## 7 Conclusions  
This investigation involved laboratory experiments and numerical analysis conducted on individual stone columns with diameters of 50, 75, and 100 mm. During the testing phase, various lengths of encasement were utilised for VESCs and HRSCs in conjunction with a reinforcing material. The experimental results obtained from these tests were then compared to the numerical analytical findings. Based on the results of the experimental programme, it is possible to draw the following conclusions. 1. The predominant failure mechanism observed in all experiments was ballooning. The occurrence of bulging failure was seen at a depth ranging from \(D\) to \(2D\) below the head of the stone column. The occurrence of bulging in the column materials among the reinforcing sections in single HRSCs is limited. 2. Increasing the area replacement ratio for an ultimate settlement of 50 mm increased the load-carrying capability in both the experimental and numerical analysis. 3. For VESCs, the full-length encasement resulted in a higher load capacity of 23.52, 23.95, and 18.86% for \(D\) = 50, 75, and 100 mm, respectively, in the experimental results as compared to their OSC results. A similar trend was observed in the numerical results. 4. In HRSCs, when reinforcement was provided for the full length of the column at equal intervals, the load capacity increased by 17.72, 19.78, and 12.24% for \(D\) = 50, 75, and 100 mm, respectively, when compared to their OSC values. Similar results were observed for the numerical analysis. Compared to the experimental results, the numerical results showed a slightly lower value for the load-carrying capability at 50 mm settlement, but the values obtained were in good agreement, with a maximum COV value of 11.08%. * Compared to partial reinforcements, the most effective HRSCs were seen to have reinforcement sheets provided at equally spaced intervals over their entire length. In the context of VESCs, it was determined that complete encasement (\(Lr=L\)) was more effective than partial reinforcement. Figure 11: Comparison of experimental and numerical results for VESC for (**a**) \(D\) = 50 mm, (**b**) \(D\) = 75 mm, and (**c**) \(D\) = 100 mm. Figure 12: Comparison of experimental and numerical results for HRSC for (**a**) \(D\) = 50 mm, (**b**) \(D\) = 75 mm, and (**c**) \(D\) = 100 mm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Diameter of Stone Column**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Reinforcement Type**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Reinforcement Length**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Numerical Result**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Coefficient of**} \\  & & & **Result (kN)** & **Result (kN)** & **Variation (\%)** \\ \hline \(D\) = 50 mm & OSC & & 6.50 & 6.30 & 2.21 \\ \hline  & VESC & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.25 L & 7.20 & 7.15 & 0.49 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.5 L & 7.70 & 7.52 & 1.67 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.75 L & 8.15 & 7.85 & 2.65 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = L & 8.50 & 8.18 & 2.71 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.5 L from centre to & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.5 L from bead to centre & 7.60 & 7.25 & 3.33 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = L throughout the length of & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \(D\) = 75 mm & OSC & & 7.30 & 6.45 & 8.74 \\ \hline  & VESC & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.25 L & 7.90 & 7.45 & 4.15 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.5 L & 8.50 & 8.22 & 2.37 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = 0.75 L & 9.10 & 8.42 & 5.49 \\ \hline  & & \(L\)\(\prime\) = L & 9.60 & 9.15 & 3.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Comparison of stone column load capabilities measured experimentally and numerically. **Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.S. and A.K.G. ; methodology, S.S. and A.K.G. ; software, S.S.; validation, S.S. and A.K.G. ; formal analysis, S.S. and A.K.G. ; investigation, S.S. and A.K.G. ; resources, S.S. and A.K.G.