Experimental Evaluation of Encased Stone Column Technique for Liquefaction Mitigation

  • Piyush PunethaEmail author
  • Ganesh Kumar Shanmugam
Conference paper


The present paper investigates the effectiveness of using geotextile encased stone column for mitigating the liquefaction phenomenon in saturated sandy deposits. Reduced scale 1-g model tests were conducted using a uniaxial shake table to study the behavior of loose saturated sand reinforced with encased stone columns when subjected to harmonic (sinusoidal) loading. Additionally, the response of saturated sand reinforced with stone column, with and without geotextile encasement is also studied and compared. The test results show that the installation of stone column in the saturated loose sand increases the liquefaction resistance of sand. The presence of geotextile allows quicker dissipation of pore water which results in an improved liquefaction resistance of sand. Moreover, the acceleration amplitude influences the response of both the unreinforced and reinforced sand. The increase in acceleration amplitude increases the magnitude of excess pore water pressure ratio. Furthermore, the presence of stone column also reduces the settlement of the shallow foundation.


Liquefaction Encased stone column Shaking table tests Geotextile 



The authors would like to thank the Director, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee for giving permission to publish this research work. The authors would also like to thank the Head, Geotechnical Engineering Division, CSIR-CBRI for his continuous support during this research work. The authors also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable time and suggestions.


  1. 1.
    Seed, R.B., et al.: Preliminary report on the principal geotechnical aspects of the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California (1990)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ishihara, K., Haeri, S.M., Moinfar, A.A., Towhata, I., Tsujino, S.: Geotechnical aspects of the June 20, 1990 Manjil earthquake in Iran. Soils Found. 32(3), 61–78 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kramer, S.L.: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, New York (1996)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seed, H.B., Booker, J.R.: Stabilization of potentially liquefiable sand deposits using gravel drains. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. 103(ASCE 13050) (1977)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sasaki, Y., Taniguchi, E.: Shaking table tests on gravel drains to prevent liquefaction of sand deposits. Soils Found. 22(3), 1–14 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Iai, S., Koizumi, K., Noda, S., Tsuchida, H.: Large scale model tests and analyses of gravel drains. In: Proceedings of Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mitchell, J.K., Wentz, F.J.: Performance of improved ground during the Loma Prieta Earthquake, vol. 91, no. 12. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California (1991)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell, J.K., Baxter, C.D., Munson, T.C.: Performance of improved ground during earthquakes. In: Soil Improvement for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation, pp. 1–36. ASCE (1995)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ashford, S., Rollins, K., Bradford, V.S., Weaver, T., Baez, J.: Liquefaction mitigation using stone columns around deep foundations: full-scale test results. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1736, 110–118 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adalier, K., Elgamal, A., Meneses, J., Baez, J.I.: Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in non-plastic silty soils. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 23(7), 571–584 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adalier, K., Elgamal, A.: Mitigation of liquefaction and associated ground deformations by stone columns. Eng. Geol. 72(3), 275–291 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murugesan, S., Rajagopal, K.: Studies on the behavior of single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. 136(1), 129–139 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    IS 1498: Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering Purposes. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whitman, R.V., Lambe, P.C.: Effect of boundary conditions upon centrifuge experiments using ground motion simulation. Geotech. Test. J. 9, 61–71 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee, C.J., Wei, Y.C., Kuo, Y.C.: Boundary effects of a laminar container in centrifuge shaking table tests. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 34(1), 37–51 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zeng, X., Schofield, A.N.: Design and performance of an equivalent-shear-beam container for earthquake centrifuge modelling. Geotechnique 46, 83–102 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lombardi, D., Bhattacharya, S.: Shaking table tests on rigid soil container with absorbing boundaries. In: Proceedings of 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lombardi, D., Bhattacharya, S., Scarpa, F., Bianchi, M.: Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 69, 46–56 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maheshwari, B.K., Singh, H.P., Saran, S.: Effects of reinforcement on liquefaction resistance of Solani sand. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. 138(7), 831–840 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AcSIR, CSIR-Central Building Research InstituteRoorkeeIndia
  2. 2.GE GroupCSIR-Central Building Research InstituteRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations