Experimental Analysis of Embankment on Ordinary and

Encased Stone Columns

Mohammed Y. Fattah, A.M.ASCE1; Bushra S. Zabar2; and Hanan A. Hassan3

Abstract: This work investigated the behavior of embankment models resting on soft soil reinforced with ordinary and encased stone col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

umns (ESCs). Model tests were performed with different spacing distances between stone columns and two length-to-diameter ratios ðL=dÞ of
the stone columns, in addition to different embankment heights. A total of 39 model tests were performed on soil with an undrained shear
strength of 10 kPa. The system consisted of a stone column–supported embankment at different spacing-to-diameter ratios (s/d) of stone
columns. Earth pressure cells were used to measure directly the vertical stress on the column for all models, and another cell was placed at the
base of the embankment between two columns to measure directly the vertical stress in reinforced soft soil. For embankment models con-
structed on soft clay reinforced with ESCs, it was found that whether a column was floating or end bearing (resting on a rigid stratum), encase-
ment of the column by a geogrid was most effective in improving the bearing ratio of reinforced soil by approximately 1.29, 1.39, and 1.63
times and 1.4, 1.57, and 1.83 times that of untreated soil, reducing the settlement by approximately 0.71, 0.67, and 0.62 times and 0.63, 0.6,
and 0.45 times that of untreated soil for 200-, 250-, and 300-mm embankment heights with L=d = 5 and 8, respectively, and spacing s ¼ 2:5d.
The bearing improvement ratio (bearing capacity of treated-to-untreated soil) increased with decreasing spacing of stone columns for a given
embankment. A higher improvement ratio was achieved for the models reinforced with stone columns at s ¼ 2:5d at any embankment height.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000579. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Stone columns; Soft clay; Embankment; Laboratory models; Geogrid.

Introduction Bauer and Al-Joulani (1996) conducted triaxial compression tests

The increasing cost of conventional foundations and numerous
environmental constraints encourages the in situ improvement of
weak soil deposits. Among the various techniques for improving in
situ ground conditions, reinforcing the ground with stone columns
or granular piles is one of the most versatile and cost-effective
techniques.
An alternative system, which can both provide the required lat-
eral support to stone columns to inhibit bulging and increase bear-
ing capacity, is the geosynthetic encased column. This system
includes a high-modulus, creep-resistant geosynthetic, which expe-
riences ring tension forces that confine the compacted sand or
gravel column, providing constructability and bearing capacity
even in extremely soft soil. This technique has been used in numer-
ous projects throughout Europe (Raithel et al. 2005) and, more
recently, South America (De Mello et al. 2008). The clay particles
get clogged around the stone columns and reduce radial drainage.
To overcome this limitation and to increase the efficiency of the
stone columns with respect to strength and compressibility, stone
columns are encased using a geogrid to improve the lateral support
(Kempfert and Gebreselassie 2006).
1
Professor, Building and Construction Engineering Dept., Univ. of
Technology, 10066 Baghdad, Iraq (corresponding author). E-mail: myf
_1968@yahoo.com
2
Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Baghdad,
10071 Baghdad, Iraq. E-mail: albusoda@yahoo.com
3
Lecturer, Highway and Transportation Engineering Dept., Univ. of Al-
Mustansiriya, 10052 Baghdad, Iraq. E-mail: ghassan_hanan@yahoo.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 8, 2014; approved
on July 2, 2015; published online on January 11, 2016. Discussion period
open until June 11, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for indi-
vidual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
on two types of granular material, with and without geogrid sleeves,
and reported that when granular material was packed within a cylin-
drical sleeve, the stiffness of the system increased considerably.
They reported that encapsulation induced apparent cohesion to stone
column material and increased the strength of clay.
Sharma et al. (2004) performed a series of laboratory tests to
investigate the effect of the geogrid on the load-bearing capacity
and bulging reduction in granular columns. A total of 14 plate-load
tests were conducted for untreated clay bed, unreinforced granular
columns and the geogrid-reinforced column with different numbers
of geogrid layers and spacing. It was found that the geogrid effec-
tively improved the load-carrying capacity of the granular column
and also reduced its bulging diameter and bulging length. The
improvement factors increased with an increased number of geo-
grids and a decrease in geogrid spacing.
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004) investigated load versus set-
tlement response of stone and reinforced stone columns [geogrid-
encased stone column (ESC)]. Load tests were performed on soft
clay beds stabilized with a single stone column and reinforced stone
columns with various slenderness ratios and using different types of
encasing material. Different length/diameter column ratios (L/d) and
area ratios (area of stone column to surrounding area) of 0.174 were
adopted for end-bearing and floating columns. Encasing stone col-
umns with geogrids resulted in an increase in load-carrying capacity
irrespective of whether the columns were end bearing or floating.
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2006, 2007) performed a series
of experimental studies and reported that the bearing capacity of
a footing on an ESC was 1.5–2 times that of an ordinary stone
column (OSC) for an ESC L/d of 9 and an area ratio of 17%.
Comparison of the end-bearing and floating columns revealed
that the footing on an end-bearing column had a load-carrying
capacity twice that of a floating column. Moreover, analysis
showed that the stress concentration in an ESC was higher than

© ASCE 04015102-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 that of a conventional stone column, which was attributed to the
mobilization of hoop stresses in the geogrid.
Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010) performed a series of labora-
tory tests on geosynthetic ESCs to investigate their behavior. The
tests were performed on a single stone column and a group of stone
columns with and without geosynthetic encasement in a large-scale,
model test tank. It was found that the geosynthetic encasement
increased the stiffness of the stone column. The confining pressure
of the stone column increased with the modulus of geosynthetic
encasement.
Al-Waily (2008) and Fattah et al. (2011) conducted testing pro-
grams to study the influence of the number of stone columns (single,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
two, three, and four), L=d ratio and undrained shear strength of bed
soil on the stress concentration ratio n (which is generally defined as
the ratio of stress in the column to stress in the surrounding soil),
and the bearing improvement ratio ðqtreated =quntreated Þ of stone col-
umns. The experimental tests showed that the stone columns with
L=d ¼ 8 provided stress concentration ratios n of 1.4, 2.4, 2.7, and
3.1 for soil with shear strength cu ¼ 6 kPa and reinforced with sin-
gle, two, three, and four columns, respectively. The stress concen-
tration ratios n decreased to 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8 with L=d ¼ 6. The
values of n increased when the shear strength of the treated soil was
increased to 9 and 12 kPa. The bearing improvement ratios
decreased when the shear strength of the treated soil increased.
A two-dimensional (2D) finite-difference method was adopted
by Abusharar and Han (2011) to estimate the factor of safety (FS)
against deep-seated failure of embankments over stone column–
improved soft clay based on individual column and equivalent area
models. In the equivalent area model, the equivalent parameters
(unit weight, cohesion, and friction angle) for the improved area
were estimated based on the area average of the parameters from
stone columns and soft clay. The factors influencing the FS against
deep-seated failure of embankments over stone column–improved
soft clay were investigated, including the spacing, size, and friction
angle of stone columns; cohesion of soft clay; friction angle and
height of embankment fill; and existence of ground water. Based on
the numerical results, a reduction factor was proposed to account
for the difference in the FS when the individual column model was
converted to the equivalent area model. The effects of the influence
factors on the reduction factor were also investigated. The compara-
tive study showed that the FS values obtained by the equivalent area
model were higher than those obtained by the individual column
model. The results of these analyses were summarized in a series of
design charts that can be used in engineering practice. A reduction
factor for a FS of 0.90 is appropriate to convert the calculated FS by
the equivalent area model to that by the individual column model
based on the study. Furthermore, the existence of the water table
results in lower FS values than the cases without considering a
water table, because the groundwater reduces the shear strength of
the improved foundation.
The reduction factor for a FS of 0.9 was suggested based on sta-
tistical analysis.
An axial compression was generated in a stone column under
vertical loads on its top and was often accompanied by a radial
expansion against the surrounding soil near the top portion of the
column. Considering this deformation characteristic of the stone
column, an analytical solution for the settlement of the composite
foundations reinforced with stone columns was presented by Zhang
et al. (2013). The load sharing between the column and the soil and
the distribution of column–soil interfacial shear stresses were also
incorporated into the solution. From the present solution, the verti-
cal settlement and lateral bulging of the column under any applied
loads can be evaluated at any depth. The validity of the solution was
© ASCE 04015102-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102
verified by comparison with the measurement data and other
existing analytical solutions. The influences of stress concentra-
tion ratio, internal friction angle and cohesion of the surrounding
soil, and the elastic modulus of the column on the deformations
of the stone column were discussed. The load acting on the top
of the column greatly influenced its deformations; the accurate
determination of the load distribution between columns and the
surrounding soil was vital for analyses of the settlement of com-
posite foundations reinforced with stone columns during the
design. The increase in the internal friction angle of the soil, the
cohesion of the soil, and the modulus of the column reduced col-
umn settlements and bulging.
Two column-wall approaches based on matching either column
geometry or column properties were compared by Zhang et al.
(2014) and verified by three-dimensional numerical results in the
stability evaluation of the stone column–supported embankment
over soft soils. The study also investigated the 2D numerical models
using the column-wall method and the equivalent area method con-
sidering the factors of stress concentration, area replacement ratio,
and soil conditions under short- and long-term conditions. The nu-
merical results showed that the equivalent area method resulted in a
continuous critical slip surface in the stone column–supported
embankment over soft soil; however, no continuous slip surface
developed using the column-wall method. Under the short-term
condition, the computed FS by the equivalent area model with or
without considering the stress concentration effect was greater than
that computed by the column-wall model. However, their difference
became smaller under the long-term condition.
Based on the unit-cell concept, analytical solutions were pre-
sented by Zhang and Zhao (2014) to predict deformation behaviors
of geotextile-ESCs at any depth below the top plane of the columns.
Under vertical loads at the tops of the stone columns, an axial com-
pression deformation occurred that was often accompanied by a lat-
eral expansion near the top. This deformation characteristic of stone
columns was incorporated directly into the proposed analytical
method. The shear stress between the ESC and the surrounding soil
in the vertical direction also was taken into account. In this method,
the confining pressure provided by the soil was analyzed based on
an analogy with passive earth pressure. The method was verified by
comparison with two other analytical solutions. Parametric studies
were conducted to investigate the effects of geotextile encasement,
vertical applied stress, and column spacing and diameter on the de-
formation behaviors of columns. The results indicated that geotex-
tile encasement with a higher stiffness has a beneficial effect on
reducing column bulging and settlement. Moreover, selection of
geotextile stiffness for ESCs should be done in relation to column
diameter and spacing because increased column diameter and
decreased spacing have a great effect on settlement reduction.
Etezad et al. (2015) stated that columns are made of compacted
aggregate and are installed in weak soil as reinforcements to
increase the shear resistance of the soil mass and, accordingly, its
bearing capacity. Whereas a single stone column mostly fails from
bulging, a group of stone columns together with the surrounding
soil may fail from a general, local, or punching shear mechanism,
depending on the soil/columns/geometry of the system. The mode
of failure of the reinforced ground could be identified based on the
ground geometry and strength parameters of both the stone column
and soft soil. Etezad et al. (2015) presented an analytical model to
predict the bearing capacity of soft soil reinforced with stone col-
umns under rigid raft foundation subject to a general shear-failure
mechanism. The model uses the limit-equilibrium method and
the concept of composite properties of reinforced soil. The pro-
posed theory was validated for bearing capacity of footings on
Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Natural Soil Used Table 4. Physical and Mechanical Properties of the Geogrid Used

Property Value Mechanical property Value

Liquid limit (%) 47 Peak tensile resistance (kN/m) 0.62
Plastic limit (%) 23 Elastic modulus (MPa) 40
Plasticity index (%) 24 Tensile strength (MPa) 0.44
Specific gravity ðGs Þ 2.7 Elongation at maximum load (%) 1.4
Passing sieve No. 200 (%) 94 Yield strength at 10% strain (kN/m) 0.47
Sand content (0.075–4.75 mm) (%) 6
Silt content (0.005–0.075 mm) (%) 48
Clay content (<0.005 mm) (%) 46
Maximum dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ 18.24
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Optimum moisture content (%) 13

Soil symbol according to USCS CL
Note: USCB = Unified Soil Classification System.

Table 2. Physical Properties of the Crushed Stone

Property Value
Maximum dry unit weight ðkN=m Þ 3
15.7
Minimum dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ 13
Dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ at
Dr ¼ 55% 14.4
D10 ðmmÞ 3.8
D30 ðmmÞ 6
Fig. 1. Experimental test container and loading system
D60 ðmmÞ 7.5
Coefficient of uniformity ðCu Þ 1.97
Coefficient of curvature ðCc Þ 1.26
factors, such as spacing between columns, diameter of columns, L/d
Angle of internal friction ð f ; degreesÞ 41.5
of columns, stiffness of columns, and embankment friction angle
Specific gravity ðGs Þ 2.65
and height (Fattah et al. 2014).
Note: Dr = relative density; D10, D30, and D60 = diameters corresponding In this study, the behavior of the stone column–supported
to 10%, 30%, and 60% finer particle-size distribution curves, respectively. embankment system with and without reinforcement was investi-
gated. The degree of foundation system improvement depended on
Table 3. Physical and Chemical Properties of the Subbase Material Used several variables: the depth of encasement, the diameter of the stone
column, the volume of soft soil around the stone column, the load-
Property Value ing level, and the loading conditions. Earth pressure cells were used
California Bearing Ratio (%) 51 to measure directly the vertical stress on the column for all models,
Maximum dry unit weight ðkN=m3 Þ 21.84 whereas another cell was placed at the base of the embankment
Optimum moisture content (%) 6.3 between two columns to measure directly the vertical stress in rein-
D10 ðmmÞ 0.15 forced soft soil. This process was done for the first time.
D30 ðmmÞ 1.5
D60 ðmmÞ 12
Coefficient of uniformity ðCu Þ 80 Experimental Work
Coefficient of curvature ðCc Þ 1.25
Angle of internal friction ( f , degrees) 40 The experimental work consisted of two parts. Part 1 aimed to deter-
mine the physical and mechanical properties of the clay and stone
Note: D10D30D60.
column materials. Part 2 included experiments performed on model
embankments resting on soft clay strengthened by geogrid-ESCs.
homogeneous soil and via the laboratory and numerical results A brown clayey silt soil was brought from a depth of 5 m from a
available in the literature. Design procedure and charts are pre- site within the city of Al-Basrah located in southern Iraq. The soil
sented for practicing purposes. was subjected to routine laboratory tests to determine its properties,
This work investigated the behavior of embankments constructed including grain size distribution (sieve analysis and hydrometer
on soft clay improved by OSCs and geogrid-ESCs. Direct measure- tests) according to ASTM D422 (ASTM 2003c) specifications,
ments of stresses carried by columns were done by pressure cells. Atterberg limits (liquid and plastic limits) according to ASTM
Past researchers indicated that stone columns are most often D4318 (ASTM 2003b), and specific gravity according to ASTM
used in soft clay soil improvement because stone columns (1) D854 (ASTM 2003d) specifications. The results showed that the soil
reduce ground settlement and accelerate consolidation by function- consisted of 6% sand, 46% clay, and 48% silt. The soil was classified
ing as sand drains and (2) increase the bearing capacity of the site. according to the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) as CL.
The bearing capacity of the improved site is governed by the degree Table 1 shows the physical and chemical properties of the soil used.
of lateral bulging of the stone column that occurs during loading. In The crushed stone was chosen in accordance with the guidelines
addition, past researchers discussed that the stress concentration suggested by Al-Shaikhly (2000), in which the particle size is
and load transferring within stone columns depend on several approximately 1/7 to 1/9 of the diameter of stone columns. The

