, since 15-noded soil elements
were used, each geogrid element was automatically
defined with five nodes. The interaction between the soil
Centre line
Load
Rigid plate intensity (q) D
x

2013; Rajesh and Jain 2015). Considering the above- Monitoring points

mentioned facts, the time-dependent behaviour of OSC Point D – for

settlement
Closed consolidation
and GESC treated ground under a surcharge load is boundary Geosynthetic
measurements
examined numerically in the present study. The influence encasement Point C – for excess
PWP pore pressure
of the geosynthetic encasement and the stiffness of the measurements
x
geosynthetic material on the time-dependent behaviour of Interface
element Lateral
the GESC have been studied. The effectiveness of the deflection
Stone column
partially penetrating (i.e., floating) GESC has also been Clay x

quantified using the equivalency factor.

x C

(a) (b)
2. MODELLING CONSIDERATIONS
Numerical analysis was performed to understand the Figure 1. (a) Modelling unit cell in PLAXIS (symmetric about
time-dependent behaviour of GESC using the finite centre line) (b) Finite Element model of unit cell showing meshing
element package Plaxis version 8.2 (Brinkgreve et al.
2006). The present study examines the condition where
Table 1. Model parameters (adopted from Tan et al. 2008;
the fill area is relatively large compared to the thickness of
Ng and Tan 2014)
the soft clay. This problem can be idealised by a unit cell
(Barksdale and Bachus 1983; Lo et al. 2010). The thickness Parameter Column material Soft clay
of the soft clay adopted in the study is 10 m. GESC with a
diameter of 0.85 m and a centre-to-centre spacing of γ (kN/m3) 15 15
2.25 m was selected for the numerical analysis, similar to E (kPa) 30 000 3000
Kh (m/s) 3.47 × 10−5 3.47 × 10−9
the one adopted by Tan et al. (2008). Tan et al. (2008) Kv (m/s) 1.16 × 10−5 1.16 × 10−9
studied the behaviour of a stone column. In the present ϕ′ (°) 40 22
study, this has been extended to GESC. The encased stone c′ (kPa) 1 0.1
columns are assumed to be installed in a square pattern, υ′ 0.3 0.3
resulting in an area replacement ratio of 11.11%, which is ψ (°) 10 0
within the range of 5 to 30% (Ng and Tan, 2014). The
γ, unit weight; E, elastic modulus; Kh and Kv, coefficient of permeability
radius of the unit cell was worked out to be 1.275 m. in horizontal and vertical directions; ϕ′, effective angle of shearing
Due to the radial symmetry of the unit cell about the resistance; c′, effective cohesion; υ′, Poisson’s ratio in terms of effective
centre line an axisymmetric model is used, as shown in stress; ψ, dilatency angle.

Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 62 Rajesh

and the geosynthetic can be modelled using interface 110

elements. An interface element is an element with an 100 q = 100 kPa

imaginary thickness that is used to define the material 90

Excess pore pressure (kPa)

properties of the interface (Rinter). The Rinter adopted in 80
the study is 0.67, which is within the range of 0.45 to 0.8 70
(Brinkgreve et al. 2006). 60
The boundary conditions of the axisymmetric problem 50
domain are shear free, with no radial movement at the 40 Tan et al. (2008)
lateral sides, and prevent the bottom boundary from 30
Coarse mesh
moving vertically (Figure 1a). A closed consolidation Medium mesh
20
Fine mesh
boundary is provided on three boundaries to simulate 10 Very fine mesh
the condition of ‘no flow’ through them, as shown in 0
Figure 1a. Drainage was only allowed through the top 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
surface. Due to the existence of an impervious layer below Time (days)

the model, a closed consolidation boundary is provided (a)

at the bottom to ensure that zero pore pressure is not Load intensity (kPa)
generated. Similarly, the left boundary is a line of symmetry 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
and no flow will occur across it, and the right boundary 0
Ambily and Gandhi (2004)
represents the boundary of a unit cell of a column in a
2 Experimental data
group of columns. No dissipation is likely to take place Numerical analysis
through this face either. A surcharge load was applied
4
Settlement (mm)
through a horizontal rigid plate placed on the top surface Present study

of the soft clay and GESC to achieve equal vertical strain.

A plate with a normal stiffness of 1 × 107 kN/m and
flexural rigidity of 1 × 104 kN m2/m, as suggested by Tan
et al. (2008), is used in the study. There are no interface
elements placed between the soil and the rigid plate.
Analysis involved two stages: in Stage 1 a surcharge
load was applied on both the column and the soft clay
through a rigid plate (the plastic loading stage) and
Stage 2, in which excess pore pressure generated due to
the surcharge (consolidation stage) was dissipated. Plastic
loading was applied instantaneously to prevent any
initial dissipation of excess pore pressure in the soil.
A consolidation step was then introduced, which was
carried out until the excess pore pressure in the unit cell
reduced below a value of 0.01 kPa. The loading sequence
was obtained from Tan et al. (2008). The time-dependent
embankment loading and the deformations caused by
creep are beyond the scope of the present analysis.
2.1. Mesh convergence and validation
The generation of the mesh is based on a robust
triangulation procedure, which follows unstructured
meshes. Even though the meshes are unstructured, their
numerical performance is usually superior to regular or
structured meshes (Brinkgreve et al. 2006). Figure 2a
shows the mesh convergence analysis of the excess pore
water pressure dissipation for an axisymmetric unit cell
model. Four different levels of mesh coarseness were
considered. Simulation was initiated by applying initial
stresses in the unit cell. A load intensity of 100 kPa was
applied on the rigid plate. The results obtained from
the coarse and medium coarse meshes were found to
exhibit an unusual jump in the excess pore water pressure
within the time domain of 0.001 to 0.01 days, and were
in agreement with the axisymmetric case performed by
Tan et al. (2008). Table 1 lists the properties of the soft
clay and column material adopted by Tan et al. (2008).
Figure 1a shows the model considered by Tan et al.
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1
6
8
10
s/d = 2
Su = 30 kPa
12
(b)
Figure 2. Mesh convergence and validation (a) Effect of mesh
sizes on the dissipation of excess pore water pressure with time and
validation of results from Tan et al. (2008), (b) Validation of
results from Ambily and Gandhi (2004)
(2008). The consolidation curves are identical, regardless
of mesh sizes, after 0.1 days. In the present study, a fine
mesh was selected for both the soft clay and the stone
column for greater accuracy in the beginning of the
consolidation process, as shown in Figure 1b. Another
validation was carried out on the experimental and
numerical study performed by Ambily and Gandhi
(2004). The experimental set-up comprised a cylindrical
tank filled with soft clay, with a stone column of 100 mm
diameter at its centre. A sand layer 30 mm thick was
placed on top of the soft clay. A vertical load was then
applied over the entire tank area. Clay has a compressi-
bility modulus of 4500 kPa, an undrained cohesion of
30 kPa, and a unit weight of 19.25 kN/m3. The column
material has a modulus of 48 000 kPa, a Poisson ratio of
0.3 and an angle of internal friction of 42°. The modelling
approach, material properties and method of application
of the load intensity can be found from Ambily and
Gandhi (2004). Figure 2b shows the result obtained from
the present study and reported literature for a typical case
(with an undrained shear strength of 30 kPa and s/d
ratio of 2). A close agreement is observed between the
curves obtained from the present study and the reported
literature. Two validations, one for the short-term

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns 63

(Ambily and Gandhi 2004) and another for the long-term Time (days)
performance of stone column (Tan et al. 2008) ensure the 0.01
0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
adequacy of the numerical modelling approach and the
applicability of the results obtained from the numerical 50
analysis.
100

Settlement (mm)
3. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 150
Soft clay
The main objective of the present study is to understand OSC
200 GESC
the deformation behaviour of the stone column and the
q = 100 kPa
GESC due to the applied surcharge before (i.e. instan- 250 GESC
taneous loading), during, and at the end of the consolida-
EA = 5000 kN/m
tion stages of the treated soft clay deposit. The influence 300
of geosynthetic encasement, geosynthetic stiffness and
GESC length on the time-dependent behaviour of GESC Figure 3. Variation of surface settlement with time for soft clay,
are examined by maintaining as constant the material OSC and GESC
properties of the clay and column materials, the interface
element types, the number of nodes, the mesh size, and
100
the magnitude and nature of the inducing surcharge. The Soft clay
varying axial stiffnesses of the geosynthetic materials OSC
in the present study were 500, 2500 and 5000 kN/m, Excess pore pressure (kPa) 80 GESC
representing low, medium and very high strength geosyn-
thetic materials. The time-dependent behaviour of the 60
fully penetrated and partially penetrated GESC was
studied considering a depth ratio (the ratio of the length
40
of GESC to the thickness of the soft clay) ranging from
0.6 to 1. A load intensity of 100 kPa was applied through
the rigid plate, which covered both the soft clay and 20 q = 100 kPa
OSC/GESC. The length of the GESC and OSC adopted GESC
EA = 5000 kN/m
was 10 m (i.e. extending to the full depth of the soft clay).
0
The maximum uniform settlement of OSC/GESC was 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
anticipated at the location of maximum load intensity (i.e. Time (days)
just below the rigid base). For the sake of convenience, the
Figure 4. Variation in the dissipation of excess pore pressure with
magnitude of settlement and excess pore pressure were
time for soft clay, OSC and GESC
extracted at monitoring point D and point C respectively
(Figure 1b).
material, there is a drastic reduction in the time taken for
3.1. Influence of geosynthetic encasement the dissipation of excess pore pressure. The initial pore
In this section, the time-dependent behaviour of the pressure developed in the case of soft clay and OSC is
untreated soft clay and treated soft clay (OSC and around 96.5 kPa, while in GESC it is approximately
GESC) were assessed. The axial stiffness of the geosyn- 94.8 kPa. A considerable reduction in the time taken for
thetic encasement used in GESC was 5000 kN/m. consolidation of GESC over OSC can also be observed.
Figure 3 shows the variation in surface settlement with Figure 5a shows the progressive development of
time for the soft clay, OSC and GESC. A significant effective vertical stress in the soft clay and the column
reduction in the ultimate settlement can be observed for (OSC and GESC) during consolidation at the measuring
GESC compared to the soft clay and OSC, mainly due to points shown in the inset. The effective vertical stress
the increased column capacity. The maximum immediate experienced by the untreated soft clay was found to be
settlement from a surcharge loading of 100 kPa for 53 kPa up to 110 days, followed by a gradual increase in
untreated and treated soft clay was found to be within the effective stress up to a maximum value of 150 kPa at
the range of 8–12 mm. However, when the soft clay layer about 7000 days for the complete dissipation of excess
was allowed to consolidate a reduction in the total pore pressure. When the soft clay was treated with OSC
ultimate settlement of GESC was achieved, approximately and GESC, the effective stress experienced by the column
equal to 42 and 21% over soft clay and OSC, respectively. was found to be higher than the effective stress experi-
Figure 4 shows the variation in the dissipation of excess enced by the surrounding soft clay layer. This could be due
pore water pressure with time for soft clay, OSC and to the greater stiffness of the column material. In addition,
GESC. The total time taken for the dissipation of excess the effective stress experienced by the encased column was
pore pressure, to reach a value of 0.01 kPa, in soft clay, found to be 1.25 times higher than that of OSC, which
OSC and GESC was found to be 7000, 52 and 30 days, could be due to the additional confinement provided by
respectively. Due to the higher permeability of the column the geosynthetic encasement. The effective stress
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 64 Rajesh

600 transferred from the column to the surrounding soft clay

q = 100 kPa
Measuring and hence less consolidation settlement is anticipated.
EA = 5000 kN/m
500 point This signifies that GESC performs better than OSC. This
Effective vertical stress (kPa)

Effective stress in column observation is in reasonable agreement with previous

OSC
400 studies (Yoo 2010; Almeida et al. 2013; Hosseinpour et al.
GESC
Effective stress in soft clay
2015).
300 Untreated The reason for the improvement in the performance of
OSC GESC over OSC is as follows. The consolidation process
200 GESC in the soft clay begins just after the surcharge load is
applied on the rigid plate, which is supported on both the
100 column and the soft clay. Due to the instantaneous
loading on both the soft clay and the stone column, the
0 saturated soft clay behaves as if it is incompressible, and
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
the stress in the stone column is relatively small. Therefore,
Time (days)
the soft clay tends to move laterally toward the stone
(a)
column. This lateral movement acts to relieve excess pore
5 water pressures in the surrounding soft clay compared to a
completely confined situation, i.e., one-dimensional
4
deformation (Castro and Sagaseta 2011). After consolida-
tion begins, the vertical stress in the soft clay starts
to transfer onto the stone columns as shown in Figure 5.
3 In other words, there is a concentration of stress onto
ESCR

the column along with a reduction in vertical stress in the

2 soft clay. This stress transfer or concentration induces
OSC
GESC
1
q = 100 kPa
EA = 5000 kN/m
0 pressure in the soft clay. Therefore, the overall effect of
0.01 0.1 1 10
Time (days)
(b)
Figure 5. Variation of (a) effective vertical stress and (b) effective
stress concentration ratio with time
experienced by the surrounding soft clay for the GESC
was found to be 0.88 times that of OSC and 0.7 times that
of the untreated ground. The load transfer between the
column and the soft clay can be better understood using
the effective stress concentration ratio (ESCR), which is
defined as the ratio of the effective vertical stress on the
column to that on the surrounding soft clay at the same
depth. The higher ESCR implies higher column stress
compared to the surrounding soft clay.
Figure 5b shows the variation of the ESCR of OSC
and GESC with time at the monitoring point. The ESCR
of OSC and GESC treated soft clay immediately after
applying the surcharge loading was found to be 2.69
and 2.86, respectively. When the soft clay layer was
allowed to consolidate, the ESCR was found to increase
in both OSC and GESC treated ground. The ESCR
of OSC increases gradually with up to 3 days of con-
solidation (ESCR = 4.13) and then decreased up to
30 days (ESCR = 3.23), followed by a constant value.
The reduction in the ESCR value implies that a higher
load is being transferred from the column to the
surrounding soft clay. Interestingly, in the case of GESC,
the ESCR was found to increase gradually over the entire
period of consolidation, in other words, less load is being
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1
a reduction in excess pore water pressure in the soft clay.
At the same time, the load is transferred onto the column,
so the lateral stress from the column is increased. This
increase in lateral stress increases the excess pore water
100
this stress transfer on the excess pore water pressure is a
function of the difference between the two. The stress
concentration at the beginning is not significant and the
soft clay tends to move laterally toward the stone column,
the lateral stress playing a role in reducing the excess pore
water pressure. However, the lateral stress starts to play a
role in increasing excess pore water pressure when the
stress concentration becomes significant with time. When
the stone column is encased with a geosynthetic material,
a reduction in the lateral stress from the column to the
soft clay is expected, which induces a further reduction in
the pore pressure. Hence, the net reduction in excess pore
pressure for a particular surcharge pressure will be
relatively higher in the case of GESC compared to OSC.
This behaviour can be seen from Figures 4 and 5. This
enhanced behaviour makes GESC achieve relatively faster
consolidation than OSC.
3.2. Influence of geosynthetic stiffness
The influence of geosynthetic stiffness on the time-
dependent behaviour of GESC was analysed by varying
the axial stiffness of the geosynthetic (EA) as 0 (i.e. OSC),
500, 2500 and 5000 kN/m. The variation of surface
settlement and excess pore pressure with time for
various geosynthetic stiffnesses is shown in Figures 6a
and 6b respectively. For convenience, only part of the
settlement and excess pore pressure plots of soft clay is
shown in Figure 6. It can be seen that with an increase in
the geosynthetic stiffness, settlement decreased with a
reduction in the time taken to completely dissipate excess
pore pressure. A reduction in settlement of up to 3.5%,

