Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Laboratory investigation of the behavior of a geosynthetic encased stone T

column in sand under cyclic loading
Chungsik Yoo∗, Qaisar Abbas
School of Civil, Architectural Engrg. and Landscape Architecture, Sungkyunkwan University, 2066 Seoboo-Ro, Jan-An Gu, Suwon, Kyong-Gi Do, 16419, Republic of Korea

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper presents the results of a laboratory investigation into the behavior of a geosynthetic encased stone
Geosynthetics column (GESC) installed in sand under cyclic loading using a reduced-scale model. A number of test variables
Stone column were considered, such as the geosynthetic encasement stiffness and the cyclic loading characteristics, including
Loose sand loading frequency and amplitude. The results indicate among other things that the overall benefit of the en-
Cyclic loading
casement to the performance of the stone column is greater under cyclic loading than under static loading. It is
Reduced-scale model test
shown that the degree of load transfer to the column becomes smaller when subjected to cyclic loading than
under static loading, leading to a 25% decreased stress concentration ratio. The encasement is found to be more
effective in improving the stone column performance when subjected to lower frequency and/or smaller am-
plitude loading. The lateral bulging zone of the GESC under cyclic loading tends to extend beyond the reported
critical encasement length for an isolated static loading case, and therefore full encasement is recommended.
Practical implications of the findings are discussed in detail.

1. Introduction
The geosynthetic encased stone column (GESC) technique has
gained wide acceptance as a means of increasing the load carrying
capacity of ordinary stone columns (OSC) installed in soft ground. An
extra benefit is minimizing the lateral squeezing of stones into the
surrounding ground during installation and loading. GESCs are typi-
cally used in soil conditions where OSCs cannot be used because suf-
ficient lateral pressure from the surrounding soil required to maintain
the column integrity is not available. For site conditions where both
systems can be used, the cost benefit of GESC system over the OSC
system depends largely on project specific boundary conditions, such as
settlement requirement, installation related problems, and loading
condition.
The geosynthetic encasement concept was likely first introduced by
Van Impe and Silence (1986), and has been acknowledged by numerous
researchers in earlier studies (Raithel and Kempfert, 2000; Kempfert
and Raithel, 2002; Raithel et al., 2002; Alexiew et al., 2005; Murugesan
and Rajagopal, 2006, 2007; Lee and Yoo, 2006; Yoo et al., 2007). More
recent studies have also demonstrated the effect of encasing stone
columns by reduced, as well as full scale, model tests (Wu and Hong,
2009; Gniel and Bouazza, 2010; Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2010; Yoo
and Lee, 2012; Ali et al., 2014; Almeida et al., 2014; Zhang and Zhao,
2014; Hosseinpour et al., 2015; Gu et al., 2016; Miranda et al., 2017;
Yang et al., 2017; Chen et al., 2018; Alkhorshid et al., 2019; Cengiz
et al., 2019), or by analytical and numerical studies (Yoo and Kim,
2009; Yoo, 2010; Khabbazian et al., 2010; Pulko et al., 2011; Almeida
et al., 2013; Castro, 2017; Mohapatra et al., 2017; Mohapatra and
Rajagopal, 2017; Kadhim et al., 2018).
There are many practical situations where stone columns (either
OSCs or GESCs) are subjected to repeated or cyclic loads. For example,
when used to support embankments for roads and railway tracks, the
stone columns are subjected to cyclic loading from moving trains or
vehicles. As modern roadway and railway infrastructure demand a high
level of performance in terms of settlement and stability, stone columns
need to provide adequate level of performance under the train or ve-
hicle-induced cyclic loading. The behavior of stone columns subjected
to sustained-cyclic/cyclic loading is a complex interaction problem in-
volving the soil, stone column, and loading characteristics. Although a
clear understanding of the behavior of stone columns under such
loading conditions is essential for the design of structures founded on
stone column improved ground, studies either on OSCs or GESCs under
cyclic loading are scarce. Available studies include Kolekar et al.
(2011), Raju et al. (2013), Ashour (2015), Fahmi et al. (2018), and
Karkus and Jabbar (2019) which have conducted experimental studies
on OSCs under cyclic loading. Ashour (2015) in particular reported that

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: csyoo@skku.edu (C. Yoo), abbasqaisar935@gmail.com (Q. Abbas).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.02.002

