International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

ISSN: 1938-6362 (Print) 1939-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yjge20

Field measured and simulated performance of a

stone columns-strengthened soft clay deposit

Bruno T. Lima, Marcio S.S. Almeida & Iman Hosseinpour

To cite this article: Bruno T. Lima, Marcio S.S. Almeida & Iman Hosseinpour (2019): Field
measured and simulated performance of a stone columns-strengthened soft clay deposit,
International Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/19386362.2019.1653506

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1653506

Published online: 14 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yjge20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/19386362.2019.1653506

Field measured and simulated performance of a stone columns-strengthened soft

clay deposit
Bruno T. Limaa, Marcio S.S. Almeidab and Iman Hosseinpourc
a
Department of Foundation and Structure, Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; bGraduate School in Research and
Engineering (COPPE), Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; cDepartment of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
The University of Guilan, Rasht, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This paper described field behaviour of a stone columns-reinforced soft foundation at a coal and ore Received 7 December 2018
stockyard followed by a comparison with numerical analysis. Performance of a 130-m-wide section with Accepted 1 August 2019
two ore stacks was recorded along a 500-operative day. An extensive instrumentation, comprising 14 KEYWORDS
sensors, was used to monitor the serviceability behaviour of the stabilized area. Complementary Soil improvement; stone
numerical analysis was performed using PLAXIS 2D finite element code, with which the increase in column; field test; soft soil;
lateral earth pressure due to column installation was suitably modeled. The numerical analysis was field instrumentation; in-situ
carried out using plane strain approach, in which the stone columns were converted into the equivalent testing; numerical analysis
walls. Results showed that the adopted plane strain model could predict well measured total deforma-
tions of the reinforced foundation. Simulated curves of excess pore pressure also showed similar
behaviour to the field data with a maximum value upon loading application followed by a gradual
dissipation in consolidation stages.

1. Introduction Besides numerical and analytical studies, field load tests may
be a good alternative for understanding the behaviour of the
Constructions on soft soils are always problematic due to low
stone columns as they provide valuable data reflecting the actual
bearing capacity and high compressibility of such deposits.
response of the composite system. However, such tests are not as
Compacted granular columns are one of the most versatile
widely available as numerical and analytical studies (e.g. Mestat,
and frequently used methods to reduce and accelerate settle-
Magnan, and Dhouib 2006; Yee and Raju 2007; Egan, Scott, and
ment, to increase load-bearing capacity, to decrease horizon-
McCabe 2008; Weber et al. 2008; McCabe, Nimmons, and Egan
tal deformations and to improve global stability of the
2009).
embankments over soft soil deposits (Poorooshasb and
Mestat, Magnan, and Dhouib (2006) presented the behaviour
Meyerhof 1996; Greenwood 1970; Almeida et al. 2018).
of a test embankment built on compressible clayey soil
Greenwood (1970) firstly presented an analytical solution to
improved with stone columns. Complementary numerical and
calculate the bearing capacity and settlement of a rigid founda-
analytical calculations demonstrated that the calculation of set-
tion supported by a group of stone columns. Later, Priebe (1995)
tlement is a complex and challenging issue in such projects.
proposed a solution to estimate the settlement on an infinite grid
They also concluded that the numerical analysis in combination
of vibro-replaced stone columns, based on the unit cell concept.
with the instrumentation results is important for a reliable inter-
Up to now, several researchers have developed theoretical meth-
pretation of the behaviour of the composite ground.
ods for estimating bearing capacity and settlement of founda-
Yee and Raju (2007) reported an application of the stone
tions reinforced by stone columns (e.g. Hughes and Withers
columns in soft clayey soil with undrained strength values below
1974; Thorburn 1975; Aboshi et al. 1979; Balaam and Booker
15 kPa. Road embankments, up to 10 m high, were constructed
1981, 1985; Bouassida et al. 2003; Pulko and Majes 2005; Castro
over soft soils stabilized with stone columns with maximum
and Sagaseta 2009; Zhang et al. 2013; Indraratna, Basack, and
lengths and diameters of 26 m and of 1.2 m, respectively. They
Rujikiatkamjorn 2013; Deb and Shiyamalaa 2016).
found that a careful soil investigation, design and post-
Numerical analysis using finite element methods is also
construction monitoring are essential elements to ensure the
widely used as a simple and fairly accurate tool for predicting
reliable prediction for the performance of a soft clayey founda-
the behaviour of the stone columns (e.g. Dash and Bora 2013;
tion consisting of stone-column inclusions.
Indraratna, Basack, and Rujikiatkamjorn 2013; Castro 2014;
The existing studies, use in the majority, a unit cell axisym-
Tan, Ng, and Sun 2014; Ellouze et al. 2016). These studies, in
metric model with which a singular stone column and surround-
the majority, use the unit cell approach, including a single
ing soft soil is analysed. Using unit-cell concept, however, is not
stone column and its influence area determined based on
able to calculate the horizontal soil deformation due to horizon-
columns’ spacing and installation pattern.
tal fixities adopted in the lateral borders. In addition to this, the

