See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226951949

Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Clay: Numerical Evaluation

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · September 2011

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-011-9409-x

CITATIONS READS

19 1,482

3 authors:

A. J. Choobbasti Ali Zahmatkesh

Babol Noshirvani University of Technology Islamic Azad University
83 PUBLICATIONS   554 CITATIONS    5 PUBLICATIONS   62 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Reza Noorzad
Babol Noshirvani University of Technology
20 PUBLICATIONS   356 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Master of science View project

Laboratory and Numerical Analysis of Piled Rafts and Offshore Foundations Considering Interaction and Bearing Mechanism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Zahmatkesh on 08 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684
DOI 10.1007/s10706-011-9409-x

ORIGINAL PAPER

Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Clay: Numerical

Evaluation
A. J. Choobbasti • A. Zahmatkesh • R. Noorzad

Received: 11 August 2010 / Accepted: 5 May 2011 / Published online: 18 May 2011
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Abstract Stone columns (or granular piles) are 1 Introduction

increasingly being used for ground improvement.
This study investigates the qualitative and quantita- Humans do not have any control on the process of
tive improvement in soft clay by stone columns. soil formation. The existing soil on a given site may
Finite element analyses were carried out to evaluate not be suitable for supporting the desired facilities
the performance of stone columns in soft clay. A such as buildings, bridges, and dams, because safe
drained analysis was carried out using Mohr–Cou- bearing capacity of a soil may not be adequate to
lomb’s criterion for soft clay, stones, and sand. The support the given load. To improve these soil types to
interface elements were used at the interface between allow building and other heavy construction, it is
the stone column and soft clay. Analyses and necessary to create stiff reinforcing elements in the
calculations were carried out to determine equivalent soil mass. A number of these techniques have been
parameters of soil/columns system. The bearing developed in the last 50 years.
capacity ratio (BCR) of the soil has been estimated The mechanics of ground improvement depends
for homogeneous and heterogeneous soil. The results largely on the type of soil. The granular soil such as
have shown that the values of BCR for homogeneous sand and gravel in loose condition has low shear
soil are obviously higher than those for heteroge- strength. A number of methods are available to
neous soil. improve the granular soils such as compaction piles
(Akiyoshi et al. 1993), vibrocompaction (Papeleux
Keywords Stone columns  Stress ratio  Bearing and Flipot 1970), and dynamic compaction (Leonards
capacity ratio  Homogeneous soil  et al. 1980). Soft clay deposits are extensively located
Heterogeneous soil in many areas, and they exhibit poor strength and
high compressibility. The cohesive soil in flocculated
structure is unstable, and under the influence of
increasing overburden pressure, soil is compressed
(Craig 1983). Cohesive soil can be improved using
A. J. Choobbasti  R. Noorzad
Department of Civil Engineering, Babol University the methods such as displacement and replacement,
of Technology, Babol, Iran vacuum pre-consolidation (Indraratna et al. 2004),
pre-consolidation using pre-fabricated vertical
A. Zahmatkesh (&)
drains (Shen et al. 2005), and soil reinforcing. Soil
Department of Civil Engineering, Ferdows Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Ferdows, Iran reinforcing can be done using the methods such
e-mail: ali.zahmatkesh13@gmail.com as micropile (Sen et al. 1989), geosynthetics

123
676 Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684

(Basudhar et al. 2007), and stone column. Among all The calculation of the improvement factor was done
these methods, the stone column technique is pre- by considering that the stone column material is
ferred, because it gives the advantage of reduced incompressible and column is based on a rigid layer
settlements, increase in bearing capacity, and accel- (end-bearing). Priebe (1995) considered the effect of
erated consolidation settlements due to reduction in compressibility of the column material and the
flow path lengths. Another major advantage with this overburden. He developed design charts to calculate
technique is the simplicity of its construction method. the settlement of single and strip footing reinforced by
Stone columns may be used in sand deposits but have a limit number of stone columns. Poorooshasb and
particular application in soft, inorganic, and cohesive Meyerhof (1996) proposed the performance ratio,
soils. They are generally inserted on a volume which is defined as the ratio of the settlement of the
displacement basis, that is, a 600- to 1,200-mm- improved ground to unimproved ground under iden-
diameter hole is excavated to the desired depth. The tical surcharges. They considered linear elastic
vibroflotation method can be used to produce a stone behavior for stone column. Etezad (2006) used the
column by sinking the device, backfilling the cavity concept of the equivalent of soil/columns system and
with stone, and then raising and lowering the limit equilibrium technique to determine the bearing
vibroflot while adding additional stone (Bowles capacity coefficients of the composite ground and
1997). consequently to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity
Predicting the settlement and bearing capacity of of the reinforced ground. In this model, the bearing
soil reinforcing stone columns is a design challenge capacity was calculated based on general shear, local
for geotechnical engineers. Several papers have been shear, and punching failure in composite soil. Jellali
published in the past on the stone column as a ground et al. (2005) presented a general homogenization
reinforcing technique. Many of the researchers have procedure for evaluating the ultimate bearing capacity
developed theoretical solutions for estimating bearing factor of a purely cohesive soil reinforced by a group
capacity and settlement of reinforced foundations by of columns, in the case that the column material is also
stone columns (Greenwood 1970; Hughes et al. 1976; purely cohesive(lime column).
Priebe 1976, 1995; Poorooshasb and Meyerhof 1996). For considering horizontal displacement of soil
In the past, the approximate solutions such as unit cell during the installation of stone column, many
approximation (Hughes et al. 1976; Aboshi et al. researchers considered the coefficient of lateral earth
1979) and homogenization techniques (Mitchell and pressure (K*) bigger than the coefficient of lateral
Huber 1985; Schweiger and Pande 1988) have been earth pressure at rest (K0) (Priebe 1976; Pitt et al.
proposed. The unit cell method gives a reasonable 2003; Elshazly et al. 2008).
result if the influence of the boundary conditions is Stone columns also have another role in soft clay.
negligible. In homogenization techniques, stone col- It acts as vertical drains and thus speeds up the
umn–reinforced soil is treated as a composite mate- process of consolidation, replaces the soft soil by a
rial. The first attempt to solve the reinforced ground stronger material, and initial compaction of soil
employing a homogenization technique on a purely during the process of installation, thereby increasing
numerical basis was made by Mitchell and Huber the unit weight. Han and Ye (2001) developed a
(1985). Priebe (1976) proposed a method to estimate simplified and closed-form solution for estimating the
the settlement of foundation resting on the infinite grid rate of consolidation of the stone column–reinforced
of stone columns based on unit cell concept. In this foundations accounting for the stone column soil
concept, the soil around a stone column for area modular ratio. In this paper, effect of consolidation of
represented by a single column, depending on column stone column was not investigated.
spacing, is considered for the analysis. As all the This paper is presented in the following sequences.
columns are simultaneously loaded, it is assumed that First, the simulation of the column installation in soft
lateral deformations in soil at the boundary of unit cell clay by means of vibrocompaction technique is
are zero. The settlement improvement factor is introduced. Next, the parameters of composite soil
derived as a function of area ratio (total area of stone are calculated. Finally, the bearing capacity ratio
columns to original area of unreinforced soil) and (BCR) of the soil is estimated for homogeneous and
angle of internal friction of column material. heterogeneous soil.

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684 677

2 Numerical Analysis Table 1 Parameters used in the numerical analysis (Zahmat-

kesh and Choobbast 2010)
Numerical modeling was performed using the PLAX- E(kPa) m u w c (kPa) c Rinter
IS V8 program. PLAXIS is used for the analysis of (deg) (deg) (kN/m3)
deformation and stability in geotechnical engineer-
Soft clay 4,000 0.35 21 0 5 17 0.7
ing. The improved soil is modeled with 15 nodes
Stone 55,000 0.3 43 10 0 19 0.9
triangular finite elements. In the numerical analysis, column
medium mesh was used. In the reinforced area, Sand 20,000 0.3 30 4 0 16 –
medium mesh was refined, because stresses and
displacements are higher in this area.
In this investigation, it was assumed that the raft is equation k0cz, where z is the depth below ground
rigid, and both the stone column and soft clay surface and k0 is the coefficient of the rest earth
undergo the same amount of settlement. There are no pressure for the soft clay. The coefficient of lateral
interface elements placed between the soil and the earth pressure at rest was estimated from Jacky’s
footing, so any slippage between footing and soil formula (Jacky 1944):
occurs within the soil. The interface elements were
k0 ¼ 1  sin u ð1Þ
used at the interface between the stone column and
soft clay. This can be explained by the fact that the Installation of the columns increases this coefficient
deformation of the column is mainly by general to a higher value. The installation of stone column is
failure and which produces significant shear between accompanied by vibration and horizontal displacement
clay and stone column (Etezad 2006). In this paper, it of soil. The lateral expansion generates large strains of
is supposed that stone columns are extended to a hard about 45% in soft clay next to the column (Guetif et al.
layer. In most practical cases, a soil layer is placed at 2007). So, surrounding soft soil is compressed and
the top soft clay reinforced with stone columns, so a increases the coefficient of lateral earth pressure. The
sand layer of 20 cm thickness was placed at the top of value of coefficient of lateral earth pressure after
model. The analysis was carried out on stone column the installation of stone column depends largely on the
with the diameter of 1 m and depth of 10 m. Because type of soil, spacing of stone columns, and installation
of symmetry, only half of the geometry is modeled. method of stone column. For the determination of
Four different types of geometry are modeled to stress values due to column installation, an axisym-
investigate the effect of stone column installation, metric study was carried out. Vibratory probes are
stress ratio, bearing capacity in both heterogeneous typically utilized to construct a stone column, the probe
and homogeneous soil. itself generally consisting of a 12-to 16-inch-diameter
Appropriate choices of material properties are hollow cylindrical body. In Fig. 1, the installation of
necessary in order to have an accurate simulation of stone column in soft clay has been simulated. At first,
reinforcement system in the numerical modeling. The the cylindrical hole was modeled the same size as
properties of soft clay, stone column, and sand can be vibroprobe with a radius of 0.25 m (which is a typical
found in the literature (Zahmatkesh and Choobbast value). Then, along the border of cylindrical hole, the
2010).A drained behavior is assumed for all the soft clay is subjected to radial displacement that
materials. The input parameters of Mohr–Coulomb simulates the vibrocompaction installation until the
model are stiffness modulus (E), drained cohesion horizontal expansion reaches the column radius of
(c), internal friction angle (u), dilation angle (w), 0.5 m. At the mid-thickness of soft soil layer, a line is
Poisson’s ratio (l), and unit weight (c). These drew for the determination of stresses.
parameters and interface strength between stone Figure 2 shows the variation of stresses in soft soil
column and soft clay (Rinter) are given in Table 1. with distance from column after installation of column.
After the expansion of the column, a new distribution of
2.1 Effect of Stone Column Installation stresses takes place in the surrounding soft clay that can
be quantified by the ratio between effective horizontal
Before the columns are installed, the horizontal and vertical stresses (rh/rv). Variation of stress in soft
component of stress in the ground is given by the soil after installation of column with distance from

123
678 Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684

2.4

1.6

σ h /σ v
1.2

0.8

0.4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Distance from the column axis(m)

Fig. 2 Variation of stresses in soft clay with distance from the

column
Fig. 1 Simulation of installation of stone column in soft clay
and dilation angle for clay (wc) are assumed to be
column is significantly reduced. Consequently, the zero. Cooper and Rose (1999), Christoulas et al.
coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest, denoted (2000), and Mestar and Riou (2004)considered com-
by K0, increases from its initial value (K0 = 1 - posite angle of friction as
sinu = 0.609) in soft clay to values exceeding one at
ucom ¼ q  us þ ð1  qÞuc ð5Þ
the vicinity of the column. Calculation of stresses in
Fig. 2 has been done supposing that the soil is where us and uc represent the angle of friction of the
compressed from one side. It should be considered that stone column material and the soft soil, respectively.
since the soil is compressed from both sides, the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion can be written as
magnitude of increase in soil pressure would be twice as
s ¼ c þ r tanðuÞ ð6Þ
much as the pressure that is calculated from Fig. 2.
However, by the replacement of Eqs. 2, 3, 4, and 5 in
2.2 Calculation of Equivalent Parameters Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion, it can be observed
that this criterion is not satisfied in model. In order for
In this section, the concept of the equivalent of soil/ this criterion to be valid instead of Eq. 5, the
columns system is described. The objective of the following equations were derived and used in this
equivalent of soil/columns system is the determination analysis.
of parameters of composite soil for Mohr–Coulomb
scom ¼ q  ss þ ð1  qÞsc ð7Þ
model. In this analysis, q is defined as ratio of the total
area of stone columns to the original area of unrein- and
forced soil. The composite unit weight, cohesion, and
s ¼ c þ r tan u ð8Þ
dilation angle of the reinforced soil are taken as
ccom ¼ q  cs þ ð1  qÞcc ð2Þ where scom, ss, and sc are the shear stress of the
composite soil, stone column, and soft soil. Substi-
ccom ¼ q  cs þ ð1  qÞcc ð3Þ tuting Eqs. 3, 4, and 8 into Eq. 7 results in
wcom ¼ q  ws þ ð1  qÞwc ð4Þ rs rc
tanðucom Þ ¼ q tanðus Þ þ ð1  qÞ tan uc ð9Þ
where cs, cc, cs, cc, ws, and wc are cohesion, unit r r
weight, and dilation angle of the column material and the distribution of vertical stress in the reinforced
clay, respectively. The cohesion for stone column (cs) area can be expressed by the stress ratio (n) as

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684 679

rs Fig. 3 Simulation of stone S

n¼ ð10Þ column for the determina- 2
rc
tion of stress ratio (n)
where rs and rc are stress in stone column and stress
in soft soil, respectively. By equating forces in the
vertical direction, the following equation is obtained:
rcom ¼ q  rs þ ð1  qÞrc ð11Þ
Combining Eqs. 10 and 11 yields
rs n
a¼ ¼ ð12Þ
r 1 þ ðn  1Þq
rc 1
b¼ ¼ ð13Þ
r 1 þ ðn  1Þq 10m
substituting Eqs. 12 and 13 into Eq. 11, friction angle
of equivalent soil is calculated as
ucom ¼ tan 1 ½q:a: tanðus Þ þ ð1  qÞ:b: tan uc  ð14Þ
The stress ratio (n) in Eqs. 12 and 13 was suggested
to be between 2.5 and 5 (Etezad 2006).
Figure 3 shows geometric modeling to determine
stress ratio in numerical analysis. An axisymmetric
analysis was carried out to determine stresses in stone
column and soft clay. A uniform vertical displace-
ment (20 cm) was prescribed to the model. At the
mid-thickness of soft soil layer is drew a line to
determine stresses in various distances from the
2000
column. Figure 4 shows variation of stress versus
distance from the column axis at the mid-thickness of
soft soil layer. Since stiffness of stone column is 1500
higher than stiffness of soft clay, stress in stone
Stress (kPa)

column is higher than stress in soft clay. There is a

significant difference at interface between stone 1000
column and soft clay. The average stress can be
calculated from Fig. 4 for stone column and soft clay,
and then stress ratio can be calculated. Figure 5 500
shows variation of stress ratio versus distance from
the column axis.
Using Fig. 5 and Eq. 5, the composite angle of 0
0 0.5 1 1.5
friction was calculated. From Fig. 6, it can be seen Distance from the column axes(m)
that with increase in column spacing, composite
angle of friction is decreased. Fig. 4 Variation of stresses in soft clay and stone column with
distance from the column
Poisson’s ratio has influence on the performance of
stone columns. In higher Poisson’s ratio, soil
becomes more incompressible. In this analysis, mcom ¼ q  ms þ ð1  qÞmc ð15Þ
Poisson’s ratio changes from 0.3 to 0.35 (Table 1), where ms and mc are Poisson’s ratio of the column
and so the influence of Poisson’s ratio on the material and clay, respectively.
performance of stone columns is quite small and Zahmatkesh and Choobbast (2010) showed that
composite Poisson’s ratio can be calculated as vertical stress versus settlement relation when entire

123
680 Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684

6 20000

Equivalent stiffness (kPa)

15000
5

10000
n

5000

3
0
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Columns spacing (m)
colums spacing(m)
Fig. 7 Variation of equivalent stiffness with columns spacing
Fig. 5 Variation of stress ratio (n) with columns spacing
2.3 Calculation of Bearing Capacity
45
For the calculation of bearing capacity, rigid footing
was used in this study. The settlement under a rigid
Composite angle of friction

40
footing is uniform. The displacement control method
was used for the calculation of bearing capacity. Two
35
types of soil/footing interface, smooth and rough, are
modeled in this study. In the first one, the footing
nodal points are allowed to move in horizontal
30 directions. In other words, the friction between the
soil and the footing is ignored. In the second one, the
footing nodal points are not allowed to move in
25
horizontal directions. In other words, the friction
between the soil and the footing is infinite.
20 Two types of geometry were modeled to calculate
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
the bearing capacity. In the first one (see Fig. 8a), the
Columns spacing (m)
equivalent strips were used to model stone columns
Fig. 6 Variation of composite angle friction with columns (heterogeneous soil). In this case, the parameters of
spacing stone column and soft clay were selected from
Table 1. In other model (see Fig. 8b), geometry was
area is loaded is almost linear, and equivalent defined on a structure having the same size as the
Young’s modulus (stiffness) of the composite ground initial one and subjected to the same loading condi-
can be calculated. The arrangement of the test tions. But in this case, the composite reinforced soil is
columns is generally 3D. For modeling column in replaced by an equivalent homogeneous material and
plain strain, it is necessary to use equivalent strip Eqs. 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, and Fig. 7 were used to
(Zahmatkesh and Choobbast 2010). Numerical mod- determine the equivalent parameters of composite
eling was performed assuming columns were soil. In Fig. 8, B and B1 is the strip footing width and
arranged in a square pattern. For considering hori- reinforced zone width, respectively.
zontal component of stress due to installation of the In order to study the effect of footing width on
columns, Fig. 2 was used. Figure 7 shows variation ultimate bearing capacity, calculation was done on
of equivalent Young’s modulus versus columns four different size of footings (B = 2, 4, 8, and 16 m)
spacing. for both unreinforced and reinforced soil. Figure 9

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684 681

shows the stress diagram versus displacement for a 400

footing with a width of 2 m for homogeneous S=3.5m

material. With the increase in column spacing, S=3m

S=2.5m
bearing capacity is decreased. The bearing capacities 300
S=2m
for both the untreated soil and the treated soil are S=1.5m

Stress (kPa)
determined from the load–settlement curves at the
10% of the footing width. The result showed that the 200
values of bearing capacity for rough footing are
higher than those for smooth footing. In practical
conditions, the friction between the soil and footing is 100
between the smooth and rough footings. So, the
bearing capacity is on amount between the bearing
capacity of smooth and rough footings.
0
Increase in the ultimate bearing capacity due to the 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
existing of stone columns was considered through a Displacement/B
non-dimensional parameter, the bearing capacity
Fig. 9 Curves of loading against settlement for homogeneous
ratio (BCR), which is defined as follows: material (B = 2 m)
BCR ¼ qur =quo ð16Þ
where qur is the ultimate bearing capacity of the the difference of values of bearing capacity factor
reinforced soil, and quo is the ultimate bearing between smooth and rough footing is small. So, the
pressure of unreinforced soil at the same settlement average of BCR of smooth and rough footing was
level. Table 2 shows the values of bearing capacity calculated as BCR for each different footing width
factor (BCR) with columns spacing for both smooth and columns spacing.
and rough footing with B = 8 m. It is easily seen that Figure 10 shows the variation of bearing capac-
the values of BCR for homogeneous soil is obviously ity factor (BCR) with the non-dimensional value of
higher than those for heterogeneous soil. This shows B/B1. In heterogeneous soil, BCR increases initially
that the behavior of heterogeneous and homogeneous with decrease in footing width to a maximum value
soil is quite different. As can be seen from Table 2, and decreases thereafter. Also, in homogeneous soil

Fig. 8 Simulation of (a)

reinforcement system in the B
numerical analysis of
(a) heterogeneous soil
(b) homogeneous soil Stone column
10m

