IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS Related content

- Numerical Modelling of Bulk
Numerical modelling techniques of soft soil Superconductor Magnetisation: Numerical
modelling of bulk superconducting
improvement via stone columns: A brief review materials
M Ainslie and H Fujishiro

- Coal tar, material used in soil improvement

To cite this article: Azhani Zukri and Ramli Nazir 2018 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 342 012002 for use in road engineering
R Ochoa Díaz, A Montañez and J Cuentas

- Soft Soil Improvement for Sub-grade Layer

Using Hexagonal Micropiles Layout
K Ambak, N A H Abdullah, M F Yusoff et
View the article online for updates and enhancements. al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 42.153.154.156 on 16/05/2021 at 07:09

iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

Numerical modelling techniques of soft soil improvement via

stone columns: A brief review

Azhani Zukri1,2 and Ramli Nazir2

1
Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam & Sumber Alam, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Lebuhraya
Tun Razak, Gambang, Pahang, Malaysia
2
Fakulti Kejuruteraan Awam, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. There are a number of numerical studies on stone column systems in the literature.
Most of the studies found were involved with two-dimensional analysis of the stone column
behaviour, while only a few studies used three-dimensional analysis. The most popular software
utilised in those studies was Plaxis 2D and 3D. Other types of software that used for numerical
analysis are DIANA, EXAMINE, ZSoil, ABAQUS, ANSYS, NISA, GEOSTUDIO, CRISP,
TOCHNOG, CESAR, GEOFEM (2D & 3D), FLAC, and FLAC 3. This paper will review the
methodological approaches to model stone column numerically, both in two-dimensional and
three-dimensional analyses. The numerical techniques and suitable constitutive model used in
the studies will also be discussed. In addition, the validation methods conducted were to verify
the numerical analysis conducted will be presented. This review paper also serves as a guide for
junior engineers through the applicable procedures and considerations when constructing and
running a two or three-dimensional numerical analysis while also citing numerous relevant
references.

1. Introduction
There are a number of methods to analyze the geotechnical problems starting from closed-form
analytical methods to the finite element (FE) based numerical methods. Each method has its own
advantages and disadvantages. The solution will be accurate only if all the following conditions were
satisfied [1].
i. Equilibrium of forces: external forces that should be exactly equal to the internal forces,
ii. Compatibility: the relation between displacements at different locations within a continuum also
called as continuity equations,
iii. Constitutive behaviour: stress-strain equations of the material, and
iv. Boundary conditions: force or displacement conditions.

Finite Element (FE) analysis is the most widely used method to analyse the stone column-improved soil
behaviour. The best way to represent the real conditions of soft soil behaviour is through a three-
dimensional modelling; however, for practical purposes, either the axisymmetric or plane strain model
is generally used. Many studies have utilised the axisymmetric model for the unit cell model of
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

uniformly loaded stone column groups or plane strain models (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983). The
numerical analyses of stone columns generally need a complex modelling of the soil reinforcement
system. As stated by Canizal et. al. there are five main approaches for modelling stone columns
numerically [2];
i. Unit cell approach: In the axisymmetric model, only one column and its surrounding soil
consisting of a “unit cell” are modelled. (Balaam & Booker, 1981),
ii. Plane strain method: The numbers of columns are modelled as stone trenches that are usually
used under continuous loads such as embankments. (Van Impe & De Beer, 1983),
iii. Axial symmetry technique: Stone rings are modelled instead of cylindrical columns to represent
the columns under circular loads such as tanks and circular foundation. (Elshazly, 2008),
iv. Homogenization technique: The composite soil parameters are used to model the improved
homogeneous soil with stone columns. (Schweiger, 1989), and
v. Full 3D Model: The most complex system to simulate the stone column-improved soil
behaviour is three dimensional numerical models. (Weber et al., 2008).
The first four approaches are considered as the two-dimensional (2D) analyses.
Table 1 below summarize the suitability of some of these models to study on improvement of soft soil
stabilized with non-encased stone column.
Table 1. Suitability of simplifies geometrical models to study different features of stone column
treatment [3].

Model Settlement Consolidation Stability

Unit cell Completely suitable Completely suitable Not suitable

Stone trenches Moderate suitable Moderate suitable Moderate suitable

Homogenization Moderate suitable Slightly suitable Slightly suitable

3D model Completely suitable Completely suitable Completely suitable

2. Finite element analysis (FE)

FE analysis can be applied in order to determine the complicated parameters that would be difficult to
measure through experimental work. In addition, FE analysis is an effective way of alternative process
for laboratory investigation studies, especially in the case of large physical models, which leads to saving
the time and costs associated with the construction of physical models. However, the selection of
suitable constitutive model to represent the actual soft soil behaviour is not simple since soils are
complex material consisting of soil particles and void filled with water and/or air. It is very important
to choose appropriate model when running the analysis so that the result produced will match the
behaviour of soil since its behaviour is not always linear. Nowadays, the numerical modelling software
was equipped with numerous constitutive models for modelling the stress-strain behaviour of soil
starting from simple to more complex based on required analysis needs. In addition, several sets of
laboratory tests should be done to collect all the important parameters regarding compression and
shearing behaviour of soils, such as physical tests, triaxial and oedometer test. This parameters are
essential for numerical analysis to be conducted. Despite the fact that, no soil constitutive model
available that can describe the complex behaviour of real soils under all conditions completely. Other
than that, the soil model should be calibrated through sensitivity analysis to define the most appropriate
meshes, boundary condition, type of analysis; drained or undrained and soil interface interaction that
will be utilised in the numerical analysis.

