Field Installation Effects of Stone Columns on Load

Settlement Characteristics of Reinforced Soft Ground

Sudip Basack, Ph.D., M.ASCE1; Sanjay Nimbalkar2; Moses Karakouzian3; Sameer Bharadwaj4;
Zhenkun Xie5; and Nathan Krause6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Soft-soil reinforcement with stone columns is a popular ground improvement method. Installation of columns modifies the sur-
rounding soft soil properties; this phenomenon is termed “smear.” Although several previous investigations were carried out on smear zone
characterization, appropriate field-based studies are limited. The authors performed field-based investigations to quantify the installation ef-
fects by collecting a series of undisturbed soil samples from a reinforced soft ground site with newly installed stone columns and conducting
laboratory testing followed by nonlinear regression analysis. It is observed that the stone column installation induced significant alteration in
the soft soil properties when the columns are closely spaced. An explicit fast Lagrange finite-difference modeling is carried out employing
unit cell analogy, where the nonlinear variation in soft clay permeability and compressibility is simulated. The disturbed soft-soil parameters
obtained are successfully utilized to conduct numerical modeling. To cross-check, a 2D finite-element modeling by PLAXIS has been carried
out as well. It is observed that the results obtained from finite-difference model were in sufficient agreement with the measured field data,
compared with the finite-element results. Brief descriptions of the investigation and relevant conclusions drawn are presented in the
paper. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0002321. © 2022 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Consolidation; Ground improvement; Numerical modeling; Smear; Stone column.

Introduction various ground-improvement techniques have been applied in the

Providing cost-effective foundations with adequate load-bearing
capacities with restrained long-term settlement of infrastructure
are national priorities for infrastructure development in most coun-
tries (Basack 2010). Infrastructure build on soft soil can undergo
excessive settlement, initiating undrained failure of superstructures
unless proper ground improvement is carried out (Feng et al. 2020).
Adequate ground improvement techniques can be adopted to pre-
vent unacceptable settlements while improving the bearing capac-
ity of the foundations at a lower cost than for other mitigation
techniques (Wang 2009). Over the course of several decades,
1
Principal, Elitte College of Engineering, Affiliated: MAKA Univ. of
Technology, Kolkata, India; formerly, ARC Research Academic, School
of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong,
NSW, Australia (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0003-3407-8757. Email: basackdrs@hotmail.com
2
Senior Lecturer, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of Technology Sydney, Australia. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000
-0002-1538-3396.
3
Professor of Civil Engineering, Director, International Recycled Rub-
ber Products Initiative, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Univ. of Nevada, Las Vegas. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002
-8274-6759.
4
Site Engineer, Acciona Infrastructure Australia; Formerly, Graduate
Student, School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
5
Site Engineer, Ericon Building Pty. Ltd., Australia; formerly, Graduate
Student, School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
6
Graduate Student, School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engi-
neering, Univ. of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 3, 2021; approved on
November 19, 2021; published online on January 27, 2022. Discussion pe-
riod open until June 27, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of Geo-
mechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
field, including preloading with vertical drains and stone columns,
chemical stabilization, and dynamic compaction (Bergado et al.
1996; Wang et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2019; Tao et al. 2021).
Ground improvement by stone columns is a semirigid inclusion
method mostly used for improving soft, cohesive soils. The main
advantages of stone column installation are, in order of highest ad-
vantage: increase in the bearing capacity, reduction of settlement,
acceleration of consolidation, enhancement of slope stability, and
mitigation of liquefaction. The reduction in soft ground settlement
occurs because of the increase of Young’s modulus (Bouassida
et al. 1995; Fatahi et al. 2012; Ben Salem et al. 2017).
The adoption of stone columns was found to be quite effective
in meeting the serviceability criteria in the case of very soft clay
(Pugh 2017). The stiffness of stone columns compared with the sur-
rounding soft clay imparts enhanced bearing capacity to the rein-
forced ground (Madhav and Van Impe 1994; Murugesan and
Rajagopal 2010; Almeida et al. 2015). Due to their large diameter
and greater hydraulic conductivity, the stone columns also assist in
accelerated consolidation at a higher rate in comparison with the
conventional prefabricated vertical drains (Han and Ye 2001,
2002; Castro and Sagaseta 2009). Stone column installation as a
soft-ground improvement technique provides greater environmen-
tal sustainability as well, compared with pile foundations (Serridge
2005; Sondermann 2019). The angularity of stone particles and the
column spacing significantly influence the load-deformation char-
acteristics of reinforced soft soil (Bouziane et al. 2020).
The stone columns are mostly installed in soft ground by means
of wet and dry vibro-replacement methods (Keller 2008). During
installation, radial displacements of the column particles under
high pressure significantly alter the surrounding soft soil character-
istics and affect the overall performance of the improved soil, the
phenomenon being termed as “smear” in past studies. Several in-
vestigations have been conducted in the past for the smear zone
characterization around the stone columns, including analytical

© ASCE 04022004-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

 (Han and Ye 2002; Castro 2017) and numerical studies (Benme-
barek et al. 2018; Shehata et al. 2018) as well as through laboratory
model tests (Sharma and Xiao 2000; Weber et al. 2010). Limited
field-based investigation on the smear zone identification for pre-
fabricated vertical drains is reported elsewhere (Indraratna and
Redana 1998), but such field data for the stone columns are
unavailable.
The installation effect in the case of stone columns is different
from the smear of prefabricated vertical drains, which is due to
mandrel penetration. Past investigations on smear did not truly
identify the appropriate field conditions relevant to stone column
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
installation, while most of the theoretical models were based on
certain simplified assumptions. The work reported here aims to
bridge the gap between the theoretical concepts and the actual
field circumstances through a rigorous field-based study. At a se-
lected soft ground site in Australia, a group of stone columns
were installed and the installation effects were studied by collecting
many undisturbed soil samples from selected depths and radial dis-
tances around a column. Alteration in the geotechnical properties of
the soft soil surrounding the columns occurred due to installation,
which is initiated by lateral expansion of stone particles during the
vibro displacement (Guetif et al. 2007; Ellouze et al. 2017). The
soil properties were determined through sophisticated laboratory
tests and the relevant soil parameters were quantified through non-
linear regression analysis. The altered soft-soil characterization ob-
tained from regression analysis was successfully applied to
numerical modeling and the computed results observed were in ac-
ceptable agreement with the measured field data.
Field-Based Investigation
The city of Ballina is situated in coastal Australia near the border of
New South Wales and Queensland, at global coordinates 28.84°S and
153.56°E. The Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence
in Geotechnical Science and Engineering established the first-ever
“National Field-Testing Facility” (NFTF) at Ballina for providing
solutions to geotechnical aspects of energy and transport infrastruc-
ture. The current investigation was carried out at this NFTF site, as
detailed in the next section.
Site Characteristics
From the laboratory tests, the subsoil existing at the site is charac-
terized by highly plastic, soft-saturated marine clay deposit up to an
average thickness of about 10 m, overlying a stiff silty clay deposit
of about 20 m thickness, followed by a firm clay layer (Indraratna
2010; Pineda et al. 2016; Basack and Nimbalkar 2017). The top
2 m below the ground surface consists of remolded crust with grav-
els and coarse sand. The groundwater was shallow, in close prox-
imity to the ground surface. From visual inspection, the soft clay
was observed to be dark brownish-gray and the presence of shells
and similar inclusions was observed in a few samples collected
below the depth of 5 m from the ground surface. The field moisture
content was measured to vary between 39%–107% for the soft-soil
layer (Xie 2016). The particle-size distribution of the Ballina soft
clay samples obtained from the sieve analysis and hydrometer
test results indicated the proportions of clay, silt, and sand as
98%, 1.5%, and 0.5%, respectively. The Atterberg limits of the
clay samples were reported as: LL = 36%, PL = 19.1%, and SL =
9.2%, respectively. From standard Proctor compaction tests, the
maximum dry density of the soil was found to be 13.9 kN/m3 at
an optimum moisture content of 38.5% (Bharadwaj 2016). The un-
drained cohesion of the soil was observed to vary from 3 to 6 kPa,
© ASCE 04022004-2
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004
observed from a series of unconsolidated undrained triaxial tests,
against a range of 2.5–20 kPa obtained from field vane shear
tests (Indraratna 2010; Bharadwaj 2016). More information about
the site characteristics is included in a later section [Fig. 1(b)].
Stone Column Reinforcement
An assembly of stone columns consisting of 50 columns was in-
stalled at the southwest corner plot of the NFTF site by Keller
Ground Engineering. The method of installation adopted was a
wet vibro-replacement technique with a square pattern (Raju
2005; Smadi 2015). The depth of installation covered the full thick-
ness of the soft-clay layer and penetrated up to about 0.5 m through
the stiff-clay layer. As portrayed in Fig. 1(a), the total plan area of
the column-reinforced ground was 18 × 8 m, with five rows of col-
umns, with 10 columns in each row. The finished column diameters
were 800, 1,000, and 1,200 mm, while the center-to-center distance
between the columns was 2 m. The site boundary was situated
4.5 m away from the outermost row of columns. Fig. 1(b) shows
the vertical cross section of the reinforced soil.
Sample Collection
For easy accessibility of the drilling rig, the area around column
number “28” has been chosen for sample collection. Initially, the
upper portion of the top crust layer was removed by an excavator
to expose columns 23, 27, 29, and 33, as shown in Fig. 2(a). The
undisturbed soil samples were collected from selected radial dis-
tances and depths around target Column 28 employing U75 sam-
pler (sample height = 500 mm) through the excavated bore holes.
Fig. 2(b) depicts a sample collection in progress from a typical lo-
cation. The samples were collected from three bore holes excavated
at radial distances of 600, 700, 850, and 1,000 mm from the center
of the column, while the targeted depths of sample collection were
2, 4, 6, and 8 m below the original ground surface (i.e., top surface
of the soft-clay layer), as shown in Fig. 3. In addition, samples were
also collected from another bore hole excavated sufficiently away
from the column zone, that is, at a distance of 10 m from column
number 50 [Fig. 1(a)]; the purpose of sample collection from this
isolated bore hole was to measure the subsoil parameters at a loca-
tion free from column-installation effects, that is, the unreinforced
zone.
Prior to embankment construction, the authors conducted pie-
zocone penetration test (CPTU) with dissipation measurement,
following standard methodology (ASTM 2004) with the assis-
tance of the Centre of Excellence in Geotechnical Science and En-
gineering, Australian Research Council. This test was performed
at a location 20 m away from column number 50, shown by point
“V” in the Fig. 1(a). Due to the significant weight of the test rig
(about 0.2 MN), conducting CPTU on or near the columns
would have affected the soil properties, influencing the laboratory
test results. While the details of CPTU test have been reported
elsewhere (Basack 2020), the depth-wise variation of permeabil-
ity and compressibility of soft clay obtained by analyzing the
test data is presented in Fig. 2(c). It is observed that the average
variations of CPTU-derived permeability and compressibility of
soft clay with those of oedometer tests are about 7% and 9%, re-
spectively, with the laboratory results being on the lower side. Al-
though a better knowledge on the subsoil profile could be
obtained by conducting CPTU tests at several locations, such
tests could be conducted only at the selected location described
earlier, due to limited accessibility to other locations around the
stone column site.
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. Schematic diagrams (not to scale) of installed stone columns: (a) plan, and (b) cross-sectional elevation on AA′ . (Adapted from Basack 2016.)

