Soil Improvement by Reinforced Stone Columns Based on Experimental Work

Hamed Niroumand
Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Skudai, Johor, Malaysia e-mail :niroumandh@gmail.com

Khairul Anuar Kassim

Deputy Dean, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia(UTM), Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Chong Siaw Yah

Postgraduate student, Department of Geotechnical Engineering , Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia(UTM), Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

ABSTRACT
Methods for analysis of stability and deformation under static and dynamic loading are exported. Stone columns are installed using a process similar to vibro-compaction, except that a gravel backfill is used, and they are typically installed in slightly cohesive soils or silt rather than clean cohesion less soils. In the dry soils, a cylindrical cavity is formed by the vibrator that is filled from the bottom up with gravel/crushed rock. The purpose of this research paper is to provide a review on ground improvement for using reinforced stone columns in geotechnical engineering projects. There is special focus on how to performance and evaluate ground improvement using reinforced stone column for special purposes. The previous results indicated the reinforced stone columns significantly increase the bearing capacity and tension of the soil. Based on previous results, critical values were discussed and recommended.

KEYWORDS:

Reinforced Stone Column, Vibro-Compaction, Ground Improvement, Geogrid, Geotextile, Geosynthetics.

INTRODUCTION
Ground improvement is the modification of foundation soils or project earth structures to provide better performance under operational loading conditions. Ground improvement methods are used increasingly for new projects to allow utilization of sites with poor subsurface conditions and to allow design and construction of needed projects despite poor subsurface conditions which formerly would have rendered the project economically unjustifiable or technically not feasible. The aforementioned crushed aggregates in the definite proportion are to be placed into the soil at regular intervals throughout the area of the land where the soil bearing capacity is to be improved. Vibro-Replacement extends the range of - 1477 -

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1478

soils that can be improved by vibratory methods to include clay. Soil is stronger in compression than in tension but geosynthetics can be improve the tension strength in soils. Reinforcement of the soil by compacted granular columns or stone columns is accomplished by the top feed method. This is done either by using the dry or the wet top feed vibrators which are forced into the ground. The aggregates are then allowed to take the place of the displaced soil which exerts a pressure on the surrounding soil hence helping to improve the soil's load bearing capacity. The reinforced stone column consists of geosynthetics and crushed coarse aggregates of various sizes. Additional details regarding reinforced stone columns are discussed in Sharma et al (2004), Malarvizhi (2004), Gneil and Bouazza (2009), Deb et al (2010) and et al. Sharma et al (2004) performed a series of laboratory analysis to investigate the effect of geogrid on the load bearing capacity and bulging reduction on granular column. A total of 14 plate load tests were conducted for untreated clay bed, unreinforced granular columns and the geogrid reinforced column with different numbers of geogrid layers and spacing. The experimental setup is shown in Figure 1. The clayey silt was selected as the soil bed meanwhile the crushed stone aggregate with particle size from 2.36 to 4.75mm was used as the backfill materials for the granular column. The reinforcing material used in the granular column was a biaxial geogrid. The clay bed with a height and diameter of 300mm was prepared by compaction method. A sand layer of 50mm thick was laid at the bottom of the tank. The 60mm diameter stone column was installed by compact the crushed stone aggregates in layers to a desired density with an aid of casing. The required geogrid layers were placed at the upper part of the granular column in designed spacing. Two series of load tests were conducted. First, the load tests were conducted by loading the column alone using a 60mm diameter bearing plate which had a same size with the column diameter. Secondly, the load tests were conducted by loading the entire area (both column and soil) by using a 120mm diameter bearing plate. The load was applied in increments of 45 N until 275N. The settlement was recorded with a dial gauge and the diameter of the bulge was measured at different depths from the top of the granular column. From this analysis, it was found that the geogrid has effectively improved the load carrying capacity of the granular column and reduce the bulging diameter and bulging length of the granular column. The improvement factors increased with the increase of numbers of geogrid and decrease of geogrid spacing. The stress to induce a settlement of 3mm increased 80% comparing to the unreinforced granular column. For 5 numbers of geogrid with a spacing of 10mm, the bulge was negligible at 1.04 times of the column diameter. Meanwhile, the bulge length was 1.33 times of the column diameter. However, the effect of mesh size and strength of the geogrid was not investigated. Gneil and Bouazza (2009) conducted a series of small scale model tests on the geogrid encased column to investigate the geogrid encasement length on the strain reduction and the bulging prevention. The laboratory tests were carried using enlarged oedometer with 143mm internal diameter which was designed based on the unit cell idealization concept. The soft clay bed with the undrained shear strength of 5kPa was prepared by consolidating the kaolin slurry with the moisture content about 115% from 480mm to 310mm in the enlarged oedometer by applying a pressure of 50kPa. A poorly-graded sand (Grade 8/16, supplied by Unimin Australia Ltd.) with the particle size of 1.6mm was used to represent the stone as the backfill materials of the stone column. The commercially available fibreglass and aluminium window mesh which are used to model the small scale geogrid as the encasement materials. The mesh was formed into a cylindrical sleeve of 50.5mm with 10mm overlap which was bonded with resin and cured for 3days. The mesh sleeve was placed in the mould of 51mm diameter for sand column before the sand was filled in. Then the sand column was frozen before installed in the clay bed. Then the specimen was loaded after the sand column was completely thawed which the specimen had to be left at least for 3hours at room temperature. The specimens were loaded at the entire area and the column area. From this analysis, it was found that the encasement of the stone column using geogrid can effectively increase the stiffness and reduce the strain of the stone column. For a fully encased stone column in a column group,