2
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

For example, the latest version of Plaxis 3D software is come up with 8 constitutive models for different
conditions and type of soil analysis [4]. So that, the engineers should choose 'right' constitutive model
which provides a reasonable fit to data obtained from laboratory tests. It is highly recommended to
conduct various measurement comparisons along with additional experiment models and/or full-scale
tests to ascertain the degree of reliability in the models in order to adjust and refine them to each type of
different modelling application [5]. Poul V. Lade proposed three main categories for the evaluation and
selection of suitable constitutive model to be used in numerical analysis [6];
i. Category 1: Model fulfil all the conditions 1 to 5 as tabulated in the Table 2 below.
ii. Category 2: Model lacks one or more conditions.
iii. Category 3: Model is deficient of several conditions as shows in the table below.
Table 2. Model conditions for model selection evaluation.
Condition No Description
Theoretically sound framework that is sufficiently transparent and
1
accessible to anticipate and evaluate the model performance.
2 Model includes effects of confining pressure.
3 Model can handle 3D conditions.
Straight forward to find the parameters, which may be determined
4
from conventional experiment.
Models exhibit the overall high quality o fit with the observed
5
behavior.
Even correct models were chosen, it should be emphasized that there are approximations within level of
accuracy such as, approximation in the finite element method, assumptions made about the constitutive
soil response and the detailed explanation of the numerical model and its boundary conditions.

2.1. Previous study on two-dimensional analysis

A comparison between two-dimensional numerical modelling (Plaxis V8 Software) and analytical and
laboratory model has been done by Pivarc to estimate the settlement improvement factor of soft soil
improved by stone columns [7]. All the models in this study were prepared by the vibro-replacement
method, which means that the soil is removed from a hole and not compacted to the sides such as in the
vibro-displacement method. For the numerical modelling, the Mohr-Coulomb (MC) elastic-perfectly
plastic criteria was chosen to model a soft soil with fifteen node elements applied. The boundary
conditions along the vertical boundaries of the axially symmetrical model were fixed for the lateral
deformations to allow vertical deformation. The study found that the results of the improvement factor
calculated by the Priebe`s method, numerical method, and results obtained from the laboratory
experiments were in good agreement, show that MC model selected in this analysis was appropriated.
Joel Gniel and Abdelmalek Bouazza predicted the site behavior of geogrid encased stone through small
scale testing and two-dimensional numerical modelling using the PLAXIS software [8]. A numerical
study was used to replicate the results of a small-scale testing in order to establish a method of modelling
column installation and column behavior based on basic laboratory tests. Following this, the modelling
process was scaled up to predict the behavior of columns installed on site including the impact of varying
different parameters. For clay, the Soft Soil (SS) constitutive model in PLAXIS most closely matched
the compressibility observed in the oedometer tests while for sand, the Hardening Soil (HS) model most
closely matched the test behavior. The fiberglass mesh was modelled using an elastic tensile element
with the tensile strength and stiffness derived from the uniaxial tensile testing of the mesh. Results from
the small-scale testing and a detailed numerical study have indicated that fully encased stone columns
with geogrid could extend the ground improvement technique to extremely soft soils.

3
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

A. Zahmatkesh and A. J. Choobbasti evaluated the settlement of soft clay reinforced by stone columns
considering the effect of soil compaction [9]. The study was conducted using the two-dimensional
numerical analysis then the results were verified with those available in the literature. A drained analysis
was carried out using the Mohr-Coulomb’s criterion for soft clay, stones, and sand. The interface
elements were used between the stone column and soft clay to evaluate the installation effect due to soil
compaction activity. The column installation was simulated to calculate the stresses due to the
compaction of soil. From the analysis, the variation of stress in the soft soil due to installation of the
column with distance from the column is significantly reduced. Likewise, the research conducted by J.
Castro et al. on the installation effects of stone columns in natural soft clay using numerical modelling
found that the stresses near the column were related to the initial undrained shear strength of the soil.
For normal column spacing, the soil is in a plastic state, which may be negative for a subsequent loading
process due to over consolidation or positive if the yield surface has been notably expanded (strain
hardening) [10]. Other studies on numerical analysis on the behavior of soft clay improved by stone
columns with considering the installation effects also have been performed by Ellouze S et. al.[11],
Sexton and McCabe [12], Guetif Z et. al. [13] and Castro J et. al. [14].
Meanwhile, the analysis of settlement and bearing capacity of stone columns and geogrid encased stone
columns with various diameters was conducted using data obtained from an experimental investigation
using FE software Plaxis 2D. An axisymmetric model of the stone column was configured while the
load-settlement response of the stone column was defined using SS and MC model. Detailed parametric
analyses were performed by varying the diameter of the stone column and stiffness of the geogrid used
for encasement. The results were found to be in reasonable agreement between the experimental
investigation and the FE method [15].
Muntohar et al. presented a numerical analysis of the pulverised fuel ash (PFA) column-treated peat and
validated with the field static-loading test results [16]. Back analysis was performed to determine the
material parameters and soil stiffness surrounding soil and soil-column. The peat and column-treated
peat were modelled as Mohr-Coulomb model while the elastic behaviour was chosen for the loading
plate. According to the basic design, the peat and column treated peat were assigned as undrained
behaviour. The loading plate wall was modelled as the beam element with 10 mm thickness. The
simulation results in this study showed that the elasto-plastic Mohr-Coulomb model for the peat and
PFA column-treated peat can be applied to model the load-settlement behaviour. The study found that
both models were reliable to simulate the field static-loading test for column-treated peat.
The stress concentration factor in stone columns was determined through a numerical modelling where
two-dimensional plane strain models were utilized to specify the concentration of stress in the stone
columns and reduction in settlement by improving the soil with stone columns [17]. In the scope of this
study, drained case was defined for all materials including the soft silty clay, clayey sand, stones, and
the sand drainage-stress for the generation of the FE model. Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion considering
the elasto-plastic behaviour was utilised for all materials. The study concluded that the behaviour of
change of the ratio with a modulus of elasticity of soil in floating and end bearing columns was similar
to the rigid foundations while the stress concentration factors were almost constant at different flexible
foundation pressures. However, no validation process conducted in the study. In order to verify the
findings accuracy, experimental model or analytical calculation can be performed.
The behaviour of piled raft foundation considering pile-soil, raft-soil, pile-soil-pile, and raft-soil-pile
interactions have been analyzed using 2D numerical method [18]. The settlements of the system were
estimated to satisfy the compatibility of two separate models which were the flexible raft model
supported by springs representing soils and piles and the group-pile model embedded in the layers of
soil having different properties. The adequacy of the analysis was compared with the analysis result of

4
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

Plaxis 3D. The constitutive models used in Plaxis 3D analysis were the hardening-soil model for soil
and linear-elastic model for the raft and piles. The interface between piles and soil in Plaxis 3D was
simulated with elements of fictitious thickness showing elasto-plastic behaviour based on the Coulomb
failure criteria. The elastic modulus of soil was assumed to increase with depth and estimated using the
similar method proposed by Schmertmann and Hartmann (1978). Meanwhile, the effect of the stiffness
of the outer and inner piles was verified through a series of experimental load tests. The numerical
analysis was well adopted to identify the piled raft interaction using the FE package Plaxis 2D [19].
Other researchers, analysed a piled raft foundation on soft soil using Plaxis 2D by considering the
various numbers of piles. The raft and piles were modelled as plate elements, while the entire soil
material models were Mohr-Coulomb. The design process for piled rafts in this study involved three
stages namely, to assess the required raft thickness, to assess the required pile length in the piled raft
system and to obtain the optimum number of piles. From the analysis, it was found that the addition of
piles could reduce the settlement but after reaching a certain number of piles, the increasing number of
piles showed that the settlement tended to be constant. The researchers concluded that for an economic
design, it is necessary to consider the optimum number of piles in piled raft foundation system based on
the allowable settlements [20]. The effects of pile length and number of piles on the settlement of the
piled raft foundation were investigated using two-dimensional analysis and found that the settlement
was reduced with the increase in length and number of piles. In this study, the plane strain analysis was
taken for analyzing the load-settlement behaviour where the raft was modelled as a plate element, while
the piles were modelled as a series of beam elements. The Mohr-coulomb model was adopted for the
soil medium while the linear elastic model was adopted for the raft and pile. This numerical analysis
was validated by experimental results [21].
An analysis was carried out using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion model for stone columns and
embankment fills (drained condition) and soft soil clay (undrained condition) to evaluate the bearing
capacity of the square foundation on the ground improved with small groups of stone columns. All the
analyses were performed using the axisymmetric idealization of a cylindrical unit cell consisting of the
stone column and soft soil under the embankment fills. Meanwhile, the boundaries for unit cell model
was used where the vertical and horizontal displacements in the bottom boundaries were restricted while
only the horizontal displacement in the lateral boundaries was restricted [22].
The study on floating stone columns were conducted using the 2D FE analyses with the influence of
different key parameters such as column length, area replacement ratio, loading intensity, and post
installation lateral earth pressure on the settlement ratio, then the design chart developed from this study
was validated by a case study where a reasonable agreement was obtained. The undrained analysis was
implemented in this study and was verified using analytical method [23][24]. Other than that, the
optimum length of stone column (floating column) also can be predicted using numerical method. The
finite element study by Tan et al. [25] and Wood [26] showed the existence of the optimum length, Lop
for stone columns which is the column length where lengthening it will not significantly contribute to
the reduction of settlement. Two dimensional numerical method was utilized to analysis the load-
settlement behavior. The researcher established the method to predict the stone column optimum length
which can be used for both homogenous and non-homogenous ground condition. The settlement
predictions made by the proposed method are validated with the 3 dimensional finite elements results
and field measurement [27].
A series of numerical analysis was performed to investigate the reliability of the axisymmetrical
concentric ring model to be used in problems where the stone column was adopted as the ground
improvement method to support a small foundation. This study adopted the model by Elshazly et al.
(2008) where the thickness and radius of the ring are adjusted to give the correct equivalent area of the

