Load versus Settlement of Claybed stabilized with Stone & Reinforced

Stone Columns

S.N. Malarvizhi
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 25.
[email protected]
K. Ilamparuthi
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 25.
[email protected]

ABSTRACT: Stone columns are extensively used to improve the bearing capacity of poor ground and reduce
the settlement of structures built on them. In the present investigation, load versus settlement response of the
stone column and reinforced stone column i.e. geogrid-encased stone column was studied in the laboratory.
Load tests were performed on soft clay bed stabilized with single stone column and reinforced stone column
having various slenderness ratios and using different type of encasing material. The settlement in reinforced
stone column is lesser than the stone column and the settlement decreased with the increasing stiffness of the
encasing material. For smaller loads the settlement reduction ratio is less in stone columns but for higher loads
it is less in geogrid encased stone column.

1 INTRODUCTION and recently by Madhav et al. (1994). Mitchell and

Huber (1985) proved that the stone columns reduced
Soft clay deposits are extensively located in many the settlement significantly.
coastal areas and they exhibit poor strength and Stone columns also have secondary roles. It acts as
compressibility. Stone column that consist of vertical drains and thus speeding up the process of
granular material compacted in long cylindrical holes consolidation, replaces the soft soil by a stronger
is used as a technique for improving the strength and material and initial compaction of soil during the
consolidation characteristics of soft clays. Load process of installation thereby increasing the unit
carrying capacity of a stone column is attributed to weight. Stone columns also mitigate the potential for
frictional properties of the stone mass, cohesion/ liquefaction and damage by preventing build up high
cohesion and frictional properties of soils surrounding pore pressure by providing drainage path.
the column, flexibility or rigidity characteristics of However, when used in sensitive clays, stone
the foundation transmitting stresses to the improved columns have certain limitations. There is increase in
ground and the magnitude of lateral pressure the settlement of the bed because of the absence of
developed in the surrounding soil mass and acting on the lateral restraint. The clay particles get clogged
the sides of the stone column due to interaction around the stone column thereby reducing radial
between various elements in the system. The stone drainage. To overcome these limitations, and to
column derives its axial capacity from the passive improve the efficiency of the stone columns with
earth pressure developed due to the bulging effect of respect to the strength and the compressibility, stone
the column and increased resistance to lateral columns are encased (reinforced) using geogrids
deformation under superimposed surcharge load. /geocomposites. Deshpande & Vyas (1996) have
The theory of load transfer, estimation of ultimate brought out conceptual performance of stone columns
bearing capacity and prediction of settlement of stone encased in geosynthetic material. Katti et al (1993)
columns was first proposed by Greenwood (1970), proposed a theory for improvement of soft ground
Vesic (1972), Hughes and Withers (1974) and later using stone columns with geosynthetic encasing
by Priebe (1976), Aboshi et al. (1979), Datye and based on the particulate concept.
Nagaraju (1981), Greenwood and Kirsch (1983), Van In this study, performance of the encased stone
Impe and De Beer (1983), Balaam and Poulos (1983) column was studied with reference to strength and is

