A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour of Stone Columns

Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9555-9
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour

of Stone Columns
M. R. Dheerendra Babu • Sitaram Nayak •
R. Shivashankar
Received: 20 May 2009 / Accepted: 3 September 2012 / Published online: 13 September 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Stone columns have been used as an of weak soil deposits. To economically develop
effective technique for improving the engineering marginal sites a number of ground improvement
behaviour of soft clayey grounds and loose silt techniques have been developed. Stone columns are
deposits. The soil improvement via stone columns one method of ground improvement having a proven
are achieved from accelerating the consolidation of record of experience. Apparently, the concept was first
weak soil due to shortened drainage path, increasing applied in France in 1830 to improve a native soil.
the load carrying capacity and/or settlement reduction Stone columns have been used in many difficult
due to inclusion of stronger granular material. This foundation sites throughout the world to increase the
paper discusses the techniques, methods of construc- bearing capacity, to reduce the total and differential
tion of stone columns, mechanisms of stone column settlements, to increase the rate of consolidation, to
behaviour under load and associated design philoso- improve slope stability of embankments and also to
phies along with some practical findings from recent improve the resistance to liquefaction (Barksdale and
research programs. Bachus 1983; Alamgir et al. 1996).
Stone column construction involves the partial
Keywords Stone Column Methods of construction replacement of unsuitable subsurface soils with a
Design parameters Ultimate load analysis compacted vertical column of stones that usually
Settlement evaluation Reinforced stone columns completely penetrates the weak strata. The presence of
the stiffer column creates a composite material of
lower overall compressibility and higher shear
strength than the native soil alone. Stone column
1 Introduction system in soft, compressible soils are somewhat like
pile foundations, except that pile caps, structural
The increasing value of land and the limited availabil- connections, and deep penetration into underlying firm
ity of suitable sites for construction are greatly strata are not required, and the stone columns are, of
encouraging engineers to consider in situ improvement course, more compressible (Mitchell 1981). When
loaded, the stone columns deforms by bulging into the
subsoil strata and distributes the stresses at the upper
M. R. Dheerendra Babu (&) S. Nayak portion of the soil profile rather than transferring the
R. Shivashankar
stresses into deeper layer, unlike in case of pile
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal,
Mangalore, Karnataka, India foundation, thus causing the soil to support it (Bergado
e-mail: [email protected] et al. 1994). Stone columns, if installed in loose sands,
123
2 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
minimize the likelihood of liquefaction of these ground and compaction of granular fill backfilled in
deposits due to earthquakes because of their tendency the hole is accomplished mechanically using a vibra-
to dilate while shearing and dissipate the excess pore tory unit called vibroflot. Stone columns may be
pressures generated (Mitchell and Huber 1985). The constructed using this equipment either by wet process
component material being granular and with higher or dry process. The main advantage of this method is
permeability, stone columns could also accelerate the the speed and depth of execution.
consolidation settlements and minimize the post
construction settlements (Han and Ye 1992). More- 2.1.1 Wet Process
over, in situ stress conditions get improved due to the
installation of the stone columns. In this method, a hole is formed in the ground by
Stone columns are used to support structures jetting a probe down to the desired depth with water
overlying both very soft to firm cohesive soils and (Fig. 1). On reaching the desired depth, the uncased
also loose silty sands having greater than about 15 % hole is flushed out and stone backfill with 12–75 mm
fines (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). Applications of size is added in 0.3–1.2 m increments and densified by
stone columns include the support of embankments, means of an electrically or hydraulically actuated
liquid storage tanks, raft foundations and other low vibrator located near the bottom of the probe. This
rise structures. Stone columns are most effective in method is employed in soft relatively impervious and
clayey soils with undrained shear strength ranging cohesive soil generally in the range of strengths
from 7–50 kPa (Barksdale and Bachus 1983; Juran 15–50 kPa and at locations with high ground water
and Guermazi 1988, IS: 15284-2003). ‘‘State-of-the- table where borehole stability is questionable (Green-
art’’ installation equipment and more rigorous control wood and Kirsch 1983).
methods have allowed stone columns to be formed to The principal disadvantage of the wet technique
greater depths of up to 30 m (Black et al. 2007a). involves the large quantity of water which is required
These advances have allowed vibrated stone columns and which must later be disposed off without causing
to be used as a practical alternative to traditional pollution. After being used for stone column con-
treatment methods such as a piling for low-rise struction, the water contains a significant quantity of
structures. suspended silt and clay. Environmental regulations
and low-lying or urban site conditions may restrict the
drainage and disposal of the excess water-soil sus-
2 Methods of Construction of Stone Columns pension. Unless properly handled by constructing
sediment pots, ditches and other drainage structures,
The construction of stone columns involves creation pollution may occur. Further, standing pools of water
of a hole in the ground which is later filled with may disrupt work and slow production.
granular material. The granular fill consisting of stone
or stone sand mixture of suitable proportion, is 2.1.2 Dry Process
compacted by suitable means to create a compacted
column of required strength. Various methods for The main difference between dry process and wet
installation of stone columns have been used all over process is the absence of jetting water during initial
the world depending on their proven applicability and formation of the hole in the wet process. To be able to
availability of equipment in the locality. With the use the dry process the vibrated hole must be able to
available literature, the principal construction methods stand open upon extraction of the probe and hence this
are briefly reviewed in the following sections. method is employed in stable insensitive cohesive soils
of undrained shear strength in the range of 30–60 kPa
2.1 Vibro-Replacement Method (Greenwood and Kirsch 1983), with a relatively low
ground water table being present at the site.
Vibro-replacement methods are widely used for stone The dry process is much cleaner than the previously
column installation in cohesive soils (Baumann and discussed wet technique since it does not use jetting
Bauer 1974) in a manner similar to vibrofloation and flushing water. The dry method is frequently used
(Mitchell 1981). In this method, creation of hole in the to construct stone columns through weak fills in
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22 3
Fig. 1 Vibro-replacement
method -wet process
developed areas because of the problems associated using heavy falling weight, usually of 15–20 kN from
with the acquisition, retention, and disposal of signif- a height of 1.0–1.5 m (Datye and Nagaraju 1975). The
icant amounts of water. Air is sometimes used as a method is good substitute for vibrator compaction
jetting medium to facilitate extraction of the probe considering its low cost and has been found to yield
which occasionally adheres to the hole walls. stone columns of higher capacity over stone columns
Stabilization of sites underlain by soft soils and formed by vibro float (Nayak 1996). However,
high ground water is made possible by using a new disturbance and subsequent remolding by the ramming
‘‘bottom feed’’ type vibrator. Eccentric tubes adjacent operation may limit its applicability to sensitive soils.
to the probe allow delivery of stone, sand or concrete The method is useful in developing countries utilizing
to the bottom of the excavated hole without extracting only indigenous equipment in contrast to the methods
the vibrator. Using this method the vibrator serves as a described above which require special equipment and
casing which prevents collapse of the hole. trained personnel. This method is very slow and
uneconomical when depth of treatment becomes more
2.2 Vibro Composer Method than 12–15 m. The sequence of construction of stone
columns with this method is shown in Fig. 3.
The method is popularized in Japan and is used for
stabilizing soft clays in the presence of high ground
water levels (Aboshi et al. 1979). The installation 3 Basic Design Parameters
procedures are illustrated in Fig. 2. The resulting pile
is usually termed sand compaction pile. The sand 3.1 Stone Column Diameter, D
compaction piles are constructed by driving the casing
pipe to the desired depth using a heavy, vertical Installation of stone columns in soft cohesive soils is
vibratory hammer located at the top of the pipe. The basically a self compensating process i.e. softer the
casing is filled with a specified volume of sand and the soil, bigger is the diameter of the stone column
casing is then repeatedly extracted and partially re- formed. Due to lateral displacement of stones during
driven using the vibratory hammer starting from the vibrations/ramming, the completed diameter of the
bottom. The process is repeated until a fully penetrat- hole is always greater than the initial diameter of the
ing compacted granular pile is constructed. Usually probe or the casing. The column diameter installed by
600–800 mm diameter of the pile can be conveniently vibroflot (diameter 300–500 mm) varies between
constructed using this method. 0.6 m in case of stiff clays to 1.1 m in very soft
cohesive soils (Ranjan 1989). The diameter of the
2.3 Cased Borehole Method or Rammed Columns stone column constructed by dry method is less than
that of a wet method (Greenwood and Kirsch 1983).
In this method, the piles are constructed by ramming Datye and Nagaraju (1981) have reported construction
granular materials in the pre-bored holes in stages of stone columns ranging from 400 to 750 mm using
123
Fig. 2 Vibro-composer
method (Aboshi et al. 1979)
Fig. 3 Cased borehole

method (rammed columns)
(Datye and Nagaraju 1975)
rammed process. Approximate diameter of the stone settlement tolerances for the loads to be applied and to
column in the field may be determined from the known provide overlapping zones to cover a wide area of
compacted volume of material required to fill the hole ground (Greenwood 1970). Column spacing is also
of known length and maximum and minimum densi- dependent on the degree of improvement required for
ties of the stone. providing a satisfactory foundation under the applied
design load. It has been recognized in practice that
3.2 Pattern closer spacing are preferred under isolated footings
than beneath large rafts (Greenwood 1970).
Stone columns should be installed preferably in an However, the column spacing may broadly range
equilateral triangular pattern which gives the most from 2 to 3 times the diameter of the column
dense packing although a square pattern may also be depending upon the site conditions, loading pattern,
used (IS: 15284-2003). A typical layout in an equilat- column factors, the installation technique, settlement
eral triangular pattern and square pattern are shown in tolerances, etc. (IS:15284-2003). For large projects, it
Fig. 4. is desirable to carry out field trials to determine the
most optimum spacing of stone columns taking into
3.3 Spacing consideration the required bearing capacity of the soil
and permissible settlement of the foundation.
The design of stone columns should be site specific For purposes of settlement and stability analysis, it
and no precise guidelines can be given on the is convenient to associate the tributary area of soil
maximum and the minimum column spacing. The surrounding each stone column as illustrated in Figs. 4
spacing of stone columns is generally determined by and 5. The tributary area can be closely approximated
123
3.5 Stress Concentration Factor (n)
When the stone column reinforced ground is loaded,

