See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316860255

Effectiveness of the Geogrid Wrapping on the

Bearing Capacity of the Stone Columns

Conference Paper May 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 126

3 authors, including:

Talha Sarici Ahmet Demir

Inonu University Osmaniye Korkut Ata university
6 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 23 PUBLICATIONS 138 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmet Demir on 11 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Digital Proceeding of ICOCEE CAPPADOCIA2017
S. Sahinkaya and E. Kalpc (Editors)
Nevsehir, TURKEY, May 8-10, 2017

Effectiveness of the Geogrid Wrapping on the Bearing Capacity

of the Stone Columns
Talha SARICI1, Bahadr OK2 and Ahmet DEMR*3
1
nn University, Civil Engineering, TURKEY.
(E-mail: talha.sarici@inonu.edu.tr)
2
Adana Science and Technology University, Civil Engineering, TURKEY.
(E-mail: bahadirok@adanabtu.edu.tr)
*3
Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, Civil Engineering, TURKEY.
(Corresponding author, E-mail: ahmetdemir@osmaniye.edu.tr)

ABSTRACT

The world population is increasing at an extreme rate. For this reason, the obligation of
structuring has occurred even in the weak soils. When shallow foundations built on the weak
soils, it is faced with several problems. It is necessary to improve the weak soils by using a
soil stabilization method. Stone column method is one of the soil stabilization methods and
its use is growing in all over the world. Soil stabilization by using the stone column method
provides to increase bearing capacity of the soil and decrease amount of settlement. Some
methods have been developed to improve the performance of stone columns. One of these
methods is wrapping the stone column with a geogrid material. Using this method, the
bearing capacity of stone columns is developed, amount of the settlement and the lateral
bulging is reduced. In this paper, bearing capacity and settlement behavior of 5 cm diameter
(df) model shallow foundation located on the soft clay soil in a steel tank which has a
diameter (D) of 30 cm, 25 cm, 20 cm and 15 cm was investigated experimentally. Axial
stress and settlement behavior of the shallow foundation resting on the unreinforced soft
clay soil, stone column reinforced soft clay soil and geogrid wrapped stone column
reinforced soft clay soil were researched, respectively. The effect of tank diameter was also
investigated in tests. As a result of this paper, stone columns increase the bearing capacity
and reduce the settlement. Performance of stone column is improved by wrapping with the
geogrid. In addition, the bearing capacity and settlement behavior of stone column and
geogrid wrapped stone column are influenced by tank diameter. As the tank diameter
increases up to D/df=4, the bearing capacity decreases significantly. After this value, the
bearing capacity decreases slightly.

Keywords: Bearing Capacity, Experimental Study, Geogrid, Soil Improvement, Stone

Columns

1
1. INTRODUCTION

Soft soils have a great problems for geotechnical engineers due to their low bearing capacity
and high compressibility. Stone columns which are the soil stabilization method provide a
satisfactory method of support in soft soils, therefore there have been widely applied in practice
[1, 2]. Stone columns are more popular because of their ease of installation and cost
effectiveness compared to other methods [3]. Stone column can be used to enhance the strength
and stiffness properties of ground intended to support large loaded areas (e.g., floor slabs,
embankments) or small loaded areas (e.g., footings, strips) [4]. Also, it has been used to prevent
the earthquake liquefaction of liquefiable soil, reduce the compression deformation of soil
under the load [5] and create a drainage path in order to consolidation of soft clay can be
achieved in a short period of time [6]. Many researchers showed that stone column method is
suitable in many respects [7, 8, 9]. But, the load carrying capacity of the stone columns in very
soft soils (cu < 15 kPa) is insufficient [3, 10]. Because, columns mobilize their strength from
the lateral confinement provided by the surrounding soil [11]. This limitation was eliminated
by wrapping the stone column with geosynthetics to provide the required lateral support to
columns installed in extremely soft soils [12]. In addition, geosynthetic wrapping acts as a filter
between soft soil around stone column and granular material used in stone column construction.
In this way, the effective drainage and avoiding contamination of the granular material are
provided.