CONTACT Iman Hosseinpour [email protected] Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Guilan, Persian Gulf
Highway, Rasht, Iran
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. T. LIMA ET AL.

effect of the compacted stone columns on the stability improve- Almeida and Marques (2013), Almeida et al. (2014a) and
ment of the embankment is not determined. Hosseinpour et al. (2017b, 2016).
The present study was developed by application of the According to the characterization tests performed, the
plane strain approach for the prediction of the field perfor- plasticity index Ip of the soft soil layers was in the range of
mance of a stone column-reinforced soft soil (Wegner et al. 30% to 120%, and the natural water content wn varied from
2009). The numerical analysis was performed using finite 30% to 150%. The water table level was located at about
element code, PLAXIS 2D (Brinkgreve, Swolfs, and Engine 1.0 m below the ground surface as observed in-situ through
2011), at which the stone columns were replaced by equiva- the SPT boreholes.
lent walls. Accordingly, a 130-metre-wide section of a coal In the present study, the geotechnical site investigation pro-
and ore stockyard, with two ore stacks, was studied. Cycles of gramme included 14 boreholes of standard penetration tests
loading and unloading, with a maximum total vertical stress (SPTs), 20 vertical cone penetration tests with pore pressure
of around 120 kPa, were applied over a 500-day period from measurement (CPTu), 13 verticals of vane shear tests (VSTs)
the application of the first load. The main objectives of the performed in the first and second soft clay layers, six dilatometer
ground treatment at the stockyard were to control stability, tests (DMTs), and 16 undisturbed soil sampling extracted using
reduce settlement, and speed up construction. Therefore, the stationary Shelby piston tubes. The undrained shear strength of
stockyard was instrumented to investigate the behaviour of the soft clay layers Su was obtained using VST data correlated
the composite ground in terms of settlement, lateral deforma- with CPTu (Lunne, Robertson, and Powell 1997; Robertson and
tion of the clayey foundation and excess pore water pressure Cabal 2015). The most frequently used empirical cone factor Nkt
in soft clay. was determined by correlating CPTu and VST using the follow-
ing expression:
qT σ v0
2. Geotechnical profile Nkt ¼ (1)
SuðVSTÞ
As shown in Figure 1(a), the soil stratigraphy at the test
site comprises a 6.5 to 7.5 m thick upper soft clay layer where σv0 is the in-situ total vertical stress at the same depth in
(Clay Layer 1), which mainly characterizes this profile. which the vane shear strength Su(VT) and the corrected tip
A 1.0 to 3.0 m thick sand layer was found underneath resistance qT were obtained. Values of empirical cone factor
followed by another soft clay layer (Clay Layer 2) with Nkt were calculated for each depth at which vane shear tests
thickness varying from 3.0 to 5.0 m. The remaining soil were performed (varying between 5 and 14), and the average
profile consisted mainly of sand strata, with an occasional value of Nkt obtained was equal to 10.7, quite close to the typical
third deeper discontinuous clay layer (Clay Layer 3). values reported for Rio de Janeiro’s soft clay (Almeida and
Similar stratigraphy and index properties have been Marques 2013; Hosseinpour et al., 2017b). The representative
observed in other coastal areas in Brazil as reported by Su profile for the CPTu tests, together with the maximum and

Su (kPa)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
0

CPTu-Profile - Nkt = 10.4

CPTu-Profile - Nkt = 5
CPTu-Profile - Nkt = 14
Vane Tests

5
Depth (m)

10

15

(a) (b)
Figure 1. Geotechnical profile of the subsoil at the test area: (a) soil stratigraphy; (b) Su profile by piezocone and vane shear tests.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 3

minimum profiles based on the Nkt values of the deposit, are ● Eight Settlement Sensors: Installed below the ore stack –
shown in Figure 1(b), together with the layer limits, with average Northern Part: SS-N4, SS-N3, SS-N2 and SS-N1;
Su values of about 12 kPa and 60 kPa in upper and lower soft clay Southern Part: SS-S4, SS-S3, SS-S2 and SS-S1;
layers, respectively. ● Four Electrical piezometers, installed in the middle of
clay Layer 1 – Northern Part: PZ-N2 and PZ-N1;
Southern Part: PZ-S2 and PZ-S1;
3. Field instrumentation
Figure 2 illustrates the location of the studied section on A 2.5-m-thick-dredged sand working platform was placed
the general layout of the stockyard, with stacks of coal and on the top surface all over the stockyard in order to provide
ore. The selected section contains 1.0 m diameter stone a stable ground for fieldwork and column installation. After
columns installed in a square mesh by vibro-replacement the installation of the stone columns, two layers of a bi-
dry method with the centre to centre spacing of directional high-strength geogrid, with an axial tensile
2.20 m below the stacks of ore, and 1.75 m under the strength of up to 1600 kN/m, were placed on top.
stack-reclaimers. A 0.90 m thick granular material (shown in Figure 3) was
The studied section includes the 40 m wide northern also placed on top of the geogrid to prevent damage to the
stack and the 50 m wide southern stack with stone-column stone columns/geogrids during fieldwork. This granular layer
lengths equal to 11.1 m and 11.6 m, respectively. Since consisted of a well-compacted sand and gravel material. The
2.5 m on each side of the stacks is not used, the available stone columns were not drawn in Figure 3 to enable a better
widths are 35.0 m and 45.0 m for the north and south view of the instrumentation. The instrumentation used in the
sides, respectively. Following is the instrumentation used in section studied produced automatic readings except for the
the present study with the position shown in Figure 3: profilometers, whose readings were obtained manually.
• Two Horizontal Profilometer Gauges – HPG North and During the date range selected for the analysis, each piezo-
HPG South; meter and settlement sensor made approximately 19,000