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1479

the strain can be reduced up to 80%. Meanwhile for the isolated column which was loaded at the column area, the load carrying capacity increase with the increase of encasement length; however the strain at failure was remained quite consistent. For the fully encased stone column, bulging was observed at the base of the encasement. For the partially encased isolated stone column and stone column group, bulging was observed along the full length of the non-encased column in the column groups and confined to a length of about 2 column diameters respectively. However, in this analysis, the stone column was prepared by using frozen method which cannot represent the actual construction process of stone column at site as the confining pressure of the soil was low at site thus the quality of the stone column might be lower.

Figure 1: Experimental setup by Sharma et al (2004)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1480

Figure 2: Sketch of enlarged consolidation cell by Gneil and Bouazza (2009)

Figure 3: Photograph of enlarged consolidation cells in operation by Gneil and Bouazza (2009)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1481

Gneil and Bouazza (2010) conducted a series of small and medium scale tests to investigate an alternative method of geogrid encasement construction which is method of overlap. Other than that, the effects of the geogrid properties and column aggregate sizes on the encased stone column performance were also investigated. The clay bed and sand column were prepared using the same method as the test for welded columns in 2009. For the small scale model test, two-group column tests and one isolated column test were carried out on the full length fiberglass mesh encased columns. For the first group test, the overlapped encasement sleeve was stitched with cotton thread at 30mm internal but the mesh has failed during the process of extruding the column from mould. Thus for the next group column test and isolated column test, the overlapped encasement sleeves were not stitched. Both the overlapped encasement sleeve for group and isolated column tests showed the same fixity as the welded encasement sleeves. For the stitched overlapped encasement sleeves, the column stress at failure was difficult to be determined as the second stage loading was relatively large and the loading was continued after the mesh had failed until the encased column failed. However, it was found that the stitching had caused stress concentration and contributed to the failure of the overlapped encasement sleeve. Based on the findings from the small scale model tests, the medium scale tests were conducted to investigate the applicability of overlapped method in full scale materials. The tests were carried out on column with a diameter and height of 0.24m and 0.86m respectively. The geogrid adopted as the encasement sleeves were consisted of four biaxial geogrids with roughly square apertures and two uniaxial geogrids with rectangular apertures. The backfill materials used were two types of crushed rock aggregate which comprises 20/50 mm rubble and 14/10 mm gravel. The column was loaded in an unconfined condition under a constant displacement rate loading. From the investigation, it was found that the overlap method is suitable for biaxial geogrids. The 20/50 mm rubble, which is a typical conventional stone column backfill material, can provide the greatest interlocking to the stone column and geogrid. However, the cutting might reduce the strength of geogrid. The cutting of geogrid can be reduced by incorporate a higher strength of geogrid. 100% circumferential overlap should be adopted for the sufficient fixity. However, the temporary fixing of the encasement sleeves is needed to be refined and the minimum number of junctions required in the section of overlap should be investigated. Other than that the method of overlap is not suitable for geotextile encasement and geotextile/geogrid composites.