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns
Time (days)
0
0 20 40 60
50
Settlement (mm)
100
150
200
(a)
100
80
Excess pore pressure (kPa)
60
40
20
0
0 20 40
Time (days)
(b)
Figure 6. Variation of (a) settlement and (b) dissipation of excess
pore water pressure with time for various values of geosynthetic
stiffness
14% and 21% can be seen for geosynthetic stiffnesses of
500, 2500 and 5000 kN/m respectively, when compared
with OSC. A significant reduction in the time taken for
the complete dissipation of excess pore pressure from 55 to
37 days was achieved when the geosynthetic stiffness
increased from 500 to 5000 kN/m as shown in Figure 6b.
Figure 7 shows the pattern of variation of the
horizontal strain experienced by GESC treated ground
(EA = 500 kN/m) immediately after the application of
instantaneous load and at the end of the consolidation
stage. It can be seen that the top portion of the encased
column deformed/compressed, which in turn squeezed
the soft clay when a surcharge pressure of 100 kPa
was applied. When the soft clay layer was allowed to
consolidate, strain localisation/shear bands formed within
the columns. This behaviour is consistent with the results
obtained by several researchers including Castro and
Sagaseta (2011), Pulko et al. (2011), Hosseinpour et al.
(2014). In order to explain the formation of the shear
band, results were extracted at four different locations
(Figure 7c), two along the shear band (points j and l ), one
above (point m) and one below the shear band (point k).
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
65
Figure 8 shows the variation of lateral displacement for
80 100 the predefined points in the encased column throughout
q = 100 kPa
the entire consolidation stage. It can be seen that during
loading stage (at t = 0 days), the lateral displacement of
the encased column was compressive in nature. For the
mentioned boundary conditions, when the GESC was
Soft clay allowed to consolidate, lateral expansion of the column
EA = 0 kN/m material can be observed. The magnitude of lateral
EA = 500 kN/m
expansion was found to be higher for the points along
EA = 2500 kN/m
EA = 5000 kN/m shear band compared to the points above and below the
shear band (also seen in Figure 7).
Figure 9 shows the variation of vertical effective stress
with axial strain at the predefined points in the encased
column for the entire period of the analysis. It can be seen
that the vertical effective stress in the column increased up
to a particular axial strain, beyond which the points along
the shear band were found to decrease (softening behav-
Soft clay iour) whereas the points above and below the shear band
EA = 0 kN/m were found to increase linearly. The softening beha-
EA = 500 kN/m viour at particular locations in the granular material
EA = 2500 kN/m
could be one of the reasons for the formation of the shear
EA = 5000 kN/m
bands. Figure 10 shows the effective stress path followed
q = 100 kPa
by the column material at predefined points. It can be
seen that the mean effective stress has increased instan-
taneously due to the instantaneous loading. When the
soft clay layer was allowed to consolidate after the
instantaneous loading, the shear stress was found to
increase in the column with an increase in the mean
effective stress, which at one stage reached the failure
60 80 100 stress. Point j reached failure earlier than point k, which
clearly demonstrated that failure occurred first in a
localised zone and then expanded, followed by shear
band formation. Moreover, with the application of the
instantaneous load, the value of k (the ratio of the
horizontal effective stress and vertical effective stress)
increased from the at rest condition (ko) to a higher value,
but during the consolidation stage, a reduction in the
value of k can be seen up to a particular step, beyond
which it reaches the active state of failure (ka) as shown
in Figure 11.
According to Vermeer (1990), the shear bands for
dilative material are inclined to the direction of minor
principal stress, with the angle θ equal to [± (45° + 0.25*
(ϕ′ + ψ)]. In the present study, the inclination of the shear
band was found to be ± 57.5° (Figure 7c), which is equal
to θ as suggested by Vermeer (1990). It can be inferred
from the observations that lateral extension of the column
material evokes shear stresses inside the column and thus
leads to a reduction of the horizontal stresses, which in
turn make the ratio of the horizontal and the vertical
effective stress decrease and ultimately reach the active
state of failure, thereby leading to formation of a system of
shear bands.
Figure 12 shows the variation in the lateral displace-
ment of the surrounding soft clay at section XX (i.e. a
section taken at a distance of 15 mm from the interface of
OSC/GESC, as shown in Figure 1b) at the end of the
consolidation stage for the entire thickness of the soft
clay. The fluctuation of the lateral displacement in the
surrounding soft clay could be due to the deformation
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1
 66 Rajesh

(%)

8.500
m l 7.500
6.500
57.5°
5.500

j 4.500
3.500

k 2.500
1.500
0.500
–0.500
–1.500

Point j (0.01, 9.26); Point k (0.09, 8.83)

Point l (0.3, 9.71); Point m (0.08, 9.6)

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. Variation of horizontal strain (a) at the end of the plastic loading stage, (b) consolidation stage; (c) with a close look at the shear
band with monitoring points

0.4 caused adjacent to the shear band (Figure 7b). A higher

– Lateral expansion value of lateral displacement can be seen for OSC-treated
+ Lateral compression soft clay. It can be noticed that by encasing the stone
0 column with geosynthetics, a considerable reduction in
Lateral displacement (mm)

the magnitude of lateral displacement has been achieved.

As expected, with an increase in the stiffness of the
–0.4
geosynthetic material, the lateral displacement of the
surrounding soft clay decreased. In addition, fluctuation
in the lateral displacement was also found to reduce when
–0.8
the magnitude of the geosynthetic stiffness increased. The
at point j
at point k
average reduction in the lateral displacement of GESC
–1.2 at point l with geosynthetic stiffnesses of 500 and 5000 kN/m,
at point m compared to OSC, was found to be 22% and 75%
0 20 40 60 80 100 respectively. These observations agreed with the analytical
Time (days) and the numerical studies reported by Castro and
Sagaseta (2009, 2011). Similar observations were made
Figure 8. Variation of horizontal displacement of column material by Hosseinpour et al. (2014), in which geosynthetic
at predefined points throughout the entire period of the analysis encasement reduced the column radial strain from 3.4%
for the unreinforced column to 2% and 1.2% for the
column encased by geosynthetics with tensile stiffnesses of
350
1000 and 2000 kN/m, respectively.
at point j
300 at point k
Figure 13 shows the variation of hoop tension experi-
Vertical effective stress (kPa)

at point l enced by the geosynthetic layer at the end of consolidation

250 at point m for various geosynthetic stiffnesses. The hoop tension
developed by the geosynthetic material was found to
200
increase with an increase in the geosynthetic stiffness.
150 The additional confining effect provided by the geosyn-
thetic encasement can also be quantified using the
100 geosynthetic stiffness and hoop strain developed in the
50
geosynthetic encasement (Raithel and Kempfert 2000).
This therefore demonstrates the importance of geosyn-
0 thetic stiffness in improving the behaviour of GESC.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Figure 14 shows the variation of the effective stress
Axial strain (%)
concentration ratio at the end of consolidation (i.e. at
Figure 9. Variation of vertical effective stress with axial strain of ultimate settlement) (ESCR)US with the stiffness of the
column material at predefined points during the entire period of geosynthetic material. (ESCR)US was found to increase
the analysis with an increase in the stiffness of the geosynthetic
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns 67

250 Hoop tension (kN/m)

q = 100 kPa 0 5 10 15 20 25
0
EA = 500 kN/m
200
0.5*(σ 'yy − σ'xx) (kPa)

2
150

Thickness of soft clay (m)

M-C failure
envelope
4
100

50 6
at point j
at point k

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 8
0.5*(σ'yy + σ'xx) (kPa)
q = 100 kPa

Figure 10. Effective stress path followed by column material 10

throughout the entire period of the analysis EA = 500 kN/m; EA = 2500 kN/m
EA = 5000 kN/m

Figure 13. Variation of mobilised hoop tension through the

thickness of the clay layer for various stiffnesses of geosynthetic
1.2 material
at point j
at point k
1.0
at point l
at point m 5
0.8

4
0.6
k

0.4 3
(ESCR)US

0.2 2

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 1
Time (days)
q = 100 kPa
Figure 11. Variation of k throughout the entire period of the 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
analysis
Geosynthetic stiffness (kN/m)

Figure 14. Variation of (ESCR)US with geosynthetic stiffness at

the end of consolidation
Lateral displacement (mm)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
0 material. The efficiency of GESC over OSC considering
q = 100 kPa
load transfer from column to clay can be obtained
from EFESCR, which is the ratio of the (ESCR)US of
2
GESC-treated ground to the corresponding OSC-treated
Thickness of soft clay (m)

ground. When the stone column was encased by geo-

4
synthetic materials with stiffnesses of 500, 2500 and
5000 kN/m, EFESCR was found to be 1.03, 1.22 and
1.33, respectively. This clearly demonstrates that the
6 performance of GESC is much superior to OSC, and
also suggests that the magnitude of geosynthetic stiffness
EA = 0 kN/m has a greater influence on the performance of GESC.
8 EA = 500 kN/m
EA = 2500 kN/m 3.3. Influence of the length of GESC
EA = 5000 kN/m
10
The time-dependent behaviour of the fully penetrated
and partially penetrated (i.e. floating) GESC has been
Figure 12. Lateral displacements through the thickness of the clay studied considering various depth ratios (h/H ), varying
layer for various values of geosynthetic stiffness from 0.6 to 1. The depth ratio is the ratio of the length of
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 68 Rajesh

the GESC (h) to the thickness of the soft clay soil (H ). In 300
Measuring point q = 100 kPa; EA = 5000 kN/m; h = 0.6 H
the case of the partially penetrated GESC, the boundary
condition assigned at the base of the soft clay is as 250

Effective vertical stress (kPa)

explained earlier, but with no fixity condition at the base at point o
p at point p
of the floating GESC. The axial stiffness of the geosyn- 200 o at point q
thetic material and the surcharge pressure adopted in q
r at point r
this section are 5000 kN/m and 100 kPa respectively. 150
Figure 15 shows the dissipation of excess pore pressure
and settlement with time for various lengths of GESC. 100
It can be seen from Figure 15a that the time taken for
the dissipation of excess pore water pressure tends to 50
increase with a decrease in the length of GESC, even
though the maximum generation of pore pressure for all
0
lengths of GESC were almost the same. As the thickness 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
of the soft clay layer below the floating GESC increases, Time (days)
the time taken for the dissipation of excess pore pressure
increases along with an increase in the ultimate settle- Figure 16. Variation of effective vertical stress with time for
partially penetrated GESC
ment. The ultimate settlement of GESC corresponding to
depth ratios of 1, 0.9, 0.8, 0.7, 0.6 was found to be 140,
162, 174, 186, 198 mm respectively, as shown in Figure factor of 0.6. The monitoring points o and p are chosen at
15b. The ultimate settlement of soft clay and OSC was the same level, located 15 mm above 0.6H, and q and r are
found to be 248 and 179 mm respectively. The ultimate at the base of the soft clay layer. Interestingly, it can be
settlement of GESC of lengths greater than 0.8H (i.e. a seen that the effective vertical stress experienced by the
depth ratio > 0.8) was found to be less than fully column and the surrounding soft clay increases with an
penetrated OSC. increase in consolidation time up to 33 days, beyond
Figure 16 shows the variation of effective vertical stress which it was found to be constant. On the contrary,
with time for partially penetrated GESC with a depth the soft clay layer below the floating GESC was found to
have a constant value up to 33 days, beyond which the
effective vertical stress increases. This clearly suggests that
100
the soft clay layer below the floating GESC tends to carry
90
the additional load that the column and surrounding clay
could not carry due to the limitation in the depth ratio.
Excess pore pressure (kPa)

