KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2019 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-019-0617-x pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Enhancement of Soft Soil Behaviour by using Floating Bottom Ash Columns

Razieh Moradi*, Aminaton Marto**, Ahmad Safuan A Rashid***, Mohammad Moeen Moradi****,
Abideen Adekunle Ganiyu*****, Mohamad Hafeezi Abdullah******, and Suksun Horpibulsuk*******
Received March 26, 2018/Revised July 11, 2018/Accepted February 18, 2019/Published Online April 9, 2019

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

The current disposition worldwide is for sustainable construction, and the application of by-products is one of the ways to achieve
it. In this research, bottom ash was used as a substitute material in a granular column to decrease settlement and enhance the bearing
capacity of soft soil. Bottom ash is a derivate of the coal burning process, it has similar engineering properties to sand and fine gravel.
A set of reduced scale physical modelling tests were performed on floating bottom ash columns to assess the improvement in the
bearing capacity of the composite ground. The results clearly showed that the bearing capacity of the model soil was greatly
improved with the installation of bottom ash column sand. There was an obvious enhancement of the load capacity of the granular
columns when they were encased. The usage of bottom ash instead of aggregate or sand for granular columns will reduce the project
cost and it aligns with the goal of sustainable construction development.
Keywords: ground improvement, floating granular column, geotextile, soft clay, bottom ash
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction
In accordance with the increasing rate of population growth
and the need for the development of human societies, the utilization
of alluvial sites and weak soils for construction purposes has
become inevitable (Rashid et al., 2017a). Among the growing
number of methods of ground treatment, the granular column
technique is considered as an effective and environmentally viable
means of enhancing soft cohesive soils. The method consists of
installing a granular material (sand, gravel, or stone) inside a
predetermined hole (Tandel et al., 2012). The granular column
technique can reduce soil settlement and accelerate consolidation
settlement; it is the easiest construction technique to apply among
the ground treatment methods (Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2006;
Tandel et al., 2012).
Several reduced scale studies have been done to examine the
use of aggregates or sand as column materials to enhance the
bearing capacity and settlement of soft soil under normal gravity
force (1-g) (Hugh and Withers, 1974; Kaffezakis, 1983; Bachus
and Barksdale, 1984; Balaam and Booker, 1985; Ali et al., 2014;
Hu, 1995; Al Mosawe and Al Zuhairi, 2002; Nazir and Azzam,
2010). These studies revealed that the ground improvement
achieved by stone columns was effective because of the superior
stiffness, rigidity, and porosity of the column aggregates in
comparison to the surrounding soil. Consequently, the stiffness
of the column material and its load distribution were the
fundamental factors in the design of stone columns. In addition,
the increase in the soil bearing capacity and the reduction of
settlement are inversely proportional to the ratio of the footing
area to the sand column cross-sectional area and directly
proportional to the column length over depth, L/D ratio and the
relative density of the sand (Al Mosawe and Al Zuhairi, 2002;
Nazir and Azzam, 2010).
Mckelvey et al. (2004) mentioned that the stress concentration
in stone columns mainly depends on the ratio of column/load
stiffness, load magnitude, and column length. However, because

*Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Geothechnics and Transportation, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Technologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310,
Malaysia; Research Fellow, Centre of Tropical Geoengineering (GEOTROPIK), School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor
Bahru 81310, Malaysia (E-mail: razieh_1983@yahoo.com)
**Professor, Dept. of Environmental and Green Technology, Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Kuala Lumpur 54100, Malaysia (E-mail: aminaton@utm.my)
***Associate Professor, Centre of Tropical Geoengineering (GEOTROPIK), School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru
81310, Malaysia (Corresponding Author, E-mail: ahmadsafuan@utm.my)
****Researcher, Faculty of Engineering, Oloom Tahghighat University, Shiraz, Iran (E-mail: moeenmoradi@yahoo.com)
*****Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Quantity Surveying, Military Technological College, Muscat, Oman (E-mail: abideenganiyu@gmail.com)
******Postgraduate Student, Dept. of Geothechnics and Transportation, School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Technologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru 81310,
Malaysia (E-mail: feezi998@yahoo.com)
*******Professor, School of Civil Engineering and Center of Excellence in Innovation for Sustainable Infrastructure Development, Suranaree University of
Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand (E-mail: suksun@g.sut.ac.th)