Figure 4: Welded geogrid encasement by Gneil and Bouazza (2010)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1482

Figure 5: Typical encasement sleeve used for medium-scale testing by Gneil and Bouazza (2010)

Figure 6: Columns prepared for testing with encasement constructed from different geogrids by Gneil and Bouazza (2010)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1483

Figure 7: Column being loaded in unconfined compression by Gneil and Bouazza (2010)
Deb et al. (2010) conducted a series of laboratory test to investigate the effect of geogrid-reinforced sand bed on stone column. The single stone column test was conducted in a square tank of 525mm size and 400mm height. The tests were conducted on the unreinforced and geogrid reinforced sand bed. The clay bed (CL) with bulk unit weight of 19.8kN/m3was prepared by compaction method. The diameter of the stone column was 50mm and the backfill material is the crushed stone materials with the particle size range from 2 mm to 6 mm.The 50mm diameter stone column was installed by replacement method with the aid of steel casing. Meanwhile the sand bed materials were sand particles which can pass through 4.75 mm. The biaxial geogrid was used as the reinforcement layer. A 50mm sand layer was placed before the geogrid was place on the stone column. Then, the sand bed was laid on the geotextile to a required height. The test setup is shown in Figure 8. The specimen was loaded by apply pressure on a 10mm diameter footing. After the column failed, the stone column was added with thin cement slurry and extruded after it had achieved sufficient strength in order to investigate the bulging diameter and depth of the stone column. From this investigation, it was found that the load carrying capacity of the soft clay was significantly increase by including the geogrid in the sand bed above the stone column on the soft clay. The increment was up to 233% of the untreated soft clay for the settlement of 20% from footing height. The optimum thickness of unreinforced sand bed was 1.7 times of the optimum thickness for geogrid reinforced sand bed. Meanwhile the optimum size of geogrid reinforced area was 3 times of the footing diameter. Other than that, with the inclusion of geogrid reinforced sand bed on the stone column, the

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1484

bulge diameter was significantly reduced and the bulge depth was increased. However, this test can only represent the behaviour for the stone column with specific material properties. This research should be refined by conducting experiment on various materials and soil conditions to obtain a better conclusion.

Figure 8: Schematic diagram of the test setup by Deb et al. (2010)

Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004) conducted a series of experimental analysis on the geogrid encased stone columns to investigate the effect of geogrid on the load carrying capacity of the soft marine clay. Stone column encased with different type of geogrid and slenderness ratios were tested and the performance was compared with the conventional stone column. The high plasticity marine clay from coastal area of Chennai city was used as the clay bed material meanwhile the granite chips with particle size range from 5 to 10mm was used as the backfill material for the stone column. The geogrids which consisted of the Netlon Nova curtain with the net of 1mm x 1mm aperture, square mesh net of 4mm x 4mm aperture size and CE121 were used as the encasement materials of the stone column. From the investigation, it was found the geogrids encasement has increased the load carrying capacity for both floating and end bearing stone column. The ultimate bearing capacity of geogrid encased stone column treated clay bed and stone column treated clay bed was 3 times and 2 times of the untreated clay bed. The stiffness of the encasement increased the load carrying capacity of stone column. The encased stone column reduced the settlement of the clay bed. However, the performance of reinforced stone column should be refined by varying area ratio, moisture content of clay and l/d ratio of columns.

