Ground Improvement (2005) 9, No.
4, 137–147
Encapsulated stone columns as a soil improvement
technique for collapsible soil
T. AYADAT and A. M. HANNA
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University,
Quebec, Canada
Quite often, foundation engineers encounter a thick layer
of collapsible soil. This type of soil possesses considerable
strength, which is largely lost when the soil becomes wet.
Excessive settlement and lateral deformation accompany
this significant loss in strength. As an alternative to
conventional deep foundations, stone columns encapsu-
lated in geofabric reinforcement may be used to transmit
foundation loads to suitable bearing strata below the
collapsible soil layer. This paper presents an experimental
investigation on the performance of stone columns encap-
sulated in geofabric installed in a collapsible soil layer
and subjected to inundation. The carrying capacity of the
columns and their settlement characteristics were investi-
gated. Columns made of sand were tested with different
lengths, degrees of inundation and different strengths of
geofabric. Based on the results of the present experimental
investigation, it can be reported that unreinforced sand
columns in collapsible soil did not contribute significantly
to the soil’s performance. Furthermore, premature failure
of the column was noted. The carrying capacity of
encapsulated sand columns increases owing to an increase
in strength of the geofabric material and/or an increase in
column length. The settlement of the column’s head due to
external loading and inundation decreases owing to an
increase in column rigidity and/or an increase in column
length (up to a maximum value equal to the thickness of
the collapsible soil layer). Theoretical models were devel-
oped to predict the carrying capacity and settlement of
these columns. Comparison of the results predicted by the
proposed theory and experimental results of the present
investigation and those reported in the literature showed
good agreement.
Keywords : collapsible soil; foundation engineering;
geofabrics; inundation; stone columns
Notation
CP collapse potential
c9 drained cohesion of collapsible soil
D diameter of stone column
d diameter of sample
(GI 4210) Received 26 August 2004; last revised 23 March 2005;
accepted 31 March 2005
137
Très souvent, les ingénieurs s’occupant de fondations
rencontrent une couche épaisse de sol sujette à l’effondre-
ment. Ce type de sol possède une résistance considérable
qui disparaı̂t en grande partie lorsque le sol s’humidifie.
Un affaissement excessif et une déformation latérale
accompagnent cette perte de résistance significative. Pour
remplacer les fondations profondes conventionnelles, on
peut utiliser des colonnes de pierres encapsulées dans un
renfort géotextile afin de transmettre les charges de fonda-
tion à une strate porteuse située en dessous de la couche
sujette à l’effondrement. Cet exposé présente une investi-
gation expérimentale de la performance de colonnes de
pierres encapsulées dans des géotextiles et installées dans
une couche de sol sujette à l’effondrement et soumise à
l’inondation. Nous avons étudié la capacité porteuse des
colonnes ainsi que leurs caractéristiques d’affaissement.
Nous avons testé des colonnes faites de sable avec
plusieurs longueurs, degrés d’inondation et résistances
géotextiles. En nous basant sur les résultats de la présente
investigation expérimentale, nous pouvons rapporter que
les colonnes de sable non renforcées dans le sol sujet à
l’effondrement ne contribuent pas de manière significative
à la performance du sol. De plus, nous avons noté la
défaillance prématurée de la colonne. La capacité porteuse
des colonnes de sable encapsulées augmente en raison
d’une augmentation de la résistance des matériaux géotex-
tiles et/ou d’une augmentation de la longueur de colonne.
Le tassement de la tête de colonne à cause de la charge
extérieure et de l’inondation diminue en raison d’une
augmentation de la rigidité de la colonne et/ou d’une
augmentation de la longueur de la colonne (jusqu’à une
valeur maximum égale à l’épaisseur de la couche de sol
sujette à l’effondrement). Nous avons développé des
modèles théoriques pour prédire la capacité porteuse et
l’affaissement de ces colonnes. Les résultats prédits par la
théorie proposée, les résultats expérimentaux de l’investi-
gation et ceux rapportés dans la documentation montrent
une bonne corrélation.
de effective diameter
E modulus of elasticity of geofabric
Ep modulus of elasticity of columns
H height of sample
Hn length of nth slice
H0 thickness of collapsing layer
k0 coefficient of earth pressure at rest
L length of pile
N number of slices
1365-781X # 2005 Thomas Telford Ltd
Ayadat and Hanna

Pu ultimate carrying capacity confirms that design theories are lagging behind the con-
QR correction factor for cases in which failure does not occur struction of these columns.
QT correction factor for effects of delayed installation In the literature, reports can be found describing the
q surcharge on ground surface of soil failure mechanism of these columns by bulging at about four
S0 settlement of unreinforced column diameters from the top of the column (Poulos and Mattes,
S1 settlement of top of collapsing layer
1969; Williams, 1969; Hughes and Withers, 1974). Others
r0 initial radius of column
t thickness of geofabric material have reported that the carrying capacity of a stone column
˜ total settlement of stone column, caused by inundation under in loose soil could be reduced by 50% in the case of raising
external load P the groundwater table (Simpson et al., 1989). Grigoryan
˜H foundation settlement on collapsible soil with stone column (1967), Zur and Wiseman (1973), Maswoswe (1985) and
ª0 soil unit weight Lawton et al. (1991) have reported that, during the inunda-

1 elastic settlement of column due to axial load P tion of a soil element in a collapsible soil layer, the lateral

2 settlement caused by downdrag force due to consolidation of pressure around that element decreases drastically, which
surrounding soil will be further manifested in additional axial deformation or

3 settlement due to lateral deformation of column excessive settlement.

4 settlement component of layer below column tip, caused by
inundation

FS axial movement of column at failure

n settlement of nth slice Experimental programme

r0 lateral deformation of column

v vertical settlement Tests were performed on prototypes of the sand column
r radial strain model in a stress-controlled chamber that contained loose,
Ł cirumferential strain collapsible fill. The set-up used in this investigation was
9h0 effective lateral stress of soil prior to column installation
similar to that used by Hamitouche and Ayadat (1996). The
9hmax maximum effective lateral pressure that soil and geotextile
chamber was made of cylindrical steel, with 390 mm inside
can support
9r effective lateral pressure around column diameter, 520 mm depth and 17.5 mm wall thickness (Fig. 1).
9v vertical stress acting on column The chamber was resting on a circular steel plate 25 mm
9vlim vertical stress acting on column thick, which was bolted to its bottom flange. Another 25 mm
Ł tangential stress thick circular plate served as a lid on the top end of the
a tensile strength of geofabric material cylinder with a hole in the centre of 40 mm diameter. In
9 angle of shearing resistance of stone column material order to minimise the friction between the collapsible soil
and the walls of the chamber, a thin layer of silicone grease
was applied to the walls before filling up the chamber with
soil.
The collapsible soil used in this investigation was a
Introduction mixture gap-graded soil. The mixture consisted of 78%
concrete sand, 10% Leighton buzzard sand (less than 90 m),
Collapsible soils can be defined as unsaturated soils that go and 12% speswhite kaolin clay. The grain-size distribution of
through a radical rearrangement of particles and loss of this mixture is presented in Fig. 2. The values of the
volume upon wetting with or without additional loading. coefficient of earth pressure at rest (k0 ), the angle of shearing
Collapsible soils are found in formations such as loess, resistance (9), and the cohesion (c9) for this material were
alluvial, residual, aeolian subaerial, colluvial and gypsifer- determined from the conventional triaxial consolidated
ous silts.
In the literature, reports can be found dealing with
methods of identifying collapsible soil and determining the Loading lever
amount of settlement that may occur when it is wetted
Pressure plate
(Hassani and Goel, 1982; Lutenegger and Saber, 1988). LVDT
tube
Some researchers have suggested soil stabilisation techni- Klinger valve
ques to improve its performance (Bara, 1976), and recom- Pressure plate O-ring
mendations have been made to install reinforced stone
columns with geofabric material in weak and compressible
soils as a soil improvement technique (Gray et al., 1982;
Gorle and Thijs, 1989; Al-Joulani, 1995). Nevertheless, Bleed valve
practising engineers are still unable to design conventional
foundations on this soil with a high degree of confidence.
Rising construction costs along with a high level of
uncertainty will undoubtedly make stone columns a more
Column
attractive alternative to conventional pile foundations when
dealing with collapsible soil.
Collapsible soil ‘Terram’
Stone columns are considered as a viable technique as a
ground treatment method. Their use in foundation engineer-
ing goes back for more than 50 years for reinforcement of
soft soil. In spite of the frequent recommendations to use
stone columns as a treatment for collapsible soils (Bara,
1976; Fargher et al., 1979; Ronan, 1980), there is little that can
be found in the literature dealing with the subject matter. Frame
From a tap
Stroud and Mitchell (1990) reported a case history where
stone columns failed to strengthen chalk fill layer. This Fig. 1. Cross-section of testing apparatus

138
 Encapsulated stone columns for collapsible soil

100
ing the sand columns. Four non-woven geofabrics were
90 tested in this investigation (Terram 700, 1000, 1500 and
2000). Table 2 summarises the physical and mechanical
80
properties of this material. This information was compiled
Percentage passing: %

70 from data supplied by the manufacturer (ICI, 1977). The

60 modulus of elasticity of the sand column (with/without
geofabrics) was determined from the conventional triaxial
50 consolidated drained compression test results (Table 3).
40 Tests were performed on sand columns surrounded with
collapsible soil and subjected to wetting by raising the water
30
level inside the chamber using a constant-head system. Sand
20 columns were axially loaded by means of a strain-controlled
10 Collapsible soil loading system up to the failure point, while a surcharge
loading of 100 kPa was applied directly on the surface of the
0 soil inside the chamber. The vertical movements of the
0·001 0·01 0·1 1 10 100
Diameter: mm column and the surface of the collapsible soil were recorded
by two linear variable differential transducers (LVDT). In
Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of collapsible soil this investigation, each test was repeated twice to ensure
repeatability of test data.

drained compression test results as 0.54, 308 and 35 kPa

respectively. Table 1 summarises the physical characteristics
of the collapsible soil tested in the present investigation. Test results
Loading tests were performed on sand columns encapsu-
lated in a geofabric, commercially known as ‘Terram’ fabric. The results of the present experimental investigation are
For comparison purposes, some tests were conducted on given in Tables 4 and 5 for the carrying capacity and
unreinforced sand columns and rigid piles. All models had settlement measurements respectively. Fig. 3 presents the
a diameter of 23 mm, and were tested at 250 mm, 300 mm
and 410 mm.
The sand used to form the columns was coarse, uniformly Table 4. Summary of test results: carrying capacity of piles
graded sand (1.18–2.36 mm in size), with maximum and Test Type of foundation Pile length: Carrying capacity,
minimum unit weights of 19.8 kN/m3 and 14.5 kN/m3 . The number mm Pu : N
sand was compacted to a relative density of 80%, and the angle 1 Sand column 250 189.6
of shearing resistance of the compacted sand was 9 ¼ 448. 2 Sand column in T700 250 230.8
Commercially available geofabric material, having a wide 3 Sand column in T1000 250 240
range of mechanical properties, was selected for encapsulat- 4 Sand column in T1500 250 255
5 Sand column in T2000 250 300
6 Rigid pile 250 388
Table 1. Summary of the physical characteristics of the collapsible soil 7 Sand column 300 195.3
8 Sand column in T700 300 251
Property Value 9 Sand column in T1000 300 259
Unit weight, ª; kN/m3 15.4 10 Sand column in T1500 300 273
Specific gravity, Gs 2.65 11 Sand column in T2000 300 317
Uniformity coefficient 115 12 Rigid pile 300 417
Maximum unit weight, ªmax : kN/m3 20.20 13 Sand column 410 205
Minimum unit weight; ªmin : kN/m3 13.70 14 Sand column in T700 410 272
Natural water content: % 4.00 15 Sand column in T1000 410 282
Optimum moisture content: % 9.00 16 Sand column in T1500 410 294
Liquid limit: % 20.00 17 Sand column in T2000 410 340
Plastic limit: % 13.50 18 Rigid pile 410 507

