Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No.

Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional

and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM
study
M. B. D. Elsawy
Assistant Professor of Geotechnical Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Aswan University,
Abu Elreesh, 81542 Aswan, Egypt, Telephone: +20 110920414, Telefax: +20 974661406,
E-mail: mohamedelsawy75@ymail.com

Received 9 August 2010, revised 10 April 2012, accepted 14 June 2013

ABSTRACT: Construction of embankments on soft natural soil may be a challenge, owing to its
low shear strength and high compressibility. Stone columns, which depend on lateral support from
the soft ground, have been utilised to accelerate foundation consolidation, and to increase
foundation bearing capacity. To keep the drainage function, and to improve the stone columns as
reinforcing elements, geosynthetics are used for column encasement. In this research, the behaviour
of full-scale unreinforced and reinforced Bremerhaven clay with conventional and geogrid-encased
stone columns under embankment loads is analysed numerically. The consolidation analysis is
applied to investigate the long-term behaviour of the clay. The results show that the stone columns
in the Bremerhaven clay increase the bearing capacity and accelerate the reduction of excess pore
water pressure of the foundation. Once the stone columns are encased, more improvement occurs
in their performance in soft soil. The analyses also indicate that stress concentration generation in
the stone columns contributes significantly to the acceleration of soil consolidation.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Bearing capacity, Consolidation, Stone columns

REFERENCE: Elsawy, M. B. D. (2013). Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and

geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study. Geosynthetics International, 20, No. 4, 276–285.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.13.00017]