Available online 20 February 2020

0266-1144/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas
Fig. 1. Comparison of test results from different sizes of test box: (a) pressure-settlement curves; (b) progress development of cyclic loading induced settlement (Sc, cy ).
the presence of a stone column enhanced the threshold cyclic stress of
the soil by about 15% and reduced the permanent strain by half relative
to the soil without column. Recent studies on GESCs subjected to cyclic
loading/earthquake loading include Cengiz and Güler (2018) and
Ardakani et al. (2018). Ardakani et al. (2018) in particular performed a
numerical investigation on the deformation behavior of GESC under
cyclic loading and reported among other things that the encasement is
effective in reducing residual settlement, and that end bearing GESCs
provide higher resistance than floating GESCs. Although the previous
studies on stone columns (OSCs and GESCs) under cyclic loading pro-
vide valuable information, more detailed and comprehensive studies
focused on GESCs under cyclic loading are still required to understand
the fundamental governing load carrying mechanism.
In this study, a laboratory investigation was carried out, aimed at
gaining insight into the behavior of a GESC installed in loose sand under
cyclic loading. A series of tests using a reduced-scale model, prepared
with due consideration of the similitude law to a limited extent, was
conducted. The principal parameters investigated were the cyclic
loading characteristics including frequency and amplitude, and the
encasement stiffness. The results are presented so that the design
parameters, i.e., settlement and load carrying capacity of the GESC,
encasement circumferential strain or lateral deformation, load sharing
mechanism, can be related to the influencing factors. Although stone
columns are typically used to support structures overlying both very
soft cohesive soils and loose silty sands having greater than 15 percent
fines (Barksdale and Bachus, 1983; Arulrajah et al., 2009), this study
was carried out to investigate the applicability of GESCs in loose sand
considering the local conditions in Korea where other conventional
ground improvement techniques cannot be readily implemented due to
construction constraints. This paper outlines the reduced-scale GESC
reinforced ground, the physical modeling approach, and finally, the
results of the investigation. Practical implications of the findings are
discussed in detail. It should be noted that the long-term performance of
GESC in relation to the creep of geosynthetic encasement is not con-
sidered in this study.
2. Experimental setup
Components of the reduced-scale model were selected with con-
sideration of the similitude law in order to minimize the possible scale
effect. This section provides details of the experimental setup and the
test procedure.
432
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442
2.1. Similitude analysis
In order to ensure comparable behavior between a reduced-scale
model and an equivalent field-scale prototype structure, the similitude
law should be properly applied to determine the suitable properties of
the constituents used in the reduced model. According to Baker et al.
(1991), the physical characteristics of the model and prototype should
satisfy the following relationship:
Ip = Sf Im (1)
where, Ip and Im = physical quantities for the prototype and the model,
respectively, and Sf = a scaling factor.
As this study considered a 50 mm diameter model GESC to represent
a prototype GESC of 500 mm in diameter, the ratio of the prototype
column to the model column diameter (λ ) is 10. Considering the di-
mensionless factors for the encasement tensile stiffness and strength,
the scaling factors for the encasement stiffness and strength are
λ2 = 100 . When considering typical prototype geosynthetic encase-
ments used in the field, i.e., stiffness and strength ranging
Jp = (2000–6000) kN / m and Tp = (100 – 400) kN / m , the required
model encasement tensile stiffness and strength would be in the range
of Jm = (20 – 60) kN / m and Tm = (1–4) kN / m , respectively.
Accordingly, this study adopted geotextiles having the ultimate tensile
strength (T ) and secant stiffness (J ) at 5% strain ranging (4.2–9.6) kN/
m and (16–50) kN/m, respectively, as model encasement (to be shown
later). When considering the column radius (rgeo ) and the oedometer
modulus of the model ground (Eoed = 25,000 kPa ), the dimensionless
model encasement stiffness J /(rgeo Eoed ) ranges from (0.03 to 0.08).
2.2. Test cell and materials used
2.2.1. Test cell
In this study, a single GESC, fully penetrating a loose sand bed, was
considered. For this purpose, a cylindrical cell of 300 mm internal
diameter and 600 mm depth, made of 25 mm thick stainless steel, was
used, giving the diameter ratio of 6, defined as the ratio between the
diameter of the test cell and the column diameter. Any possible
boundary effect of the test cell was checked by carrying out an addition
test on the GESC baseline case (to be defined later) in a test box made of
steel frame having the dimensions of 1.0 × 0.6 m in plan x 0.6 m
height. As shown in Fig. 1, where the settlement results are shown, the
smaller tank exhibited a slightly stiffer response than the larger test
box, due possibly to the boundary effect to some degree. An extra effort
was therefore made when preparing the model ground to reduce the
friction between the model round and the test tank inner surface, as will
be discussed later.
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

circumferential direction. The overlapping seam was glued and stapled

together to form an encasement sleeve as shown in Fig. 4. An additional
WWT test on a Type 2 geotextile (GT2) specimen with the seam yielded
almost identical tensile force-strain characteristics to those without the
seam (Fig. 3), confirming that the presence of the seam had a negligible
effect.

2.3. Test procedure

All of the tests were performed per a standardized test procedure, in

order to achieve the required level of repeatability. This section de-
scribes the details of the test procedure, including the model prepara-
tion.

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution curves for sand and aggregates.

2.3.1. Sand bed and GESC preparation
The model ground was prepared in the 300 mm diameter test cell in
2.2.2. Sand and aggregate
four lifts by tamping to a target relative density of 50% for all test cases.
Jumunjin sand was used to form the model sand bed having a re-
In order to minimize the possible friction between the inner surface of
lative density of 50%. The sand, classified as SP according to the
the cell and the model ground, WD-40, a penetrating oil and water-
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), per ASTM 2487–17, has the
displacing lubricant spray, was applied to the inner surface of the test
effective size (D10 ), uniformity coefficient (Cu ), and coefficient of cur-
cell prior to the sand placement. Each layer was compacted using a
vature (Cc ) of (0.46 mm, 1.97, and 0.94), respectively. The minimum
tamping rod (30 mm in diameter and 1.5 m long), falling freely from a
and maximum dry unit weights are γd, min = 14 kN / m3 and
200 mm height. The required number of blows per layer for the target
γd, max = 18 kN / m3 , respectively. Fig. 2 shows the grain size distribu-
relative density of 50% was determined by trial and error as 20. An
tion curve.
oedometer test on the as-built model ground gave an oedometer mod-
Aggregates that are angular in shape and size ranging (2–10) mm
ulus of Eoed = 25, 000 kPa for a stress range of 100–500 kPa.
were used to form the stone column. As shown in Fig. 2, the aggregates,
The replacement method was adopted to install the geosynthetic
classified as GP according to USCS, have the effective size (D10 ), uni-
encased stone column. An open-ended, 51 mm diameter, and 600 mm
formity coefficient (Cu ), and coefficient of curvature (Cc ) of (4.7 mm,
long steel casing was first introduced at the center of the test cell, with
1.70, and 0.98), respectively. The LA abrasion value of the aggregates
the encasement sleeve in place inside, before the sand bed formation.
was found to be approximately 22 based on the method proposed by
After completion of the surrounding sand bed formation, the GESC was
Mohajerani et al. (2017), which relates the LA abrasion value to the
prepared in six layers of 100 mm thick each. For each column layer,
compaction abrasion value from the modified compaction test.
aggregates of predetermined amount, i.e., 0.4 kg, were filled into the
Geotechnical properties of the sand and the aggregate are sum-
casing pipe, and well compacted to a unit weight of γsc = 21 kN / m3
marized in Table 1. Note that the shear strength parameters, obtained
(Dr ≈ 100%) using the tamping rod by free falling 30 blows from a
using a large size direct shear test device (300 × 300 mm) under
height of 200 mm, while lifting up to a given height to maintain a pre-
normal stresses ranging 50–150 kPa, represent for those of the as-built
determined overlap length between the bottom of the casing pipe and
model ground condition.
the aggregate filled into the casing pipe. This procedure was repeated,
until the entire length of the GESC was formed. Note that three total
2.2.3. Geosynthetics stress transducers were installed within the GESC at designated loca-
Three types of nonwoven polypropylene geotextiles were used to tions during the aggregate filling process to measure vertical stresses.
create 50 mm diameter encasement sleeves. As summarized in Table 2, Fig. 5 shows the details of the model ground preparation and GESC
the ultimate tensile strength (T ) and secant stiffness ( J ) at 5% strain of installation procedure.
the geotextiles were found to range (4.2–9.6) kN/m and (16–50) kN/m,
respectively, from the wide width tensile tests (WWT) per ASTM
2.3.2. Load application
D4595-17 (Fig. 3). Note that these stiffness values fall within the range
A multi-purpose, servo-controlled hydraulic loading system was
of those computed, based on the similitude requirement presented
used to apply monotonic as well as cyclic loads on the GESC, as shown
earlier.
in Fig. 6a. A 100 mm diameter circular loading plate was placed over
The encasement was formed by rolling a geotextile sheet into a
the GESC with its center in line with the center of the GESC, through
cylinder, by following a similar approach that adopted by Ghazavi and
which the load was generated on the GESC (Fig. 6b). Such loading setup
Afshar (2013), to have an overlap length of 15 mm in the
yields an area replacement ratio of ar = 25 %.
Each test was comprised of three loading phases, i.e., pre-cyclic
Table 1
monotonic, cyclic, and post-cyclic monotonic loading. A pre-cyclic
Geotechnical properties of sand and aggregates.
monotonic load, equivalent to 50% of the static load capacity
Parameters Sand Aggregates ( p = 0.5pu = 55 kPa ) of an ordinary stone column (OSC), was first
Specific gravity 2.63 2.6
applied with a loading rate of 1.0 mm/min, followed by a 10,800 cycle,
D10 (mm) 0.46 4.7 sinusoidal cyclic load of a given frequency and amplitude representing
Coefficient of uniformity Cu 1.97 1.70 traffic or training loading. Upon completion of the cyclic loading, the
Coefficient of curvature Cc 0.94 0.98 GESC was further monotonically loaded to failure at the same rate as
Soil classification USCS SP GP
the pre-cyclic monotonic loading, to examine the post-cyclic behavior.
Max. dry unit weight, γd (kN / m3) 18 21
The monotonic load was applied in the displacement-controlled mode,
Cohesion c′ (kPa) 0 5
Internal friction angle, φ′ (degree) 32 41
while the load-controlled mode was used for the cyclic load. Fig. 7
LA abrasion – 22 shows a schematic illustration of the loading sequence adopted in this
study.