Table 2. Properties and specification of Terram

Terram product
T500 T700 T1000 T1500 T3000
Max. load: N/200 mm 750 1200 1700 2200 2800
Extension at max. load: % 35 40 45 50 60
Thickness: mm 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0
Composition 67% polypropylene and 33% polyethylene (SG ¼ 0.92)

Table 3. Piles and soil stiffness

Type of foundation
Sand column Column in T700 Column in T1000 Column in T1500 Column in T2000 Soil alone
Modulus of elasticity, Ep : kPa 19 940 38 000 47 200 58 300 76 500 3600 at initial water content
2900 saturated

139
Ayadat and Hanna

Table 5. Summary of test results: settlement measurements

Test number Type of foundation Pile length: mm Applied load, P ¼ x(%) Pu : N Settlement caused by inundation: mm
19 Soil alone – 20 52.79
20 Soil alone – 50 53.0
21 Soil alone – 80 54.0
22 Sand column 250 20 52.47
23 Sand column 250 50 52.89
24 Sand column 250 80 52.97
25 Sand column 300 20 52.55
26 Sand column 300 50 52.78
27 Sand column 300 80 52.84
28 Sand column 410 20 52.68
29 Sand column 410 50 52.57
30 Sand column 410 80 52.73
31 Sand column in T700 250 20 36.71
32 Sand column in T700 250 50 38.70
33 Sand column in T700 250 80 39.27
34 Sand column in T700 300 20 33.97
35 Sand column in T700 300 50 36.46
36 Sand column in T700 300 80 38.63
37 Sand column in T700 410 20 29.9
38 Sand column in T700 410 50 33.98
39 Sand column in T700 410 80 37.95
40 Sand column in T1000 250 20 33.51
41 Sand column in T1000 250 50 36.56
42 Sand column in T1000 250 80 37.58
43 Sand column in T1000 300 20 30.44
44 Sand column in T1000 300 50 32.16
45 Sand column in T1000 300 80 35.26
46 Sand column in T1000 410 20 24.41
47 Sand column in T1000 410 50 28.14
48 Sand column in T1000 410 80 34.73
49 Sand column in T1500 250 20 32.22
50 Sand column in T1500 250 50 33.91
51 Sand column in T1500 250 80 33.92
52 Sand column in T1500 300 20 28.04
53 Sand column in T1500 300 50 30.38
54 Sand column in T1500 300 80 31.82
55 Sand column in T1500 410 20 19.45
56 Sand column in T1500 410 50 22.74
57 Sand column in T1500 410 80 25.98
58 Sand column in T2000 250 20 29.78
59 Sand column in T2000 250 50 31.65
60 Sand column in T2000 250 80 32.78
61 Sand column in T2000 300 20 26.98
62 Sand column in T2000 300 50 27.35
63 Sand column in T2000 300 80 29.89
64 Sand column in T2000 410 20 17.16
65 Sand column in T2000 410 50 19.365
66 Sand column in T2000 410 80 22.28
67 Rigid pile 250 20 22.93
68 Rigid pile 250 50 23.25
69 Rigid pile 250 80 23.51
70 Rigid pile 300 20 15.89
71 Rigid pile 300 50 16.14
72 Rigid pile 300 80 16.41
73 Rigid pile 410 20 2.65
74 Rigid pile 410 50 3.33
75 Rigid pile 410 80 4.16

load–settlement curves for collapsible soil with and without
unreinforced sand column. It can be seen that the presence
of the unreinforced sand column has slightly improved both
the carrying load and the settlement measurements of this
soil. The performance improved further when the sand
columns were driven to the entire depth of the collapsible
layer.
Figure 4 presents typical load–settlement curves for
collapsible soil with sand columns reinforced with geofabric
material. It can be seen that the load on these columns
increases with settlement linearly up to approximately 20–
30% of the ultimate load, beyond which the column exhibits
relatively larger amounts of settlement owing to a small
increase in the load. The performance of the collapsible soil
was improved still further by the presence of reinforced
sand columns with geofabric material. Furthermore, the
performance was significantly enhanced by the increase of
the strength (stiffness) of the geofabric material. It was
observed that, before inundation, sand columns failed by
bulging at relatively shallow depths (typically less than four

140
 Encapsulated stone columns for collapsible soil

160 110

100
140
90
120
80
100 70
Load: N

Load: N
80 60

50
60
40
Full inundation
40 Partial inundation
30
SC (L 5 410 mm) 20
20 SC (L 5 250 mm)
Soil without SC SC (L 5 410 mm)
SC (L 5 250 mm)
10 Soil without SC
0
0 0·5 1·0 1·5 2·0 2·5 3·0 0
Settlement: mm 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Settlement: mm
Fig. 3. Load–settlement curves for collapsible soil with/without sand
columns (SC) Fig. 5. Load–settlement curves for collapsible soil with/without sand
columns after partial or full inundation (load ¼ 30%)