concentration of stress occurs in the stone column, and
an accompanying reduction in stress occurs in the
surrounding less stiff soil (Fig. 5c). The distribution of
vertical stress within a unit cell can be expressed by a
stress concentration factor ‘n’ defined as the ratio of the
stress in the stone column (rs) to the stress in the
surrounding cohesive soil (rc). The magnitude of stress
concentration depends on the relative stiffness of the
stone column and the surrounding soil. The value of n
generally lies between 2 and 6 (Goughnour and Bayuk
1979; Aboshi et al. 1979) with values of 3–4 usual, at the
ground surface. The stress concentration factor
(n) increases with time of consolidation (Juran and
Guermazi 1988; Han and Ye 1991) and decreases along
the length of the stone column. Higher n value at ground
surface may result if load is applied to the composite
ground through a rigid foundation as compared to the
flexible foundation (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). The
stress concentration factor was found to decrease with
the increasing in the applied load (Bergado et al. 1988)
Fig. 4 Various patterns of Stone columns and increases with the increase in the area replacement
ratio (Shahu et al. 2000). Experimental study conducted
by Ambily and Gandhi (2007) revealed that the stress
as an equivalent circle having the same total area. For concentration factor (n) increases with the increase in
an equilateral triangular pattern of stone columns the modular ratio and decreases with the increase in the
equivalent circle has an effective diameter (De) of strength of the surrounding soil. From the experimental
1.05S and for a square grid it is equal to 1.13S, where investigation, Fattah et al. (2011) concluded that for end
‘S’ is the spacing of stone columns. The resulting bearing stone columns, the stress concentration factor
equivalent cylinder of material having a diameter De (n) is more than that of floating stone columns.
enclosing the tributary soil and one stone column is The stress concentration factor, n, may be predicted
known as the Unit cell. using elastic theory as a function of the modular ratio
of the stone and the clay assuming equal vertical
3.4 Replacement Ratio (as) displacements. The stress in the clay and stone using
the stress concentration factor n are calculated using
The volume of soil replaced by stone columns has an the following equations.
important effect upon the performance of the r
improved ground. To quantify the amount of soil rc ¼ ¼ lc r ð1aÞ
½1 þ ðn 1Þas
replacement, define the Area Replacement Ratio, as, as
the ratio of the area of the stone column after and
compaction (As) to the total area within the unit cell nr
(A). Increasing the area ratio, improves the overall rs ¼ ¼ ls r ð1bÞ
½1 þ ðn 1Þas
response of granular pile reinforced ground (Shahu
et al. 2000). For a significant improvement in bearing where lc and ls are the ratio of stresses in the clay and
capacity for stone column treated ground, requires an stone, respectively, to the average stress r over the
area replacement ratio of 0.25 or greater (Wood et al. tributary area. The above two equations, which gives
2000). the stress due to the applied loading in the stone
123
Fig. 5 Unit cell

idealizations (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983)
column and surrounding soil, are extremely useful in Where D50, D20, D10 are in mm at 50, 20 and 10 %
both settlement and stability analysis. passing by weight. Corresponding suitability numbers
and backfill ratings are given in Table1.
3.6 Back Fill for Stone Columns
Crushed stone or gravel for the column backfill shall be 4 Behavior of Composite Ground
clean, hard, unweathered stone free from organics,
trash or other deleterious materials (Barksdale and Stone columns improve the performance of founda-
Bachus 1983). The criteria for selecting a suitable tions on soft ground both by reducing the settlement to
backfill material are availability, suitability and econ- an acceptable level and by increasing the load carrying
omy. Well graded stones of 75–2 mm size shall be used capacity. In addition, stone columns densify the in situ
(IS:15284-2003). In case of bottom feed method, soil, dissipate rapidly the generated pore pressures,
maximum size of the aggregate is restricted to 40 mm accelerate consolidation and minimize post-installa-
to avoid blockages in the machine (Greenwood and tion settlement. Stone columns will transmit some load
kirsch 1983). It may be noted that stones of uniform to the soil by shear stresses (along the column-soil
size may permit penetration of clay into the large sized interface) and end bearing (at the column base),
voids thereby jeopardizing the capacity of the column the predominant load transfer mechanism (unless the
and/or its function as a vertical drain. A mixture of column is very short) is lateral bulging into the
crushed stone and sand may also be used in proportion surrounding soil. The passive resistance of the sur-
of 1: 0.2–0.5 by volume (Datye and Nagaraju 1981). rounding soil dictates the column performance under
The grading was designed to ensure good drainage and load. Generally the column bulging will be greatest
mobilization of the column strength after a relatively close to the top of the column where the overburden
small settlement. Brown (1977) has defined a suitabil-
ity number for vibroflotation backfills that is given by Table 1 Brown’s suitability Numbers
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 1 1 Suitability 0–10 10–20 20–30 30–50 [50
0
Brown s suitability no: ¼ 1:7 þ þ No
D250 D220 D210
Rating Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsuitable
ð2Þ
123
pressures are lowest. Efforts have been made by 4.2 Failure Mechanisms
various investigators to asses the performance of
treated ground through analytical and or experimental Current state-of-the-art reveals different modes of
studies which are reviewed in this section. failures for a single stone column contained in a weak
subsoil deposit, such as bulging (Hughes and Withers
4.1 Critical Column Length 1974); general shear failure (Madhav and Vitkar
1978), and sliding (Aboshi et al. 1979). For columns
The bulging of stone columns was more prominent in having length greater than its critical length and
the upper portion of the column as suggested by irrespective whether it is end bearing or floating, it
Hughes and Withers (1974), Greenwood (1970), fails by bulging (Barksdale and Bachus 1983,
Charles and Watts (1983), and Balaam and Booker IS:15284-2003, Black et al. 2007b) as illustrated in
(1981). The depth of bulging was observed to be Fig. 6. However, column shorter than the critical
approximately four times the diameter of the column length are likely to fail in general shear if it is end
(Hughes and Withers 1974; McKelvey et al. 2004; IS: bearing on a rigid base and in punching if it is a
15284-2003; Black et al. 2007b). Bae et al. (2002) floating column. While the tendency for bulging is
found that the depth of bulging zone of stone column predominant, it occurs in conjunction with the pile
was affected by column diameter rather than depth action (Madhav et al. 1994). Particular attention
ratio and strength of soil. The degree of bulging should be paid to the presence of very weak organic
largely depends on the strength of the in situ clay clay layers of limited thickness where local bulging
(Sivakumar et al. 2007). In several of the above studies failure may take place (Barksdale and Bachus 1983,
the authors also suggested the critical length of the IS:15284-2003).
column that defined the overall column failure Failure modes of stone column groups are different
mechanism. from those of an isolated stone column, where the
The critical column length is the shortest column columns can interact and restrain the expansion of the
which can carry the ultimate load regardless of neighboring columns. Wood et al. (2000) found from
settlement (Hughes et al. 1975). Hughes and Withers their model investigations on large groups of columns
(1974) found from their model study that the load that most of the bulging, shearing and lateral deflec-
carrying capacity of the column increases up to tion occurred within a ‘conical’ region directly
L/D = 4.1, beyond which there is no increase in beneath the foundation. The depth of this failure
column capacity. Mitra and Cahttopadhyay (1999) wedge increased as the area replacement ratio
suggested a minimum L/D ratio of 4.5, which is increased. In stone column groups, the central column
required to develop the full limiting axial stress on the deforms or bulges uniformly, whereas the edge
stone column. McKelvey et al. (2004), Black et al. column bulges away from the neighboring columns
(2007a) reported from their experimental study that (McKelvey et al. 2004). From the observations of
L/D ratio of minimum 6 is required to develop the full columns subjected to loading from circular and strip
limiting axial stress on the column. Samadhiya et al. footings, Sivakumar et al. (2007), found that punching
(2008) found from their model study that the critical is more prevalent in short columns whilst bending
length to be 4–5 D i.e. beyond this length of stone failure is predominant in perimeter columns located
column, no significant increase in its capacity has been beyond the centre of the footing and bulging was more
observed. Najjar et al. (2010), from their experimental generally common in long columns.
investigation, support the hypothesis of a critical Different techniques were used by various
column length corresponding to about six column researches for examining the deformation and failure
diameters. mode of stone column treated ground. X-ray technique
Columns longer than critical length did not show has been used successfully to monitor the deformation
further increase in load-carrying capacity, however, of an isolated granular column and surrounding clay
longer columns may be needed to control the settle- (Hughes and Withers 1974). Rao and Reddy (1996)
ments. Accordingly, rational decisions can be taken to studied the deformation pattern of stone column by
tailor design of stone column installations to achieve scooping out soil slowly around the stone column after
maximum performance at optimum cost. the load test was completed. Wood et al. (2000),
123
Fig. 6 Failure mechanisms

of a single Stone column in a
homogeneous soft layer
(Barksdale and Bachus
1983)
Ambily and Gandhi (2007) investigated the failure the stone column bulges outward against the soil.
mechanism by exhuming the column material and Since the column is assumed to be in a state of failure,
forming plaster-casts of the vacated holes at the end of the ultimate vertical stress, r1 which the column can
the test. This allowed the failure pattern of the columns take is equal to the coefficient of passive pressure of
to be examined when the loading cycle had termi- the stone column, kp times the lateral confining stress.
nated. McKelvey et al. (2004), Sivakumar et al. (2007) Greenwood (1970) was one of the first who came up
used a transparent medium that exhibited clay like with mechanisms and explained the load transfer
properties which allowed constant observation of phenomenon in stone columns. He proposed the Bell’s
column deformations with a foundation load in real formula to obtain the passive resistance which is given
time. Shivashankar et al. (2010, 2011), Nayak et al. by
(2011), Deb et al. (2011) studied the deformed shape pffiffiffiffiffi
by pouring the concentrated cement slurry into the rr ¼ czkp þ 2cu kp ð3Þ
stone column after the test is over and allowed to set where c = unit weight of soil z = average bulge
for an about 10 h and the deformed shape was depth cu = undrained strength of soil kp = passive
obtained by scooping the surrounding soil carefully. 1þSin/s
pressure coefficient of soil = 1 Sin/ where
s
4.3 Ultimate Load Analysis /s = angle of internal friction of soil.Axial stress in