433
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

Table 2
Properties of geotextiles.
Parameters Geotextile 1 (GT1) Geotextile 2 (GT2) Geotextile 3 (GT3)

Yarn material Polypropylene

Ultimate tensile strength (kN/m) 4.2 6.2 9.6
Strain at ultimate strength (%) 37 38 40
Secant stiffness at 5% strain (kN/m) 16 27 50
Thickness (mm) 0.9 1.8 3.7
Mass (g/ m2) 100 170 340

(TST) as shown in Fig. 5. TSTs for the column were placed at the center
location of the column while those for the soil were at 50 mm away
from the center of the column. Circumferential strains in the encase-
ment sleeve were measured using 3.5 mm wide strain gauges, installed
at the same elevations of the TSTs. The strain gauges were attached to
the geotextiles, to orient in the circumferential direction of the cy-
lindrical encasement sleeve (Fig. 4).

2.4. Test variables and series

2.4.1. Test variables

For a given ground condition, the performance of GESC under traffic
or train induced cyclic loading may be affected by such factors as en-
casement stiffness and loading characteristics including frequency and
amplitude. These factors were therefore considered as test variables in
this study.
Fig. 3. Tensile force vs. strain relations for geotextiles tested.
In the present study, traffic or train loading was simulated using a
sinusoidal wave form of cyclic loading as adopted by Hofko et al.
(2014). Three levels of loading frequencies, i.e., f = (0.1, 0.5,  1.0) Hz ,
were adopted, representing loading cases of a maximum train speed of
70 km/h for a typical carriage length of 20 m (Sekine, 1996). With
regard to the cyclic load amplitude, three levels of cyclic amplitude
were considered, i.e., Am = (40, 70, 100) kPa. Note that these ampli-
tudes were selected based on the measured cyclic stresses in the sub-
grade for passenger trains as reported by Yoo and Selig (1979). In all
tests, the number of loading cycles was kept constant at N = 10,800 ,
which was selected rather arbitrarily considering the test environments,
i.e., the time required and the settlement characteristics.

2.4.2. Test series

Table 3 summarizes the test cases considered in this study. As
shown, three series were devised. Series A and B concern the effect of
loading frequency and cyclic load amplitude, respectively, while Series
C considers the effect of the encasement stiffness. Note that the bold-
faced cases indicate the baseline case.

3. Results and discussion

Fig. 4. Geotextile encasement sleeve.
2.3.3. Instrumentation
Each test case was heavily instrumented, in order to attain relevant
data pertaining to the load supporting mechanism of the GESC, such as
applied pressure-settlement relation, vertical stresses in the GESC and
the surrounding ground, and circumferential strains in the encasement
sleeve, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6. Applied load and settlement at the
head of the GESC were measured using a 20-ton load cell and a
200 mm-gauge length LVDT, respectively. Vertical stresses within the
soil and the column were measured at three locations (50, 315, and
580) mm from the top using 8 mm diameter total stress transducers
The results of the test cases are arranged so that the relationship
between the test variables and the GESC behavior under the cyclic
loading can be established. Additional results of test cases with a geo-
grid encasement under a cyclic amplitude of Am = 254 kPa were also
presented for comparison. The geogrid (GG) was polyethylene biaxial
geogrid with 50 × 50 mm aperture having a secant stiffness of
J = 250 kN / m . Subsequent sections describe the details of the results.
3.1. General behavior
This section presents the results of the baseline case. For compar-
ison, the results of ordinary stone column (OSC) and no stone column
(NSC), i.e., sand bed only, cases are also presented.
Fig. 8a shows the pre-cyclic, cyclic, and post-cyclic responses of the
GESC, OCS, and NSC to the prescribed loading. Also shown in Fig. 8b is
the progressive development of cyclic loading induced column settle-
ment (Sc, cy ) with the number of loading cycles. As shown in Fig. 8a, the

434
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

Fig. 5. Schematics of model ground formation and GESC installation.

post-cyclic capacity of the GESC ( puc, gesc ) is considerably larger by 25 and
15%, respectively, when compared to those of the NSC ( puc, nsc ) and the
OSC ( puc, osc ). It can also be seen from Fig. 8b that the GESC shows a
decrease in the cyclic loading induced settlement by 67 and 35%, re-
spectively, from the NSC and the OSC cases. These figures clearly de-
monstrate that the GESC can significantly increase the load carrying
capacity of loose sand bed, and that the provision of encasement con-
siderably reduces the cyclic loading induced settlement and increases
the post-cyclic capacity of the OSC, due to the added confinement effect
by the geosynthetic encasement. It should, however, be noted that the
densification of the surrounding ground during the cyclic loading stage
may also have played a role in increasing the post-cyclic capacity to a
larger extent.
One of the benefits of encasing a stone column is to stiffen the stone
column by providing additional confinement by the encasement, thus
inducing more load on the stone column. Fig. 9a plots the measured
vertical stresses (pressure) at various depths of the GESC and the OSC at
pre-cyclic and cyclic loading stages. Note that the measured pressures
( pm ) are normalized by the applied pressure ( p ) for each loading stage
as pm / p. Of salient features are twofold. First, regardless of the loading
stage, more load is transferred to the GESC than the OSC, thus yielding

Fig. 6. Photos of test setup: (a) loading and data acquisition systems; (b) loading on GESC.

435
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

net outcome of positive effect of stiffer encasement being offset by

negative effect of larger cyclic amplitude, although a further study is
required to confirm the finding.
Fig. 10a and b shows, respectively, the progressive development of
cyclic loading induced circumferential strains (εg, cy ) at different depths
and their profiles at different loading stages. Note that the strain pro-
files in Fig. 10b represent cumulative values at the end of each loading
stage. As shown in Fig. 10a the progressive development of cyclic
loading induced strain is similar to that of the settlement following the
logarithmic form, with a maximum value as great as εg = 0.35 % oc-
curring at the top. In addition, the circumferential strain profiles at
different loading stages shown in Fig. 10b suggest the lateral bulging
zone extending beyond the critical encasement length for an isolated
static loading case, i.e., 3D or 2B (B = loading plate diameter, 1.5D),
reported by Yoo et al. (2007). The circumferential strain profiles for
Fig. 7. Three-phase loading scheme adopted.
different loading stages seem to be similar in shape while showing in-
creased strain levels in the cyclic and post-cyclic stages, indicating that
Table 3 the cyclic loading effect does not significantly alter the lateral de-
Summary of model test series. formation pattern of the column. Although the lateral bulging of the
Series Relative Encasement Frequency, f No. of Amplitude, column appears to be more significant in the upper half, full encase-
density, Dr (Hz) cycles, Am (kPa) ment is recommended for a GESC subjected to cyclic loading to ensure
(%) N its maximum performance. Fig. 10c further illustrates the character-
A 50 GT2, OSC 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 10,800 70
istics of circumferential strain development, in which the circumfer-
B GT2, OSC 0.5 40, 70, 100 ential strain developed at each loading stage is expressed as a percen-
C GT1, GT2, GT3 0.5 70 tage of the total strain, i.e., pre-cyclic, cyclic, and post-cyclic strains
combined. As shown, at all locations, the cyclic loading induced strain
Note: Additional case without column was performed for the baseline cyclic accounts for approximately (64–67)% of the total strain, implying that
loading, i.e., f = 0.5 Hz , Am = 70 kPa , N = 10,800 .
the cyclic loading is responsible for a significant portion of the lateral
bulging of the GESC under cyclic loading. The smaller value of post-
a 40% larger stress concentration ratio for the GESC. Second, the pm / p
cyclic strain than the cyclic strain at a given location may be due in part
values at the cyclic loading stage tends to decrease from those at the
to the densification of the model ground during the cyclic loading.
pre-cyclic stage. The decreases in pm / p , in fact, result in 25% smaller
stress concentration ratios (n = σsc/σs ) at the cyclic loading stage when
3.2. Effect of cyclic loading frequency
compared to those at the pre-cyclic stage, as shown in Fig. 9b, where σsc
and σs are the vertical stresses in the stone column and the surrounding
Previous studies reported that the loading frequency has a negligible
soil nearly at the ground surface level (S1 position), respectively. Such
effect on the strength behavior of soils under cyclic loading (Peacock
trend may in part be attributed to the stress release in the stone column
and Seed, 1968; Yoshimi and Oh-Oka, 1975; Wong et al., 1975;
during the loading cycles, caused by the cyclic degradation of the stone
Yasuhara et al., 1982). This section examines the effect of loading
column and the surrounding soil, suggesting that a reduced n value
frequency on the performance of GESC, using the results from Series A.
from the static loading case be used for GESCs subjected to cyclic
Fig. 11 shows the performance variation of the GESC under the
loading. The stress concentration ratio values from the test case with
cyclic loading with different frequencies, i.e.,
the geogrid encasement also show a similar trend, despite of the stiffer
f = (0.1,  0.5,  and 1.0) Hz. In Fig. 11a, where the applied pressure-set-
encasement and the larger amplitude. Such a trend may be due to the
tlement relations are presented, it is seen that the response of GESC

Fig. 8. Response of GESC, OSC, and NSC to baseline loading: (a) pressure-settlement curves; (b) progress development of cyclic loading induced settlement (Sc, cy ).

436
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas
Fig. 9. Measured column pressures and stress concentration ratios at different loading stages: (a) measured column pressure ( pm / p ); (b) stress concentration ratio (n ).
Fig. 10. Measured encasement circumferential strains (baseline condition): (a) progressive development of cyclic strain (εg, cy ); (b) strain profiles at various loading
stages; (c) percentage of strain components.
seems to significantly vary with the loading frequency, such that the
GESC performs better, i.e., smaller settlement and larger post-cyclic
capacity, at lower frequency cycles. Such trend is better illustrated in
Fig. 11b, where the progressive development of cyclic loading induced
settlement (Sc, cy ) with the number of loading cycles is shown for both
the GESC and the OCS cases. As can be observed, the cyclic loading
induced settlement (Sc, cy ) becomes more than doubled for an increase in
frequency from 0.1to 1.0 Hz , suggesting that the loading frequency is a
key parameter governing the performance of GESC under cyclic
loading.
The relative effect of encasement on settlement reduction with re-
spect to the loading frequency is illustrated using the settlement ratio
SR , defined as SR = Sc, gesc / Sc, osc , in Fig. 12. Note that a smaller SR in-
dicates a greater reduction in settlement by the encasement. As can be
seen in this figure, SR increases from 0.67to 0.78 when increasing f
437
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442
from 0.1to 1.0 Hz . The results from the geogrid encasement cases also
follow the general trend as shown in Fig. 12, supporting that the geo-
synthetic encasement is more effective in limiting the settlement under
lower frequency loading cycles.
Fig. 13a and b shows the variations of the pre-cyclic and cyclic
settlement, and encasement circumferential strain, respectively, with
the loading frequency. As shown in Fig. 13a, the cyclic settlement in-
creases with the loading frequency for both the GESC and the OSC at
similar rates. A similar trend can be observed in the encasement cir-
cumferential strain plot in Fig. 13b, where it is seen the cyclic loading
induced circumferential strain εg, cy increases from 0.15 to 0.35 % when
increasing f from 0.1 to 1.0 Hz. Such trend is thought to be due to the
increased level of lateral bulging when subjected to higher frequency
loading.
Fig. 14a shows the variation of post-cyclic capacity ( puc ) with the
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

Fig. 11. Effect of loading frequency on column performance: (a) pressure-settlement curves (GESC); (b) cyclic loading induced settlement (GESC vs. OSC).

to less than 10% at the higher frequency of f = 1. 0 Hz . The trend

shown in this figure demonstrates that the beneficial effect of encase-
ment on the post-cyclic capacity decreases with increasing loading
frequency.
Fig. 14b shows the variation of stress concentration ratio (n ) with
the loading frequency. As shown, the stress concentration ratio de-
creases with f regardless of the type of stone column, showing an ap-
proximately 50% decrease in n (i.e., from 15 to 7.5) for an increase in f
from 0.1 to 1.0 Hz for the GESC. The OSC case shows an even more
dramatic decrease of almost 64% i.e., from 11 to 4, for the same in-
crease in f . Such decrease in the stress concentration ratio is in fact on
account of the decreased level of load transfer to the column with in-
creasing f. The less percent decrease in n with f for the GESC than for
the OSC may have been due to the encasement effect which helped
maintain column integrity.
Fig. 12. Effect of loading frequency on settlement ratio (SR ).
3.3. Effect of cyclic loading amplitude

loading frequency for both the GESC and the OSC. As shown, it is
The effect of cyclic load amplitude Am on the settlement behavior of
evident that the post-cyclic capacity decreases as the loading frequency
GESC is examined using the results from Series B in Fig. 15. As shown in
increases, with the rate of decrease being slightly faster for the GESC
Fig. 15a, where the settlement ratio (SR ) is plotted against Am , SR in-
than for the OSC, implying that the post-cyclic capacity of the GESC is
creases from 0.68 to 0.78 when increasing Am from 40 to 100 kPa , in-
more sensitive to the loading frequency than the OSC. For example, at
dicating that the provision of geosynthetic encasement in limiting the
the low frequency of f = 0.1 Hz , the post-cyclic capacity of GESC
column settlement is more effective when subjected to smaller ampli-
shows a 15% increase from that of the OSC, while the increase reduces
tude cyclic loading. Such trend is consistent with the observation made

Fig. 13. Effect of loading frequency on: (a) settlement (Sc ); (b) circumferential strain (εg ) at S1.

438
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas
Fig. 14. Effect of loading frequency on: (a) post-cyclic capacity ( puc ); (b) stress concentration ratio (n ).
in the results of Series A that the encasement is more effective in lim-
iting the settlement when the cyclic loading effect is less significant,
i.e., under lower frequency loading.
Fig. 15b plots the settlement components for different loading
stages, i.e., pre-cyclic, cyclic, and post-cyclic loading stages, for the
cyclic load amplitudes considered. Note that the settlement components
are shown as percentage values in relation to the total settlement, i.e.,
pre-cyclic, cyclic, and post-cyclic settlements combined. Salient features
observed in this figure are twofold. First, as expected, the percentage of
cyclic settlement component increases with increasing cyclic amplitude
Am , irrespective of the type of stone column, i.e., GESC or OSC. Second,
in all levels of the amplitude considered, the percent of cyclic settle-
ment component of the GESC is smaller than that of the OSC, demon-
strating the effectiveness of the encasement in reducing the cyclic ef-
fect. For example, at Am = 70 kPa , the cyclic settlement components
are 56 and 60%, respectively, for the GESC and the OSC, which cor-
respond to 19 and 30 mm in terms of absolute settlement values. Such
trend confirms the earlier observation in Fig. 13a that the encasement is
effective in reducing the cyclic effect on the settlement development.
Fig. 16a plots the post-cyclic capacities ( puc ) against the cyclic load
amplitude ( Am ) for both the GESC and the OSC, where it can be seen
that the post-cyclic capacity of the GESC is greater than that of the OSC
at all levels of Am on account of the encasement effect. The encasement
effect on puc appears to decrease as Am increases, showing only a 6%
increase from the OSC case at Am = 100 kPa as opposed to a 15% in-
crease at Am = 40 kPa . Such trend implies that the improvement in puc
due to the geosynthetic encasement becomes limited as Am increases,
which is due in large part to the deterioration of the overall perfor-
mance of the column when subjected to a larger amplitude cyclic load,
even with the provision of encasement.
Fig. 16b presents the variation of the stress concentration ratio (n )
Fig. 15. Effect of cyclic loading amplitude on: (a) settlement ratio (SR ); (b) settlement component.
439
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442
with Am . As can be seen, the stress concentration ratio decreases with
increasing Am for both the GESC and the OSC, showing an approxi-
mately a 40% decrease over an increase in Am from 40 to 100 kPa. Such
trend is the result of a decreased level of load transfer to the column
with increasing cyclic amplitude and highlights a strong dependency of
the level of load transfer to the GESC on the cyclic load amplitude. The
stress concentration ratio for GESCs subjected to cyclic loading should
therefore be selected with due consideration of the cyclic load ampli-
tude.
3.4. Effect of encasement stiffness
In Fig. 17a the effect of encasement stiffness on the column settle-
ment is illustrated, where the settlement ratio (SR) is plotted against the
encasement stiffness. Note that the encasement stiffnesses are normal-
ized by the column radius (rgeo ) and the oedometer modulus of the soil
(Eoed = 25,000 kPa ) as J /(rgeo Eoed ) giving 0.03–0.08. The zero stiffness,
i.e., J /(rgeo Eoed ) = 0 , indicates the OSC case. As shown, the settlement is
reduced by 40% when increasing the encasement stiffness J /(rgeo Eoed )
from 0 to 0.08, or J from 0 to 50 kN/m, as SR is shown to decrease from
1 to 0.6. Such positive effect of encasement stiffness can also be ob-
served in the plot of post-cyclic capacity ratio (PCR) , defined as
PCR = puc, gesc / puc, osc , in Fig. 17b, showing an approximately 33% increase
when increasing J /(rgeo Eoed ) from 0 to 0.08.
The progressive development of cyclic loading induced circumfer-
ential strains (εg, cy ), measured at 50 mm below the column head, is
shown in Fig. 18a for the encasements having J = (16  ~50) kN / m , or
J /(rgeo Eoed ) = (0.03~0. 08) . As can be seen, approximately twice the
larger cyclic circumferential strain (εg, cy ) is accumulated in the less stiff
encasement (GT1) than in the stiffer one (GT3), i.e., εg = 0.45 and
kN kN
0.20%, for J = 16 m
(GT1) and 50 m
(GT3) , respectively. Radial
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

Fig. 16. Effect of cyclic loading amplitude on: (a) post-cyclic capacity ( puc ); (b) stress concentration ratio (n ).

J
for an increase in from 0.03 to 0.08, indicating that more load is
rgeo Eoed
transferred to the stone column encased with a stiffer encasement. Such
results may be attributed to the increased column stiffness caused by
the additional confinement due to the encasement. The increased
column pressure is directly linked to an increase in the stress con-
centration ratio as shown in Fig. 19b, where the variations of the ratio
Fig. 17. Effect of encasement stiffness on: (a) settlement ratio (SR ); (b) post- n
of stress concentration ratio of the GESC to that of the OSC, i.e., gesc , are
nosc
cyclic capacity ratio (PCR ).
shown for the pre-cyclic, cyclic and post-cyclic loading stages. As
shown, the stress concentration ratio for the GESC becomes twice
ngesc
stresses (σh, geo ) offered by the encasements can be inferred from the larger, i.e., n ≈ 2.0 , than that for the OSC when increasing J /(rgeo Eoed )
osc
measured circumferential strains εg using the boiler equation Eq. (2) from 0 to 0.08. Also observed in this figure is that the variation of stress
(Timoshenko, 1983) together with Eq. (3): concentration ratio with J seems to be slightly more pronounced under
the cyclic loading than under the post-cyclic, static loading. The results
FR
σh, geo = shown in this section highlight that the performance of the stone
rgeo (2)
column is indeed significantly controlled by the encasement stiffness.

Δrgeo 4. Conclusions
FR = J × = J × εg
rgeo (3)
This paper presents the results of a laboratory investigation into the
where, FR is the circumferential tensile force, rgeo is the installation ra- behavior of a geosynthetic encased stone column (GESC) installed in
dius, and Δrgeo is the lateral deformation of encasement. Fig. 18b pre- loose sand under cyclic loading. A series of tests were conducted using a
sents the computed radial stress (σh, geo ) profiles, showing the computed reduced-scale model by varying influencing factors that may govern the
radial stresses at the top as σh, geo = (4.2 , 6.2, and 8) kPa for GESC behavior under cyclic loading, such as the geosynthetic encase-
kN kN kN
J= 16 m (GT1) , 27 m (GT2) , and 50 m (GT3) , respectively. Although a ment stiffness and the cyclic loading characteristics, including loading
direct application of these values to a prototype case may not be re- frequency and amplitude. Although limited, the following conclusions
levant, a 100% increase in the radial stress (σh, geo ) can be expected when can be drawn, at least for the range of conditions tested.
tripling the encasement stiffness J from 16 to 50 kN / m .
p
Fig. 19a presents the normalized measured column pressures ( m ) at 1) The provision of encasement significantly reduces the cyclic loading
p
various depths. As shown in Fig. 19a, the normalized column pressure induced settlement, and increases the post-cyclic capacity of a stone
p
( m ) seems to increase by as much as 30% in the top half of the column
p

Fig. 18. Effect of encasement stiffness on: (a) cyclic loading induced strain (εg, cy ); (b) radial stress (σh, geo ) profile inferred from measured strains.