400
Soil alone
360 Sand column
Column in T700
Column in T1000 column during inundation (Carr, 1970; Selig and Grangaard,
320 Column in T1500
Column in T2000
Rigid pile 1970). This proved not to be effective because of the damage
280 and disturbance caused to the instruments during failure of
240
the sand column. Figs 6(a) and 6(b) show respectively the
sand column in place before and after failure, which was
Load: N

200 caused by inundation. The behaviour shown in Fig. 6 was

160
120
80
40
0 loading of 80% of the ultimate load. It can be seen that sand
0 0·3 0·6 0·9 1·2 1·5 1·8 2·1 2·4 2·7
Settlement: mm
Fig. 4. Load–settlement curves for various foundation supports (L ¼
410 mm)
diameters from the top of the column). For comparison
purposes, the cases of collapsible soil with and without
unreinforced sand columns and rigid piles are also given in
Fig. 4.
In this investigation, Chin’s (1972) stability graphical
method was used to predict the ultimate carrying load (Pu )
of a stone column driven in collapsible soil. The results of
this analysis are also given in Table 4.
Figure 5 presents the load–settlement curves for collapsi-
ble soil with and without sand columns (unreinforced), after
partial and full inundation, and subjected to a constant load
equal to 30% of the corresponding ultimate carrying load for
the respective condition. It can seen that the settlement of
the soil surface increases significantly because of an increase
of the water level in the testing chamber. Specifically, the
measured settlement was 18 mm when the soil was sub-
jected to partial inundation, and increased to 53 mm when it
was subjected to full inundation. Partial inundation was
carried out by inundating the lower part of the ground
around the column. This operation was controlled by the
quantity of water allowed to enter the chamber each time. It
is of interest to note that full inundation of the soil around
the sand column represents the worst condition, where
increased settlement and a significant reduction in the
carrying capacity of the sand columns were observed.
In the present investigation, attempts were made to
measure the radial displacements at the edge of a sand
observed in this investigation by comparing the initial
diameter of the sand column with the diameters measured
at different levels on the column at the end of the tests.
Figure 7 presents typical load–settlement curves for the
reinforced sand columns, penetrated to their full length (L ¼
410 mm) in a collapsible soil layer and subjected to working
3·0 3·3 3·6
columns confined in geofabric material have settled much
less than those unconfined as a result of inundation even at
light working loads. Furthermore, the measured settlement
decreases owing to an increase of the stiffness of the sand
column—that is, the geofabric material and the depth of
penetration.
Analysis
The increase in the carrying capacity of a sand column
due to reinforcement can be explained by the higher lateral
restraint provided by the reinforcement material to the earth
pressure from the surrounding soil. This lateral restraint
increases because of an increase of the stiffness of the
reinforcing material. In order to demonstrate the effect of
reinforcement on the carrying capacity of a sand column, the
term carrying capacity ratio, CCR, was introduced as follows:
q2
CCR ¼ (1)
q1
where q2 is the carrying capacity for a stone column
encapsulated with geofabric, and q1 is the carrying capacity
of a stone column without reinforcement.
Figure 8 presents the deduced values of CCR from the
present experimental investigation plotted against the mod-
ulus of elasticity (Ep ) of the sand column. It can be seen that
CCR increases significantly because of an increase of the
stiffness of the column, represented by Ep , and the depth of
the column penetration, L.
In the present investigation, the settlement reduction factor
, proposed by Priebe (1976, 1995) was introduced as follows:

141
Ayadat and Hanna

Fig. 6. Stone column in collapsible soil subjected to inundation caused by rise of water table: (a) before inundation; (b) during inundation

550 2·6
Soil alone
500 Sand column L 5 250 mm
Column in T700 2·4 L 5 300 mm
Column in T1000
450 Column in T1500 L 5 410 mm
Column in T2000
Carrying capacity ratio, CCR

Rigid pile 2·2

400

350 2·0
Load: N

300
1·8
250
1·6
200

150 1·4
100
Full inundation 1·2
50

0 1·0
10 000 100 000 1 000 000 10000000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Modulus of elasticity of ‘piles’, Ep: kPa
Settlement: mm

Fig. 7. Load–settlement curves for various foundation supports, of length Fig. 8. Variation of carrying capacity ratio (CCR) with stiffness of columns
L ¼ 410 mm, after full inundation under applied load equal to 80% Pu

Si
¼ (2)
S0
where Si is the settlement of the reinforced column, and S0 is 1·0
the settlement of the unreinforced column. P 5 20% Pu
Figure 9 shows the reduction factor  plotted against the 0·9 P 5 50% Pu
P 5 80% Pu
modulus of elasticity of the sand column, Ep . It can be seen 0·8
that  decreases with increase of the stiffness of the sand
Settlement reduction factor, â

column, represented by Ep , and/or an increase of the depth 0·7

of the column penetration, L, and it increases with an 0·6
increase of the applied load.
It is important to report here that settlement of a sand 0·5
column consists of three components: elastic settlement due 0·4
to axial load, settlement caused by the downdrag force due
to consolidation of the surrounding soil, and settlement 0·3
caused by lateral deformation of the column. Under a given 0·2
working load, an increase in column stiffness will result in a
decrease in the elastic settlement (Bjerrum et al., 1969; Poulos 0·1 ------- L 5 300 mm
_____ L 5 410 mm
and Davis, 1980), an increase in the settlement caused by the 0
downdrag force (Poulos and Davis, 1980) and a decrease in 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100 000 000
the settlement caused by lateral deformation (Gray et al., Modulus of elasticity of column, Ep: kPa
1982; Gorle and Thijs, 1989). It can be accurately reported Fig. 9. Variation of settlement reduction factor  (equation (2)) with
that for collapsible soils the settlement component due to modulus of elasticity of column, Ep

142
 Encapsulated stone columns for collapsible soil

 
lateral deformation is the main contributor to the total  9
 v9 lim ¼ tan 2 þ  h9 max (4)
settlement of that column. 4 2
Based on the results of the present experimental investi-
gation, it can be reported that partially penetrated columns where  v9 lim is the maximum effective vertical stress acting
will settle excessively owing to the existence of a collapsible on the column; 9 is the angle of shearing resistance of the
layer below the column’s tip, which will be reduced owing material of the stone column; and  h9 max is the maximum
to an increase of the column length. However, the increase effective lateral pressure that the soil and the geofabric can
in the column length will increase its contact area with the support, given by
surrounding soil, and hence will increase the column  h9 max ¼  h9 s þ ˜ (5)
settlement caused by the downdrag force. Nevertheless, the
settlement due to the drag force is significantly less than where  h9 s is the maximum effective lateral pressure pro-
the settlement produced by the collapse of the layer vided by the soil around the column, and ˜ is the
situated below the column’s tip. additional pressure that contributes to the reinforcement of
In this investigation, the collapse potential was introduced the column.
in terms of the collapse potential (CP), defined as the ratio of Based on the work of Hughes and Withers (1974) and
column settlement to the thickness of the collapsing layer: Hughes et al. (1975) it can be assumed that
˜H  h9 s ¼  h9 0 þ kc9 (6)
CP ¼ (3)
H0
and
where ˜H is the settlement of the foundation on collapsible  
ªL
soil with/without stone column, and H0 is the thickness of  h9 0 ¼ k0 qþ (7)
2
the collapsing layer.
Figure 10 presents the variation of the factor CP with the where  h9 0 is the effective lateral stress of the soil before
stiffness of the sand column, represented by the modulus of installing the column; c9 is the drained cohesion of the
elasticity, Ep . It can be seen that CP decreases significantly, collapsible soil; k0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest;
owing to the decrease of foundation settlement caused by q is the surcharge applied on the ground surface; L is the
the increase of column stiffness and the column’s depth of length of the stone column; and k is a coefficient (k ¼ 4;
embedment. Specifically, CP dropped from 13% for soil Hughes and Withers, 1974)
alone to about 4% for the sand column with L ¼ 410 mm, The geofabric material enveloping the stone column
encapsulated in T2000 fabric. This significant reduction in provides superior resistance to the lateral pressure than the
CP demonstrates the contribution of the reinforcement soil alone. This fabric, when stretched, exerts additional
material. pressure on the column that contributes to its reinforcement.
This pressure (˜) can be estimated based on the tensile
strength (a ) of the geofabric material. Referring to Fig. 11, at
equilibrium the following equation can be written:
Theory ˜
2r0 ¼ 2a t (8)
Ultimate carrying capacity a t
˜ ¼ (9)
The ultimate carrying capacity of a stone column installed r0
in a soil mass is governed by the lateral confining earth
pressure mobilised in the surrounding soil. A stone column where r0 is the initial radius of the column, and t is the
encapsulated in a geofabric material can be simulated by a thickness of the geofabric material.
cylindrical element made of a cohesionless material and Substituting  h9 s and ˜ in equation (5), the carrying
subjected to triaxial loading. The confining pressure is the ultimate load of a stone column encapsulated with geofabric
total of the lateral resistance of the soil and the geofabric can be estimated by the following equation:
enveloping the column. According to Briaud (1991), the   
2  9 a t
vertical stress acting on an unreinforced stone column is  v9 lim ¼ tan þ  h9 0 þ kc9 þ (10)
given by 4 2 r0

14 Based on our observation in the present experimental

investigation, it was noted that the sand column failed by
12 Soil SC bulging before the stress in the geofabric material had
reached its failure point. Therefore consideration of the
Magnitude of collapse CP

10
maximum strength of the geofabric in equation (10) (i.e.
˜ ¼ a t=r0 ) will lead to overestimation of the confining
8
pressure around the column, and accordingly the carrying
SC in T700 capacity of the column. Thus in this investigation a coeffi-
6
SC in T1000 cient Æ was introduced in equation (10) as a reduction factor
for the value of a t/r0 , as follows:
4 SC in T1500  
SC in T2000 
L 5 250 mm
 9 a t
 v9 max ¼ tan 2 þ  h9 0 þ kc9 þ Æ (11)
2 L 5 300 mm 4 2 r0
L 5 410 mm

0
0 10000 20000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000
Modulus of elasticity: kPa
Fig. 10. Variation of collapse potential (CP) with stiffness of columns,
subjected to full inundation under load P ¼ 20% Pu . SC, sand column
where: 0 < Æ < 1.
The experimental values of the coefficient Æ depend
mainly on the stiffness of the column. The carrying capacity
values of the column obtained experimentally were used