© ASCE 04015102-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 Earth pressure cells
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Earth pressure cell Model 4800
Fig. 3. Variation of the undrained shear strength with liquidity index
particle sizes ranged between 2 and 14 mm, and the stone was found
to have an angle of internal friction f value of 41:5 from a direct
shear test at a dry unit weight of 14:4 kN=m3 corresponding to a rel-
ative density of 55% according to ASTM D3080 (ASTM 2003a)
specifications. A relative density of 55% represents medium den-
sity, which requires little effort to reach. This density is actually
maintained in the field during construction of stone columns, in
which the stone material is poured in the boring with gentle tamp-
ing. The stone was uniform because its uniformity coefficient was
less than 4, which is considered as poorly graded. The physical
properties of the crushed stone are presented in Table 2.
A granular subbase is commonly used as a fill material for
embankment construction. The physical and chemical properties of
the subbase used are shown in Table 3. The subbase is classified as
Class according to the Iraqi State Organization for Roads and
Bridges (SORB 2003) and as GW according to USCS.
Geogrid Reinforcement
The geogrid material used for this study was Pars Mesh Polymer
(PMP) type SQ12 (Pars Mesh Polymer, Tehhran, Iraq). Tension
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102
Fig. 4. Strain gage fixed on geogrid
Fig. 5. Process of constructing ESCs
tests were performed on the geogrid as per ASTM D6637 (ASTM
2003e) to determine its strength and tensile modulus. From the
stress-strain data, the tensile modulus M (the secant slope of stress-
the strain curve) was 79 kN/m, and its yield strength was 0.47 kN/m
at a 10% strain level. Table 4 summarizes the mechanical properties
of the geogrid used.
Because the embankment model adopted in this study represents
a scale-down of 1:20 of the actual size, the geogrid material used
has a scaled strength and stiffness compared with the geogrid used
in full-scale models.
Model Design and Manufacturing
To study the behavior of soft clay reinforced by stone columns under-
neath an embankment, an experimental setup with an approximate
scale of 1/20 to 1/30 of the prototype was designed and manufactured
to achieve this goal. The setup consisted of a steel container, loading
frame, hydraulic system, load cell with load indicator, earth pressure
cells, piezometers, footing model, dial gages, and data acquisition.
A movable steel container was constructed to host the bed of soil
and all of its accessories. The internal dimensions were 1,500-mm
length, 800-mm width, and 1,000-mm depth. The front side was
made from unbreakable glass. The container was sufficiently rigid
and exhibited no lateral deformation during the preparation of soil
and during the test. Fig. 1 shows the details of the container.
The axial (vertical) pressure was applied through a hydraulic sys-
tem, which consisted of three hydraulic jacks, one in the middle and
the others on the sides, used to apply the load on the embankment
model. The location of the hydraulic jack is shown in Fig. 1. The
04015102-4 Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Stone columns after failure: (a) stone columns (s ¼ 3d, L=d ¼ 8); (b) geogrid ESCs (s ¼ 4d, L=d ¼ 5)

Dial gauge
Footing 250 x 600 mm

Embankment

Stone columns

Load
cells
Piezometer

Strain
gages
gauges

Soft soil bed

All dimensions in mm, s = spacing between stone columns (2.5d, 3d, 4d)
d = diameter of stone columns (70 mm).
h = embankment height (200, 250, 300 mm)

Fig. 7. Embankment model with instrumentation

maximum stress that could be applied on a model footing (250 
500 mm) reached approximately 400 kPa. The pressure was calcu-
lated from the load measured by a load cell 50 kN in capacity con-
nected to the digital load indicator.
Fig. 2 shows the earth pressure cell Model 4800 (Geokon, Inc.,
Lebanon, NH) which was used in this study. Earth pressure cells
were constructed from two thin stainless-steel plates welded to-
gether around their periphery and separated by a narrow gap filled
with hydraulic fluid. A length of stainless steel tubing connected the
fluid-filled cavity to a pressure transducer that converted the fluid
pressure into an electrical signal transmitted by cable to the readout,
which was also connected to a computer. Earth pressure cells could
be positioned in the fill at different orientations so that soil pressure
could be measured in two or three directions. The Model GK404
readout (Geokon, Inc.) provided six excitation positions (A–F) with
a display resolution of 0.1 digit.
Preparation of Model Tests
Preparation of Soil
Prior to the preparation of the soil bed in the container, the variation
of shear strength of the clayey soil versus time after mixing at differ-
ent liquidity indices should be obtained. Therefore, six samples
with different liquidity indices were prepared individually; each
sample was placed in five layers inside a California Bearing Ratio
(CBR) mold. Each day, the undrained shear strength was measured

© ASCE 04015102-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 Table 5. Parameters Used during Experiments

Parameter Value(s)
Embankment height (H) 200, 250, and 300 mm
Type of stone columns Ordinary, geogrid encased
L=d 5 (floating stone columns)
8 (end-bearing stone columns)
Spacing between columns (s) 2.5d (175 mm)
3d (210 mm)
4d (280 mm)
No. of stone columns 9 ðs ¼ 2:5dÞ
9 ðs ¼ 3dÞ
6 ðs ¼ 4dÞ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Note: Column diameter ðdÞ ¼ 70 mm.

by a portable vane shear device. These tests provided the time

Fig. 8. Bearing ratio versus settlement ratio for the untreated embank-
required for the remolded soil to regain strength after a rest period
ment model
following the mixing process. The shear strength of soil and the
influence of time both decreased with the value of the liquidity
index. Fig. 3 shows the variation of shear strength of soil with a li-
quidity index after a 96-h curing (Fattah et al. 2014).
The soil was prepared in the container at an undrained shear
strength cu of 10 kPa and liquidity index of 0.48, corresponding to a
water content of 34.5%. After thorough mixing, the wet soil was
kept inside tightened polythene bags for 1 day for a uniform mois-
ture content. After that, the soil was placed in the steel container in
11 layers, and each layer was leveled gently using a 50  100-mm
wooden tamper. This process continued throughout the 11 layers
until a soil thickness of 560 mm was reached in the steel container.
After completing the final layer, the top surface was scraped and
leveled to get as flat a surface as possible, and then the soil was cov-
ered with a polythene sheet to prevent any loss of moisture. A
wooden board with a similar area to the soil surface area ð1; 500 
800 mmÞ was placed on the soil bed. The prepared soil was left for
4 days to increase in strength, reaching 10 kPa, as was suggested by
Shlash et al. (2009), who found that the soil gains strength during
this period. Fig. 9. Bearing ratio versus settlement ratio for a 200-mm-high
embankment model resting on soft soil reinforced with OSCs

Installation of Stone Columns

The correct position of the stone columns was marked using a spe-
cial frame manufactured according to the proposed configuration
patterns of stone columns. A hollow steel pipe with an external di-
ameter of 70 mm and coated with petroleum jelly was pushed down
the bed to the specific depth (560 mm in a fully penetrated stone col-
umn with L=d ¼ 8 and 350 mm for a partially penetrated stone col-
umn with L=d ¼ 5) with the aid of the loading system. To remove
the soil inside the casing, a hand auger, manufactured for this pur-
pose, was used. After that, the casing was removed. The stones
were carefully charged into the hole in 10 layers and compacted at a
relative density of 55% using a 50-mm diameter rod to achieve a
dry unit weight of 14:4 kN=m3 by a tamping rod.
Installation of ESCs
To install the ESCs, the same procedure used for the construction of
OSCs was followed. First, formed samples of geogrid tubes were
made by wrapping up a roll of geogrid, which was sewed with nylon
and strings that had a diameter of 68 mm and were the length of the
ESC for L=d ¼ 8 and 5. Then, strain gages were fixed on the tube of
geogrid in predetermined positions using glue and covered by flexi-
ble putty, as shown in Fig. 4. After removal of the soil inside the
pipe, a geogrid tube was inserted into the stone column hole using
the steel pipe, as shown in Fig. 5.
Installation of Embankment Fill
The construction of the embankment fill was started after the installa-
tion of stone columns. A predetermined weight of the subbase was
mixed with water using a mixer at the optimum moisture content of
6.3%; this weight of subbase is sufficient to create a uniform 50-mm-
thick layer. Each layer was compacted gently by a 75  75-mm
wooden tamper to attain a placement maximum dry unit weight of
21:84 kN=m3 until the desired embankment height was obtained.
After the top layer was leveled using a piece of plywood, the crest
width of the embankment was 300 mm.
Model Testing Procedure
The model tests were performed on natural soil and soil improved
with OSCs or ESCs. A 250  600-mm footing was placed on the
surface of the embankment model so that the center of the footing
coincided with the center of the load cell and hydraulic jack. Two
dial gages were fixed to measure the settlements of the footing.
Loads were then applied through three hydraulic jacks arranged

© ASCE 04015102-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 Table 6. Bearing Ratio at Failure for Embankment Model Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with OSCs
Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm
L=d 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 4.1 4.2
s ¼ 3d 3.9 4.0
s ¼ 4d 3.65 3.8
Untreated soil 3.5 3.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 10. Bearing improvement ratio versus settlement ratio for a 200-
mm-high embankment resting on soft soil reinforced with OSCs
gradually in a series, measured by the load cell, and recorded by
load readout. During each load increment, the readings of the
two dial gages were recorded. Each load increment was left for
5 min, during which the rate of settlement became constant.
Fig. 6 presents the tested models after completion of the tests.
The vertical stress on the column was measured at the top of the
middle stone column under the center line of the embankment and
on the edge of the stone column using earth pressure cells for all
models.
Fig. 7 presents a schematic illustration of the model embank-
ment resting on soft clay reinforced by stone columns. The instru-
ments used for the measurements are shown. Table 5 summarizes
the parameters studied throughout the experiments.
Presentation of Test Results
The investigation focused on the influence of parameters, such as
spacing and length of stone columns and height of the embankment
on the overall behavior of soft soil reinforced with OSCs and geo-
grid-ESCs. The analysis of results from all of the model tests
regarding the applied stress and the corresponding settlement was
illustrated in terms of q=cu versus S/B. The term q=cu represents the
ratio of applied stress to the undrained shear strength of the soft
clay, denoted as bearing ratio, and S/B represents the corresponding
vertical settlement as a percentage of the model footing width,
denoted as settlement ratio. To obtain the degree of improvement
achieved by each improvement technique, the results were plotted
in the form of ðq=cu Þt =ðq=cu Þunt denoted as bearing improvement
ratio, where ðq=cu Þt is the improved (treated) bearing ratio; and
ðq=cu Þunt is the unimproved (untreated) bearing ratio. The spacing
ratio was defined as s=d.
© ASCE 04015102-7
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102
Bearing ratio, q=cu
H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
5 8 5 8
4.3 4.7 4.6 5.0
4.2 4.3 4.3 4.5
3.8 4.05 4.0 4.1
3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
The improvement in settlement achieved by the model tests was
presented in the form of St =Sunt , settlement of treated soil to settle-
ment of untreated soil at the same applied stress, denoted as settle-
ment reduction ratio, and plotted against the bearing ratio ðq=cu Þ.
The failure point was defined as when the settlement reached
10% of the width of the model footing (or 36% of the diameter of
the stone column), as suggested by Fattah et al. (2011). This crite-
rion was compatible with Terzahgi’s (1943) criterion for the defini-
tion of footing or pile failure as the load corresponding to a settle-
ment equal to 10% of the footing diameter or width.
Model Tests on Untreated Embankment
Three model tests were conducted on beds of untreated soil with
undrained shear strengths of 10 kPa at different embankment
heights (200, 250, and 300 mm). These tests were considered as
references for the degree of improvement gained after introducing
any other type of improvement.
Fig. 8 shows the bearing ratio plotted against the settlement ratio.
It illustrates that the mode of failure of the model test was close to
the local shear pattern because of the rapid rate of deformation. In
this test, the footing model was resting on a compacted layer (sub-
base) with a width almost equal to the footing width. The ultimate
bearing capacity obtained was 35, 33, and 30 kPa for the model tests
of embankment with heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respectively,
based on a failure criterion of 10% of the footing width. Fig. 8 dem-
onstrates that the soil bed underneath the 200-mm-high embank-
ment exhibited a higher bearing ratio. The bearing ratios at failure
ðq=cu Þ for the embankment for the soft soil model were 3.5, 3.3,
and 3.0, corresponding to a settlement ratio of 10% of the footing
width, for embankment heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respec-
tively. The results demonstrated a substantial decrease in bearing ra-
tio with increasing thickness of the embankment; this was due to
increased settlement induced by the load from the embankment and
applied stress.
Model Tests of Embankment Reinforced with OSCs
This series consisted of 18 model tests performed with 200-, 250-,
and 300-mm embankments overlying soft clay and immediately
underneath the model footing. The model tests were performed at
L=d ¼ 5 and 8 and spacing ratios 2.5d, 3d, and 4d. The variation of
the bearing ratio ðq=cu Þ versus the settlement ratio (S/B) is shown in
Fig. 9 for the 200-mm-high embankment model. Similar results
were obtained for 250- and 300-mm-high embankments. The bear-
ing ratios at failure are summarized in Table 6.
Bearing Improvement Ratio versus Settlement Ratio
To evaluate the level of improvement achieved by the OSCs for dif-
ferent spacings over untreated soil, the bearing improvement
ratio ðqt =qunt Þ versus the settlement ratio (S/B, %) is presented in
Fig. 10 for the 200-mm-high embankment model. Similar results
were obtained for embankments that were 250 and 300 mm high.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 7. Bearing Improvement Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with OSCs