1. INTRODUCTION the bearing capacity of the foundation but also accelerates

The main challenges for civil engineering structures on
soft ground are excessive settlement and low shear strength
of the soil. Consolidation settlements can be large, and
persist for a long time after construction: hence ground
improvement techniques are necessary. Soft ground im-
provement using stone columns can mitigate these pro-
blems by reducing settlement and accelerating the
consolidation process. Stone columns derive their load-
carrying capacity from the passive earth pressure resistance
developed against the bulging of the column, which in turn
depends on the shear strength of the surrounding soil.
The stone column technique was adopted in Europe in
the early 1960s, and has now been used successfully
worldwide. Research published in the past three decades
on stone columns includes the work of Balaam and
Booker (1985), Mitchell and Huber (1985), Han and Ye
(1991), Lee and Pande (1998), Christoulas et al. (2000),
Bae et al. (2002) and Borges et al. (2009). Field observa-
tions and numerical studies have emphasised that the
installation of stone columns in soft soil not only increases
1072-6349 # 2013 Thomas Telford Ltd
consolidation (Han and Ye 1992, 2001; Bergado and Long
1994). The improvement of soft ground by stone columns
is due largely to the higher stiffness and permeability of
the column compared with the surrounding soil. Therefore
the most important factors that control the design of
stone-column-improved soft ground are the stiffness of the
column, and load sharing between the column and the soil.
When the soft ground reinforced with stone columns is
loaded, stress concentrations develop in the column,
accompanied by a reduction of the stress in the surround-
ing clayey ground (Stewart and Fahey 1994; Alamgir et al.
1996; Bergado et al. 1996; Kirsch and Sondermann 2003;
Deb 2007; Weber 2008; Castro and Sagaseta 2009). The
stress concentration in the stone column depends mainly
on the column/soil stiffness, load level and column depth
(Mckelvey et al. 2004; Weber 2006). However, the use of
stone columns is usually associated with excessive defor-
mation, owing to a lack of lateral support from the
surrounding soil, which causes large lateral deformation at
the column top, and leads to failure by bulging (Wood et
276
Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study
al. 2000; Mckelvey et al. 2004; Ambily and Gandhi 2007;
Black et al. 2007). Another limitation is mixing of the soft
soil particles with the stone column materials at the
interface, which reduces the drainage function of the stone
column.
A further development of the stone column technique
comprises reinforcement of the column using horizontal
layers of reinforcement (Madhav et al. 1994; Sharma et
al. 2004), or encasing individual stone columns with
geosynthetics (Al-Joulani 1995; Murugesan and Rajagopal
2007, 2009; Zhang and Lo 2008; Khabbazian et al. 2009,
2010; Zhang et al. 2011; Hong 2012; Yoo and Lee 2012).
Geosynthetic encasement leads to a greater increase in
load-bearing capacity and a reduction in column bulging,
owing to the additional confinement from the encasement
(Murugesan and Rajagopal 2006; Malarvizhi and Ilampar-
uthi 2007; Ali et al. 2012). Geosynthetic encasement also
prevents mixing and lateral squeezing of the stone materi-
al when the column is installed in extremely soft soil,
leading to minimal loss of stones and quicker installation.
The published literature on the performance of encased
stone columns in soft soil is limited, especially with
respect to long-term performance. Most research has been
focused on geotextiles as the encasement material, even
though geogrid encasement can have greater stiffness.
Understanding of the stress transfer and stress concentra-
tion mechanisms for conventional and encased stone
columns is limited, particularly for long-term conditions.
The role of stress concentration in increasing bearing
capacity and accelerating consolidation also needs further
investigation.
The objective of the current study is achieve a better
understanding of the influence of conventional and
geosynthetic-encased stone columns on the behaviour of
soft soil foundations. The development of stress concen-
trations in conventional and encased columns during the
consolidation process, and its role in reducing total
settlement, are also studied. Furthermore, the influence of
stress concentrations in conventional and encased stone
columns on the consolidation process is investigated. The
finite-element model (FEM) package Plaxis 9 was used
to model unreinforced and reinforced Bremerhaven clay
foundations supporting an embankment. The consolida-
tion behaviour of this system has been investigated to
study the improvement in the reinforced soil during and
after consolidation.
2. FINITE-ELEMENT SIMULATIONS
In order to model the behaviour of the reinforced stone
column–soft soil system accurately, full-scale conven-
tional and encased stone columns in soft soil are analysed.
Bremerhaven clay is assumed, as a 6 m-thick soft soil
foundation underlain by a rigid, hard stratum. The ground-
water level is assumed at the ground surface. A blanket
layer of compacted sand, 30 cm thick, is used as a
drainage layer. The current analyses consider that the
unreinforced and reinforced Bremerhaven clay has been
loaded with a fill embankment. The sand used in the
embankment fill and in the blanket layer is the same. The
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
277
analyses were performed using axisymmetric idealisation
of a cylindrical unit cell consisting of a stone column and
the surrounding soft soil under the embankment fill. The
FEM program Plaxis 9 was used for the FE analyses. The
Bremerhaven clay is reinforced with conventional and
encased stone columns with a diameter (d ) of 1.0 m and a
spacing/diameter ratio (S/d) of 3.0. The stone columns are
installed in a square pattern, which produces an equivalent
unit cell with a diameter 3.39 m (1.13 3 3.0).
Figure 1 shows the schematic unit cell of the reinforced
soft soil model used in these analyses. Both vertical and
horizontal displacements at the bottom boundaries of the
unit cell were restrained, whereas at the lateral boundaries
only horizontal displacements were restrained. The finite-
element mesh used 15-node triangular elements, as shown
in Figure 1b. The Bremerhaven clay was modelled using
the Plaxis Soft Soil Creep model under undrained condi-
tions, and the stone material and the sand fill were
modelled using the Mohr–Coulomb model under drained
conditions. The parameters for the stone column material
and sand were taken from Ambily and Gandhi (2007), and
for the Bremerhaven clay from Geduhn (2005). The
parameters of the soil are listed in Table 1. The influence
of installation of the conventional and encased stone
columns is not considered in the current study.
Geogrid material is used as the soil reinforcement to
improve the tensile capacity of the soil. The composite
C. L.
C
A
B
Geogrid
Stone
column
Soft soil
d/2 ⫽ 0.5
de/2 ⫽ 1.695 m
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Unit cell of soft clay reinforced with stone columns:
(a) model parts; (b) finite-element mesh
278 Elsawy

Table 1. Soil parameters used for simulation

Parameter Stone soil (Ambily Sand (Ambily and Bremerhaven clay

and Gandhi 2007) Gandhi 2007) (Geduhn 2005)