−1−
 Razieh Moradi et al.
of inadequate lateral support from the treated soft soil, the use of
stone columns is accompanied by bulging failure (Wood et al.,
2000; Mckelvey et al., 2004). In addition, the spread of stone
aggregates into the nearby soft clay decreases the drainage
performance of stone columns. Hence, it is essential to provide
supplementary restrictions using geosynthetic or geotextile
encasement, which could increase the stiffness and prevent the
bulging. Ali et al. (2014), Yoo and Lee (2012), Castro and Sagaseta
(2011), Gniel and Bouazza (2007), and Murugesan and Rajagopal
(2007) have investigated the function of perpendicular geosynthetic
encasement on stone columns. Murugesan and Rajagopal (2007)
conducted a sequence of experiments with a single stone column
embedded in soft clay. Three different widths of encased and
ordinary stone columns were considered in the investigation. The
effect of encasement of the columns was studied using different
types of encasements including soft grid, woven and nonwoven
geotextiles, and partly encased columns. Through the experiments,
the improvement in the bearing capacity of a single stone column
due to encasement was substantial. Similarly, both1-g model tests
and numerical modelling were conducted by Malarvizhi (2007).
The physical modelling was carried out with different lengths
and diameters of a single column. Different stiffnesses of the
geogrid reinforcement and granular material properties were also
used to investigate the performance of soft clay strengthened
with a granular column having or lacking geogrid reinforcement.
The research concluded that the deformation of the column
significantly decreased when the reinforcement strength was
improved.
Gniel and Bouazza (2009) implemented 1-g laboratory testing
on geogrid encased sand columns installed in soft clay as single
columns and in a group. The effects of the encasement type and
length were observed, and a comparison was made between the
behaviour of single columns and columns in a group. The results
showed a uniform decrease in the vertical strain with an increase
in the encasement length of the columns. The column failed in a
bulging failure mode which could be observed underneath the
floating encased columns, whereas the column stiffness was
significantly increased for the end-bearing encased samples. Ali
et al. (2014) executed 1-g model experiments using 30-mm
diameter end-bearing and floating stone columns. Grouped and
single arrangements including and excluding geosynthetic
reinforcement were utilised to obtain the improvement grade of
the composite ground. The model was dissected to observe the
failure pattern of the columns. The study shows that the end-
bearing elements with geogrid encasement had the most impressive
response, whereas for floating columns there was no substantial
disparity in both geotextile and geogrid reinforcements.
Based on the previous studies, the implementation of a granular
column using natural resources with geotextile encasement could
improve the engineering properties (bearing capacity and settlement)
of soft soil. However, unmanaged use of non-renewable natural
materials (gravel, rock, sand) has a direct negative impact on
material sources. Therefore, the deployment of by-products as a
substitute for natural materials could be a step towards sustainable
−2−
development (Donrak et al., 2016; Phetchuay et al., 2016; Arulrajah
et al., 2016a, 2016b; Phummiphan et al., 2016; Rashid et al.,
2017c).
The use of bottom ash to replace the natural sand material as
the main material for the granular column will provide a sustainable
approach. Bottom ash is a by-product produced from the burning
of coal in power plants (Singh and Siddique, 2013). It is made by
the agglomeration of large residue particles that were too heavy
to be carried by the vent gases and were dropped in the ash
hopper located in the bottom of the boiler. About a quarter of the
total ash generated is bottom ash. It is generally permeable and
consists of merged coarser ash particles, similar to volcanic
products in appearance. While large quantities of fly ash have
been applied in the cement production sector, the utilisation of
bottom ash is limited due to its different engineering characteristics
in contrast to fly ash (Heidrich et al., 2013). In addition, the
bottom ash product was considered as a non-harmful material
based on comparison with standard regulation (US EPA SW-
846, 2018). According to Rafieizonooz et al. (2017), all of the
toxicity elements of Tanjung Bin bottom ash lies lower than
standard regulation based on the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP) test.
Several studies have been carried to investigate the strength
performance of soil stabilisation by using bottom ash (Cheriaf et
al., 1999; Sudhakaran et al., 2018). However, due to the slow
pozzolanic activity and sand like the property of bottom ash, the
utilisation of bottom ash has been quite limited. Since the
structural features of bottom ash are nearly equivalent to sand,
bottom ash particles have the capability to be employed as a
substitute material in sand columns (Muhardi et al., 2010). This
technique allows for a reduction in the project cost and resolves
the issues associated with discarding bottom ash and its derivatives.
However, to date, there has been no effort to examine the
potential use of bottom ash as a material in granular columns to
treat soft soil areas. Due to the high cost associated with field
trials, a series of small-scale physical tests were adopted here to
investigate the performance of soft soil reinforced with a group
of 25-mm diameter floating bottom ash columns. A group of the
floating column is a group of the reinforced column in the soil
which the end of the columns does not reach a hard stratum. This
research examines the influence of geotextile encasement and
the area replacement ratio of the bottom ash column on the
bearing capacity. It is believed that the outcome of this research
will spur the implementation of bottom ash as a granular column
material in sustainable ground improvement.
2. Laboratory Model Tests
2.1 Testing Chamber
Figure 1 shows the 400 × 150 × 430 mm testing chamber which
was used in preparing the soil model during testing. The anterior
of the box was made from a detachable Perspex plate (front
panel) to allow the visualisation of the soil model during testing,
whereas the other parts were made of aluminium (Rashid et al.,
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Enhancement of Soft Soil Behaviour by using Floating Bottom Ash Columns