the column, when it approaches shear failure due to
Since most constructed stone columns have length to bulging rv is given by,
diameter ratios equal to or greater than 4–6, a bulging 1 þ Sin/c
failure usually develops whether the tip of the column rv ¼ rr kp;col ¼ rr ð4Þ
1 Sin/c
is floating in soft soil or resting on a firm bearing
layer (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). A number of where /c = angle of internal friction of column
approaches have been presented by the researchers for material. The approach assumes a plane strain loading
predicting the ultimate capacity of an isolated single condition and hence does not realistically consider the
stone column surrounded by a soft soil, which are three-dimensional geometry of a single column.
reviewed in this section. Hughes and Withers (1974) indicated that ultimate
The lateral confining stress r3 which supports the capacity of stone column was governed primarily by
stone column is usually taken as the ultimate passive the maximum radial reaction of the soil against the
resistance which the surrounding soil can mobilize as bulging and the extent of vertical movement in the
123
stone column was limited to about 4 times the cc B

qult ¼ Nc þ cNc þ Df cc Nq ð8Þ
diameter. They found that cylindrical cavity expansion 2
theory represented the measured column behavior Where Nc, Nc, and Nq are bearing capacity factors.
very well, and proposed that the ultimate vertical The above study is limited to strip footings in
stress (qu) in a stone column could be predicted by: cohesive soils only. Thus the utility is limited, though
1 þ Sin/c 0 the benefit of using the granular trench is clearly
qu ¼ rro þ 4cu ð5Þ demonstrated.
1 Sin/c
The load bearing capacity of a single granular
where /c is the friction angle of the column material, column is a complex problem involving interaction of
0
rro is the free-field lateral effective stress and cu is the the granular pile material constituting the pile and the
undrained strength of soil. Hughes et al. (1975) further soil surrounding the column. As such, no exact
substantiated above predictions by estimating settle- mathematical solution is available to estimate the
ments. This equation is widely used in practice today, ultimate bearing capacity. Thornburn (1975) proposed
to predict the load carrying capacity of stone columns an empirical relationship based on laboratory model
in cohesive soils. tests between allowable load on a granular column and
Datye (1982) used the analogy of expansion of the undrained shear strength, cu of the cohesive soil
cylindrical cavity (Vesic 1972) to estimate the mass surrounding the column. These empirical meth-
ultimate capacity of single granular column. Vesic ods as well as the charts proposed by Greenwood
(1972) has developed a general cylindrical cavity (1970) are still in use, at least for preliminary design
expansion solution for soils with both friction and purpose.
cohesion. The ultimate lateral resistance r3 developed Many researchers have proposed analytical and
by the surrounding soil can be expressed as numerical approaches for estimating bearing capacity
0 0 and settlement of reinforced foundations by stone
r3 ¼ cFc þ qFq ð6Þ columns. Five main approaches used by the researches
where: c = cohesion of the surrounding soil; in modeling the composite ground treated with stone
q = mean (isotropic) stress at the equivalent failure columns are: (1) Unit cell approach, in which only one
0 0
depth; Fc, Fq = cavity expansion factors, which are a column and its surrounding soil, is modeled in axial
function of the angle of internal friction of the symmetry (Priebe 1976; Aboshi et al. 1979; Balaam
surrounding soil and the Rigidity Index, and Booker 1981; VanImpe and Madhav 1992; Shahu
E et al. 2000; Ambily and Ganghi 2007). (2) Plane strain
Ir ¼ f2ðlþmÞðcþq tan / Þg
c method, where the cylindrical columns are converted
Ultimate stress that can be applied to the stone to gravel trenches (VanImpe and DeBeer 1983). It is
column becomes: commonly used under long loads, such as embank-
1 þ Sin/s ments. (3) Axial symmetry technique, in which the
qult ¼ r3 ð7Þ cylindrical columns are converted to gravel rings
1 Sin/s
when columns are used under circular loads, such as
where: /c = angle of internal friction of column tanks (Mitchell and Huber 1985; Elshazly et al.
material, /s = angle of internal friction of soil 2008a). (4) Homogenization technique, in which the
Both the short and long-term ultimate capacity of a soil and columns are modeled as a homogeneous soil
stone column can be estimated using cavity expansion with improved properties (Schweiger 1986; Lee and
theory. Also, the increase in strength of the soft soil Pande 1998; Wang et al. 2002; Jellali et al. 2005;
should be considered due to preloading and/or Abdelkrim and Buhan 2007) and (5) Full 3D model,
consolidation which occurs during construction. where complex numerical models are used to model
Madhav and Vitkar (1978) considered a general the system in 3D (Weber et al. 2008).
shear failure type mechanism for the analysis of soft First suggestions were based on elastic approach
soil reinforced by a gravel trench or pile and obtained a (Aboshi et al. 1979; Balaam and Booker 1981). It was
solution for estimating the ultimate capacity, which is shown that elastic methods overestimate the effects of
given by stone columns on settlement reduction (Balaam and
123
Booker 1985). Therefore elasto-plastic analytical medium with ‘clay-like’ properties to allow visual
methods were introduced, where the problem was monitoring of the columns throughout foundation
idealized by assuming that the stone column is in a loading. They found that in the case of ‘short’ columns
triaxial stress state and perhaps yielding, that there is (i.e. L/D = 6), bulging took place over the entire
no shear stress at the stone-soil interface and that there length of the columns and they punched into the clay
is no yielding in the soil. These common assumptions beneath their bases. The ‘long’ column (L/D = 10)
have been implemented in a number of methods where deformed significantly in the upper region whereas the
stone column is considered to be in a state of plastic bottom portion remained undeformed. This suggests
equilibrium and under a triaxial stress state (Priebe that there was little or no load transfer to the base in
1976; VanImpe and DeBeer 1983; Balaam and Booker longer columns, with failure arising from bulging or
1985; VanImpe and Madhav 1992; Pulko and Majes shear. Black et al. (2006) developed a more sophis-
2005, 2006). ticated triaxial apparatus in which the boundary
During the past three decades, many research works conditions imposed on a clay bed (reinforced with
have been reported in literature based on laboratory stone columns) can be regulated. Black et al. (2007b)
model tests and large scale field load tests, to conducted tests on isolated stone column and on a
investigate the behavior of stone column treated group of three columns with same area replacement
grounds. Bergado et al. (1984) conducted full scale ratio with different lengths under drained triaxial
load tests and indicated that the granular piles conditions. They concluded that grouping of columns
increased the bearing capacity more than 3–4 times can lead to a possible reduction in the stiffness when
that of untreated ground. Further, the adjacent piles compared with a single column at similar area
acted independently when the pile spacing is 3 times replacement ratio.
the pile diameter or greater. An investigation of the Ambily and Gandhi (2007) carried out experimen-
behavior of granular piles with different densities and tal and finite-element analyses based on unit cell
different proportions of gravel and sand on soft concept to study the behavior of stone columns. As
Bangkok clay was carried out by Bergado and Lam spacing increases, axial capacity of the column
(1987). They reported higher ultimate pile capacity for decreases and settlement increases up to an s/d of 3,
pure gravel and it increases with the density and beyond which the change is negligible. Stiffness
friction angle of the granular materials. Rao and improvement factor is found to be independent of
Reddy (1996) investigated the contribution of end shear strength of surrounding clay and depends mainly
bearing for different values of L/D and reported that on column spacing and angle of internal friction of the
the end bearing is only 13 % of the applied load for stones. Najjar et al. (2010) investigated the improve-
L/D value of 2.5 and its value is negligible when L/D ment in the mechanical properties of soft clays
values exceeding 10. Li et al. (2000) investigated the reinforced with sand columns. Sand columns
interactions between gravel column inclusions and improved the undrained strength significantly even
surrounding soil in composite ground through triaxial for low area replacement ratios accompanied by a
model tests and concluded that the modules and decrease in pore pressure generation during shear and
strength of gravel strongly depend on the confining an increase in Young’s modulus. The drained shear
pressure. In addition, dilatency of gravel brings lateral strength parameters were found to be relatively
interaction between column and surrounding soil. unaffected by the sand column reinforcement, except
Bae et al. (2002) studied the failure mechanism and for fully penetrating columns with high area replace-
various parameters influencing the behavior of end- ment ratios. Shahu and Reddy (2011) conducted fully-
bearing stone column groups by conducting loading drained, load-controlled laboratory model tests and
tests and unit cell consolidation tests and the results of FEM analysis on floating stone column group foun-
model tests are verified through FEM analysis. They dations placed in slurry deposited clayey soil beds
found that the bearing capacity of stone column is with known effective stress states. The major founda-