Bearing improvement ratio (qt =qunt )

Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
L=d 5 8 5 8 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 1.2 1.21 1.38 1.43 1.63 1.7
s ¼ 3d 1.11 1.15 1.30 1.36 1.42 1.55
s ¼ 4d 1.06 1.09 1.20 1.23 1.35 1.43

Table 8. Settlement Improvement Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with OSCs
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Settlement improvement ratio, St =Sunt

Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
L=d 5 8 5 8 5 8
s ¼ 0:5d 0.88 0.78 0.72 0.67 0.61 0.56
s ¼ 3d 0.89 0.81 0.78 0.70 0.70 0.62
s ¼ 4d 0.96 0.91 0.88 0.72 0.74 0.70

These results agree with those of Hewlett and Randolph (1988),

Low et al. (1994), Chen et al. (2008b), Britton and Naughton
(2008), and Ellis and Aslam (2009).

Model Tests of Embankments Reinforced with ESCs

Fig. 11. Vertical stress on column at failure versus surface settlement
for a 200-mm-high embankment model constructed on soft soil rein-
forced with OSCs
Peak improvement ratios were observed at nearly S/B at approxi-
mately 2%–4% and then decreased when the settlement increased.
This behavior was attributed to the load-transfer mechanism; the
stress was transferred to the stone columns expressing these peak
values, and then it was gradually transferred to the surrounding
soil, which is implied by the decrease in improvement. The col-
umns’ bulging led to increased stress in the surrounding soil that, in
reaction, led to an increase in column confining by this soil. Also,
the stone columns with s=d ¼ 2:5 has a higher improvement ratio
for different embankment heights, which was attributed to the
increase in area replacement. Table 7 summarizes the bearing
improvement ratios at failure. The settlement reduction ratio at fail-
ure is summarized in Table 8.
Stress on Column versus Settlement
The stress-settlement behavior of the stone columns for all spacing
ratios was the same, as shown in Fig. 11 for the 200-mm-high
embankment model. Similar results were obtained for embank-
ments 250 and 300 mm high. The mode of failure tended to be a
general type. The bearing capacity of the stone columns at failure
corresponding to a settlement ratio of 10% increased with decreas-
ing spacing distance between the columns, as shown in Table 9.
This series consisted of 18 model tests performed with 200-, 250-,
and 300-mm embankments overlying soft clay and immediately
underneath the model footing. The nine model tests were performed
at L=d ¼ 5 and 8 and spacing ratios 2.5d, 3d, and 4d. The variation
of the bearing ratio (q=cu ) versus the settlement ratio (S=B; %) for
each ESC spacing under the embankment model is shown in Fig. 12
for the 200-mm-high embankment model. Similar results were
obtained for embankments 250 and 300 mm high. The results show
an increase in the bearing capacity with increasing applied pressure,
decreasing column spacing, and decreased L=d.
The results of untreated soil and soil reinforced with OSCs are
presented in Table 10 for comparison with ESCs. Based on the
results, the increase in the bearing capacity of soil reinforced with
ESCs was from the increase in the stone column’s confinement,
which inhibited column bulging. This was similar to the increase in
soil sample strength in the triaxial test when the confining pressure
was increased.
Bearing Improvement Ratio versus Settlement Ratio
The variation of the bearing improvement ratio (qt =qunt ) versus the
settlement ratio (S/B) for embankment models on soft clay treated
with ESCs at different spacing is shown in Fig. 13 for the 200-mm-
high embankment model. Similar results were obtained for em-
bankments 250 and 300 mm high. The figure shows the peak
improvement ratios observed at S/B = 2%–6% for spacing ratios
2.5d, 3d, and 4d, respectively, followed by a sudden drop, and then
the improvement ratio remained nearly constant with an increase in
the deformation ratio. Using ESCs at large spacing ratios ðs ¼
3d and 4dÞ improved very soft soil to a degree closer to small spac-
ing ratios ðs ¼ 2:5d and 3dÞ with OSCs, especially for high
embankments, which will provide economic improvement techni-
ques. Fig. 13 illustrates that the improvement ratios increased with
increasing L=d.
Settlement Reduction Ratio versus Bearing Ratio
The settlement reduction ratio (St =Sunt ) versus the bearing ratio
(q=cu ) is presented in Fig. 14 for the 200-mm-high embankment