440
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442

Fig. 19. Effect of encasement stiffness on: (a) measured column pressure ( pm / p ); (b) stress concentration ratio (ngesc / nosc ).

column, due to the added confinement effect. The overall benefit of Notations
the encasement to the performance of stone column is greater under
cyclic loading than under static loading. The encasement is found to GESC geosynthetic encased stone column
be more effective in improving the column performance in terms of OSC ordinary stone column
settlement and post-cyclic capacity when subjected to lower fre- NSC no stone column (original ground only)
quency and/or smaller amplitude loading. ar area replacement ratio (dimensionless)
2) The level of load transfer to the column decreases under cyclic H height of stone column (m)
loading than under static loading, leading to as great as 25% de- T tensile strength of encasement (kN/m)
creased stress concentration ratio from the static one for the test J geosynthetic encasement stiffness (kN/m)
cases considered in this study. As the cyclic load intensity increases, FR ring tension force (kN/m)
i.e., higher loading frequency and/or larger cyclic amplitude, the N number of loading cycles
level of relative load transfer to the column also decreases. A re- rgeo initial radius of encasement (mm)
duced stress concentration ratio should therefore be used for GESCs pi initial static loading (kPa)
subjected to higher frequency and/or greater cyclic amplitude Am amplitude of cyclic loading (kPa)
loading. For a given cyclic loading, the degree of decrease in the pu static load capacity (kPa)
stress concentration ratio due to the cyclic effect is smaller for the puc post-cyclic capacity (kPa)
GESC than the OSC, which may be attributed to less cyclic de- f frequency of cyclic loading (dimensionless)
gradation of the column material due to the encasement which helps Sc stone column settlement (mm)
maintain the column integrity. Sc, cy cyclic loading-induced settlement (mm)
3) For a GESC subjected to cyclic loading, a significant portion of the SR settlement ratio (dimensionless)
lateral bulging (up to 75% for the cases considered) was found to be PCR post-cyclic capacity ratio (dimensionless)
developed during the cyclic loading stage, although the column εg circumferential strain in geosynthetic (%)
bulging shape remained the same for the different loading stages εg, max maximum circumferential strain in geosynthetic (%)
suggesting that the cyclic loading effect does not significantly alter εg, cy cyclic loading induced circumferential strain in geosynthetic
the lateral deformation pattern of the column. The lateral bulging (%)
zone, however, tended to extend beyond the reported critical en- σh, geo radial stress (kPa)
casement length of 3D (or 2B when B = 1.5D) for an isolated static σsc vertical stress in column (kPa)
loading case. Although the lateral bulging of the column appeared to σs vertical stress in soil (kPa)
be more significant in the upper half, full encasement is re- n stress concentration ratio (dimensionless)
commended for a GESC subjected to cyclic loading to ensure its φ′ internal friction angle (degree)
maximum performance. c′ cohesion (kPa)
4) The effect of encasement stiffness on the GESC performance under Eoed oedometer modulus (kPa)
cyclic loading is similar to that under static loading, i.e., decreased
settlement, increased load carrying capacity and stress concentra- References
tion ratio with increasing encasement stiffness. This confirms that
the encasement stiffness is a primary design parameter for a GESC Alexiew, D., Brokemper, D., Lothspeich, S., 2005. Geotextile encased columns (GEC): load
under cyclic loading. capacity, geotextile selection and pre-design graphs. In: Geo-Frontiers 2005, ASCE
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 130–142. ASCE, Reston, VA, USA 497–451.
Ali, K., Shahu, J.T., Sharma, K.G., 2014. Model tests on single and groups of stone col-
umns with different geosynthetic reinforcement arrangement. Geosynth. Int. 21 (2),
Acknowledgments 103–118.
Alkhorshid, N.R., Araujo, L.S., Palmeira, E.M., Zornberg, J.G., 2019. Large-scale load
capacity tests on a geosynthetic encased column. Geotext. Geomembranes 47 (5),
This research was supported by the National Research Foundation 632–641.
of Korea (Project Number: NRF-2017R1E1A1A01077246) and the Almeida, M.S.S., Hosseinpour, I., Riccio, M., 2013. Performance of a geosynthetic-encased
column (GEC) in soft ground: numerical and analytical studies. Geosynth. Int. 20 (4),
Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement under the
252–262.
Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Korean govern- Almeida, M.S.S., Hosseinpour, I., Riccio, M., Alexiew, D., 2014. Behavior of geotexti-
ment (Project Number: 16SCIP-B108153-02). The financial support is le–encased granular columns supporting test embankment on soft deposit. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. 141 (3), 1–9.
gratefully acknowledged.
Ardakani, A., Gholampoor, N., Bayat, M., Bayat, M., 2018. Evaluation of monotonic and

441
C. Yoo and Q. Abbas
cyclic behavior of geotextile encased stone columns. Struct. Eng. Mech. 65 (1),
81–89.
Arulrajah, A., Abdullah, A., Bouazza, A., 2009. Ground improvement techniques for
railway embankments. In: Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Ground
Improvement 162, pp. 3–14.
Ashour, S., 2015. The Response of Stone Columns under Cyclic Loading. PhD thesis. The
University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
ASTM D4595-17, 2017. Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the
Wide-Width Strip Method. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM D2487-11, 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering
Purposes (Unified Soil Classification System). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S., Dodge, F.T., 1991. Similarity Methods in Engineering
Dynamics - Theory and Practice of Scale Modeling. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.,
The Netherlands.
Barksdale, R.D., Bachus, R.C., 1983. Design and Construction of Stone Columns Volume I.
Federal Highway Administration, Office of Engineering and Highway Operations,
Research and Development, Washington D.C Report No: FHWA/RD-83/026.
Castro, J., 2017. Group of encased stone columns: influence of column length and ar-
rangement. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (2), 60–80.
Cengiz, C., Güler, E., 2018. Seismic behavior of geosynthetic encased columns and or-
dinary stone columns. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (1), 40–51.
Cengiz, C., Kilic, I.E., Güler, E., 2019. On the shear failure mode of granular column
embedded unit cells subjected to static and cyclic shear loads. Geotext.
Geomembranes 47 (2), 193–202.
Chen, J.F., Wang, X.T., Xue, J.F., Zeng, Y., Feng, S.Z., 2018. Uniaxial compression be-
havior of geotextile encased stone columns. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (3),
277–283.
Fahmi, K.S., Fattah, M., Shestakova, A., 2018. Behavior of foundation soil improved by
stone column under cyclic load. Proceedings of TransSiberia 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1051/matecconf/201823905015.
Ghazavi, M., Afshar, J.N., 2013. Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns.
Geotext. Geomembranes 38 (1), 26–36.
Gniel, J., Bouazza, A., 2010. Construction of geogrid encased stone columns: a new
proposal based on laboratory testing. Geotext. Geomembranes 28 (1), 108–118.
Gu, M., Zhao, M., Zhang, L., Han, J., 2016. Effects of geogrid encasement on lateral and
vertical deformations of stone columns in model tests. Geosynth. Int. 23 (2),
100–112.
Hofko, B., Hospodka, M., Balab, R., 2014. Triaxial Cyclic Compression Testing of hot mix
asphalt with cyclic confining pressure. In: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Asphalt Pavements. CRC Press, Raleigh, USA, pp. 367–391.
Hosseinpour, I., Almeida, M.S.S., Riccio, M., 2015. Full–scale load test and finite–element
analysis of soft ground improved by geotextile–encased granular columns. Geosynth.
Int. 22 (6), 428–438.
Karkush, M., Jabba, A., 2019. Improvement of soft soil using linear distributed floating
stone column under foundation subjected to static and cyclic loading. Civil
Engineering Journal 5 (3), 702–711.
Kadhim, S.T., Parsons, R.L., Han, Jie, 2018. Three-dimensional numerical analysis of
individual geotextile-encased sand columns with surrounding loose sand. Geotext.
Geomembranes 46 (6), 836–847.
Kempfert, H.G., Raithel, M., 2002. Experiences on dike foundations and landfills on very
soft soils. In: Int. Symp. On Soft Soils Found. Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 176–181.
Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V.N., Meehan, C.L., 2010. Numerical study of the effect of
geosynthetic encasement on the behaviour of granular columns. Geosynth. Int. 17
(3), 132–143.
Kolekar, Y.A., Mir, O.S., Dasaka, S.M., 2011. Behavior of stone column reinforced marine
clay under static and cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical
Conference. Kochi, India, pp. 429–432.
Lee, D.Y., Yoo, C., 2006. Load carrying capacity and failure mechanism of geogrid
442
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 48 (2020) 431–442
reinforced stone columns: reduced-scale model tests. J. Kor. Geotech. Soc. 22 (10),
121–131.
Miranda, M., Da Costa, A., Castro, J., Sagaseta, C., 2017. Influence of geotextile encase-
ment on the behavior of stone columns: laboratory study. Geotext. Geomembranes 45
(1), 14–22.
Mohajerani, A., Nguyen, B.T., Tanriverdi, Y., Chandrawanka, K., 2017. A new practical
method for determining the LA abrasion value for aggregates. Soils Found. 57 (5),
840–848.
Mohapatra, S.R., Rajagopal, K., 2017. Undrained stability analysis of embankments
supported on geosynthetic encased granular columns. Geosynth. Int. 24 (5), 465–479.
Mohapatra, S.R., Rajagopal, K., Sharma, J.S., 2017. 3-dimensional numerical modeling of
geosynthetic-encased granular columns. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (3), 131–141.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2006. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: numerical
evaluation. Geotext. Geomembranes 24 (6), 349–358.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2007. Model tests on geosynthetic encased stone columns.
Geosynth. Int. 14 (6), 346–354.
Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K., 2010. Studies on the behavior of single and group of geo-
synthetic-encased stone columns. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 136 (1), 129–139.
Peacock, W.H., Seed, H.B., 1968. Sand liquefaction under cyclic loading simple shear
conditions. J. Soil Mech. and Found. Eng. Div. 94 (3), 689–708.
Pulko, B., Majes, B., Logar, J., 2011. Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: analytical
calculation model. Geotext. Geomembranes 29 (1), 29–39.
Raithel, M., Kempfert, H.G., 2000. Calculation models for dam foundations with geo-
textile-coated sand columns. In: Proceedings of GeoEngineering. Technomic.
Melbourne, Australia, pp. 347.
Raithel, M., Kempfert, H.G., Kirchiner, A., 2002. Geotextile-encased columns (GEC) for
foundation of a dike on very soft soils. In: Geosynthetics – State of the Art Recent
Developments. Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 1025–1028.
Raju, K.V.S.B., Govinda, L., Chandrashekha, A.S., 2013. Cyclic response of stone columns.
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4 (5), 29–32.
Sekine, E., 1996. Bearing Capacity of Roadbed and its Reinforcements. Ph.D Thesis.
Department of Civil Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology.
Timoshenko, S., 1983. Strength of Materials. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, Inc.
Van Impe, W., Silence, P., 1986. Improving of bearing capacity of weak hydraulic fills by
means of geotextiles. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. On Geotext. Vienna, Austria, pp.
1411–1416.
Wong, R.T., Seed, B., Chan, C.K., 1975. Cyclic loading liquefaction of gravelly soils. J.
Geotech. Eng. Div. 101 (6), 571–583.
Wu, C.S., Hong, Y.S., 2009. Laboratory tests on geosynthetic– encapsulated sand columns.
Geotext. Geomembranes 27 (2), 107–120.
Yang, F., Zhang, J.J., Liao, W.M., Han, J.W., Tang, Y.L., Bi, J.B., 2017. Characteristics of
the stress and deformation of geosynthetic-encased stone column composite ground
based on large-scale model tests. Geosynth. Int. 24 (3), 242–254.
Yasuhara, K., Yamanouchi, T., Hirao, K., 1982. Cyclic strength and deformation of nor-
mally consolidated clay. Soils Found. 22 (3), 77–91.
Yoo, C., 2010. Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in embankment
construction: numerical investigation. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. 136 (8), 1148–1160.
Yoo, C., Kim, S.B., 2009. Numerical modeling of geosynthetic encased stone column.
Geosynth. Int. 16 (3), 116–126.
Yoo, C., Lee, D., 2012. Performance of geogrid-encased stone columns in soft ground: full-
scale load tests. Geosynth. Int. 19 (6), 480–490.
Yoo, T., Selig, E., 1979. Field observations of ballast and subgrade deformations in track.
Transport. Res. Rec. 6–12.
Yoo, C., Song, A.R., Kim, S.B., Lee, D.Y., 2007. Finite element modeling of geogrid-en-
cased stone column in soft ground. J. Kor. Geotech. Soc. 23 (10), 133–150.
Yoshimi, Y., Oh-Oka, H., 1975. Influence of degree of shear stress reversal on the lique-
faction potential of saturated sands. Soils Found. 15 (3), 25–35.
Zhang, L., Zhao, M., 2014. Deformation analysis of geotextile encased stone columns. Int.
J. GeoMech. 15 (3), 1–10.