Type Mohr–Coulomb Mohr–Coulomb Soft soil creep

Condition Drained Drained Undrained and
Consolidation
ªwet (kN/m3 ) 19 18 15
kh (m/day) 12 1 2 3 105
kv (m/day) 6 0.5 1 3 105
E (kPa) 55 000 20 000 –
 0.3 0.3 –
º – – 0.203
k – – 0.025
 – – 0.007
c9 (kPa) 0 0 5
9 (degrees) 43 30 35
ł (degrees) 10 4 0

soil–geogrid system can carry compression loads (taken
by the soil) and tension forces (taken by the geogrid).
The stone columns are assumed to be encased with
Combigrid 40/40 Q1 (Naue GmbH). The composite
geogrid/nonwoven geotextile is shown in Figure 2. The
geotextile is used mainly to prevent mixing of the clay
particles with the stone material, which would otherwise
clog the stone. The geotextile does not contribute to the
vertical or radial stiffness of the encasement. The geogrid
encasement is modelled as a linear elastic continuum
element having no bending stiffness, using flexible elastic
elements that can mobilise only axial tension forces
(Plaxis Manual 2008). The elastic parameter used in
modelling the geogrid encasement with the Plaxis program
is only the axial stiffness J ¼ EA (force per unit width per
unit strain). The encasement is subjected only to axial
extension, and there are no other deformations: therefore
Poisson’s ratio is equal to zero in the encasement. The
geogrid stiffness (J ¼ EA) has been calculated at a strain
of 2%, corresponding to working stress conditions, as
indicated in Table 2. No interaction between the geogrid
and the surrounding soils is assumed in the current study.
This is because no slippage occurs between the encase-
Table 2. Properties of geogrid material
Property Value
Mass per unit area (g/m2 ) 240
Axial stiffness at 2% strain, J (kN/m) 800
Aperture size (mm 3 mm) 31 3 31
ment and the surrounding soil. The geogrid–geotextile
composite is permeable, and allows drainage to occur as
part of the consolidation process.
The embankment was constructed to a height of 5.0 m
in two 2.5 m layers over a period of 21 days. The
embankment height, the embankment construction and the
construction rate are assumed to simulate field construc-
tion. Two equal construction stages were used in the field
case to avoid the development of high excess pore water
pressures, and to reflect realistic construction times to
place and compact the embankment fill. Consolidation
analyses were performed during and after each construc-
tion stage. A closed consolidation boundary is applied to
both sides of the model to prevent lateral drainage. The
construction sequence is shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.

3. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Settlement, column bulging, excess pore water pressure
and stress in the soil were calculated for points A, B, and
C (Figure 1). Point A is located at the top of the soil, point
B is located in the soil at a depth of 2.0 m, and point C is
located at the top of the stone column.

3.1. Settlement
The settlement was calculated at the surface of the
unreinforced and the reinforced clay at point A, as shown
in Figures 1a and 1b. The settlement in the second
construction stage is smaller and the consolidation time is
shorter than that in the first construction stage in all cases,
as shown in Figure 3. The consolidation in the first stage
Figure 2. Composite of geogrid/nonwoven geotextile enhances the soft soil behaviour, which leads to an
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study 279

Table 3. Construction sequence of embankment

Stage Phase Fill height (m) Time (days)

First 1. Construction 0–2.5 21.0

2. Consolidation 2.5 Time calculated until pore water pressure is dissipated (1 kPa)
Second 3. Construction 2.5–5.0 21.0
4. Consolidation 5.0 Time calculated until pore water pressure is dissipated (1 kPa)

6
forced clay case, respectively. Furthermore, the reinforced
Second stage
soil with encased stone columns reduces the total settle-
ment and accelerates the consolidation time to 60.9% and
Embankment height: m

4 73.9% of the total settlement and consolidation time for

the conventional stone columns, respectively.
First stage The settlement distributions at the surface of the
unreinforced and the reinforced clay at the end of
2
consolidation of both construction stages are also shown
in Figure 4. The stone columns increase the bearing
Time: day
capacity of the soft clay by reducing the settlement during
0 each construction phase. The encasement of the stone
0 5000 10 000 15 000 20 000 columns causes further settlement reduction after consoli-
Soft soil without stone columns dation of the two construction stages. The settlement in
⫺0.5 Soft soil with conventional stone columns the conventional stone column and in the surrounding soft
Soft soil with encased stone columns
Settlement: m

soil is constant, and approximately the same, whereas

⫺1.0
there is differential settlement between the encased stone
First stage
columns and the surrounding soft soil. The encasement
increases the overall stiffness of the stone column, which
⫺1.5 reduces internal settlement but generates some differential
Second stage
settlement.

⫺2.0 3.2. Bulging behaviour

Figure 3. Settlement of unreinforced and reinforced soft soil
with conventional and encased stone columns over time at
point A
increase in its stiffness and shear strength during the
second stage of loading: therefore the first construction
stage acts as a preload for the second construction stage.
The consolidation time in the second stage is shorter than
that in the first stage, because the soft clay layer is
consolidated and its thickness is reduced from the pre-
vious loading increment.
The unreinforced soft clay needs a very long time until
consolidation is finished (18 872 days). The very low
permeability and the very high compressibility of this soil
leads to this long consolidation time and large settlement.
Hence construction on top of this type of soil is impos-
sible without the use of an effective soil improvement
method. Once the stone columns are utilised, the settle-
ment decreases, and the consolidation time is rapidly
accelerated. Further reduction in the settlement and accel-
erated consolidation of the reinforced soil occur when
encasing stone columns are used, as shown in Figure 3.
Hence using conventional and encased stone columns in
the Bremerhaven clay leads to reductions of the total
settlement to 70% and 42% of the unreinforced clay
settlement, respectively. Consolidation time is reduced to
8.4% and 6.2% of the consolidation time for the unrein-
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
The lateral bulging of the stone column was calculated
after each consolidation phase, as shown in Figure 5. Once
the compacted stone column yields, bulging appears,
owing to dilatancy. The column is displaced laterally into
the soft soil with loading, especially in the upper part. The
bulging of the conventional (CSC) and encased stone
columns (ESC) after the two construction stages is similar,
whereas the bulging after the second stage is greater.
Generally, the lateral bulging of the column has a maxi-
mum value at a depth approximately equal to the column
diameter. Beyond that the bulging values decrease gradu-
ally until they reach zero at the base. The bulging along
the stone column increases with increasing load, causing
more stress transfer to the lower depths during the
consolidation. When the stone column is encased, it is
well confined, its bulging is reduced, and lateral deforma-
tions are more uniform along its height. Therefore the
encasement provides the stone column with greater lateral
support, and enhances the stress transfer with depth by
generating radial tensile forces in the geogrid encasement.
The lateral bulging values in Figure 5 were computed
without taking into consideration the change in the ground
level or in the column level due to the settlement resulted
from loading. Hence, in this case, there is a very small
value, not more than 5 mm for the lateral bulging at the
top, especially for the ESC case. When this value was
plotted in Figure 5, it is not visually detectable because of
the choice of deformation scale in Figure 5, which is in
280 Elsawy
Horizontal distance from centreline (m)

0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

0
Unreinforced Bremerhaven clay
CSC d ⫽ 1.0 m, S/d ⫽ 3 First stage
ESC J ⫽ 800 kN/m
Unreinforced Bremerhaven clay
CSC d ⫽ 1.0 m, S/d ⫽ 3 Second stage
ESC J ⫽ 800 kN/m
⫺0.5
Settlement (m)

⫺1.0

I I

⫺1.5

⫺2.0

Figure 4. Settlement distribution at surface of unreinforced and reinforced Bremerhaven clay foundation with conventional and
encased stone columns

Lateral bulging of column (cm)

0 5 10 15 20

⫺1.7
Depth (m)

⫺3.7

CSC d ⫽ 1.0 m, S/d ⫽ 3 First stage

CSC d ⫽ 1.0 m, S/d ⫽ 3 Second stage
ESC J ⫽ 800 kN/m First stage
ESC J ⫽ 800 kN/m Second stage

⫺5.7

Figure 5. Lateral bulging distribution of conventional and encased stone columns at end of consolidation of the two
construction stages

cm. When the actual lateral bulging values for CSC and bulging of the CSC and ESC cases at their top are
ESC cases are investigated more closely, taking into observed, if settlement is taken into consideration. These
consideration the change of ground surface and the values are the largest values of lateral bulging of the
column level due to the settlement, larger values of the columns, as shown in Table 4 and Figure 5.
lateral bulging of CSC and ESC cases are observed at the Encasement leads to a greater increase in the load-
top. From Figures 4 and 5 larger values of the lateral bearing capacity and a greater reduction in the column
bulging of CCS and ESC cases at their top can be bulging, owing to the additional confinement. This means
obtained from Table 4. Therefore larger values of lateral that geogrid encasement acts like a cylinder around the
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study
Table 4. Values of lateral bulging at top of CCS and ESC
Column Stage Settlement at top (m)
CSC First 0.813
Second 1.27
ESC First 0.33
Second 0.618
stone column, resists lateral bulging, and generates hoop
tension. The hoop tension forces in the geogrid encase-
ment provide additional column confinement and prevent
its bulging, which causes failure of the column. Hence the
development of greater hoop tension forces in the encase-
ment results in less bulging and greater bearing capacity.
The conventional and encased stone columns develop
yielding, which extends into the embankment for the
encased stone columns, as shown in Figure 6. However,
the soft soil did not appear to yield, except in the zone that
is located very close to the conventional stone columns.
The column yields as a result of internal stress concentra-
tions.
3.3. Excess pore water pressure
The excess pore water pressure in the unreinforced and
reinforced soft soil was calculated at point B, which is
located at a depth of 2.0 m, as shown in Figure 7. As soon
as the fill load is applied to the saturated soft soil, excess
pore water pressure builds up. The first and second
construction stages generate the same excess pore water
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Yield distribution for reinforced Bremerhaven clay
with: (a) conventional stone columns; (b) encased stone
columns
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
281
Lateral bulging of column
at top (cm)
12.39
14.2
1.60
3.65
pressure during the consolidation time, but the excess pore
water pressure after the second stage of construction
dissipates faster than that after the first stage of construc-
tion, as shown in Figure 7. This is because the thickness
of the soft soil layer is reduced in the second stage from
the previous loading increment. The excess pore water
pressures in the reinforced soft soil with conventional
stone columns are lower and dissipate more rapidly than
those in the unreinforced soft soil. Although the conven-
tional and encased stone columns have the same diameter
and drainage path lengths, the encased columns cause
further reduction of excess pore water pressure generation,
and more rapid dissipation. This phenomenon is due to the
increase in the overall stiffness of the encased stone
columns, which causes more stress transfer from the
surrounding soil.
3.4. Stress in soil
The effective vertical stress was calculated at the surface
in the unreinforced and the reinforced soft soil at point A,
and in the column at point C, as shown in Figure 1. The
variation of the effective vertical stress with time is shown
in Figure 8. Using conventional stone columns reduces the
effective stress in the reinforced soil, and generates high
stress in the columns. The effective vertical stress in the
encased stone columns is higher than that in the conven-
tional stone columns. Additionally, the encasement of the
stone column causes a greater reduction of the effective
stress in the surrounding soft soil. This is because the
encasement increases the stiffness of the overall stone
columns, which leads to an increase in stress transfer from
the surrounding soil, and stress concentration in the
encased stone columns. The stress concentration phenom-
enon has an important role in reducing stress in the soil,
which leads to reduced settlement and increased bearing
capacity of the reinforced soil.
The stress concentration ratio (SCR) is defined as the
ratio of the vertical effective stress in the stone column to
the vertical effective stress in the surrounding soft soil.
The average SCR was calculated in the conventional and
encased stone columns at section A–A, which is located
at the top surface of the column, as shown in Figure 9.
The development of the SCR during consolidation is
similar to the development of the effective vertical stress.
The SCR increases with increasing load level, which is
more dominant in the encased stone columns. The values
of the SCR vary significantly during the consolidation
process in the encased stone columns, whereas they are
approximately constant in the conventional stone columns.
282 Elsawy
60
Unreinforced Bremerhaven clay

CSC d ⫽ 1 m, S/d ⫽ 3, reinforced clay

50 ESC J ⫽ 800 kN/m
Excess pore water pressure, Δu (kPa)

Δui
40

30

20

10

0
1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
Time (day)

Figure 7. Excess pore water pressure against time at depth of 2 m for unreinforced and reinforced Bremerhaven clay with
conventional and encased stone columns

800
Unreinforced Bremerhaven clay

CSC d ⫽ 1 m, S/d ⫽ 3, stress in Bremerhaven clay

CSC d ⫽ 1 m, S/d ⫽ 3, stress in stone column

600 ESC 800 kN/m, stress in Bremerhaven clay

ESC 800 kN/m, stress in encased stone column

Effective vertical stress (kPa)

400

200

0
1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
Time (day)

Figure 8. Effective vertical stress against time at the surface for the unreinforced and the reinforced soft soil with conventional
and encased stone columns

The encased stone columns have greater SCR values than larger the generated stress concentration in the stone
the conventional stone columns. This is due to the yielding columns, the greater the reduction in the stress of the
of the conventional stone columns, which is attributed to surrounding soil, which leads to enhanced reinforced soil
the weak lateral support from the surrounding soft soil. behaviour.
The SCR ranges from 5 to 6 and from 10 to 23 after the The total vertical stress was calculated in the unrein-
loading of the first construction stage in the conventional forced and reinforced soft soil with conventional and
and encased stone columns, respectively: therefore the encased stone columns at point B, which is located at a
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study 283
25
CSC reinforced Bremerhaven clay at surface (A–A)
ESC reinforced Bremerhaven clay at surface (A–A)

20

A A
Stress concentration ratio, SCR

15

10

0
1 10 100 1000 10 000
Time (day)

Figure 9. Average SCR-time relationship at the surface for reinforced soft soil with conventional stone columns and encased
stone columns

depth of 2.0 m, as shown in Figure 1. The total stresses in Once each construction stage finishes, beyond the maxi-
the unreinforced and reinforced soft soil increases with mum total stress value, the total stress decreases gradually
increasing load, until they reach maximum values at the with increasing consolidation time. The generated total
end of both construction stages. The total stress in the stress in the reinforced soft soil with conventional stone
unreinforced soft soil is constant during the consolidation columns is smaller than that in the unreinforced soil
process, whereas the total stress in the reinforced soft soil through both construction stages. Additionally, the rein-
is variable with consolidation time, as shown in Figure 10. forced soft soil with encased stone columns results in

150

Unreinforced Bremerhaven clay

Reinforced soil with conventional stone columns
Reinforced soil with encased stone columns
120
Total stress in soil, σv (kPa)

90 σv(i)

60

σv(f)

30

0
1 10 100 1000 10 000 100 000
Time (day)

Figure 10. Total stress against time in unreinforced soft soil at point B (2.0 m depth)
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
284
lower total stress values, and causes a greater decrease in
the total stress during consolidation, than the reinforced
soft soil with conventional stone columns.
This phenomenon means that the clayey soil is sub-
jected to a higher total stress at the beginning, implying
some degree of ‘pre-loading’ with respect to the final soil
total stress at the end of the consolidation phase. This
produces faster consolidation than for the unreinforced
clay, which has a constant total stress. Hence the stress
transfers from the clay and stress concentration in the
stone columns lead to a reduction in the total vertical
stress in the surrounding soft soil during consolidation.
This makes an important contribution to the acceleration
of the consolidation process and construction time. The
contribution of the encased stone columns to acceleration
of the reinforced soil consolidation is greater than that of
the conventional stone columns. The percentage contribu-
tion of the stress concentration to consolidation accelera-
tion can be computed using Equation 1, which is
applicable at a zone that has the maximum initial excess
pore water pressure in the reinforced soil.
 v(i) – v(f )
SCaccel ¼ 3 100% (1)
˜ui
where SCaccel is the percentage of the reduction of total
vertical stress due to the stress concentration in the
consolidation acceleration; v(i) is the average initial total
vertical stress in the reinforced soft soil (after 21 days in
this study); v(f ) is the average final total vertical stress in
the reinforced soft soil (after the end of consolidation);
and ˜ui is the average maximum initial excess pore water
pressure in the reinforced soft soil (after 21 days in this
study), as shown in Figures 7 and 10.
The stress concentration in the conventional stone
columns contributes to acceleration of the consolidation
process by 33.3% in the first stage and 25.1% in the
second stage, whereas the stress concentration in the
encased stone columns contributes to acceleration of the
consolidation process by higher percentages: 70.6% in the
first stage and 73.3% in the second stage
4. CONCLUSIONS
In the present research, the role of conventional and
encased stone columns in improving Bremerhaven clay
behaviour under embankment loads is investigated during
and after consolidation. Full-scale models of unreinforced
and reinforced Bremerhaven clay have been analysed. The
results of the analyses show that conventional stone
columns significantly reduce total settlement and acceler-
ate the consolidation of the clay. Using stone columns in
soft clay reduces the values of the excess pore water
pressure, and accelerates pore water pressure dissipation.
In addition, the initial excess pore water pressure is
reduced. The soft soil reinforced with encased stone
columns has a smaller settlement and a shorter consolida-
tion time than that of soft soil reinforced with conven-
tional stone columns. The reduction in settlement is more
significant with increasing consolidation time, and with
increasing embankment load. The excess pore water
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
Elsawy
pressure in the reinforced clay with encased stone columns
decreases, and its dissipation time is shorter, in compari-
son with the reinforced clay with conventional stone
columns. Once the stone column is encased in the soft
soils, its bulging decreases significantly, and becomes
more uniform along the height of the stone column.
Encasement increases the overall stiffness of the stone
columns, which leads to a greater increase in the effective
stress and the stress concentration in the encased stone
columns, compared with conventional stone columns. The
analysis results also indicated that the stress concentration
in the stone columns contributes a significant percentage to
the acceleration of the consolidation process in the rein-
forced soil. The higher the overall stiffness of the encased
stone columns, the greater the stress concentration in the
column, and the greater the reduction in the total stress in
the surrounding soil, which in turn leads to a greater
contribution to the acceleration of soil consolidation.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
A cross-sectional area (m2 )
c9 effective cohesion (Pa)
d diameter of stone column (m)
de diameter of unit cell (m)
E elasticity modulus (Pa)
H thickness of soil (m)
J stiffness of geogrid material (N/m)
kh coefficient of horizontal permeability (m/s)
kv coefficient of vertical permeability (m/s)
S spacing distance between stone columns (m)
SCaccel participation of stress concentration in
consolidation acceleration (dimensionless)
SCR stress concentration ratio (dimensionless)
˜ui average maximum initial excess pore water
pressure (Pa)
ªwet wet soil unit weight (N/m3 )
k modified swelling index (dimensionless)
º tmodified compression index (dimensionless)
 modified secondary compression index
(dimensionless)
 Poisson’s ratio (dimensionless)
v(f ) average final total vertical stress (Pa)
v(i) average initial total vertical stress (Pa)
9 effective friction angle (degrees)
ł dilatancy angle (degrees)
ABBREVIATIONS
CSC conventional stone column
ESC encased stone column
REFERENCES
Alamgir, M., Miura, N., Poorooshasb, H. B. & Madhav, M. R. (1996).
Deformation analysis of soft ground reinforced by columnar
inclusions. Computers and Geotechnics, 18, No. 4, 261–290.
Behaviour of soft ground improved by conventional and geogrid-encased stone columns, based on FEM study
Ali, K., Shahu, J. T. & Sharma, K. G. (2012). Model tests on
geosynthetic-reinforced stone columns: a comparative study.
Geosynthetics International, 19, No. 4, 292–305.
Al-Joulani, N. A. (1995). Laboratory and analytical investigation of
sleeve reinforced stone columns. PhD thesis, Carleton University,
Ottawa, Canada.
Ambily, A. P. & Gandhi, S. R. (2007). Behavior of stone columns based
on experimental and FEM analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 133, No. 4, 405–415.
Bae, W., Shin, B. & An, B. (2002). Behavior of foundation system
improved with stone columns. Proceedings of the 12th international
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Kitakyushu, Japan, pp.
675–678.
Balaam, N. P. & Booker, I. R. (1985). Effect of stone column yield on
settlement of rigid foundations in stabilized clay. International
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 9,
No. 4, 331–351.
Bergado, D. T. & Long, P. V. (1994). Numerical analysis of embankment
on subsiding ground improved by vertical drains and granular piles.
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Soil Mech-
anics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi, India, pp. 1361–
1366.
Bergado, D. T., Anderson, L. R., Miura, N. & Balasubramaniam, A. S.
(1996). Soft Ground Improvement in Lowland and Other Environ-
ments, ASCE Press, New York, USA.
Black, J., Sivakumar, V. & McKinley, J. (2007). Performance of clay
samples reinforced with vertical granular columns. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 44, No. 1, 89–95.
Borges, J. L., Domingues, T. S. & Cardoso, A. S. (2009). Embankments
on soft soil reinforced with stone columns: numerical analysis and
proposal of a new design method. Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 27, No. 6, 667–679.
Castro, J. & Sagaseta, C. (2009). Field instrumentation of an embankment
on stone columns. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference
on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria,
Egypt, pp. 1865–1868.
Christoulas, S. T., Bouckovalas, G. & Giannaros, CH. (2000). An
experimental study on model stone columns. Soils and Foundations,
40, No. 6, 11–22.
Deb, K. (2007). Modeling of granular bed-stone column-improved soft
soil. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics, 32, No. 10, 1267–1288.
Geduhn, M. (2005). Geokunststoffummantelte Vacuumsäulen: Ein
Gründungsverfahren für sehr weiche bindige Böden (Vacuum of
geosynthetic-encased columns: an established method for very soft
cohesive soils). PhD thesis, Duisburg-Essen University, Essen,
Germany (in German).
Han, J. & Ye, S. L. (1991). Field tests of soft clay stabilized by stone
columns in coastal areas in China. Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Stresa,
Italy, pp. 243–248.
Han, J. & Ye, S. L. (1992). Settlement analysis of buildings on the soft
clays stabilized by stone columns. Proceedings of the International
Conference on Soil Improvement and Pile Foundations, Nanjing,
China, pp. 446–451.
Han, J. & Ye, S. L. (2001). Simplified method for consolidation rate of
stone column reinforced foundations. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, 127, No. 7, 597–603.
Hong, Y.-S. (2012). Performance of encased granular columns consider-
ing shear-induced volumetric dilation of the fill material.
Geosynthetics International, 19, No. 6, 438–452.
Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V. N. & Meehan, C. L. (2009). 3D numerical
analyses of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Contemporary
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 February 2014.
Geosynthetics International, 2013, 20, No. 4
285
Topics in Ground Modification, Problem Soils, and Geo-Support,
Geotechnical Special Publication 187, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA,
pp. 201–208.
Khabbazian, M., Kaliakin, V. N. & Meehan, C. L. (2010). Numerical
study of the effect of geosynthetic encasement on the behaviour of
granular columns. Geosynthetics International, 17, No. 3, 132–143.
Kirsch, F. & Sondermann, W. (2003). Field measurements and numerical
analysis of the stress distribution below stone column supported
embankments and their stability. In International Workshop on
Geotechnics of Soft Soils: Theory and Practice, P. A. Vermeer,
H. F. Schweiger, M. Karstunen and M. Cudny, Editors, Verlag
Glückauf, Essen, Germany, pp. 595–600.
Lee, J. S. & Pande, G. N. (1998). Analysis of stone-column reinforced
foundations. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 22, No. 12, 1001–1020.
Madhav, M. R., Alamgir, M. & Miura, N. (1994). Improving granular
column capacity by geogrid reinforcement. Proceedings of the 5th
International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and
Related Products, Singapore, Vol. 1, pp. 351–356.
Malarvizhi, S. N. & Ilamparuthi, K. (2007). Comparative study on the
behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone column.
Soils and Foundations, 47, No. 5, 873–885.
Mckelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A. & Graham, J. (2004). Modelling
vibrated stone columns in soft clay. Geotechnical Engineering, 157,
No. 3, 137–149.
Mitchell, J. K. & Huber, T. R. (1985). Performance of a stone column
foundation. Geotechnical Engineering, 111, No. 2, 205–223.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2006). Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: numerical evaluation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24,
No. 6, 349–358.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2007). Model tests on geosynthetic-
encased stone columns. Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 6,
346–354.
Murugesan, S. & Rajagopal, K. (2009). Investigations on the behavior of
geosynthetic encased stone columns. Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt.
Plaxis Manual (2008). Finite Element Code for Soil and Rock Analysis,
Version 9, Plaxis bv, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sharma, R. S., Kumar, B. P. & Nagendra, G. (2004). Compressive load
response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 41, No. 1, 187–192.
Stewart, D. & Fahey, M. (1994). An investigation of the reinforcing effect
of stone columns in soft clay. Vertical and Horizontal Deformation
of Foundations and Embankments, A. T. Yeung and G. Y. Félio,
Editors, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 40, ASCE, Reston,
VA, pp. 513–524.
Weber, T. (2006). Centrifuge modeling of ground improvement under
embankments. Pollack Periodica Journal, 1, No. 2, 3–15.
Weber, T. (2008). Modellierung der Baugrundverbesserung mit Schotter-
säulen. PhD thesis, Geotechnical Engineering Institute of Zürich,
Zürich, Switzerland.
Wood, D., Hu, W. & Nash, D. F. T. (2000). Group effects in stone column
foundations model tests. Géotechnique, 50, No. 6, 689–698.
Yoo, C. & Lee, D. (2012). Performance of geogrid-encased stone columns
in soft ground: full-scale load tests. Geosynthetics International, 19,
No. 6, 480–490.
Zhang, R. & Lo, S. R. (2008). Analysis of geosynthetic reinforced stone
columns in soft clay. Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional
Conference on Geosynthetics, Shanghai, China, pp. 735–740.
Zhang, Y., Li, T. & Wang, Y. (2011). Theoretical elastic solutions for
foundations improved by geosynthetic-encased columns. Geosyn-
thetics International, 18, No. 1, 12–20.