143
Ayadat and Hanna

ÄP 5 Äó r0

ô ô

t 2 r0 t

(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Cylindrical sample of geotextile subjected to lateral internal pressure ˜P

together with the proposed theoretical model (equation
(11)), to provide proper evaluation for Æ. The different
values obtained for this coefficient are plotted against
column stiffness in Fig. 12. The following empirical formula
has been proposed for the coefficient Æ with a satisfactory
coefficient of correlation (R2 ¼ 0.972):
:37
Æ ¼ 3:2 3 10 5
E1
p (12)
where Ep is the modulus of elasticity of the stone column.
Furthermore, the constant term in equation (12) depends
mainly on the type of reinforcing material (i.e. its tensile
strength).
The experimental results for the ultimate carrying capa-
cities of confined stone columns reported by Al-Joulani
(1995) were compared with the predicted values produced
by the present theory (see Table 6). It can be seen from Table
6 that the theory overestimates the results by about 8–20%.
This may be explained by the fact that the coefficient Æ was
developed for the geofabric material used in this investiga-
0·45
0·40
0·35
tion. Nevertheless, the comparison is regarded as acceptable
in the geotechnical engineering field.
Settlements
The total settlement of a fully penetrating stone column in
a collapsible soil subjected to an external load P, caused by
inundation, is made up of three components:
˜ ¼
1 þ
2 þ
3 (13)
where ˜ is the total settlement of a stone column, caused by
inundation under an external load P;
1 is the elastic
settlement of the column due to the axial load P,
2 is the
settlement caused by the downdrag force due to consolida-
tion of the surrounding soil; and
3 is the vertical settlement
due to the lateral deformation of the column.
The settlement components
1 and
2 were obtained from
the analytical models of Poulos and Davis (1975), developed
for compressible piles in compressible soils, whereas
3 was
predicted based on the theoretical model of Hughes and
Withers (1974).
According to Poulos and Davis (1975),
1 and
2 are given
by
250 mm 300 mm
410 mm Pa L

1 ¼ (14)
Ep Ap

0·30
and
Coefficient á

0·25

2 ¼
FS QR QT (15)
Trend with
0·20
  
0·15 2qL2 ªL

FS ¼ c9 þ k0 tan 9 þ1 (16)
Ep d 3q
0·10

0·05
where Pa is the applied axial load; Ep is the modulus of
0 elasticity of the column; Ap is the cross-sectional area of the
0 10000 20000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000
column; d is the diameter of the column (d ¼ 2r0 );
FS is the
Modulus of elasticity, Ep of column: kPa
axial movement of the column at failure; QR is a correction
Fig. 12. Variation of coefficient Æ with column stiffness factor for cases when full pile–soil slip does not occur

Table 6. Comparison between computed capacities and laboratory test results (Al-Joulani, 1995)
Confining Geofabric strength: Ultimate carrying capacity: kPa
pressure: kPa kN/m
Laboratory test results Present theoretical results
(Al-Joulani, 1995)
103.5 0 1000 980.3
86.2 2400 2600
119.1 2750 3100
207 0 1500 1532
86.2 2750 3200
119.1 3000 3600

144
 Encapsulated stone columns for collapsible soil

  
(Poulos and Davis, 1980); and QT is a correction factor for Pa L 2qL2 ªL r0 L
˜¼ þ c9 þ k0 tan 9 þ 1 QR QT þ 2˜P
the effects of delayed installation (Poulos and Davis, 1980). Ep Ap Ep d 3q Et
Assuming uniform and axisymmetrical deformation of the (30)
column, the summation of settlement contributions from a
discrete horizontal slice of the column can be written as For a floating column, the displacement of the column due

v ¼ n
n (17) to the settlement component (
4 ) of the layer situated below
the column’s tip, and caused by inundation, has to be added

r0

n ¼ 2 H n (18) to the total settlement (˜) of the column. By assuming that
r0
the soil settlement varies linearly from S1 at the surface to
zero at the base, the settlement
4 was expressed as
Substituting H0 ¼ nHn , the vertical settlement can be defined
as H0  L

4 ¼ S1 (31)
H0

r0

v ¼ 2 H0 (19)
r0 where H0 is the thickness of the collapsing layer, L is the
where n is the number of slices;
n is the settlement of the length of the pile, and S1 is the settlement of the top of the
nth slice; Hn is the length of the nth slice; H0 is the total collapsing layer.
height of the column (H0 ¼ L); and
r0 /r0 is the radial strain Comparisons between the measured and predicted values
of the column at the given slice. of the settlement reduction factor  (see equation (2)) at the
The radial strain
r0 /r0 was estimated by assuming top of a column, caused by inundation of the column under
compatibility of lateral deformations between the column an external axial load, are shown in Figs 13 and 14
material and the cylinder fabric around it, and further by respectively. It can be seen that good agreement between
considering axisymmetric strain conditions. Thus the cylin- these values can be found. Comparison of the measured and
der fabric of a thickness t and a radius r0 will be subjected to predicted values of triaxial test results on stone columns
internal pressure of ˜P. From equilibrium: encapsulated with geogrid (Al-Joulani, 1995) is given in Fig.
15. It can be seen from Fig. 15 that there is reasonable accord
2r0 ˜P ¼ 2 Ł t (20) between the model behaviour and the experimental data.
Therefore
r0 1·0
 Ł ¼ ˜P (21) Predicted
t 0·9 Experimental

where Ł is the tangential stress. 0·8

Settlement reduction factor, â

Given 0·7
 Ł ¼ EŁ (22) 0·6

the circumferential strain can be given by 0·5

r0 0·4
Ł ¼ ˜P (23)
Et
0·3
where E is the modulus of elasticity of the fabric forming the 0·2
cylinder.
0·1
Considering:
0
2ð r0 þ
r0 Þ  2r0
r0 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 100 000 000
Ł ¼ ¼ ¼ r (24) Modulus of elasticity, Ep of ‘piles’: kPa
2r0 r0
where
r0 is the lateral deformation of the column, hence the Fig. 13. Variation of settlement reduction factor  (equation (2)) with
radial average strain is expressed as modulus of elasticity of column, Ep (for P ¼ 50% Pu and L ¼ 300 mm)

r0 r0 1·0
r ¼ ¼ ˜P (25)
r0 Et Measured
0·9 Sand column
By substitution in equation (19): Column in T1000 Sand column
0·8 Column in T2000
r0 Rigid pile
Settlement reduction factor, â

v ¼ 2 H0 ˜P (26) 0·7
Et
0·6
Therefore
r0 L 0·5

3 ¼ 2˜P (27)
Et 0·4 Column in T1000

where 0·3
Column in T2000
˜P ¼  v9 Kas   r9 (28) 0·2
 
2  9 0·1
______ Predicted
Kas ¼ tan  (29)
4 2 Rigid pile
0
0 2·5 5·0 7·5 10·0 12·5 15·0 17·5 20·0 22·5 25·0
 v9 is the vertical stress acting on the column, and  r9 is the Ratio L/d
effective lateral pressure around the column. Fig. 14. Variation of settlement reduction factor  (equation (2)) with ratio
Thus the total settlement can be expressed as L/d (P ¼ 20%)

145
Ayadat and Hanna
10
Measured
9 Aggregate (ö 5 54°) 1 Tensar UX-1500
Aggregate (ö 5 54°) 1 Conwed9027
8 Aggregate (ö 5 42·5°) 1 TensarUX-1500
_____ Predicted
7
Axial strain: %
5 ö 5 42·5°/Tensar UX-1500
4 ö 5 54°/Conwed9027
ö 5 54°/Tensar UX-1500
3 investigation, the following conclusions can be drawn:
2
1 the sand columns represents the worst condition, where
0 larger settlement and significant reduction in the carry-
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Lateral confining pressure: kPa
Fig. 15. Comparison between results of present theory and laboratory test
results (Al-Joulani, 1995)
However, it is definitely confirmed that, to predict the
settlement of the top of a column under axial load in a
collapsible soil subjected to inundation, the local yield or
slip between the column and soil must be taken into
account. It is recommended to use the authors’ method for
the computation of
3 during the estimation of total settle-
ment of the top of a column in a collapsible soil, as given by
equation (27).
Design procedure
In this section a step-by-step procedure is provided for the
design of stone columns encapsulated in geofabrics and
installed in collapsible soil, as follows:
(a) Determine the soil’s susceptibility to collapse following
the procedure proposed by Jennings and Knight (1975)
and Lutenegger and Saber (1988). Calculate the collapse
potential by equation (3) given in this paper.
(b) Determine the following soil characteristics: unit weight,
ª; angle of shearing resistance, 9; cohesion, c9; and
coefficient of earth pressure at rest, k0 . These parameters
are needed to estimate the settlement and the carrying
capacity of the stone columns using equations (11) and
(30) respectively. Note that the coefficient of earth
pressure k0 can be determined for the case of normally
consolidated soil (k0 ¼ 1  sin 9), because once the soil
has collapsed it will behave as though normally con-
solidated (Maswoswe, 1985).
(c) Determine the axial load applied on the stone column,
Pa , and the surcharge q acting on the surrounding soil.
The acting domain of the column is approximated by a
circle of effective diameter de . For a triangular arrange-
ment of the stone columns de is equal to 1.05S, and it is
1.13S for a square arrangement (Balaam and Poulos,
1983), where S is the spacing distance.
(d) Install the stone columns 0.75–1.5 m in diameter to a
depth equal to the thickness of the collapsible soil layer.
The column should be encapsulated with geofabric. The
strength of the geofabric material should be determined
based on the loads expected and the settlement that can
be tolerated by the structure, using equation (30). The
slip between the column and the soil should be consid-
ered.
(e) Verify the stability of the encapsulated column with
146
regard to the applied load. Calculate the carrying
capacity of the column using equation (11).
Conclusion
Experimental investigation on the carrying capacity and
settlement of stone columns encapsulated in geogrid textile
material was performed. Based on the results of this
(a) The case of full inundation and partial penetration of
ing capacity of the columns were observed.
(b) Foundations supporting light loads, to be built on
collapsible soil, should be founded on a system of stone
columns encapsulated in geofabric. This type of founda-
tion will transfer the load safely to the lower layer and
accordingly will experience less settlement in the case of
inundation.
(c) Sand columns installed in loose fill, which exhibits
collapse behaviour caused by inundation, should be
encapsulated in geofabrics. The use of sand columns
without confinement may lead to a premature failure of
the sand columns and also of the supported structure.
(d) The ultimate carrying capacity of a stone column in-
creases with an increase of the stiffness of the geofabric
material used to encapsulate the sand column and/or
an increase of its length.
(e) The settlement of the stone column’s head due to the
external load and inundation decreases with an increase
of the column stiffness and/or an increase of its length.
( f ) Partial penetration of a stone column in a collapsible
soil layer will lead to excessive settlement, which is
produced by the soil below the tip of the column.
(g) A stone column under a working load of 20% Pu ,
confined in T2000 geofabric, fully penetrated to the
depth at which the collapse phenomenon is absent or is
of negligible proportions, will experience about one-
third of the settlement of the soil alone.
(h) The reinforcement of sand columns with Terram materi-
al is promising for improving stone columns with the
stiffness needed to reduce settlement and increase
carrying capacity, especially with a higher strength (e.g.
T3000).
(i) The theoretical approach for settlement computation
predicts the trends of the variation of the experimental
results, but it underestimates the experimental investi-
gation values. The difference between the predicted and
the measured settlement reductions increases with an
increase in the working load and in the column’s
length.
( j) To predict the settlement of the top of a column under
an axial load in a collapsible soil subjected to inunda-
tion, the local yield or the slip between the column and
the soil must be taken into account. Furthermore, for
estimating the total settlement it is recommended to use
the proposed method for the computation of the lateral
deformation
3 .
(k) The theory presented herein has utilised the analytical
solutions developed by Poulos and Davis (1975) and
Hughes et al. (1975), which were validated with field
test results. This suggests that the present theory will
compare well with full-scale test results on encapsulated
columns.