© ASCE 04022004-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2. (a) Exposed stone columns; (b) undisturbed sample collection in progress; and (c) CPTU and laboratory test results.

Fig. 3. Bore hole locations and target depths of sample collection.

Embankment Construction reinforced soft-ground surface was designed as 6 m square on the

First, adequate drainage arrangement was installed to ensure that top, 3 m in height, with a 1V:1.5H side slope; thus, the base area
the water expulsed from the soft-clay deposit during the process was 15 m squared (Fig. 1). Prior to construction, the top 1 m of
of consolidation was drained. The proposed embankment on the the crust layer was trimmed from the entire reinforced area,

© ASCE 04022004-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

Fig. 4. Photographic views of (a) settlement plate; and (b) gravel-filled surface.

Fig. 5. Photographic view of completed embankment.

followed by installation of settlement plates at selected locations of
the excavated ground surface [Fig. 4(a)]; a total of six settlement
plates were installed around the central column (number 28) for mea-
suring ground settlement. Thereafter, a gravel-filled layer of an aver-
age thickness of 1 m was placed on the excavated ground surface
[Fig. 4(b)], to provide adequate stability to the embankment through
frictional resistance. Locally procured angular ballast of average par-
ticle size ranging from 40 to 80 mm (maximum dry density: 22.1 kN/
m3) was used for the gravel-filled layer. To level the finished surface,
a sand blanket of average 50 mm thickness was laid to prepare the
base for the construction. From laboratory tests of the representative
sample, the sand was found to be medium-coarse (average particle
size: 0.6 mm) with the maximum dry density measured as 20 kN/
m3. Both the gravel-filled layer and the sand blanket were sufficiently
compacted using a typical road roller. From direct shear tests in the
laboratory with representative samples, the friction angles of the
gravel and sand were found to be 32° and 42°, respectively.
To construct the embankment, silty sand (particle-size distri-
bution: 5% clay, 40% silt, 30% sand, and 25% gravel) excavated
from a nearby site was used. Through standard proctor compac-
tion testing, the maximum dry density of the embankment soil
was found to be 17.86 kN/m3 with an optimum moisture content
of 22.23%. The embankment was constructed in several stages,
with sufficient rest periods for consolidation. Each layer was com-
pacted sufficiently using a heavy-duty road roller. From labora-
tory tests of the representative disturbed samples from the
finished embankment, the natural moisture content of the soil
was found to be 21.5%, with a bulk density of 21.1 kN/m3. Con-
solidated drained triaxial testing of undisturbed samples yielded
effective shear strength parameters of the embankment material,
which primarily consists of silt, sand with gravel, were found
as: c′ = 5 kPa and ɸ′ = 38°. A photographic view of the finished
embankment is shown in Fig. 5. The entire construction history
has been presented in Table 1.

© ASCE 04022004-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

 Table 1. Embankment construction history
Time

Construction phases Start day End day Duration (days)

Gravel-fill and sand blanket 0 2 2
laying
Rest period 3 5 3
Embankment: first 1-m height 6 10 5
Rest period 11 30 19
Embankment: next 1-m height 31 32 2
Rest period 33 43 11
Embankment: next 0.5-m height 44 45 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Rest period 46 53 8
Embankment: final 0.5-m height 54 55 2

Fig. 6. Oedometers used for laboratory testing.

In the field study, the settlement measurements were done pri-
marily based on the central columns located below the top surface
of the embankment. To provide accessibility on the embankment
surface for data acquisition and also because of closely spaced col-
umns, only a few settlement plates were placed on the reinforced
ground, as shown in Fig. 1(a); the individual plates were 500 mm
square in size. The ground settlements were measured with the
help of the rods attached to the plates by means of a GPS survey in-
strument. Elevations were measured with respect to a permanent
benchmark situated in the NFTF site at about 42 m from Column
5, which is shown as point “X” in Fig. 1(a); the benchmark is located
at a height of 3.6 m above the mean sea level. Based on GPS satellite
signals, the suitably calibrated measurement technique exhibited the
highest level of accuracy, in addition to being convenient and fast.
To minimize disturbance to the reinforced soft-ground surface, a
lightweight trailer-mounted drill rig was used to recover undis-
turbed samples from selected locations around the central column.
The entire operation was completed within a few hours, including
the removal of the rig. Following that process, the settlement plates
were placed on the ground surface and construction of the embank-
ment commenced. Thus, it is reasonable to ignore the influence of
the weight of the machine on the settlement measurement.
Laboratory Tests
The undisturbed soil samples collected from the site were trans-
ported the marine geotechnics laboratory of the University of Wol-
longong, NSW, Australia. Initially, a sequence of routine tests was
conducted to determine the fundamental geotechnical properties of
the soft clay described earlier, including particle-size distribution,
Atterberg limits, compaction characteristics, and shear strengths.
Thereafter, consolidation characteristics of the undisturbed soft-
clay samples through oedometer testing were performed, with the
stages of loading applied being varied in the range of 7–112 kPa
for loading and 112–14 kPa for unloading. Fig. 6 portrays a repre-
sentative photographic view of the group of oedometers used for
testing (Krause 2016).
Each of the undisturbed field samples was tested twice, with the
pore-water flow direction corresponding to vertical and horizontal
directions in the field; when the loading direction in the oedometer
corresponded to vertical direction of pore-water flow in the field,
the specific term “vertical sample” is used herein, otherwise, “hor-
izontal sample” is used.
Test Results
A typical e−log10 p′ curve for the soil sample is shown in Fig. 7(a),
where e is the void ratio and p′ is the effective overburden pressure.
Fig. 7(b) represents a typical time-settlement plot from an oedom-
eter test relevant to the imposed-load intensity of 112 kPa, for the
soil sample collected from a depth of 6 m below the original ground
surface at a radial distance of 500 mm. Using the logarithmic time
fitting method (Casagrande and Fadum 1940), the coefficient of
consolidation cv was determined. From the correlations of e and
p′ , the values of the coefficient of volume compressibility mv
have been evaluated (Terzaghi et al. 1996).The permeability of
the soil was determined using the standard correlation (= cv mv
γw, where γw = unit weight of water). Tables 2 and 3 summarize
the values of permeability and compressibility for all the soil sam-
ples in the reinforced and unreinforced zones, respectively.
Analysis and Interpretation
The permeability of the soil sample obtained from a particular ra-
dial distance and depth has been normalized by the corresponding
value relevant to the unreinforced zone. The normalized parameter,
denoted as βk, has been plotted against normalized radial distance r/
re [Fig. 8(a)], where r is the radial distance from the center of Col-
umn 27, and re is the radius of the cylinder of influence (Basack
et al. 2018b). For a square pattern of installation, re is equal to
0.564s, where s is the spacing between the columns (Wang
2009). Conducting nonlinear regression analysis, the parabolic
best-fit curves (R 2 > 0.97) are derived from
βk = βkre − bk (1 − r/re )n (1)
where βkre = value of βk at the boundary of the cylinder of influence
(i.e., r/re = 1); bk = nondimensional coefficient; and n = order of the
parabola. The values of βkre , bk, and n are given in Fig. 8(a) for ver-
tical and horizontal samples. It was obtained that for all the depths,
the value of n = 2.0.
Similarly, the value of mv for a particular soil sample has been
normalized by the value of mv corresponding to that of the unrein-
forced soil. The plot of the normalized parameter, denoted as βm,
has been plotted against r/re, as shown in Fig. 8(b). The best-fit
curves obtained from regression analysis was found to be parabolic,
given by
βm = βmre − bm (1 − r/re )n (2)
where βmre = value of βm at the boundary of the cylinder of influ-
ence (i.e., r/re = 1); bm = nondimensional coefficient; and n = order
of the parabola. The values of βmre , bm, and n are given in Fig. 8(b)
for vertical and horizontal samples. For all the depths, the best-fit
curves were cubic parabola (i.e., n = 3.0).

© ASCE 04022004-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. Typical oedometer test results: (a) e−log10 p′ curves; and (b) time-settlement curve.

Table 2. Laboratory test results: reinforced zone

Vertical sample Horizontal sample

Normalized radial distance (r/re) Normalized radial distance (r/re)

Normalized depth (z/L) 0.532 0.62 0.753 0.886 0.53 0.62 0.753 0.886
−9
Permeability (10 m/s)
0.225 0.028 0.029 0.031 0.033 0.153 0.159 0.186 0.192
0.425 0.036 0.039 0.041 0.043 0.182 0.191 0.221 0.229
0.625 0.041 0.043 0.045 0.048 0.225 0.235 0.271 0.285
0.825 0.052 0.057 0.061 0.063 0.251 0.262 0.301 0.314
Volumetric compressibility (10−5 m2/N)
0.225 16.576 17.061 17.856 18.031 2.408 2.498 2.965 3.074
0.425 19.085 19.643 20.556 20.759 2.629 2.731 3.206 3.358
0.625 21.811 22.449 23.493 23.724 2.884 2.994 3.515 3.682
0.825 24.209 24.918 26.077 26.334 3.086 3.204 3.761 3.939

Table 3. Laboratory test results: unreinforced zone

Parameters Vertical sample Horizontal sample
Normalized depth (z/L) 0.225 0.425 0.625 0.825 0.225 0.425 0.625 0.825
Permeability (10−9 m/s) 0.192 0.204 0.196 0.205 0.971 1.022 0.979 1.031
Volumetric compressibility (10−5 m2/N) 30.112 29.953 30.131 29.854 5.015 4.991 5.021 4.975

From these plots, it has been observed that the permeability and reduction being in the order of 20%–89% of the relevant values
compressibility of the soft clay within entire zone of influence has prior to installation. Such observation opposes the existing literature
been significantly reduced by the stone column installation, the where such reduction was assumed to be limited to a zone

© ASCE 04022004-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 8. Regression analysis on oedometer test results for: (a) perme-
ability; and (b) compressibility.
surrounding the column surface, specifically termed the smear zone,
having a radius of 120%–250% to that of the column, where the soil
permeability is reduced up to 90% (Han and Ye 2002; Wang 2009;
Weber et al. 2010; Basack et al. 2018b).This may be justified by
the fact that the columns were closely spaced; hence, alteration in
the properties took place in the entire soft soil within the cylinder
of influence. In addition, the method of installation as well plays a sig-
nificant role in developing the smear zone (FHWA 1983).
The depth-wise variation of the nondimensional parameters
βkre, bk , βmre, and bm obtained from the oedometer test results were
plotted in Fig. 9. The values of the parameters were observed to increase
fairly linearly with depth, with equations of the best-fit lines being
βkre = β0kre + (z/H)ωβk (3a)
bk = b0k + (z/H)ωbk (3b)
βmre = β0mre + (z/H)ωβm (3c)
bm = b0m + (z/H)ωbm (3d)
where βkr0 , b0k , β0mre, and b0m = values of the regression parameters
e
βkre, bk , βmre, and bm at a depth of below the top surface of the
soft clay layer, respectively; and ωβk , ωbk, ωβm, and ωbm = rate
of increase in the values of βkre, bk , βmre, and bm with increasing
values of the depth z, respectively.
Numerical Modeling
The numerical modeling was carried out by means of free-strain
analysis following unit cell analogy, by incorporating an explicit
© ASCE 04022004-8
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004
fast Langrangian finite-difference (FD) technique. To validate the
model further, a 2D finite-element (FE) modeling by PLAXIS
was also performed.
Finite-Difference Model
The model assumes a free-strain hypothesis (Basack and Nimbal-
kar 2017). The previous model developed by the authors (Basack
et al. 2018b) was modified to capture the column installation effects
on the load-settlement characteristics of the reinforced soft ground.
The arching, clogging, smear, and lateral column deformation were
considered in the previous model. In the present analysis, the ap-
propriate field values of soft-clay permeability and compressibility
obtained from the regression analysis are used as input parameters
for each of the nodal points in the soil zone of the unit cell, whereas
in the earlier solutions, the installation effect was assumed to be
limited only to a specified zone around the column, the smear zone.
The axisymmetric idealized problem is depicted in Fig. 10,
where a uniformly distributed load was imparted on the reinforced
soft-clay surface. The stone column, with a radius of rc, is pene-
trated to a full depth H of the soft-clay layer. The base of the
unit cell was assumed to be rigid and impervious, which is equiv-
alent to a stiff-clay layer in the field. The column cross section con-
sists of clogged and unclogged zones; detailed analysis on column
clogging due to intrusion of fines, incorporating the parameters α,
αi, αf, αt, and αk, has been presented elsewhere (Basack et al.
2018b).
Following the previous analysis, the soft soil in the unit cell has
been uniformly discretized radially as well as vertically into a finite
number of elements nr and nz, respectively. The desired time of
computation has been discretized into equal number of divisions nt.
Significant column–soil relative stiffness initiates an arching ef-
fect, producing a parabolic vertical-stress distribution on the rein-
forced ground surface, the intensity being minimum on the
column–soil interface and maximum on the unit cell boundary
(Basack et al. 2018b). The ratio of column-to-soil vertical stress
on the interface, popularly termed the stress concentration ratio
(ns), usually varies from 2 to 5 (Han and Ye 2001, 2002). The
value of ns progressively increases with time as the consolidation
progresses (Han and Ye 2001). The authors have mathematically
derived the expression for ns as a unique function of the stiffnesses
and Poisson’s ratios of the column and the soil and the peak friction
angle of the column material, which was published elsewhere
(Basack et al. 2018b).
Under the load imposed on the reinforced ground surface, the
consolidation of soft soil takes place. Although a rigorous analysis
demands the flow of pore water along both the vertical and horizon-
tal directions, previous analyses established that the horizontal
component of the flow velocity is significantly predominant in
comparison with the vertical component (Han and Ye 2002; Basack
et al. 2018b). Hence, it is reasonable to assume that the pore-water
flow during consolidation is purely horizontal and radial toward the
column. It has also been assumed that the column is a freely drain-
ing material. From the radial consolidation theory (Barron 1948),
the following differential equation for excess pore-water pressure
was used:


kh
∇2r − ∇t urt = 0 (4)
mv γ w
where urt = nodal excess pore-water pressure at point (r, t) in the
space-time frame; r = radial distance from the column center-line;
and t = time. The parameters kh and mv = permeability and the co-
efficient of volume compressibility of clay along the horizontal di-
rection, respectively; the analysis of the laboratory test data
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 9. Depth-wise variation of regression parameters for: (a) permeability; and (b) compressibility.

indicates that these two parameters are also functions of the nodal [U ] = excess pore-water pressure matrix of the order of nr nt × nr nt:
point (r, z) in the space. The differential operators in Eq. (4) are ⎡ ⎤
given by u11 u12 u13 . . . u1,nr
⎢ u21 u22 u23 . . . u2,nr ⎥
⎢ ⎥
∂2 1 ∂ =⎢ u
⎢ 31 u 32 u33 . . . u3,nr ⎥ ⎥
∇2r ≡ + ⎣... ⎦
∂r2 r ∂r ... ... ... ...
∂ unr nt ,1 unr nt ,2 unr nt ,3 . . . unt ,nr nt
∇t ≡ (5)
∂t
and [B] = augment matrix of the order of nr n t × n r n t:
Expanding Eq. (4) in FD form and applying the appropriate ⎡ ⎤
boundary conditions (given next, more details are available in c11 c12 c13 ... c1,nr
Basack et al. 2018b), the following matrix equation was ⎢ c21 c c ... c2,nr ⎥
⎢ 22 23 ⎥
developed: =⎢
⎢ c31 c32 c33 ... c3,nr ⎥
⎥
⎣... ... ... ... ... ⎦
[F][U ] = [C] (6) cnr nt ,1 cnr nt ,2 cnr nt ,3 . . . cnt ,nr nt
where [F ] = A coefficient matrix of the order of nr nt × nrnt: The elements fik in the coefficient matrix [F ] previously are ap-
⎡ ⎤ propriate functions of the permeability and compressibility of the
f11 f12 f13 ... f1,nr soft soil at the space-time coordinate (r, t). In the previous models
⎢ f21 f22 f23 ... f2,nr ⎥
⎢ ⎥ by the author, the permeability and compressibility of the soft soil
=⎢ f
⎢ 31 f 32 f 33 ... f3,nr ⎥
⎥ was altered only within the smear zone of the unit cell assumed ar-
⎣... ... ... ... ... ⎦ bitrarily, which appears to be inappropriate based on the field-based
fnr nt ,1 fnr nt ,2 fnr nt ,3 . . . fnr nt , nr nt investigation described earlier.

© ASCE 04022004-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 10. Unit cell sections: (a) longitudinal; and (b) cross-sectional.

The boundary conditions applied to derive the Eq. (6) are: (i) the
column is freely draining; (ii) purely horizontal excess pore-water
flow, radial toward the column; (iii) applicability of Darcy’s law
of permeability; (iv) rigid and impervious unit cell base; (v) zero
horizontal hydraulic gradient at unit cell lateral boundary; and
(vi) free-strain condition in the unit cell.
The average ground settlement at a time instant of t has been ob-
tained from (Basack et al. 2018b)


2 re H t
∂urt
ρav = mv − rdr dz dt (7)
re2 − rc2 rc 0 0 ∂t

The computation includes iterative technique involving multi-

stage convergence, performed by developing a computer program
COL in FORTRAN 90 coding. Fig. 11. Unit cell representation with FE discretized mesh and boun-
dary conditions of the Ballina embankment.

Finite-Element Model
Further validation is performed by comparing the predictions from
the FD solution, FE modeling with the field data. The FE analysis is
carried out by employing the FE program PLAXIS 2D (Brinkgreve
et al. 2017), based on Biot’s consolidation theory.
The cross section of the embankment resting on stone
column-stabilized clays at the NFTF site, Ballina, as shown in
Fig. 1(b), is simulated in PLAXIS. A cross section of the embank-
ment resting on stone column-stabilized clays at the Ballina site is
simulated in PLAXIS, as shown in Fig. 11, where a 10 m-thick
soft-clay deposit is underlain by a deeper stiff-clay layer. A 2D
axisymmetric FE analysis is considered. The granular fill is
assumed to be free-draining material. The nondisplacement boun-
dary is 30 m below the ground surface. A unit cell representation
of embankment is conveniently simulated. The unit cell model in-
volves a single stone column with an equivalent circular zone of in-
fluence. This equivalent zone is (16/π 2)1/4 × s = 1.13 s for square
arrangement of stone columns (Balaam and Booker 1981). There-
fore, the model with an equivalent diameter, de = 1.13 s is adopted
in this study.
A finer mesh size is used in the area close to the soil–column
interface. The FE discretized mesh and boundary conditions of
the embankment are shown in Fig. 11. The FE model consists of

© ASCE 04022004-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

 quadratic, six-noded triangular elements with six displacement
nodes and three pore pressure nodes. A total of 1,641 triangular el-
ements are used for the discretization. Roller supports are used at
the right boundary for restraining in the horizontal directions and
representing smooth vertical contact. The bottom boundary is
fully fixed and set as impermeable, while top and outer boundaries
are set as permeable, facilitating the drainage in the horizontal di-
rection toward the stone column. The water table is assumed to
be at the ground surface, and the initial stress state in the ground
is simulated using an at rest K0 condition.
A soft-soil (SS) model is applied in the FE analysis to simu-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Validation
The average ground settlement during and after construction was
obtained by regular recording of the data from the installed settle-
ment plates. The average ground settlement was obtained by nor-
malizing the average of the readings from the settlement plates
by the initial thickness of the soft-clay layer (H = 10 m). More de-
tails on the field data collection are published elsewhere (Basack
et al. 2017, 2018a).
Nonuniform stress distribution under the embankment is likely
to produce horizontal displacement. However, such displace-

late the responses of soft normally consolidated clays. The SS
model is deemed necessary to overcome the limitations of its
predecessor models in terms of capturing the time-dependent be-
havior of soft soils (Brinkgreve et al. 2017). The stiff silty-clay
layer underlying the column-improved region is also simulated
using the SS model, as this layer is found to be approximately
similar to normally consolidated clay. A hardening-soil (HS)
model is used to simulate stone columns. Mohr–Coulomb is em-
ployed for the granular fill materials (such as for embankment
fill, sand blanket, and gravel fill) and top compacted crust mate-
rials. The relevant input parameters used in the 2D FE analysis
are listed in Table 5.
The granular fill materials (such as embankment fill, sand blan-
ket, and gravel fill) are considered as fully draining. Effective
shear-strength parameters (c′ and ϕ′ ) are used for stone columns
and other granular fill materials, including embankment, sand blan-
ket, and gravel fill. Top compacted crust materials are also repre-
sented in terms of c′ and ϕ′ . For soft and stiff clays, shear
strength is simulated in terms of c and ϕ, as the water table is as-
sumed to approach the ground surface.
PLAXIS-based FEM analysis does not integrate a probabilistic
approach that allows for the incorporation of spatial variation. Al-
though the spatial diversity of soil permeability and compressibility
may have been modeled by designating various soil layers with
varying values of permeability and compressibility, such a model
would only oversimplify the reality. Thus, the weighted average
of the permeability and compressibility of clay was used in the
2D FEM.
ments are predominant near the toe of the embankment, especially
in a large project where hundreds of columns are installed. Since
the settlement measurements are made exclusively around the
central columns, such displacements are unlikely to have a signif-
icant effect on the measured data. Moreover, past studies have
shown that such horizontal displacement near the embankment
toe occurred several months after completion of construction
(Indraratna et al. 2016). Since the settlement measurements re-
ported herein are limited to the first 80 days following the com-
mencement of embankment construction, such horizontal
displacements are not expected to significantly affect the mea-
sured field data.
Much of the input data for the numerical analyses were obtained
from the available information in the field investigation, together
with few assumed values. Tables 4 and 5 provide the input param-
eters for the FD and FE model, respectively.
In case of stone columns, the radial consolidation is predomi-
nant compared with vertical consolidation. Thus, in the numerical
model, the pore-water flow is assumed as horizontal and radial to-
ward the column. Due to expulsion of water from the soil, ground
settlement occurs. Hence, in Eq. (7) of the FD model, the vertical
coefficient of consolidation is required for computation of ground
settlement.
The SS model in PLAXIS cannot directly accommodate the ef-
fective value of coefficient of horizontal consolidation, ch, and the
input parameters mainly reflect the coefficient of consolidation due
to vertical flow. The values of ch can indirectly be obtained by per-
forming the back-analysis by the Asaoka method and by PLAXIS

Table 4. Input parameters for FDM computations

Value

Material Parameter Current FDM Previous FDM (Basack et al. 2018b)

Soft clay Initial depth of soft clay (H ) in m 10 10
In situ earth pressure coefficient (K0) 0.8a 0.8a
Initial unit weight (kN/m3) 14.67 14.67
Initial void ratio (e0) 2.26 2.26
Slope of e − ln p′ curve (λ) varied as per test data 0.5–0.7b
Embankment Unit weight (kN/m3) 21.1 21.1
Passive earth pressure coefficient 3c 3c
Sand blanket Unit weight (kN/m3) 21.0 21.0
Gravel fill Unit weight (kN/m3) 22.76 22.76
Crust Unit weight (kN/m3) 14.67 14.67
Stone column Stress concentration ratio (ns) 4.0b 4.0b
Smear zone parameters varied as per test data rs/rc = 1.15b ks/kh = 0.1b
Clogging parametersd αi 1.0 1.0
αf 0.5 0.5
αt 17.4 17.4
αk 0.89 0.89
a
Assumed after Basack et al. (2017).
b
Assumed after Basack et al. (2016).
c
Assumed after Basack et al. (2018a).
d
Assumed after Basack et al. (2018b).

© ASCE 04022004-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

 Table 5. Constitutive model and material parameters considered in 2D finite-element analysis
Layer Embank-ment Sand4 Gravel fill5 Crust6,7 Soft clay6,7,8 Stiff clay6 Stone column9
Constitutive model MC1 MC1 MC1 MC1 SS2 SS2 HS3
Elastic modulus, E (MPa) 80 60 20.1# 3 — — —
Poisson’s ratio, ν 0.3 0.3 0.35 0.3 0.4 0.35 0.3
Dry unit weight (kN/m3) 17.37# 20 22.1 7.90 7.90 8.46 14.76
Bulk unit weight (kN/m3) 21.1 21 22.76# 14.67 14.67 14.80 15.50
Cohesion, c, c′ (kPa) 5 0.2 0.1 29 5 15 0
Friction angle, ϕ, ϕ′ degrees 38 32 42 29 30 0 52.5
Dilation angle, ψ degrees 6 3 5# 5 0 0 6.6
Secant modulus, E50ref
(MPa) — — — — — — 24.8
— — — — — —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ref
Tangent modulus, Eoed (MPa) 24.8
Stiffness modulus, Eur ref
(MPa) — — — — — — 74.3
e0 — — — — 2.26 2.04 —
λ/(1 + e0) — — — — 0.131 0.141 —
κ/(1 + e0) — — — — 0.020 0.017 —
kh (×10−4 m/day) — — — 0.17 0.864$ 0.288 —
kv (×10−4 m/day) — — — 0.18 0.175$ 0.3 —
Note: 1Mohr–Coulomb (MC); 2Soft Soil (SS); 3Hardening Soil (HS); 4data from Basack and Nimbalkar (2018); 5data from Chang et al. (2015)]; 6,7,8data from
Indraratna (2010), Indraratna et al. (2010, 2016); 9data from Nimbalkar and Indraratna (2015); #assumed/interpreted values based on past experience [e.g.,
Chang et al. (2015)]; $the value of kh/kv is about 4.94 which is in consistent with the available literature (Jebali et al. 2013, 2017).

(a)
(a)
Fig. 12. Field validation: (a) variation of imposed load intensity with
time; and (b) comparison of numerical data with field measurements.
(Arulrajah et al. 2005). The horizontal permeability of the sur-
rounding soil is usually taken as twice that of the vertical perme-
ability. However, this study adopts these values from the test
data, as presented in Table 4.
The variation of the measured average ground settlement with
time has been compared with the relevant values acquired by the
current numerical models, as presented in Fig. 12. As observed,
the numerical results from the present FD model are in proximity
with the field data, with an average variation less than 4%, the nu-
merical values being on the lower side. The deviation between the
measured and predicted ground settlements for 10 days < t < 50
days is significantly low, with an average deviation less than 4%.
In the case of t > 50 days, the deviation is relatively higher but
still less than 10%. Apart from the column group effects resulting
in angular distortions of the outer columns, other factors, including
the possible soil variability, have probably attributed to the ob-
served variation with the numerical data (Deb 2010; Zarlenga
et al. 2018). For comparison, the data are also plotted from the re-
sults obtained by previous FD model proposed in Basack et al.
(2018b), where the smear zone was considered around the column
section up to a thickness of 15% of column radius, and the perme-
ability of soil in this zone was assumed to be 10% of that of its
value prior to column installation. The average ground settlements
computed from Basack et al. (2018b) were observed to be less than
the field data, the average deviation being less than about 8%. The
significantly low soft-soil permeability in the smear zone assumed
in the existing FD model of Basack et al. (2018b) has probably at-
tributed to this deviation with field observations.
In Fig. 12(b), the results relevant to “no installation effect” (i.e.,
no reduction of soft soil permeability) using the previous FD model
has been provided as well. It is observed that the FD model without
installation effect overpredicts the average ground settlement by an
average deviation of more than 15% when compared with the mea-
sured data. Without taking into account the installation effect, the
soft-soil permeability and compressibility around the column–soil
interface are sufficiently high to cause the FD model to overpredict
the ground settlement.
The FE model-computed average ground settlements were
found to be more that the field data, the average deviation being
about 15%. The pattern of variation of normalized average ground
settlement with time is found to be similar to both the FD model
and field data. Interestingly, the FE model data closely match
with the field observation for initial loading period of t ≤ 10 days,
due to the possible occurrence of elastic settlements that have
been correctly captured in the model.
Although the results obtained from current FD model are close
enough to the field measurements, the FE model results are signifi-
cantly higher. Such deviation can occur due to a number of issues,
for example, (i) the inability to correctly model the alteration in soil
properties occurred during stone columns casting and installation.
Since stone columns are treated as embedded in soil prior to load-
ing, the altered soil properties (in lieu of initial soil moduli and
strength parameters, as in case of field trials) is not properly ac-
counted in analysis. Due to installation, residual stress is induced
in the soft soil and, hence ,the permeability and compressibility
is reduced. Due to this, ground settlement takes place at a much
slower rate. The FE model does not cater for this effect; (ii) clog-
ging effect in stone columns was ignored; (iii) smear effects due
to the installation of stone columns are not considered, and (iv)

© ASCE 04022004-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 13. Bar charts for (a) comparison of the computed results with
field data; and (b) settlement factor.
interface between the stone columns and soil depends on the
method of installation, and its shear properties can vary signifi-
cantly. The present study is not able to capture such interface
zone in addition to correcting for incorporation of column installa-
tion and clogging effects.
To carry out a comparative study of the average ground settle-
ments between the current and previous models and the field obser-
vations, a settlement ratio sr has been introduced, which is defined
as the ratio of computed to measured average ground settlements.
Fig. 13(a) represents the bar chart comparing the values of sr at
time t = 10 days, 40 days, and 80 days. As observed, except for
the initial loading time (i.e., t = 10 days), the value of sr relevant
to the current FD model is close to unity.
It is well established that stone columns significantly reduce
the settlement compared with the unreinforced soft ground
under the imposed embankment loading because of enhanced
Young’s modulus. This particular aspect has been previously
studied, where the settlement reduction was quantified by a non-
dimensional parameter called the settlement factor (ξ), defined as
the ratio of average ground settlement of the reinforced to the un-
reinforced soft ground at 90% consolidation (Basack et al. 2011;
Indraratna et al. 2013). For a better clarity, the settlement factor
herein has been redefined as


ρav
ξt = (8)
ρuav t with descending slopes. The pattern of variation of ρav/H with bm
where ξt = settlement factor at time t; and ρuav = average ground set-
tlement of the unreinforced soil. The values of this newly defined
settlement factor for different time instants have been included
in Fig. 13(c). For the given times, ξt was found to vary from 0.96
to 0.81.
© ASCE 04022004-13
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004
It is worth mentioning that an extensive parametric study to cap-
ture the influence of column diameter and spacing would be more
intriguing. But due to the brevity of space, such extensive study
cannot be included. For field validation, the authors employed an
explicit fast Langrangian FD model employing unit cell analogy
and a 2D FE model using PLAXIS. The results demonstrate that
significant disturbances in the soft soil are induced due to column
installation when the columns are closely spaced. As a result, this
study places a strong emphasis on the impacts of closely spaced
columns. In the present case, the radius of influence for the columns
under consideration have been re = 1.13 m (= s/√π, s being the
column spacing) for square grid, thus the normalized spacing
N (= re/rc) assumes the value of 2.82. Thus, it is reasonable to de-
fine the closely spaced columns as those with a normalized spacing
of N < 3.0.
Parametric Studies
Because the results obtained using the proposed FD model closely
match with the field data, this model has been used to carry out a
parametric study. In this study, the values of the regression param-
eters βkre , bk , βmre , and bm are allowed to vary in given ranges, and
the resulting influence on the normalized average ground settle-
ment at t = 80 days were studied. Since the primary assumption
in the numerical analysis was a purely horizontal pore-water flow
during consolidation, these parametric studies have been carried
out for horizontal soil sample only.
The parametric studies which have been carried out is based on
the specific soil at the site. However, in the study, the normalized
permeability and compressibility of the soil has been varied by
varying the regression parameters βkre , bk, βmre , and bm in a reason-
able range, and the resulting pattern of variation in the normalized
ground settlement has been studied. The study revealed the influ-
ence of regression parameters on the load-settlement behavior of re-
inforced soft ground.
Fig. 14(a) presents the variation of normalized average ground
settlement with the regression parameter βkre for different
values of bk. With the regression parameters ranging as
0.25 ≤ βkre ≤ 0.31 and 0.24 ≤ bk ≤ 0.28, the normalized average
ground settlement ( ρav/H ) was observed to vary between 0.05
and 0.09. With increasing values of βkre , the settlement increased
following a curvilinear pattern with ascending slopes. Fig. 14(b)
depicted the pattern of variation of ρav/H with bk. As observed,
with the increasing values of bk, the normalized ground settlement
decreased curvilinearly with descending slopes. Increase in the pa-
rameter βkre produced increment in the soil permeability as per Eq.
(1), which, in turn, produced an accelerated consolidation, initiat-
ing in a higher magnitude of ground settlement. In case of the pa-
rameter bk, on the other hand, an opposite phenomenon took place.
The plot of normalized average ground settlement with the re-
gression parameter βmre for different values of bm is depicted in
Fig. 15(a). With the regression parameters ranging between
0.72 ≤ βmre ≤ 0.78, and 2.1 ≤ bm ≤ 2.5, the normalized settlement
varied in the range of 0.057 ≤ ρav/H ≤ 0.081. With increasing val-
ues of βmre , the settlement was observed to decrease curvilinearly
is shown in Fig. 15(b). As observed, with the increasing values
of bm, the normalized ground settlement increased curvilinearly
with ascending slopes. An increase in the parameter βmre produced
increase in the soil compressibility, which in turn produced a com-
paratively lower magnitude of ground settlement. Conversely, in
the case of the parameter bm, an opposite influence occurred.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Conclusions

Stone-column installation alters the properties of the surrounding

soft soil significantly, termed a smear of the subsoil. To study
such installation effects, a field-based investigation followed by
laboratory test series and numerical modeling was carried out.
The study indicates that for closely spaced columns, the entire
soft soil within the zone of influence is smeared, initiating signifi-
cant reduction in its permeability and compressibility.
Laboratory testing with undisturbed soil samples followed by
regression analyses of the test results indicated a parabolic increase
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the permeability and compressibility of the soft soil with radial

(a) distance from the column center-line; the rate of decrease varied
in the range of 10%–90% of the relevant values of prior to instal-
lation. The regression parameters resembling the relevant parabolic
curves were found to increase fairly linearly with depth.
The computed average ground settlement obtained from the pre-
sent FD model was found to be in excellent agreement with the field
data, with an average deviation below 3%, whereas those obtained
by the current FE model were significantly more (about 15%).
From the parametric studies, it was found that the average
ground settlement increased with the regression parameter βkre cur-
vilinearly with ascending slopes. With increase in the parameter bk,
the average ground settlement decreased curvilinearly, with de-
scending slopes. In case of the parameters βmre and bm, on the
other hand, the observations found were opposite.
(b) While the installation effects to closely spaced columns initiate
smear to the entire reinforced zone of soft soil, thereby retarding the
Fig. 14. Parametric studies for regressions parameters for permeabil- consolidation, an increase in column spacing is expected to reduce
ity: (a) βk; and (b) bk. the extent of smear zone. Conversely, increase in column spacing is
likely to reduce the bearing capacity of the reinforced soft clay
(Bouassida and Carter 2014). Thus, the column spacing in the
field should be carefully designed to optimize the bearing capacity
while minimizing the smear.
The conclusions drawn from the present study are confined to
columns installed in uniform soft-clay strata with close spacing be-
tween each other. The value of N (= re/rc) is 2.82; hence, the area
replacement ratio (=(1/N 2 − 1) × 100%) is 14.4%. Thus, the para-
metric studies carried out and the conclusions drawn therefrom are
tributary to this factor. However, in order to have a broader appli-
cation, more generalized investigation is required.

Limitations and Future Research Scope

The field experiment reported herein is an approach conducted for

(a) the first time to capture the installation effects. There are few inher-
ent limitations in the work, which necessitates future research
scope, as discussed here:
(i) The results obtained from the field test data and numerical mod-
eling are specifically applicable to closely spaced columns in-
stalled in uniform soft clay. However, to produce generic
design recommendations, it is necessary to extend the in situ
and numerical investigations to account for additional soil
types and column spacings. The guidelines provided in the cur-
rent study and the conclusions drawn therefrom may be used
for such future research.
(ii) Varying the column spacing would benefit the capturing of ge-
neral design guidelines, which demands extension of the nu-
merical models to include a more realistic 3D representation
(b) of smear zone that forms around closely and widely spaced
stone columns under the influence of field installation. Such
Fig. 15. Parametric studies for regressions parameters for compress-
a study would enable the development of generalized design
ibility: (a) βm; and (b) bm.
guidelines and the specification of optimal column spacing.

© ASCE 04022004-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

 (iii) To perform comparative studies relevant to other field-based s = spacing of columns;
results (for example: Klai and Bouassida 2016; Tabchouche sr = settlement ratio;
et al. 2017; Almeida et al. 2019), more generalized study by ex- t = time;
tending the current work is necessary to capture the variation of [U ] = excess pore-water pressure matrix;
in situ soil types and parameters and column geometry. A more urt = excess pore-water pressure at point (r,t);
rigorous numerical modeling in 3D stress–strain space is re- z = depth;
quired for this purpose. α, αi, αf, αt, αk = nondimensional clogging factors;
βk = regression parameter for soil permeability;
βkre = value of βk at r = re;
Data Availability Statement β0kre = value of βkre at ground surface;
βm = regression parameter for soil compressibility;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are
βmre = value of βm at r = re;
available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
β0mre = value of βmre at ground surface;
δr = length of an element on radial axis;
Acknowledgments δz = length of an element on depth axis;
ν = Poisson’s ratio;
The fieldwork was assisted by Australian Research Council, Coffey λ, κ = soft soil parameters;
Geotechnics and Keller Ground Engineering. The infrastructure γw = unit weight of water;
supports were received from ARC Centre of excellence for Geo- ϕ, ϕ′ = undrained and drained friction angles;
technical Science and Engineering and University of Wollongong. ρav = average settlement of reinforced ground;
The field construction and instrumentation were executed by Soil- ρuav = average settlement of unreinforced ground;
wicks and Geomotions Australia, respectively. The authors thank- ψ = dilation angle;
fully acknowledge the advice and help received from Prof. ξt = settlement factor;
Buddhima Indraratna, A/Prof. Cholachat Rujikiatkamjorn, Prof. ωbk = rate of increase of bk with depth;
Roger Lewis, Academic Staffs, Mr. Alan Grant, Mr. Cameron Neil- ωbm = rate of increase of bm with depth;
son, Mr. Richard Berndt, Mr. Bruce Perrin, Technical Officers, and ωβk = rate of increase of βkre with depth; and
Mr. Firman Siahaan, former PhD candidate of University of ωβ m = rate of increase of βmre with depth.
Wollongong.
References

Notation Almeida, M. S. S., I. Hosseinpour, M. Riccio, and D. Alexiew. 2015.

“Behavior of geotextile-encased granular columns supporting test em-
The following symbols are used in this paper: bankment on soft deposit.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 141 (3):
bk = regression parameter for soil permeability; 04014116. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001256.
b0k = value of bk at initial ground surface; Almeida, S. S. M., I. Hosseinpour, and B. S. Lima. 2019. “Field studies
bm = regression parameter for soil compressibility; of stone columns and geosynthetic-encased columns.” In Proc., XVI
b0m = value of bm at initial ground surface; Pan-American Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. 166–180. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press. https:
[C] = augment matrix;
//doi.org/10.3233/ASMGE190014.
c, c′ = undrained and drained cohesion of soil; Arulrajah, A., H. Nikraz, and M. W. Bo. 2005. “Finite element modelling
cij = typical element of augment matrix; of marine clay deformation under reclamation fills.” Proc. Inst. Civ.
cv = coefficient of consolidation; Eng. Ground Improv. 9 (3): 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1680/grim
E = elastic modulus; .2005.9.3.105.
E50ref
= secant modulus; ASTM. 2004. Standard method of deep quasi-static cone and friction-cone
ref
Eoed = tangent modulus; penetration tests of soil. ASTM Standard D 3441. West Conshohocken,
Eurref
= stiffness modulus; PA: ASTM.
e = void ratio; Balaam, N. P., and J. R. Booker. 1981. “Analysis of rigid rafts supported by
e0 = initial void ratio; granular piles.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 5: 379–403.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.1610050405.
[F ] = coefficient matrix;
Barron, B. A. 1948. “Consolidation of fine grained soil by drain wells.”
fij = typical element of coefficient matrix; Trans. ASCE 113 (2346): 712–748.
H = thickness of soft-clay deposit; Basack, S. 2010. A study on effectiveness of vertical drains for improving
kh = horizontal permeability of soft clay; long term performance of soft clay deposits with particular reference to
kv = vertical permeability of soft clay; stone columns. Final Technical Rep.Wollongong, NSW, Australia:
mv = volumetric compressibility of soft clay; Centre for Geotechnical and Railway Engineering, Univ. of
n = regression parameter; Wollongong.
nr = number of radial divisions; Basack, S. 2016. “Soft subgrade stabilization by stone columns for heavy
ns = column–soil stress concentration ratio; haul rail embankments.” In Technical Presentation, Annual
nt = number of divisions along time axis; Workshop. Wollongong, NSW, Australia: Centre for Geomechanics
and Railway Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong.
nz = number of vertical divisions;
Basack, S. 2020. Ground improvement with stone columns: an overview.
p′ = effective overburden stress; Summer Research Training Programme (SRTP-2020). Jorhat, Assam,
r = radial distance; India: Northeast Institute of Science and Technology, Council of
rc = column radius; Scientific & Industrial Research, Government of India.
re = unit cell radius; Basack, S., B. Indraratna, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2011. “Design recom-
rs = radius of smear zone; mendation for stone column reinforced soft clay deposit.” In Proc.,

© ASCE 04022004-15 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004

 PanAm Geotechnical Engineering Conf. Toronto: Canadian
Geotechnical Society.
Basack, S., B. Indraratna, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2016. “Modeling the
performance of stone column–reinforced soft ground under static and
cyclic loads.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 142 (2): 04015067. https:
//doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001378.
Basack, S., B. Indraratna, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2017. “Characteristics of
stone column reinforced soft ground considering lateral deformation: an
explicit numerical model.” In Vol. 654 of Proc., 15th Int. Conf.
IACMAG. International Association for Computer Methods and
Advances in Geomechanics.
Basack, S., B. Indraratna, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2018a. “Effectiveness of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
stone column reinforcement for stabilizing soft ground with reference to
transport infrastructure.” Geotech. Eng. 49 (1): 8–14.
Basack, S., B. Indraratna, C. Rujikiatkamjorn, and F. Siahaan. 2018b.
“Stone column–stabilized soft-soil performance influenced by clogging
and lateral deformation: Laboratory and numerical evaluation.”
Int. J. Geomech. 18 (6): 04018058. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0001148.
Basack, S., and S. Nimbalkar. 2017. “Free strain analysis of the perfor-
mance of vertical drains for soft soil improvement.” Geomech. Eng.
13 (6): 963–975.
Basack, S., and S. Nimbalkar. 2018. “Measured and predicted response of
pile groups in soft clay subjected to cyclic lateral loading.”
Int. J. Geomech. 18 (7): 04018073. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0001188.
Benmebarek, S., A. Remadna, and N. Benmebarek. 2018. “Numerical
modelling of stone column installation effects on performance of circu-
lar footing.” Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 4 (23): 1–5. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s40891-018-0140-z.
Ben Salem, Z., W. Frikha, and M. Bouassida. 2017. “Effects of densifica-
tion and stiffening on liquefaction risk of reinforced soil by stone col-
umns.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 143 (10): 06017014. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001773.
Bergado, D. T., L. R. Anderson, N. Miura, and A. S. Balasubramanium.
1996. Soft ground improvement in lowland and other environments.
New York: ASCE.
Bharadwaj, S. 2016. “Smear zone characterisation of stone column rein-
forced soft ground.” M.Eng. thesis, School of Civil, Mining and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong.
Bouassida, M., and J. P. Carter. 2014. “Optimization of design of
column-reinforced foundations.” Int. J. Geomech. 14 (6): 04014031.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000384.
Bouassida, M., P. de Buban, and L. Donnieux. 1995. “Bearing capacity of a
foundation resting on a soil reinforced by a group of columns.”
Géotechnique 45 (1): 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1995.45.1.25.
Bouziane, A., F. Jamin, A. El Mandour, M. El Omari, M. Bouassida, and
M. S. El Youssoufi. 2020. “Experimental study on a scaled test model of
soil reinforced by stone columns.” Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 1–20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2020.1716852.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., S. Kumarswamy, and W. M. Swolfs. 2017. PLAXIS
2D (version 2017) reference manual. Delft, Netherlands: Delft Univ.
of Technology and PLAXIS B.V.
Casagrande, A., and R. E. Fadum. 1940. Notes on soil testing for engineer-
ing purposes. Harvard Soil Mechanics Series, No. 8. Cambridge, MA:
Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard Univ.
Castro, J. 2017. “Modeling stone columns.” Materials 10 (7): 782. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ma10070782.
Castro, J., and C. Sagaseta. 2009. “Consolidation around stone columns.
influence of column deformation.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech. 33 (7): 851–877. https://doi.org/10.1002/nag.745.
Chang, K.-T., Y.-M. Kang, L. Ge, and M.-C. Cheng. 2015. “Mechanical
properties of gravel deposits evaluated by nonconventional methods.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27 (11): 04015032. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001287.
Deb, K. 2010. “A mathematical model to study the soil arching effect in
stone column-supported embankment resting on soft foundation soil.”
Appl. Math. Modell. 34 (12): 3871–3883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.apm.2010.03.026.
© ASCE 04022004-16
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004
Ellouze, S., M. Bouassida, Z. Bensalem, and M. N. Znaidi. 2017.
“Numerical analysis of the installation effects on the behaviour of
soft clay improved by stone columns.” Geomech. Geoeng. 12 (2):
73–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/17486025.2016.1164903.
Fatahi, B., S. Basack, S. Premananda, and H. Khabbaz. 2012. “Settlement
prediction and back analysis of Young’s modulus and dilation angle of
stone columns.” Aust. J. Civil Eng. 10 (1): 67–80. https://doi.org/10
.7158/C11-700.2012.10.1.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 1983. Vol. 1 of Design and
construction of stone columns. Washington, DC: FHWA.
Feng, W.-Q., D.-Y. Tan, J.-H. Yin, J.-Q. Qin, and W.-B. Chen. 2020.
“Experimental and numerical studies on the performances of stone col-
umn and sand compaction pile–reinforced Hong Kong marine clay.”
Int. J. Geomech. 20 (8): 06020018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0001739.
Guetif, Z., M. Bouassida, and J. M. Debats. 2007. “Improved soft clay char-
acteristics due to stone column installation.” Comput. Geotech. 34 (2):
104–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.09.008.
Han, J., and S.-L. Ye. 2001. “Simplified method for consolidation rate of
stone column reinforced foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
127 (7): 597–603. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)
127:7(597).
Han, J., and S. L. Ye. 2002. “A theoretical solution for consolidation rates
of stone column-reinforced foundations accounting for smear and well
resistance effects.” Int. J. Geomech. 2 (2): 135–151. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:2(135).
Indraratna, B. 2010. “Recent advances in the application of vertical drains
and vacuum preloading in soft soil stabilisation.” Aust. Geomech.
45 (2): 1–43.
Indraratna, B., S. Basack, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2013. “Numerical solu-
tion of stone column–improved soft soil considering arching, clogging,
and smear effects.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (3): 377–394.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000789.
Indraratna, B., M. E. Kan, D. Potts, C. Rujikiatkamjorn, and S. W. Sloan.
2016. “Analytical solution and numerical simulation of vacuum consol-
idation by vertical drains beneath circular embankments.” Comput.
Geotech. 80: 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.06.008.
Indraratna, B., and I. W. Redana. 1998. “Laboratory determination of
smear zone due to vertical drain installation.” Geotech. Eng. 125 (1):
96–99.
Indraratna, B., C. Rujikiatkamjorn, B. Ewers, and M. Adams. 2010. “Class
A prediction of the behaviour of soft estuarine soil foundation stabilised
by short vertical drains beneath a rail track.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 136 (5): 686–696. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606
.0000270.
Jebali, H., W. Frikha, and M. Bouassida. 2013. “Assessment of Carillo’s
theory for improved Tunis soft soil by geodrains.” In Proc., Int. Conf.
on Geotechnical Engineering 2013, 2509–2512. Paris, France:
Presses des Ponts.
Jebali, H., W. Frikha, and M. Bouassida. 2017. “3D consolidation of Tunis
soft clay improved by geodrains.” Geotech. Test. J. 40 (3): 20160067.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ20160067.
Keller. 2008. Vibro ground improvement. Baulkham Hills: Keller Ground
Engineering.
Klai, M., and M. Bouassida. 2016. “Study of the behavior of Tunis soft
clay.” Innovative Infrastruct. Solutions 1: 31. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s41062-016-0031-x.
Krause, N. 2016. “Smear zone characterisation for stone column in soft
clay.” B.Eng. thesis, School of Civil, Mining and Environmental
Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong.
Madhav, M. R., and W. F. Van Impe. 1994. “Load transfer through a gran-
ular bed on a stone column reinforced soil.” Geotech. Eng. 25 (2):
47–62.
Murugesan, S., and K. Rajagopal. 2010. “Studies on the behavior of single
and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 136 (1): 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000187.
Nimbalkar, S., and B. Indraratna. 2015. “Numerical and analytical model-
ing of particle degradation.” In Proc., 14th Int. Conf. of IACMAG 2014,
Int. J. Geomech.
 edited by F. Oka, A. Murakami, R. Uzuoka, and S. Kimoto, 261–266.
London: Taylor & Francis Group.
Pineda, J. A., L. P. Suwal, R. B. Kelly, L. Bates, and S. W. Sloan. 2016.
“Characterisation of ballina clay.” Géotechnique 66 (7): 556–577. https:
//doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.15.P.181.
Pugh, R. S. 2017. “Settlement of floor slabs on stone columns in very soft
clays.” Geotech. Eng. 170 (GE1): 16–26.
Raju, V. R. 2005. Chap. 21 in Ground improvement using deep vibro techni-
ques, 601–638. Elsevier Geo-Engineering Book Series. Singapore: Springer.
Serridge, C. J. 2005. “Achieving sustainability in vibro stone column tech-
niques.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Eng. Sustainability 158 (4): 211–222.
https://doi.org/10.1680/ensu.2005.158.4.211.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Indian Institute Of Technology Madras on 10/10/23. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Sharma, J. S., and D. Xiao. 2000. “Characterization of a smear zone around
vertical drains by large-scale laboratory tests.” Can. Geotech. J. 37 (6):
1265–1271. https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-050.
Shehata, H. F., T. M. Sorour, and A. L. Fayed. 2018. “Effect of stone col-
umn installation on soft clay behavior.” Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 15 (10):
530–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2018.1478245.
Smadi, M. 2015. “Ground improvement methods using column – type tech-
niques.” 102nd Annual Road School, Geotill Engg. Inc. Accessed
December 12, 2019. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=3993&context=roadschool.
Sondermann, W. 2019. “Ground improvement as alternative to piling –
effective design solutions for heavily loaded structures.” In Latest
thoughts on ground improvement techniques: Sustainable civil
infrastructure, edited by H. Shehata and H. G. Poulos, 1–25. Berlin:
Springer.
Tabchouche, S., M. Mellas, and M. Bouassida. 2017. “On settlement pre-
diction of soft clay reinforced by a group of stone columns.”
© ASCE 04022004-17
Int. J. Geomech., 2022, 22(4): 04022004
Innovative Infrastruct. Solutions 2: 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062
-016-0049-0.
Tao, G., J. Yuan, Q. Chen, W. Peng, R. Yu, and S. Basack. 2021.
“Chemical stabilization of calcareous sand by polyurethane foam adhe-
sive.” Constr. Build. Mater. 295 (9): 123609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.conbuildmat.2021.123609.
Terzaghi, K., Peck, R. B. and Mesri, G. (1996). Soil mechanics in engineer-
ing practice. 3rd ed, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Wang, G. 2009. “Consolidation of soft clay foundations reinforced by stone
columns under time-dependent loadings.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 135 (12): 1922–1931. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0000178.
Wang, J., Z. Fang, Y. Cai, J. Chai, P. Wang, and X. Geng. 2018.
“Preloading using fill surcharge and prefabricated vertical drains for
an airport.” Geotext. Geomembr. 46 (5): 575–585. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.04.013.
Weber, T. M., M. Plotze, J. Laue, G. Peschke, and S. M. Springman. 2010.
“Smear zone identification and soil properties around stone columns
constructed in-flight in centrifuge model tests.” Géotechnique 60 (3):
197–206. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.8.P.098.
Xie, Z. 2016. “Influence of stone column installation on consolidation char-
acteristics of soft clay.” B.Eng. thesis, School of Civil, Mining and
Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Wollongong.
Zarlenga, A., A. Flori, and D. Russo. 2018. “Spatial variability of soil mois-
ture and the scale issue: A geostatistical approach.” Water Resour. Res.
54 (3): 1765–1780. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR021304.
Zhang, L., G. Yang, D. Zhang, Z. Wang, and J. Jin. 2019. “Field test and
numerical simulation of dynamic compaction of high embankment
filled with soil-rock.” Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019: 6040793. https://doi.org
/10.1155/2019/6040793.
Int. J. Geomech.