Table 2. Characteristics and Chemical Composition of Bottom Ash

Parameter Value
Dry unit weight 10.1 kN/m3
Internal friction angle 38o
Particle size 0.06−2.36 mm
Specific gravity 2.38
Relative density 74%
Coefficient of permeability 6.09 × 10−3 m/s
CO2 (%) 0.10
SiO2 (%) 46.60
Al2O3 (%) 23.61
Fe2O3 (%) 12.40
CaO (%) 11.31
TiO2 (%) 1.84
K2O (%) 1.34
MgO (%) 1.26
P2O5 (%) 0.62
Na2O (%) 0.62
SO3 (%) 0.30
SrO (%) 0.19
BaO (%) 0.13
Fig. 1. Testing Chamber Joined with Strain Control System

2015a, 2015b, 2017b). The front panel was firmly fixed to the
anterior side of the chamber to avoid any kind of movement
during the testing period. The rigidity of the testing chamber was
enough to tolerate a pressure of 30 kPa attained in the course of
consolidation. Four steel bars were attached on every side of the
base plate beneath the testing unit to support the loading frame
used for the loading and consolidation tests. The chamber was
equipped with a drainage line at the bottom.

2.2 Testing Materials

Kaolin was used to formulate the soft ground in the testing Fig. 2. Particle Size Distribution of Kaolin and Bottom Ash
chamber. White kaolin has several advantages for soil modelling
such as low sensitivity, ease of saturation, and quick consolidation,
etc. This powder is hydrophilic and mixing it with water formed bottom ash, and the grading distribution of the bottom ash and
a slurry which made it easy to prepare the homogeneous soft soil kaolin is presented in Fig. 2. The major chemical composition of
specimen. Table 1 shows the basic properties of the kaolin. The Tanjung Bin bottom ash was silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), iron
bottom ash sample used to construct the column was obtained oxide (Fe2O3), and calcium oxide (CaO). In this study, the
from the Tanjung Bin Power Plant located at Johor, Malaysia. bottom ash product is used as a filling material for the floating
Table 2 highlights the chemical composition of bottom ash of the column therefore, no investigation on the chemical reaction
between kaolin and bottom ash was conducted. Fig. 3 shows the
Table 1. Properties of Consolidated Kaolin Clay X-ray diffraction (XRD) which indicates that the main minerals
Soil properties Value present in the Tanjung Bin bottom ash is mullite, quartz, calcite,
Liquid limit, LL 39% and haematite.
Plastic limit, PL 28% The decisive factor in the selection of the bottom ash used for
Plasticity index, PI 11% modelling the columns was the particle size. The particle size of
Specific gravity, Gs 2.65 the stone employed in the construction of stone columns,
Compression index, Cc 0.1418 expressed as the diameter, Dg, ranges from 40 to 75 mm and with
Swelling index, Cs 0.0144 the majority of the columns constructed with a diameter, D, of
Saturated unit weight 18 kN/m3 600 mm to 1,700 mm, this represents a Dg/D ratio of 0.08
Undrained shear strength, cu 10 kN/m2 (McCabe et al., 2007). In addition, Hu (1995) stated that the Dg/
Coefficient of permeability 4.46 × 10−9m/s D ratio has a great effect on the form of the collapse process of

−3−
 Razieh Moradi et al.
Fig. 3. Tanjung Bin Bottom Ash XRD Pattern (Latifi et al., 2015)
the granular columns because the localised failure bands in granular
materials are typically between 10 to 20 times the particle
diameter in thickness. Hence, in order to obtain a realistic failure
mode in this study, the Dg/D ratio of typical granular columns
was strictly followed. Thus, bottom ash materials with a diameter of
2 mm would be appropriate for a column diameter of 25 mm.
From Fig. 2, it can be seen that 94% of the kaolin particles
range from 0.0015 mm to 0.2 mm in size with 53% of the
particles smaller than 0.063 mm. The kaolin is in the range of
clay to fine sand and is classified as A-6 based on the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) classification system. Most of the bottom ash particles
fall in the range between 0.063 mm to 10 mm corresponding to
fine sand to fine gravel. It should be noted that the bottom ash
used in the physical modelling tests had a particle size smaller
than 2.36 mm in order to be compatible with real conditions
taking into consideration the scale factor (1/50). In addition, this
size is similar to coarse sand. A sequence of unconsolidated
undrained tests was carried out to obtain the friction angle of the
bottom ash material. A constant head permeability test on the
Table 3. Characteristics of Polyfelt Geotextile
Parameter Value
Tensile strength 9.5 kN/m
Elongation at maximum load 90 %
Permeability vertical 1,15 l/m2s
Thickness 1 mm
Mass per unit area 125 g/mm2
−4−
bottom ash was conducted based on British Standard (BS 1377,
1990). The obtained coefficient of permeability, K was 6.09 × 10−3
m/s where the coefficient of permeability of soils ranging from
10−2 to 10−5 m/s categorised as good drainage material, composed
of clean sand, clean sand and gravel mixtures (Terzaghi et al.,
1996).
A nonwoven geotextile of Polyfelt TS20 supplied by Tencate
Geosynthetics Asia Sdn Bhd was used to prepare the encasement
for the columns; the engineering and physical properties of the
geotextile are listed in Table 3. The geotextile was sewn to form
a cylindrical shape and used as the geotextile encasement for the
bottom ash columns. With a 10 kN/m tensile strength, ideally, it
could prevent the expansion of the bottom ash aggregates into
the soft clay and prevent extra bulging failure under vertical
loading.
2.3 Preparation of the Ground Model
The ground model was prepared by mixing 20 kg of kaolin
powder with 12 kg of distilled water (the amount of water is 1.5
times the liquid limit of kaolin). To prevent any biological action,
the kaolin was oven dried at 105ºC for 48 hours before the
preparation of the slurry (Rashid et al., 2015a, 2015b, 2017b).
The kaolin was then added slowly to the distilled water and
mixed gradually in a container for 1 hour. A 5 mm thickness of
absorbent paper was positioned in the lowermost part of the
chamber before the kaolin slurry was gradually poured into the
chamber. During the pouring process, the top surface was
stamped with a steel board to expel the air trapped in the voids
during filling. The original height of the slurry was designed to
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Enhancement of Soft Soil Behaviour by using Floating Bottom Ash Columns

