Submitted to Submitted by-

Dr. RAKESH KUMAR ABHISHEK

(Assistant professor) (152111109)

Department of Civil Engineering

Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology Bhopal
(462003)
 Introduction
 Methodology
 Literature review
 Earlier studies on stone column
 Result and discussion
 Conclusions and scope for future
 References
 It is not always possible to have favorable site condition for a
infrastructure has to built over it. Some times weak stratas
encountered under the selected site.
 These sites need treatment to become favorable for upcoming
infrastructure.
 There are many ground improvement techniques e.g. prefabricated
vertical drain (PVD), surface and deep compaction, vacuum
drainage, preloading, stone/sand columns etc.
 Stone columns are usually designed to improve bearing capacity and
to reduce settlements of soft soils.
 Stone columns are suitable for subsurface soil whose undrained
shear strength range 7 to 50 kpa or loose sandy soil.
 In the present work, numerical modeling using Plaxis v 8.2 are
carried out to evaluate the behavior of stone column in soft soil.
 This study is to observe the behavior of soil under different stone
column reinforcing conditions using Plaxis modeling.
 In present study L/D ratio of stone column is increased to make it
end bearing column for 4 different diameter and 3 different geogrid
encasement for three different S/D ratio.
i. To study the load settlement behavior of different diameter of
stone column with varying L/D ratio with and without encasement
for three different S/D ratios.
ii. To study the load settlement behavior of stone column by varying
its length to diameter ratio with and without encasement for three
different S/D ratios.
iii. To compare the load-settlement behavior of stone column with and
without encasement for 3 geogrids of different stiffness for three
different S/D ratios.
 To achieve above objectives, numerical Axisymmetric modelling has
done on PLAXIS V8.2 based on finite element analysis using 15
noded element. Study is performed for following variables:
 L/D ratio of stone column i.e.(2,4,6,8,10).
 S/D ratio i.e.(2,2.5,3).
 Diameter of the bearing plates i.e.(1,1.5,2.0,2.5 inch).
 Stiffness of geogrid i.e.(80,120,160 kN/m).
 stone columns are a ground improvement technique to improve the
load bearing capacity of the soil.
 The stone column consists of crushed coarse aggregates of various
sizes.
 The ratio in which the stones of different sizes will be mixed is
decided by design criteria.
 In stone column construction, usually 15 to 35 percent of the weak
soil volume is replaced by stone.
 Vibro-Replacement Stone Columns extends the range of soils that
can be improved by vibratory techniques to include cohesive soils.
 Densification and/or reinforcement of the soil with “stone columns”
is accomplished by either top-feed or the bottom-feed method.
i. Reduces shallow foundation settlement.
ii. Increases bearing capacity, allowing reduction in footing size.
iii. Mitigates liquefaction potential.
iv. Provides slope stabilization.
v. Permits construction on fills.
vi. Permits shallow footing construction.
vii. Prevents earthquake-induced lateral spreading.
 Diameter-
• Installation of stone columns in soft cohesive soils is basically a

self-compensating process that is softer the soil, bigger is the

diameter of the stone column formed.
• Approximate diameter of the stone column in the field may be

determined from the known compacted volume of material

required to fill the hole of known length and maximum and
minimum densities of the stone.
Replacement ratio -
• To quantify the amount of soil replacement by the stone, the term
replacement ratio is used which is the ratio of area of stone
column after compaction to the total area within the Unit cell.
• It may also be expressed as = 0.907 (D/S)2, where the constant