5
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

stone columns. The 2D analysis was executed using the FE programme PLAXIS where the HS model
was used for both the soft clay and column material. The 3D analysis was done as a validation process
to the 2D analysis results. Generally, the 2D and 3D analyses display the same deformation mode of
failure despite some discrepancies in detail [23]. Similar modelling simulation was used by others
(Ambily and Gandhi [28]; Elshazly, Hafez, & Mossaad [29]; Nazari Afshar [30]; Mitchell and Huber
[31]. The accuracy of the developed models were verified by experimental models conducted in a
laboratory.
Other studies on the utilization of two-dimensional numerical software were also conducted by Lan et.
al. [32]; P. Mohanty and M. Samanta [33]; and Ornek et. al. [34]. Table 3 represents summary of the
numerous previous two dimensional numerical studies conducted. It is shows that most of the study used
MC model with drained analysis, which are more suitable in term of short time consumed for running
the analysis and limited soil parameters.
Table 3. Summary of 2D Numerical Study, Constitutive Model, Analysis and Validation Method Used.
Constitutive
Type of
Software model* Validation
Bil Author Name, Year Analysis Focused study
Name Soft Stone method
for Soil
Soil filler
Experimental
model &
1 J. Pivarc, 2011 Plaxis 2D MC MC Drained Settlement
Analytical
(Priebe`s Method)
Gniel & Bouazza, Small Scale
2 Plaxis 2D SS HS Drained Settlement
2009 model
A. Zahmatkesh &
Previous study/
3 A. J. Choobbasti, Plaxis 2D MC MC Drained Settlement
literature
2010
Settlement,
J. Castro et. al., S-CLAY1 & S- Modified Cam
4 Plaxis 2D Drained consolidation
2013 CLAY1S Clay model
properties
A. Marto et. al., Experimental Load-
5 Plaxis 2D SS MC Drained
2013 model settlement
Muntohar et. al., Field static- Load-
6 Plaxis 2D MC MC Undrained
2013 loading test settlement
Stress
7 Yildiz M., 2013 Plaxis 2D MC MC Drained Not mentioned
concentration
Joon-Shik Moon &
8 Plaxis 2D HS LE Drained 3D numerical Settlement
W. P., 2015
Settlement,
Elwakil A. Z. & Experimental load
9 Plaxis 2D MC MC Drained bearing
Azzam W. R., 2016 tests
capacity
Experimental
10 R.Radhika, 2015 Plaxis 2D MC LE Drained Settlement
result
Mohammadreza
Experimental Bearing
11 Jaberi Nasab A A, Plaxis 2D MC MC Undrained
result capacity
2015
Analytical
K.S. Ng & S.A. Consolidation
12 Plaxis 2D MC MC Undrained (Priebe`s Method
Tan, 2014 settlement
& α-β Method)
13 K.S. Ng, 2013 Plaxis 2D HS HS Undrained 3D numerical Settlement
Nima Rostami
14 Plaxis 2D MC MC Undrained 3D numerical Settlement
Alkhorshid, 2010

6
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

M. Y. Fattah &
Q. G. Majeed, 2011 CRISP2D MC MC Undrained Not mentioned Bearing
15
[35] capacity

Sexton B G et.al.,
16 Plaxis 2D SSC HS Drained Field study Settlement
2016 [36]

* LE: Linear-elastic Model, MC: Mohr-Coulomb Model, SS: Soft Soil Model, HS: Hardening Soil Model,
MCC: Modified Cam Clay model, SSC: Soft Soil Creep

2.2. Previous study on three-dimensional analysis

A computer programme incorporating the proposed analytical method was developed and the adequacy
of analysis was compared with the analysis result of Plaxis 3D (Brinkgreve & Broere, 2006). Plaxis 3D
programme is based on three-dimensional FE method and its versatility and adequacy for both
foundation design and research were verified by many engineers. This numerical modelling is a simple
and effective alternative to approach the real behaviour of soils reinforced by stone columns as it allows
settlement analysis, lateral deformation, and vertical and horizontal stresses in order to understand the
behaviour of columns and soil. It also has the advantage of integrating the settlements of the underlying
layers, especially those of least resistance.

The study conducted by Nima Rostami Alkhorshid investigated the performance of stone columns and
encased sand columns in soft compressible clay using FE analyses. A drained analysis for stones and
sand columns was carried out using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion whereas, for the soft clay, the
undrained analysis was performed. In a full-scale three-dimensional FE analysis, the bulging and
punching failure and vertical settlement of stone columns were analysed [37]. Three dimensional
analysis was used to verify the two dimensional analysis in this study.

A numerical analysis was carried out by using the geotechnical FE software, Plaxis 3D Foundation to
investigate the influence of raft thickness, pile length and spacing, and a number of piles on piled raft
foundation behaviour. In this analysis, only one-quarter of the raft was modelled due to symmetry. The
numerical analysis was conducted to verify the in-situ measured values [38]. Similar study on the piled
raft foundation behaviour using the three-dimensional analysis was established by several researchers;
Hussein H. Karim et. al. [39]; E.Y. N Oh et. al. [40], Sreechithra P. & Niranjana K. [41]; K.
Watcharasawe [42]; Comodromos [43].

Noura Nehab et. al. established the relationship between the column spacing, properties, and length and
the settlement improvement of column group using FE modelling (Plaxis 3D Foundation) and took a
“Bouregreg Valley” project as a case study. The study concluded that the comparison of Plaxis 3DF and
analytical methods in the case of isolated column gave early confidence in the ability of Plaxis 3DF to
capture stone column behaviour [44].

Meanwhile, a three-dimensional FE analysis was conducted by Micheal M. Killeena and Bryan A. Mc

Cabeb to identify the effect of variables of column arrangement, spacing, length, and Young's modulus
of the column material in the design process and the interactions between them [45]. A simplified
method was proposed to relate the settlement of small groups to a reference unit cell settlement predicted
by the current analytical approaches. 15-node wedge isoperimetric elements and lateral boundaries of
the computational domain allowed vertical movement that was a restricted radial movement. Both the
stone columns and host soft clay were modelled using the elasto-plastic HS model. Three analytical
design methods by Balaam and Booker [46], Priebe [47], and Pulko et. al. [48] were used to validate the
numerical analysis.

7
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

A series of three-dimensional numerical analysis was carried out to evaluate the settlement of mat
foundation rested on soft peat reinforced by a group of cement columns [49]. The analysis was carried
out using soft soil creep (SSC) constitutive model considering the elasto-plastic behaviour of peat, while
the cement columns were simulated as the embedded pile. This model is appropriate for near-normally
consolidated clay, clayey silt, and peat. A drained analysis was assumed for soft soil. It was found that
the results from the analytical methods were comparable to those by using the FE analysis.

The research by Yogendra K. et. al. addressed a parametric study on the behaviour of embankment
resting on the Geosynthetic Reinforced Stone Column (GRSC). The effects of stone column spacing to
diameter ratio, deformation of stone column material and embankment fill, geosynthetic stiffness, the
height of embankment, and soft clay thickness on the settlement of embankment were investigated by
employing the three-dimensional FE modelling [50]. For the hydraulic boundary condition, the phreatic
level was set at the top surface of the soft clay layer to generate a hydrostatic pore water pressure profile
in the domain while the zero pore pressure boundary condition was applied at the top. The left and right
boundary were assumed impervious to consider the fact that no flow entered or left the symmetry plane,
while right boundary was too far from the embankment to have a significant influence on the results.
The FE mesh was developed using 10-node tetrahedral elements to represent soft clay, stone column,
and embankment fill, while the geosynthetic reinforcement was modelled as the geogrid element.

Recent research conducted by Akhila Shaji et. al. focused on comparative study of how an embankment
of soft clay behaves in the absence of any reinforced technique and with the installation of the stone
column using commercial software PLAXIS 3D. Mohr-Coloumb criterion was used for the analysis
while drainage conditions suitable for developing effective pore pressure and stiffness parameters were
used. The variation of deformation, stress, and strain with ultimate load acting on soil was obtained.
From this study, the stone column was proven to be a better reinforced technique in slope stabilisation
[51]. However, the researcher did not performed any validation method to proof the outcomes of this
study. Validation can be made either using selected analytical method or others numerical software,
which is easier compared to experimental model or full scale test.

The study focused on the numerical modelling of a small group of laboratory-modelled reinforced stone
columns considering parameters like area replacement ratio, the stiffness of reinforcement material, and
reinforcement length. The bottom face of the clay bed was considered as fixed. Mohr–Coulomb failure
criterion was adopted for the stone column and clay, which has the linearly elastic-perfectly plastic
behaviour. The geosynthetics were modelled as geogrid element available in PLAXIS 3D having axial
stiffness only. The numerical analysis was conducted to verify the physical modelling established in the
laboratory [52].