Figure 2. Stockyard outline and location of the studied section.

Figure 3. Instrumentation positions in the studied section (dimensions are in metre).

4 B. T. LIMA ET AL.

readings, with a volume of more than 228,000 data points for rc = radius of the column;
these instruments. B = half of the plane strain influence area; and
The stack material in the studied section consisted of pellets R = radius of the unit cell.
of iron ore with a nearly 27° angle of repose, a value close to the The relationship between R and B is given by the equation
26º value presented the literature, so the maximum possible based on the equivalent total area and column pattern as
height is 8.9 m for the northern stack and 11.4 m for the south- follows (Barron 1948):
ern stack. The control of stacks deposited in the stockyard was
R ¼ 1:13B (3)
done at least twice a day, by determining the stack dimensions
(length and width) and the total weight of each stack (calculated The given column diameter and grid pattern result in a plane
for the amount of input and output material). The applied strain column width equal to 0.36 m and 0.44 m for the
stockyard loading was defined by chequering the stack controls, column spacing of 2.20 m and 1.75 m, respectively. The finite
cross-referenced with the piezometers installed in the studied element mesh adopted was based on a mesh sensitivity ana-
section, with respect to the number of days of loading or lysis, and a fine mesh was adopted for the whole model to
unloading. After that, based on the specific weight of the iron provide an accurate calculation of the deformations and
ore pellets, determined in the laboratory, the height of the stack stresses. Regarding the boundary fixities, the model was
of ore on the selected dates was defined and confirmed in the restricted to deform horizontally on the vertical sides (i.e.
field. roller boundaries) while fully fixed along the base as shown
The applied vertical stresses on the northern and southern in Figure 4, together with the finite element mesh. The
stacks will be subsequently presented together with the groundwater table level was set to the interface between the
numerical analyses results (Item 5). The variation in the working platform and the top soft clay layer, as observed in-
average applied vertical stress on the stacks of pellets reached situ.
in some cases 100 kPa in less than 1 day, sometimes in A pre-defined geogrid element available in PLAXIS was
a matter of hours, much greater than in normal earthwork used to model the basal geogrid, which is a slender element
services. with axial stiffness able to sustain just tensile force. The
geogrid reinforcement was modelled as a linear-elastic mate-
rial with perfect bonding to the adjacent soil and an axial
4. Finite element analysis stiffness equal to J= 800 kN/m. Parametric studies have
The plane strain numerical analyses were performed using the shown that the assumption of perfect interface bonding
finite element code PLAXIS 2D in which 15 nodal triangular under working stress conditions results in reasonable predic-
elements were used to simulate the soil clusters. Both the tions with respect to measured data as reported by previous
northern and southern stacks were analysed using the same researchers (e.g. Hatami and Bathurst 2005; Tandel, Solanki,
numerical model but with different soil profiling as summar- and Desai 2012; Hosseinpour, Soriano, and Almeida 2019).
ized in Table 1.
4.2. Constitutive models and material properties
4.1. Model configuration The behaviour of the soft clay layers was simulated using the
The axisymmetric to plane strain conversion of the stone Soft Soil Creep model, a Cam-Clay type model, considering
column was performed using the method proposed by Tan, a secondary compression during consolidation analysis. The
Tjahyono, and Oo (2008) which was also successfully used by Cam-Clay parameters were determined the basis on the
Hosseinpour et al., (2017a). In this approach, the granular laboratory and in-situ tests performed prior to the field load
columns are replaced by an equivalent plane strain wall and test. Clay layer 1, through which the stone columns were
the half-width of the column (bc) as determined by: driven, was considered smeared during column installation;
thus, the coefficients of permeability were reduced in this
rc2 zone. The geometric relationship between the smear zone
bc ¼ B (2)
R2 and the stone-column diameter was selected to 5.0 as recom-
where: mended by Watts et al. (2000).
Due to uncertainties of some parameter values of the
column gravel material and the clay (e.g. the earth pres-
Table 1. Thickness of the layers in the studied section. sure coefficient after column installation – K* – and clay
Thickness (m) permeability) (Almeida et al. 2014b) studied the perfor-
Layer NORTH SOUTH mance of a field test (in another area in the Stockyard)
Granular Material 0.90 0.90 on a set of 16 stone columns, loaded with iron rails, with
Dredged Sand 2.50 2.50 extensive instrumentation. The model validation was
Clay Layer 1 6.30 6.30
Sand Layer 1 2.30 2.80 done through comparison between numerical results and
Clay Layer 2 5.10 4.20 field measurements. The best fit provided by the para-
Sand Layer 2 10.50 9.30 metric analysis was achieved using a column friction
Clay Layer 3 – 1.60
Sand Layer 3 5.80 5.80 angle Ø’ = 40° (according to Barksdale and Bachus –
FHWA, 1983; Mestat, Magnan, and Dhouib 2006;
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5