80
EA = 5000 kN/m Figure 17 shows the variation of (ESCR)US through the
70 h
q = 100 kPa H thickness of the soft clay for various depth ratios. The
60 Soft clay fully penetrated OSC was found to have an (ESCR)US in
50 OSC
GESC the range of 3–4.5 for the entire thickness of the soft clay.
40 h=H The (ESCR)US at the top surface of GESC was found to
30 h = 0.9 H
h = 0.8 H
be the same irrespective of the depth ratio, and the
20 h = 0.75 H improvement is nearly twice that of OSC. It can also be
10 h = 0.7 H noticed that for a fully penetrated GESC, the (ESCR)US
h = 0.6 H
0 gradually reduces through the thickness of the soft clay
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
Time (days)
(a) (ESCR)US
Time (days)
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000 0
0

50 2
Thickness of soft clay (m)

EA = 5000 kN/m
Settlement (mm)

100 q = 100 kPa

4
Soft clay
150 OSC
GESC
h=H 6 q = 100 kPa
200
h = 0.9 H
OSC: h = H
h = 0.8 H
250 h = 0.75 H GESC: EA = 5000 kN/m
8
h = 0.7 H h=H
h = 0.6 H h = 0.8 H
300
h = 0.6 H
(b) 10

Figure 15. Effect of length of GESC on (a) Excess pore pressure; Figure 17. Variation of (ESCR)US through the thickness of soft
(b) Settlement clay for various depth ratios
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
 Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns
layer. The pattern of variation of the floating and fully
penetrated GESC at the end of the consolidation stage
through the thickness of the soft clay was found to differ.
A drastic reduction in the (ESCR)US through the thick-
ness of the soft clay layer can be seen near the base of the
floating GESC; beyond the base of the floating GESC,
the (ESCR)US has decreased to one as there is no column.
The reduction in the vertical stress experienced by the
column (compared with OSC/GESC at the same location)
and the increase in the vertical stress surrounding the
partially penetrated GESC (compared with OSC/GESC
at the same location) could be the reason for the reduction
in the (ESCR)US compared to the OSC/GESC within the
zone of encasement. In other words, the reduction in
the (ESCR)US near the base of the GESC could be due to
the inability of the soft clay to provide lateral confinement
near the base of the floating columns. This clearly suggests
that a reduction in the length of GESC (i.e. a lower depth
ratio) makes the load carrying capacity of the column
within the embedded depth less than that of fully
penetrated GESC, even though the stiffness of the
column and the geosynthetics were kept constant in all
cases.
3.4. Discussion
The above analysis indicates that the geosynthetic encase-
ment, geosynthetic stiffness and length of GESC have
significant influence on the performance of GESC.
Figure 18 shows the efficiency of GESC over OSC
against ultimate settlement, considering the variation in
stiffness of geosynthetics, depth ratio and slenderness ratio
(h/d, the ratio of the length of GESC to its diameter). The
reduction factor against ultimate settlement RFUS is
defined as the ratio of the ultimate settlement of the
floating GESC to the fully penetrated OSC. A lower value
of the reduction factor implies greater efficiency of GESC.
It can be seen that with an increase in the depth ratio and
slenderness ratio, RFUS decreases (i.e. the efficiency
increases) significantly. In addition, with an increase in
the axial stiffness of the geosynthetics, RFUS was found to
h/d
9.40 11.75 14.10 16.45
1.50
q = 100 kPa
RFUS = USGESC / USOSC
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
h/H
Figure 18. Variation of the reduction factor against ultimate
settlement with depth ratio, surcharge pressure and stiffness of
geosynthetic material
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
69
reduce considerably. An RFUS equal to one implies an
ultimate settlement of floating GESC equal to the
ultimate settlement of OSC. The ultimate settlement of
floating GESC with geosynthetic stiffnesses of 500, 2500
and 5000 kN/m was found to be the same as fully
penetrated OSC when the depth ratio reached 0.95, 0.8
and 0.75 respectively. This implies that when the stone
column is encased with geosynthetics of stiffnesses of 500,
2500 and 5000 kN/m, a reduction in the length of GESC
of up to 0.05, 0.2 and 0.25 times the thickness of the soft
clay respectively is possible. A further reduction in the
length of GESC can make its performance fall below that
of the fully penetrated OSC when considering ultimate
settlement. The variation of the settlement ratio (i.e. the
ratio of settlement at any time t to the ultimate settlement)
with the consolidation time for the equivalent GESC,
fully penetrated OSC and GESC is shown in Figure 19.
As can be seen, the equivalent GESC has taken
considerably longer time to dissipate the excess pore
water pressure completely compared to fully penetrated
OSC and GESC, but much less time than untreated
soft clay.
4. CONCLUSIONS
A numerical study was undertaken to examine the
time-dependent behaviour of geosynthetic-encased stone
columns compared with conventional stone columns.
Parametric analyses were carried out to study the effect
of geosynthetic encasement, the stiffness of the encase-
ment and the length of the column on the deformation
behaviour of GESC. The performance of fully penetrated
and partially penetrated GESCs were assessed by con-
sidering parameters such as surface settlement, lateral
displacement, the hoop tension developed in the geosyn-
thetic material and the dissipation of excess pore water
pressure with time. The following conclusions were
reached as a result of the numerical analyses performed.
• When the stone column is encased with a geosynthetic
material having a stiffness of 5000 kN/m, a reduction
in the total ultimate settlement approximately equal to
18.80 21.15 23.50
EA = 500 (kN/m) 0
EA = 2500 (kN/m)
EA = 5000 (kN/m)
0.2
Settlement ratio
0.4
q = 100 kPa
0.6 Untreated ground
OSC (h = H)
0.8 EA = 5000 kN/m
GESC (h = H)
GESC (h = 0.75H)
0.8 0.9 1.0
1.0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 100 000