References
Al-Joulani N. (1995) Deformation and Strength Behaviour of Sleeve-
Reinforced Stone Columns. PhD thesis, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Canada.
Balaam N. P. and Poulos H. G. (1983) The behaviour of founda-
tions supported by clay stabilized by stone columns. Proceeding
of the 8th European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Helsinki, 199–204.
Bara, J. P. (1976) Collapsible soil. ASCE Annual Convention and
Exposition, Philadelphia, PA.
Bjerrum L., Johannesson I. and Eide O. (1969) Reduction of skin
friction on steel piles to rock. Proceedings of the 7th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico
City, 2, 27–34.
Briaud J. L. (1991) The pressuremeter: some special applications.
Proceedings of the Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Boulder, CO,
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No. 27, pp. 26–37.
Carr R. W. (1970) An Experimental Investigation of Plate Anchors in
Sand. PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK.
Chin F. K. (1972) The inverse slope as a prediction of ultimate
bearing capacity of piles. Proceeding of the 3rd Southeast Asian
Conference on Soil Engineering, Hong Kong, 83–91.
Fargher P. J., Woodburn J. A. and Selby J. (1979) Footings and
Foundations for Small Buildings in Arid Climates. Institution of
Engineers, Australia (South Australian Division), Adelaide
Gorle D. and Thijs M. (1989) Geosynthetic-reinforced granular
materials. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, 1, 715–718.
Gray D. H., Athanasopoulos G. and Ohashi H. (1982) Internal/
external fabric reinforcement of sand. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on Geotextiles, Las Vegas, 3, 611–616
Grigoryan A. A. (1967) Prediction of deformation of loess soils
under building and structure foundations. Proceedings of the 3rd
Asian Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Engineering, Haifa, 1, 9–12.
Hamitouche A. and Ayadat T. (1996) Renforcement d’un sol
pulverulent par des fibres (Application aux colonnes ballastees).
Seminaire National de Géotechnique, Tebessa,, pp. 54–72.
Hassani A. W. and Goel M. C. (1982) An evaluation of problems in
collapsible soils. Indian Journal of Power & River Valley Develop-
ment, 7, 174–183.
Hughes J. M. O. and Withers N. J. (1974) Reinforcing of soft
cohesive soils with stone columns. Ground Engineering, 1, No. 3,
42–49.
Hughes J. M. O., Withers N. J. and Greenwood D. A. (1975) A
field trial of the reinforcing effect of a stone column in soil.
Géotechnique, 25, No. 1, 31–44.
ICI (1977) Designing with Terram: A Summary of Techniques and
Physical Data Used in the Design of ‘Terram’/Soil Structures.
ICI Fibres, Harrogate.
Encapsulated stone columns for collapsible soil
Jennings J. E. and Knight K. (1975) A guide to construction on or
with materials exhibiting additional settlement due to ‘collapse’
of grain structure. Proceedings of the 6th Regional Conference for
Africa on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Durban,
99–105.
Lawton E. C., Fragaszy R. J. and Hardcastle J. H. (1991) Stress
ratio effects on collapse of compacted clayey sand. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, 117, No. 5, 714–730.
Lutenegger A. J. and Saber R. T. (1988) Determination of collapse
potential of soils. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 11, No. 3, 173–178.
Maswoswe J. (1985) Stress Paths for Compacted Soil During Collapse
Due to Wetting. PhD thesis, Imperial College of Science and
Technology, London.
Poulos H. G. and Davis E. R. (1975) Prediction of down-drag forces
in end-bearing piles. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, 101, No. GT2, 189–204.
Poulos H. G. and Davis E. R. (1980) Pile Foundation Analysis and
Design. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Poulos H. G. and Mattes N. S. (1969) The analysis of down-drag in
end-bearing piles due to negative friction. Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engi-
neering, Mexico City, 2, 205–209.
Priebe H. (1976) Abschatzunz des setzungsverhattens eines durch
stopverdichtung verbesserten baugrundes. Die Bautechnik, 53,
160–162.
Priebe H. (1995) The design of vibro replacement. Ground Engineer-
ing, 28, No. 10, 31–37.
Ronan S. R. (1980) Heavy structures founded in aeolian soils.
Proceedings of the 3rd ANZ Conference on Geomechanics, Well-
ington, 163–167.
Selig E. T. and Grangaard O. H. Jr (1970) A new technique for soil
strain measurement. Materials Research and Standards, 10, No. 10,
19–23.
Simpson B., Blower T., Craig R. N. and Wilkinson W. B. (1989)
The Engineering Implication of Rising Groundwater Levels in the
Deep Aquifer Beneath London. CIRIA, London, Special Publication
69, pp. 59–69.
Stroud M. A. and Mitchell J. M. (1990) Collapse settlement of old
chalk fill at Brighton. Proceedings of the International Chalk
Symposium, Brighton, pp. 343–350.
Williams J. D. G. (1969) Small Scale Tests on Granular Piles in Soft
Clay. BSc thesis, University of Wales.
Zur A. and Wiseman G. (1973) A study of collapse phenomena of
an undisturbed loess. Proceedings of the 8th International Con-
ference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Moscow, 2
section 4, 265–269.
Discussion contributions on this paper should reach the
editor by 1 February 2006
147