where Ap is the cross-sectional area of the column and d1 and d2

are the plan measurements of the enhancement (Black, 2007).
The penetration was carried out in several steps, and in every
step the soil inside the pipe was exhumed using a 22-mm diameter
drill. The digging process was carried out in two phases: After a
depth of 50 mm was reached, drilling was stopped so that the soil
could be cleaned from the drill (Fig. 4(c)), then drilling continued
until it reached 100 mm into the soil. This process could avoid
suction forces inside the soil and clogging inside the pipe. All
processes were done carefully to reduce heaving and other
disturbances to the soil. After taking the drill out, the interior of the
tube was wiped and the remaining soil was entirely removed with
the aid of a cutter and elastic plunger. A pencil lamp was used to
make sure that the cavity was cleaned and the desired depth of

Fig. 4. Columns’ Installation Equipment: (a) Column Arrangement

Templates, (b) Thin Brass Wall Pipes, (c) Drill, (d) Plastic Rod

be approximately 275 mm in order to reach a height of 200 mm

after consolidation. A second absorbent paper was placed at the
top of the slurry after levelling it to the original height. Before
applying a load for consolidation, the slurry was allowed to sit
for 24 hours for consolidation under its own weight. A stepwise
increase in pressure was then applied on the consolidation piston
at the consolidation stages until it reached 30 kPa. To drain water
from the top during the consolidation stage, two holes were
made through the consolidation piston and drainage lines were
connected. The ground model was assumed to be in a fully
saturated condition, especially during the loading test. By means
of one-dimensional consolidation, the required shear strength of
about 10 kPa was achieved.
The process of installing the columns was very challenging
because of the soft nature of the kaolin, which had an undrained
shear strength, cus, of about 10 kPa. Fig. 4 presents the column
installation devices used during the granular column construction. A
thin-walled tube (Fig. 4(b)) having an outside diameter of 25 mm
was pushed slowly into the soil model at the predetermined
locations using a specially produced cut-out (Fig. 4(a)). Three sets of
different templates, which consisted of 4, 6, and 8 holes representing
13%, 20%, and 26% area improvement ratios, respectively, were
used for the construction of the columns. The area replacement ratio,
ap, is the proportion of the total column cross-sectional area to the
ground area occupied by the columns (Eq. (1)):
∑ Ap
ap = -------------- (1)
Fig. 5. Column Arrangement: (a) Improvement Area Ratio, ap of
d 1 × d2 13.1%, (b) Improvement Area Ratio, ap of 19.6%, (c) Improve-
ment Area Ratio, ap of 26.2%

−5−
 Razieh Moradi et al.