Other studies were conducted to utilise the three-dimensional numerical software and later validated
through experimental works, analytical analysis or compared to actual case studies or contrariwise by
Hasan et al.[53], Hasan M and Samadhiya N.K [54], Weber, T M Springman, S M [55], Sreechithra P.
and Niranjana K [56], S Muzammil et.al. [57], Y Tandel et. al. [58] and L Keykhosropur et. al. [59].
Table 4 tabulates summary of the numerous previous three dimensional numerical studies conducted.

Table 4. Summary of 3D Numerical Study, Constitutive Model, Analysis and Validation Method
Used.
Constitutive
Software model* Type of Validation
Bil Author Name, Year Focused study
Name Soft Stone analysis method
Soil filler

8
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

Morteza Esmaeili &

Centrifuge test
1 Seyed Mehrab FLAC3D MC MC Undrained Liquefaction
results
Hakimpour, 2015 [60]

Shaymaa Kadhim, Experimental

2 FLAC3D MC MC Drained Slope stability
2007 [61] load tests

Settlement,
K. Watcharasawe & P. Plaxis
3 HS MC Undrained Literature bearing
Jongpradist, 2014 3D
capacity

Alireza Roshan & Issa Plaxis

4 MC - Drained Not mentioned Settlement
Shooshpasha, 2014 3D

Settlement,
Noura Nehab et. al., Plaxis Analytical
5 MC LE Drained bearing
2016 3D method
capacity

Kongpop Bearing
Plaxis Field static-
6 Watcharasawe et. al., HS LE Undrained capacity,
3D loading test
2017 settlement

Micheál M.Killeena & Three different

Plaxis
7 Bryan A.Mc Cabeb, HS HS Drained analytical Settlement
3D
2014 method

Ali Dehghan Plaxis Analytical

8 SSC - Drained Settlement
Banadaki, 2012 3D method

Deformation,
Akhila Shaji et. al., Plaxis
9 MC MC Drained Not mentioned stress, and
2016 3D
strain

Plaxis Experimental Load-

10 Hasan et. al. (2016) MC MC Drained
3D result Settlement

Analytical
Basim Jabbar Abbas, Plaxis
11 MC MC Drained Brom’s Settlement
2016 [62] 3D
Method

Sexton & McCabe, Plaxis

12 SSC HS Drained Field Study Settlement
2016 [63] 3D

Martin Gab & Helmut Plaxis

3DF HS,
13 F. Schweiger, 2009 HS Drained Field Test Settlement
MCC
[64]

* LE: Linear-elastic Model, MC: Mohr-Coulomb Model, SS: Soft Soil Model, HS: Hardening Soil Model,
MCC: Modified Cam Clay model, SSC: Soft Soil Creep

3. Conclusion
From the review paper, it can be concluded that the numerical modelling software is the most popular
and a good method to be utilised for the stimulation and difficult analysis of geotechnical behaviours.
The software was equipped with different types of constitutive model to be selected during analysis
based on the different conditions of the structure, soil type, and construction method and liquefaction
phenomena. In term of analysis, 3D provide more precise results at all desired angle, compared to 2D

9
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

which only presents the result based on plain strain model. However, the 3D analyses require longer
execution times than the 2D analyses and relatively expensive. A major problem is to know how accurate
the results from the numerical modelling correspond to what is happening in the field and actual
geotechnical behaviour. Therefore, the analysis needs a further step for the verification and validation
purposes. Verification is to certify that the computer model has been developed correctly, while
validation is to ensure that the model fulfils its use. From the review, the numerical modelling can be
validated using other numerical methods, analytical solution using established methods, experimental
work or physical modelling, an actual case study and full-scale or field tests. The first two validation
methods are simpler, faster and more economical than physical modelling and full-scale tests. However,
physical modelling and full-scale testing can provide even more accurate verification though not
economical and require more time to perform testing.

