2014•Geosynthetics InternationalRequires access

Model tests on single and groups of stone columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement arrangement

Kausar Ali, J. T. Shahu, K. G. Sharma

Open publisher page 142 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Stone columns have proved to be a useful technique for supporting flexible structures resting on soft soils. However, in the case of very soft soils, stone columns have encountered excessive settlements due to insufficient lateral resistance offered by the soft soil against bulging of the columns upon loading. The bulging may be reduced to a great extent by reinforcing the columns either by encasing them with geosynthetics or by placing horizontal circular discs of geosynthetics within the columns at a regular interval. In the present study, model tests have been carried out on long floating and end-bearing single and groups of columns with and without reinforcement to evaluate the relative improvement in the failure stress of the composite ground due to different types of reinforcement. The exhumed deformed column shapes were used to understand the failure mechanism for different types and configurations of reinforcement. The geogrid was the best geosynthetic type for encasement for end-bearing columns; for floating columns, geotextile and geogrid were equally good for horizontal circular discs and encasement configurations.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

ABSTRACT: Stone columns have proved to be a useful technique for supporting flexible structures resting on soft soils. However, in the case of very soft soils, stone columns have encountered excessive settlements due to insufficient lateral resistance offered by the soft soil against bulging of the columns upon loading. The bulging may be reduced to a great extent by reinforcing the columns either by encasing them with geosynthetics or by placing horizontal circular discs of geosynthetics within the columns at a regular interval. In the present study, model tests have been carried out on long floating and end-bearing single and groups of columns with and without reinforcement to evaluate the relative improvement in the failure stress of the composite ground due to different types of reinforcement. The exhumed deformed column shapes were used to understand the failure mechanism for different types and configurations of reinforcement. The geogrid was the best geosynthetic type for encasement for end-bearing columns; for floating columns, geotextile and geogrid were equally good for horizontal circular discs and encasement configurations.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 142 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

ABSTRACT: Stone columns have proved to be a useful technique for supporting flexible structures resting on soft soils. However, in the case of very soft soils, stone columns have encountered excessive settlements due to insufficient lateral resistance offered by the soft soil against bulging of the columns upon loading. The bulging may be reduced to a great extent by reinforcing the columns either by encasing them with geosynthetics or by placing horizontal circular discs of geosynthetics within the columns at a regular interval. In the present study, model tests have been carried out on long floating and end-bearing single and groups of columns with and without reinforcement to evaluate the relative improvement in the failure stress of the composite ground due to different types of reinforcement. The exhumed deformed column shapes were used to understand the failure mechanism for different types and configurations of reinforcement. The geogrid was the best geosynthetic type for encasement for end-bearing columns; for floating columns, geotextile and geogrid were equally good for horizontal circular discs and encasement configurations.

Key concepts: Geosynthetics, Geogrid, Geotextile, Reinforcement, Geotechnical engineering, Bearing capacity, Bearing (navigation), Engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Model tests on single and groups of stone columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement arrangement — Research Paper | ScholarLens