Figure 4. Numerical model showing soil cluster, boundary condition and generated mesh.

Bouassida, Ellouze, and Hazzar 2008) and K* = 1.25 5. Results and discussion
(similar to Guetif, Bouassida, and Debats 2007;
The numerical results are compared here with data provided by
Choobbasti, Zahmatkesh, and Noorzad 2011). In addi-
the instrumentation. The main aspects analysed are vertical
tion, a ratio of the coefficient of permeability before and
displacements and excess pore water pressure in the soft clay.
after column installation equal to 5.0 was adopted up to
the final column depth. Table 2 summarizes the para-
meters of the soft clay layers used in the numerical
5.1. Vertical displacements
analysis.
The elastoplastic Mohr-Coulomb model (Ambily and The settlements computed by the numerical analyses are
Gandhi 2007; Six et al. 2012) was adopted for all granular compared here with field measurements obtained from the
materials involved in the study. Table 3 shows the parameters settlement sensors and the profilometers with their positions
used for the granular column, hydraulic fill working platform illustrated in Figure 3.
(dredged sand), and sand layers along with the parameters used Figure 5(a) shows the settlements measured by the settle-
for the initial layer of granular material and ore pellets recom- ment sensor SS-N3 (northern part) and northern profilometer
mended by well-established literature (e.g. Terzaghi and Peck (HPG) together with results of the numerical analysis (FE –
1967; Schmertmann 1978; Lambe and Whitman 1979). Finite Element). The average vertical stresses applied by the

Table 2. Soft soil parameters used in numerical analysis.

Material Clay layer 1 Clay layer 2 Clay layer 3
Saturated unit weight, γsat (kN/m3) 13.4 16.0 15.6
Effective angle of friction, Ø’ (º) 25.0 25.0 25.0
Effective cohesion, c’ (kPa) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Earth pressure coefficient, Ka or K0 (–) 1.25 (Ka) 0.60 0.60
Coefficient of compression, Cc (–) 1.92 1.07 1.00
Coefficient of swelling, Cs (–) 0.29 0.13 0.12
Coefficient of secondary compression, Cα (–) 0.04 0.04 0.04
Initial void ratio, e0 (–) 2.97 1.68 1.85
CRa 0.387 0.367 0.345
RRa 0.065 0.040 0.036
Over-consolidation ratio, OCR (–) 1.08 1.08 1.08
Coefficient of horizontal permeability, kh (m/d) 8.0 × 10−5 7.8 × 10−5 14.0 × 10−5
Coefficient of vertical permeability, kv (m/d) 4.0 × 10−5 3.9 × 10−5 7.0 × 10−5
Ratio between change of void ratio and change of the coefficient of permeability, ck (–) 1.27 0.60 0.60
a
CR = Cc/(1+ e0); RR = Cs/(1+ e0).

Table 3. Mohr-Coulomb parameters used for the granular materials.

γsat Ø´ Elastic modulus, kh kv
Material (kN/m3) (°) E (MPa) Ka or K0 (-) (m/d) (m/d)
Granular material 20.0 35 100 0.43 86.4 86.4
Stone columns 20.0 40 80 0.35 27,000 27,000
Stack of pellets 16.0 30 33 0.50 86.4 86.4
Dredged sand 18.0 30 2 1.25 a 0.86 0.86
Sand layer 1 18.0 30 30 1.25 a 0.86 0.86
Sand layer 2 and 3 18.0 30 30 0.50 1.25 1.25
a
K* after the stone-column installation.
6 B. T. LIMA ET AL.

northern stack of pellets are also plotted. The results show vertical stress applied), which is also reflected in the mea-
that the numerical analysis predicted well the settlement sured data by the profilometer and settlement sensors illu-
measured by settlement sensors and the profilometer. strated in Figure 5. This behaviour denotes to the overall
The settlement data for the southern profilometer, measured consistency between the field response and the numerical
at the SS-S3 location, together with the numerical analysis model used.
results are also shown in Figure 5(b). Due to some technical Comparison of settlements obtained from the north and
problems with the settlement sensors in the southern part, south profilometers with the results of numerical analysis are
sensor data are not shown, and the profilometer readings presented in Figure 6. It is observed that the results obtained
began only 90 days later (vertical dashed line in Figure 5(b)). by numerical analysis reasonably predict the trend of the
As can be seen, the results of the numerical analysis are fairly measured settlement in the southern and northern parts,
close to the data provided by the profilometer in the southern also indicating the heave displacements during unloading of
stockyard, with reasonable agreement between the magnitude stacks of pellets. The numerical results were very close to the
and the trend of the settlements over time. This behaviour was field data especially for the profilometer in the southern part.
observed throughout the profilometer readings, as well, which The difference in the magnitude of the predicted and mea-
confirms the applicability of the numerical model for settlement sured settlements in the northern part may be due to aniso-
prediction of the composite ground. tropy and heterogeneity of the clay layers, as well as stack
The numerical analysis also showed heave displacements heights, which were not perfectly simulated in the geomecha-
due to the unloading of the ore stacks (i.e. decrease of nical model.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. Development of measured and predicted settlements versus time: (a) northern stack; (b) southern stack.

Figure 6. Comparison of measured and predicted settlement along the section studied.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 7

Figure 7. Comparison of measured and predicted excess pore pressure in the middle of clay Layer 1 – PZ-N2.

120
Excess Poropressure - ∆u

100 ∆ u - PZ-S1

80 ∆ u - FE
(kPa)

60
40
20
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Normalized Time, ∆t/tc

Figure 8. Excess pore pressure due to a quick load: comparison of measured and predicted results.

5.2. Excess pore pressures simplification of the load calculation used, with an average
vertical stress over the entire length of the stack. However,
Figure 7 compares the excess pore pressures measured by
there are differences in the height of the stack in the field,
PZ-N2 with numerical analysis (FE) plotted together with
especially during loading and unloading of stacks, which
the average values of applied vertical stress. The excess
may or may not have occurred near the piezometers
pore pressure measured by the piezometer PZ-N2 varied
installed in the section studied.
closely with the average applied vertical stress, thus con-
firming that the hypothesis used to calculate the height of As shown in Figure 7, the predicted curve of excess pore
the stack of pellets and average applied vertical stress was pressure presents a similar trend to the field data. However,
satisfactory. The difference between the average applied the peak excess pore pressures obtained by FE analysis are
vertical stress and the measurement is due to the lower than data measured by the piezometer PZ-N2 (more
8 B. T. LIMA ET AL.

central). This difference may be due to the minimum time of Acknowledgments

1 day used in the numerical analysis for each load stage (due
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento
to the data available from the Stockyard). During this time, de Pessoal de Nível Superior-Brasil (CAPES)-Finance Code 001. The
the dissipation of excess pore pressure at the loading stage has authors also thank Dr Marina Miranda and Dr Sunil Mohapatra for their
already occurred in the numerical analysis, while the fast suggestions to improve the quality of the paper.
loading in the field can generate stacks of pellets in a matter
of hours, with little time for the dissipation of excess pore
pressure during stack formation. Disclosure statement
In order to develop the maximum excess pore pressure during No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
the loading phases, special loading phases with the real loading
times were created, based on the data from the piezometers.
However, attempts to continue the numerical analyses after Funding
these phases failed due to numerical convergences. The time This work was supported by the Brazilian National Funding Agency [1].
interval used in these numerical analyses and the real field data