2.4 Testing Procedure

Fig. 6. Knitted Polyfelt TS20 Geotextile
installation was reached. With a view to establishing the desired
density of individual granular columns, the quantity of bottom ash
required to plug the initially bored cavities was evaluated at the
beginning of the research by trial and error.
In constructing the columns, the bottom ash quantity required
to fill the initially bored hole was calculated and prepared based
on the target density (1.01 Mg/m3) and volume of the pre-drilled
hole. The calculated mass was divided into three portions, and
the pouring of bottom ash into the hole was done in three layers
using each portion. After the bottom ash was poured, the casing
was retrieved until near the surface of the bottom ash. Then, the
bottom ash was compacted further using a plastic rod tamper
with a diameter of 24 mm (Fig. 4(d)) by hand tamping for 27
times throughout the surface of the bottom ash. This light
compaction was selected to avoid any noticeable lateral bulging
during the construction of the column and to have zero impact on
the surrounding soft clay. The same procedure was followed for
the other two layers until the column was completed. The
detailed layout of the column layout arrangement is shown in
Fig. 5 for all cases. For the geotextile-encased columns, the
stitched encasement (Fig. 6) was placed in the drilled hole using
a tube with a diameter slightly less than the diameter of the
excavated hole, then the formation of the bottom ash column
with a 25-mm diameter was carried out similar to the procedure
for uncased columns. It should be noted that the columns
prepared by this method were assumed to be saturated.
After the loading frame was removed, a strain control system
was mounted on the four side rods. The device had a variable
velocity regulator and a two-way key that could change the shaft
movement in both up and down directions. A constant strain rate
of 1.3 mm/min was applied for the loading to ensure that the test
was conducted under undrained condition. A rigid aluminium
footing, 149 × 100 × 20 mm in length, width, and thickness,
respectively, was utilised for the loading process and mounted at
the midpoint of the ground model (treated and untreated soil). A
wire cutter was employed to ascertain the pattern of column
failure upon completion of the loading test.
Seven groups of tests were conducted in this study. The tests
were divided into two main categories: Unreinforced and
reinforced with bottom ash columns. Unreinforced refers to the
test on the model ground without any columns installed inside.
This type of test was performed as a benchmark test.
Reinforced tests were strengthened by a group of bottom ash
columns of varying improvement area ratio and with and
without geotextile encasement. Table 4 lists the notations of the
test categories that were used for the tests.
3. Model Test Results
3.1 Internal Friction Angle of Bottom Ash
Figure 7 depicts the stress–strain curve resulting from the
Fig. 7. Stress-Strain Curves of Bottom Ash Material Obtained from
UU Test

Table 4. Mechanical Properties of the Ground Model

ap cus qult Bearing capacity Improvement
Test Test description *l/h
(%) (kPa) (kPa) factor, Nc (%)
PCLAY Kaolin clay 0 0 10 51.6 5.16 0
P4C100HO Floating non encased 13.1 0.5 10 91.7 9.17 77.7
P6C100HO Floating non encased 19.6 0.5 9.9 105.63 10.67 106.8
P8C100HO Floating non encased 26.2 0.5 9.7 123.68 12.75 147.1
P4C100HG Floating encased 13.1 0.5 9.7 129.79 13.38 159.3
P6C100HG Floating encased 19.6 0.5 10.2 164.22 16.10 212.0
P8C100HG Floating encased 26.2 0.5 10.2 191.96 18.82 264.7
*l/h = Column length/ model height