B1

(b) B

Equivalent
10m homogenization
material

B1

123
682 Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684

Table 2 Comparison of BCR value for smooth and rough (a) 5

footing (B = 8 m) Homogeneous

Columns spacing (m) Heterogeneous

4
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Homogeneous Smooth 4.35 2.44 2.22 1.89 1.61

BCR
Rough 4.30 2.55 2.18 1.85 1.56 3
Heterogeneous Smooth 2.27 1.63 1.45 1.38 1.29
Rough 2.31 1.64 1.48 1.45 1.34
2

at first, with decrease in footing width, BCR is

almost constant and then decreases. This shows that 1
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
BCR depends on footing width. With the increase B/B1
in column spacing, the effect of footing width on
BCR increases. In large footing width (b) 2.5
(B/B1 = 0.8), reinforced zone width against footing Homogeneous

width is little, so increasing rate of bearing capacity Heterogeneous

decreases.
Jellali et al. (2005) calculated the ultimate bearing 2
capacity of a rigid strip footing resting upon a
BCR

homogeneous purely cohesive soil (cohesion c),

which has been reinforced by a group of vertical
columns made of a cohesive material of cohesion k.c 1.5
(k [ 1). This type of column is called lime column.
The lime column technique is obtained from mixing
the weak soil mass with a given percentage of lime or
lime–cement; thus, a considerable increase in the soil 1
initial shear strength occurs. Using Mohr–Coulomb 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8

failure criterion, for the case of reinforcement by B/B1

stone column, value of k (the shear stress of stone
(c) 1.8
column divided by the shear stress of soft soil) can be
Homogeneous
expressed as
Heterogeneous
ss rs tan us rs tan us tan us 1.6
K¼ ¼ [ ¼ n:
sc cc þ rc tan uc rc tan uc tan uc
ð17Þ
BCR

1.4
Using Eq. 17, Fig. 5, and Table 1, minimum k can
be calculated. Figure 11 shows that there is a good
agreement between present work and Jellali’s
1.2
method. We used minimum k to calculate BCR in
Jellali’s method. So, the actual BCR is more than the
calculated BCR in Fig. 11. The good agreement
1
between present work and Jellali’s method shows that 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
the calculation of equivalent parameters has been B/B 1
almost done correctly. Therefore, it is logical to
implement Jellali’s method for stone column instead Fig. 10 Comparison of BCR for different columns spac-
of lime column in homogeneous soil. ing(S) (a) S = 1.5 m (b) S = 2.5 m (c) S = 3.5 m

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684 683

(a) 4.5 2. Variation of stress in soft soil after installation of

column with distance from column is signifi-
4 Jellali et al.(2005) cantly reduced.
Present work 3. The values of BCR for homogeneous soil are
3.5
obviously higher than those for heterogeneous
soil, so implementation of the equivalent of soil/
3
BCR

columns system is not suitable for the calculation

2.5
of bearing capacity.
4. The BCR depends on footing width. With
2 increase in columns spacing, effect of footing
width on BCR is increased.
1.5 5. The calculation of bearing capacity by Jellali’s
method is suitable for stone column.
1
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Columns spacing (m)

(b) 4.5
References
4 Jellali et al.(2005) Aboshi H, Ichimoto E, Harada K, Emoki M (1979) The com-
Present work poser-A method to improve the characteristics of soft
3.5 clays by inclusion of large diameter sand columns. Pro-
ceedings international of conference on soil reinforce-
3 ment, Paris, pp 211–216
BCR

Akiyoshi T, Fuchida K, Matsumoto H, Hyodo T, Fang HL (1993)

