## 5 Conclusions  
Laboratory tests on single stone columns with diameters of 50, 75, and 100 mm were conducted as part of this study effort. In testing, different lengths of encasement for VESCs and HRSCs were employed, along with two different reinforcing materials, and  
Figure 10: Comparison of Load Ratio-Settlement behaviour between VESC and HRSC for L\({}_{\text{r}}\) = L on single stone column with diameters (**a**) 50 mm, (**b**) 75 mm, and (**c**) 100 mm.  
the findings were compared to those obtained from OSC experiments and also compared among themselves. The following conclusions can be drawn based on the findings of the experimental programme:  
1. The governing failure mechanism in all tests was bulging. The bulging failure occurred at a depth of D to 2 D from the stone column head. Limited bulging occurs in the column materials between the reinforcing layers in single HRSCs. Limited bulging occurs when the vertical space between the reinforcing layers is reduced to about the same length as the overall length of the HRSCs.
2. Due to the enhanced lateral constraint given by the considered geosynthetics material, the degree of lateral bulging in VESCs and HRSCs is reduced compared to that of OSCs.
3. When OSCs are employed to reinforce the softer clay, the foundation's ultimate bearing capacity rises. Using vertical (VESCs) or horizontal (HRSCs) reinforcing material enhanced the ultimate load even more. The same can be comprehended with the increasing load ratio value obtained as the maximum value of load ratio was found as 1.80 for the 100 mm diameter of the stone column.
4. The ultimate capacity of VESC and HRSC grows as the reinforcing geotextiles' tensile strength increases. The ultimate capacity and stiffness of stone columns are increased in VESCs and HRSCs by raising the stiffness of horizontal and vertical reinforcing sheets, increasing the length of the reinforced part of the columns (i.e., length of encasement), and lowering the interval gaps between reinforcement layers in case of HRSC. It was visible with the G2 type of geotextile used in the current study.
5. The best HRSCs were found most effective when the reinforcement sheets were provided at equally spaced interval throughout the length compared to partial reinforcements. In the case of VESCs, the total length of encasement (L\({}_{\tau}\) = L) was found to be most effective compared to partial reinforcement.
6. The VESC for full-length encasement with G2 type of geotextile for a 100 mm stone column diameter was most desirable among the various tests conducted.  
Conceptualisation, S.P. and A.K.G.; methodology, S.P. and A.K.G.; software, S.P.; validation, S.P. and A.K.G.; formal analysis, S.P. and A.K.G.; investigation, S.P. and A.K.G.; resources, S.P. and A.K.G.; data curation, S.P.; writing--original draft preparation, S.P.; writing--review and editing, S.P. and A.K.G.; visualisation, S.P. and A.K.G.; supervision, A.K.G.; project administration, A.K.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research received no external funding.  
All the data are provided in the current article.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.