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1485

Figure 9: Loading of the composite bed by Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004)

Murugesan and Rajagopal (2007) conducted a series of laboratory tests on the geosynthetic encased stone columns to investigate the influence of the stiffness of encasement, depth of encasement and column diameter on the performance of stone column. The normally consolidated clay from a lake bed was used as the soil bed materials. The clay was mixed with 1.5times liquid limit and soaked for one month to remove the stress history of the soil. Then it is consolidated under 10kPa to form the clay bed in a cylindrical steel tank with 210 mm diameter and 500 mm height. Then the geosynthetic encased stone column was installed at the centre of the clay bed. The backfill material for the stone column was angular granite chips with the particle size range from 2 to 10mm. The geosynthetic chosen for the encasement purpose were a woven geotextile, a nonwoven geotextile, and soft meshes with two different aperture opening sizes. Stone columns with 50, 75 and 100 mm diameter were tested. The sample was loaded vertically in a constant strain rate of 1.2 mm/min through a loading plate with the size same as the column diameter. From the investigation, it was found that the geosynthetic encasement increase the stiffness of the stone column. The stiffness of the stone column increased with the stiffness of geosynthetic encasement. However, the strain levels were smaller for the stone column with smaller diameter. The confinement effects reduced with the increase of stone column diameter. The test results also showed that geosynthetic encasement is only needed for the part where the bulging occurred. However, strainsoftening will occur in partially encased stone column when it is loaded beyond a particular stress. The geosynthetic encasement also prevents the contamination of stone column and thus will not reduce the friction between the stone aggregates and clay bed. However, the results should be further verified by conducting field testing.

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1486

Figure 10: Casing pipe with wrapped geotextile fixed with strain gauges by Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004): (a) Strain gauges fixed on the geotextile; (b) strain gauges covered by flexible putty

Figure 11: Schematic of load test on stone column in a unit cell by Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1487

Figure 12: Encased stone column installed in unit cell tank by Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004)
Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010) conducted a series of laboratory tests on the geosynthetic encased stone columns to investigate the behaviour of single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns. The tests were performed on the single and group of stone column with and without geosynthetic encasement in a large scale model test tank. The clay from a lake bed was used as the soil bed materials. The clay was mixed with 1.5times liquid limit and soaked for one month to remove the stress history of the soil. Then it is consolidated under 10kPa to form the clay bed in a large test tank of plan dimensions 1.2 m x 1.2 m and 0.85 m in depth. The clay height was 600mm. For the single column test, the geosynthetic encased stone column was installed at the centre of the clay bed. The backfill material for the stone column was angular granite chips with the particle size range from 2 to 10mm. The stone were compacted to give a stone column with a dry density of 1.6 g/cm3. The geosynthetic chosen for the encasement purpose were a woven geotextile, a nonwoven geotextile, and soft meshes with two different aperture opening sizes. Stone columns with 50, 75 and 100 mm diameter were tested. The stone column was loaded vertically in a constant strain rate of 1.2 mm/min through a circular loading plate with a diameter twice that of the stone column. For the column group tests, 12 columns were installed at spacing of 150mm which is twice the column diameter in a triangular pattern. The sample was loaded through a loading plate of 248.2mm diameter in controlled displacement at a rate of 1.2 mm/min. The column group tests were conducted for ordinary stone column group, woven and non-woven geotextile group. From the investigation, it was found that the geosynthetic encasement increase the stiffness of the stone column. However, the strain levels were smaller for the stone column with smaller diameter. The confining

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1488

pressure of the stone column increased with the modulus of encasements of geosynthetic encasement. Other than that, the hoop tension force was found to follow the bulging of the column where highest hoop strain was observed at the top part of column and decreased by depth. The geosynthetic encased stone column was behaved like a semi rigid pile. Design guidelines for the geosynthetic encased stone column were also developed. However, investigation of the geosynthetic encased stone column should be carried out for other type of clay and backfill materials to establish a better design guideline.