322
compared with that of the conventional stone consistency index of 0.1. Water content of 52% was
columns. used. Initially the soil was thoroughly mixed with the
water and kept covered for 48 hours in order to
achieve uniform consistency. After 48 hours of
2 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS hydration, the soil was mixed and kneaded well and
checked for moisture content. Loss of water, if any
2.1 Properties of materials due to evaporation was compensated by adding water
before forming the bed. The conditioned soil was
Marine clay of high plasticity was collected from the used to prepare soft clay bed. Care was taken to
coastal area of Chennai city in India for forming the avoid the entrapped air by tapping the clay layers
soft clay bed. Granite chips were used to form the gently with a wooden plank.
stone column. Netlon Nova curtain (net1) net of
1mm x 1mm aperture, Square mesh net of 4mm x 2.3 Stone/Reinforced Stone Column installation
4mm aperture size (net2) and CE121 (net3) were used
to form cylindrical tubes to encase the stone column. The center of the cylindrical tank was properly
The Soil was collected at a depth of 5m. Sample marked and a PVC pipe of the required diameter was
collected was air-dried and pulverised. The placed at the center of the tank. Around this pipe,
pulverised sample was sieved through 4.75mm sieve clay bed was formed. The clay layer was tamped
for easy mixing and quicker hydration. The index with a wooden tamper frequently and gently to expel
properties tests showed that the fine contents are 74% air during the process of filling. The stone required
out of which clay is 44%. The liquid limit and to form the column was carefully charged in the tube
plasticity index are 55% and 37% respectively. This in three layers. Each layer was compacted using
soil is classified as clay of high plasticity (CH). The 12mm diameter rod to achieve a density of 15kN/m3.
undrained shear strength of clay is 6 kN/m2 at For reinforced stone columns the reinforcement
moisture content of 52%. was stitched and placed around the PVC tube. After
Granite stone chips varying from 5 to 10 mm were preparing the clay bed, the tubes were charged with
used to form the columns. The particle sizes for the stone chips and compacted in layers. The PVC tube
columns are as per the guidelines of Nayak (1983), was withdrawn to certain level and charging of stones
which suggest that should be in the range of 1/6 to for the next layer was continued. The operations of
1/7 diameter of the column. charging of stones, compaction and withdrawal of
The properties of the nets used for encasement are tubes were carried out simultaneously.
tabulated in Table 1. Further the bed thus prepared was loaded with a
seating pressure of 5kN/m2 to the entire area of the
Table 1. Specifications of the Nets used bed for 24 hours to obtain uniform bed, which also
Netlon Wt. Aperture Referred ensured proper contact between clay and reinforced
Identification (gm/m )2 size as stone column. The test after 24 hours of preparation
Diamond of the bed has also ensured gain in their strength of
Nova Curtain 260 net1 disturbed clay.
1mm x 1mm
Square
Square mesh 475 net2 2.4 Experimental setup for the load test
4mm
Diamond
CE121 730 net3 Tests were conducted on a single column of diameter
8mm x 6mm
30 mm for various l/d ratios on a standard loading
frame as a stress-controlled test. The diameter of the
The Net3 geogrid had a thickness of 3.1mm with
maximum tensile strength of 7.68kN/m. Columns circular steel plate of adequate thickness and rigidity
may be based on the effective tributary soil area of
encased using Net3 was additionally encased with a
the stone column for a single column as per the codal
geotextile to allow for drainage without clogging of
soil into the aperture. provisions. The diameter is chosen to be 2.3d and
this is slightly higher than size of the plate used for
studies by Narasimha Rao (2000). The lateral
2.2 Preparation Of Soft Clay Bed
dimension of the tank should be such that the
minimum free distance between the periphery of the
The air-dried and pulverized clay sample was mixed
column and the side of the tank should not interface
with required quantity of water to achieve a

323
with the failure wedges. Meyerhof and Sastry (1978) stress/strain curve becomes more brittle compared
and Bowels (1988) established that the failure zone with untreated ground; after bulging occurs
extends over a radial distance of about 1.5 times the settlement increases rapidly. The clay bed treated
diameter and over a depth approximately equal to 2 with stone column to the entire thickness of the bed
times the diameter of pile from the periphery of the i.e. column resisting on hard strata (l/d=9.33)
pile. exhibited rapid increase in the resistance with
The loading arrangement is shown in the Figure 1 settlement. However the rate of increase of resistance
decreases with settlement. Similar trend was
observed in beds treated with stone column of smaller
length (l/d=5 and l/d=7.5).

Load (N)
0 100 200 300 400
0

10
Settlement (mm)
(a) (b) 15
Figure 1. Loading of the composite bed
20
a. Stone Column of diameter d for the full length.
b. Floating Stone Column for different l/d ratios.
25
d = diameter of the column c
l = length of the column 30 c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
h = thickness of the clay bed
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
35
Load test were carried out on single columns of
30mm diameter. Loading was done on a plate of Figure 2. Load Vs Settlement Curve of Stone
72mm diameter, which was 2.3 times the diameter of Columns having different l/d ratios
the single column, placed over the clay filled in the
tank of size 300mm diameter and 280mm in height. c refers to loading the claybed alone.
Loading was done over clay alone, clay stabilized by c+sc refers loading the stone column stabilized bed
stone column and clay stabilized with stone column
encased within geogrids of the same diameter as that The yield load of these columns are estimated by
of the stone columns alone. Load was incremented in plotting load-settlement on a log-log scale and the
hourly intervals and the settlement of the plate was load corresponding to the point at which the change
recorded by means of two dial gauges set in slope occurred is taken as the yield load. The yield
diametrically opposite. loads estimated by the log-log method are 116N,
113N and 97N for l/d ratios of 9.33, 7.5 and 5
respectively. The yield resistance of untreated bed is
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 68N. The increase in carrying capacity is of the order
of 1.71, 1.66 and 1.42 times that of the untreated beds.
3.1 Load Settlement Response Of Claybed and Stone The loads are also obtained of settlement of 10% of
Column Treated Bed the diameter of the column as well as a maximum
settlement of 10mm. The loads obtained by various
In Figure 2, load-settlement behavior of soft clay bed composite columns are presented in Table 2.
c and stone column reinforced bed c+sc is The yield loads obtained by log-log method are
presented. The load-settlement response of clay lesser than that of the loads corresponding to 3mm
column is very identical to that of the behavior of (10% diameter of the column) settlement. The load
highly plastic clay. For treated bed, the shape of the corresponding to 10mm settlement is always higher

324
than that of obtained by log-log method. However, Load (N)
the load corresponding to 10% of diameter of column 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
is closer to that of the load obtained by log-log plot. 0
Therefore, the ultimate load of the columns is taken
as the load corresponding to the settlement equal to
5 c
10% of the diameter of the column. c+sc
c+sc+net1
Table 2. Load Vs Settlement Response of composite 10 c+sc+net2
columns c+sc+net3
Load at Settlement of

Yield load from log-

Settlement (mm)
Load at Settlement

Bearing Capacity
15
of 10mm(N)

log plot (N)

Ultimate
3mm(N)

(kN/m2)
Type of
bed L/d 20

25

c 61 103 68 15.0
30
9.33 123 203 116 30.1
c+sc 7.5 87 165 113 21.4
35
5 78 113 97 19.0
Figure 3. Load Vs Settlement of composite bed with
c+sc+net1 9.33 139 226 136 34.1 various encasement

9.33 161 316 184 39.4 C+sc+net3 bed offered higher resistance than
c+sc+net2 c+sc+net2 bed for a given settlement of the stabilized
5 90 152 113 22.2
bed. The load-settlement response for the three types
9.33 194 407 194 47.4 of reinforcement is identical but maximum resistance
is offered by net3. As the stiffness of the encasing
c+sc+net3 7.5 129 194 129 31.6
material increases the load carrying capacity of the
5 116 119 129 28.4 composite column increases. The tensile strength of
net1 is very less and therefore the load capacity is
c+sc+net1 refers loading claybed stabilized with the also not remarkable. The load-settlement plot almost
stone column encased with net1 follows the plot of that of the stone column. Whereas
c+sc+net2 refers loading claybed stabilized with the when net3 is used for encasing, the load capacity
stone column encased with net2 increases and the settlement reduced remarkably.
c+sc+net3 refers loading claybed stabilized with the To find the stiffness of the reinforced stone
stone column encased with net3 columns, unconfined compression test was conducted
on short specimens of l/d = 2. The stiffness values
3.2 Load Settlement Response Of Claybed with were calculated from the pressure versus settlement
Stone Column encased with nets plots and are tabulated in Table 3.

The load-settlement response of reinforced stone Table 3. Stiffness of composite encased columns
column i.e. stone column encased using three types of Net1 Net2 Net3
nets is compared with the response of untreated bed Stiffness
and the bed treated with the stone column alone is 45 125 148
(kN/m2/m)
presented in Figure 3. The load carrying capacity of
the composite bed increases when encasement is used. It was found that as the stiffness of the composite
The difference in load resistance between stone column increases, the yield load of the composite bed
column and column reinforced with net1 (insect also increases proportionally. This is presented in
screen) is negligible irrespective of settlement of Figure 4.
column.

325
 250 stone column treated ground for the l/d ratio of 9.33
and 5 respectively.
200
Yield load (N)

150 3.4 Load Settlement Response of c+sc+net3

stabilized bed
100
The load-settlement response of clay beds treated
50
with reinforced stone column of various lengths with
0 net3 is presented in Figure 6. The ultimate load of
0 50 100 150 net3 reinforced stone column and stone column of l/d
3
Stiffness (kN/m ) ratio of 9.33 are 194N and 123N respectively. The
Figure 4. Yield load versus stiffness of composite increase in ultimate resistance is about 67% and
columns 200% higher than the ultimate resistance of stone
column treated bed and untreated bed respectively.
3.3 Load Settlement Response of c+sc+net2 For l/d ratio of 5 the increase is nearly 100% and 50%
stabilized bed higher than the untreated and stone column treated
clay bed.
The results of tests conducted using net2 with l/d
ratios of 5 and 9.33 are compared with stone column Load (N)
of corresponding l/d ratios is shown in Figure 5. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0

Load (N)
0 100 200 300 400 500 5
0

10
5
Settlement (mm)

15
10
20
Settlement (mm)

15
25

20 c
30 c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
25 c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c c+sc+net3(l/d=5)
35
c+sc(l/d=5) c+sc+net3(l/d=7.5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5) c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)
30
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net2+l/d=5 Figure 6. Load Vs Settlement of Stone Columns
c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33) Reinforced with Net3
35

Figure 5. Load Vs Settlement Curve of Stone Column The increase in length of column increases the
Reinforced with Net 2 ultimate load for a given thickness of the soft clay
bed. The column terminated in hard layer (bottom of
The shape of the load-settlement curves is bed) offered higher resistance. The ultimate load of
identical and independent of the length of the column, stone column treated bed is twice that of the untreated
but the load increased with the l/d ratio of the stone bed for l/d ratio of 9.33 or l/h (depth ratio) of unity.
column. The ultimate load of reinforced stone column Similarly, increase in the stiffness of the reinforcing
with l/d ratio of 9.33 and 5 are 161N and 90N material also increases the ultimate load for a
respectively, which are 2.6 times and 1.5 times the particular l/d ratio.
strength of untreated beds. Further, the reinforced The reinforced stone column has enhanced the
stone column strengths are 1.32 and 1.16 times the strength of stabilized bed irrespective of the length of

326
the column. The increase in length of the column 500 c
exhibited increase in load, but the increase is not c+sc(l/d=9.33)
450
linear. Further, the increase is higher for l/d ratio of c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)
400 c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)
9.33 when compared to other l/d ratios; this may be
c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)
attributed to the bearing resistance offered by the hard 350

Modulus (kN/m2)
surface in which the column was founded. 300
250
3.5 Comparison of Subgrade Modulus of various 200
composite beds 150
100

16000 50
0
Subgrade Modulus (kN/m3)

12000 0 5 10 15 20 25
Settlement (mm)
8000
Figure 8. Modulus of the end-bearing composite
column with various reinforcing material
4000

For end-bearing columns, the difference in modulus

0 value is more significant than in floating columns.
c

c+sc(l/d=5)

c+sc+net2(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=9.33)

c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)

c+sc+net3(l/d=7.5)

This is because the loads are transferred to the ground

in the case of end-bearing columns.

300
Type of bed
250 c
Figure 7. Subgrade modulus of various
c+sc(l/d=5)
composite beds
Modulus (kN/m2)

200 c+sc+net2(l/d=5)
c+sc+net3(l/d=5)
The subgrade modulus of treated beds for various 150
composite columns are compared for a settlement of
3mm in Figure 7. It can be seen that as the l/d ratio 100
increases, the subgrade modulus also increases
proportionally. The high value of subgrade modulus 50
for l/d=9.33 can be attributed to the end bearing of
the column to the base of the bed. The subgrade 0
modulus also increases with the tensile strength of the 0 5 10 15 20 25
material used for encasing. Settlement (mm)

Figure 9. Modulus of the floating composite column

3.6 Modulus of variation of end-bearing and
with various reinforcing material
floating columns with settlement

In order to understand the reduction in the stiffness of 3.7 Comparison of Modular ratio for various
composite columns with settlement, modulus of composite beds
composite columns were determined from the load-
settlement results for various strain levels. Figures 8 Modular ratio is a parameter, which indicates relative
and 9 shows the modulus of the composite bed for stiffness of the materials used for the stabilization.
end-bearing and floating columns respectively. The Further this parameter gives an idea on ratio of load
rate of decrease of the modulus with respect to sharing between reinforced column and clay. In
settlement is high in case of the column reinforced order to understand this, the modular ratios of
with net3 and low in the virgin clay bed. At a stabilized beds were obtained from the results of load
settlement of 3mm, the modulus value is very high test by applying the principle of equal strain for
for c+sc+net3 bed. various settlement values. The modular ratios thus

327
obtained are presented in Figure 10 for columns with the lengths of the floating column studied the
l/h = 1 and area ratio () = 0.174. variation of ultimate bearing capacity is negligible.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity (kN/m )

2
30 50
c+sc(l/d=9.33) = 0.174 c+sc+net2
c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33) 40 c+sc+net3
25 c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)
c+sc
c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33) 30
Modular ratio (Esc/Eclay)

20
20

15 10
0 1 2 3 4 5

(h-l)/d ratio
10
Figure 11. Variation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
with (h-l)/d ratio
5

3.9 Settlement ratio of the composite bed

0
0 5 10 15 20 The reduction in settlement between the claybed
Setttlement (mm) treated with reinforced stone columns and stone
column are presented in Figure 12 for end-bearing
Figure 10. Variation of Modular ratios with stone columns. At initial stage of loading, settlement
Settlement in the reinforced stone column is marginally higher
than that of the bed treated with stone column, which
From the graph one can infer that the modular is about 1.1 times.
ratio is a function of deformation (settlement) of
column. For stone column (c+sc) and stone column 1.20
with net1 (c+sc+net1), the modular ratio is higher at
initial loads and decreases with deformation till the
Settlement RSC/Settlement SC

deformation is less than 10% of the diameter of

0.80
column thereafter the ratio remains almost constant
irrespective of deformation. However, the modular
ratio of these two columns is lesser than the beds
stabilized with c+sc+net2 and c+sc+net3 for 0.40 c+sc+net1
settlements higher than 3mm. c+sc+net2
In case of beds stabilized with c+sc+net2 and
c+sc+net3
c+sc+net3, the modular ratio increases with
0.00
settlement but the increase beyond the settlement of 3 0 50 100 150 200 250
to 4mm is gradual. However, c+sc+net3 exhibited
Load (N)
higher modular ratio with higher rate of increase
while comparing with other reinforced columns. Figure 12. Settlement reduction ratio of reinforced
stone column treated bed with stone column bed
3.8 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Stabilized Bed
The marginal increase in settlement of composite
The variation of ultimate bearing capacity of end- beds is due to initial readjustment of the stone
bearing and floating columns are compared in Figure particles in the reinforced casing. However, as the
11. As the thickness of the claybed at the bottom of load increases, the settlement ratio decreases rapidly
the column increases bearing capacity decreases until certain intensity of load thereafter the rate of
irrespective of the stiffness of the columns. However, reduction in settlement is lesser. The rate of
the bearing capacity of composite columns is higher reduction in settlement with load is higher if the
than the bed treated with stone column, irrespective stiffness of the column is higher.
of whether the column is end-bearing or floating. For

328
4 CONCLUSIONS Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep
foundation, DFI96, ISSMFE, Bombay, pp1-
1. Encasing the stone column with geogrids resulted 19(1996)
in an increase of load carrying capacity Greenwood, D.A., Mechanical Improvement of soils
irrespective of whether the column is end-bearing below ground surface, Conference on Ground
or floating. In case of floating columns the l/d Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineers,
ratio has less influence on the capacity of column London, pp. 11-22(1970).
for the lengths studied in this investigation. Greenwood, D.A. and Kirsch, K., Specialist Ground
2. The ultimate load capacity of the reinforced Treatment by vibratory and dynamic methods
column increases with the stiffness of the State of Art, Advances in Piling and Ground
reinforcement. Treatment for Foundations, Institution of Civil
3. The ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced stone Engineers, London, England, pp 17-45(1983).
column and stone column treated beds are three Hughes, J.M.O and Withers, N.J., Reinforcing of
times and two times that of the untreated bed. soft cohesive soils with stone columns, Ground
4. The encased stone column is stiffer than stone Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3 pp. 42-42 and pp. 47-
columns, thereby reducing the load on clay, 49(1974).
consequently reducing the settlement. Katti, R.K., Katti, A.R and Naik, S., Monograph to
5. Modular ratio of reinforced columns (end-bearing) analysis of stone columns with and without geo-
increases with increase in settlement irrespective synthetic encasing, CBRI publication, New
of the type of encasing material, however, the Delhi.(1993)
increase is negligible in case of stone column and Madhav, M.R., Miura, N. & Alamgir, M., Analysis
net1 encased stone column. But the increase is of Granular Column Reinforced Ground, 5th
appreciable and the modular ratio is 17 to 25 for International Conference on Geotextile,
the settlement between 5 and 20mm. Geomembranes and Related Products,
The conclusions drawn are for an area ratio of 0.174. Singapore.(1994)
In order to have better understanding on the Meyerhof, G.G. and Sastry V.V.R.N, Bearing
performance of reinforced stone column more tests capacity of piles in layered soils, part I and II,
are warranted by varying area ratio, moisture content Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, pp. 171-
of clay and l/d ratio of columns. 189(1978).
Mitchell, J.K. and Huber, T.R., Performance of a
stone column foundation, Journal of
REFERENCES Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111, pp. 205-
223(1985).
Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Enoki, M. and Haraka, K. Narasimha Rao S.N., Studies on groups of stone
The Compozer A Method to Improve columns in soft clays, Symposium on Ground
Characteristics of Soft Clays by Inclusion of Large Improvement Techniques for practicing engineers,
Diameter Sand Columns. Proceedings of Chennai, pp.84-93(2000).
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement: Nayak, N.V., Recent advances in ground improvements
Reinforced Earth and other Techniques, Paris, Vol. by stone column, Proceedings of Indian
1, p.211-216(1979). Geotechnical Conference, Madras, Vol. 1, p. V-
Balaam, N.P. and Poulos, H.G, The behavior of 19(1983).
foundations supported by clay stabilized by stone Priebe, H. J., "An evaluation of settlement reduction
columns, Proceedings of Specialty sessions, VII in soil improved by vibroreplacement". (en
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and alemn). Bautechnik, n 53, pp. 160-162(1976).
Foundation Engineering, Helinski.Vol.2.(1983) Van Impe, W. Y, De Beer, E., "Improvement of
Bowels, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th settlement behaviour of softy layers by means of
Edition, McGraw Hill, 278 p(1988). stone columns", Proceedings of 8th International
Datye, K.R. and Nagaraju, S.S., Design Approach Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
and Field Control for Stone Columns. Engineering, Helsinki. pp. 309-312(1983).
Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Vesic, A.S., Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mass, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Stockholm, pp.637-640(1981). Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM3,
Deshpande, P.M and Vyas, A.V., Interactive encased pp. 265-290(1972).
stone column foundation, Sixth International

329