2.5
Liquefaction analyses of sandy ground improved by sand
compaction piles. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 12:299–307
Basudhar PK, Saha S, Deb K (2007) Circular footings resting
2
on geotextile-reinforced sand bed. Geotext Geomembr
25(6):377–384
1.5 Bowles JE (1997) Foundation analysis and design. McGraw-
Hill, New York
1 Christoulas St, Bouckovalas G, Giannaros CH (2000) An
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 experimental study on model stone columns. Soil Found
Columns spacing (m) 40(6):11–22
Cooper MR, Rose AN (1999) Stone column support for an
Fig. 11 Comparison of BCR with Jellali’s method (a) B/ embankment on deep alluvial soils, Proceedings of the
B1 = 0.2 (b) B/B1 = 0.8 institution of civil engineers-geotechnical engineering
137(1):15–25
Craig RF (1983) Soil mechanics. Van Nostrand Reinhold, UK
3 Conclusions Elshazly H, Elkasabgy M, Elleboudy A (2008) Effect of inter-
column spacing on soil stresses due to vibro-installed
stone columns: interesting findings. Geotech Geol Eng
In this paper, we have studied the performance of 26:225–236
stone columns in soft clay. The analyses employed an Etezad M (2006) Geotechnical performance of group of stone
elastic, perfectly plastic constitutive model following columns. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Montreal Quebec,
pp 85–108
the Mohr–Coulomb failure criterion. Analyses and Greenwood DA (1970) Mechanical improvement of soils
calculations were carried out to determine equivalent below ground surfaces. Proceedings, ground engineering
parameters of soil/columns system and the bearing conference, institution of civil engineers, London,
capacity ratio (BCR) of homogeneous and heteroge- pp 11–22
Guetif Z, Bouassida M, Debats JM (2007) Improved soft clay
neous soil. Based on the results obtained from this characteristics due to stone column installation. Comput
study, the following conclusions are made Geotech 34:104–111
Han J, Ye SL (2001) Simplified method for consolidation rate
1. The performance of stone columns depends of stone column reinforced foundation. J Geotech Geo-
mainly on column spacing. environ Eng 127(7):597–603

123
684 Geotech Geol Eng (2011) 29:675–684

Hughes JM, Withers N, Greenwood D (1976) A field trial of Poorooshasb HB, Meyerhof GG (1996) Analysis of behavior of
reinforcing effect of stone column in soil. Proceedings, stone columns and lime columns. Comput Geotech 20(1):
ground treatment by deep compaction, institution of civil 47–70
engineers, London, pp 32–44 Priebe HJ (1976) Abschactzung des setzungsverhaltns eiens
Indraratna B, Bamunawita C, Khabbaz H (2004) Numerical durch stopfverdichtung verbesserten baugrundees Die
modeling of vacuum preloading and field applications. Bautechnik 54:160–162 (in German)
Can Geotech J 41(6):1098–1110 Priebe HJ (1995) The design of Vibro replacement. Ground
Jacky J (1944) The coefficient of earth pressure at rest. J Soc Eng 28(10):31–37
Hungarian Architects Eng 7:355–358 Schweiger HF, Pande GN (1988) Numerical analysis of a road
Jellali B, Bouassida M, Buhan P (2005) A homogenization embankment constructed on soft clay stabilised with stone
method for estimating the bearing capacity of soils rein- columns. Proceedings, numerical method in geomechan-
forced by columns. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech ics, Innsbruck, pp 1329–1333
29:989–1004 Sen R, Jackson NM, Issa M (1989) Micro-pile load tests.
Leonards GA, Cutter WA, Holtz RD (1980) Dynamic com- Proceedings, 2nd international conference on foundations
paction of granular soil. J Geotech Eng 106(1):35–44 and tunnels, London, 19–21 Sept, pp 273–276
Mestar P, Riou Y (2004) Validation des modeles numerigues Shen SL, Chai J, Hong Z, Cai F (2005) Analysis of field perfor-
de sol ameliore par colonnes. Proceedings international mance of embankments on soft clay deposit with and without
symposium on ground improvement, Paris, pp 229–243 PVD-improvement. Geotext Geomembr 23(6):463–485
(In French) Zahmatkesh A, Choobbast AJ (2010) Settlement evaluation of
Mitchell JK, Huber TR (1985) Performance of a stone column soft clay reinforced with stone columns using the equiv-
foundation. J Geotech Eng 111(2):205–223 alent secant modulus. Arab J Geosci. doi:10.1007/s125
Papeleux P, Flipot A (1970) Vibrocompaction electrodynami- 17-010-0145-y
que de nodules frittes D’oxyde D’uraniun. J Nucl Mater
36:275–287
Pitt JM, White DJ, Gaul A, Hoevelkamp K (2003) Highway
applications for rammed aggregate piers in Iowa soils.
Iowa DOT Project TR-443, CTRE Project, USA, pp 0–60

123

View publication stats