affected by undrained strength of surrounding ground tion parameters affecting the group response were
and area replacement ratio (or pile spacing) of identified as area ratio, normalized column length,
composite ground, installation of mat and diameter Young’s modulus of column, over consolidation ratio,
of column. McKelvey et al. (2004) used a transparent initial geostatic stresses and clayey soil parameters.
123
From the experimental investigation of stone columns installation lateral earth pressure ratio, K*, may vary
in layered soils, Shivashankar et al. (2011) found that from 1.1 to 2.5, with the best estimate being around
the presence top soft layer has a significant influence 1.5. Neglecting these radial stress changes in the
on the stiffness, load bearing capacity and bulging settlement prediction analysis will overestimate the
behaviour of stone columns. Stiffness and load real corresponding field settlements and under esti-
carrying capacity of stone column treated layered mate the real ultimate capacity of the stone columns.
ground decreases with the increase in the top weak Guetif et al. (2007) from their numerical study
layer thickness. Entire bulging was noticed mostly in demonstrated a significant improvement of Young’s
the top weak layer zone. modulus due to the consolidation caused by the
Many of the researchers have attempted to identify installation of vibro compacted column. In the drained
and evaluate the main characteristics of stone column condition, the effective mean stress increases to about
treated soil, yet the proposal by Hughes and Withers four times to that of soft clay. Kirsch (2008) studied
(1974) is widely considered a realistic, theoretical the individual and the global installation effects for
basis for vibro-column technique as seen today. loading a group of 25 stone columns on the soil
properties. Both effects were modeled numerically by
4.4 Effect of Stone Column Installation using cavity expansion. Both effects cause an increase
in the stress state and an improvement in the
The insertion of stone columns into weak soil by vibro surrounding soil. Elshazly et al. (2008b) obtained the
installation technique is not just a replacement oper- relation between the inter column spacing and the
ation. This is due to the fact that such installation corresponding alteration of soil state of stress due to
technique is accompanied by vibrations and horizontal the vibro installation technique. The alteration, repre-
displacement of the soil. Consequently, it is believed sented by the increase in the post installation horizon-
to cause positive changes in both the material prop- tal to vertical soil stress, K* found to decrease in its
erties and the state of stresses in the treated soil mass. magnitude as the inter column spacing increases.
These variations should be considered for the optimal (Casrto and Karstunen 2010) investigated numerically
design of stone columns. Experimental work per- the installation effects of stone columns in natural soft
formed by Watts et al. (2000) verifies that the clay. The installation increased the horizontal stresses
installation of vibrocompacted stone columns leads and after the excess pore pressure dissipation the
to an improvement of the in situ soft soil character- lateral earth pressure coefficient was found to be 1.4
istics and consequently enhances the load displace- times the initial value at rest.
ment response of the reinforced soil. The improved
undrained shear strengths at the vicinity of the 4.5 Settlement of the Composite Ground
columns at various depths of the surrounding soft soil
were reported by Al-Khafaji and Craig (2000). Kirsch Most of the approaches in estimating settlement of the
and Sondermann (2001) reported that the type of vibro composite ground assumed an infinitely wide, loaded
process has a great effect on both the state of stresses area reinforced with stone columns having a constant
and densification of soil surrounding column. Alamgir diameter and spacing. For this condition of loading
and Zaheer (2001) were found that the standard and geometry the extended unit cell concept is
penetration resistance of the soft ground has been theoretically valid. Pribe (1976) proposed the reduced
increased significantly after a stone column installa- stress method for the estimation of reduction in
tion. N values ranges from 2 to 7 for natural ground but settlement due to ground improved with stone col-
it increases from 5 to 12 in the reinforced ground. umns. Balaam et al. (1977) used finite element method
From the finite element analysis, Elshazly et al. to study elastic deformations of flexible loaded areas
(2006) revealed that the vibro-installation of stone on stone columns both partially and totally penetrating
columns significantly alters the soil state of stress. the elastic half space using unit cell concept. Aboshi
Post-installation soil parameters and load–settlement et al. (1979) proposed the equilibrium method which is
records taken from a full-scale field load test were based on the concept that the vertical stress concen-
utilized to back-calculate the ratio of horizontal to tration on the stone column gives the reduced average
vertical soil stress, K*. A practical range for the post- stress on the soft soil. Barksdale and Bachus (1983)
123
introduced the concept of equivalent parameters for externally applied loading = lcr, r = average exter-
composite ground. Balaam and Booker (1985), nally applied stress.
Schweiger and Pande (1986)used predictive methods This equation shows that the level of improvement
taking the elastic as well as the yield (i.e. plastic) is dependent upon the stress concentration factor n (as
properties of both reinforced soil constituents into reflected in lc), initial effective stress in the clay, and
account, in the settlement analysis. Juran and Guer- the magnitude of applied stress. The above equation
mazi (1988) conducted triaxial compression tests indicates, if other factors are constant, a greater
under different boundary conditions on composite reduction in settlement is achieved for longer columns
soil specimens with sand column and found that the (the average ro, increases with stone column length)
group effect, the replacement factor, and the consol- and for smaller applied stress increments.
idation of the soft soil have a significant effect on the For very large ro (long length of stone column) and
settlement reduction of the foundation soil. Ranjan very small applied stresses r, the settlement ratio
(1989) used the analogy of expansion of cylindrical relatively approaches
cavity (Vesic 1972) and the concept of equivalent St 1
coefficient of volume compressibility in homoge- ¼ ¼ ls ð10Þ
S ½1 þ ðn 1Þas
neous, isotropic and infinite soil mass to estimate the
ultimate bearing capacity and settlement of ground where n is the stress concentration factor and as is the
treated with granular piles. VanImpe and Madhav area replacement ratio.
(1992) derived expressions to predict the effect of Because of its simplicity, versatility and reasonably
dilatency of the granular pile material on the settle- good assumptions made in its derivation, the equilib-
ment behavior of the stone column reinforced ground. rium method offers a practical approach for estimating
The densified stone column material is considered to settlement reduction due to ground improvement with
be at the yield condition and hence dilating. Alamgir stone columns.
et al. (1996) proposed an elastic approach to predict Priebe (1976) proposed a method to estimate the
the load sharing and resulting settlement of ground settlement of foundation resting on the infinite grid of
improved by stone columns assuming free strain stone columns based on unit cell concept. In this
condition. Poorooshasb and Meyerhof (1997) pro- concept, the soil around a stone column for area
posed the performance ratio, which is defined as the represented by a single column, depending on column
ratio of the settlement of the improved ground to spacing, is considered for the analysis. As all the
unimproved ground under identical surcharges. They columns are simultaneously loaded, it is assumed that
considered linear elastic behavior for stone column. lateral deformations in soil at the boundary of unit cell
Abdelkrim and Buhan (2007) presented a homogeni- are zero. The settlement improvement factor is derived
zation technique applied to column-reinforced soils, as a function of area ratio (total area of stone columns
developed in the context of elastoplasticity, and to original area of unreinforced soil), the soil’s
similar to the intuitive procedures proposed by Canetta poisson’s ratio and angle of internal friction of column
and Nova (1989) or Lee and Pande (1998). material. The calculation of the improvement factor
The equilibrium method described by Aboshi et al. was done by considering that the stone column
(1979) offers a very simple yet realistic engineering material is incompressible and column is based on a
approach for estimating the reduction in settlement of rigid layer (end-bearing). Priebe (1995) considered the
ground improved with stone columns based on the effect of compressibility of the column material and
extended unit cell idealization. Settlement reduction the overburden. He developed design charts to calcu-
ratio R, which is the ratio of settlement with treatment late the settlement of single and strip footing rein-
to the settlement with out treatment, is given by forced by a limited number of stone columns. Priebe’s
‘basic improvement factor’ may be derived from the
St log10 ½ðr0 þ lc rÞ=r0 Þ
¼ ð9Þ chart shown in Fig. 7. Priebe’s formulation assumes
S log10 ½ðr0 þ rÞ=r0 Þ
that columns are terminated at a rigid layer, and hence
where: ro = average initial effective stress in the clay the method not suitable for predicting the behavior of
layer, rc = change in stress in the clay layer due to the floating columns.
123
foundations, as simulated by the unit cell idealization,

to their corresponding settlements of foundations with
limited sizes. Barksdale and Bachus (1983) suggested
an approximate method that uses Boussinesque stress
distribution theory to approximately consider the
reduction in settlement due to the spreading of stress
under foundations with limited extent. This strategy,
however, does not account for soil nonlinearity and
plasticity. Priebe (1991) presented design charts to
estimate the settlement of a rigid foundation on a
limited number of stone columns as a function of the
settlement of large extended raft, supported by an
infinite grid of columns. Elshazly et al. (2008b)
Fig. 7 Priebe’s basic improvement factor (Priebe 1995) revealed that the unit cell analysis may, in some
cases, lead to erroneous estimation for the settlements
The finite element method offers the most theoret- of foundations with limited extents. Correction fac-
ically sound approach for modeling stone column tors, dependent on the treated soil properties as well as
improved ground. Nonlinear material properties, inter- the foundation size, are suggested.
face slip and suitable boundary conditions can all be
realistically modeled using the finite element technique. 4.7 Rate of Primary Consolidation Settlement
Although three-dimensional modeling can be used,
from a practical standpoint either an axisymmetric or Field observations showed that stone columns could
plane strain model is generally employed. Most studies also accelerate the rate of consolidation of soft clays
have utilized the axisymmetric unit cell model to (Baumann and Bauer 1974; Goughnour and Bayuk
analyze the conditions of either a uniform load on a large 1979; Han and Ye 1992). This is due to the following
group of stone columns or a single stone column. two mechanisms. First, the high column permeability
Balaam et al. (1977) used finite element method to study causes radial drainage resulting in faster dissipation of
elastic deformations of flexible loaded areas on stone excess pore water pressure and second, the high
columns both partially and totally penetrating the elastic column stiffness reduces foundation load or vertical
half space using unit cell concept. Undrained settle- stress on the soil body and so reduces the generation of
ments were found to be small and neglected. Only about excess pore water pressure. In most cases the consol-
6 percent difference in settlement was found between idation of the stabilized layer is completed by the end
elastic and elastic–plastic response. The amount of stone of the construction period (Baumann and Bauer 1974).
column penetration into the soft layer and the diameter Goughnour and Bayuk (1979) suggested that con-
of the column were found to have a significant effect on ventional sand-drain theory is suitable for time-
settlement; the modular ratio of stone column to soil was settlement computations. In a cohesive soil reinforced
of less importance. Balaam (1978) revised the analysis with stone columns, water moves toward the stone
for smooth rigid rafts, pointing out the stiffening effect column in a curved path having both vertical and
of raft on columns and resulting increased efficiency of radial components of flow. Considering the vertical
columns. The finite element solutions are generally and radial consolidation effects separately, the average
claimed to provide good agreement with observations degree of primary consolidation (U) of the layer can be
on actual sites and therefore provide a rational basis for expressed as:
settlement prediction. However, their utility depends
U ¼ 1 ð1 Uz Þð1 Ur Þ ð12Þ
upon the accuracy of input parameters.
where Uz = the degree of consolidation considering
4.6 Settlements of Foundations of Limited Extent only vertical flow, Ur = the degree of consolidation
considering only radial flow
In the available literature, however, only few attempts The degree of consolidation in the vertical direction
were made to relate settlements of infinitely wide is calculated by Terzaghi’s one dimensional theory,
123
while that in the radial direction is calculated by columns under various forms of time-dependent
Barron’s theory. The Terzaghi 1D consolidation loading considering smear and well resistance.
solution and the Barron solution for drain wells in Based on the centrifuge tests, Weber et al. (2010)
fine-grained soil underestimate the rate of consolida- investigated the smear and disturbance zones owing to
tion of stone column reinforced foundations due to the the stone column installation. The region influenced
fact that stone columns have a larger drained elastic can be divided into three sections: a penetration zone
modulus than the surrounding soft clay and have a where the sand particles squeezed through the clay; a
smaller diameter ratio (influence diameter/column smear zone where the soil particles have experienced a
diameter) than drain wells (Han and Ye 2001). Also, significant reorientation; and a densification zone
the contribution of vertical stress reduction to the where the structure of the clay does not appear to
dissipation of excess pore water pressure does not change, but compaction of clay is measurable. The
exist in the foundation with drain wells due to which extremes of the disturbed zone around model stone
stone columns are more effective than drain wells in columns are estimated to extend to about 2.5 times the
accelerating the rate of consolidation of soft clays. column radius. Lu et al. (2011) obtained a closed-form
Bergado et al. (1990) found from field studies that the solution to the consolidation of composite foundation
improved performance of stone columns compared to by considering the stress increment due to external
prefabricated vertical drainage. loads changing simultaneously with time and depth,
Juran and Guermazi (1988) based on their exper- and three possible variation patterns of soil’s horizon-
imental study revealed that the rate of generation and tal permeability coefficient (constant, linear and
dissipation of the excess pore water pressure depends parabolic distribution pattern) were considered to
primarily upon the replacement factor and the ratio of account for the detrimental influence of column
the loading rate to the soil permeability. The consol- installation. Cimentada et al. (2011) studied the
idation and partial drainage of the soil during loading consolidation and vertical deformation of samples on
have an important effect on the load transfer mech- soft clay reinforced with stone column. Pore pressure
anism and should be considered in the analysis/design readings shows that the coefficient of consolidation is
procedure. Han and Ye (2001) developed a simplified 2.10–3.7 times the value of the kaolin coefficient. This
and closed form solution for estimating the rate of coefficient is higher when the replacement area is
consolidation of the stone column reinforced founda- increased. Vertical compressibility is reduced due to
tions accounting for the stone column soil modular the column stiffness. Values of vertical strain calcu-
ratio or stress concentration ratio and found that the lated using Priebe’s (1976) method is more similar to
rate of consolidation can be accelerated by increasing the test results than the values obtained with the elastic
the modular ratio and reducing the diameter ratio. Han solution. Application of the elastic solution overesti-
and Ye (2002) developed a theoretical solution for mates the effect of the improvement.
computing the consolidation rates of stone column
reinforced foundations accounting for smear and well 4.8 Granular Blanket
resistance effects. Tan et al. (2008) proposed two
simplified methods of converting the axisymmetric Irrespective of the method used to construct the stone
unit cell into the equivalent plane-strain model columns, a granular layer of sand or gravel, 0.3 m or
required for two-dimensional numerical modeling of more in thickness, is usually provided on the top of the
multicolumn field applications for the analysis of rate stone column system which acts as drainage layer and
of consolidation. Xie et al. (2009) developed a general also to distribute stresses coming from the superstruc-
solution for computing the consolidation rate of a ture (Mitchell 1981).
composite foundation reinforced with stone columns Shahu et al. (2000) brought out the effects of a
by taking into account variation in the horizontal granular mat over the improved ground on its overall
permeability coefficient of disturbed soil, changes in response within the framework of equal strain theory
the total average stress in a composite foundation with and unit cell concept. The provision of granular bed on
depth and construction time effects. Wang (2009) top of stone column reinforced ground leads to a
presents a closed-form analytical solution of consol- desirable reduction in stress concentration near the top
idation of soft clay foundations reinforced by stone of the column. For lower values of area replacement
123
ratio (B0.25), provision of adequate thickness of embankments. It has been observed that stone columns
granular mat is highly beneficial in improving the contribute significant increase in factor of safety for
performance of reinforced ground. Ambily and Gan- soft clays (cu = 10 kPa). For medium to stiff clays
dhi (2006) found from their experimental study that, in (cu = 30–50 kPa), the stone columns do not contrib-
case of rigid loading, stress concentration ratio ute to an appreciable increase of the safety factor.
decreases with increase in tsand/d up to a value of The method of stability analysis of an embankment
0.75, beyond which the effect is negligible and as in stabilized using stone columns is performed exactly in
case of flexible loading, stress concentration ratio the same manner as for a normal slope stability
increases with increases in tsand/d up to a value of 1.0, problem except stress concentration must be consid-
beyond which the effect is negligible. Deb (2008) ered. Sabhahit et al. (1997) presented an analytical
developed a mechanical model for predicting the procedure to estimate the minimum factor of safety for
behaviour of stone column-improved soft ground with an embankment constructed over a soft foundation soil
granular bed placed over the stone columns. It has reinforced with granular columns. A non circular slip
been observed that the presence of granular bed on top surface was considered for the analysis. For higher
of stone column-reinforced ground reduces the stress area ratios the factor of safety is independent of the
concentration near top of the columns. The granular thickness of the clay layer. For a given embankment
bed also helps to reduce the maximum as well as geometry and soil, and foundation soil properties,
differential settlement and increase the load-carrying there exists a minimum length for granular columns
capacity of the stone column-improved soft soil. beyond which the factor of safety is unaffected by the
The granular bed can be further reinforced with granular column length. Kirsch and Sondermann
geogrid to enhance the load-carrying capacity and (2003) analyzed the deformations and the stability of
reduce the settlement of the stone column-improved embankments on stone column improved ground
soft clay. Based on lumped parameter modelling using numerical and analytical methods. Ghazavi
approach, models have been developed for single layer and Shahmandi (2008) investigated the static stability
(Deb and Basudhar 2007) and multilayer (Deb et al. of slopes reinforced with multi-rows of stone columns
2008) geosynthetic-reinforced granular bed resting on and developed a closed-form solution based on limit
stone column-improved soft soil. Deb et al. (2011) equilibrium method. The results have shown that the
performed laboratory model tests on unreinforced and safety factor of slope-reinforced with stone columns
geogrid-reinforced sand bed resting on stone column- generally increases. Moreover, it has been found that
improved soft clay. It has been observed that the to achieve the greatest safety factor for slopes, the best
presence of sand bed reduces the bulging of stone location of the column is at the top of the slope and
columns and the reduction is more significant with the around it. With increasing equivalent width of stone
inclusion of geogrid layer in the sand bed. columns and friction angle of column materials, safety
factor values increase remarkably.
4.9 Stone Columns in Embankment Construction Borges et al. (2009) based on numerical analysis, a
new design method for embankments on soft soil
Construction of embankments on soft soil is very reinforced with stone columns was proposed, relating
challenging task for geotechnical engineers due to the settlement improvement factor to the replacement
possible bearing failure, excessive settlement and area ratio and the deformability ratio. Increasing the
local and global instability. Use of stone columns replacement area ratio or the stiffness of the column
below the embankments reduces the excessive settle- material significantly reduces settlements and hori-
ment, improves the stability and increases the bearing zontal displacements, increases the improvement
capacity of soft foundation soil with additional factor and accelerates the consolidation. A two-
advantage of providing a drainage path (Deb 2008). dimensional (2D) parametric study based on coupled
Bergado et al. (1990) found from field studies that hydraulic and mechanical modeling was conducted by
the installation of granular piles increased the factor of Huang and Han (2010), to study the time-dependent
safety of slopes by approximately 25 %. Christoulas behavior of Geosynthetic-reinforced column-sup-
et al. (1997) studied analytically the reinforcing effect ported (GRCS) embankments under various condi-
of stone columns on the stability of road tions. The elastic modulus of the soft soil and the
123
spacing of columns are the two most important design The concept of encasing the stone column by
parameters for the performance (except the consoli- wrapping with geotextile was proposed by Van Impe
dation) of the GRCS embankment. Abusharar and Han in the year 1985 (Van Impe 1989). Katti et al. (1993)
(2011) estimated the factor of safety against deep- proposed a theory for improvement of soft ground
seated failure of embankment over stone column using stone columns with geosynthetic encasing based
improved soft clay based on individual column and on the particulate concept. Later Bauer and Al-Joulani
equivalent area models, using finite difference (1994) have investigated the performance of sleeve
method. Based on the numerical results, a reduction reinforced stone columns through laboratory uniaxial
factor of 0.9 was proposed to convert the calculated and triaxial compression tests. Raithel and Kempfert
factor of safety by the equivalent area model to that by (2000) developed an analytical, axisymmetric model
individual column model. based on unit cell concept for designing a geotextile
encased column foundation. Ayadat and Hanna (2005)
4.10 Encased Stone Columns have reported the benefits of encasing the stone
column installed in collapsible soils. Murugesan and
It is well established that the stone columns derive Rajagopal (2006) have evaluated the behavior of
their load capacity from the lateral confining pressure ordinary stone columns (OSCs) without encasement
from the surrounding soils (Greenwood 1970; Hughes and geosynthetic encased stone columns (ESCs)
et al. 1975; Barksdale and Bachus 1983). When the through numerical analyses. They reported that the
stone columns are installed in very soft clays, they ESCs are stiffer than the OSCs and were found to be
may not derive significant load carrying capacity less dependent on the strength of surrounding clay soil
owing to low lateral confinement. The undrained shear for their load capacity. It was reported that the depth of
strength of the surrounding soil is generally used as the encasement equal to two times the diameter of stone
criterion to decide the feasibility of the treatment, with column is adequate to substantially increase its load
lower bound in the range 5–15 kPa (Wehr 2006). carrying capacity. Murugesan and Rajagopal (2007)
McKenna et al. (1975) reported cases where the stone have performed laboratory model tests on the stone
column was not restrained by the surrounding soft column installed in a unit cell tank. It was reported that
clay, which led to excessive bulging, and also the soft the modulus of the encasement plays major role in
clay squeezed into the voids of the aggregates. strength of the encased column. The performance of
In such situations, the stone column itself may need to encased stone columns of smaller diameters was found
be provided with additional confinement for its to be superior to that of larger diameter stone columns
improved performance. In recent years, geotextile because of mobilization of higher confining stresses.
encasement has been successfully used to extend the The improvement in the load capacity was quantified
use of stone columns to extremely soft soils. This based on the modulus of the geosynthetic and the
encasement imparts additional confinement to the stone diameter. It was also shown that the geosynthetic
column and brings in several advantages like increased ESCs were found to act as semirigid piles not
stiffness of column, preventing the loss of stones into the undergoing any catastrophic failures. Black et al.
surrounding soft clay, preserving the drainage and (2007a) examined the performance of small-scale
frictional properties of the stone aggregates, etc., as stone columns that were enhanced by jacketing with
described by Raithel et al. (2002); Alexiew et al. (2005); tubular wire mesh and found that the load-carrying
Brokemper et al. (2006); Murugesan and Rajagopal capacity and the settlement performance of stone
(2006, 2007); Kempfert and Gebreselassie (2006), and columns in peat can be improved by this method.
di Prisco et al. (2006). Lately, other geosynthetics, such Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2007) have compared the
as geogrids, are also used for column encasement performance of stone columns with and without
(Sharma et al. 2004; Lee et al. 2007; Gniel and Bouazza geosynthetic encasement and found the ESCs to be
2009) because of their high tensile stiffness. The more effective. Murugesan and Rajagopal (2009) have
encased stone columns are installed in the field by using reported the results from laboratory model tests on the
methods similar to those employed for installation of lateral load capacity of stone columns against shear
precast driven piles and bored cast in situ piles movements and brought out the qualitative improve-
(Kempfert and Gebreselassie 2006). ments in their shear load capacity.
123
Gneil and Bouazza (2009) investigated the behav- it will not allow the column to dilate and accordingly
ior of geogrid encased columns by conducting a series to increase the in situ stresses (Ayadat and Hanna
of small-scale model tests and indicated a steady 2008). This technique can be limited by the relatively
reduction in vertical strain with increasing encased large settlements that occur as a result of minimal
length for both isolated columns and group columns. compaction (to avoid damage to geotextile encase-
Bulging of the column was observed to occur directly ment material) received during installation and geo-
beneath the base of the encasement. Murugesan and textile strain during loading (Gniel and Bouazza
Rajagopal (2010) found from their model tests con- 2009). On the other hand, when the stone columns
ducted in large scale testing tanks on single as well as are reinforced internally by stabilization of column
group of stone columns with and without encasement, material using concrete plugs, chemical grouting or by
that the encased columns have much higher stress adding internal inclusions (geogrids, plastic fibers
concentration compared to that of ordinary columns etc.), will stiffen the column and increase the lateral
and it increases with increase in the modulus of the stresses in the surrounding soil, and accordingly its
encasement, which shows that encased columns act bearing capacity.
like semi rigid piles. Yoo (2010) numerically inves- Al-Refeai (1992) examined the behavior of soft soil
tigated the improved performance of geosynthetic- strengthening with fibre reinforced sand columns.
encased stone columns installed in soft ground for These tests showed that the column replacement ratio
embankment construction. Gneil and Bouazza (2010) and depth of the fibre reinforced sand layer inside
proposed an alternative method of encasement con- column have a significant effect on load carrying
struction, by overlapping the geogrid encasement by a capacity and settlement response of the reinforced soft
nominal amount and relying on interlock between the soil. Triaxial compression tests were conducted by
stone aggregate and section of overlap to provide a Ranjan et al. (1999) on soft clay samples with central
level of fixity similar to welding. Biaxial geogrids are sand fibre core and it was observed that sand fibre core
best suited to the technique, with increased encase- was more effective in increasing the strength of soft
ment stiffness resulting in increased column capacity clay as compared to granular material alone. Sam-
and column stiffness. Castro and Sagaseta (2010) adhiya et al. (2008) studied the performance of
presented an analytical closed form solution to study granular column reinforced with fibers and found that
the settlement reduction and the acceleration of the load carrying capacity increases with the increase
consolidation caused by encased stone columns. They in fibre content up to 1 % and showed declining trend
found that the column encasement has negligible at 2 % fibre content.
effect for an elastic column and starts to be useful only Sharma et al. (2004) investigated the performance
after column yielding. The effectiveness of the of granular pile in soft clay by placing horizontal
encasement is directly related to its stiffness and layers geogrids reinforcement in the upper region of
hence, encasing stone columns is recommended in soft the column. The study revealed that the load carrying
soils using stiff encasements and under moderate loads capacity increases and the bulge diameter & bulge
because for high applied loads, the encasement length decreased when the granular pile was rein-
reaches its tensile strength and does not provide any forced with geogrids. The improvement increases with
further improvement. The settlement reduction pro- the increase in the number of geogrids and decreasing
vided by the encasement does not depend on the area the spacing of the geogrids. Ayadat and Hanna (2008)
replacement ratio. investigated experimentally and analytically the per-
formance of gravel columns reinforced internally with
4.11 Internally Reinforced Stone Columns horizontal wire meshes made of plastic, steel and
aluminium materials. Test results showed that the
In order to enhance the performance of stone columns performance of gravel columns significantly enhanced
when treating weak deposits it is imperative that the by increasing the number of meshes. This increase is
tendency of the column to bulge should be restricted relatively lower for steel and much lower for plastic
effectively. Although the external reinforcement in the meshes compared to aluminium meshes. Wu and
form of encapsulating the column with a geofabric, Hong (2008) investigated analytically and experimen-
will prevent the column failing by bulging or by shear, tally the response of granular columns reinforced with
123
horizontally laminated geotextile sheets in the top authors, by reinforcing the top portion of the stone
layers. Analytical results reveal that the interactive columns with porous concrete. The principle advan-
mechanism at the soil–inclusion interface and the tage of this method, apart from ease in construction
mechanical behavior of the inclusion significantly and economy, is imparting rigidity in the top portion of
affect the axial stress–strain response of the reinforced the stone columns, thus preventing bulging collapse
stone column. Shivashankar et al. (2010) investigated and retaining the drainage characteristics of the stone
the performance of stone columns reinforced with column.
vertical circumferential nails installed in soft soils. It
was found that reinforcing stone column with vertical
circumferential nails at the top portion to a depth equal
5 Conclusions
to three times the diameter of stone columns, will be
adequate to prevent the column from excessive
Stone columns have a definite role in the area of
bulging and to improve its load carrying capacity
ground improvement. Stone columns are best suited
substantially. The improvement increases with the
for sites consisting of very soft and soft compressible
increase in number of nails. Bulge diameter and bulge
silts and clays, and also for loose silty sands. Stone
length are decreased substantially for a stone column
column design to a large extent is still empirical and
reinforced with vertical circumferential nails.
past experience and practice plays an important role in
the design. Specific conclusions based on the critical
4.12 Rigid Stone Columns
review of the available literature on stone columns are
as follows:
In very soft soils with organic layers which do not
provide sufficient lateral support, columns can be 1. Stone columns in cohesive soils are normally
formed by injecting a hydraulic binder into the column constructed by vibro-replacement method either