−6− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Enhancement of Soft Soil Behaviour by using Floating Bottom Ash Columns
Fig. 8. Strength Profile of Ground Model Obtained from the Vane
Shear Test: (a) Tests PCLAY, 4C100HO, 6C100HO, and
8C100HO, (b) Tests PCLAY, 4C100HO, 6C100HO, and
8C100HO
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU) test of the bottom ash sample.
Three different confining pressures were applied during the UU
test which revealed that the soil behaved like a brittle material
with a loss of strength after failure due to a higher relative
density ratio. The internal friction angle was determined to be
38o from the Mohr circle plot. This value is similar to that of well
graded sand obtained by Carter and Bentley (1991).
3.2 Undrained Shear Strength of the Soil
A series of hand vane shear tests was carried out to investigate
the undrained shear strength of the soil model, cus, at the end of
the loading test. The cus readings were observed perpendicular to
the Perspex window with an assumption of equal strength in
both the horizontal and vertical orientations. Fig. 8 shows the cus
profiles obtained from the tests. In general, the soil strength
reduced slightly with height due to the effects of wall friction
existing between the soil and the testing chamber during the
consolidation and loading tests (Rashid and Noor, 2012a). The
average cus observed from all sample locations was 10 kPa.
3.3 Stress–Displacement Relationship
Figure 9 shows the relationship between the vertical stress and
the ratio of displacement to the width of footing for all tests in
this study. In the figure, the stress for the treated and untreated
models was observed to increase with the rise in displacement.
−7−
Fig. 9. Vertical Stress-Displacement/Footing Width Curves
The soil reaches a constant value of about 0.03 for the displacement/
footing width ratio for both the untreated and treated model; the
range of the displacement/footing width ratio is from 0.05 to
0.18. Generally, all of the tested ground models exhibited ductile
behaviour in which the peak of the level section of the curve is
the ultimate bearing capacity, qult, of the soil. The mechanical
properties of the ground model and the qult of each test are
summarised in Table 5. Due to slight difference in the values of
cus obtained for each test, the bearing capacity factor, Nc, was
then computed using Eq. (2):
qult
Nc = ------
- (2)
cu
The result for the untreated case was marginally greater than
the Nc of 5.14 for a rectangular (strip) foundation on clay using
the upper bound solution method (Rashid et al., 2015a). This is
possibly because of the non-homogeneity of the soil bed during
the loading. The ultimate bearing capacity was then compared
with the floating bottom ash columns case to examine the
improvement vis-a-vis the bearing capacity factor under different
area improvement ratios and encasement methods.
The bearing capacity factor for the treated case increased with the
rise in the value of area improvement ratio (ap) and the use of
encasement. The reason behind this lies in the linear relationship in
terms of corresponding increases of stress transmitted from the soil
to the granular columns and the area improvement ratio, thus leading
to an increase in the qult of the composite ground. The upsurge in the
load intensity resulting from the insertion of columns for an ap of
13% is 78% over the qult of the unimproved ground, whereas for area
replacement ratios of 20% and 26%, the upsurge due to column
inclusion is 106% and 147%, respectively (Table 4).
A substantial enhancement was found when the geotextile
encasement was utilised in conjunction with the granular column.
The Nc for 26% ap increases almost thrice and twice in comparison
with the untreated case and the column treatment with an
equivalent improvement area ratio, respectively. The findings
demonstrated that geotextile inclusion increased the axial strain
at failure and the peak strength.
 Razieh Moradi et al.
Fig. 10. Failure Pattern of Floating Columns under Vertical Loading:
(a) Granular Column, (b) Granular Column with Geotextile
Encasement
3.4 Failure Pattern of Columns
Subsequent to the completion of the loading test, the Perspex
plate of the testing chamber was removed, and the model ground
was sliced up to visualise the detailed failure pattern for each
column. Generally, all the columns, either geotextile encased or not,
failed in a similar way; hence, the patterns of column failure from
only tests P6C100HO and P6C100HG are illustrated in Fig. 10. In
addition, the failure modes of the columns in each row were almost
similar for both tests (P6C100HO and P6C100HG), thus the first
row are presented to discuss the behaviour typically observed. The
failure shape of the bottom ash columns illustrated that the columns
have generally shortened in their length and their lower ends have
penetrated into the underlying clay by the end of the loading
procedure (Fig. 10(a)). In addition, the columns bulged mostly near
the top 1/3 of the column length and were pushed outward in the
lower region. Meanwhile, for the column encased with geotextile
(Fig. 10(b)), the dissection after the end of the test revealed that
encasing the column with geotextile prevented the expansion of the
bottom ash aggregates into the soft clay and prevented extra bulging.
However, there seemed to be signs of a small degree of bending
together with punching failure in the floating columns.
4. Discussion
Figure 11 depicts the polynomial correlation linking the Nc and
−8−
Fig. 11. Correlation between Nc and ap
ap values obtained from the physical modelling tests. This
correlation could offer an initial guide for the design of bottom
ash columns either having or lacking encasement. However, this
correlation is only suitable for a ratio of column length to ground
height of 0.5 and for homogeneous strength of the soil. Additional
studies are required to investigate the failure pattern of bottom
ash columns for an increment in soil strength with depth by using
centrifuge modelling tests to represent the real field soil conditions.
Meanwhile for the column failure patterns, it was found that
with an increase in the footing load, the horizontal stresses in the
soil acting radially outward rose. However, the rise in horizontal
stresses underneath the footing was greater than that in the area
beyond the footing. The columns were subjected to a net
outward force, and this led to the bending of the columns in
addition to the normal compression as manifested by the slight
bending deformation of the columns (see Fig. 10(a)). This
phenomenon contributed to the increase in the stress acting on
the footing as compared to the treated soil with bottom ash
columns lacking encasement. Moreover, it was observed that the
geotextile encasement prevented the soft clay soil from sticking
to the aggregates and resulted in a better permeability function of
the granular columns under long-term conditions (see Fig. 10(b)).
5. Conclusions
In this research, bottom ash was proposed to improve the
bearing capacity of soft clay in form of aggregates to be used
instead of stone in stone columns. The major chemical and
mineral composition of Tanjung Bin bottom ash was silica
(SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), iron oxide (Fe2O3), calcium oxide (CaO),
mullite, quartz, calcite, and haematite. From the experimental
results on bottom ash column-stabilized beds and the parametric
study of the fundamental parameters affecting the behaviour of
the columns, following conclusions were obtained. The bearing
capacity factor, Nc, of the treated soil for each encasement
condition is dependent upon the area improvement ratio (ap). The
Nc, of the treated soil 77% (ap = 13%) to 147% (ap = 26%) higher
than that of the untreated soil. A major enhancement of 159% (ap
= 13%) to 265% (ap = 26%) more than the untreated case was
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Enhancement of Soft Soil Behaviour by using Floating Bottom Ash Columns
attained when encasement method was used in the bottom ash
granular floating columns. A polynomial relationship was
established between Nc and ap with the highest value of Nc around
20. A bulging failure was visible in the bottom ash columns after
the bearing capacity test, and bending mode failure was found
when the columns were encased with a geotextile material.
Acknowledgements
The research reported in this article was carried out at the
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. The authors appreciate the Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and Ministry of Higher Education
(MOHE) and for their financial supports. The project was partly
sponsored through Research University Grant from UTM (14H33-
Development of Kenaf Geotextile for Ground Improvement).
Notations
Ap = Cross-sectional area of soil cement column,
ap = Improvement area ratio
cus = Undrained shear strength of soil
D = Diameter of column
Dg = Stone diameter grading
d1 = Plan dimensions of the improvement
γ = Bulk unit weight
h = Ground model height
l = Column length
N = Bearing capacity factor
qult = Failure stress
References
Al Mosawe, M. J. and Al Zuhairi, A. H. (2002). “The use of sand columns
to improve soft soil.” Proc. 2nd Minia International Conference for
Advanced Trends in Engineering, MICATE, Minia, Egypt.
Ali, K., Shahu, J., and Sharma, K. (2014). “Model tests on single and
groups of stone columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement
arrangement.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 103-
118, DOI: 10.1680/gein.14.00002.
Arulrajah, A., Imteaz, M., Horpibulsuk, S., Du, Y. J., and Shen, S. L.
(2016a). “Recycled concrete aggregate/municipal glass as a low-
carbon resource material for footpaths.” Road Materials Pavement
Design, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 727-740, DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2016.
1262786.
Arulrajah, A., Yaghoubi, E., Monzur, I., and Horpibulsuk, S. (2016b).
“Recycled waste foundry sand as a sustainable subgrade fill and pipe
bedding construction material: Engineering and environmental
evaluation.” Sustainable Cities Society, Vol. 28, No. 00, pp. 343-349,
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.10.009.
Balaam, N. and Booker, J. (1985). “Effect of stone column yield on
settlement of rigid foundations in stabilized clay.” International Journal
for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, Vol. 9, No. 4,
pp. 331-351, DOI: 10.1002/nag.1610090404.
Black, J. A. (2007). The settlement performance of a footing supported
on soft clay reinforced with vibrated stone columns. PhD Thesis,
Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
−9−
BS 1377 (1990). Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes.
Part 5: Compressibility, permeability, and durability tests, BS 1377,
British Standards Institute, London, UK.
Carter, M. and Bentley, S. (1991). Correlations of soil properties.
Penetech Press Publishers, London, UK.
Castro, J. and Sagaseta, C. (2011). “Deformation and consolidation around
encased stone columns.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 29,
No. 3, pp. 268-276, DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.12.001.
Cheriaf, M., Rocha, J. C., and Pera, J. (1999). “Pozzolanic properties of
pulverized coal combustion bottom ash.” Cem. Concr. Res., Vol. 29,
No. 9, pp. 1387-1391, DOI: 10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00098-8.
Donrak, J., Rachan, R., Horpibulsuk, S., Arulrajah, A., and Du, Y. J.
(2016). “Improvement of marginal lateritic soil using melamine debris
replacement for sustainable engineering fill materials.” Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 134, pp. 515-522, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.
2015.12.038.
Gniel, J. and Bouazza, A. (2009). “Improvement of soft soils using
geogrid encased stone columns.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 167-175, DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.11.001.
Heidrich, C., Feuerborn, H. J., and Weir, A. (2013). “Coal combustion
products: A global perspective.” Proc., World of Coal Ash Conference,
WOCA, Lexington, KY, USA, pp. 22-25.
Hu, W. (1995). Physical modelling of group behaviour of stone column
foundations. PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland.
Hughes, J. M. O. and Withers, N. J. (1974). “Reinforcing of soft
cohesive soils with stone columns.” Ground Engineering, Vol. 7,