0.907 is a function of pattern used, which is commonly employed

for equilateral triangular pattern.
Pattern:
• Stone columns should be installed preferably in an
equilateral triangular pattern which gives the densest
packing although a square pattern may also be used.
• Priebe (1976) considered the behavior of a single granular
column and its surrounding tributary soil as a unit cell. A
unit cell is an area A consisting of a single column with the
cross section Ac and the attributable surrounding soil.
 Equilateral triangular pattern  Square pattern
 In very soft soils the confinement provided by surrounding soils may
not be adequate and the formation of the Stone Column itself may be
doubtful.
 wrapping the individual Stone Column with suitable geogrid is one
of the ideal forms of improving the performance of Stone Column
 The encasement, besides increasing the strength and stiffness of the
Stone Column, prevents the lateral squeezing of stones when the
column is installed even in extremely soft soils, thus enabling
quicker and more economical installation.
Eirlier studies on stone column
 Murugesan and Rajagopal (2006) did a numerical evaluation of
geosynthetic encased granular piles.
 They investigates the qualitative and quantitative improvement in
load capacity of the granular pile by encasement through a
comprehensive parametric study using the finite element analysis.
Conclusions:
 It was found that maximum settlement reduction takes up to
encasement depth = 2d, beyond that, the further settlement reduction
becomes very less.
 The load capacity and stiffness of the stone column can be increased
by all-round encasement by geosynthetic.
 The load capacity of encased columns is not as sensitive to the shear
strength of the surrounding soils as compared to OSCs.
 The magnitude of loads transferred into the encased stone columns
from the embankments can be increased by using stiffer encasement.
 They carried out a study to investigate load carrying capacity of
soft soil reinforced by nylon fiber granular pile.
 experiment was carried out on a 50mm diameter of end bearing
granular pile surrounded by clay bed. rced by nylon fiber
granular pile.

Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of Clay Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of Fiber

Bed and Ordinary Granular Pile Length 10mm for Varying Fiber Content
Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of Fiber Length Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of Fiber Length
20mm for Varying Fiber Content 30mm for Varying Fiber Content
Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of Fiber Length Fig. Ultimate Load of Different Fiber
40mm for Varying Fiber Content Lengths and Fiber Content of Granular
Pile
 They carried out the experimental study on expansive soft soil improvement
by geogrid encased granular pile.
 Test were performed on black cotton soil collected from manit campus.
 Tests were performed with different diameter (50, 65.80) granular
piles(Sand pile) surrounded by soft clay soil in cylindrical tank of 250,
350 & 400 mm high and 157.5, 204, 252 mm diameter.

Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of 50 mm Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of 65 mm Diameter