The idea of wrapping the stone columns was thought for the first time by Van Impe in 1985
[10]. In recent years, geosynthetic products have been used to improve performance of stone
columns [10, 12, 13]. Hasan and Samadhiya [14] carried out the laboratory model tests and
numerical analyses on reinforced granular piles in very soft clay. They took into account short
term loading condition. Reinforcement was performed in the form of vertical wrapping,
horizontal strips and combined vertical-horizontal reinforcement. They examined the effect of
reinforcement, shear strength of clay, encasement stiffness and length of granular piles. The
results of their studies showed that significant improvement occurs in ultimate load intensity
and stiffness of treated ground due to inclusion of geosynthetic. Ghazavi and Afshar [15]
performed large scales laboratory tests on single and group stone columns with diameters of 60
mm, 80 mm, and 100 mm. Reinforcement with different lengths and reinforcing material were
used in their tests and they were compared with unreinforced stone columns. Their study
showed that bulging failure mode occurs at a depth of dc to 2dc from the surface (dc=stone
column diameter) in single stone columns but failure mode in stone column group is a
combination of bulging and lateral deformation. They found that as increasing the length and
strength of reinforcing encasement, the ultimate capacity and stiffness of stone columns
increase. In addition, reinforced stone column have shown that value of the load ratio with the
same area replacement ratio depends on geometrical configuration of columns. Murugesan and
Rajagopal [16, 17] investigated the performance of unreinforced and geosynthetic reinforced
stone columns through numerical and experimental studies. They suggested that wrapping the
stone columns with suitable geosynthetic is one of the ideal methods of improving the
performance of stone columns and this phenomenon makes the stone columns stiffer and
stronger. They also found that the load capacity of reinforced stone columns is not as sensitive
to the shear strength of the surrounding soils as compared to unreinforced stone columns.

Unit cell concept was used by researchers [12, 14, 18] to simplify the analysis of group of stone
columns. The behaviour of group of stone columns under a uniformly loaded area was
simplified as a single column constructed at the cylindrical unit of the approximate circular area
representing the influence zone of a stone column. Although this concept is now well
established, little research has been undertaken on the influence zone of geogrid reinforced

2
column under column area alone loaded.

Figure 1. Unit cell concept [12]

This paper investigates the results of a series of model tests that were undertaken to understand
the behaviour of shallow foundation resting on the unreinforced soft clay soil, stone column
reinforced soft clay soil and geogrid wrapped stone column reinforced soft clay soil. Model
tests with column area alone loaded were used to find the settlement and axial stress behaviour
of shallow foundation. All model tests were carried out on a 50 mm diameter shallow
foundation in cylindrical tanks. A detailed experimental study on behaviour of shallow
foundation is carried out by varying the diameter of the tank to find influence zone.

2. MATERIAL AND METHODS

The experimental program was carried out using the facility in the Geotechnical Laboratory of
the Civil Engineering Department at the University of Osmaniye Korkut Ata.

2.1. Soil Properties

Clay, crushed stone, and geogrid were used for model tests.

Clay was dried and pulverized. The clay was sieved through 2.00 mm sieve to remove the
coarser fraction and for easy processing and uniform water content. After conducting required
conventional laboratory tests (sieve and hydrometer analysis, moisture content analysis, unit
weight analysis, liquid and plastic limit analyses, unconfined compression test) the clay was
prepared for model tests. The characteristics of the clay determined through an extensive testing
program that consisted of a combination of laboratory and in situ tests were given in detail by
Demir [19]. The properties of clay used in model tests is shown in the Table 1.

The stone columns were formed from crushed stones, which was classified GP. Crushed stones
(aggregates) of particle sizes between 10 and 2 mm. The particle size distribution for stone
column and clay materials are shown in Figure 2. The properties of the crushed stones are given
in Table 2.