material (stones, gravel) during installation (Kempfert by wet process or dry process or less frequently by
2003). In the case of grouted stone columns, a grout is ramming. In environmentally sensitive areas,
injected during the compaction of the stones/gravel. A stone columns are frequently constructed by the
further development of this technique uses premixed dry process rather than the wet process (which
materials (grout ? stone/gravel) or concrete, which discharges large quantities of silty water). Where
are installed by using a bottom feed vibrator. In ground conditions are suitable, stone column
Europe for some applications cement has been added solutions have been shown to be more cost
to the compacted stone column, thus forming a rigid effective and can offer considerable contract
column of concrete. Rigid stone columns appear to be programme savings over other ground improve-
best suited for strengthening the stone column in ment methods, such as preloading and vertical
locally weak zones (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). drain.
From the results of the laboratory triaxial compression 2. By replacing a portion of the soft soils with a
tests, Juran and Oraccio (1991) revealed that low-level compacted granular backfill, a composite material
cementation in compacted sand columns can signifi- is formed which is both stiffer and stronger than
cantly improve the settlement response and load the unimproved native soil. Stone columns act as
carrying capacity. Its behavior is independent of the drains and significantly decrease the time for
confining pressure mobilized in the surrounding soil. primary consolidation to occur. Because of rapid
The bottom feed vibro replacement method can be consolidation settlement secondary settlement
used cost effectively to permit low level cementation becomes a more important consideration when
of the in situ compacted granular column. Black et al. stone columns are used. Stone columns reduce the
(2007a) investigated the performance of stone col- build-up in pore pressure in granular layers during
umns in a weak peat deposit using concrete plug and an earthquake, and hence decrease liquefaction
concluded that the load-carrying capacity and the potential.
settlement performance can be improved significantly. 3. Many studies based on physical modeling, math-
A novel method of improving the performance of ematical analysis and full-scale testing have been
stone columns in soft soils is being studied by the carried out to understand and predict the behavior
123
of stone columns. These studies have highlighted Al-Khafaji ZA, Craig WH (2000) Drainage and reinforcement
the various parameters that influence overall of soft clay tank foundation by sand columns. Geotech-
nique 50(6):709–713
performance of the technique. They include Al-Refeai T (1992) Strengthening of soft soil by fibre-reinforced
column diameter, column length, column spacing, sand column. In: Proceedings, international symposium on
area replacement ratio, size and flexibility of the earth reinforcement, VI, Rotterdam, pp 677–682
footing, strength of the in situ soil, strength of the Ambily AP, Ganghi SR (2006) Effect of sand pad thickness on
load sharing in stone column. In: Proceedings Indian geo-
column material and method of installation. technical conference, Chennai, pp 555–556
However, it should be noted that experimental Ambily AP, Ganghi SR (2007) Behavior of stone columns based
evidence is limited when the stone columns do not on experimental and FEM analysis. J Geotech geoenviron
reach the firm stratum but float in the soft layer. Engg ASCE 133(4):405–415
Ayadat T, Hanna AM (2005) Encapsulated stone columns as a
Further tests should be performed under drained soil improvement technique for collapsible soil. Ground
conditions, particularly with drainage being per- Improv 9(4):137–147
mitted from the top of the columns. Ayadat T, Hanna AM (2008) Soil improvement by internally
4. When the stone columns are installed in very soft reinforced stone columns. Ground Improvement 161(GI2):
55–63
clays, they may not derive significant load Bae WS, Shin BW, An BC (2002) Behavior of foundation
capacity owing to low lateral confinement, which system improved with stone columns. In: Proceedings 12th
led to excessive bulging. Many researchers used international offshore and polar engineering. conference,
geosynthetic encasement to impart the necessary Kitakyushu, Japan, pp 675–678
Balaam NP (1978) Load settlement behavior of granular piles.
confinement to improve their strength and stiff- Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, Australia
ness. To overcome some of the limitations and Balaam NP, Booker JR (1981) Analysis of rigid rafts supported
practical difficulties associated with geosynthetic/ by granular piles. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech
geogrid encased columns, further research is 5:379–403
Balaam NP, Booker JR (1985) Effect of stone column yield on
required to identify the effective and alternate settlement of rigid foundations in stabilized clay. Int J
methods which should be practically feasible to Numer Anal Method Geomech 9:331–351
enhance the performance of stone columns in very Balaam NP, Poulos HG, Brown PT (1977) Settlement analysis
soft soils. of soft clays reinforced with granular piles. In: Proceed-
ings, 5th Asian conference on soil engineering, Bangkok,
pp 81–92
Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of
stone columns federal highway administration, RD-83/
References 026
Bauer GE, Al-Joulani N (1994) Strengthening of marginal soils
Abdelkrim M, Buhan PD (2007) An eleastoplastic homogeni- by confined stone columns. Proceedings, 7th international
zation procedure for predicting the settlement of a foun- cold regions engineering—A global perspective, edmon-
dation on a soil reinforced by columns. Europian J Mech ton, alberta specialty conference, University of Alberta,
A/Solids 26:736–757 Edmonton, Alberta, pp 97–117
Aboshi H, Ichimoto E, Harada K, Emoki M (1979) The com- Baumann V, Bauer GEA (1974) The performance of founda-
poser-A method to improve the characteristics of soft clays tions on various soils stabilized by the Vibro-Compaction
by inclusion of large diameter sand columns. In: Pro- Method. Can Geotech J 11(4):509–530
ceedings of international conference on soil reinforcement, Bergado DT, Lam FL (1987) Full-scale load test of granular
Paris, pp 211–216 piles with different densities and different proportions of
Abusharar SW, Han J (2011) Two-dimensional deep-seated gravel and sand on soft Bangkok clay. Soils Found
slope stability analysis of embankments over stone col- 27(1):103–134
umn-improved soft clay. Eng Geol 120(10):103–110 Bergado DT, Rantucci G, Widodo S (1984) Full scale load tests
Alamgir M, Zaheer SM (2001) Field investigation on a soft on granular piles and sand drains in the soft Bangkok clay.
ground of Bangladesh reinforced by granular piles. In: In: Proceedings international conference on in situ soil and
Proceedings, international symposium on earth reinforce- rock reinforcement, Paris, pp 111–118
ment. Land marks in earth reinforcement, pp 517–522 Bergado DT, Panichayatum, Sampaco CL (1988) Reinforce-
Alamgir M, Miura N, Poorooshasb HB, Madhav MR (1996) ment of soft bangkok clay using granular piles. In: Pro-
Deformation analysis of soft ground reinforced by ceedings, international symposium on theory and practice
columnar inclusions. J Comput Geotech 18(4):267–290 of earth reinforcement, Kyushu, Japan, pp 179–184
Alexiew D, Brokemper D, Lothspeich S (2005) Geotextile Bergado DT, Singh N, Sim SH, Panichayatum B, Sampaco CL,
encased columns (GEC): load capacity, geotextile selec- Balasubramaniam AS (1990) Improvement of soft Bang-
tion and predesign graphs. Geotech Spec 130–142: kok clay using vertical geotextile band drains compared
497–510 with granular piles. Geotext Geomembr 9(3):203–231
123
Bergado DT, Chai JC, Alfaro MC, Balasubramanium AS (1994) Deb K, Chandra S, Basudhar PK (2008) Response of multilayer
Improvement techniques of soft ground in subsiding and geosynthetic-reinforced bed resting on soft soil with stone
lowland environment. Balkema, Rotterdam columns. J Comput géoméch 35:323–330
Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, McCabe BA (2006) An Deb K, Samadhiya NK, Namdeo JB (2011) Laboratory model
improved experimental test setup to study the behavior of studies on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed
granular columns. Geotech Testing J, ASTM 29(3):193–199 over stone column-improved soft clay. Geotext Geomembr
Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, Hamill GA (2007a) 29:190–196
Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: laboratory di Prisco C, Galli A, Cantarelli E, Bongiorno D (2006) Geore-
model study. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(9): inforced sand columns: small scale experimental tests and
1154–1161 theoretical modeling. Proceedings, 8th international con-
Black JA, Sivakumar V, McKinley JD (2007b) Performance of ference on geosynthetics, Millpress, Rotterdam, The
clay samples reinforced with vertical granular columns. Netherlands, 1685–1688
Can Geotech J 44:89–95 Elshazly HA, Hafez D, Mosaad M (2006) Back calculating vi-
Borges JL, Domingues TS, Cardoso AS (2009) Embankments bro-installation stresses in stone columns reinforced
on soft soil reinforced with stone columns: numerical grounds. J Ground Improv 10(2):47–53
analysis and proposal of a new design method. Geotech Elshazly HA, Hafez D, Mosaad M (2008a) Reliability of con-
Geol Eng 27:667–679 ventional settlement evaluation for circular foundations on
Brokemper D, Sobolewski J, Alexiew D, Brok C (2006) Design stone columns. J Geotech Geol Eng ASCE 26:323–334
and construction of geotextile encased columns supporting Elshazly HA, Elkasabgy M, Elleboudy A (2008b) Effect of
geogrid reinforced landscape embankments: bastions Vi- inter-column spacing on soil stresses due to vibro-installed
jfwal Houten in the Netherlands. Proceedings, 8th interna- stone columns: interesting findings. J Geotech Geol Eng
tional conference on geosynthetics, Millpress, Rotterdam, 26:225–236
The Netherlands, 889–892 Fattah MY, Shlash,KT, Al-Waily MJM (2011) Stress concen-
Brown RE (1977) Vibrofloatation compaction of cohesionless tration ratio of model stone columns in soft clays. Geotech
soils. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 103(12):1437–1451 Testing J, Vol. 34, No. 1, Paper ID GTJ103060
Canetta G, Nova R (1989) A numerical method for the analysis Ghazavi M, Shahmandi A (2008) Analytical static stability
of ground improved by columnar inclusions. Comput analysis of slope reinforced by stone columns. In: Pro-
Geotech 7:99–114 ceedings 12th international conference of IACMAG, Goa,
Casrto J, Karstunen M (2010) Numerical simulations of stone pp 3530–3537
column installations. Can Geotech J 47(10):1127–1138 Gniel J, Bouazza A (2009) Improvement of soft soils using
Castro J, Sagaseta C (2010) Deformation and consolidation around geogrid encased stone columns. J Geotext Geomembranes
encased stone columns. Geotext Geomembr 29:268–276 27:167–175
Charles JA, Watts KA (1983) Compressibility of soft clay Gniel J, Bouazza A (2010) Construction of geogrid encased
reinforced with granular columns. In: Proceedings, 8th stone columns: a new proposal based on laboratory testing.
Europ. conference on soil mech. and found. Eng., Helsinki, Geotext Geomembr 28(1):108–118
pp 347–352 Goughnour RR, Bayuk AA (1979) A field study of long-term
Christoulas ST, Giannaros CH, Tsiambaos G (1997) Stabiliza- settlements of loads supported by stone columns in soft
tion of embankment foundations by using stone columns. ground. In: Proceedings, international conference on soil
Geotech Geol Eng 15:247–258 reinforcement, Paris, pp 279–285
Cimentada A, Costa AD, Canizal J, Sagaseta C (2011) Laboratory Greenwood DA (1970) Mechanical improvement of soils below
study on radial consolidation and deformation in clay rein- ground surfaces. In: Proceedings, ground engineering
forced with stone columns. Can Geotech J 48(1):36–52 conference, institution of civil engineers, London, pp 11–22
Datye KR (1982) Settlement and bearing capacity of foundation Greenwood DA, Kirsch K (1983) Specialist ground treatment by
system with stone columns. In: Proceedings, symposium vibratory and dynamics methods. In: Proceedings, inter-
on recent developments in ground improvement tech- national conference on piling and ground treatment, Tho-
niques, Bangkok, pp 85–101 mas Telford, London, pp 17–45
Datye KR, Nagaraju SS (1975) Installation and testing of ram- Guetif Z, Bouassida M, Debats JM (2007) Improved soft clay
med stone columns. In: Proceedings, 5th Asian regional characteristics due to stone column installation. J Comput
