A Simple Analytical Method For Calculation of Bearing Capacity of Stonecolumn
A Simple Analytical Method For Calculation of Bearing Capacity of Stonecolumn
A Simple Analytical Method For Calculation of Bearing Capacity of Stonecolumn
Engineering
Abstract
The Stone-column is a useful method for increasing the bearing capacity and reducing settlement of foundation soil. The
prediction of accurate ultimate bearing capacity of stone columns is very important in soil improvement techniques.Bulging
failure mechanism usually controls the failure mechanism. In this paper, an imaginaryretaining wall is used such that it
stretches vertically from the stone column edge. A simple analytical method is introduced for estimation of the ultimate bearing
capacity of the stone column using Coulomb lateral earth pressure theory.Presentedmethodneeds conventional Mohr-coloumb
shear strength parameters of the stone column material and the native soil for estimation the ultimate bearing capacity of
stone column. The validity of the developed method has been verified using finite element method and test data. Parametric
studies have been carried out and effects of contributing parameters such as stone column diameter, column spacing, and
theinternal friction angle of the stone column material on the ultimate bearing capacity have been investigated.
Keywords: Stone column, Bearing capacity, Soft soil, Bulging, Lateral earth pressure
1. Introduction
The construction of structures such as a building,
storage tanks, warehouse, earthenembankment, etc., on
weak soils usually involves an excessive settlement or
stability problems. To solve or reduce encountered
problems, soil improvement may be considered. Various
methods may be used for soil improvement. Three
categories involving column type elements, soil
replacement, and consolidationmay be considered [1].One
effective method is stone-column referred to by other
names such as granular column or granular pile.
Stone-column is useful for increasing the bearing
capacity and reducing settlement of foundation soil. In
addition, because of high permeability of stone column
material,consolidation rate in soft clay increases. In stonecolumn construction, usually 15 to 35 percent of weak soil
volume isreplaced with stonecolumn material. Design
loads on stone-columns ordinarily vary between 200 to
500kN[1]. The confinement of stone-column is provided
by the lateral stress due to the weak soil. The effectiveness
of the load transmitted by stone-columns essentially
depends on the lateral stress that exerts from the
surrounding soft soil.
* Corresponding author: [email protected]
1 Assistant Professor, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad
University, (IAU), Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, K.N. Toosi
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
International Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 1, Transaction B: Geotechnical Engineering, January 2014
3K P
1 3 tan 2 (45 s ) 3
s
1 sin s
2
(1)
3 cFc' qFq'
(2)
E
2(1 )(c q tan c )
(3)
Ec
]
2c(1 )
(4)
16
AS
S
(5)
17
C2
a s tan 1
(6)
(7)
1
K as s H 2 qult K as H
2
(8)
(9)
K pc
K pcc
18
cos 2 1
c
K pc (1 w )
cc
sin ( s 1 ) sin ( s )
cos 1
Active state
Passive state
cc 50 kPa
c w cc
c w 0.5cc
cc 50 kPa
cw 50 kPa
cw 25 kPa
1
K H q K p 2cc K pc
cos 2 2 pc c
c
c
qult
K as
cos 1
cos c
2
qult cc 2
s
cos
2
K cos c
cos c K
K pcc
pc
2
2 1 W
q pc
s tan a
c
K as
2
c
K as
s K as
cos s
cos
2
2
(11b)
(14)
(15)
cos
cos
(11a)
1 H
2 s
Where N c 2
2
(13)
(10)
cos 2 c
sin ( c 2 ) sin ( c )
cos 2
(12)
q ult c c N c q N q
cos 2 s
cos 1 1
Value of cc
Pa cos 1 Pp cos 2
K as
H W tan a
tan c C3
P c tan 1
C4
Pa
c
2
1
W c N
2
K pcc
K as
(16)
Nq
c
K pc cos 2
K as cos s
2
cos c K
pc
s
2
N tan a
s K as c
cos
Fig. 4 Variation of N c versus stone column material friction angle for various native soil friction angles (Cohesion of native is less than 50 kPa)
Fig. 5 Variation of N q versus stone column material friction angle for various native soil friction angles
Fig. 6 Variation of N versus stone column material friction angle for various native soil friction angle (
International Journal of Civil Engineering Vol. 12, No. 1, Transaction B: Geotechnical Engineering, January 2014
s
1.2 )
c
19
are assumed as below: For soil 1,2,3, and 4, Fc' 2.4 and
Fq' 1 . Soil 5 and 6 have Fc' 2.4 and Fq' 1.25 .Fig. 7
and
Fig. 7 Comparison between bearing capacity value determined from new method and Vesic method
20
Parameter
Clay
Stone
column
20
38
2000
40000
Poisson ratio
0.45
0.30
cc 50 kPa
and
c 0 .Fig.9
Cases 1-5
For cases 1-5, an investigation on the behavior of
granular piles with different densities and properties of
gravel and sand on soft Bangkok clay was carried out
byBergado and Lam [40]. Table3 shows that for the same
granular materials, the bearing capacity increases with
increasing the number of blows per layer, resulting in an
increase in densities and friction angles. The average
deformed shaped of the granular piles is typically bulging
type and all of granular piers have an initial pile diameter
of 30 cm. Soft Bangkok clay had an undrained cohesion of
cu 15 kPa and internal friction angle of c 26
([41],[42]).
Test No:
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Case 4
Case 5
0.3
SPT
20
15
10
15
15
17
16.1
15
19.4
17.4
38.2
36.9
35.6
37.7
43.3
33.3
30.8
21.7
31.3
36.3
28.8
27.5
25.8
28.5
38.1
-14%
-11%
19%
-9%
5%
International Journal of Civil Engineering Vol. 12, No. 1, Transaction B: Geotechnical Engineering, January 2014
21
The
developed
simple
method
Table 4 Difference between measured and predicted values for ultimate loads carried by stone columns
CASE No:
Case 1
Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Case 5
Case 6
Case 7
Case 8
Case 9
22
gives
Case 10
33300
30800
21700
31300
36300
800
350
110
320
620
28800
27500
25800
28500
38100
670
286
135
304
541
-14%
-11%
19%
-9%
5%
-16%
-18%
23%
-5%
-13%
5. Parametric Study
A series of parametric studies has been carried out
using the developed method. The unit weight of the native
soil and stone-column were taken c 15 kN / m 3 and
s 18 kN / m 3 , respectively. Also, diameter and center-to-
Fig. 10 Variation of stone column ultimate load versus native soil cohesion for various stone material friction angles
Fig. 11 Variation of stone column ultimate load versus stone column diameter for various stone material friction angles
International Journal of Civil Engineering Vol. 12, No. 1, Transaction B: Geotechnical Engineering, January 2014
23
Fig. 12 Variation of stone column ultimate load versus stone column spacing for various stone material diameters
6. Conclusions
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
24
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
Deb K. Modeling of granular bed-stone columnimproved soft soil, International Journal for Numerical
and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 2008, Vol. 32,
pp. 12671288.
Deb K, Chandra S, Basudhar P.K. Response of multilayer
geosynthetic-reinforced bed resting on soft soil with
stone columns, Computers and Geotechnics, 2008, Vol.
35, pp. 323330.
Fan Chia.Ch, Luo J.H. Numerical study on the optimum
layout of soilnailed slopes, Computers and Geotechnics,
2008, Vol. 35, pp. 585599.
Kvasnicka P, Matesic L. Analysis of an example a nailed
wall in soft clayey soil, Geotechnical Hazards, Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1998, pp. 547-552.
Richards Jr.R, Elms D.G, Budhu M. Seismic bearing
capacity and settlements of foundations, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 1993, No. 4, Vol. 119,
pp. 662-674.
Richards R, Elms D.G. Seismic behavior of tied back
walls, Report 87-8, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Canterbury, Christchurch, N.Z, 1987.
Tschebotarioff G.P. Soil mechanics, foundations and
earth structures, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, N.Y, 1951.
Whitlow R. Basic soil mechanics, 2nd Edition, Longman
Scientific &Technical, UK, 1990.
Civil engineering code of practice, Earth retaining
structures, The Institution of Structural Engineers,
London, 1951, No. 2 (CP2).
Narasimha R.S, Madhiyan M, Prasad Y.V.S.N. Influence
of bearing area on the behavior of stone columns,
Proceedings of Indian Geotechnic Conference, Calcutta,
India, 1992, pp. 235-237.
Mitchell J.K, Huber T.R. Performance of a stone column
foundation, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 1985,
No. 2, Vol. 111, pp. 205223.
Saha S, Santhanu S, Roy A. Analysis of stone column in
soft ground, Proceeding, Indian Geotechnical Conference,
Bombay, India, 2000, pp. 297300.
Bergrado D.T, Lam F.L. Full scale load test of granular
piles with different densities and different proportions of
gravel and sand in the soft bangkok clay, Journal of Soils
and Foundations, 1987, No. 1, Vol. 27, pp. 86-93.
Budhu M. Soil mechanic and foundation, John wiley &
sons, INC, 2000.
Balasubramian A.S, Chaudhry A.R. Deformation and
strength characteristics of soft bangkokclay, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, 1978, No. 9,
Vol. 104 , pp. 1153-1167.
Maurya R.R, Sharma B.V.R, Naresh D.N. Footing load tests
on single and group of stone columns, 16th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering, Osaka, Japan, 2005, pp. 1385-1388.
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K. Studies on the behavior of
single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 2010, No. 1, Vol. 136, pp. 129-139.
International Journal of Civil Engineering Vol. 12, No. 1, Transaction B: Geotechnical Engineering, January 2014
25