© ASCE 04015102-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 Table 9. Vertical Stress on Stone Columns at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with OSCs
Stress on column (kPa)
Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm
L=d 5 8 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 16 18.8 23.6
s ¼ 3d 15 17 19.8
s ¼ 4d 11.6 13.3 14.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Bearing ratio versus settlement ratio for a 200-mm-high
embankment model resting on soft soil reinforced with ESCs
model. Similar results were obtained for embankments 250 and 300
mm high. For ESCs, there was a decrease in the settlement reduc-
tion ratio from 1 to 0.15 at q=cu of approximately 1.0-1.5 and a sig-
nificant increase was observed in the settlement reduction ratio with
an increasing bearing ratio after 1.5 until the end of the test. This
means that geogrid encasement was more effective in reducing the
settlement of treated soil. Also, as L=d increased, the settlement
reduction ratio decreased. The St =Sunt values of ESCs for two L=d
ratios were lower than the values of OSCs.
Stress on Column versus Settlement
The stress-settlement behavior of the stone columns for all spacing
ratios was found to be the same. Fig. 15 shows the stress-settlement
relation for the 200-mm-high embankment model. Similar results
were obtained for embankments 250 and 300 mm high. The
improvement of stress carried by stone columns was attributed to
the geogrid encasement, which increased the stiffness of the overall
stone columns. This led to an increase in the stress concentration
and the stress transfer to the ESCs due to the mobilization of hoop
stresses in the geogrid.
Discussion of Results
The results show an increase in the surface settlement with increas-
ing spacing of columns for applied pressure. The maximum bearing
capacity of soil was observed for soft soil improved with stone col-
umns at s=d ¼ 2:5, and the minimum bearing capacity for soft soil
improved with stone columns at s=d ¼ 4. This may be explained by
the reduction in the area ratio (which is defined as the area of the
clay foundation replaced by a stone column) from 12.53% to
4.89%. Similar conclusions were obtained by Han and Gabr (2002)
and Murugesan and Rajagopal (2006). In addition, a higher
© ASCE 04015102-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102
H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
5 8
31 25 36
23.6 22.8 31
19.8 17.5 21
embankment height resting on OSCs would result in a higher bear-
ing pressure (bearing capacity).
The results of Fig. 9 show the effect of OSCs on the bearing ratio
of soil. The spacing ratio s=d ¼ 2:5 demonstrated a higher bearing
ratio at failure compared with the spacing ratio s=d ¼ 4. The mode
of failure tended to be a general type. Such behavior may be
explained by the confinement effect provided by the surrounding
soil and the adjacent stone columns. As the spacing ratio decreased,
the confinement stress provided by the surrounding soil increased.
Because the stone columns were stiffer than the surrounding soil,
the stress concentration on the stone columns increased by decreas-
ing the spacing of the stone columns and embankment height due to
soil arching and increased confinement of the surrounding soil. The
results of Fig. 9 and Tables 6 and 10 are in agreement with the
results obtained by Juran and Guermazi (1988), Craig and Al-
Khafaji (1997), Al-Waily (2008), and Fattah et al. (2011).
The results of Fig. 14 imply a decrease in the settlement reduction
ratio as the bearing ratio increased to q=cu = 1.48–2.8. Then a gradual
increase in the settlement reduction ratio took place, and the decrease
in the settlement reduction ratio showed the level of improvement.
This behavior may be attributed to the fact that the decrease in the set-
tlement reduction ratio to q=cu = 1.48–2.8 was associated with an
increase in the bearing ratio and that, beyond these values, the excess
bulging led to a decrease in load-carrying capacity and a decrease in
settlement. Also, the lower improvement values in bearing capacity
(high degree of improvement in settlement) were observed when the
embankment model was reinforced with OSCs at s=d ¼ 2:5 com-
pared with the model reinforced with columns at s=d ¼ 4, which
revealed a high settlement reduction ratio for different heights of
embankment. This can be attributed to the differences in strength
between the stone column material and the surrounding soft soil;
when s=d ¼ 4, the spacing was large, and there was load transfer to
the surrounding soil. This revealed low levels of bearing improve-
ment compared with settlement improvement.
Initially, the stones were dense and well packed, and this gran-
ular packing was able to withstand loading. The confining effect
by the clay and the geogrid was limited or nil. The peak observed
at a 2%–4% settlement typically corresponded to a maximum re-
sistance of the column under low confinement. At this stage, the
amplitude of this confinement mainly depended on the spacing
distance, whereas the contribution from the geogrid was negligi-
ble (the geogrid was insufficiently loaded to mobilize hoop ten-
sion). With a small spacing distance, the stress developing
between two columns was higher for the same settlement (or lat-
eral expansion). To some extent, the strain in the clay could not
develop around the column because of the proximity of other col-
umns. This constrained strain resulted in a higher stress state in
the clay and thus in a higher confinement on the column.
As settlement increased, the stone packing was rearranged and
progressively destabilized (so-called yielding), resulting in a
decrease in bearing capacity.
Fig. 11 and Tables 9 and 13 show that the highest vertical
stress was obtained when the least spacing ðs=d ¼ 2:5Þ was used
Int. J. Geomech.
 Table 10. Bearing Ratio at Failure for Embankment Model Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs

Bearing ratio (q=cu )

Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
L=d 5 8 5 8 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 4.5 4.9 4.6 5.2 4.9 5.5
s ¼ 3d 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.8 4.68 5.0
s ¼ 4d 4.0 4.15 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.7
Untreated soil 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 15. Vertical stress on a column at failure versus surface settle-

Fig. 13. Bearing improvement ratio versus settlement ratio for a 200- ment for a 200-mm-high embankment model constructed on soft soil
mm-high embankment resting on soft soil reinforced with ESCs reinforced with ESCs

Otherwise, the yielding of the column reduced the transfer of

Fig. 14. Settlement improvement ratio versus bearing ratio for a 200-
mm-high embankment resting on soft soil reinforced with ESCs
under the 300-mm-high embankment. This phenomenon was
due to the stress concentration occurring between the adjacent
columns and the confinement effect provided by the surrounding
soil and the adjacent stone columns. Therefore, the stress con-
centration on the stone columns increased when the spacing of
columns decreased. The decrease in vertical stress on the stone
column as the spacing increased was due to the yielding of the
stone column. Once yielded, the stiffness of the column
decreased, and its radial deformation increased due to dilatancy.
vertical load from the soil.
Comparison of Figs. 9 and 12 shows that the encasement of the
stone column caused a noticeable reduction in the settlement of soft
soil, which was accompanied by a great increase in the bearing
capacity of the reinforced soil. Consequently, lateral strain in the
stone column induced hoop tension in the encasement, which
resulted in radial compression in the stone column.
A higher embankment height with an ESC with small spacing
ðs=d ¼ 2:5dÞ would result in a higher bearing pressure compared
with an OSC. Even for larger spacing there was an improvement in
bearing capacity when using an ESC compared with the small spac-
ing of an OSC. The results show good agreement with the labora-
tory test results of Sharma et al. (2004), Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi
(2004, 2006, 2007), and Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010). They
found that using geogrid material increased the bearing capacity of
stone columns.
Fig. 12 shows a slight increase in the bearing ratio at the early
stages of applying the load with an OSC, and then the bearing ratio
was increased with an increase in the settlement ratio. This behavior
may be attributed to the beginning of a loss of interlocking between
the stone particles and the geogrid or to the increase in lateral defor-
mation of the column with an increase in the load. This observation
is in close agreement with the results presented by Murugesan and
Rajagopal (2010) and Keyhosropur et al. (2011), who found that
encasing stone columns with geogrids resulted in an increase in
load-carrying capacity.
Table 11 presents bearing improvement ratios at failure for each
stone column spacing under the combined effect of geogrid and
stone columns. This table illustrates a sufficient increase in the bear-
ing capacity of stone columns, which is considered a successful
technique for improving very soft clays. The bearing improvement
ratios for ESCs presented in Table 11 were greater by approximately

© ASCE 04015102-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 Table 11. Bearing Improvement Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs

Bearing improvement ratio (qt =qunt )

Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
L=d 5 8 5 8 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 1.31 1.35 1.45 1.60 1.75 1.96
s ¼ 3d 1.20 1.23 1.38 1.50 1.60 1.72
s ¼ 4d 1.12 1.17 1.30 1.33 1.45 1.62

Table 12. Settlement Improvement Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs

Settlement improvement ratio (St =Sunt )

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm

L=d 5 8 5 8 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 0.71 0.63 0.67 0.55 0.62 0.45
s ¼ 3d 0.76 0.73 0.70 0.60 0.68 0.54
s ¼ 4d 0.9 0.79 0.79 0.64 0.70 0.60

Table 13. Vertical Stress on Stone Column at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs

Stress on column (kPa)

H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
5 8 5 8 5 8
18.6 21 25 33.4 31 46.2
16.8 19.6 23 29 27 34.3
13 15 16 22 20.6 25.9