Time: days
Figure 19. Variation of settlement ratio with time for equivalent
GESC, fully penetrated OSC and GESC
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1
 70
42% and 21% over soft clay and OSC respectively was
achieved. The total time taken for the dissipation of
excess pore pressure in soft clay, OSC and GESC was
found to be 7000, 52 and 30 days respectively.
• The ESCR of the stone column was observed to
increase up to a particular consolidation period,
beyond which it decreased drastically. Interestingly,
when the stone column was encased with a
geosynthetic material, the ESCR was found to increase
throughout the entire period of consolidation, and the
value was much higher than for an ordinary stone
column.
• The reduction in the ultimate settlement, time taken
for complete dissipation of excess pore pressure, and
lateral displacement with an increase in geosynthetic
stiffness from 500 to 5000 kN/m was found to be 15%,
30% and 50% respectively. With an increase in
geosynthetic stiffness from 500 to 5000 kN/m, the
efficiency of GESC over OSC, considering load
transfer from the column to the surrounding clay,
increased from 1.03 to 4.63. This shows the importance
of geosynthetic stiffness to the deformation behaviour
of GESC.
• The time taken for the excess pore pressure of the
partially penetrated GESC to dissipate was found to
increase with a decrease in the length of GESC. In
addition, a decrease in the length of GESC makes
the load carrying capacity of the column within the
embedded depth less than fully penetrated GESC,
even though the stiffnesses of the column and the
geosynthetics were kept constant in all cases.
• The performance of floating GESC with geosynthetic
stiffnesses of 500 kN/m, 2500 kN/m and 5000 kN/m
and corresponding depth ratios of 0.95, 0.8 and 0.75
respectively was found to be equivalent to the fully
penetrated OSC, considering ultimate settlement.
NOTATION
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
c′ effective cohesion (Pa)
E elastic modulus (Pa)
EA axial stiffness of geosynthetic material (N/m)
H thickness of soft clay layer (m)
h length of stone columns (m)
k ratio of horizontal effective stress (σ′xx) and
vertical effective stress (σ′yy) (dimensionless)
kh and kv coefficient of permeability in horizontal and
vertical directions (m/s)
ka active earth pressure coefficient
ko coefficient of earth pressure at rest
q surcharge pressure (Pa)
Rinter reduction factor for soil-geosynthetic
interface (dimensionless)
Su undrained strength (Pa)
s spacing of stone column (m)
t consolidation time (days)
γ unit weight (N/m3)
Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1
Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
Rajesh
θ inclination of shear band (°)
υ′ Poisson’s ratio in terms of effective stress
(dimensionless)
ϕ′ effective angle of shearing resistance (°)
ψ dilatency angle (°)
ABBREVIATIONS
EFESCR Efficiency factor of GESC over OSC with
respect to ESCR
ESCR Effective stress concentration ratio
(ESCR)US Effective stress concentration ratio at the
ultimate settlement
GESC Geosynthetic encased stone column
OSC Ordinary stone column
RFUS Reduction factor against ultimate settlement
US Ultimate settlement
REFERENCES
Ali, K., Shahu, J. T. & Sharma, K. G. (2014). Model tests on single and
groups of stone columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement
arrangement. Geosynthetics International, 21, No. 2, 103–118.
Almeida, M. S. S., Hosseinpour, I. & Riccio, M. (2013). Performance of
a geosynthetic encased column (GEC) in soft ground: numerical
and analytical studies. Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 4,
252–262.
Ambily, A. P. & Gandhi, S. R. (2004). Experimental and theoretical
evaluation of stone column in soft clay. Proceedings of International
Conference on Geosynthetics and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ICGGE-2004, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India, pp. 201–206.
Ambily, A. P. & Gandhi, S. R. (2007). Behaviour of stone columns
based on experimental and FEM analysis. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133,
No. 4, 405–415.
Barksdale, R. D. & Bachus, R. C. (1983). Design and Construction of
Stone Columns, Final report SCEGIT-83-104. Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC, USA.
Bergado, D. T., Singh, N., Sim, S. H., Panichayatum, B., Sampaco, C. L.
& Balasubramaniam, A. S. (1990). Improvement of soft
Bangkok clay using vertical geotextile band drains compared
with granular piles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 9, No. 3,
203–231.
Black, J. A., Sivakumar, V., Madhav, M. R. & Hamill, G. A. (2007).
Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: laboratory model study.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
133, No. 9, 1154–1161.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., Broere, W. & Waterman, D. (2006). PLAXIS User’s
Manual, Version 8, Plaxis bv, Delft, the Netherlands.
Castro, J. & Sagaseta, C. (2009). Consolidation around stone columns.
Influence of column deformation. International Journal of
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 33, No. 7,
851–877.
Castro, J. & Sagaseta, C. (2011). Deformation and consolidation around
encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29, No. 3,
268–276.
Dash, S. K. & Bora, M. C. (2013). Influence of geosynthetic encasement
on the performance of stone columns floating in soft clay. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 50, No. 7, 754–765.
Elsawy, M. B. D. (2013). Behaviour of soft ground improved by
conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM
study. Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 4, 276–285.
Etezad, M., Hanna, A. M. & Ayadat, T. (2014). Bearing capacity of a
group of stone columns in soft soil. International Journal of
Geomechanics, ASCE, 15, No. 2, 04014043.
 Time-dependent behaviour of fully and partially penetrated geosynthetic encased stone columns 71

Ghazavi, M. & Afshar, J. N. (2013). Bearing capacity of geosynthetic
encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 38, 26–36.
Gniel, J. & Bouazza, A. (2009). Improvement of soft soils using geogrid
encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27, No. 3,
167–175.
Gniel, J. & Bouazza, A. (2010). Construction of geogrid encased stone
columns: a new proposal based on laboratory testing. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 28, No. 1, 108–118.
Greenwood, D. A. (1970). Mechanical improvement of soils below
ground surface. Proceedings of Ground Engineering Conference,
Organised by the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK,
pp. 11–22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/ge.44647.0003.
Hosseinpour, I., Riccio, M. & Almeida, M. S. S. (2014). Numerical
evaluation of a granular column reinforced by geosynthetics using
encasement and laminated disks. Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
42, No. 4, 363–373.
Hosseinpour, I., Almeida, M. S. S. & Riccio, M. (2015). Full-scale load
test and finite-element analysis of soft ground improved by
geotextile-encased granular columns. Geosynthetics International,
22, No. 6, 428–438.
Hughes, J. M. O., Withers, N. J. & Greenwood, D. A. (1975). Field trial
of the reinforcing effect of a stone column in soil. Geotechnique,
25, No. 1, 31–44.
Keykhosropur, L., Soroush, A. & Imam, R. (2012). 3D numerical
analyses of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 35, 61–68.
Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V. N. & Meehan, C. L. (2010). Numerical
study of the effect of geosynthetic encasement on the behaviour of
granular columns. Geosynthetics International, 17, No. 3, 132–143.
Liu, K. F., Xie, X. Y., Zhang, J. H. & Zhu, X. R. (2006).
Compression/tension load capacity of stone column anchors.
Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical
Engineering, 159, No. 3, 161–165.
Lo, S. R., Zhang, R. & Mak, J. (2010). Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns in soft clay: a numerical study. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28, No. 3, 292–302.
Malarvizhi, S. N. & Ilamparuthi, K. (2007). Comparative study on the
behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone column.
Soils and Foundations, 47, No. 5, 873–885.
Mitchell, J. K. & Huber, T. R. (1985). Performance of a stone column
foundation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111, No. 2,
205–223.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2006). Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: numerical evaluation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24,
No. 6, 349–358.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2007). Model tests on geosynthetic
encased stone columns. Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 6,
346–354.
Ng, K. S. & Tan, S. A. (2014). Design and analyses of floating stone
columns. Soils and Foundations, 54, No. 3, 478–487.
Pulko, B., Majes, B. & Logar, J. (2011). Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: analytical calculation model. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 29, No. 1, 29–39.
Raithel, M. & Kempfert, H. G. (2000). Calculation models for dam
foundations with geotextile coated sand columns. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, Geo-Engineering 2000, Melbourne, Australia,
Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, PA, USA, pp. 347.
Rajesh, S. & Jain, P. (2015). Influence of permeability of soft clay on the
efficiency of stone columns and geosynthetic encased stone
columns-a numerical study. International Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, 9, No. 5, 483–493.
Tan, S. A., Tjahyono, S. & Oo, K. K. (2008). Simplified plane-strain
modelling of stone-column reinforced ground. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 134, No. 2,
185–194.
Vermeer, P. A. (1990). The orientation of shear bands in biaxial tests.
Geotechnique, 40, No. 2, 223–236.
Wu, C. S. & Hong, Y. S. (2014). A simplified approach for evaluating the
bearing performance of encased granular columns. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 42, No. 4, 339–347.
Yoo, C. (2010). Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns
in embankment construction: numerical investigation. Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 136,
No. 8, 1148–1160.
Yoo, C. & Kim, S. B. (2009). Numerical modelling of geosynthetic
encased stone column-reinforced ground. Geosynthetics International,
16, No. 3, 116–126.
Zhang, L. & Zhao, M. (2015). Deformation analysis of geotextile-
encased stone columns. International Journal of Geomechanics,
15, No. 3, 04014053.
Zhang, Y., Chan, D. & Wang, Y. (2012). Consolidation of composite
foundation improved by geosynthetic-encased stone columns.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 32, 10–17.

The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 August 2017.

Geosynthetics International, 2017, 24, No. 1

Downloaded by [ Indian Institute of Technology Madras] on [18/05/17]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.