Figure 13: Load test on single stone column in large test tank schematic by Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010)

Figure 14: Strain gauges fixed on the geosynthetic encasement by Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1489

Figure 15: Load Tests on a group of stone columns by Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1490

(a) Plan view of a group of stone columns area replacement ratio among group=0.23; (b) schematic of the loading plate fitted with pressure cells; and (c) photographic view of load test. Wu and Hong (2008) conducted a series of laboratory tests on the granular columns with the horizontally laminated reinforcing sheets to verify the analytical procedure proposed to analyse the column expansion. Triaxial compression tests were carried out on the cylindrical specimens of 14cm height and 7cm diameter. The granular column material was sand with theinternal frictional angle of 36.81. Four layers of geotextile layer were installed at an equal spacing which is the double distance from the end of the column as shown in Figure 16. The effect of the reinforcement stiffness, reinforcement strength, granular column radius and spacing of the reinforcing sheets were investigated. From the investigation, it was found that the increase of the inclusions stiffness can lower the axial strain of the granular column. Smaller spacing of the reinforced granular column increases the stiffness granular columns for the same radius/spacing ratio. However, the tests were conducted only for the sand as the granular column materials. The usage of the stone as the column materials should be further investigated.

Figure 16: Initial and deformed triaxial specimen with four-layer reinforcement by Wu and Hong (2008): (a) initial shape of the reinforced triaxial specimen and (b) deformed shape of the reinforced triaxial specimen (26% axial strain).

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1491

Ayadat and Hanna (2005) conducted a series of laboratory tests on the geofabric encapsulated stone column to investigate its performance in a collapsible soil. The load carrying capacity and the deformation characteristics were studied. The loose, collapsible fill which consisted of 78% concrete sand, 10% Leighton buzzard sand (less than 90 m), and 12% speswhite kaolin clay were filled in a stress-controlled cylindrical chamber of 390 mm inside diameter, 520 mm depth and 17.5 mm wall thickness. Conventional triaxial consolidated drained compression test carried out to determine the properties of the soil. The coefficient of earth pressure at rest, the angle of shearing resistance and the cohesion for this soil was 0.54, 308 and 35 kPa respectively. Terram fabric which consisted of Terram 700, 1000, 1500 and 2000 were used as the reinforced materials. The coarse, uniformly graded sand with the particle size range from 1.18 to 2.36 mm were used as the backfill material of the stone column. The columns formed were 250mm diameter with 250 mm, 300 mm and 410 mm length. The sand columns were loaded axially using a strain-controlled loading system until the failure point. LVDTs were used to measure the settlement of the specimen. From the investigation, it was found that the geofabric encapsulated sand column has prevented the premature failure of the column in the collapsible soil. The load carrying capacity of the encapsulated sand columns increased with the increase of geofabric material stiffness. The increase of column rigidity and column length increase the load carrying capacity of the collapsible soil. A design procedure for geofabric encapsulated stone column in collapsible soil was proposed.

Figure 17: Cross-section of testing apparatus by Ayadat and Hanna (2005)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1492

Ayadat et al. (2008) conducted laboratory tests on the sand columns internally reinforced with horizontal wire meshes made of plastic, steel and aluminium materials. Direct shear tests were carried out on the sand reinforced with rigid and plastic rods in order to evaluate the effect of the reinforcement on the strength and the strain characteristic of the sand. After that, prototype internally reinforced sand column was tested by using a stress-controlled cylindrical chamber. The material used in the direct shear box tests was dry fine silica sand with a particle size ranged from 0.08 to 2 mm.For the load tests, the normal consolidated clay was used as the soil materials. Meanwhile the dry fine silica sand with particle size ranged from 1.18 2.36 mm was used to form a sand column with diameter of 23 mm and length of 470 mm (full penetration). The reinforcement materials consisted of steel and nylon rods with diameter of 1.5m and 1.0 mm respectively. Other than that, aluminium fibres which were in the form of thin plats with 2.4 mm wide and 0.6 mm thick were used as the reinforcement materials. For the direct shear test, sand reinforced with 1 % of steel, 1% of nylon, 1% of aluminium and 2 % of steel was tested. The specimen has a 60.5mm width, 60.5mm length and 20.5mm thick. The reinforcement rods were placed perpendicular to the sand sliding surface. The specimens were loaded with a shearing force at a rate of 0.123mm/min. For the load tests on the reinforced sand column, the rods were embedded in the mesh form. Six rods were placed in two layers and attached by welding or special strong glue to form a mesh which has a same size with column diameter. The sand columns with single, double and triple meshes of reinforcement were tested. The sand columns were loaded axially using a strain-controlled loading system. LVDTs were used to measure the settlement of the specimen. From the investigation, it was found that the inclusion of horizontal meshes increase the load carrying capacity of granular columns. The performance increased with the increasing of mesh numbers. It was also found that ductile materials in the plate forms were the best reinforcement arrangement for the granular columns. A design procedure of the sand columns internally reinforced with horizontal meshes was proposed.

Figure 18: Sand column reinforced internally with horizontal meshes by Ayadat et al. (2008)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1493

Raithel et al. (2004) conducted a case study on the Geotextile-Encased Columns (GEC) at the plant site of the Airbus Company in Hamburg-Finkenwerder. The soft soil layer at the site is between 8 to 14m with the undrained shear strength ranged from 0.4 to 10kN/m2. A finite element method using PLAXIS was adopted to design the GEC system with the assistance of the analytical, axial symmetric model according to Raithel (1999) and Raithel and Kempfert (2000). For the finite element method, the Soft Soil Model (SSM) was used to model the soft soil meanwhile the Hard Soil Model (HSM) was used to model the sand and gravel of the column material. The area ratio of the column area (AC) to the influence area (AE) was between 10 to 20%. Approximately 60 000 geotextile-encased sand column with a diameter of 80cm and a length ranged from 4 m to 14m were installed to improve the ground. Ringtrac casings with stiffness ranged from 1700 and 2800 kN/m were adopted as the encasement material. Four groups of typical measurement cross section were placed to monitor the performance of the GEC. Each group consisted of one earth pressure gauge and one water pressure gauge above the soft soil layer, and two piezometers within the soft soil. In each cross section, one horizontal and two vertical inclinometers. The settlement measurement showed a satisfactory on design of GEC. However, the usage of the GEC for other higher bearing capacity requirement should be further investigated.

Figure 19: Cross section (for example in section VI) by Raithel et al. (2004)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1494

Figure 20: Installation from offshore pontoon and column after draw by Raithel et al. (2004)

Figure 21: The well-tested vibro displacement method on land and the finished dyke by Raithel et al. (2004)
Abdullah and Edil (2007) conducted a case study to investigate the behavior of geogrid-reinforced load transfer platforms (LTP) for embankment on rammed aggregate piers. A full scale embankment was performed at Gebeng, Pahang, Malaysia. The top layer of the soil was a soft silty clay layer up to 15mdeep with a natural water content ranged from 35%and 61%.Field vane tests showed that the undrained shear strength of the soil layer ranged from 14 to 60 kPa. The silty clay layer is interspersed with thin organic and sandy layers. It was underlain by stiff to hard gravelly silt, which was underlain by firm to stiff silt. Three types of LTP were constructed on the geopiers to distribute the load from the structure to the geopiers; they were a geosynthetic-reinforced LTP with two layers of geogrid (catenary LTP), a geosynthetic-reinforced LTP with three or more layers of geogrid (beam LTP), and a reinforced concrete LTP. The dimensions, the types of LTP and the geopier square-arrangement spacing for each section are shown in Figure 2. Resistance wire strain gauges, settlement plates, piezometers, extensometers, vertical and horizontal inclinometers were installed to monitor the performance of the LTP for embankment on rammed aggregate piers. The results showed that the beam LTP has the highest

