Performance of Encased Stone Column Aggregates Using Large-Scale Triaxial Testing
Publication: Geo-Congress 2024
ABSTRACT
The bearing capacity and failure mechanism of encased stone columns are affected by many factors, such as relative density and shear strength parameters of aggregates, tensile strength, stiffness of geosynthetics, encasement length, diameter of the column. Many studies have investigated the behavior of encased stone columns using triaxial testing, small-scale laboratory tests, full-scale field tests, and numerical analysis. Most of the studies used geotextile as encasement, and very limited studies are done on geogrid. The present study focused on the performance of geogrid as encasing material. Using a large-scale triaxial apparatus with dimensions of 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in height, 10 encased stone column (ESC) aggregate element tests and four ordinary stone column aggregate element tests (OSC) were conducted under confining pressures of 0, 50, 100, 150, and 200 kPa. The results concluded that the inclusion of geogrid encasement could contribute to the significant improvement in load-carrying capacity and apparent cohesion or confining pressure of OSC. The results showed that the load-carrying capacity of ESC is less dependent on surrounding confinement at lower confining pressures and more on the tensile strength of the geogrid.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this chapter.
REFERENCES
ASTM. 1986. Standard test method or tensile properties of geotextiles by wide-Width strip method. ASTM D4595, West Conshoken, Pa.
Basack, S., Indraratna, B., Rujikiatkamjorn, C., and Siahaan, F. 2017. Modeling the stone column behavior in soft ground with special emphasis on lateral deformation. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(6), p.04017016.
Basudhar, P. K., Dixit, P. M., Gharpure, A., and Deb, K. 2008. Finite element analysis of geotextile-reinforced sand-bed subjected to strip loading. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 26(1), pp.91–99.
Chen, J. F., Li, L. Y., Xue, J. F., and Feng, S. Z. 2015. Failure mechanism of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft soils under embankment. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43(5), pp.424–431.
Chen, J. F., Wang, X. T., Xue, J. F., Zeng, Y., and Feng, S. Z. 2018. Uniaxial compression behavior of geotextile encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 46(3), pp.277–283.
Hong, Y. S., Wu, C. S., and Yu, Y. S. 2016. Model tests on geotextile-encased granular columns under 1-g and undrained conditions. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44(1), pp.13–27.
Ghazavi, M., and Afshar, J. N. 2013. Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 38, pp.26–36.
Gniel, J., and Bouazza, A. 2010. Construction of geogrid encased stone columns: A new proposal based on laboratory testing. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28(1), pp.108–118.
Gu, M., Zhao, M., Zhang, L., and Han, J. 2016. Effects of geogrid encasement on lateral and vertical deformations of stone columns in model tests. Geosynthetics International, 23(2), pp.100–112.
Henkel, D. J., and Gilbert, G. D. 1952. The effect measured of the rubber membrane on the triaxial compression strength of clay samples. Geotechnique, 3(1), pp.20–29.
Hugher, J. M. O., and Withers, N. J. 1974. Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone columns. Ground engineering, 7(3).
Malarvizhi, S. N. 2007. Comparative study on the behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone column. Soils and foundations, 47(5), pp.873–885.
Miranda, M., Da Costa, A., Castro, J., and Sagaseta, C. 2017. Influence of geotextile encasement on the behaviour of stone columns: Laboratory study. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 45(1), pp.14–22.
Murugesan, S., and Rajagopal, K. 2010. Studies on the behavior of single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 136(1), pp.129–139.
Ou Yang, F., Zhang, J. J., Liao, W. M., Han, J. W., Tang, Y. L., and Bi, J. B. 2017. Characteristics of the stress and deformation of geosynthetic-encased stone column composite ground based on large-scale model tests. Geosynthetics International, 24(3), pp.242–254.
Raithel, M., Kirchner, A., Schade, C., and Leusink, E. 2005. Foundation of constructions on very soft soils with geotextile encased columns-state of the art. Innovations in Grouting and Soil Improvement, pp.1–11.
Rajagopal, K., Krishnaswamy, N. R., and Latha, G. M. 1999. Behaviour of sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 17(3), pp.171–184.
Rowe, R. K., and Li, A. L. 2005. Geosynthetic-reinforced embankments over soft foundations. Geosynthetics International, 12(1), pp.50–85.
Salem, Z. B., Frikha, W., and Bouassida, M. 2017. Effects of densification and stiffening on liquefaction risk of reinforced soil by stone columns. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 143(10), p.06017014.
Wu, C. S., and Hong, Y. S. 2014. A simplified approach for evaluating the bearing performance of encased granular columns. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 42(4), pp.339–347.
Xue, J., Liu, Z., and Chen, J. 2019. Triaxial compressive behaviour of geotextile encased stone columns. Computers and Geotechnics, 108, pp.53–60.
Yoo, C., and Lee, D. 2012. Performance of geogrid-encased stone columns in soft ground: full-scale load tests. Geosynthetics International, 19(6), pp.480–490.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Geo-Congress 2024
Pages: 459 - 466
History
Published online: Feb 22, 2024
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.