3
Table 1. Properties of clay

Parameter Value
Specific gravity (Gs) 2.6
Liquid limit (%) (LL) 55
Plastic limit (%) (PL) 22
Classification CH
Water content (%) () 40
Natural density (kN/m3) (n) 17.4
Undrained cohesion (kPa) (cu) 4

100

80
Percent Passing

60

40

20 Soft Clay
Crushed Stone
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size (mm)

Figure 2. Particle size distribution for soft clay and stone column materials [20]

Table 2. Properties of crushed stones used as stone column [20]

Parameter Value
Specific gravity (Gs) 2.85
Density (kN/m3) (n) 16.3
3
Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m ) (max) 16.9
3
Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m ) (min) 15.2
Internal friction angle (Degree) () 440
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) 1.67
Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.10
Classification GP

Geogrid material was used for wrapping of the stone column for reinforcement. Geogrid used
in the experimental study, is commercially available from GEOPLAS Company. The properties
of geogrid taken from GEOPLAS Company are shown in the Table 3.
4
Table 3. Properties of geogrid material [20]

Parameters Values
Type of Material Polypropylene
Weight per Unit Area (g/m2) 200
Max. Tensile Strength, md/cmd* (kN/m) 30 / 30
Tensile Strength of 2% Elongation, md/cmd* (kN/m) 12 / 12
Tensile Strength of 5% Elongation, md/cmd* (kN/m) 24 / 24
Aperture (mm x mm) 40 40
*: Cross machine direction

2.2. Test setup and procedure

For preparing the soft clay soil bed, a circular tanks of 30 cm, 25 cm, 20 cm and 15 cm diameter
were used in the tests. Tests were conducted in a clay bed prepared at about moisture content
of 40% to obtain required shear strength value. For preparation of each test bed, the soft clay
soil pulverized was thoroughly mixed with required amount of water. To achieve uniform
moisture distribution, the wet soil was placed in airtight plastic containers and stored for 2 to 3
days before being used in model tests. Before filling the test tank, lubricating oil was smeared
along the inner surface of test tank wall to reduce friction between clay and test tank wall. The
soft clay soil was placed in the test tank in layers with small quantities, which were tapped
gently with a special hammer and spread uniformly. Soft soil was filled in the test tank in layers
with measured quantity by weight. The surface of each layer was provided with uniform
compaction with a special hammer to achieve a 5 cm height, uniform density and required shear
strength as per requirement. After the test tank was filled to layer of 5 cm height, pocket
penetrometer test was carried out to checked shear strength. Water content of soft clay soil was
also determined at different locations. The procedure was repeated until the soft clay soil bed
is completed to the full height. In all test full height of the soft clay soil is 25 cm.

For stone column construction, it was decided to use the replacement method in all tests [21].
The drill rig and a thin wall tube supported and located in the two way (horizontally) controlled
steel frame were used to construct the model columns. In order to minimize disturbance to the
surrounding clay during the penetration of the tube, lubricating oil was smeared on the outside
of the tube before the formation of every other column. A seamless tube of 5 cm outer diameter
was pushed into the soft clay soil at the center of the tank up to the bottom. The soft clay soil
within the tube was removed using a drill rig. Crushed stones were charged into the tube and
compacted with special hammer, which is suitable for tube. This process was done in layers of
5 cm height. Density of the stone column built with crushed stone was found to be 16.30 kN/m3.
Upon reaching the layer of 5 cm height, the tube is slowly withdrawn. This construction stages
was repeated until the column is completed to the full height. In all test full height of the stone
column is 25 cm. The case of geogrid wrapping stone column tests, wrapping was provided
around the tube that was not smeared the lubricating oil.

Loading tests were performed using model rigid circular 5 cm diameter of footings fabricated
from mild steel with a thickness of 15mm. For all tests, loading was done only for stone column
area. The model footings were loaded vertically. The loading system was displacement control
and vertical displacement rate was 2.33mm/min. Load and displacement measurements were
taken using a load cell and two LVTDs.

5
A schematic diagram of the test setup is given in Figure 3. Summary of model tests is shown in
the Table 4.

Figure 3. General layout of apparatus for the model test [20]

Table 4. Summary of model tests

Diameter Diameter Diameter Total

Test
Test description of footing of column of tank number of
Series
(df) (cm) (dc) (cm) (D) (cm) model tests
Loading on 15, 20,
Series I 5 5 4
unreinforced clay bed 25 30
Loading on stone
15, 20,
Series II column reinforced clay 5 5 4
25 30
bed
Loading on geogrid
15, 20,
Series III wrapped stone column 5 5 4
25 30
reinforced clay bed

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Twelve model tests on shallow foundation resting on the unreinforced soft clay soil, stone
column reinforced soft clay soil and geogrid wrapped stone column reinforced soft clay soil
were conducted to find the settlement - axial stress behaviour. To present model tests results,
settlement - axial stress curves are presented. In settlement - axial stress curves, vertical and
horizontal axes shows the axial stress (q) and the settlement ratios (s/df), respectively. The
settlement ratio (s/df) is defined as the ratio of the footing settlement (s) to the footing diameter
(df), expressed as a percentage.
In test Series I, model tests were conducted using shallow foundation rested on unreinforced
soft clay soil deposit. Four different test tank with diameters (D) of 15, 20, 25 and 30 cm were

6
used in test Series I to understand influence zone. The settlement - axial stress curves are
presented in Figure 4. It is clear from the figure that axial stress is less affected by the tank size.
In conventional design, the bearing capacity of a vertically loaded shallow foundation on
undrained clay is expressed as:

qu=Nccu (1)

where qu is the ultimate bearing capacity of the footing and Nc the bearing capacity factor. Based
on this formula and test Series I results, it can be said that the bearing capacity is independent
of the tank diameter.

90

75

60
q (kPa)

45
Series I (D=3df)
30 Series I (D=4df)
Series I (D=5df)
15
Series I (D=6df)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
s/df (%)

Figure 4. Results of test Series I

In test Series II, model tests were conducted using shallow foundation rested on stone column
reinforced soft clay soil deposit. Four different test tank with diameters (D) of 15, 20, 25 and
30 cm were used in test Series II to understand influence zone. The settlement - axial stress
curves are shown in Figure 5. From this figure it is apparent that as the tank diameter increases,
axial stress decreases.

450

375

300
q (kPa)

225

150 Series II (D=3df)

Series II (D=4df)
75 Series II (D=5df)
Series II (D=6df)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
s/df (%)

Figure 5. Results of test Series II

7
In test Series III, model tests were conducted using shallow foundation rested on geogrid
wrapped stone column reinforced soft clay soil deposit. Four different test tank with diameters
(D) of 15, 20, 25 and 30 cm were used in test Series III to understand influence zone. Figure 6
shows the settlement - axial stress curves. As may be seen from the figure that as the tank
diameter increases, axial stress decreases.

900

750

q (kPa) 600

450
Series III (D=3df)
300
Series III (D=4df)
150 Series III (D=5df)
Series III (D=6df)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
s/df (%)

Figure 6. Results of test Series III

By comparing all test series with each other, the effect of both the stone column and the geogrid
wrapped stone column on the bearing capacity (qu) were investigated. The bearing capacity
value (qu) may be defined based on the settlement such as that which causes a settlement equal
to 10% of the column diameter [22]. Comparison all test series are shown in the Figure 7. It is
clear from the Figure 7 that the bearing capacity carried by soft clay soil was increased by using
stone column for all tank diameters. Stone columns provide to densifying the soft clay soil and
reinforcing the soft clay soil creating a stiff composite soil mass. Also, the results from the
Figure 7 indicated a clear improvement in the bearing capacity of the stone column due to
geogrid wrapping for all tank diameters. Geogrid wrapping makes the stone columns stiffer and
it gives an extra lateral confinement.

400
Series III
Series II
300 Series I
qu (kPa)

200

100

0
2 3 4 5 6 7
D/df

Figure 7. Comparing all test series

8
4. CONCLUSION

In this study, series of model tests were carried out to understand the behaviour of shallow
foundation resting on the unreinforced soft clay soil, stone column reinforced soft clay soil and
geogrid wrapped stone column reinforced soft clay soil. A detailed experimental study on
behaviour of shallow foundation was carried out by varying the diameter of the tank to find
influence zone. Based on this study the following main conclusions can be drawn.

Axial stress in shallow foundation resting on the unreinforced soft clay soil is less
affected by the tank size. A conventional design method supports this.
Axial stress in shallow foundation resting on the unreinforced soft clay soil and geogrid
wrapped stone column reinforced soft clay soil are affected by the tank size. As the tank
diameter increases from D=3df to D=4df, the bearing capacity decreases significantly.
After this (D=4df) value when the tank diameter continues to increase, the bearing
capacity decreases slightly.
A significant improvement in the bearing capacity of a shallow foundation can be
obtained by installing stone column in soft clay soil deposit. Stone columns provide to
densifying the soft clay soil and reinforcing the soft clay soil creating a stiff composite
soil mass.
Bearing capacity of the stone column can be increased by all-round wrapping by
geogrid. Geogrid wrapping makes the stone columns stiffer and it gives an extra lateral
confinement.