conference on soil mech. and found. Eng., Bangalore, Geotech 34:104–111
India, pp 101–104 Han J, Ye SL (1991) Field tests on clays stabilized by stone
Datye KR, Nagaraju SS (1981) Design approach and field columns at coastal areas in China. Proceedings of 4th
control for stone columns. In: Proceedings, 10th interna- International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations,
tional conference on soil mech. and found. eng. Stockholm, Stresa, Italy
Vol. 3, pp 637–640 Han J, Ye SL (1992) Settlement analysis of buildings on the soft
Deb K (2008) Modelling of granular bed-stone column- clays stabilized by stone columns. In: Proceedings, inter-
improved soft soil. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech national conference on soil improvement and pile found,
32:1267–1288 118: 446–451
Deb K, Basudhar PK (2007) Generalised model for geosyn- Han J, Ye SL (2001) Simplified method for consolidation rate of
thetic-reinforced granular fill-soft soil with stone column. stone column reinforced foundation. J Geotech Geoenviron
Int J Geomech ASCE 7(4):266–276 Eng, ASCE 127(7): 597–603
123
Han J, Ye SL (2002) A theoretical solution for consolidation patterns of soil permeability, Journal of Zhejiang Univer-
rates of stone column-reinforced foundations accounting sity-SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering)
for smear and well resistance effects. J Geomechanics, 12(4):268–277
ASCE, 2(2):135–151 Madhav MR, Vitkar PP (1978) Strip footing on weak clay sta-
Huang J, Han J (2010) Two-dimensional parametric study of bilized with a granular trench or pile. Can Geotech J
geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankments 15(4):605–609
by coupled hydraulic and mechanical modelling. Comput Madhav MR, Alamgir M, Miura N (1994) Improving granular
Geotech 37:638–648 column capacity by geogrid reinforcement. In: Proceed-
Hughes JMO, Withers NJ (1974) Reinforcing of soft cohesive ings, 5th International Conference On Geotextiles, Geo-
soils with stone columns. Ground Eng 7(3):42–49 membrains, and Related Products, Singapore, pp 351–356
Hughes JMO, Withers NJ, Greenwood DA (1975) A field trial of Malarvizhi SN, Ilamparuthi K (2007) Comparative study on the
the reinforcing effect of a stone column in soil. Geotech- behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone
nique 25(1):31–44 column. Soil Found 47(5):873–886
IS:15284-2003 Indian standard code of practice for design and McKelvey D, Sivakumar V, Bell A, Graham J (2004) Modelling
construction for ground improvement-guidelines. Part 1: vibrated stone columns in soft clay. In: Proceedings of the
Stone columns, India institute of civil engineers geotechnical engineering, Vol.
Jellali B, Bouassida M, Buhan PD (2005) A homogenization 157, Issue GE3, pp 137–149
method for estimating the bearing capacity of soils rein- McKenna JM, Eyre WA, Wolstenholme DR (1975) Perfor-
forced by stone columns. Int J Numer Analyt Method mance of an embankment supported by stone columns in
Geomech 29(10):989–1004 soft ground. Géotechnique 25(1):51–59
Juran I, Guermazi A (1988) Settlement response of soft soils Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement—state of the art report.
reinforced by compacted sand columns. J Geotech Geo- In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on soil
environ Eng ASCE 114(8):903–943 mech. and found. eng., Stockholm, pp 509–565
Juran I, Riccobono O (1991) Reinforcing soft soils with artifi- Mitchell JK, Huber TR (1985) Performance of a stone column
cially cemented compacted-sand columns. J Geotech foundation. J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE 111(2):205–223
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 117(7):1042–1060 Mitra S, Chattopadhyay BC (1999) Stone columns and design
Katti RK, Katti AR, Nayak S (1993) Monograph to analysis of limitations. In: Proceedings, Indian geotechnical confer-
stone columns with and without geosynthetic encasement. ence, Calcutta, India, pp 201–205
CBIP Publication, New Delhi Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2006) Geosynthetic encased stone
Kempfert HG (2003) Ground improvement methods with spe- columns: numerical evaluation. J Geotext Geomembr
cial emphasis on column-type techniques. In: Proceedings, 24(6):349–358
international workshop on geotechnics of soft soils—the- Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2007) Model tests on geosynthtic
ory and practice, pp 101–112 encased stone columns. Geosynthet Int J 24(6):346–354
Kempfert HG, Gebreselassie B (2006) Excavations and foun- Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2008) Shear load tests on stone
dations in soft soils. Springer-Verlag, Berlin columns with and without geosynthetic encasement. Geo-
Kirsch F (2008) Evaluation of ground improvement by groups of technical testing journal, ASTM, 32(1)
vibro stone columns using field measurements and Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2010) Studies on the behaviour of
numerical analysis. Proceedings of the Second Interna- single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns.
tional Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils, Scotland, ASCE, J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(1):129–139
pp 241–248 Najjar SS, Sadek S, Maakaroun T (2010) Effect of sand columns
Kirsch F, Sondermann W (2001) Ground improvement and its on the undrained load response of soft clays. J Geotech
numerical analysis. In: Proceedings 15th international con- Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 136(9):1263–1277
ference on soil mech. and found. eng., Istanbul, pp 1775–1778 Nayak NV (1996) Foundation design manual, Dhanapathi Rai
Kirsch F, Sondermann W (2003) Field measurements and publications (P) Ltd, Fourth ed
numerical analysis of the stress distribution below stone Nayak S, Shivashankar R, Babu MRD (2011) Performance of
column supported embankments and their stability. Inter- stone columns with circumferential nails. Ground Improv
national workshop on geotechnics of soft soils-theory and 164(2):97–106
practice. Vermeer, Schweiger, Karstunen & Cudny (eds.) Poorooshasb HB, Meyerhof GG (1997) Analysis of behaviour of
Lee JS, Pande GN (1998) Analysis of stone-column reinforced stone columns and lime columns. J Comput Geotech
foundations. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech 20(1):47–70
22:1001–1020 Priebe HJ (1976) Evaluation of the settlement reduction of a
Lee D, Yoo C, Park S (2007) Model tests for analysis of load foundation improved by Vibro-Replacement. Bautechnik
carrying capacity of geogrid encased stone columns. In: 5:160–162 (in German)
Proceedings 17th international offshore and Polar Eng. Priebe HJ (1991) Vibro Replacement—Design Criteria and
Conf, Lisbon Quality Control, ASTM STP 1089—Deep foundation
Li G, Huang W, Ugai K (2000) Interactions between column improvements-Design. Construction and Testing
inclusions and surrounding soil in composite ground. Priebe HJ (1995) The design of vibro replacement. J Ground
J Lowl Technol Int 2(1):23–34 Eng 28(12):31–37
Lu M, Xie K, Li C, Wang K (2011) Consolidation solution for Pulko B, Majes B (2005) Simple and accurate prediction of
composite foundation considering a time- and depth- settlements of stone column reinforced soil. In: Proceed-
dependent stress increment along with three distribution ings of 16th international conference on soil mechanics
123
and foundation engineering, Osaka, Japan, vol. 3, Thorburn S (1975) Building structures supported by stabilized
pp. 1401e1404 ground. Géotechnique 25:83–94
Pulko B, Majes B (2006) Analytical method for the analysis of Van Impe WF (1989) Soil improvement techniques and their
stone-columns according to the Rowe dilatancy theory. evolution. Balkema, Rotterdam
Acta Geotechnica Slovenica 3(1):37–45 VanImpe WF, DeBeer E (1983) Improvement of settlement
Raithel M, Kempfert HG, Kirchner A (2002) Geotextile- behavior of soft layers by means of stone columns. In:
encased columns (GEC) for foundation of a dike on very Proceedings 8th European Conference on Soil Mech. ad
soft soils. In: Proceedings of the 7th international confer- Found. Eng. Helsinki 1:309–312
ence on geosynthetics, Nice, France, pp. 1025–1028 VanImpe WF, Madhav MR (1992) Analysis and settlement of
Ranjan G (1989) Ground treated with granular piles and its dilating stone column reinforced soil. Osterreichische Ing
response under load. Indian Geotech J 19(1):1–86 und Arch-Zeitschrift 137:114–121
Ranjan G, Singh B, Charan HD (1999) Experimental study of Vesic AS (1972) Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass.
soft clay reinforced with sand-fiber core. Indian Geotech J J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98:265–290
29(4):281–290 Wang G (2009) Consolidation of soft clay foundations rein-
Rao SN, Reddy KM (1996) Load transfer in stone column in soft forced by stone columns under time-dependent loadings.
marine clay. In: Proceedings, Indian geotechnical confer- J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 135(12):1922–1931
ence, Madras, India, pp 403–406 Wang WG, Leung CF, Ichikawa Y (2002) A simplified
Sabhahit A, Basudhar PK, Madhav MR (1997) Generalised homogenization method for composite soils. J Comput
stability analysis of embankments on granular piles. Soils Geotech 29:477–500
Found 37(4):13–22 Watts KS, Johnson D, Wood LA, Saadi A (2000) An instru-
Samadhiya NK, Maheswari P, Basu P, Kumar MB (2008) Load- mental trial of vibro ground treatment supporting strip
settlement characteristics of granular piles with randomly foundations in a variable fill. Geotechnique 50(6):699–708
mixed fibres. Indian Geotech J 38(3):345–354 Weber TM, Springman SM, Gäb M, Racansky V, Schweiger HF
Schweiger HF, Pande GN (1986) Numerical analysis of stone (2008) Numerical modelling of stone columns in soft clay
columns supported foundations. J Comput Geotech under an embankment. In: Karstunen M, Leoni M (eds)
2:347–372 Geotechnics of soft soils-focus on ground improvement.
Shahu JT, Reddy YR (2011) Clayey soil reinforced with stone Taylor & Francis, London, pp 305–311
column group: model tests and analyses, J Geotech Geo- Weber TM, Laue JPM, Peschke G, Springman SM (2010)
environ Eng, ASCE, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606. Smear zone identification around stone columns con-
0000552 structed in-flight in centrifuge model tests. Geotechnique
Shahu JT, Madhav MR, Hayashi S (2000) Analysis of soft 60(3):197–206
ground—Granular pile-granular mat system. J Comput Wehr J (2006) The undrained cohesion of the soil as criterion for
Geotech 27(1):45–62 the column installation with a depth vibrator. In: Pro-
Sharma SR, Phanikumar BR, Nagendra G (2004) Compressive ceedings of the international symposium on vibratory pile
load response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids. driving and deep soil Vibratory compaction. TRANSVIB,
Canadian Geotech J 41(1):187–192 Paris, pp. 157–162
Shivashankar R, Babu MRD, Nayak S, Manjunath R (2010) Wood DM, Hu W, Nash DFT (2000) Group effects in stone
Stone columns with vertical circumferential nails-Labo- column foundations: model tests. Géotechnique 50(6):
ratory model study. Geotech Geol Eng 28(4):695–706 689–698
Shivashankar R, Babu MRD, Nayak S, Kumar VR (2011) Wu CS, Hong YS (2008) The behavior of a laminated reinforced
Experimental studies on behavior of stone columns in granular column’’. J Geotext Geomembr 26:302–316
layered soils. Geotech Geol Eng 29(5):749–757 Xie K, Lu M, Hu A, Chen G (2009) A general theoretical
Sivakumar V, Glynn D, Black JA, McNeill (2007) A laboratory solution for the consolidation of a composite foundation.
model study of the performance of vibrated stone columns J Compu Geotech 36:24–30
in soft clay. In: Proceedings, 14 th European conference on Yoo C (2010) Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone col-
soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Madrid umns in embankment construction: numerical investiga-
Tan SA, Tjahono S, Oo KK (2008) Simplified plane-strain tion. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(8):1148–1160
modeling of stone-column reinforced ground. J Geotech
Geol Eng 134(2):185–194
123

A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour of Stone Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour of Stone Columns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour of Stone Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22

A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour

Fig. 3 Cased borehole

3.5 Stress Concentration Factor (n)

When the stone column reinforced ground is loaded,

Fig. 5 Unit cell

Fig. 6 Failure mechanisms

4.3 Ultimate Load Analysis /s = angle of internal friction of soil.Axial stress in

stone column was limited to about 4 times the cc B

foundations, as simulated by the unit cell idealization,

You might also like