(Δt) was normalized by the construction time (tc), for a better
data comparison. Figure 8 shows the results in the southern stack, Notes on contributors
at the PZ-S1 location, together with instrumentation data, mea- Bruno T. Lima has obtained his B.Sc. in Civil Engineering (2005) and M.
sured at the moment that the Southern stack reached maximum Sc. in Geotechnical Engineering (2008) both from the State University of
height. A good agreement is seen between the FE results and the Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. He has also completed his Ph.D. in Geotechnical
data from PZ-S1 indicating that numerical analysis can repro- Engineering with the Graduate School in Research and Engineering
duce peak values of excess pore pressure Δu, fairly well. (COPPE) at Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, in
2012. He is currently Assistant Professor of Geotechnical Engineering
at Rio de Janeiro State University and Federal Fluminense University.
6. Conclusions His research interests mainly focus on soft clay engineering, ground
treatment, embankment design and analysis and numerical analysis.
In this study, the behaviour of stone-columns-reinforced Marcio S.S. Almeida earned his Civil Engineering degree at UFRJ, Brazil,
foundation of a coal/ore stockyard, divided into north in 1974 and obtained his M.Sc. at COPPE of UFRJ, Brazil, in 1977. He
and south parts, was discussed. Complementary numer- obtained his Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge, UK in 1984. Then
ical analysis was performed and the results were com- he returned to UFRJ and in 1994 became Professor of Geotechnical
Engineering. His postdoc was at Italy ISMES and NGI, Norway in the
pared with field measurements provided by the
early 1990s. He has published around 300 technical publications includ-
instrumentation. The main conclusions are summarized ing more than 70 articles in international refereed journals and has
below: supervised around 90 doctoral and master dissertations. He received
the Terzaghi and José Machado awards from ABMS. He has served on
● In general, the results of the finite element analysis the editorial board of Géotechnique, Géotechnique Letters, ICE-Ground
Improvement and International Journal of Physical Modelling, among
showed satisfactory agreement with the field mea-
others. His main topics of interest are (1) soft clay engineering, (2)
surements, particularly in terms of vertical deforma- ground improvement, (3) marine geotechnics and (4) physical modeling.
tion and excess pore pressure development during
Iman Hosseinpourobtained his B.Sc. degree in Civil Engineering and M.
loading and unloading stages. It can be concluded Sc. degree in Geotechnical Engineering from Babol Noshirvani
that the geotechnical properties of the soft clayey University of Technology, Iran, in 2005 and 2008, respectively, and his
layers obtained through site investigation were Ph.D. in Geotechnical Engineering from the Graduate School in
quite reliable to be used in numerical analysis for Research and Engineering (COPPE) at Federal University of Rio de
prediction of the behaviour of the stone-column- Janeiro (UFRJ), Brazil, in 2015. He has also completed two years postdoc
fellowship at COPPE/UFRJ. Soon after that, he has joined the Civil
reinforced ground subjected to the stage loading. Engineering Department at the University Guilan, Iran, as an Assistant
● A good agreement was observed between the settlement Professor. He is the recipient of the Brazilian best doctoral thesis as well
measured by profilometer and the point settlement sen- as the outstanding research awards by the Brazilian Association of
sors placed under the load stacks. The profilometer, Geotechnical Engineering (ABMS). He is also given the best paper
however, showed ground heaves due to unloading of award by Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE), UK in 2016. His research
interests include (1) experimental geotechnics, (2) soft soil en-gineering,
stacks of pellets, which was suitably predicted by numer- (3) piled foundation, (4) ground improvement and geosynthetics as well
ical analysis as well. as (5) numerical analyses.
● The average values of the applied load were shown to be
close to the excess pore pressure development in the
loading stages measured by piezometers. This behaviour List of symbols and abbreviations
demonstrates a roughly quasi-undrained condition in
any load application stage and the suitability of the γsat (kN/m3) Saturated unit weight
hypothesis used for calculating the stack height. wn (%) Natural water content
● Results obtained from the numerical analysis also indi- Ip (-) Plasticity index
cated that the two-dimensional plane strain model, with kh (m/d) Coefficient of horizontal permeability
kv (m/d) Coefficient of vertical permeability
the columns transformed to the walls, was able to sui- Ø’ (°) Drained angle of friction
tably predict the behaviour of the studied section of the c’ (kPa) Drained cohesion
TKCSA stockyard. (Continued)
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 9