Diameter Granular Pile Granular Pile
Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of 80 mm Fig. Ultimate Load of Granular Pile with
diameter Granular Pile. Varying Diameter of Pile.
 a series of laboratory model tests were performed in a circular
unit cell tank with the floating granular piles at the centre and the
soft soil surrounding it to study the influence of the length and
bulging characteristic
 All laboratory tests were carried out on 60 mm diameter granular
piles installed in soft clay in a cylindrical tank of 200 mm
diameter and 500 mm by using unit cell concept.
 The length of granular pile taken from 4d - 6d.
 Tests were conducted with area replacement ratio, Ar 9% with
corresponding spacing (s) of 3.1d.
 The aim is to study the ultimate axial capacity of granular piles
with varying lengths.
Fig. Axial Stress-Settlement Variation of Fig. Variation of Ultimate Stress Ratio with
Granular Pile with 60 mm Dia.. Length of Granular Pile
 They conducted series of model test on soft clay reinforced with
stone column with geocell mattress and with encased stone column
 the encasement of stone column, length of stone column and
height of geocell mattress are varying parameter.
 Clay used in their study was locally available black cotton soil.
 Each test was carried out on group of 4 stone columns in a square
pattern having constant diameter 30 mm and length 150 mm.
 It is seen that clay bed provided with four ordinary stone
columns (OSCs) and four encased stone column, the bearing
capacity is improved by 1.5 times and 2.0 times respectively
Fig. Variation of B.C.R With Respect
to Height Ratio of Geocell Mattress Figure Load Settlement Curves for Clay
with 4 OSC and Geocell mattress of
varying heights
Figure Load Settlement Curves for Clay with
Geocell mattress and different lengths of encased
stone columns
 Mohammed Y. Fattah, Quitaba G. Majeed (2012) carried out a Finite
Element Analysis of Geogrid Encased granular pile.
 The program CRISP-2D is used in the analysis of problems .
 They used a soft soil with Cu=20kPa and stiffness of encasement for
stone column was 140kPa/m and carried tests for different
parameters of stone column as below:
• L/D = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12
• Area replacement ratio as=0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3
• For OSC as well as ESC
Relationship between the bearing improvement ratio and length to
diameter ratio floating stone column (Cu=20 kPa, as =0.2)
Relationship between the bearing ratio and settlement ratio of end
bearing stone column (Cu=20 kPa for surrounding soil, Cu=150
kPa for End bearing soil, L/d=8, as =0.25)
 Variation in the bearing improvement ratio with undrained shear
strength of end bearing soil for end bearing stone column (Cu=20
kPa for surrounding soil, L/d=10, as =0.25)
 they concluded that:
• the effective length to diameter ratio of granular pile is found to be L/D
= (7–8) for all area replacement ratio
• The increase in the area replacement ratio increases the bearing
improvement ratio for encased floating stone columns especially when
area replacement ratio is greater than (0.25). The bearing improvement
ratio and settlement reduction ratio are higher when the undrained shear
(Cu) of the surrounding soil is also higher.
• The geogrid encasement of stone column greatly decreases the lateral
displacement compared with ordinary stone column. The effective
encasement length ratio (length of geogrid encasement along the stone
column/total stone column length) was found to be about (0.6).
 The ratio of limiting axial stress on column to corresponding shear
strength of surrounding clay is found to be constant for any given S
/d and angle of internal friction of stones and it is independent of the
shear strength of the surrounding clay.
 Single column tests with an entire unit cell area loaded compare well
with the group test results. Hence the single column behavior with
unit cell concept can simulate the field behavior for an interior
column when large number of columns is simultaneously loaded.
 They studied behavior of floating granular pile with and without
encasement constructed in soft black cotton soil.
 All experiment were performed on 55 mm diameter granular pile
surrounded by black cotton soil in cylindrical mould of 173 m diameter and
605 height.
 The soil bed was prepared at dry density 14.32 kN/m3 and 32% water
content.
 The test was performed at various L/D ratio (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), the ultimate
load Q for footing placed on soil was 0.42kN corresponding to settlement
value as 10% size of footing.
Graph between L/d ratio and load at settlement equal to 10% of pile
diameter
From above, following conclusions were drawn:
 The load carrying capacity of a footing on granular pile is found more in
comparison to that resting on soil alone for all L/d ratio of the pile.
 In case of a geogrid encased granular pile of particular L/d ratio, the
increase in load carrying capacity was observed to be higher than the
corresponding value in ordinary granular pile.
 The critical length of granular pile is not observed in the present
investigation. As the L/d ratio of the pile increases, the ratio Qult.pile/Q is
found increasing.
 show that the technique of improving the soft soils by granular piles/ stone
columns can also be used in soft soil. And the numerical analyses in this
section were carried out in three-dimensional space using the finite element
program (ABAQUS).
 A group of 25 encased stone columns in which 80cm diameter stone
columns were located in a 2m center to center spacing(s) with a square
pattern was analyzed.
 Thickness of the soft soil surrounding the columns and also length of stone
columns were assumed to be 10m
Conti…
 Geosynthetic is used as reinforcement for stone column which
enhances soil stabilization properties.
 Stone columns are mainly used for the stabilization of soft soils
such as soft clays, silts and silty sands.
 Soil strata have great influence on stone column bulging and
encased stone column is the best option.
 Increasing the geosynthetic stiffness of encasement makes the
column stiffer and increase in lateral confinement.
 Properties Values

Water content (w) 22%

Void ratio (e) 0.82

Dry density(γd) 14 kN/m3

Bulk density (γb) 17.8 kN/m3

Saturation density (γsat) 18.43 kN/m3

Specific Gravity G 2.6

Angle of friction (φ) 1.5o

Dilatancy angle (ψ) 0o

Stiffness modulus (E) 5000 kN/m2

Poisson’s ratio (μ) 0.42

Cohesion (C) 20kPa

Properties of clay
 Properties Values

Water content (w) 4.6%

Void ratio (e) 0.6

Dry density(γd) 16.25 kN/m3

Bulk density (γb) 17 kN/m3

Saturation density (γsat) 20.25 kN/m3

Specific Gravity (G) 2.65

Angle of friction (φ) 38o

Dilatancy angle (ψ) 8o

Stiffness modulus (E) 38000 kN/m2

Poisson’s ratio (μ) 0.33

Cohesion (C) 1kPa

Properties of stone
Geogrid Stiffness (kN/m)