References
[1] K. Rajagopal B M B 2016 A Primer on Numerical and Physical Modelling in Geotechnical
Engineering vol Technical (New Delhi: Indian Geotechnical Society,)
[2] J. Canizal A. Cimentada, A. Da Costa, M. Miranda, C. Sagaseta J C 2012 Theoretical analyses
of laboratory tests of kaolin clay improved with stone columns ISSMGE - TC 211
International Symposium on Ground Improvement IS-GI Brussels vol III, ed N H Nicolas
Denies (Brussels, Belgium) pp 373–81
[3] Castro J 2017 Modeling Stone Columns Materials 10 782
[4] Plaxis 2010 Material Models Manual Plaxis 202
[5] Ti K S, Gue See S, Huat B B ., Noorzaei J and Saleh M 2009 A Review of Basic Soil Constitutive
Models for Geotechnical Application Electronic Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 14 18
[6] Lade P V 2005 Overview of Constitutive Models for Soils Soil Constitutive Models 1–34
[7] Pivarc J 2011 Stone columns – determination of the soil improvement factor SOLVAK Journal
of Civil Engineering 19 17–21
[8] Joel Gniel A B 2009 Predicted Site Behaviour Of Geogrid Encased Stone Columns Australian
Geomechanics 44 11–6
[9] A. Zahmatkesh A J C 2010 Settlement Evaluation Of Soft Clay Reinforced By Stone Columns,
Considering The Effect Of Soil Compaction International Journal of Research & Reviews in
Applied Sciences 3 159–66
[10] Castro J, Karstunen M, Sivasithamparam N and Sagaseta C 2013 Numerical analyses of stone
column installation in Bothkennar clay Installation Effects in Geotechnical Engineering (CRC
Press) pp 212–8
[11] Ellouze S, Bouassida M, Bensalem Z and Znaidi M N 2017 Numerical analysis of the installation
effects on the behaviour of soft clay improved by stone columns Geomechanics and
Geoengineering 12 73–85
[12] Sexton B G and McCabe B A 2015 Modeling stone column installation in an elasto-viscoplastic
soil International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 9 500–12
[13] Guetif Z, Bouassida M and Debats J M 2007 Improved soft clay characteristics due to stone
column installation Computers and Geotechnics 34 104–11
[14] Castro J, Karstunen M and Sivasithamparam N 2014 Influence of stone column installation on
settlement reduction Computers and Geotechnics 59 87–97
[15] Aminaton Marto, Farshad Helmi, Nima Latifi, Mohsen Oghabi R M 2013 Performance analysis
of reinforced stone columns using finite element method Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering (EJGE) 18 B 315–23
[16] Muntohar Rahman, M. E., Hashim, R., Islam, M. S. A S 2013 A Numerical Study of Ground
Improvement Technique Using Group of Soil-Column on Peat Journal of Science and
Technology 625–34
[17] Yildiz M 2013 Determination Of Stress Concentration Factor In Stone Columns By Numerical
Modelling (MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY)
[18] Joon-Shik Moon W P 2015 Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation Behavior Considering Raft-Pile-
Soil Interaction Conf. on Advances in Civil, Structural and Mechanical Engineering 64–7

10
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

[19] Elwakil A Z and Azzam W R 2016 Experimental and numerical study of piled raft system
Alexandria Engineering Journal 55 547–60
[20] Paravita Sri Wulandari D T 2015 Analysis of piled raft foundation on soft soil using PLAXIS 2D
The 5th International Conference of Euro Asia Civil Engineering Forum (EACEF-5) 363 –
367
[21] R.Radhika P.Soundrapandiyan S P J 2015 Parametric Study and Numerical Analysis of Piled
Raft Foundation on Soft Clay International Journal For Research In Emerging Science And
Technology 2 90–7
[22] Mohammadreza Jaberi Nasab A A 2015 Numerical Analysis of the Bearing Capacity of Stone
Columns Impoved Ground International Journal of integrative Sciences, Innovation and
Technology 4 1–5
[23] Shien N K 2013 Numerical Study Of Floating Stone Columns (National University Of Singapore)
[24] Ng K S and Tan S A 2014 Design and analyses of floating stone columns Soils and Foundations
54 478–87
[25] Sun S A T ; K S N ; J 2014 Column Group Analyses for Stone Column Reinforced Foundation
From Soil Behavior Fundamentals to Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering vol 233, ed H
R E Olson ((ASCE), Reston) pp 597–608
[26] Wood D M, Hu W and Nash D F T 2000 Group effects in stone column foundations: model tests
Géotechnique 50 689–98
[27] Ng K S and Tan S A 2015 Settlement Prediction of Stone Column Group International Journal
of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering 1 33
[28] Ambily A P and Gandhi S R 2007 Behavior of Stone Columns Based on Experimental and FEM
Analysis Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 405–15
[29] Elshazly H A, Hafez D H and Mossaad M E 2008 Reliability of Conventional Settlement
Evaluation for Circular Foundations on Stone Columns Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering 26 323
[30] Ghazavi M and Nazari Afshar J 2013 Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 38
[31] K. M J and R. H T 1985 Performance of a Stone Column Foundation Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering 111 205–23
[32] Lan L V T · Y L Z · S X D · P V A · H T 2015 Numerical analysis of the influence of replacement
area ratio in foundation reinforced with soil cement columns Electronic Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE) 20 3821–8
[33] Mohanty P and Samanta M 2015 Experimental and Numerical Studies on Response of the Stone
Column in Layered Soil International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering 1 27
[34] Murat Ornek Mustafa Laman, Abdulazim Yildiz A D 2012 Numerical Analysis Of Circular
Footings On Natural Clay Stabilized With A Granular Fill Acta Geotechnica Slovenica 61–75
[35] Fattah M Y and Majeed Q G 2012 Finite Element Analysis of Geogrid Encased Stone Columns
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30 713–26
[36] Sexton B G, McCabe B A, Karstunen M and Sivasithamparam N 2016 Stone column settlement
performance in structured anisotropic clays: the influence of creep Journal of Rock Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering 8 672–88
[37] Alkhorshid N R 2012 Numerical Analysis of Soft Clay Reinforced with Stone Columns (Eastern
Mediterranean University)
[38] Alireza Roshan I S 2014 Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft Foundations in Soft Clay Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE) 19 4541–54
[39] Hussein H. Karim Mudhafar K. Hameedi M R A-Q 2013 Numerical Analysis of Piled Raft
Foundation on Clayey Soil Eng. & Tech. Journal 31 1297–312
[40] E.Y. N Oh Q. M. Bui, M. Huang, C. Surarak, A. S. Balasurbamaniam D G L 2009 Numerical
Analysis of Piled Raft Foundation in Sandy and Clayey Soils. Proceedings of the 17th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering

11
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

[41] P. S and K. N 2017 Numerical Analysis of Pile Raft System International Conference on
Geotechniques For Infrastructure Projects (Thiruvananthapuram, India: Indian Geotechnical
Society)
[42] Watcharasawe K, Jongpradist P and Kitiyodom P 2014 Numerical Analyses of Piled Raft
Foundation in Soft Soil using 3D-FEM International Conference on Advances in Civil
Engineering for Sustainable Development (Thailand: Suranaree University of Technology) pp
219–24
[43] Comodromos E M, Papadopoulou M C and Laloui L 2015 Contribution to the design
methodologies of piled raft foundations under combined loadings Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 53 559–77
[44] Noura Nehab Latifa Ouadif, Lahcen Bahi K B 2016 Three-Dimensional Modeling Of A Group
Of Stone Columns In “Bouregreg Valley” Soft Ground ARPN Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences 11 14537–44
[45] Killeen M M and McCabe B A 2014 Settlement performance of pad footings on soft clay
supported by stone columns: A numerical study Soils and Foundations 54 760–76
[46] Balaam N P and Booker J R 1985 Effect of stone column yield on settlement of rigid foundations
in stabilized clay International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics 9 331–51
[47] Priebe H J 1995 The Design of Vibro Replacement
[48] Pulko B, Majes B and Logar J 2011 Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: Analytical calculation
model Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 29–39
[49] Ali Dehghan Banadaki Nazri Ali K A 2012 Initial Settlement of Mat Foundation on Group of
Cement Columns in Peat – Numerical Analysis Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering (EJGE) 17 2243–53
[50] Yogendra K. Tandel C H S & A K D 2013 3D FE Analysis of an Embankment Construction on
GRSC and Proposal of a Design Method ISRN Civil Engineering 1–11
[51] Akhila Shaji Haripriya M., Rajeswari K. R., Geethu Thomas A A 2016 Stability Analysis Of
Soft Clay Stabilized Using Stone Column International Conference on “Structural
Engineering & Construction Management” SECM-2016 3
[52] Yogendra Tandel Chandresh Solanki, Atul Desai M J 2015 Numerical analyses of laboratory-
modelled reinforced stone column CURRENT SCIENCE (00113891) 108 1354–62
[53] Hasan M and Samadhiya N K 2016 Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Geosynthetic-
Reinforced Floating Granular Piles in Soft Clays International Journal of Geosynthetics and
Ground Engineering 2
[54] Hasan M S N K 2016 3d Numerical Analysis Of Granular Piles With Internal Horizontal Geogrid
Strips In Layers Indian Geotechnical Conference (Chennai, India: IIT Madras) pp 1–4
[55] Weber T M and Springman S M 2009 Numerical modelling of stone columns in soft clay under
an embankment 305–11
[56] Sreechithra P 2017 Numerical Analysis of Pile Raft System 3–6
[57] Muzammil S P, Varghese R M and Joseph J 2017 Performance of Stone Column under Circular
6 34–8
[58] Tandel Y k., Solanki C H and Desai A K 2012 Numerical modelling of encapsulated stone
column-reinforced ground International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and
Infrastructure Engineering 2 82–96
[59] Keykhosropur L, Soroush A and Imam R 2012 3D numerical analyses of geosynthetic encased
stone columns Geotextiles and Geomembranes 35
[60] Esmaeili M and Hakimpour S M 2015 Three Dimensional Numerical Modelling of Stone
Column to Mitigate Liquefaction Potential of Sands Journal of Seismology and Earthquake
Engineering 17 127–40
[61] Kadhim S 2007 Stability Analysis of Geotextile Encased Sand Columns The Dissertation
Committee for Shaymaa Kadhim certifies that this is the approved version of the following
dissertation : Stability Analysis of Geotextile Encased Sand Columns

12
iCITES 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 342 (2018) 012002 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/342/1/012002
1234567890‘’“”

[62] Abbas B J 2016 The Settlement Evaluation of Improved Soft Clay using Sand Columns and
Partial Replacement Technique International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology
(IJERT) 5 348–55
[63] Sexton B G and McCabe B A 2016 Stone column effectiveness in soils with creep: a numerical
study Geomechanics and Geoengineering 11 252–69
[64] Martin Gab H F S 2008 Geotechnics of Soft Soil focus on Ground Improvement CRC Press ed
M L Minna Karstunen (London, UK: CRC Press/Balkema) p 444p.

13