Bouassida, M., S. Ellouze, and L. Hazzar 2008. “Investigating Priebe’s

γsat (kN/m3) Saturated unit weight Method for Settlement Estimation of Foundation Resting on Soil
Cc (-) Coefficient of compression Reinforced by Stone Columns”, Proceedings of the 2nd International
Cs (-) Coefficient of swelling Workshop on Soft Soils–Focus on Ground Improvement, Glasgow,
Cα (-) Coefficient of secondary compression Scotland, September.
Ck (-) Ratio between changes of void ratio and coefficient of Bouassida, M., Z. Guetif, P. De Buhan, and L. Dormieux. 2003.
permeability “Estimation par une approche variationnelle du tassement d’une
E (kPa) Elastic modulus
fondation sur sol renforcé par colonnes ballastées.” Revue Française
e0 (-) Initial void ratio
Su (kPa) Undrained shear strength de Géotechnique 102: 21–22. doi:10.1051/geotech/2003102021.
K0, K* (-) Coefficient of at-rest thrust Brinkgreve, R. B. J., W. M. Swolfs, and E. Engine. 2011. Plaxis 2D 2011
kh (m/d) Coefficient of horizontal permeability Manual. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema.
kv (m/d) Coefficient of vertical permeability Castro, J. 2014. “Numerical Modelling of Stone Columns beneath a Rigid
J (kN/m) Stiffness modulus of the geosynthetic reinforcement Footing.” Computer Geotechnics 60: 77–87. doi:10.1016/j.
S (m) Centre to centre spacing between the GECs compgeo.2014.03.016.
dc (m) Diameter of the column Castro, J., and C. Sagaseta 2009. “Field Instrumentation of an
de (m) Diameter of the influence area Embankment on Stone Columns”, Proceedings of the 17th
rc (m) Radius of the stone column
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
R (m) Radius of the unit cell
B (m) Width of the influence area in plane strain conditions Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, October.
bc (m) Thickness of the column in plane strain conditions Choobbasti, A. J., A. Zahmatkesh, and R. Noorzad. 2011. “Performance
t (day) Time of Stone Columns in Soft Clay: Numerical Evaluation.” Geotechnical
Δu (kPa) Excess pore water pressure and Geological Engineering 29 (5): 675–684. doi:10.1007/s10706-011-
σvo (kPa) In-situ total vertical stress 9409-x.
qt (kPa) Corrected cone resistance Dash, S. K., and M. C. Bora. 2013. “Improved Performance of Soft Clay
Nkt (-) Empirical cone factor Foundations Using Stone Columns and Geocell-sand Mattress.”
OCR Over-consolidation ratio Geotextiles and Geomembranes 41: 26–35. doi:10.1016/j.
RR Recompression ratio
geotexmem.2013.09.001.
CR Compression ratio
SPT Standard penetration test Deb, K., and S. Shiyamalaa. 2016. “Effect of Clogging on Rate of
VST Vane shear test Consolidation of Stone Column-improved Ground by considering
CPTu Piezocone test Particle Migration.” International Journal of Geomechanics 16 (1):
DMT Dilatometer test 04015017. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000492.
Egan, D., W. Scott, and B. A. McCabe 2008. “Observed Installation Effects
of Vibro-replacement Stone Columns in Soft Clay”, Proceedings of the
2nd International Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Focus on
Ground Improvement, Glasgow, Scotland, September.
References Ellouze, S., M. Bouassida, Z. Ben Salem, and M. N. Znaidi. 2016.
“Numerical Analysis of the Installation Effects on the Behavior of
Aboshi, H., E. Ichimoto, M. Enoki, and K. Harada 1979. “A Method to Soft Clay Improved by Stone Columns.” Geomechanics and
Improve Characteristics of Soft Clays by Inclusion of Large Diameter Geoengineering 12 (2): 73–85. doi:10.1080/17486025.2016.1164903.
Sand Columns.” International Conference on Soil Reinforcement. Greenwood, D. A. 1970. “Mechanical Improvement of Soils below
Reinforced Earth and Other Techniques, Paris, France, March. Ground Surface.” C.R. Conference on Ground Engineering,
Almeida, M. S. S., B. T. Lima, M. Riccio, H. Jud, M. C. F. Almeida, and Institution of Civil Engineers, London, paper II, 11–22.
F. Roza. 2014b. “Stone Columns Field Test: Monitoring Data and Guetif, Z., M. Bouassida, and J. M. Debats. 2007. “Improved Soft Clay
Numerical Analyses.” Geotechnical Engineering Journal of the SEAGS Characteristics Due to Stone Column Installation.” Computers and
& AGSSEA 45: 103–112. Geotechnics 34 (2): 104–111. doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.09.008.
Almeida, M. S. S., I. Hosseinpour, M. Riccio, and D. Alexiew. 2014a. Hatami, K., and R. J. Bathurst. 2005. “Development and Verification of
“Behavior of Geotextile-encased Granular Columns Supporting Test a Numerical Model for the Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil
Embankment on Soft Deposit.” Journal of Geotechnical and Segmental Walls under Working Stress Conditions.” Canadian
Geoenvironmental Engineering 141 (3): 04014116. doi:10.1061/ Geotechnical Journal 42 (4): 1066–1085. doi:10.1139/t05-040.
(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001256. Hosseinpour, I., C. Soriano, and M. S. S. Almeida. 2019. “A Comparative
Almeida, M. S. S., M. Riccio, I. Hosseinpour, and D. Alexiew. 2018. Study for the Performance of Encased Granular Columns.” Journal of
Geosynthetic Encased Columns for Soft Soil Improvement. London, Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering 11 (2): 379–388.
United Kingdom: CRC Press. doi:10.1201/9781315177144. doi:10.1016/j.jrmge.2018.12.002.
Almeida, M. S. S., and M. E. S. Marques. 2013. Design and Performance of Hosseinpour, I., M. S. S. Almeida, and M. Riccio. 2016. “Ground
Embankments on Very Soft Soils. London, United Kingdom: CRC Press. Improvement of Soft Soil by Geotextile-encased Columns.”
Ambily, A. P., and S. R. Gandhi. 2007. “Behavior of Stone Columns Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Ground Improvement
Based on Experimental and FEM Analysis.” Journal of Geotechnical 169 (4): 297–305. doi:10.1680/jgrim.16.00009.
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 133 (4): 405–415. doi:10.1061/ Hosseinpour, I., M. S. S. Almeida, and M. Riccio. 2017a. “Verification Of
(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(405). a Plane Strain Model for The Analysis Of Encased Granular
Balaam, N. P., and J. R. Booker. 1981. “Analysis of Rigid Rafts Supported Columns.” Journal Of Geoengineering 12 (4): 97–105.
by Granular Piles.” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Hosseinpour, I., Marcio S. S. Almeida, M. Riccio, and M. Baroni. 2017b.
Methods in Geomechanics 5: 379–403. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9853. “Strength and Compressibility Characteristics Of a Soft Clay
Balaam, N. P., and J. R. Booker. 1985. “Effect of Stone Column Yield on Subjected to Ground Treatment.” Geotechnical and Geological
Settlement of Rigid Foundations in Stabilized Clay.” International Engineering 35 (3): 1051–1066. doi: 10.1007/s10706-017-0161-8.
Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics 9: Hughes, J. M. O., and N. J. Withers. 1974. “Reinforcing of Soft Cohesive
331–351. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1096-9853. Soils with Stone Columns.” Ground Engineering 7 (3): 42–49.
Barksdale, R. D., and R. C. Bachus 1983. Design and Construction Of Indraratna, B., S. Basack, and C. Rujikiatkamjorn. 2013. “Numerical
Stone Columns vol. 1. Report FHWA/RD-83/027. Federal Highway Solution of Stone Column Improved Soft Soil considering Arching,
Administration. Clogging and Smear Effects.” Journal of Geotechnical and
Barron, R. A. 1948. “Consolidation of Fine Grained Soils by Drain Geoenvironmental Engineering 139 (3): 377–394. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
Wells.” Transactions of ASCE 113: 718–724. GT.1943-5606.0000789.
10 B. T. LIMA ET AL.