7.3%–11.6%, 8%–12%, and 13%–16% than those for OSCs for
embankment heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respectively. When
the length ratio increased, the effect of the ESC became more visible,
and a clear increase in q=cu was noticed for different embankment
heights. The end-bearing ESC with L=d ¼ 8 exhibited a load-
carrying capacity 1.2 times that of the floating column with L=d ¼ 5.
Table 12 summarizes the settlement reduction ratio at failure.
The efficiency of ESCs compared with OSCs was more pro-
nounced in embankment models constructed over stone columns
at spacing ratios of 2.5 and 3. These results are in close agreement
with the results of Wu and Hong (2008) and Gniel and Bouazza
(2009), who indicated a significant reduction in column vertical
settlement when ESCs were used. The settlement reduction ratio
for ESCs was decreased by approximately 24%–14% more than
for OSCs at a given embankment height.
The vertical stress on the ESCs increased and the settlement
decreased with a decreasing spacing ratio of the stone columns, as
tabulated in Table 13. These results are in good agreement with
those presented by Keyhosropur et al. (2011), who found that the
geosynthetic encasement increased the stiffness of a stone column.
The vertical stress on ESCs was greater than that on OSCs by
approximately 9.7%–11.8%, 11.1%–12.4%, and 23.3%–28.3% for
embankment heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respectively. The
increase in the length of the column caused an increase in the stress
transferred to the column, but the increase was not linear.
Furthermore, the increase was higher for end-bearing ESCs (L=d =
8) compared with floating ESCs (L/d = 5).
Figs. 10 and 13 can be also discussed as follows. Two different
trends can be observed in terms of peak S/B values shown in Fig.
13. Three curves exhibited peaks greater than 6% in settlement.
Two curves exhibited a peak less than 3%. The last curve (corre-
sponding to s ¼ 2:5d and L=d ¼ 8) can be considered as a combi-
nation of the two previous trends: there was a local peak at 2% and
one at 6%. The first trend was observed when s was small: it can be
assumed that there was no real interaction between stone columns.
In contrast, a peak around 2% occurred when stone columns were at
smaller distances from each other. This was also observed in the ab-
sence of geogrid, which suggests that the 2% settlement peak was
due to the interaction between the columns. When the distance was
higher between the columns, this confining increase was less.
Comparison of Figs. 10 and 13 shows that the geogrid mainly
modified the response for large settlements.
Stress Concentration Ratio versus Bearing Ratio
The ratio of the vertical stress in the stone column to the vertical
stress in the surrounding soft soil is defined as the stress concen-
tration ratio. In this study, these stresses were measured directly,
and the change in pore-water pressure was considered; therefore,
the stress concentration ratio was measured in terms of effective
stresses (s 0 ¼ s  u, where s 0 is the effective stress; s is the
total stress; and u is the pore-water pressure) (Table 14). The
stress concentration ratio increased with an increasing load incre-
ment until it reached a maximum value, beyond which it
decreased with an increasing load until it reached minimum val-
ues, which tended to increase at the test end. This was observed
for 200-mm-high embankment models, which may be attributed
to the increasing stress on the column, whereas the stress in the
surrounding soil became constant as the load increased. This find-
ing is in agreement with the results obtained by Stewart and
Fahey (1994). In addition, as shown in Figs. 11 and 15, the spac-
ing between columns can reduce the maximum settlement and
increase the stress concentration ratio from an increase in bearing
capacity by preventing bulging of the stone columns. In this way,
the geosynthetic ESC behaves like a semirigid pile. Also, the
improvement by using ESCs at large spacings ðs ¼ 3dÞ was

© ASCE 04015102-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102

 Table 14. Stress Concentration Ratio at Failure for Embankment Models Constructed on Soft Clay Reinforced with ESCs for Two L/d Ratios
Stress concentration ratio at failure
Spacing H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 200 mm H ¼ 250 mm
L=d 5 8
s ¼ 2:5d 0.94 1.15
s ¼ 3d 0.73 0.90
s ¼ 4d 0.48 0.60
similar to the improvement at s ¼ 2:5d for OSCs, which was
attributed to mobilization of the hoop stresses in the geogrid. This
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
can provide an economical improvement. The stress concentra-
tion ratios are shown in Table 14; there was a decrease in the
stress concentration ratio below 1.0 as spacing between columns
increased because of the geogrid column yielding and the
increase in the stiffness and strength of the surrounding soft soil
during consolidation. This also can be caused by measuring con-
ditions. The results illustrate that the stress concentration ratio
increased gradually by increasing L=d.
The results obtained compare well with the results obtained by
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2006, 2007), who performed a series
of experimental studies. Their analysis showed that the stress con-
centration in an ESC was higher than that in a conventional stone
column. Chen et al. (2008a) performed plane strain 1-g laboratory
tests to investigate soil arching in piled embankments with or with-
out reinforcement. They stated that the use of reinforcement to
improve the stress concentration ratio was more effective as the
spacing decreased. This conclusion was verified in this study by
direct measurement of stress in stone columns and the surrounding
soil.
The concept of arching of granular soil over an area in which
there is partial loss of support from an underlying stratum has long
been recognized in the study of soil mechanics (Terzahgi 1943). Its
effect is widely observed, for instance, in piled embankments.
Although this effect has been investigated for many decades, it
remains poorly understood. There are a number of different models
from different theoretical mechanisms for piled embankment, but
these models were not considered for embankments resting on stone
columns.
Maximum arching occurs when the vertical loading on the
underground structure reaches a minimum.
The figures presented in this paper illustrate that the embank-
ment height and spacing ratio play a considerable part in the design
of a piled (stone-column) embankment system.
It was observed that, for different magnitudes of embankment
height, the stress concentration ratio increased and reached a
maximum value and then maintained a nearly constant value. A
higher embankment height at L=d ¼ 8 results in a higher stress
concentration ratio, which is caused by the soil arching effect. A
higher stress concentration ratio indicated that a higher percent-
age of the embankment load was transferred to the stone columns.
These results reveal that the stress concentration ratio was influ-
enced by the embankment height and spacing ratio between
columns.
Conclusions
The following points were drawn from the test results:
1. The mode of failure for an embankment model resting on
untreated, very soft clay with cu  10 kPa was close to local
shear failure, whereas the mode gradually changed toward the
general shear failure when using stone columns.
© ASCE 04015102-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102
H ¼ 250 mm H ¼ 300 mm H ¼ 300 mm
5 8 5 8
1.47 2.20 2.10 3.60
1.15 1.40 1.50 2.00
0.65 1.00 0.90 1.30
2. The bearing ratio increased with decreasing spacing distance
between the stone columns at any embankment height. The rate
of increase in the bearing ratio of treated models was found to
be within the ranges of 1.08–1.2, 1.23–1.42, and 1.37–1.65 of
untreated models for embankment model heights of 200, 250,
and 300 mm, respectively.
3. The bearing improvement ratio increased with decreasing spac-
ing ratio of stone columns for a given embankment. A higher
improvement ratio was achieved for the models reinforced with
stone columns at s ¼ 2:5d at any embankment height. The
higher values of qt =qunt were found to be 1.21, 1.44, and 1.7 for
embankment model heights of 200, 250, and 300 mm, respec-
tively, whereas the lowest improvement was observed at spac-
ing s ¼ 4d, especially for an embankment height of 200 mm.
4. The improvement in the settlement ratio increased as the spac-
ing ratio of stone columns increased. The lowest settlement
reduction ratio at failure was observed at s ¼ 2:5d for a given
embankment height, which represents a higher degree of
improvement.
5. There was a decrease in the stress concentration ratio below 1.0
as spacing between columns increased because of the geogrid
column yielding and the increase in the stiffness and strength
of the surrounding soft soil during consolidation. The results
illustrate that the stress concentration ratio (n) increased gradu-
ally with increasing L=d.
References
Abusharar, S. W., and Han, J. (2011). “Two-dimensional deep-seated slope
stability analysis of embankments over stone column-improved soft
clay.” Eng. Geol., 120(1–4), 103–110.
Al-Shaikhly, A.A. (2000). “Effect of stone grain size on the behavior of
stone column.” M.Sc. thesis, Building and Construction Engineering
Dept., Univ. of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
Al-Waily, M. J. (2008). “Stress concentration ratio of model stone columns
improved by additives.” Ph.D. thesis, Building and Construction
Engineering Dept., Univ. of Technology, Baghdad, Iraq.
ASTM. (2003a). “Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under
consolidated drained conditions.” D3080, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2003b). “Standard test method for liquid limit, plastic limit, and
plasticity index of soils.” D4318, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2003c). “Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils.”
D422, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2003d). “Standard test method for specific gravity of soil solids by
water pycnometer.” D854, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2003e). “Standard test methods for determining tensile properties
of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile method.” D6637, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Bauer, G. E., and Al-Joulani, N. (1996). “Laboratory and analytical investi-
gation of sleeve reinforced stone columns.” Geosynthetics: Application,
design and construction, Balkema, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, 463–
466.
Britton, E., and Naughton, P. (2008). “An experimental investigation of
arching in piled embankments.” Proc., 4th European Geosynthetics
Conf., Paper 106, 1–8.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Chen, R. P., Chen, Y. M., Han, J., and Xu, Z. Z. (2008a). “A theoretical so-
lution for pile-supported embankments on soft soils under one-dimen-
sional compression.” Can. Geotech. J., 45(5), 611–623.
Chen, Y. M., Cao, W. P., and Chen, R. P. (2008b). “An experimental inves-
tigation of soil arching within basal reinforced and unreinforced piled
embankments.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(2) 164–174.
Craig, W. H., and Al-Khafaji, Z. A. (1997). “Reduction of soft clay settle-
ment by compacted sand piles.” Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. of Ground
Improvement, Thomas Telford, London, 218–224.
De Mello, L. G., Mondolfo, M., Montez, F., Tsukahara, C. N., and
Bilfinger, W. (2008).“First use of geosynthetic encased sand columns in
South America.” Proc., 1st Pan-American Geosynthetics Conf., 1332–
1314.
Ellis, E. A., and Aslam, R. (2009). “Arching in piled embankments:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Colorado University at Boulder on 06/08/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Comparison of centrifuge tests and predictive methods–part 1 of 2.”
Ground Eng., 42(6), 34–38.
Etezad, M., Hanna, A. M., and Ayadat, T. (2015). “Bearing capacity of a
group of stone columns in soft soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000393, 04014043.
Fattah, M. Y., Shlash, K. T., and Al-Waily, M. J. (2011). “Stress concentration
ratio of model stone columns in soft clays.” Geotech. Test. J., 34(1), 61–71.
Fattah, M. Y., Zabar, B. S., and Hassan, H. A. (2014). “An experimental
analysis of embankment on stone columns.” J. Eng., 20(7), 62–84.
Gniel, J., and Bouazza, A. (2009). “Improvement of soft soils using geogrid
encased stone columns.” Geotext. Geomembr., 27(3), 167–175.
Han, J., and Gabr, M. A. (2002). “Numerical analysis of geosynthetic-rein-
forced and pile-supported earth platforms over soft soil.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2002)128:1(44), 44–53.
Hewlett, W. J., and Randolph, M. F. (1988). “Analysis of piled embank-
ments.” Ground Eng., 21(3), 12–18.
Juran, I., and Guermazi, A. (1988). “Settlement response of soft soils rein-
forced by compacted sand columns.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)0733-9410(1988)114:8(930), 930–943.
Kempfert, H. G., and Gebreselassie, B. (2006). Excavations and founda-
tions in soft soils, Springer, Berlin.
Keyhosropur, L., Soroush, A., and Imam, R. (2011). “A study on the behav-
iour of a geosynthetic encased stone columns group using 3D numerical
analysis.” 2011 Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conf., Amerkabir Univ. of
Technology, Tehran, Iran, 1–7.
Low, B. K., Tang, S. K., and Choa, V. (1994). “Arching in piled embank-
ments.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1994)120:
11(1917), 1917–1938.
Malarvizhi, S. N., and Ilamparuthi, K. (2004). “Load versus settlement of
clay-bed stabilized with stone and reinforced stone columns.” Proc., 3rd
© ASCE 04015102-13
Int. J. Geomech., 2016, 16(4): 04015102
Asian Regional Conf. on Geosynthetics, GEOASIA, Seoul, Korea, 322–
329.
Malarvizhi, S. N., and Ilamparuthi, K. (2006). “Modeling of geogrid
encased stone column.” Proc., 2nd Int. Congress on Computational
Mechanics and Simulation (ICCMS-06), IIT, Guwahati, India.
Malarvizhi, S. N., and Ilamparuthi, K. (2007). “Comparative study on the
behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone column.”
Soils Found., 47(5), 873–885.
Murugesan, S., and Rajagopal, K. (2006). “Geosynthetic-encased stone col-
umns: Numerical evaluation.” Geotext. Geomembr., 24(6), 349–358.
Murugesan, S., and Rajagopal, K. (2010). “Studies on the behaviour
of single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000187, 129–139.
Raithel, M., Kirchner, A., Schade, C., and Leusink, E. (2005). “Foundation
of construction on very soft soils with geotextile encased columns—
State of the art.” Proc., Geofrontiers, Austin, TX.
Sharma, R. S., Kumar, B. P., and Nagendra, G. (2004). “Compressive load
response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids.” Can. Geotech. J.,
41(1), 187–192.
Shlash, K. T., Fattah, M. Y., and Al-Waily, M. J. M. (2009). “Laboratory
investigation on efficiency of model stone column groups.” Eng. Tech.
J., 27(9), 1673–1690.
SORB (Iraqi State Organization for Roads and Bridges). (2003). Standard
specification for roads and bridges, Iraqi General Specification for
Roads and Bridges, Baghdad, Iraq.
Stewart, D., and Fahey, M. (1994). “An investigation of the reinforcing
effect on stone columns in soft clay.” Vertical and horizontal defor-
mations of foundations and embankments, Geotechnical special pub-
lication 40, A. T. Yeung and G. Y. Felio, eds., ASCE, Reston, VA,
513–524.
Terzahgi, K. (1943). Theoretical soil mechanics, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Wu, C. S., and Hong, Y. S. (2008). “The behavior of a laminated reinforced
granular column.” Geotext. Geomembr., 26(4), 302–316.
Zhang, L., and Zhao, M. (2014). “Deformation analysis of geotextile-
encased stone columns.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943
-5622.0000389, 04014053.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., Shi, C., and Zhao, H. (2013). “Settlement calculation
of composite foundation reinforced with stone columns.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000212, 248–256.
Zhang, Z., Han, J., and Ye, G. (2014). “Numerical investigation on factors
for deep-seated slope stability of stone column-supported embankments
over soft clay.” Eng. Geol., 168, 104–113.
Int. J. Geomech.