REFERENCES

[1] J. A. Black, V. Sivakumar and A. Bell, 2011. The settlement performance of stone column
foundations. Gotechnique 6(11): 909-922.

[2] J. Castro and C. Sagaseta, 2011. Deformation and consolidation around encased stone
columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29(3) 268-276.

[3] S. R. Mohapatra and K. Rajagopal, 2016. Experimental and numerical modelling of

geosynthetic encased stone columns subjected to shear loading. Japanese Geotechnical
Society Special Publication, 2(67), 2292-2295.

[4] B. A. McCabe and M. M. Killeen, 2016. Small stone-column groups: mechanisms of

deformation at serviceability limit state. International Journal of Geomechanics 04016114.

[5] G. Q. Yang, 2004. Construction technique for treating vibrating liquefied foundation of
high-speed railway line by dry vibrating crushed stone pile. Journal of Railway Engineering
Society (2): 3134.

[6] M.R.D. Babu, S. Nayak and R. Shivashankar, 2013. A Critical Review of Construction,
Analysis and Behaviour of Stone Columns, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering
31(1), 1-22.

[7] M.R. Madhav and N. Miura, 1994. Soil improvement. Panel report on stone columns.
Proceedings 13th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, New Delhi, India, 5, 163164.

9
 [8] H.J. Priebe, 1995. The design of vibro replacement. Ground Engineering 28 (10), 3137.

[9] D. Muir-Wood., D. Hu, D.F.T. Nash, 2000. Group effects in stone column foundation:
model tests. Geotechnique 50 (6), 689698.

[10]L. Keyhosropur, A. Soroush and R. Imam, 2011. A study on the behaviour of a geosynthetic
encased stone columns group using 3D numerical analysis. In 2011 Pan-Am CGS
Geotechnical Conf 1-7.

[11]J. M. O. Hughes and N. J. Withers, 1974. Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone
columns. Ground engineering, 7(3).

[12]J. Gniel and A. Bouazza, 2009. Improvement of soft soils using geogrid encased stone
columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(3), 167-175.

[13]T. Ayadat and A. M. Hanna, 2005. Encapsulated stone columns as a soil improvement
technique for collapsible soil, Ground Improvement, 4: 137-147.

[14]M. Hasan and N. K. Samadhiya, 2017. Performance of geosynthetic-reinforced granular

piles in soft clays: Model tests and numerical analysis. Computers and Geotechnics, 87,
178-187.

[15]M. Ghazavi and J. N. Afshar, 2013. Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone
columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 38, 26-36

[16]S. Murugesan and K. Rajagopal, 2006. Geosynthetic-encased granular columns: numerical

evaluation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes. 24 (6), 349-358.

[17]S. Murugesan and K. Rajagopal, 2009. Studies on the behavior of single and group of
geosynthetic encased stone columns. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 136(1), 129-139.

[18]A. P. Ambily and S. R. Gandhi, 2007. Behavior of stone columns based on experimental
and FEM analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 133
(4), 405-415.

[19]A. Demir, 2011. Analysis of shallow foundations on reinforced granular fill over soft clay
deposit, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Graduate School of Natural and
Applied Sciences, ukurova University, Turkey.

[20]A. Demir and T. Sarc, 2017. Bearing capacity of footing supported by geogrid encased
stone columns on soft soil. Geomechanics and Engineering 12(3), 417-439.

[21]J. Gniel and A. Bouazza, 2010. Construction of geogrid encased stone columns: A new
proposal based on laboratory testing. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28(1), 108-118.

[22]S.N. Malarvizhi and K. Ilamparuthi, 2004. Load versus settlement of clay bed stabilized
with stone and reinforced stone columns. Proceedingns of GeoAsia2004, Seoul, Korea,
322-329.

10

View publication stats