Lambe, T. W., and R. V. Whitman. 1979. Soil Mechanics. New York, NY, Tan, S. A., S. Tjahyono, and K. K. Oo. 2008. “Simplified Plane-strain
USA: John Wiley & Sons. Modeling of Stone-column Reinforced Ground.” Journal of
Lunne, T., P. K. Robertson, and J. J. Powell. 1997. Cone Penetration Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134 (2): 185–194.
Testing in Geotechnical Practice. London, United Kingdom: Blackie doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:2(185).
Academic Professional. Tandel, Y. K., C. H. Solanki, and A. K. Desai. 2012. “Numerical
McCabe, B. A., G. J. Nimmons, and D. Egan. 2009. “A Review of Field Modelling of Encapsulated Stone Column-reinforced Ground.”
Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Soils.” Proceedings of International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and
Institution of Civil Engineers-Geotechnical Engineering 162 (6): Infrastructure Engineering (IJCSEIERD) 2 (1): 82–96.
323–334. doi:10.1680/geng.2009.162.6.323. Terzaghi, K., and R. Peck. 1967. Soil Mechanics in Engineering
Mestat, P., J. P. Magnan, and A. Dhouib. 2006 September. “Results of the Practice. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons.
Settlement Prediction Exercise of an Embankment Founded on Soil Thorburn, S. 1975. “Building Structures Supported by Stabilized
Improved by Stone Columns.” In Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Ground.” Geotechnique 25 (1): 83–94. doi:10.1680/
Engineering. Graz, Austria. geot.1975.25.1.83.
Poorooshasb, H. B., and G. G. Meyerhof. 1996. “Consolidation Watts, K. S., D. Johnson, L. A. Wood, and A. Saadi. 2000. “Instrumental Trial
Settlement of Rafts Supported by Stone Columns.” Geotechnical of Vibro Ground Treatment Supporting Strip Foundations in a Variable
Engineering 27 (2): 83–92. Fill.” Geotechnique 50 (6): 699–709. doi:10.1680/geot.2000.50.6.699.
Priebe, H. J. 1995. “The Design of Vibro Replacement.” Ground Weber, T. M., S. M. Springman, M. Gäb, V. Racansky, and
Engineering 28 (10): 31–37. H. F. Schweiger 2008. “Numerical Modelling of Stone Columns
Pulko, B., and B. Majes 2005. “Simple and Accurate Prediction of in Soft Clay under an Embankment”, Proceedings of the 2nd
Settlements of Stone Column Reinforced Soil.” 16th International International Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Focus on
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Ground Improvement, Glasgow, Scotland.
Japan, September. Wegner, R., M. Candeias, C. Moormann, H. Jud, and A. Glockner
Robertson, P. K., and K. L. Cabal. 2015. Guide to Cone Penetration 2009. “Soil Improvement by Stone Columns for the Ore Storage
Testing for Geotechnical Engineering. 6th ed. Signal Hill, California, Yard at the Rio De Janeiro Steel Plant on Soft, Alluvial
USA: Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc. Deposits.” Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on
Schmertmann, J. H. 1978. Guidelines for Cone Penetration Test– Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. ICSMGE 2009. CD-
Performance and Design. FHWA-TS-78-209. Federal Highway ROM.
Administration. Yee, Y. W., and V. R. Raju (2007), “Ground Improvement Using
Six, V., H. Mroueh, I. Shahrour, and M. Bouassida. 2012. “Numerical Vibro Replacement: Advancements and Case Histories in
Analysis of Elastoplastic Behavior of Stone Column Foundation.” Malaysia”, 16th Southeast Asian Geotechnical Conference, Kuala
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 30 (4): 813–825. Lumpur, Malaysia, May. doi:10.1094/PDIS-91-4-0467B.
doi:10.1007/s10706-012-9500-y. Zhang, L., M. Zhao, C. Shi, and H. Zhao. 2013. “Settlement Calculation
Tan, S. A., K. S. Ng, and J. Sun. 2014. “Column Groups Analyses of Composite Foundation Reinforced with Stone Columns.”
for Stone Column Reinforced Foundation.” Geotechnical Special International Journal of Geomechanics 13 (3): 248–256. doi:10.1061/
Publication 233: 597–608. (ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000212.