Geo1 80

Geo2 120

Geo3 160

Properties of geogrid used

S. No. Diameter of stone column corresponding to each L/D L/D

D(mm)

1 25.4, 38.1, 50.8, 63.5 2

2 25.4, 38.1, 50.8, 63.5 4

3 25.4, 38.1, 50.8, 63.5 6

4 25.4, 38.1, 50.8, 63.5 8

5 25.4, 38.1, 50.8, 63.5 10

S/D ratios Diameter of stone column (D) Diameter of model tank
mm (D×S/D×1.05) mm
25.4 53.3
2 38.1 80
50.8 106.6
63.5 133.4
25.4 80
3 38.1 120
50.8 160
63.5 200
25.4 106.6
4 38.1 160
50.8 213.4
63.5 266.7
 Axissymetric model with 15 noded elements is selected. The Mohr
Coulomb's criteria for strength of the materials are selected.
 The geometrical coordinates, boundary conditions and properties of
the material in case of soft clay bed are defined. In case of granular
pile in the soft clay, the properties of pile fill material (i.e. sand or
sand fiber mix) are also assigned. For the case of geogrid
encasement, the boundary of the geogrid at appropriate points is
selected and its properties are assigned.
 The prescribed displacement on the pile top is assigned.
 The mesh is generated.
 The initial vertical stress due to gravity loads are considered for the
analysis.
 Maximum displacement value is defined for the pile. The point of
observation, which in the present case is taken at the centre of the
pile is also defined.
 The program is allowed to run for the given number of iterations.
 The deformed mesh and the shape of material are generated on the
geometry of the problem.
 The output in the form of desired parameters is selected which in the
present case is taken as load vs. settlement. It is suitably modified for
appropriate units.
Table shows model analysed on stone
column
S.No. Stone column with or without Diameter of stone column (mm) or L/D ratio No model
encasement diameter of bearing plate analyzed per
S/D

1 Pure clay 26 - 1
2 38 - 1
3 50 - 1
4 64 - 1
5 Ordinary stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
6 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
7 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
8 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
9 Encased stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
10 Stiffness 80 kN/m 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
11 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
12 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
13 Encased stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
14 Stiffness 120 kN/m 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
15 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
16 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
17 Encased stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
18 Stiffness 160 kN/m 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
19 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
20 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
Total no. of model analyzed 3×84=252
 Stone columns derive its load carrying capacity from the confinement
offered by the surrounding soil.
 Encasement of stone column has been extended the use of stone columns to
soft clays. The present study contains tapered stone column with
circumferential encasement.
 An axisymmetric analysis was carried out using Mohr-Coulomb's criterion
considering elasto-plastic behavior for soft clay and stone.
 The type of surrounding soft soil is considered 20 kPa and the load carrying
capacity of footings located over tapered stone columns is compared with
equal size of footings located on the virgin soil that is without a stone
column underneath.
 BCR (bearing capacity ratio): BCR is the ratio of bearing capacity of
improved soil to the bearing capacity of virgin soil. In present work, BCR is
calculated at definite settlements that is 10% of bearing plate diameter.
 Obtaining resulting curves: Three types of curves are drawn for different
S/D ratio (i.e. 2.0, 3.0, 4.0) Which are as follow:
 D vs. BCR for different geogrid at constant L/D ratio.
 L/D vs. BCR for different geogrid at constant diameter of footing.
 Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different L/D ratio of stone columns at
constant diameter of footing.
D vs BCR for[L/D= 2, S/D=2]
 D vs BCR for[L/D= 4, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 6, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 8, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 10, S/D=2]
 For S/D=2, for L/D=10, encasement stiffness 160kN/m and diameter
2.5 inch, the BCR highest which is 5.87 for 10% settlement. Which
is 1.02 times of BCR for stone column of 1 inch diameter.
 For S/D=3, for L/D=10, encasement stiffness 160kN/m and diameter
2.5 inch, the BCR highest which is 5.21 for 10% settlement. Which
is 1.07 times of BCR for stone column of 1 inch diameter.
 For S/D=4, for L/D=10, encasement stiffness 160kN/m and diameter
2.5 inch, the BCR highest which is 4.51 for 10% settlement. Which
is 1.1 times of BCR for stone column of 1 inch diameter.
L/D vs. BCR for 1inch stone column and S/D=2
L/D vs. BCR for 1.5inch stone column and S/D
=2
L/D vs. BCR for 2inch stone column and S/D=2
L/D vs. BCR for 2.5inch stone column and S/D=2
 BCR comes to be 2.5 for 10% settlement for L/D=2, encasement 160
kN/m, 2.5 inch diameter and S/D=2 which is increased upto 5.87
after L/D=10 for the same conditions.
 BCR comes to be 2.68 for 10% settlement for L/D=2, encasement
160 kN/m, 2.5 inch diameter and S/D=3 which is increased upto 5.21
after L/D=10 for the same conditions.
 Again for S/D=4, BCR comes to be 2.78 for 10% settlement for
L/D=2, encasement 160 kN/m and 2.5 inch diameter which is
increased upto 4.51 after L/D=10 for the same conditions.
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different
L/D ratios at 1inch diameter and for S/D
=2
 Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different
L/D ratios at 1.5inch diameter and for S/D
=2
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different L/D ratios
at 2inch diameter and for S/D =2
 Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different
L/D ratios at 2.5inch diameter and for S/D
=2
 For L/D ratio higher than 6 there is a visible improvement in BCR.
 It can also observe that for lower value of stiffness of geogrid, BCR
get constant with a certain value of L/D.
 for higher stiffness, BCR increases with the increase in L/D ratio.
 For S/D =2 the maximum values of BCR is 2.5 for OSC which is
increased to 5.87 for 160 kN/m stiffness for 10% settlement taking
other conditions same.
 There is increase in BCR for stone column encased with geogrid as
compared with ordinary stone column.
 BCR increases with the diameter of stone column.
 Effect of encasement is only visible for L/D>4.
 BCR increases with L/D ratio upto a certain value of L/D after which
BCR becomes constant. The value of L/D, after which BCR becomes
constant, increases with stiffness of confinement.
 Encasement of stone column resists the bulging of stone column. and
settlement occurs due to punching for L/D ratio 2 and 4.
 Forstone columns of L/D ratio 6 and above, BCR increases with
stiffness of geogrid. Long columns fails in bulging which is resisted
by geogrid. Hence as the stiffness of geogrid increases the value of
BCR also increases.
 For ordinary stone columns, BCR improves with L/D ratio upto 4.
 BCR decreases with increase in S/D value.
 Similar work can be conducted by changing the shear strength of the
soft soil.
 Method of installation affects the performance of the Stone Column.
This aspects needs to be studied.
 Single Stone Column was used in the present study. The behavior of
group of Stone Columns in soft soil may also be studied.
 Similar work can be conducted by changing stone properties.
 In the present investigation, the load was applied only on the Stone
Column whereas it may be applied on entire area of soil. This will
reveal the load settlement behavior of the composite material.
i. Arora, S., Kumar, R. and Jain, P.K. (2014) “Load-settlement behavior of
granular pile in black cotton soil” International Journal of Advances in
Engineering & Technology, 7(3), 773-781
ii. Ayadat T., Hanna A. and Etezad M. (2008). “Failure Process of Stone
Columns in Collapsible Soils.” International journal of Engineering (IJE),
21, 135-142.
iii. Black, J.A., Sivakumar, V., Madhav M.R. and Hamill, G.A. (2007).
“Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: laboratory model study.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(9),
1154-1161.
iv. Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, McCabe BA (2006) “An improved
experimental test setup to study the behavior of granular columns.”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 29(3):193–199 .
v. Dipty S. I., and Girish M. S. (2009). "Suitability of different materials for
stone column construction." EJGE, 14, 1-11.
vi. Fattah, Mohammed Y., and Majeed, Quitaba G. (2012). “Finite Element
Analysis of Geogrid Encased Stone Columns.” Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 30(4), 713-726.
vii. Hughes, J.M.O., and Withers, N. J. (1974). “Reinforcing of soft
cohesive soils with stone columns.” Ground Engineering., 7(3), 42-
49
viii. Hughes J.M.O., Withers N.J., Greenwood D.A. (1975) “A field trial of
the reinforcing effect of a stone column in soil.” Géotechnique,
25(1), 31–44
ix. IS 15284 Part 1 (2003). “Indian standard code of practice for design
and construction for ground improvement-guidelines. Part 1: Stone
columns.”, New Delhi, India
x. IS: 2720 Part 10 (1991). “Methods of test for soils: Determination of
Unconfined Compressive Strength.”
xi. Katti, R.K. (1979), “Search for Solutions to problem in black cotton
Soil”, First annual lecture, Indian Geo–technical Society at IIT, Delhi.
xii. Kosho A. (2000). “Ground Improvement Using the Vibro-Stone
Column Technique.” A.L.T.E.A and Geostudio 2000, Durres, Albania.
xiii. Kumar R. and Jain P. K., (2013). “Expansive Soft Soil Improvement by
Geogrid Encased Granular Pile.” International Journal on Emerging
Technologies, 4(1), 55-61.
xiv. Kumar R. and Jain P. K., (2013). “Soft Ground Improvement with Fibre
Reinforced Granular Pile.” IJAERS, II(III), 42-45
xv. Dheerendr Babu M. R., Sitaram Nayak & Shivashankar R. (2013) “A
Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour of Stone
Columns” An International Journal in Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 31(1), 1-22.
xvi. McCabe B.A., McNeill J.A. and Black J.A. (2007). “Ground Improvement
Using the Vibro-Stone Column Technique.” paper presented to a joint
meeting of Engineers Ireland West Region and the Geotechnical Society
of Ireland, NUI Galway.
xvii. McKelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., Graham, J. (2004). “Modeling
vibrated stone columns in soft clay.” Proc., Institute of Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engg., 157(3), 137-149.
xviii. Mitra S, Chattopadhyay BC (1999) “Stone columns and design
limitations.” Indian geotechnical conference, Calcutta, India, pp. 201–205.
xix. Murugesan, S. and Rajagopal, K. (2006). “Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: Numerical evaluation.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(6),
349-358.
xx. Priebe HJ (1995) “the design of Vibro replacement.” J Ground
Engineering 28(12):31–37
xxi. Priebe HJ (1991) “Deep Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction,
and Testing, STP25051S, M. Esrig and R. Bachus, Ed., ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, pp. 62-72.
xxii. Ranjan, G. and Rao, B. G. (1983). “Skirted granular piles for ground
improvement.” European Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Halainki.
xxiii. Rao, B. G. (1982). "Behavior of skirted granular pile foundation." PhD
thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
xxiv. Samadhiya, N.K. and Hasan, M., (2015). “Experimental study on
performance of floating granular piles in soft clay.” 50th Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
xxv. Aldonkar S. Sidhi S., (2017) “Soil stabilization using stone column”
International Conference on Geotechniques for infrastructure projects,
Thiruvananthapuram.
xxvi. Tandel, Y.K., Solanki, C.H. and Desai, A.K. (2012) “Reinforced stone
column: remedial of ordinary stone column” International Journal of
Advances in Engineering & Technology, 3(2), 340-348.
xxvii.Thakare, S.W., and Ahmed, T., (2016), “Performance of Footing on Clayey
Soil with Encased Stone Columns and Geocell Mattress” International
Journal of Engineering Research, 5(1), 04-08.
Thank You