Materials Today: Proceedings

A Sustainable Solution for Geosynthetic Encased Stone Column

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number:

Article Type: SI:ICFTMME 2022

Keywords: Geosynthetic Encased Stone Columns; smart material; California Bearing Ratio test;
recycled aggregates; geotextiles

Abstract: Stone columns are popular technique of soil reinforcement. If installed in extremely soft
ground, there is possibility of stones squeezing into the surrounding soil which will
hinder the performance of stone columns. In such restrictive situations individual stone
columns within a geosynthetic enclosure would help preserve the stone column's
function. This article comes up with an opportunity and demonstrates the necessity of
using various recycled aggregates in lieu of natural aggregates as a solution to the
exploitation of natural aggregates and disposal of construction waste. The feat of
geotextiles as smart material in the construction of Geotextile Encased Stone Column
(GESC) has been evaluated through laboratory modelling on the California Bearing
Ratio (CBR) mould. The proposed methodology employs unit cell approach of stone
column to analyse the load bearing characteristics of different aggregates when
encased with geotextile. The results highlighted the benefits of encasing stone
columns with smart geosynthetic material- Non woven geotextile (GSM 120) and
replacing the natural aggregates with spent railway track ballast and recycled concrete
debris. The CBR test results of GESC showed high efficiency of both the recycled
aggregates in terms of load settlement response and strength properties. It was
observed that geotextile encasement increased the load capacity of stone columns by
2 to 3 times. The improvement in load capacity was most observable in GESC made
up of spent railway ballast.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript Click here to view linked References

2nd International Conference on Future Trends in Materials and Mechanical Engineering (ICFTMME
2022),
SRM Institute of Science and Technology, Ghaziabad, August 19-20, 2022.

Paper ID:

A Sustainable Solution for Geosynthetic Encased Stone Column

Shivangi Saxena1*, L. B. Roy²

1, 2
Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India, 800004

*Corresponding Author email: shivangis.phd18.ce@nitp.ac.in

Abstract

Stone columns are popular technique of soil reinforcement. If installed in extremely soft ground, there is
possibility of stones squeezing into the surrounding soil which will hinder the performance of stone
columns. In such restrictive situations individual stone columns within a geosynthetic enclosure would help
preserve the stone column's function. This article comes up with an opportunity and demonstrates the
necessity of using various recycled aggregates in lieu of natural aggregates as a solution to the exploitation
of natural aggregates and disposal of construction waste. The feat of geotextiles as smart material in the
construction of Geotextile Encased Stone Column (GESC) has been evaluated through laboratory modelling
on the California Bearing Ratio (CBR) mould. The proposed methodology employs unit cell approach of
stone column to analyse the load bearing characteristics of different aggregates when encased with
geotextile. The results highlighted the benefits of encasing stone columns with smart geosynthetic material-
Non woven geotextile (GSM 120) and replacing the natural aggregates with spent railway track ballast and
recycled concrete debris. The CBR test results of GESC showed high efficiency of both the recycled
aggregates in terms of load settlement response and strength properties. It was observed that geotextile
encasement increased the load capacity of stone columns by 2 to 3 times. The improvement in load capacity
was most observable in GESC made up of spent railway ballast.

Keywords: Geosynthetic Encased Stone Columns, smart material, California Bearing Ratio test, recycled
aggregates, geotextiles

1. Introduction

Waste management experts face a significant difficulty when it comes to disposing of construction and
industrial waste especially in more economically developed nations where there are frightening stockpiles of
debris (Zukri, 2018). The special qualities of construction debris and railway ballast might once again be
utilized to their advantage if they are repurposed as a building material (TIFAC, 2000). According to a case
study (Serridge, 2005) crushed concrete and ballast from abandoned railway tracks were used as aggregate
for stone columns in UK. Though the ordinary stone column provide a good solution for treating the soft
ground but there are several shortcomings associated with it (Miranda, 2016). Due to the lack of lateral
confinement, there is a possibility of stones squeezing into the surrounding soil thus leading to loss of a
large amount of aggregates. Stone columns may also get contaminated by the intrusion of fine particles of
surrounding clay thus reducing the efficiency of the columns. All these shortcomings can be overcome by
encasing the stone columns within geosynthetic material (Murugesan and Rajagopal, 2009). The
performance of stone columns can be increased manifolds by encasing the stone columns by both vertical
and horizontal reinforcement (Raithel et al., 2002 and Alexiew et al., 2005).
Through a series of laboratory experiments on sand and gravel, Andreou et al. (2008) studied the influence
of several controlling parameters, including the drainage conditions, the grain size of the stone column
materials, the confining pressure of the soil, and the rate of deformation in stone columns. According to the
investigation, the bearing capacity of the stone column was found to increase with increase in the confining
pressure. Using unit cell approach, the consolidation impact of sand and aggregate as the filler material for
stone columns under distributed load has been assessed (Ismail, 2011). The growing rate of consolidation
for both materials was compared using an axisymmetric consolidation model with Plaxis software
simulations. Sand can be used as a filler material to speed up consolidation by increasing the rate of
consolidation, according to the study's findings. As a result, the desired settlement and bearing capacity may
be attained quickly.
Although there has been lot of research to find a sustainable material for the construction of stone column
but this is for the first time in India when railway ballast and concrete debris are used in combination with
sand to replace the natural aggregates. Railway ballast, concrete debris and natural aggregates collected
from specific sites were broken into standard sizes and mixed with sand in certain proportion to make a
composite column filler material. The filler material for geosynthetic encased stone columns (GESCs) has
been prepared by mixing sand and different aggregates in several proportions. The load- settlement behavior
of GESCs was studied by conducting California Bearing Ratio test on several combinations of sand and
aggregates. The entire study was carried for GESC because of its higher lateral stability and efficient load
settlement behavior. It was found that recycled aggregates can be replaced by 50% sand to give the same
efficiency as that of natural aggregates.

2. Characterization of Materials

2.1 Clay
This study makes use of soft clay collected from NTPC Barh Super Thermal Power Station, Barh, Bihar.
Indian Standard Code 15284 (IS Code - 2003) has been followed when measuring the various index and
engineering properties of clay (Table 1). Based on IS Classification System, the soil is categorized as highly
plastic clay based on the clay's characteristics of plasticity (CH).

Table 1: Properties of the Soil Sample

Property Value
Specific Gravity 2.71
Liquid Limit 54 %
Plastic Limit 20 %
Plasticity Index 34
Maximum Dry Density 1590 kg/m3
Optimum Moisture Content 21.7 %
Soil Classification CH

2.2 Concrete Debris

Demolition waste was collected from backyard area of National Institute of Technology Patna, campus. The
debris was broken into smaller size lying between 12 mm to 8 mm (Murugesan, 2007).

2.3 Railway Ballast

Railway ballast was collected from Danapur Railway track, Patna, India. Ballast was sieved through 12 mm
IS sieve and the portion collected on 8 mm sieve was used for stone column construction (Dash and Bora,
2013).

2.4 Natural Aggregates

To compare the performance of construction waste and recycled railway ballast with that of the natural
aggregates, the size of the natural aggregates was maintained close to that of the debris and recycled ballast.
Aggregates were collected from construction site at National Institute of Technology Patna, Bihar, India. It
was broken into smaller pieces and portion passing through 14 mm IS sieve and retaining on 10 mm sieve
was chosen for the construction of stone columns.
2.5 Geotextile
Non woven Geotextile (GSM-120) made up of polyester fibers was purchased from Siddhi Rubber Udyog,
Noida, India. Properties of the geotextile are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Properties of Geotextile

Property Unit Value

Mass per unit area g/m2 124.2
Tensile Strength kN/m 3.85
Elongation at break % 81
CBR Puncture strength N 635
Apparent Opening Size Microns 90
Durability years 10
pH range - 2 to 13

3. Methodology
3.1 Preparation of GESC Model in CBR mould

Sufficient amount of clay was collected from NTPC Barh Super Thermal Power Station, Barh, Bihar. In
order to conduct all the tests with same amount of water, OMC was calculated and water was added to soil.
Clay was compacted in CBR mould in three layers with 56 no. of blows for each layer. A 50 mm open
ended polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was inserted at the center of clay in CBR mould by applying grease on
both inner and outer surfaces of the pipe. The cylindrical CBR mould of diameter 135 mm with a stone
column at the center depicts a unit cell model with an area replacement ratio of 0.37. Soil from within the
casing pipe was scooped out with the help of spoon and auger. The geotextile was cut in proper dimension
with 10 mm extra width to overlap the edges, adhere them and form a tube. The geotextile tube thus formed
was pushed inside the casing pipe. Aggregates sand mixture was filled inside the geosynthetic encasement
inside the casing pipe in 3 layers. Tamping was done 25 times on each layer with a constant force. The
casing was carefully removed to complete the formation of encased stone column inside CBR mould (Figure
2).

Figure 2: Schematic of CBR test on GESC

3.2 Test Procedure
Mould assembly was placed on testing machine and subjected to penetration rate of 1.25 mm/min after
seating the penetration piston at the center of specimen. Loading piston applied the load directly over the
stone column to compare particularly the performance of different aggregates as material for stone column
(Murugesan, 2009). The loads corresponding to different settlements were measured using proving ring.
Firstly, a CBR test was performed on virgin clay without any stone column in order to compare the
performance of soil with that of various types of stone columns. Next, the CBR tests were performed on
GESCs for all the combinations of sand and aggregates.

4. Results and Discussions

Individual CBR tests were performed for each combination of filler aggregates (Table 3). A consistent form
of load- settlement curve was seen across all of the trials, demonstrating the reproducibility of the
experimental approach used in this study. A trial experiment on virgin clay was also conducted in order to
compare the behavior of crushed stone aggregates with that of virgin clay without any stone column. Figure
3 depicts the load-settlement behavior of virgin clay as determined by CBR test.

CBR test result for virgin clay

300

250

200
Load (kgf)

150
Load (kgf) Virgin Clay
100

50

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Penetration

Figure 3: Load-settlement behavior of virgin clay

The load- settlement curve of CBR test demonstrates that as the load increases the settlement increases as
well. Stones and sand from every CBR test exhibit the same load-settlement behavior. The compacted
density for all tests on aggregates was maintained to be approximately same by evenly tamping the
aggregates sand mixture. The geosynthetic reinforcement plays a crucial role in enhancing the load capacity
of stone column comprising of aggregates with coarse sand by giving enhanced lateral support. The
efficiency of different combinations of filler material is calculated in terms of natural aggregate. The
difference in load-carrying capacity between clay and crushed aggregates for the same settlement is fairly
high (approximately 2.5 times) as indicated in Table 3.

Table 3: CBR results for different combinations of filler material

Filler material of GESC CBR % Efficiency %

100 % Sand 27 55
100 % Concrete Debris (CD) 38 76
100% Railway Ballast (RB) 54 110
100% Natural Aggregates (NA) 49 100
 50% CD + 50% Sand 33 67
50% RB + 50% Sand 45 92
50% NA + 50% Sand 39 80
Clay without stone column 11 22

The sand particles are much smaller than the recycled aggregates they could behave differently after being
loaded over CBR apparatus. Separate test was carried out to assess the impact of loading on stone column
composed of sand alone (Figure 4). The load- penetration curve of stone column comprising of sand alone
suggests that while the loading behavior is generally the same, the failure load and loading trajectories of the
column is different. It is obvious from this that sand alone will not give appreciable results in increasing the
load capacity of the soil reinforced with sand stone column. Even when sand is utilized as filler between the
pores of aggregates, bulging or deformation of the stone columns takes place to some extent. It is found that
the geosynthetic reinforcement provides an extra support to the stone columns thus preventing excessive
bulging of the stone columns. This adds credence to the finding that GESC made up of mixture of sand and
aggregates can be used as filler material in stone column building.

CBR test result for GESC composed purely of sand

700
600
500
Load (kgf)

400
300
Load (kgf) Sand
200
100
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5
Penetration(mm)

Figure 4 Load- Penetration Curve for GESC composed of sand

As illustrated in Table 3, model experiments were conducted on stone columns consisting of various
material combinations. Sand passing through 4.75 mm sieve were utilized, and seven tests were run for all
the combination to ensure that the materials can be applicable to field problems with the various recycled
aggregates and sand mixtures. The load-settlement curves for all the combinations of aggregates and sand
were discovered to be comparable. The typical load- displacement response as determined by model testing
of different combinations of stone aggregate and sand is shown in Figure 5. Figure 5 shows that the stone
columns with the mix proportions of RB (50%) and Sand (50%) responded nearly as GESCs made purely of
natural aggregates.
 CBR test results for various combinations of aggregates and sand
1400
100% Concrete Debris
1200
100% Natural
1000 Aggregates
100% Railway Ballast
Load (kgf)

800
50% Concrete Debris +
600 50% Sand
50% Natural Aggregates
400 + 50% Sand
50% Railway Ballast +
200 50% Sand
Virgin Clay
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 100% Sand
Penetration (mm)

Figure 5: Load- penetration response determined by model testing of different combinations

of aggregates and sand

As observed in Table 4, the stone column constructed entirely of sand has lower CBR value and thus lower
efficiency with respect to natural aggregates (almost half) or any other recycled stone aggregate alone. It can
also be seen that the CBR% of stone columns composed only of sand (27%) and stone column made from
railway ballast (54%) is 2 times. From the results of CBR test, it can also be inferred that the efficiency of
stone column made from 100% concrete debris is almost the same as the efficiency of GESCs made of 50%
NA + 50% sand. Hence, we can say that in place of natural aggregates and sand we can use 100% concrete
debris to get more or less the same load capacity for a particular value of settlement. These results clearly
show that the combination of recycled stone aggregates and sand would result in a substantially higher load-
carrying capability for stone columns due to their increased interlocking and similar engineering properties.

5. Conclusions
1. A mix proportion of 50% RB + 50% Sand was found to have nearly the same efficiency in load-
penetration response as that of 100% NA.
2. Sand alone is not providing sufficient efficiency in terms of load- penetration response. But when
mixed with recycled aggregates and natural aggregates in half quantity of the total volume, the load capacity
of the resulting filler material increases many times.
3. The load- penetration curve of stone column comprising of sand alone suggests that while the
loading behavior is generally the same, the failure load and loading trajectories of the columns for various
combinations are different.
4. The combination 50% CD + 50% Sand is giving a low efficiency (67%) as compared to 100% NA
but when CD is used alone as stone column material its efficiency is found to be 76%.
5. Apart from this NA can also be replaced by 50% RB + 50% Sand to give more or less the same
efficiency. The best results are shown by the stone column made up of 100% RB.
6. It was determined that stone columns could hold the same amount of weight even if some of their
stone aggregates—up to around 50%—were replaced with sand. A decrease in the quantity of stone
aggregate needed will lower the price of stone columns, improve waste material utilization, and safeguard
natural resources.
References

Alexiew, D., Brokemper D. and Lothspeich S. (2005). Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC): Load capacity,
geotextile selection and pre-design graphs. Geotechnical Special Publication, No. 130-142, Geo-
Frontiers, 497–510.

IS 15284 (Part 1): 2003, Indian Standard for Design and Construction for ground improvement —
Guidelines. PART 1 Stone Column, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Ismail, M. A., Ng, L. K. and Ramli, H. M. Y. (2011). Consolidation of Sand and Aggregate as Stone
Column Material. Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE) 15 2705–11

Miranda, M., & Da Costa, A. (2016). Laboratory analysis of encased stone columns. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 44(3), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.12.001

Murugesan, S., & Rajagopal, K. (2009). Investigations on the behaviour of geosynthetic encased stone
columns. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering: The Academia and Practice of Geotechnical Engineering, 3, 2411–2414.
https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-031-5-2411

Raithel M., Kempfert H.G. and Kirchner A. (2002). Geotextile-encased Columns (GEC) for Foundation of a
Dike on Very Soft Soils. Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Geosynthetics,
Nice, France, 1025–1028.

Serridge, C. J. (2005). Achieving sustainability in vibro stone column techniques. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers: Engineering Sustainability, 158(4), 211–222.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2005.158.4.211

TIFAC, Ed. (2000). Utilization of Waste from Construction Industry. Department of Science & Technology,
New Delhi.

Zukri, A. and Nazir, R. (2018). Sustainable materials used as stone column filler: A short review. IOP Conf.
Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 01200. 1-12
ORCID Information Click here to access/download;ORCID Information;i1.png