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1495

performance. The LTPs together with less stiff geopiers were suggested as another ground improvement option for low embankment on the soft soil.

Figure 22: Layout of major LTP sections and control sections by Abdullah and Edil (2007)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1496

Figure 23: Schematic layout of the different LTPs in: (a) Section 1, beam LTP; (b) Section 2, beam LTP; (c) Section 3, catenary LTP; (d) Section 4, concrete LTP

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1497

Figure 24: Installation process for a geopier element (after Fox and Cowell 1998)

Figure 25: Typical locations of strain gauges and other instruments by Abdullah and Edil (2007)

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1498

Figure 26: Schematic diagram of strain gauge installation and protection by Abdullah and Edil (2007)

CONCLUSION
Reinforced stone columns are a ground improvement method to improve the load bearing capacity of the soil. The local soils are by nature, unable to bear the proposed structure. Hence the ground improvement methods can be necessitated. The area replacement ratio is defined as the area of the stone column to the tributary area per stone column. For foundation applications, coverage should be extended beyond the perimeter of the structure to account for stress spread with depth. The inclusion of horizontal meshes increases the load carrying capacity of granular columns. The performance increased with the increasing of mesh numbers. It was also found that ductile materials in the plate forms were the best reinforcement arrangement for the granular columns. The geosynthetic encasement prevents the contamination of stone column and thus will not reduce the friction between the stone aggregates and clay bed.

REFERENCES
1. Sharma, R. S., Kumar, P., Nagendra, G. 2004. Compressive load response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids. Can. Geotech. J. 41: 187192 2. Gneil, J., Bouazza, A. 2009. Improvement of soft soils using geogrid encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27: 167175 3. Gneil, J., Bouazza, A. 2010. Construction of geogrid encased stone columns- A new proposal based on laboratory testing. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28: 108118 4. Deb, K., Samadhiya, N. K., Namdeo, J. B. 2010. Laboratory model studies on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed over stone column-improved soft clay. Geotextiles and Geomembranes: 1- 7 5. Malarvizhi, S. N., Ilamparuthi, K. 2004. Load versus settlement of claybed stabilized with stone and reinforced stone column. 3rd Asian Reg. Conf. on Geosynt.: 322-329. 6. Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K. 2007. Model tests on geosynthetic-encased stone columns. Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 6

Vol. 16 [2011], Bund. L

1499

7. Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K. 2010. Studies on the behavior of single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE: 129- 139 8. Wu, C.-S, Hong, Y.-S. 2008. The behavior of a laminated reinforced granular column. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26: 302316 9. Ayadat, T., Hanna, A. M.2005. Encapsulated stone columns as a soil improvement technique for collapsible soil. Ground Improvement 9, No. 4: 137147 10. Ayadat, T., Hanna, A. M, Hamitouche, A.2008. Soil improvement by internally reinforced stone columns. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,Ground Improvement 161May 2008, Issue GI2:5563 11. Raithel, M., Kster V., Lindmark A. 2004. Geotextile-Encased Columns - a foundation system for earth structures, illustrated by a dyke project for a works extension in Hamburg. Nordic Geotechnical Meeting NGM 2004, Ystad, Sweden. 12. Abdullah, C. H., Edil, T. B. 2007. Behaviour of geogrid-reinforced load transfer platforms for embankment on rammed aggregate piers. Geosynthetics International, 2007, 14, No. 3: 141- 153

2011 ejge