No. 3, pp. 42-49, DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(74)90643-3.
Kaffezakis, G. J. (1983). A model test investigation of the behaviour of
stone columns. Special Research Problem, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Latifi, N., Marto, A., Rashid, A. S. A., and Yii, J. L. J. (2015). “Strength
and physico-chemical characteristics of fly ash–bottom ash mixture.”
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, Vol. 40, No. 9,
pp. 2447-2455, DOI 10.1007/s13369-015-1647-4.
Malarvizhi, S. (2007). “Comparative study on the behavior of encased
stone column and conventional stone column.” Soils and Foundations,
Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 873-885, DOI: 10.3208/sandf.47.873.
McCabe, B. A., McNeill, J. A., and Black, J. A. (2007). Ground improvement
using the vibro-stone column technique. The Institute of Engineers
of Ireland, Ballsbridge, Ireland.
McKelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., and Graham, J. (2004). “Modelling
vibrated stone columns in soft clay.” Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 157, No. 3, pp. 137-149, DOI: 10.1680/geng.2004.157.3.137.
Muhardi, A., Marto, A., Kassim, K. A., Makhtar, A. M., Wei, L. F., and
Lim, Y. S. (2010). “Engineering characteristics of Tanjung Bin coal
ash.” Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 15,
pp. 1117-1129.
Murugesan, S. and Rajagopal, K. (2007). “Model tests on geosynthetic-
encased stone columns.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 14,
No. 6, pp. 346-354, DOI: 10.1680/gein.2007.14.6.346.
Nazir, A. K. and Azzam, W. R. (2010). “Improving the bearing capacity
of footing on soft clay with sand pile with/without skirts.” Alexandria
Engineering Journal, Vol. 49, pp. 371-377, DOI: 10.1016/j.aej.
2010.06.002.
Phetchuay, C., Horpibulsuk, S., Arulrajah, A., Suksiripattanapong, C.,
and Udomchai, A. (2016). “Strength development in soft marine clay
stabilized by fly ash and calcium carbide residue based geopolymer.”
Appl. Clay Sci., Vol. 127, pp. 134-142, DOI: 10.1016/j.clay. 2016.
04.005.
Phummiphan, I., Horpibulsuk, S., Phoo-ngernkham, T., Arulrajah, A.,
 Razieh Moradi et al.
and, Shen, S. L. (2016). “Marginal lateritic soil stabilized with
calcium carbide residue and fly ash geopolymers as a sustainable
pavement base material.” J. Mater. Civil. Eng., Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 1-
10, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001708.
Rafieizonooz, M., Salim, M. R., Mirza, J., Hussin, M. W., Khan, R., and
Khankhaje, E. (2017). “Toxicity characteristics and durability of
concrete containing coal ash as substitute for cement and river
sand.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 143, pp. 234-246,
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.03.151.
Rashid, A. S. A., Black, J. A., Kueh, A. B. H., and Noor, N. M. (2015b).
“Behaviour of weak soils reinforced with soil cement columns
formed by the deep mixing method: Rigid and flexible footings.”
Measurement, Vol. 68, pp. 262-279, DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.
2015.02.039.
Rashid, A. S. A., Black, J. A., Mohamad, H., and Noor, N. M. (2015a).
“Behavior of weak soils reinforced with end-bearing soil-cement
columns formed by the deep mixing method.” Marine Georesources
and Geotechnology, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 473-486, DOI: 10.1080/
1064119X.2014.954174.
Rashid, A. S. A., Bunawan, A. R., and Said, K. N. M. (2017a). “The
deep mixing method: Bearing capacity studies.” Geotech. Geol.
Eng., Vol. 35, No. 6, pp. 2613-2623, DOI: 10.1007/s10706-017-
0196-x.
Rashid, A. S. A., Kueh, A. B. H., and Mohamad, H. (2017b). “Behaviour of
soft soil improved by floating soil–cement columns.” International
Journal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 95-
116, DOI: 10.1680/jphmg.15. 00041.
Rashid, A. S. A. and Noor, N. M. (2012a). “Estimation of interface
resistance between testing chamber and soil model using shear box
test.” European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 80, No. 4,
pp. 472-478, DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3683.6489.
− 10 −
Rashid, A. S. A. and Noor, N. M. (2012b). “Estimation of wall friction
of chamber box using consolidation characteristic.” Appl. Mech.
Mater., Vol. 174, pp. 2137-2141, DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific. net/
AMM.174-177.2137.
Rashid, A. S. A., Shahrin, M. I., Horpibulsuk, S., Hezmi, M. A., Yunus,
Z. M., and Borhamdin, S. (2017c). “Development of sustainable
masonry units from mud flood soil: Strength and morphology
investigations.” Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 131,
pp. 682-689, DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.039.
Singh, M. and Siddique, R. (2013). “Effect of coal bottom ash as partial
replacement of sand on properties of concrete.” Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, Vol. 72, pp. 20-32, DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.
12.006.
Sudhakaran, S. P., Sharma, A. K., and Kolathayar, S. (2018). “Soil
stabilization using bottom ash and areca fiber: Experimental
investigations and reliability analysis.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., Vol. 30,
No. 8, p. 04018169, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002326.
Tandel, Y. K., Solanki, C. H., and Desai, A. K. (2012). “Reinforced
granular column for deep soil stabilization: A review.” International
Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 720-
730, DOI: 10.6088/ijcser.00202030002.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B., and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in
engineering practice, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
US EPA SW-846 (2018). Hazardous waste test methods, SW-846,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., USA.
Wood, D. M., Hu, W., and Nash, D. (2000). “Group effects in stone column
foundations: Model tests.” Geotechnique, Vol. 50, No. 6, pp. 689-
698, DOI: 10.1680/geot.2000.50.6.689.
Yoo, C. and Lee, D. (2012). “Performance of geogrid-encased stone
columns in soft ground: Full-scale load tests.” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 480-490, DOI: 10.1680/gein.12.00033.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering