LOAD SETTLEMENT AND BULGING BEHAVIOUR OF STONE COLUMNS

IN HIGH PLASTIC CLAY SOILS

Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
IN
CIVIL ENGINEERING
With specialization in
GEOTECHNICALENGINEERING
By
V. PRUTHVINATH REDDY 
 
Under the guidance of
Dr. K. MALLIKARJUNA RAO 
Professor of Civil Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

SRI VENKATESWARA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
TIRUPATI – 517 502 (A.P) INDIA
2013
 DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
SRIVENKATESWARAUNIVERSITYCOLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
TIRUPATI-517502 (A.P) INDIA

Certificate

This is to certify that the dissertation work entitled “LOAD SETTLEMENT AND
BULGING BEHAVIOUR OF STONE COLUMNS IN HIGH PLASTIC CLAY
SOILS” is the bonafide work done and submitted by Mr. [Link]
REDDY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of MASTER OF
TECHONOLOGY degree in CIVIL ENGINEERING with specialization in
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING of Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati,
during the period of 2011-2013. The contents of the thesis have not been submitted to
any other university for the award of any degree.

[Link] RAO Dr. [Link] RAO

Guide Professor and Head
Dept. of Civil Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering
[Link] of Engineering [Link] of Engineering
Tirupati-517502 Tirupati-517502
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“For any tasks to be successful, hard work and dedication is a must. If it is

backed by blessings of Almighty, along with unhindered support and guidance, It will
reach the ultimate without losing track”.

With profound sense of gratitude I sincerely thank my Guide and motivator

Prof. K. Mallikarjuna Rao, Departmrnt of Civil Engineering, Sri venkateswara
University, for his support, sugessetions, sympathy, commitment and devotion
throughout the course of this work. His unconditional care, meticulous supervision,
sparkling interpretation and cheerful wisdom have given me necessary inspiration,
encouragement and acadamic sustenance while pursuing this thesis work for which I
remain beholden to him. But for the personal sacrifice and selflessness of my guide,
my work would not have been possible. I remain indebted to him for ever for the
extraordinary care and concern bestowed on me.

I am greatly indebted to Dr. K. Mallikarjuna Rao, professor and Head, and

Department of Civil Engineering for permitting me to carry out my project work and
providing administrative help.

I wish to acknowledge the help received from Mr. S. Anil Kumar and Mr.B
Ramanaiah the technical staff of Geotechnical Engineering laboratory,
[Link] of Engineering. I wish to thank all of my friends and classmates who
have supported me to complete the thesis work.

Last, but not the least, I would like to thank the authors of various research
articles and books that I referred to

V. Pruthvi nath Reddy

 CONTENTS

[Link]. Description Page

No.
ABSTRACT iv-v
LIST OF FIGURES vi-vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF PLATES ix
CHAPTER-I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 General 2
1.2 Ground Improvement in Soft or Weak soils 2
1.2.1 Ground Improvement by Mechanical Modification 3
1.2.2 Ground Improvement by Hydraulic Modification 3
1.2.3 Ground Improvement by physical and chemical modification 3
1.2.4 Ground Improvement Modification by Inclusion And 3
Confinement
1.3 Stone Columns 4
1.4 Failure Modes of Stone Columns 4
1.5 Objectives and Scope of Investigation 5
CHAPTER-II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6
2.1 General 7
2.2 Techniques of Installation of Stone Columns 8
2.2.1 Vibratory Techniques 8
[Link] Vibro Compaction Technique 10
[Link] Vibro-replacement method 10
[Link].1 Wet Method 11
[Link].2 Dry Method 12
[Link] Vibro Compozer Technique 13
2.2.2 Rammed Stone Column 14
2.3 Studies on Unreinforced Stone columns 15
2.4 Studies on Stone Column Using Ramming Techniques 17
2.5 Studies on Reinforced Stone Column 19
2.6 Mechanism of Bulging In Stone Columns 23
2.6.1 Single Column 23
2.6.2 Group Columns 24
2.7 Analysis & Design of Stone Columns 25

i 

 
 2.7.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity 25
2.7.2 Settlements 26
CHAPTER-III MATERIALS AND METHODS 29
3.1 Introduction 30
3.2 Materials Used 30
3.2.1 Soils Used 30
3.2.2 Stone Dust 31
3.2.3 Model Raft/Footing Used 32
3.2.4 Load Frame Used 33
3.2.5 Model Test Tank Used 33
3.3 Methods of Adopted 33
3.3.1 Size of The Stone columns 33
3.3.2 Method of Test bed Preparation 33
3.3.3 Method of Installation of Stone columns 33
3.4 Design of Experiments 36
3.4.1 Strategy of Experimentation 36
3
3.4.2 2 Factorial Experimentation 36
3.5 Test Procedures 38
3.5.1 Liquid Limit 38
3.5.2 Plastic Limit 39
3.5.3 Plasticity Index 39
3.5.4 Free Swell Index Test 39
3.5.5 Grain Size Distribution 40
3.5.6 Load Test on Stone Column 40
CHAPTER-IV LOAD CARING CAPACITY OF STONE COLUMN 42
4.1 Introduction 43
4.2 Results and Discussions 43
4.2.1 Capacity of Stone Columns 43
4.2.2 Effect on L/D ratio on Load carrying capacity (Critical L/D ratio) 50
4.2.3 Results of Factorail Experimentation 52
[Link] Effect of L/D ratio on Load carrying capacity 55
[Link] Effect of Consistency Index on Load carrying capacity 56
[Link] Effect of Liquid Limit on Load carrying capacity 57
[Link] Interaction Effect of L/D ratio and Consistency Index on Load 58
carrying capacity

ii 

 
 [Link] Interaction Effect of L/D ratio and Liquid Limit on Load carrying 59
capacity
[Link] Interaction Effect of Consistency Index and Liquid Limit on 60
Load carrying capacity
[Link] Interaction Effect of L/D ratio, Consistency Index and Liquid 61
Limit on Load carrying capacity
4.3 Regression Model for Load carrying capacity 62

4.4 Validity of Proposed Model for Load carrying capacity 63

CHAPTER-V LATERAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF BULGING 68
5.1 Introduction 69
5.2 Results and Discussions 69
5.2.1 Tests Conducted 69
5.3 Results of Factorial Experimentation 74
5.3.1 Effect of L/D ratio on Bulging of Stone column 76
5.3.2 Effect of Consistency Index on Bulging of Stone columns 76
5.3.3 Effect of Liquid Limit on Bulging of Stone columns 77
5.3.4 Interaction Effect of L/D ratio and Consistency Index on Bulging 77
of Stone columns
5.3.5 Interaction Effect of L/D ratio and Liquid Limit on Bulging of 77
Stone columns
5.3.6 Interaction Effect of Consistency Index and Liquid Limit on 77
Bulging of Stone columns
5.3.7 Interaction Effect of L/D ratio, Consistency Index and Liquid 78
Limit on Bulging of Stone columns
5.4 Regression Model for DB 78
5.5 Regression Model for BV 79
5.6 Regression Model for BL 79
5.7 Validity of Proposed Model for Bulging of Stone column 80
CHAPTER-VI SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 87
Summary 88
Conclusions 90
REFERENCES 91

iii 

 
 ABSTRACT

Ground improvement is commonly adopted in civil engineering practice to bring

down the ill effects of poor sub soil conditions on civil engineering structures constructed

over them. Compaction, reinforcement by inclusion of stiffer elements into soil, drainage,

addition of physical and chemical admixtures, heating and freezing are some of the categories

of ground improvement techniques. Stone columns are one of the methods of ground

improvement to enhance the engineering behaviour of soft clays. Stone columns are vertical

column or inclusions of dense compact crushed stone penetrating soft clays. These are

extensively used to improve the bearing capacity of soils and reduce the settlements of

structures like oil storage tanks, embankments built on them. It serves as a drainage face to

accelerate the consolidation on one hand and acts as a reinforcement to improve allowable

bearing pressure on the other hand. End baring resistance also contributes to its capacity if

allowed to rest on stiff clays or rigid bases. The performance of stone columns penetrating

soft clays is governed by passive resistance offered to the bulging of stone columns at the top.

Contribution of that part of stone column below the zone of bulging is said to be limited.

In this investigation an attempt has been made to determine the critical length of the

stone column beyond which there will be no further increase in capacity with increase in

length. It is expanding also intended to study the effect of consistence index(IC) and liquid

limit (LL) on critical length and load carrying capacity of stone columns penetrating soft

clay. A series of laboratory tests were performed to determine capacity of stone columns by

varying simultaneously the factors IC, LL of soil and L/D of stone column over two levels

each following the principles of 23 factorial experimentation which enables to quantity the

relative effect of each factor as well as effect of interaction among the furthers on response of

interest (capacity of stone column and critical L/D). The results of the experimental

iv 

 
programme reveal that there is a critical L/D beyond which there will be no further increase

in ultimate capacity with L/D. It is found to be a function of IC only and is independent of LL.

An empirical regression model was developed to predict critical L/D in terms of IC of soil

unlike critical L/D, capacity of stone column is found to be a function of L/D, IC, interaction

of IC&L/D and LL in that order. Post failure observation revealed that the stone column

undergoes bulging in the form of a bulb upon loading. Bulging length (BL), bulging width

(BV) and depth (DB=depth to the centre of bulb) are found to be functions of both main

factors (IC, LL, L/D) and their interaction but in different order depending on the response of

interest. Empirical regression models were developed to predict PU, BL, BV and DB in terms

of influencing factors. Validity of all the models developed were verified with data from

present investigation and results of others from literature which were not used in the

development of models .The results indicate that the models are fairly good to predict PU, BL,

BV and DB. These predictions are expected to the useful not only in be design of stone

columns but also for the studies on reinforced stone columns.

v 

 
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. No. Description Page No.

2.1 Vibro Float 9
2.2 Vibro Compaction Technique 10
2.3 Procedure of Vibro-Replacement 11
2.4 Procedure of Vibro-Displacement 12
2.5 Particle Size Distribution Illustrating Applicability of Vibro- 13
Compaction and Vibro-Replacemen
2.6 Vibro Compozer Techniques 14
2.7 Rammed Stone Through Cased Hole 14
2.8 Failure Mechanisms of A Single Stone Column A Homogenous 23
Soft Layer (IS: 15284 (Part1)2003)
2.9 Stone Column Failure Mechanisms in Non-Homogenous Cohesive 24
Soli (IS: 15284(Part1)2003)
2.10 Types of Failures in Group Columns 24
3.1 Grain size distribution of Stone dust 32
3
3.2 2 Factorial Design Geometric View 37
3.3 Loading of the composite bed 40
3
4.1 2 Factorial Design 44
4.2 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.30 & LL=98) 45
4.3 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.50 & LL=98)  46
4.4 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.65 & LL=98)  46
4.5 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.80 & LL=98)  47
4.6 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.30 & LL=56)  47
4.7 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.50 & LL=56)  48
4.8 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.65 & LL=56)  48
4.9 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.80 & LL=56)  49
4.10 Capacity Vs L/D Ratio for Soil A (LL=98) At Different IC Values 50
4.11 Capacity Vs L/D Ratio for Soil B (LL=56) At Different IC Values 51
4.12 Consistency Ic Vs Critical L/D Ratio Plot 52
4.13 Factorial design for load carrying capacity 53
3
4.14 2 Factorial Design For Effect of L/D Ratio on Load Carrying 55
Capacity
4.15 23 Factorial Design For Effect of IC on Load Carrying Capacity 56
3
4.16 2 Factorial Design For Effect of LL on Load Carrying Capacity 57
4.17 23 Factorial Design For Effect of L/D and IC on Load Carrying 58
Capacity

vi 

 
 4.18 23 Factorial Design For Effect of L/D and IC on Load Carrying 59
Capacity
4.19 23 Factorial Design For Effect of IC and LL on Load Carrying 60
Capacity
4.20 23 Factorial Design For Effect of L/D, IC and LL on Load Carrying 61
Capacity
5.1 Bulging of Stone Column 70
3
5.2 2 Factorial Design For Depth To The Center of Bulging(DB) 75
3
5.3 2 Factorial Design For Vertical Extent of Bulging(BV) 75
3
5.4 2 Factorial Design For Maximum Lateral Extent of Bulging(BL) 76
 

vii 

 
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Description Page No.

2.1 Estimation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity 25
2.2 Estimation of Settlement of Composite Ground 27
3.1 Properties of The Soils Tested 31
3.2 Properties of The Stone Dust 32
3.3 23 Factorial Design Test Combinations and Label of Experiments 38
3
4.1 Factors of 2 Factorial Design 43
4.2 Ultimate Capacity of Stone Columns 49
4.3 Critical L/D Ratios 51
4.4 Ultimate Capacity of Stone Column for Factorial Experimentation 54
4.5 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity of Stone 62
Column
4.6 Observed & Predicted Capacity of Stone Columns Reported 64
Results & Results of Present Investigation
5.1 Length, Breadth and Depth of Bulging For Stone Columns Tested 72
3
5.2 2 Factorial Design Test Combinations of Bulging Stone Columns 74
5.3 Relative Effect of Factors on DB, BV and BL 78
5.4 Validation of Model For Depth To The Center of Bulging (DB) 80
5.5 Validation of Model For Vertical Extent of Bulging (BV) 83
5.6 Validation of Model For Maximum Latral Extent of Bulging(BL) 85
 

viii 

 
 LIST OF PLATES 

Plate No. Description Page No.

3.1 Installation of Stone Column 35
4.1 Load Test on Stone Column in Progress 45
5.1 Cutting and Measurement Bulging of Stone column 71
 

ix 

 
CHAPTER - I
 

INTRODUCTION

1
 CHAPTER - I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL:

Almost all Civil Engineering structures are constructed on or in or with the soil. The load
from superstructure and substructure are ultimately to be supported by the soil. The soil at the
site of construction should be competent enough to receive these loads without affecting the
function of the structure. Conventionally construction on, in, or with problematic soils is
avoided. Nowadays the scarcity of land space available for new urban development has
prompted a renewed interest from local authorities and engineering community for the end use of
various landfills, problematic soils and soft soils or in the extension of the life of existing
landfills. As a result it is necessary to utilize even the poorest sites either by providing special
type of foundation or by improving the weak ground. From there the necessity of ground
improvement came into the picture.

1.2 GROUND IMPROVEMENT IN SOFT OR WEAK SOILS:

If the presence of soft soil or problematic soil is detected during soil exploration,
following are the alternatives to ensure stability of the structure.

1. Avoid the particular site

2. Design the planned structure accordingly
3. Remove and replace unsuitable soils
4. Modify the existing ground

Urban and industrial development coupled with scarcity of land made the soil
improvement alternative (that is Fourth alternative) to be the best option in good number of
cases. In Literature several methods of ground improvement techniques are reported. These
techniques can broadly be divided into four categories.

2
 1. Mechanical modification
2. Hydraulic modification
3. Physical and chemical modification
4. Modification by inclusion and confinement

Different ground improvement techniques which fall under each of the above categories
are presented in the fallowing subsection.

1.2.1 Ground improvement by mechanical modification:

Soil density is increased by the application of short term external mechanical forces,
including compaction of surface layers by static, vibratory, sheep foot or impact rollers and plate
vibrators; and deep compaction by heavy tamping at the surface or vibration at depth. Stone
columns are inclusions in ground by compacting aggregate in a bore hole either by a rammer or
by a vibrator which are used to improve the soil at deeper depths.

1.2.2 Ground improvement by hydraulic modification:

Free-pore water is forced out of the soil via drains or wells in coarse-grained soils. This is
achieved by lowering the groundwater level through pumping from boreholes or trenches; in
fine-grained soils the long-term application of external loads (preloading) or electrical forces is
required.

1.2.3 Ground improvement by physical and chemical modification:

Stabilization by physically mixing additives with surface layers or columns of soil at

depths. Additives include natural soils, industrial by-products or waste materials, and other
chemicals which react with each other and/or the ground.

1.2.4 Ground improvement modification by inclusion and confinement:

Reinforcement by fibers, strip, bars, meshes, and fabrics imparts tensile strength to a
constructed soil mass. In situ reinforcement is achieved by nails and anchors. Stable earth-
retaining structures can also be formed by confining soil with concrete, steel, or fabric elements
(including crib and bin walls and sandbags).

3
1.3 STONE COLUMNS:

Stone columns are vertical columns of compacted aggregate formed through the soils to
be improved. These columns result in considerable vertical load carrying capacity and improved
shear resistance in the soil mass. The stone can be compacted with impact methods, such as with
a falling weight or an impact compactor or with a vibro float. These are used to increase bearing
capacity, improve the drainage conditions and environment control, reduce foundation
settlements, improve slope stability, reduce seismic subsidence, and reduce lateral spreading and
liquefaction potential, control the deformation and accelerate consolidation, permit construction
on loose/soft fills. Most widely used methods for installation of stone columns are:

1. Vibro-Compaction Method
2. Rammed Stone Column Method

The construction of stone columns is generally carried out using either a replacement or a
displacement method. In the replacement methods, a bore hole is formed by conventional bore
hole advancing techniques and is filled with stone aggregate either rammed or compacted in it. In
the displacement or dry method, native soil is displaced laterally by a vibratory probe using
compressed air. This installation method is appropriate where ground water level is low and in
situ soil is firm.

1.4 FAILURE MODES OF STONE COLUMNS:

Single stone column can be built upon a firm stratum under a soft soil by end bearing
capability or as a floating column with tip of column embedded within the soft soil layer.
However end bearing columns are more in practice. To make the most optimum application of
stone columns, we must understand the various failure mechanisms it can undergo. Four basic
failure modes of stone columns are:

1. General shear failure.

2. Local shear failure.
3. Bulging failure.
4. Failure by sliding.

4
 Bulging can be encountered as the main factor to influence the failure in stone column.
Generally it is believed that if the length of column exceeds 2-3 times of the diameter of column,
then bulging happens surely.

The modes of failure of stone columns depend upon the following parameters:

ƒ Type of stone column (end-bearing or free floating).

ƒ Type of loading on columns.
ƒ Passive resistance of tributary clay/soil.
1.5 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION:
From the literature it is clear that the stone columns can be effectively used to improve
the bearing capacity and to reduce settlements of a raft or footing supported in soft clays. Stone
columns may either be free floating or end bearing type depending on the load transfer
mechanism. Passive resistance offered by tributary clay soil to the bulging of stone column is
mainly responsible for improvement in the case of free floating type stone columns i.e. stone
columns presenting soft clays. Soil type, its strength and the dimensions of stone column are the
other factors which will have an effect on capacity and settlement behaviour of this type of stone
columns.

The scope and objective of the present investigation is to study the effect of Consistency
Index (IC), Length/diameter ratio (L/D) of stone column, Liquid limit (LL) of the soil and their
interaction effect on Load carrying capacity of the stone column penetrating soft clays. It is also
intended to study the effect of these factors on lateral and vertical extent of bulb formed owing to
the bulging of stone column upon loading. Further, it is envisaged to develop and empirical
equations to predict load carrying capacity of stone column and extent of bulging accounting for
all the influencing factors, and validate the same with reported results.

5
CHAPTER- II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  

6
 CHAPTER- II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 GENERAL:

Stone column technique is an easy, economical and less time consuming method for ground
improvement. In this technique soft cohesive soil deposits are replaced by granular material in
the form of pile which are compacted by ramming or vibration and hence improve the
characteristics of the composite ground. The major advantage of this method is that it increases
the bearing capacity and decrease, the settlement simultaneously by the following mechanisms.

¾ Sharing of super imposed load by the weak soil and relatively stiffer granular material of
the stone column.
¾ During various installation process of stone column, the in-situ soil get compacted and
for the granular material present in the stone column the water in the in-situ soil
dissipated and the soil get consolidated.

Stone columns are usually constructed by fully penetrating in to a soft layer. Various empirical
and analytical techniques for predicting response of treated ground would be discussed in this
chapter. Special emphasis was given on the parameters on which the behavior of the stone
column is depending. This is divided into two parts:

¾ The first part of the present chapter is a survey on various techniques of installation of
stone column in soft clay.
¾ The second part of the present chapter is review of studies reported by different
investigators on performance of composite ground (ground treated with reinforced and un
reinforced stone columns) in terms of ultimate bearing capacity, settlement and general
stability, covering field, laboratory and theoretical/ analytical studies.

7
2.2 TECHNIQUES OF INSTALLATION OF STONE COLUMNS:

Methods of stone column may be broadly divided into two basic groups as:

o Vibratory techniques using vibro float

o Rammed stone columns

Given below the details of the each techniques

2.2.1 Vibratory techniques:

The Vibro Stone Column technique is one of the most widely-used ground improvement
processes in the world. Historically the system has been used to density loose granular soils, but
over the past 35 years, the system has been used increasingly to reinforce soft cohesive soils and
mixed [Link] techniques have been used extensively for major structures. It is most suitable
for soft to firm clays, silts and sands. The basic tool used in these techniques is a vibro float
which is 2 m to 3m long with diameter ranging 300mm to 400mm. When greater depth of
treatment is needed extension tubes are attached to the vibro float. It contains an eccentric weight
mounted at the bottom of a vertical shaft. The energy is imparted by rotational motion through
the shaft and the eccentric weight imparts vibration in a horizontal plane .The output of the
process is independent of the depth of the treatment. Fig 2.1 shows the Vibro Float.

8
 Fig: 2.1 Vibro Float

Vibratory techniques are further divided into following three groups depending on the
mechanisms involved in the formation of stone columns and the observed improvements

9 Vibro compaction technique

9 Vibro replacement technique
9 Vibro compozer technique

9
[Link] Vibro compaction technique:

This technique is generally applied to non cohesive soil deposit. The vibro float is first
lowered into the ground by its own weight and vibration. The loose deposit is compacted with
the help of vibration. The compactness of the loose deposit of non cohesive soil depends upon
the characteristics of vibration in terms of energy input, frequency etc. During vibration the inter
granular forces between the particles vanish & the particles are rearranged in the densest possible
state. In this way the property of the soil is improved. Fig 2.2. Gives pictorially the steps
involved.

Fig: 2.2 Vibro Compaction Technique

[Link] Vibro-replacement method:

Vibro-replacement methods are widely used for stone column installation in cohesive
soils (Baumann and Bauer 1974). In this manner similar to vibrofloation (Mitchell 1981). In this
method, creation of hole in the ground and compaction of granular fill backfilled in the hole is
accomplished mechanically using a vibratory unit called vibroflot. Stone columns may be
constructed using this equipment either by wet process or dry process. The main advantage of
this method is the speed and depth of execution.

10
[Link]..1 Wet meth
hod:

Vibro-replaacement meethod is wid

dely used foor stone collumn installlation in cohhesive soilss
(Baumaann and Bauuer 1974). In this metthod, a holee is formed
d in the grouund by jettiing a probee
down to
o desired depth
d with water
w Fig 2.3.
2 On reacching the desired
d deptth, the uncaased hole iss
flushed out and baackfill withh 12-75mm size is addded in 0.3-11.2m increm
ments and densified
d byy
means of
o an electriically or hyydraulically actuated vibrator locatted near botttom of the probe. Thiss
methodd is employyed in soft relatively imperviouss and 15-500kpa and aat locationss with highh
ground water tablee where boreehole stabiliity is questiionable (Greeen wood annd kirsch 19
983).

T princippal disadvanntage of thhe wet techhnique invoolves the laarge quantitty of waterr
The
which must
m later be
b disposedd off withouut causing pollution.
p A
After being used for sto
one columnn
construction, the water
w contaiins a signifiicant quantiity of suspennded slit annd clay. Envvironmentall
regulatiion and low
w-laying or urban site conditions
c m restrictt the drainaage and dispposal of thee
may
excess water-soil sus-pension
s n. Unless prroperly hanndled by coonstructing sediment pots,
p ditchess
and oth
her drainagee structures, pollution may
m occur. Further, staanding poolls of water may
m disruptt
work annd slow production.

g: 2.3. Proceedure of Viibro-Replaacement

Fig

11
[Link]..2 Dry meth
hod:

The main difference

d b
between dry
y process annd wet process is the ab
bsence of jeetting waterr
during initial
i form
mation is thee hole in thee wet proceess Fig 2.4. To be able to use the dry processs
the vibrrated hole m
must be ablee to stand open
o upon extraction off the probe and hence this
t method
d
is emplloyed in staable insensittive cohesiv
ve soils of undrained shear
s strenggth in the raange of 30--
60kpa (Greenwood
( d and Kirscch 1983), with
w a relativvely low grround waterr table being
g present att
the site..

The dry proocess is mucch cleaner than

t the preeviously disccussed wet technique since
s it doess
not use jetting and
d flushing water.
w The drry method is
i frequently
y used to coonstruct sto
one columnss
through
h weak fillss in develop
ped areas beecause of th ms associatedd with the acquisition,
he problem
retentio
on, and disp
posal of siignificant amounts
a of water. Airr is sometim
mes used as
a a jetting
g
medium
m to facilitatte extraction
n of the pro
obe which occcasionally adheres to the hole waalls.

Stabilizatioon of sites underlain

u by
y soft soils and high ground
g wateer is made possible by
y
using a new “botto
om feed” ty
ype vibrator. Eccentric tubes adjaccent to the pprobe allow delivery off
stone, sand
s or conccrete to the bottom of the
t excavateed hole with
hout extractting the vibrrator. Using
g
this metthod the vib
brator serves as a casin
ng which preevents collaapse of the hhole.

Fig
g: 2.4 Proceedure of Vib
bro-Displacement

12
 The stone columns technique as a vibro compaction is more suitable for cohesion less
soils and vibro replacement technique for cohesive and cohesion less soils. Fig: 2.5 shows
Particle size distribution illustrating applicability of Vibro-Compaction and Vibro-Replacement

Fig: 2.5 Particle Size Distribution Illustrating Applicability of Vibro-Compaction and

Vibro-Replacement

[Link] Vibro compozer technique

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 procedures are illustrated in Fig.
[Link] resulting pile is usually termed sand compaction pile. The sand compaction piles are
constructed by driving the casing pipe to the desired depth using a heavy, vertical vibratory
hammer located at the top of the pipe. The casing is filled with a specified volume of sand and
the casing is then repeatedly extracted and partially re-driven using the vibratory hammer
starting from the bottom. The process is repeated until a fully penetrating compacted granular
pile is constructed. Usually 600-800mm diameter of the pipe can be conveniently constructed
using this method.

13
 F 2.6 Vib
Fig: bro Compoozer Techniiques

2.2.2 Rammed
R stoone column
ns:

In this methhod, the pilles are consstructed by ramming granular matterials in th

he pre-bored
d
holes in
n stages usinng heavy faalling weigh
ht, usually of
o 15-20 kN
N from a heig
ght of 1.0-1
1.5m (Datyee
and Nag
garaju 19755). The metthod is good
d substitutee for vibrato
or compactiion considerring its low
w
cost and
d has been found
f to yieeld stone co
olumns of higher capaccity over stoone columnss formed by
y
vibro float
fl (Nayak
k 1996). However,
H diisturbance and
a subseq
quent remollding by th
he ramming
g
operatio
on may lim
mit its appllicability to
o sensitive soils. The method is useful in developing
g
pment in contrast to thee methods ddescribed ab
countriees utilizing only indigeenous equip bove which
h
require special equ
uipment an
nd trained personnel.
p T
This method
d is very sllow and un
neconomicall
when depth
d of treeatment beccomes moree then 12-115m. The sequence off constructio
on of stonee
column
ns with this method
m is shown in Fig
g 2.7.

Fig: 2.7 Rammeed Stone Th

hrough Caased Hole

14
2.3 STUDIES ON UNREINFORCED STONE COLUMNS:

James and Timothy (1985) described the results of a case study wherein Vibro-replacement
stone columns were used to support a large waste water treatment plant founded on up to 48 ft
(15 m) of soft estuarine deposits. Support was required for distributed foundation stresses up to
3,000 psf (145 kPa). The basic design requirement was a loading of 30 tons (265 kN)/ stone
column with a settlement of less than 0.25 in. (6 mm) under that load in a test on a single column
within a group. Column spacing ranged from 4 ft x 5 ft (1.2 m by 1.5 m) pattern under the most
heavily loaded areas, to a 7 ft x 7 ft (2.1 m by 2.1 m) pattern under lightly loaded areas. Twenty-
eight single column load tests were done during the installation of the 6,500 stone columns to
evaluate load-settlement behavior. Laboratory tests were done to provide soil property data
needed for finite element predictions of both the load test behavior and settlements of the
completed structures. Predicted load test settlements were somewhat greater than those recorded
during the load tests, but agreement was generally good. The installation of stone columns led to
a reduction in settlements to about 30-40% of the values to be expected on unimproved ground.
The settlement of a large uniformly loaded area of improved ground was predicted to be about
ten times that measured in a load test on a single column within the area. Measured settlements
varied from 1.0-2.4 in. (25-60 mm) for a soft sediment thickness of 32-35 ft (10-11 m). A
settlement of about 2.5 in. (64 mm) was predicted by the finite element analysis. Settlement
predictions using other, simpler methods gave values which agreed reasonably with both the
measured values and the finite element predictions.

Bryan et al (2007) described the technique, applicable soil types, settlement and bearing
capacity calculations, recent research areas and an Irish case study. Where ground conditions are
suitable, stone column solutions have been shown to be more cost effective than trench fill in
excess of 2m depth. In addition, stone columns can offer considerable contract programme
savings over other ground improvement methods, such as preloading and vertical drains. As with
all geotechnical projects, a thorough site investigation with adequate information on soil strength
and compressibility is essential.

Ground improvement using stone columns for the construction of a new highway road from
Keratea to Lavrio, in Attika peninsula, Greece were reported by Saroglou et al (2008). Various
methods were examined in order to improve the poor geotechnical characteristics of the subsoil

15
as well as to lower the water table, in which an embankment of maximum height of 3m was
constructed. In general, the subsoil comprises of soft clays of low plasticity with intercalations of
silty to clayey sands of medium density with gravel. The calculated settlements were large
enough when using conventional construction methods and would prolong the construction
period. Thus this method assumed to be more appropriate because of the nature of the ground as
well as the shortened construction time. Parametric analyses were performed for different
replacement ratios and the amount of settlements was reduced to 7 cm in a period of 4 months.
Additionally, slope stability analysis was performed using the average shear strength method and
the discrete soil-stone column element method, assuming even distribution of the embankment
loads between the stone columns and the soft clay.

Pivarc (2011) focused on a comparison of numerical analytical and laboratory model settlement
to estimate the improvement factor of soil improved by stone columns. All the models in this
study were prepared by vibro replacement method, which means that soil is removed from a hole
and not compacted to the side such as in the vibro displacement method. The improvement
factors calculated from numerical and laboratory models are compared with the improvement
factors resulting from Priebe´s theory

Hanna et al (2013) presented a numerical model to simulate the case of a single stone column
and a group of stone columns installed in soft clay. The model establishes the level of interaction
between individual columns and therefore determines the mode of failure of a given geometry,
soil, and loading condition. The model was validated with the available experimental data in the
literature and used to generate data for a potential mode of failure. This parametric study is
conducted to examine the effect of the parameters believed to govern the mode of failure and
includes modulus of elasticity of the stone column material and the clay, column diameter, and
the spacing and angle of shearing resistance of the column material. The design procedure is
presented to assist the designer in establishing the mode of failure of a group of stone columns.
The load ratio (n) increases in a hyperbolic fashion because of the increase of the ratio D/B. The
rate of the increase was significantly high when the ratio D/B was less than 0.6. The value of the
load ratio (n) is roughly constant when D/B reaches a value of [Link] a given value of D/B, the
load ratio (n) decreases because of the increase of Poisson’s ratio of the clay, whereas it
increases because of the increase of Poisson’s ratio of the sand. A group of stone columns having

16
the area replacement ratio As within the range of 10 to 35% had massive shear failure of both the
columns and the surrounding soil. Depending on the soil/columns conditions, this shear failure
may take place in the form of general, local, or punching shear failure.

2.4 STUDIES ON STONE COLUMN USING RAMMING TECHNIQUES:

Failure mechanism and various parameters for the behavior of end-bearing stone column groups
are investigated by Woo-Seok Bae et al (2002) conducting loading tests and unit cell
consolidation tests. Results of model tests are verified through the failure behavior and bearing
capacity by FEM analysis. Finally, the improving characteristics of soft ground and the influence
of design parameters are investigated in this study using FEM results and PR value(Reciprocal
number of settlement ratio as he evaluated the settlement of treated and non-untreated soil under
the same load). From the PR value calculation and test results, bearing capacity of stone column
is affected by undrained strength of surrounding ground, area replacement ratio of composite
ground and installation of mat. And, behavior of foundation are affected by diameter and spacing
of pile rather than embedment ratio and mat. Also, the behavior of stone column is mainly
affected by initial undrained shear strength of surrounding ground and column spacing. And,
analyses by FEM using Mohr-Coulomb model and PR values are applicable to the prediction of
stone column behavior.

Experimental studies were carried out by Ambily and Gandhi (2004) to evaluate the behaviour
of stone column by varying spacing, shear strength of soft clay, moisture content etc. The results
obtained are analyzed using the finite element package PLAXIS. The paper describes literature
review on the subject, details of experimental works carried out, numerical analysis using finite
element package, comparison of results and discussion

The influence of column material in the performance of stone column is studied by Isaac and
Girish (2009) through laboratory experiments on model stone columns installed in clay. Five
reinforcement materials were studied: stones, gravel, river sand, sea sand and quarry dust. Load
versus settlement response was determined. The grain size of the stone column material is one of
the main controlling parameters in the design of stone columns. The unreinforced soil under the
same loading condition was analyzed. It was found that stones are the most effective stone
column material. Quarry dust, though a waste product is effective in improving the load

17
deformation characteristics of the soil used and its performance is comparable with that of sand.
There is no significant difference in the load deformation behaviour of soil with stone columns
using river sand and sea sand. Experimental study on behaviour of group of three columns and
seven columns was also conducted. A finite element analysis using 15-noded triangular elements
with the software package PLAXIS was also carried out

Shlash et al (2009) studied the group efficiency of 24 model stone columns installed in soft
clay. These groups consist of 2, 3 and 4 columns. The tests were conducted on stone columns
with length to diameter ratio (L/D) of 6 and [Link] stone column capacity is taken as the load
corresponding to a settlement equal to 50% of the diameter of stone column. The results
illustrated that the group efficiency decreases with increasing the number of stone columns. Also
the stone columns with L/D of (8) provided higher efficiency than those with L/D of (6).

Fattah et all (2010) conducted a series of laboratory experiments to study the value of the stress
concentration ratio, n, which is defined as the ratio of vertical stress acting on the stone column
to that acting on the surrounding soil. A laboratory setup was manufactured in which two
proving rings were used to measure the total load applied to the soil-stone column system and the
individual load carried directly by the stone column. The foundation steel plates have 220 mm
diameter and 5 mm thickness. These plates contain 1, 2, 3, and 4 holes. The spacing between all
the holes equals twice the stone column diameter, D, center to center. The stone columns made
of crushed stone were installed in very soft clays having undrained shear strength ranging
between 6 and 12 kPa. Length to diameter ratios L/D considered in the study are 6 and 8. The
testing program consists of 30 tests on single, two, three, and four columns to study the stress
concentration ratio and the bearing improvement ratio (qtreated/quntreated) of stone columns. The
experimental tests showed that the stone columns with L/D=8 provided a stress concentration
ratio n of 1.4, 2.4, 2.7, and 3.1for the soil having a shear strength cu=6 kPa, treated with single,
two, three, and four columns, respectively. The values of n were decreased to 1.2, 2.2, 2.5, and
2.8 when the L/D=6. The values of n increase when the shear strength of the treated soil was
increased to 9 and 12 kPa.

Shivashankar et al (2011) presented results from a series of laboratory plate load tests carried
out in unit cell tanks to investigate the behavior of stone columns in layered soils, consisting of
weak soft clay overlying a relatively stronger silty soil, for various thicknesses of the top layer.

18
Tests were carried out with two types of loading (1) the entire area in the unit cell tank loaded, to
estimate the stiffness of improved ground and (2) only the stone column loaded, to estimate the
limiting axial capacity. Laboratory tests were carried out on a column of 90 mm diameter
surrounded by layered soil, for an area ratio of 15%. It is found that the depth of top weak layer
thickness has a significant influence on the stiffness, load bearing capacity and bulging behavior
of stone columns.

Pradip Das and Sujit Kumar Pal (2013) studied the improvement of a soft soil by stone
columns is due to different sizes of aggregate (size between 2 to 10 mm) in the soft soil. This
paper presents the utilization of stone column to improve the load capacity of sandy silt soil with
clay in naturally consolidated state. Load tests through the compression testing machine are
performed on single un-encased stone column in sandy silt soil with clay (i.e., sand = 37.29%,
silt = 33.00% and clay = 29.71%).Un-encased and encased (with geotextile) stone column
behavior on layered soil also discussed in this investigation. In case of un-encased stone column
load carrying capacity increased with diameter of the stone column but in un-encased and
encased layered soil load carrying capacity decreased with diameter of the stone column. The
load bearing capacity of stone column in un-encased and encased layered soil decreased with the
increasing diameter of stone column.

2.5 STUDIES ON REINFORCED STONE COLUMN:

Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004) performed load tests in the laboratory on soft clay bed
stabilized with single stone column and reinforced stone column having various slenderness
ratios and using different types 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. Encasing the stone column with
geogrids resulted in an increase of load carrying capacity irrespective of whether the column is
end-bearing or floating. In case of floating columns the L/D ratio has less influence on the
capacity of column for the lengths studied in this investigation. The ultimate bearing capacity of
reinforced stone column and stone column treated beds are three times and two times that of the
untreated bed.

19
Chungsik (2010) presented the results of a numerical investigation into the performance of
geosynthetic-encased stone columns (GESCs) installed in soft ground for embankment
construction. A three-dimensional finite-element model was employed to carry out a parametric
study on a number of governing factors such as the consistency of soft ground, the geosynthetic
encasement length and stiffness, the embankment fill height, and the area replacement ratio. The
results indicate among other things that additional confinement provided by the geosynthetic
encasement increases the stiffness of the stone column and reduces the degree of embankment
load transferred to the soft ground, thereby decreasing the overall settlement. It is also shown
that the geosynthetic encasement has a greater impact for cases with larger stone column spacing
and/or weaker soil. Also revealed is that unlike isolated column loading conditions, full
encasement may be necessary to ensure maximum settlement reduction when implementing
GESCs under an embankment loading condition. Practical implications of the findings are
discussed in detail

Murugesan and Rajagopal (2010) investigated the qualitative and quantitative improvement of
individual load capacity of stone column by encasement through laboratory model tests
conducted on stone columns installed in clay bed prepared in controlled condition in a large scale
testing tank. The load tests were performed on single as well as group of stone columns with and
without encasement. Tests were performed with different geosynthetics for the encasement of
stone column. The results from the load tests indicated a clear improvement in the load capacity
of the stone column due to encasement. The increase in the axial load capacity depends very
much upon the modulus of the encasement and the diameter of the stone column. The results
from the tests were used to develop the design guidelines for the design of geosynthetic
encasement for the given load and settlement. The load capacity and stiffness of the stone
column can be increased by all-round encasement by geosynthetic. The geosynthetic encased
stone columns (ESCs) exhibit stiffer and stronger response. They do not exhibit significant strain
softening response beyond the peak load. On the other hand, the ordinary stone columns (OSCs)
exhibit softer response with significant strain softening.

Effect of modifications to existing stone column technique proposed were carried out by
Kameshwar rao et al (2011) to evaluate the behavior of stone column as Vertical reinforcement
to improve bearing capacity of soft clays. The modification is in the form of introducing

20
marginally small percentage of Sand/Stone Dust and lime to the conventional granular material.
In addition to this the encasement of geosynthetic is suggested for enhancing the load carrying
capacity of the Stone Column in treated ground. The confining effect by the geosynthetic
improves the Load Carrying Capacity of Stone Column. The percentage increase in the bearing
capacity due to geosynthetic encasement is 21.62% to 45.0%.

Mahallawy (2012) conducted a series of laboratory model tests to study the behavior of
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed resting on stone columns. It has been
observed that the soft clay is improved with stone columns. The diameter of stone columns has
been taken as 50 mm; three stone columns have been used in the study with spacing of 75mm,
while the footing is represented by a plate of 350x250x10mm for all the model tests carried out.
Load was applied to the soil bed through the footing until the total settlement reached at
least 5% of footing length. The influence of the thickness of unreinforced as well as geogrid-
reinforced sand bed and the number of geogrid reinforcement on the performance of stone
columns have also been investigated. The inclusion of geogrid layer within sand bed also
increases the load carrying capacity and decreases the settlement of the soil. However multilayer
reinforcement system is effective to transfer the stress from soil to stone columns.
Significant improvement in load-carrying capacity of soft soil is observed due to the
placement of sand bed over stone columns. Single layer reinforcement with stone columns is
very effective to reduce the total settlement as there is considerable reduction in the total
settlement due to stone column itself. The optimum thickness of unreinforced sand bed placed
over the stone column- improved soft clay is 1.6 times the optimum thickness of the geogrid
reinforced sand bed. The optimum thickness of unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed is
0.23 and 0.143 times the length of the footing, respectively. The inclusion of reinforcement in
the sand bed decreases significantly the depth of sand layer.

Review of literature reveals that the performance of encased stone column of smaller diameters
is superior to that of larger diameter stone columns for the same encasement because of
mobilization of higher confining stresses in smaller diameter stone columns (Tandel et al
(2012). The ultimate load capacity of the reinforced column increases with the stiffness of the
reinforcement. Geosynthetic encased stone column reduces settlement almost half that of

21
untreated [Link] ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced stone column and stone
column treated beds are about three times and two times that of the untreated bed.

Demir et al (2013) conducted small scale model tests in the lab on unreinforced and reinforced
soft clay. The test results indicate that the Stone column improves bearing capacity of clay bed
and decreases settlement. Geogrid encasement increases bearing capacity of stone column
because bulging behaviour of stone column decrease

An attempt has been made by Raju et al (2013) to study the behavior of stone columns subjected
to cyclic loading to improve the characteristics of black cotton soil. The necessity of cyclic
behavior arises when the improved ground is to resist dynamic loads such as machine loads,
seismic loads and cyclic loads. The cyclic behavior was investigated by conducting a number of
cyclic plate load tests on end bearing and floating stone columns. Studies were also extended to
encased stone columns with geosynthetic material. From the cyclic plate load tests a parameter
known as coefficient of elastic uniform compression was found which is used in the design of
machine foundations. It is found that as compared to untreated black cotton soil alone, the
coefficient of elastic uniform compression (Cu) increases with inclusion of stone columns and
further when compared to floating stone columns the parameter (Cu) increases for end bearing
stone columns. Also when compared to single stone columns the parameter(Cu) increases for
group of stone columns, and further it is more in case of encased stone columns due to increased
lateral stiffness due to encasement.

Rakesh and Jain (2013) investigated the feasibility of fiber reinforced granular pile to
strengthen the expansive clay. Analysis of experiment test data indicates that due to
inclusions of random fiber in to the granular pile, the load carrying capacity increases.
Inclusion of granular pile considerably improves the load settlement characteristics of expansive
clay.  The load carrying capacity of granular pile increases with the increase in fiber
content and fiber length.  Based on this study it is recommended that for optimum conditions
1.0% fiber content and 30mm fiber length (for facilitating proper mixing), is the best
combination for randomly fiber mixed granular pile to improve its load carrying capacity.

22
2.6 ME
ECHANISM
M OF BULGING IN STONE
S CO
OLUMNS:

2.6.1 Siingle colum

mn:

In practtice, granullar piles aree usually co

onstructed fully
f penetraating a softt soil layer overlying a
firm strratum. It maay be constrructed also as
a floating piled
p with th
heir tips em
mbedded witthin the soft
ft
clay lay
yer. Granullar piles maay fail indiividually orr as a grou
up. The faillure mechan
nisms for a
single pile
p are illusstrated in Fiig 2.8 respeectively, ind
dicating the possible faailures as a) bulging, b))
general shear, and c) sliding.

Fig: 2.8:
2 Failuree Mechanissms of A Siingle Stonee Column A Homogen
nous Soft Layer (IS:
15284 (Part1)2003)

It can be
b seen from
m Fig 2.8 th
he failure mechanism
m in homogen
neous layerr. While Fig
g 2.9 showss
n-homogenous layer. It is clear that, weak
the typees of bulginng in a non k soil strata have greatt
influencce on colum
mn bulging.

23
 Fig: 2.9: Ston
ne Column Failure Meechanisms in Non-Homogenous Cohesive Soli
S (IS:
155284(Part1))2003)

2.6.2 Group
G colum
mns:

Fig 2.10
0 illustratess the failure mechanism
m on group oof columns. It can be oobserved thaat, there aree
differen
nt types of failure,
f whicch occurs, in
i columns. Spreading failure is thhe phenomeenon that itt
is occu
urred in construction
c n of an embankmen
e nt over weeak depositts. In addition, bulging
g
failure and
a punchinng can be ob
bserved.

Fig 2..10: Types of Failuress in Group Columns

24
2.7 ANALYSIS & DESIGN OF STONE COLUMNS:

2.7.1 Ultimate Bearing Capacity:

For single isolated granular piles, the most probable failure mechanism is bulging failure. This
mechanism develops whether the tip of the pile is floating in the soft soil or fully penetrating and
bearing on affirm layer. The lateral confining stress which supports the granular pile is usually
taken as the ultimate passive resistance which the surrounding soil can mobilize as the pile
bulges outward. Most of the approaches in predicting the ultimate bearing capacity of a single,
isolated granular pile have been developed based on the above assumption. Table 2.1 tabulates
the different methods to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity corresponding to bulging, general
shear, and sliding modes of failure as presented.

Table 2.1 Estimation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity

Mode of failure Derived formula References

1
2 Greenwood(1970)
1
1 Vesic(1972),
1 Datye&Nagaraju(1975)
Bulging 1 Hughes &
4
1 Withers(1974)
1
4 ⁄
1 Madhav et al.(1979)
1 ⁄
1 Madhav &
2 Vitkar(1978)
2 2
Wong (1975)
1⁄ 3
General shear
1 Ψ 2 1 Ψ
2 Barksdale & Bachus
tan (1983)
Ψ 45°
2

1
Sliding surface Aboshi et al. (1979)
1 1
 

25
2.7.2: Settlements:

Most of the approaches in estimating settlement of the composite ground assumed an

infinitely wide, loaded area reinforced with granular piles having a constant diameter and
spacing. For this loading condition and geometry, the unit cell idealization is assumed to be
valid. The model of a unit cell loaded by a rigid plate is analogous to a one-dimensional
consolidation test. Thus, the unit cell is confined by a rigid frictionless wall and the vertical
strains at any horizontal level are uniform. Different methods for estimating the settlement of the
composite ground are summarized in Table 2.2.

26
 Table 2.2 Estimation of Settlement of Composite Ground

Method Contents References

Equilibrium 1
Aboshi et al.(1979)
method 1 1

1 1
1 2 1
Priebe method Priebe (1976)
45°
2

1 1
Granular wall 1 VanImpe & De
method , , , ⁄ Beer (1983)

∆
1
1
∆
∆ 1 1 ,1 1
1 2
1 1 Goughnour (1983)
1
1 1
Incremental
method

∆ 45 ⁄2 · Baumann & Bauer

∆
45 ⁄2 (1974)
Hughes et al.
∆
1 (1975)
Finite element ∆ ∆ ∆ ∆ Balaam & Poulos
method (1983)

From literature it is clear that stone columns are used both in cohesive and cohesion less
soils to improve bearing capacity and to reduce settlements of structures resting on difficult sub
soil conditions. Stone columns are constructed either by vibratory techniques or by ramming
stone chips in preformed bore holes. Rammed stone columns penetrating soft clays are widely
used in India to support structures such as embankments & oil storage tanks. The improvement
in bearing capacity is attributed to reinforcing effect, passive resistances offered to bulging,

27
peripheral skin friction and end baring resistance of stone columns. Several analytical, empirical
and semi empirical equations are proposed to evaluate the capacity and settlement of stone
columns and stone column groups. However, only a few investigators considered studying the
effect of IC, soil type and L/D ratio on capacity and bulging behaviour of stone columns
penetrating soft to medium stiff clays. No guidelines are available to predict critical length of
stone column beyond which three will be no further increase in capacity. The knowledge of
extent of bulging will be very useful in the development of effective and economical encased
stone columns. No study gives the methods to predict extent of bulging. In this investigation an
attempt has been made to study the effect of IC, LL and L/D on capacity and bulging of free
floating stone columns by conducting a series of load tests in laboratory. It is also intended to
develop empirical models to predict capacity of stone columns and bulging length, width and
depth of stone columns. The details of the experimental investigation are presented in the
fallowing chapter.

28
CHAPTER – III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

 

29
 CHAPTER – III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 INTRODUCTION:

The load carrying capacity and load settlement behaviour of a stone column are
found to be a function of size of stone columns (length and diameter), strength of soil
(consistency index), soil type (liquid limit) and extent of bulging (lateral and vertical) of
stone column upon loading. The main objective of present investigation is to quantity the
relative effect of factors affecting behaviour of stone column and to evolve simple,
reliable and empirical models to estimate the load carrying capacity and extent of
bulging in terms of influencing factors. For this purpose, a series of load test are
conducted on stone columns of varying dimensions embedded in clay bed of varying
stiffness and liquid limit. Tests conducted are designed following the principles factorial
experimentation which enables not only quantification of the relative effect of each
factor on responses of interest but also the interaction effect of factors, on responses of
interest. The details of factors considered, principles of design of experiments, materials
used, model test conducted, Method of installation of stone column, preparation of test
bed, method of load test and test procedures adopted are presented and discussed in the
following sections.

3.2 MATERIALS USED:

3.2.1 Soils Used:

The soils used in the present investigation are obtained from two different
locations namely Airport near Renigunta and Kotala near Chandragiri. The Liquid Limit
of these soils is 98.0% and 56.0% respectively. The soils are so chosen that they cover the
practical range of Liquid Limit. The areas are largely covered by expansive clayey soils.
The required amount of soils are collected from trial pits at a depth of 2m below the
ground level, since the top soil is likely to contain organic matter and other foreign
materials. Sufficient care has been exercised to see that the collected soil samples are
fairly homogeneous. The soils so obtained are air dried, crushed with wooden mallet,
passed through 4.75mm sieve, kept in polythene bags and stored in steel drums for
further testing. The properties of these soils are given in the Table 3.2. The ‛Airport soil’

30
is designated as ‘Soil-A’ and is classified as ‘CH’ as per I.S. Classification (IS: 1498-
1970) indicating that it is an inorganic clay of high plasticity. Its degree of expansiveness
is very high based on Liquid Limit, Plasticity Index and Free Swell Index (FSI). The
‘Kotala soil’ is designated as ‘Soil-B’ and is classified as ‘CH’ indicating that it is
inorganic clay of high plasticity. Its degree of expansiveness is high based on Liquid
Limit, Plasticity Index and Free Swell Index (FSI).

Table 3.1 Properties of the Soils Tested

Property Soil-A Soil-B

Gravel (%) 2.76 6.6

Sand (%) 30 14

Silt +Clay (%) 67.9 79.42

Liquid Limit (%) 98.0 56

Plastic Limit (%) 34.5 27.41

Plasticity Index (%) 63.52 28.5

IS Soil Classification CH CH

Free Swell Index (%) 210 90

3.2.2 Stone dust Used:

Crushed stone (aggregates) of size below 4.75mm have been used to for
formations of stone column. Properties of stone dust used are presented in Table 3.3.

31
 Table 3.2 Properties of The Stone Dust

Property value

Gravel (%) 5.2

Sand (%) 90.6

Silt +Clay (%) 4.2

Effective Size,D10(mm) 0.12

Effective Size,D30(mm) 0.28

Effective Size,D60(mm) 0.58

Coefficient of uniformity, CU 4.83

Coefficient curvature, CC 1.13

IS Soil Classification SW

Fig: 3.1 Grain Size Distribution of Stone Dust

3.2.3 Model Raft/Footing Used:

A rigid M.S plate of size 25mm X 25mm and thickness 4mm rest on surface of pest bed
prepared is used as model raft/footing.

32
3.2.4 Load Frame Used:

The capacity of loading frame is 50kN and types of operation electrical and manual. The
load frame consists of a cabinet which houses the gear system and motor with study
angle iron frame. Loading system comprises of a screw jack with detachable handle. The
lower plate moves up and down. The top bracket is adjustable for vertical clearance and
has an adaptor for connecting standard proving rings or load cells. A dial gauge
mounting bracket is provided on one of the two pillars. Rate of strain is 1.25 and
1.5mm/min.

3.2.5 Model Test Tank Used:

Cylindrical model test tank with inside diameter of 150mm and 235mm height with a
detachable perforated base plate of 10mm thick is used for preparation of test bed.

3.3 METHODS OF ADOPTED:

3.3.1: Size of The Stone columns:

The laboratory experiments were carried out using stone columns having a
diameter of 20mm. In order get the require L/D of 2.5 and 10, the length of the stone
columns is kept equal to 50mm and 200mm respectively. Certain tests were conducted
on stone columns having length equal to 80mm, 120mm, 160mm and 235mm also in
order to study the effect of L/D on capacity of stone column. The L/D ratios of the stone
columns tested are 2.5, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11.75.

3.3.2: Method of Test Bed Preparation:

A known amount of air dried and pulverised soil passing through 4.75mm is
mixed thoroughly with enough quantity of water so as to get homogenises past of desired
consistency having IC= 0.30 and 0.80. In the first instance, the soil thus prepared was
used in packing layers to form the clay bed, in the model test tank pest beds were
prepared at IC=0.50 and 0.65 also in order to study the effect of IC on critical L/D.

3.3.3 Method of Installation of Stone Columns:

The centre of the cylindrical tank was properly marked and a PVC pipe of the
diameter 20mm was placed at the centre of the tank. Around this pipe, clay bed was
formed. The clay layer was tamped with a thumb frequently and gently to expel air

33
during the process of filling. The stone required to form the column was carefully
charged in the tube in the form of layers. Each layer was compacted using 12mm
diameter rod attached with enlarged base. As the compaction of column was in progress,
simultaneous withdrawal of PVC pipe was done. After the column was formed to the full
length, test beds were left for curing for 24 hours under controlled conditions. Plate 3.1
shows the photographs at different stages of installation of stone columns and
preparation of test bed.

34
Plate 3.1 Installation of stone columns

35
3.4 DESIGN OF EXPERIMENTS:

3.4.1 Strategy of Experimentation:

The general approach to planning and conducting the experiments is called the
strategy of experimentation. There are several experimental strategies like the best-guess
approach, one-factor-at-a-time approach and factorial experimentation. The strategy of
experimentation which is extensively used in practice is the one-factor-at-a-time
approach. This method consists of selecting a base line level for each factor, then
successively varying each factor over its range with other factors held constant at the
base line level. Though it is very useful in understanding the influence of any one factor
on response of interest, its use is limited in analyzing the joint effect of factors on the
response of interest. Factorial experimental design concept is very important in
experiments involving several factors where it is necessary to study the joint effect of the
factors on a response of interest. This strategy of experimentation also enables the
investigator to quantify the relative effect of main factors and their interaction on
response of interest. The details of the method can be found in any standard text-book on
Design and Analysis of Experiments such as the one by Montgomery (2005). Factorial
experimentation involving three factors are adopted in this investigation which is known
as 23 factorial experimentation. Given below are the details of 23 factorial
experimentation.

3.4.2 23 Factorial Experimentation:

Suppose that three factors, A, B, and C each at two levels, are of interest. The
design is called a 23 factorial design and the eight treatment combinations can now be
displayed geometrically as a cube, as shown in Fig. 3.1 using the “+ and -” notation to
represent the high and low levels of the factor. Conventionally the eight possible
treatment combinations are denoted in standard order as (1), a, b, ab, c, ac, bc, and abc.
These symbols also represent the total of all n observations taken at that particular
treatment combination. There are degrees of freedom between the eight treatment
combinations in the 23 design. Three degrees of freedom are associated with the main
effects of A, B and C. Four degrees of freedom are associated with interactions; one each
with AB, AC and BC and one with ABC. L/D of stone column denoted by (factor A),
consistency index denoted by IC (factor B) and liquid limit denoted by LL (factor C) of
soil are the three factors considered in this investigation. The two levels choose for L/D

36
(Factor A) is 2.5 and 10. Similarly the low & high levels for IC (Factor B) and LL (Factor
C) are (0.30, 0.80) and (56, 98) respectively. Load tests are conducted on rafts supported
by columns for 23 factorial designs test considerations presented in Table 3.1. In addition
to this load tests were also conducted on unsupported raft for the purpose of
comparisons. Details of these tests conducted are also presented in Table 3.1.

Fig: 3.2 23 Factorial Design Geometric View

37
 Table 3.3 23 Factorial design test combinations and label of experiments

Length of
Size of stone Consistency Liquid
S. No. stone Labels
column (L/D) Ic Limit
column

1 2.5 50 0.30 56 1

2 10.0 200 0.30 56 a

3 2.5 50 0.80 56 b

4 10.0 200 0.80 56 ab

5 2.5 50 0.30 98 c

6 10.0 200 0.30 98 ac

7 2.5 50 0.80 98 bc

8 10.0 200 0.80 98 abc

No stone
9 0.30 56 a1
column

No stone
10 0.80 56 b1
column

No stone
11 0.30 98 c1
column

No stone
12 0.80 98 a1b1c1
column

3.5 TEST PROCEDURES:

3.5.1Liquid Limit:

The Liquid Limit of samples are obtained by conducting Liquid Limit test
according to the standard procedure laid in IS: 2720 (Part 5)–1985. The Liquid Limit
tests have been conducted using Casagrande’s apparatus. Air-dried soil samples have
been used for this test. The soil fraction passing the 425 micron sieve is taken and
thoroughly mixed with distilled water till a uniform paste is formed. A groove is made
by using a grooving tool that completely separates the soil pat into two parts. Counting
the number of blows until the two parts of the sample come in contact at the bottom of
the groove over a distance of 13mm (≈1/2”). A sample of about 25g is collected from the

38
closed part of the groove for determination of water content. The test is repeated at least
5 times with increasing moisture contents. A plot is drawn between number of blows
(Log scale) and water content (natural scale). The water content corresponding to 25
blows is read from the plot and is reported as the Liquid Limit of the soil.

3.5.2 Plastic Limit:

The Plastic Limit of samples are obtained by conducting Plastic Limit test
according to the standard procedure laid in IS: 2720 (Part 5)–1985. Air-dried soil
samples have been used for this test. The soil fraction passing the 425µ sieve is taken for
the test. About 30g of soil is taken in an evaporating dish and thoroughly mixed with
distilled water till it becomes plastic and it becomes easily moulded with fingers. About
10g of the plastic soil mass is taken in one hand and a ball is formed. The ball is rolled
with fingers on a glass plate to form a soil thread of uniform diameter of about 3mm
approximately without crumbling. The rate of rolling is kept about 80 to 90 strokes/min.
The test is repeated taking a fresh sample each time. The plastic limit is taken as the
average of three values.

3.5.3 Plasticity Index (IP):

Plasticity Index is the range of water content over which the soil remains in the
plastic state. It is equal to difference between the liquid and the plastic limit. Thus

Plasticity Index (IP) = Liquid Limit (WL) – Plastic Limit (WP) -------------------- (3.1)

3.5.4 Free Swell Index Test:

The free swell index tests have been conducted as per the I.S. code of practice
(I.S. 2720 (Part 40)-1987). The test was performed by pouring 10cc of dry soil passing
425μ sieve slowly into a graduated cylindrical jar of 100 cc capacity, filled with water,
and observing the equilibrium swelled volumes. The free swell is expressed as a
percentage increase in the volume to the initial volume of the soil.

The free swell index (FSI) expressed as a percentage is given by

(Final volume - Initial volume)

FSI = × 100 − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − − −(3.2)
Initial volume

39
Soils with a free swell of 100% or more were graded as those that would cause damage
to light structures while soils with a free swell value of less than 50% were classified as
those that exhibit only small volume changes. However, the free swell values as low as
100% may undergo considerable volume changes when wetted under light loads and
therefore, be viewed with caution. The free swell test alone does not fully suffice to
predict the swell potential. It should therefore be supplemented by other tests.

3.5.5 Grain Size Distribution:

Grain size distribution is obtained by conducting mechanical sieve analysis on

+75 micron fraction. Sieve analysis was carried out as per practice (I.S. 2720, Part IV –
1965).

3.5.6 Load Test on Stone Column:

Load test was conducted on raft operated by a single column of diameter 20mm
for various L/D ratios on standard loading frame as a strain-controlled test. The size of
the steel plate of adequate thickness and rigidity may be based on the effective tributary
soil area of the stone column for a single column. The loading arrangement is shown in
Fig 3.3
Loaded plate

Fig: 3.3 Loading of the Composite Bed

a. Stone column of diameter “d” for the full length.

b. floating stone column for different l/d ratios.

d = diameter of the column

l= length of the column

h= thickness of the clay bed

40
 The model test tank is placed on the bottom plate of loading frame and then
raised gradually to make it contact with the upper plate. The dial gauge and proving ring
readings are set to zero. The compressive load is applied to the specimen mechanically
by rotating the lower plate such that the axial strain of 1.25 mm/min. The shearing is
continued till the failure of stone column. The load is determined from the proving ring
reading and the settlement from the dial gauge reading.

41
 CHAPTER-IV

LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF

STONE COLUMNS
 

42
 CHAPTER-IV

LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY OF STONE COLUMNS

4.1. INTRODUCTION:

One of the prime objectives of the present investigation is to study the effect of three
factors namely, L/D ratio, Consistency Index and Liquid Limit on load carrying capacity of stone
column. It is also intended to quantify the relative effect of each of the three factors as well as
interaction effect on response of interest that is load carrying capacity of stone column. In order
to meet the above objective a series of tests are conducted in the laboratory following principles
of factorial experimentation, the details of which are presented in chapter-3 section 3.4. The
results are present analyzed and discusses in the following sections.

4.2. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

4.2.1. Capacity of Stone Columns:

A series of load tests are conducted on soil bed prepared with or without stone column in
laboratory in a model test tank by simultaneously varying three factors namely L/D,IC and LL
each one over two levels giving rise to 23factorial experimental. The two levels chosen for L/D
ratio, Consistency Index & Liquid Limit are presented in Table 4.1. The same are presented
pictorially in Fig 4.1.

Table 4.1 Factors of 23 Factorial Design

S. No Factor-A (L/D ratio) Factor-B (IC) Factor-C (LL)

Low High Low High Low High

1 2.5 10 0.3 0.8 56 98

43
 Fig 4.1 23Factoriial Design

From Literature
L it is observedd that the raange chosenn for LL (566% and 98%
%) and IC (0.30 to 0.8))
cover most
m of the practical caases. Howevver, sufficieent information is not aavailable too evolve thee
range of
o L/D. Hennce, 44 additional loadd tests weree conducted
d on stone ccolumns at varying LL
L
and IC values keeeping L/D=
=2.5,4.6.8,100 and11.75 and IC=0.30,0.50,0.665 and 0.80
0. Plate 4.11
shows photograph
p of load tesst in progreess. Load-seettlement cuurves obtainned from lo
oad test aree
presenteed in Figs 4.2 to 4.9.F
From this plates
p it cann be observved that thee load-settleement plotss
becomee asymptoticc to settlem
ment axis beyyond certainn load. The maximum lload at whicch the load--
settlemeent curve eexhibits asym
mptotic behhavior is reeported as ultimate
u loaad carrying capacity off
stone coolumn. Thee load carry
ying capacitiies so obtaiined are preesented in T
Table 4.2 foor all the 444
tests conducted.

44
 Plate 4.1 Load Teest on Stonee Column in
i Progresss

Load (N)
0 10
00 200
0 300 400 500
0
0.5
L/D=0
1
1.5 L/D=2.5
2
Settilments(mm)

L/D=4
2.5
3 L/D=6
3.5
4 L/D=8
4.5
L/D=10
5
5.5 L/D=11.75
6
6.5

Fig 4.2 Load Vs Settlement

S P
Plots For Varying
V L/D
D (IC =0.300 & LL=98))

45
 Load (N)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
0
0.5
1 L/D=0
1.5
2 L/D=2.5
Settiements(mm)

2.5
3 L/D=4

3.5
L/D=6
4
4.5 L/D=8
5
5.5 L/D=10
6
6.5

Fig 4.3 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.50& LL=98)

Load (N)
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5 L/D=0
1
1.5 L/D=2.5
2
L/D=4
Settlments(mm)

2.5
3 L/D=6
3.5
4 L/D=8
4.5
5 L/D=10,
5.5
L/D=11.75
6
6.5
7

Fig 4.4 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC =0.65& LL=98)

46
 LoadN)
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
0.5
1
L/D=0
1.5
2 L/D=2.5
Settlments(mm)

2.5
3 L/D=4
3.5
L/D=6
4
4.5 L/D=8
5
5.5 L/D=10
6
6.5

Fig 4.5 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC=0.80& LL=98)

Load(N)
0 100 200 300 400
0
0.5
L/D=0
1
1.5 L/D=2.5
Settlments(mm)

2 L/D=4
2.5
L/D=6
3
L/D=8
3.5
4 L/D=10
4.5
L/D=11.75
5
5.5

Fig 4.6 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC=0.30& LL=56)

47
 Load(N)
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
0.5
L/D=0
1
1.5 L/D=2.5
Settlments(mm)

2
L/D=4
2.5
3 L/D=6
3.5
L/D=8
4
4.5 L/D=10
5
5.5

Fig 4.7 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC=0.50& LL=56)

Load (N)
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5
1 L/D=0
1.5
2 L/D=2.5
2.5
Setilments(mm)

L/D=4
3
3.5 L/D=6
4
4.5 L/D=8
5
5.5 L/D=10
6
6.5 L/D=11.75
7
7.5

Fig 4.8 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC=0.65& LL=56)

48
 Load (N)
0 200 400 600 800
0
0.5
1
L/D=0
1.5
2
2.5 L/D=2.5
Settlement(mm)

3
3.5 L/D=4
4
4.5
L/D=6
5
5.5
6 L/D=8
6.5
7
L/D=10
7.5

Fig 4.9 Load Vs Settlement Plots For Varying L/D (IC=0.80& LL=56)

Table 4.2 Ultimate Capacity of Stone Columns

Load carrying capacity in N Load carrying capacity in N

L/D (soil A, LL=98) (soil B, LL=56)
S. No
ratio
IC=0.30 IC=0.50 IC=0.65 IC=0.80 IC=0.30 IC=0.50 IC=0.65 IC=0.80

1 0 50 100 112.5 200 18.75 56.25 62.5 137.5

2 2.5 175 200 250 400 125 137.5 150 312.5

3 4 200 312.5 337.5 550 187.5 225 300 437.5

4 6 250 425 475 800 225 325 400 725

5 8 350 512.5 575 825 287.5 450 525 737.5

6 10 400 537.5 600 837.5 337.5 475 575 750

7 11.75 412.5 - 612.5 - 337.5 - 581.5  ‐ 

49
4.2.2 Effect of L/D ratio on Capacity of Stone Column(Critical L/D ratio) :

From Table 4.2 it is clear that ultimate load is a function of Ic, LL & L/D ratio. ultimate capacity
of a stone column is plotted against L/D ratio corresponding to different IC vales and the same
are shown Fig 4.10 and 4.11 for soil A and soil B resativelly. From these plots it is obsered that
the ultimate capacity of stone colum increases initally with L/D ratio upto cetrain critical L/D
ratio beyond which there is no improvement in capacity with L/D ratio for bothe the soils tested.
The ultimate capacity becomes asymtotic to Y-axis (L/D ratio) expand critical L/D ratio. Critical
L/D ratios so obtained for both the axis at different IC values are summerized in Table 4.3.

Ultimate capacity (N)

0 200 400 600 800 1000
0

2
Ic=0.30
4

Ic=0.65
L/D ratio

8
Ic=0.50
10
Ic=0.80
12

14

Fig 4.10 Capacity Vs L/D Ratio for Soil A (LL=98) At Different IC Values

50
 Ultimate capacity (N)
0 200 400 600 800
0

4 Ic=0.30
L/D ratio

6 Ic=0.65

8
Ic=0.50
10
Ic=0.80
12

14

Fig 4.11 Capacity Vs L/D Ratio for Soil B (LL=56) At Different IC Values

Table 4.3 Critical L/D Ratios

[Link] Consistency Index Critical L/D ratio

IC Soli "A" Soli "B"

1 0.30 10 10

2 0.50 8 8

3 0.65 8 8

4 0.80 6 6

From Table 4.3 it can be observed that the critical L/D ratio decreases with IC but is indepent of
LL of soil. A plot is drawn between criticl L/Dratio and IC and the same is shown in Fig 4.12.
Critical L/D ratio is observed decreases linearly with Ic values. Regression analysis is carried out
using Microsoft Excel and following empirical relationship is obtained for critical L/D ratio in
terms of Ic.

. . --------------------------------------------------------------------(4.1)

51
The coefficeint of determination (R2) for the above model is 0.913, indicating a good corelation.
Those test results clearly indicate that the critical L/D ratio is more than 6 but less than 10
depending on Ic of soil. Therefore for the factorial experimentation the high level of L/D ratio is
taken equal to 10. Based on literature review the low level of L/D is kept equal to 2.5. The results
of factorial experimentation are presented, analyzed and discussed in following sections.

12

10

8
Critiacl L/D ratio

4
y = -7.305x + 12.11
R² = 0.913
2

0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Consistency(IC)

Fig 4.12 Consistency (IC) Vs Critical L/D Ratio Plot

4.2.3 RESULTS OF FACTORAIL EXPERIMENTATION:

A total of eight load tests are conducted on square raft supported stone columns by varying
simultaneosly three factors each over two levels as per the details presented in Table 4.1 and Fig
4.1. Additionally 4 load tests are conducted on un supported raft i.e.,raft without stone column
for the purpose of comparison. Ultimate capacity of the 8 load tests on stone coulumn and 4 load
tests on raft without stone column are presented in Table 4.4. Fig 4.13 gives the pictorial
representation of 23 factorial experiments conducted.

52
 Fig 4.13 23 Factorial Design
D Forr Load Carrrying Capaacity

53
 Table 4.4: Ultimate Capacity of Stone Column for Factorial Experimentation

Size of
Liquid Load
stone Depth of stone Consistency Experiment
S. Carrying
column column(mm) (IC) Limit (%) Label
No. Capacity (N)
(L/D)

1 2.5 50 0.30 56 1 125.0

2 10 200 0.30 56 a 337.5

3 2.5 50 0.80 56 b 312.5

4 10 200 0.80 56 ab 750.0

5 2.5 50 0.30 98 c 175.0

6 10.0 200 0.30 98 ac 400.0

7 2.5 50 0.80 98 bc 400.0

8 10.0 200 0.80 98 abc 837.5

9 - No stone column 0.30 56 a1 18.75

10 - No stone column 0.80 56 b1 137.5

11 - No stone column 0.30 98 c1 50.0

12 - No stone column 0.80 98 a1b1c1 200.0

From this Table 4.4 it can be observed that the load carrying capacity of plate increases
significantly if supported on stone column. For example the load carrying capacity of
unsupported plate at Ic = 0.30 for soil having Liquid Limit of 56% is 18.75 N. Load carrying
capacity of same plate if supported on stone column of L/D = 2.5 is 125 N and it is 337.5 N for
L/D = 10. Similarly capacity of un support raft at IC=0.30 for soil have LL of 98 is 50.0N and it
increased to 175.0N with stone column of L/D= 2.5 and to 400.0 with a stone column of L/D=
10.0.

Factorial experimentation permits the relative quantification of the main factors studied (namely
L/D ratio, Consistency index (IC) and Liquid Limit) and their interaction on load carrying
capacity. Given below and test details.

54
[Link] Effect of L
L/D ratio on
n Load carrrying capaccity:

Referrin
ng to Fig 4.14, Table 4.4,
4 for treattment comb
binations 1, b, c and bcc, the L/D iss constant att
the low
w value whicch is equal to 2.5. For treatment oof combinattion a, ab, ac and abc, the L/D iss
constan
nt and is at high
h value which
w is eq I 23 factoriial designs, the averagee effect of a
qual to 10. In
factor may
m be deteermined as the changee in the response prod
duced by a change in the
t level off
factor averaged
a ovver the two levels of other factor. Now, the effect
e of thhe L/D ratio
o (Factor A))
when IC (Factor B) and LL (F
Factor C) are
a at the low level is [a-1].
[ Simillarly, the efffect of L/D
D
ratio (F
Factor A) w
when IC (Facctor B) is att the high leevel and LL
L (Factor C
C) is at the low
l level iss
[ab-b]. The effect of L/D ratio
o (Factor A)
A when LL (Factor C) is at the higgh level and
d IC (Factorr
B) is at the low lev
vel is [ac-c]. Finally, th
he effect of L/D ratio (F
Factor A) w
when both IC (Factor B))
and LL (Factor C) are at the high
h level iss [abc-bc]. Thus, the average
a effeect of (Facto
or A) is justt
the average of these four, or Effect of factor
fa “A” on
o load carrrying capaccity of stonee column iss
presenteed by

1
A= ( a + ab + ac + abc − 1 − b − c − bc ) ------------------------------------------------------- (44.2)
4

1
= ( 3337.5 + 750 + 400 + 837.55 − 125 − 3122.5 − 175 − 400
4 )
4
A=312..58 units

F 4.14 23 F
Fig Factorial Design
D For Effect
E of L//D Ratio on
n Load Carrrying Cap
pacity

55
[Link] Effect of C
Consistencyy Index on Load
L carryying capacity:-

Referrin
ng to Fig 4.15 for treatm
ment combiinations 1, a,
a c and ac, the IC is coonstant at th
he low valuee
which is
i equal to 0.30.
0 For treeatment of combination b, ab, bc and abc, thhe IC is con
nstant and iss
o 0.80. In 23 factorial ddesigns, thee average efffect of a facctor may bee
at high value whichh is equal to
determiined as the change in the
t responsse produced
d by a chang
ge in the leevel of facto
or averaged
d
over th
he four leveels of otherr factor. No
ow, the effeect of the IC (Factor B
B) is the diifference in
n
averagees between four treatm
ment combin
nations in th
he front facce of the cuube and the four in thee
back. Effect
E of facttor “B” on load
l carryin
ng capacity of stone collumn is presented by

1
B= ( b + ab + bc + abc − 1 − a − c − ac ) --------------
- ---------------------------------------- (4
4.3)
4

1
= ( 312.5 + 750 + 400 + 837.55 − 125 − 3377.5 − 175 − 400
4 )
4

B=315.625 units

Fig 4.155 23 Factoriial Design For

F Effect of
o IC on Looad Carryin
ng Capacityy

56
[Link] Effect of L
Liquid Limiit on Load carrying caapacity:-

Referrin
ng to Fig4.16 for treattment comb
binations 1,, a, b and ab,
a the LL is constantt at the low
w
value which
w is equual to 56%. For treatmeent of comb
bination c, ac,
a bc and aabc, the LL
L is constantt
and is at
a high value which is equal
e %. . In 23 faactorial desiigns, the avverage effectt of a factorr
to 98%
may bee determinedd as the ch
hange in thee response produced by
b a changee in the lev
vel of factorr
averageed over the four levels of other facctor. Now, in a similarr manner, thhe effect off LL (Factorr
C) is th
he differencee in averagees between four treatm
ment combin
nations in thhe top face of the cubee
and thee four in thee bottom. Effect
E of faactor “C” onn load carrrying capacity of stonee column iss
presenteed by

1
C= ( c + ac + bc + abc − 1 − a − b − ab ) ------------------------------------------------------- (4.4)
4

1
= (175
1 + 400 + 400 + 837.55 − 125 − 3377.5 − 312.5 − 750 )
4

C= 71.8
875 Units

Figure 4.116 23 Factorrial Design

n For Effectt of LL on Load
L Carrying Capaccity

57
[Link] Interaction
n Effect of L/D ratio and
a Consisttency Indexx on Load carrying caapacity:

The two
o-factor intteraction efffects may be
b computed
d easily. A measure off the AB in
nteraction iss
the averrage A effeects at the tw
wo levels of B. By connvention, on
ne-half of thhis differen
nce is called
d
the AB
B interactionn shows in
n Fig 4.17 Symbolicallly; Effect of
o factor “A
AB” on loaad carrying
g
capacity
y of stone column
c is prresented by

1
AB = (1 + c + ab + abc − bc − b − ac − a ) --------------------------------------------------- (4.55)
4

1
AB = (125 + 175 + 750 + 8377.5 − 400 − 312.5 − 400 − 337.5)
4

AB=109.375 units

Fiig 4.17:23 F
Factorial Design For Effect
E of L//D and IC on
o Load Caarrying Cap
pacity

58
[Link] Interaction
n Effect of L/D ratio and
a Liquid Limit on Load
L carryying capacitty:

The AC intteraction is easily seen

n to be the difference in averagess between runs
r on two
o
diagonaal planes in the cube in Fig 4.17 Using
U similarr logic and referring too Fig 4.18

1
AC = (1 + b + ac + abc − a − ab − c − bc ) ----------------------------------------------------- (4.6)
4

1
AC = (125 + 312.5 + 400 + 837.5 − 337.55 − 750 − 175 − 400 )  
4

AC=3.1
125 units

Figg 4.18:23 Factorial Deesign For Effect

E of L/D
D and LL on
o Load Caarrying Ca
apacity

59
[Link] Interactioon Effect of  Consisttency Indeex and Liq
quid Limiit on Load
d carrying
g
capacitty:

Using similar
s logicc and referriing to Fig 4.19
4 BC inteeractions aree

1
BC = (1 + a + bcc + abc − b − ab − c − ac ) --------------------------------------------------- (4.7)
4

1
BC = (125 + 337.5 + 400 + 8337.5 − 312.55 − 750 − 1755 − 400 )  
4

C 15
5.625 units

F 4.19:23 F
Fig Factorial Design
D For Effect
E of IC and LL on
n Load Carrrying Cap
pacity

60
[Link] Interaction Effect of L/D ratio,  Consistency Index and Liquid Limit on Load
carrying capacity:

The ABC interaction is defined as the average difference between the AB interactions for
the two different levels of [Link] before, we can think of the ABC interaction as the difference in
two averages. If the runs in the two averages are isolated, they define the vertices of two
tetrahedra that comprise the cube in Fig 4.20

1
ABC = ( a + b + c + abc − 1 − bc − ac − ab ) ----------------------------------------------- (4.8)
4

1
ABC = ( 337.5 + 312.5 + 175 + 837.5 − 125 − 400 − 400 − 750 )  
4

ABC=3.125 units

Fig 4.20:23 Factorial Design For Effect of L/D, IC and LL on Load Carrying Capacity

61
 Table 4.5 Effect of Main Factors and Interaction Effect on Capacity of Stone Column

S. No Factor Relative effect

1 L/D(A) 328.125

2 IC(B) 315.625

3 LL(C) 71.875

4 (L/D*IC)(AB) 109.375

5 (L/D*LL)(AC) 3.125

6 (IC*LL)(BC) 15.625

7 (L/D*IC*LL)(ABC) 3.125

4.3 REGRESSION MODEL FOR LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY:

Table 4.5 summerises the effect of main factors namely L/D, IC and LL as well as effects
of interaction of the above three factors on capacity of stone column. It is clear that L/D has the
highest influence on load carrying capacity (328.125 units) followed by the IC (315.625 units),
LL (71.875 units) and interaction among L/D & IC (109.375). Hence, the load carrying capacity
of stone column may be expressed as a function given below:

⁄ , , , ⁄ ----------------------------------------------------------------- (4.9)

Multiple linear regression analysis can be carried out using Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft
Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically. In this investigation, a regression model is
evolved using the Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft Excel and the equation is given below.

. . ⁄ . . . ⁄ -----
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (4.10)

The coefficient of determination (R2) for the above model is 0.998

62
4.4 VALIDITY OF PROPOSED MODEL FOR LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY:

The validity of the proposed model for prediction of load carrying capacity is verified by
using the results reported in the literature and the results in this investigation which were not
used for development of the model. Table 4.6 summerises the observed and predicted capacities
of stone columns reported in the literature (Shlash et al 2009, Mahallawy et al 2012, Malarvizhi
and Ilamparuthi 2004, Demir et al 2013 and Shivashankar et al 2011) and in this investigation
along with relevant properties of soil and ratio of observed to predict stone column capacity.
From this table it can observed that ratio of predicted to observed load carrying capacity is
ranging from 0.75 to 1.25 in several cases indicating that the model predicts load carrying
capacity of stone columns with an error of 25%. However, in a few cases (Malarvizhi and
Ilamparuthi 2004 and Mahallawy 2012) the ratio is more than 1.25 and is observed to be in the
range of 2.0 to 4.0. This may be attributed to the fact that the IC of soil bed used in case of
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2004) is 0.1 which falls outside of the testing in this investigation
(0.3 to 0.8). Mahallawy (2012) introduced geo reinforced sand bed between stone columns and
footing .This may be the reason for observed deviation.

63
 Table: 4.6 Observed & Predicted Capacity of Stone Columns Reported Results &
Results of Present Investigation

S. Observed Predicted Observed/

LL IC L/D (L/D *IC) References
No. load(N) Load (N) Predicted
Present*
1 200 98 0.3 4 1.2 229.654 0.871
investigation
Present*
2 250 98 0.3 6 1.8 287.984 0.868 investigation 

Present*
3 350 98 0.3 8 2.4 346.314 1.011 investigation 

11. Present*
4 412.5 98 0.3 3.525 455.682 0.905 investigation 
75
Present*
5 200 98 0.5 2.5 1.25 303.762 0.658 investigation 
Present*
6 312.5 98 0.5 4 2 372.508 0.839 investigation 
Present*
7 425 98 0.5 6 3 464.170 0.916
investigation 
Present*
8 512.5 98 0.5 8 4 555.832 0.922 investigation 

Present*
9 537.5 98 0.5 10 5 647.494 0.830 investigation 

Present*
10 250 98 0.65 2.5 1.625 392.153 0.638 investigation 
Present*
11 337.5 98 0.65 4 2.6 479.649 0.704
investigation 
Present*
12 475 98 0.65 6 3.9 596.310 0.797 investigation 
Present*
13 575 98 0.65 8 5.2 712.971 0.806 investigation 
Present*
14 600 98 0.65 10 6.5 829.632 0.723 investigation 

64
S. Observed Predicted Observed/
LL IC L/D (L/D *IC) References
No. load(N) Load (N) Predicted

11. Present*
15 612.5 98 0.65 7.6375 931.710 0.657 investigation 
75

Present*
16 550 98 0.8 4 3.2 586.790 0.937
investigation 
Present*
17 800 98 0.8 6 4.8 728.450 1.098 investigation 

Present*
18 825 98 0.8 8 6.4 870.110 0.948 investigation 
Present*
19 187.5 56 0.3 4 1.2 157.792 1.188 investigation 
Present*
20 225 56 0.3 6 1.8 216.122 1.041
investigation 
Present*
21 287.5 56 0.3 8 2.4 274.452 1.048 investigation 

11. Present*
22 337.5 56 0.3 3.525 383.820 0.879 investigation 
75
Present*
23 137.5 56 0.5 2.5 1.25 231.900 0.593 investigation 
Present*
24 225 56 0.5 4 2 300.646 0.748 investigation 

Present*
25 325 56 0.5 6 3 392.308 0.828 investigation 

Present*
26 450 56 0.5 8 4 483.970 0.930
investigation 
Present*
27 475 56 0.5 10 5 575.632 0.825
investigation 
Present*
28 150 56 0.65 2.5 1.625 320.291 0.468 investigation 

Present*
29 300 56 0.65 4 2.6 407.787 0.736 investigation 
Present*
30 400 56 0.65 6 3.9 524.448 0.763 investigation 

65
S. Observed Predicted Observed/
LL IC L/D (L/D *IC) References
No. load(N) Load (N) Predicted
Present*
31 525 56 0.65 8 5.2 641.109 0.819
investigation 
Present*
32 575 56 0.65 10 6.5 757.770 0.759 investigation 

11. Present*
33 581.5 56 0.65 7.6375 859.848 0.676 investigation 
75
Present*
34 437.5 56 0.8 4 3.2 514.928 0.850 investigation 
Present*
35 725 56 0.8 6 4.8 656.588 1.104 investigation 

Present*
36 737.5 56 0.8 8 6.4 798.248 0.924
investigation

Shlash et
37 256 44 0.4 6 2.4 283.683 0.902
al(2009)

Shlash et
38 298 44 0.4 8 3.2 358.679 0.831
al(2009)

Mahallawy
39 1400 45 0.8 7 5.6 708.597 1.976
(2012)

Demir et
40 750 55 0.9 4 3.6 584.644 1.283
al(2013)

Demir et
41 850 55 0.9 8 7.2 901.296 0.943
al(2013)
Malarvizhi and
42 113 55 0.1 5 0.5 25.725 4.393 Ilamparuthi
(2004)
Malarvizhi and
43 165 55 0.1 7.5 0.75 56.973 2.896 Ilamparuthi
(2004)
Malarvizhi and
9.3
44 203 55 0.1 0.933 79.846 2.542 Ilamparuthi
3
(2004)

66
S. Observed Predicted Observed/
LL IC L/D (L/D *IC) References
No. load(N) Load (N) Predicted
Shivashankar
45 636 68 0.63 6 3.78 527.361 1.206
et al (2011)
Shivashankar
46 508 47 0.53 6 3.18 403.337 1.259
et al (2011)
*not used in the development of model

67
CHAPTER-V

LATERAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT

OF BULGING   

68
 CHAPTER-V

LATERAL AND VERTICAL EXTENT OF BULGING

5.1 INTRODUCTION:

Load carrying capacity of stone column is attributed to (i) Passive earth pressure
mobilized along the periphery of stone column and (ii) End bearing resistance developed at the
base of stone column. Almost all the investigators suggest that contribution due to mobilization
of passive earth pressure is dominant and only in few limited cases (stone columns with lesser
L/D ratios) end bearing resistance contributes to some extent. Loading of a stone column is
known to cause penetration of crushed stone into surrounding soil resulting in bulging of stone
column in the top portion. Bulging is accompanied by increase in lateral/radial stresses and
interface frictional resistance thus effecting an increase in load carrying capacity. Hence, from
the literature it is clear that the lateral and vertical extent of bulging plays a vital role in
improving the capacity of stone column. (Bachus RC and Barksdale 1984,Narasimha Rao et al,
1991). This has lead to the idea of modification of stone columns either by introducing nylon
fibers, stone dust, and lime to the conventional granular material or by encasement of stone
column with geosynthetic to further improve the capacity of stone column (Malarvizhi and
Ilamparuthi 2004, Chungsik 2010 , Murugesan and Rajagopal 2010 , Kameshwar rao et al 2011 ,
Mahallawy 2012, Demir et al 2013 , Raju et al 2013 and Rakesh and Jain 2013) .Such
modifications are known to improve the stiffness of column material and control the formation of
bulb causing an increase in capacity of stone column. In this investigation an attempt has been
made to indentify the factors influencing bulging as well as their effect on lateral and vertical
extent of bulging that takes place due to loading of stone column. Given below are the results
and discussions concerning the bulging of stone column.

5.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS:

5.2.1 Tests Conducted:

A total of 44 load tests are conducted on stone columns embedded in clay soil beds
prepared in model test taks by varying liquid limit and consistency index of soil as well as L/D of
stone column. At the end of load test, soil along with stone column is extracted from the model

69 
 
test tank using universal extractor frame. The soil bed extracted is carefully divided into the two
halves by cutting at the center using a knife edge. Typical bulging of stone column after load test
is shown in Fig. 5.1, identifying the lateral and vertical extent of bulging and depth to the center
of bulging.

DB

BL
L  BV

Fig 5.1 Bulging of Stone Column

Where;

DB =Depth to the center of bulging/Depth of bulging

BV= vertical extent of bulging/Length of bulging

BL= maximum lateral extent of bulging/Breadth of bulging

70 
 
 Plaate 5.1 Cutting and Measuremen
M nt Bulging of Stone Column

71 
 
Plate 5.1 presents the photographs showing the cutting of soil bed, bulging of stone column and
measurement of bulging extent after the load test is conducted. Measured values of DB , BV and
BL for all the 44 load tests conducted are presented in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Length, Breadth and Depth of Bulging For Stone Columns Tested

stone columns
Depth
of Maximum
S. No. (L/D) IC LL Depth to the Vertical
stone lateral
center of extent of
column extent of
bulging (DB) bulging (BV)
bulging(BL)

1 2.5 50 0.3 56 1.75D 2.5D 1.6D

2 10 200 0.3 56 2.5D 7.5D 1.65D

3 2.5 50 0.8 56 1.5D 2D 1.5D

4 10 200 0.8 56 1.75D 5D 1.45D

5 2.5 50 0.3 98 2D 2.5D 1.7D

6 10 200 0.3 98 3D 7D 1.75D

7 2.5 50 0.8 98 2D 2D 1.5D

8 10 200 0.8 98 1.75D 2D 1.5D

9 4 80 0.3 98 2D 4D 1.6D

10 6 120 0.3 98 3D 5D 1.65D

11 8 160 0.3 98 2D 5D 1.75D

12 11.75 235 0.3 98 2.25D 7D 1.75D

13 2.5 50 0.5 98 1.5D 2.5D 1.55D

14 4 80 0.5 98 2D 4D 1.5D

15 6 120 0.5 98 3D 5D 1.6D

16 8 160 0.5 98 2D 6D 1.6D

17 10 200 0.5 98 3D 7D 1.6D

18 2.5 50 0.65 98 1.5D 2.5D 1.65D

72 
 
 19 4 80 0.65 98 2.5D 3D 1.5D

20 6 120 0.65 98 3D 4D 1.65D

21 8 160 0.65 98 2D 4D 1.5D

22 10 200 0.65 98 3D 5D 1.6D

23 11.75 235 0.65 98 3.5D 5D 1.65D

24 4 80 0.8 98 1.5D 2D 1.35D

25 6 120 0.8 98 1.75D 2D 1.4D

26 8 160 0.8 98 1.75D 2D 1.4D

27 4 80 0.3 56 2D 3D 1.5D

28 6 120 0.3 56 3D 5.5D 1.65D

29 8 160 0.3 56 2D 5D 1.65D

30 11.75 235 0.3 56 3D 8D 1.7D

31 2.5 50 0.5 56 2D 2.5D 1.6D

32 4 80 0.5 56 2D 3D 1.65D

33 6 120 0.5 56 3D 5D 1.6D

34 8 160 0.5 56 3D 5D 1.65D

35 10 200 0.5 56 4D 7D 1.6D

36 2.5 50 0.65 56 1.5D 2.5D 1.45D

37 4 80 0.65 56 2D 3D 1.45D

38 6 120 0.65 56 3D 5D 1.65D

39 8 160 0.65 56 2D 5D 1.5D

40 10 200 0.65 56 3.5D 7D 1.5D

41 11.75 235 0.65 56 3D 6D 1.7D

42 4 80 0.8 56 1.75D 3D 1.35D

43 6 120 0.8 56 2D 3D 1.4D

44 8 160 0.8 56 2D 4D 1.4D

73 
 
5.3 RESULTS OF FACTORIAL EXPERIMENTATION:

In this investigation 8 tests are conducted following the principles of 23 factorial

experimentation, the details of which are presented in chapter 3 section 3.4 and chapter 4 section
4.2. The results pertaining to those 8 experiments are presented in Table 5.2 and the same are
presented pictorially in Figs. 5.2 to 5.4 for DB, BV and BL respectively. Factorial experimentation
facilitates to evaluate the relative effect of each factor as well as their interaction effect on
response of interest. The details are already presented in chapter 4 section 4.3.1 on similar lines
effect of main factors L/D ratio, Consistency and Liquid Limit on depth to the center of bulging
(DB) is calculated as per the details given below.

Table 5.2: 23 Factorial Design Test Combinations of Bulging Stone Columns

Bulging stone columns

Depth
of Depth to Vertical maximum
S. No. (L/D) IC LL Labels the center extent of lateral
stone
column of bulging bulging extent of
(DB) (BV) bulging(BL)

1 2.5 50 0.3 56 1 1.75D 2.5D 1.6D

2 10 200 0.3 56 a 2.5D 7.5D 1.65D

3 2.5 50 0.8 56 b 1.5D 2D 1.5D

4 10 200 0.8 56 ab 1.75D 5D 1.45D

5 2.5 50 0.3 98 c 2D 2.5D 1.7D

6 10 200 0.3 98 ac 3D 7D 1.75D

7 2.5 50 0.8 98 bc 2D 2D 1.5D

8 10 200 0.8 98 abc 1.75D 2D 1.5D

74 
 
.

Fig 5.22: 23 Factorrial Design For Depth

h To The Ceenter of Bu
ulging (DB)

Fig 5.3: 23 Facctorial Desiign For Vertical Exten

nt of Bulging (BV)

75 
 
 Fig 5.4: 23 Factorial Design Foor Maximu
um Laterall Extent of Bulging (B
BL)

5.3.1 Efffect of L/D

D ratio on Bulging
B of Stone
S colum
mn:

1
A= ( a + ab + ac + abc − 1 − b − c − bc ) --------------------------------------------------------- (55.1)
4

1
= ( 2.55 + 1.75 + 3 + 1.75 − 1.755 − 1.5 − 2 − 2 )
4

A 0.44375 Units

5.3.2 Efffect of Con

nsistency Index on Bu
ulging of Sttone colum
mns:

1
B= ( b + ab + bc + abc − 1 − a − c − ac ) --------------------------------------------------------- (55.2)
4

1
= (1.55 + 1.75 + 2 + 1.75 − 1.755 − 2.5 − 2 − 3)
4

0.56225Units

76 
 
5.3.3 Effect of Liquid Limit on Bulging of Stone columns:

1 ----------------------------------------------------- (5.3)

2 3 2 1.75 1.75 2.5 1.5 1.75

0.3125 Units

5.3.4 Interaction Effect of L/D ratio and Consistency Index on Bulging of Stone columns:

1 --------------------------------------------------- (5.4)

1
1.75 2 1.75 1.75 2 1.5 3 2.5
4

0.4375

5.3.5 Interaction Effect of L/D ratio and Liquid Limit on Bulging of Stone columns:

1 --------------------------------------------------- (5.5)

1
1.75 1.5 3 1.75 2.5 1.75 2 2
4

0.0625

5.3.6 Interaction Effect of  Consistency Index and Liquid Limit on Bulging of Stone
columns:

1 ---------------------------------------------------- (5.6)

1
1.75 2.5 2 1.75 1.5 1.75 2 3
4

0.0625

77 
 
5.3.7 Interaction Effect of L/D ratio,  Consistency Index and Liquid Limit on Bulging of
Stone columns:

1 ------------------------------------------------- (5.7)

1
2.5 1.5 2 1.75 1.75 2 3 1.75
4

A 0.1875

On the similar lines effect of main factors as well as interaction effects on vertical extent of
bulging (BV), and maximum lateral extent of bulging (BL) are evaluated and all these results are
summarized in Table 5.3.

Table 5.3: Relative Effect of Factors on DB, BV and BL

Relative Effect of Factors on

S. No Factor
DB BV BL

1 L/D(A) 0.4375 3 0.0125

2 IC(B) 0.5625 2 0.1875

3 LL(C) 0.3125 1 0.0625

4 (L/D*IC)(AB) 0.4375 1.75 0.0375

5 (L/D*LL)(AC) 0.0625 0.75 0.0125

6 (IC*LL)(BC) 0.0625 0.75 0.0375

7 (L/D*IC*LL)(ABC) 0.1875 0.5 0.0125

5.4 REGRESSION MODEL FOR DB:

From Table 5.3 it is clear that IC has the highest influence on DB (0.5625 units) followed
by L/D (0.4375 units), LL (0.3125 units), interaction of two factors L/D & IC (0.4375 units) and
interaction of all three factors L/D, IC & LL (0.18750 units). Hence, the depth to the center of
bulging of stone column may be expressed as a function given below:

78 
 
DB f L⁄D , I , LL, L⁄D I , L⁄D I LL ------------------------------------------------- (5.8)

Multiple linear regression analysis can be carried out using Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft
Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically. In this investigation, a regression model is
evolved using the Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft Excel and the equation is given below.

DB 0.575649 0.186666 L⁄D 0.3333333 I 0.0117881 LL 0.1359464 L⁄D I

0.0012648 L⁄D I LL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- (5.9)

The coefficient of determination (R2) for the above model is 0.974

5.5 REGRESSION MODEL FOR BV:

From Table 5.3 it is clear that L/D has the highest influence BV (3 units) followed by the
IC (2units), LL (1units) and their interaction of factors L/D & IC (1.75units), L/D & LL (0.75
units), IC & LL (0.75 units) and interaction of all three factors (L/D, IC & LL (0.5units). Hence,
the bulging of stone column may be expressed as a function given below:

BV f L⁄D , IC , LL, L⁄D IC , L⁄D LL , Ic LL , L⁄D Ic LL ----------------- (5.10)

Multiple linear regression analysis can be carried out using Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft
Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically. In this investigation, a regression model is
evolved using the Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft Excel and the equation is given below.

BV 1.177778 0.648889 L⁄D 1.88889 I 0.00794 LL 0.355556 L⁄D I

0.003175 L⁄D LL 0.039683 Ic LL 0.01587 L⁄D Ic LL ------------ (5.11)

The coefficient of determination (R2) for the above model is 1.00

5.6 REGRESSION MODEL FOR BL:

From Table 5.3 it is clear that IC has the highest influence BL (0.1875 units) followed by
the LL (0.0625 units), their interaction of factors L/D & IC (0.0375units) and LL & IC
(0.0375units). Hence, the bulging of stone column may be expressed as a function given below:

BL f I , LL, L⁄D I Ic LL ----------------------------------------------------------- (5.12)

79 
 
Multiple linear regression analysis can be carried out using Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft
Excel in order to derive the relationship statistically. In this investigation, a regression model is
evolved using the Data Analysis Tool bar of Microsoft Excel and the equation is given below.

BL 1.521667 0.09429 Ic 0.03452 LL 0.00091 L⁄D I 0.00357 Ic LL -(5.13)

The coefficient of determination (R2) for the above model is 0.956

5.7 VALIDITY OF PROPOSED MODEL FOR BULGING OF STONE COLUMN:

The validity of the proposed models for prediction of DB, BV and BL given by Eq 5.9,5.11
and [Link] studied by comparing the predicted and observed values for all the 44 tests
conducted. Results of only 8 tests are used in the development of model. The observed and
predicted values along with ratio of Observed and predicted values for DB, BV, and BL are
presented in Tables-5.4 to 5.6 respectively. The ratio of Observed to predicted values is close to
unity for almost all the cases indicating validity of the proposed models. No reported results
available in literature giving the details of extent of bulging.

Table: 5.4: Validation of Model For Depth To The Center of Bulging (DB)

Depth to the
S. Predicted Observed/
center of LL IC (L/D) (L/D *IC) (L/D*IC*LL)
No. Bulging Predicted
bulging

1 1.75 56 0.3 2.5 0.75 42 1.647  1.063 

2 2.5 56 0.3 10 3 168 2.582  0.968 

3 1.5 56 0.8 2.5 2 112 1.555  0.965 

4 1.75 56 0.8 10 8 448 1.714  1.021 

5 2 98 0.3 2.5 0.75 73.5 2.102  0.951 

6 3 98 0.3 10 3 294 2.917  1.028 

7 2 98 0.8 2.5 2 196 1.944  1.029 

8 1.75 98 0.8 10 8 784 1.785  0.980 

9 2 98 0.3 4 1.2 117.6 2.265  1.091 

10 3 98 0.3 6 1.8 176.4 2.483  1.440 

80 
 
 11 2 98 0.3 8 2.4 235.2 2.700  0.858 

12 2.25 98 0.3 11.75 3.525 345.45 3.108  0.804 

13 1.5 98 0.5 2.5 1.25 122.5 2.039  0.932 

14 2 98 0.5 4 2 196 2.124  1.153 

15 3 98 0.5 6 3 294 2.237  1.577 

16 2 98 0.5 8 4 392 2.351  0.967 

17 3 98 0.5 10 5 490 2.464  1.342 

18 1.5 98 0.65 2.5 1.625 159.25 1.991  0.948 

19 2.5 98 0.65 4 2.6 254.8 2.018  1.505 

20 3 98 0.65 6 3.9 382.2 2.053  1.699 

21 2 98 0.65 8 5.2 509.6 2.089  1.070 

22 3 98 0.65 10 6.5 637 2.124  1.519 

23 3.5 98 0.65 11.75 7.6375 748.475 2.155  1.694 

24 1.5 98 0.8 4 3.2 313.6 1.912  0.945 

25 1.75 98 0.8 6 4.8 470.4 1.870  1.074 

26 1.75 98 0.8 8 6.4 627.2 1.827  1.047 

27 2 56 0.3 4 1.2 67.2 1.834  0.883 

28 3 56 0.3 6 1.8 100.8 2.083  1.208 

29 2 56 0.3 8 2.4 134.4 2.332  0.741 

30 3 56 0.3 11.75 3.525 197.4 2.800  0.965 

31 2 56 0.5 2.5 1.25 70 1.610  0.981 

32 2 56 0.5 4 2 112 1.735  0.942 

33 3 56 0.5 6 3 168 1.902  1.341 

34 3 56 0.5 8 4 224 2.068  1.276 

35 4 56 0.5 10 5 280 2.235  1.623 

36 1.5 56 0.65 2.5 1.625 91 1.583  0.753 

37 2 56 0.65 4 2.6 145.6 1.661  0.991 

81 
 
 38 3 56 0.65 6 3.9 218.4 1.766  1.461 

39 2 56 0.65 8 5.2 291.2 1.870  0.957 

40 3.5 56 0.65 10 6.5 364 1.975  1.648 

41 3 56 0.65 11.75 7.6375 427.7 2.066  1.392 

42 1.75 56 0.8 4 3.2 179.2 1.587  0.915 

43 2 56 0.8 6 4.8 268.8 1.629  1.070 

44 2 56 0.8 8 6.4 358.4 1.672  1.095 

82 
 
 Table: 5.5: Validation of Model For Vertical Extent of Bulging (BV)

Vertical Obser
S. Predicte
extent ved /
No LL IC (L/D) (L/D*IC) (L/D*LL) (IC*LL) (L/D*IC*LL) d
of Predic
. Bulging
bulging ted

1 2.5 56 0.3 2.5 0.75 140 16.8 42 2.5 1.000

2 7.5 56 0.3 10 3 560 16.8 168 7.501 1.000

3 2.5 56 0.8 2.5 2 140 44.8 112 2 1.250

4 5 56 0.8 10 8 560 44.8 448 5.001 1.000

5 2.5 98 0.3 2.5 0.75 245 29.4 73.5 2.5 1.000

6 7 98 0.3 10 3 980 29.4 294 7.001 1.000

7 2 98 0.8 2.5 2 245 78.4 196 2 1.000

8 2 98 0.8 10 8 980 78.4 784 2.002 0.999

9 4 98 0.3 4 1.2 392 29.4 117.6 3.400 1.176

10 5 98 0.3 6 1.8 588 29.4 176.4 4.600 1.087

11 5 98 0.3 8 2.4 784 29.4 235.2 5.801 0.862

12 7 98 0.3 11.75 3.525 1151.5 29.4 345.45 8.051 0.869

13 2.5 98 0.5 2.5 1.25 245 49 122.5 2.300 1.087

14 4 98 0.5 4 2 392 49 196 2.800 1.393

15 5 98 0.5 6 3 588 49 294 3.561 1.264

16 6 98 0.5 8 4 784 49 392 4.281 1.285

17 7 98 0.5 10 5 980 49 490 5.002 1.399

18 2.5 98 0.65 2.5 1.625 245 63.7 159.25 2.150 1.163

19 3 98 0.65 4 2.6 392 63.7 254.8 2.421 1.239

20 4 98 0.65 6 3.9 588 63.7 382.2 2.781 1.169

21 4 98 0.65 8 5.2 784 63.7 509.6 3.142 1.273

22 5 98 0.65 10 6.5 980 63.7 637 3.502 1.356

23 5 98 0.65 11.75 7.6375 1151.5 63.7 748.475 3.817 1.310

24 2 98 0.8 4 3.2 392 78.4 313.6 2.001 1.000

25 2 98 0.8 6 4.8 588 78.4 470.4 2.001 1.000

83 
 
26 2 98 0.8 8 6.4 784 78.4 627.2 2.002 0.999

27 3 56 0.3 4 1.2 224 16.8 67.2 3.500 0.857

28 5.5 56 0.3 6 1.8 336 16.8 100.8 4.834 1.138

29 5 56 0.3 8 2.4 448 16.8 134.4 6.167 0.811

30 8 56 0.3 11.75 3.525 658 16.8 197.4 8.167 0.980

31 2.5 56 0.5 2.5 1.25 140 28 70 2.300 1.087

32 3 56 0.5 4 2 224 28 112 3.140 0.955

33 5 56 0.5 6 3 336 28 168 4.260 1.174

34 5 56 0.5 8 4 448 28 224 5.381 0.929

35 7 56 0.5 10 5 560 28 280 6.501 1.077

36 2.5 56 0.65 2.5 1.625 140 36.4 91 2.150 1.163

37 3 56 0.65 4 2.6 224 36.4 145.6 2.870 1.045

38 5 56 0.65 6 3.9 336 36.4 218.4 3.831 1.305

39 5 56 0.65 8 5.2 448 36.4 291.2 4.791 1.044

40 7 56 0.65 10 6.5 560 36.4 364 5.751 1.217

41 6 56 0.65 11.75 7.6375 658 36.4 427.7 6.591 0.910

42 3 56 0.8 4 3.2 224 44.8 179.2 2.600 1.154

43 3 56 0.8 6 4.8 336 44.8 268.8 3.400 0.882

44 4 56 0.8 8 6.4 448 44.8 358.4 4.201 0.952

84 
 
 Table: 5.6: Validation of Model For Maximum Lateral Extent of Bulging(BL)

S. Vertical extent Predicted Observed

LL IC (L/D) (L/D *IC) (IC*LL)
No. of bulging Bulging /Predicted

1 1.6 56 0.3 2.5 0.75 16.8 1.626 0.984

2 1.65 56 0.3 10 3 16.8 1.623 1.017

3 1.5 56 0.8 2.5 2 44.8 1.477 1.016

4 1.45 56 0.8 10 8 44.8 1.472 0.985

5 1.7 98 0.3 2.5 0.75 29.4 1.726 0.985

6 1.75 98 0.3 10 3 29.4 1.723 1.016

7 1.5 98 0.8 2.5 2 78.4 1.502 0.999

8 1.5 98 0.8 10 8 78.4 1.497 1.002

9 1.6 98 0.3 4 1.2 29.4 1.725 0.928

10 1.65 98 0.3 6 1.8 29.4 1.725 0.957

11 1.75 98 0.3 8 2.4 29.4 1.724 1.015

12 1.75 98 0.3 11.75 3.525 29.4 1.723 1.016

13 1.55 98 0.5 2.5 1.25 49 1.636 0.947

14 1.5 98 0.5 4 2 49 1.636 0.917

15 1.6 98 0.5 6 3 49 1.635 0.979

16 1.6 98 0.5 8 4 49 1.634 0.979

17 1.6 98 0.5 10 5 49 1.633 0.980

18 1.65 98 0.65 2.5 1.625 63.7 1.569 1.052

19 1.5 98 0.65 4 2.6 63.7 1.569 0.956

20 1.65 98 0.65 6 3.9 63.7 1.567 1.053

21 1.5 98 0.65 8 5.2 63.7 1.567 0.957

22 1.6 98 0.65 10 6.5 63.7 1.566 1.022

23 1.65 98 0.65 11.75 7.6375 63.7 1.564 1.055

24 1.35 98 0.8 4 3.2 78.4 1.501 0.899

25 1.4 98 0.8 6 4.8 78.4 1.500 0.933

85 
 
 26 1.4 98 0.8 8 6.4 78.4 1.499 0.934

27 1.5 56 0.3 4 1.2 16.8 1.626 0.923

28 1.65 56 0.3 6 1.8 16.8 1.625 1.015

29 1.65 56 0.3 8 2.4 16.8 1.625 1.015

30 1.7 56 0.3 11.75 3.525 16.8 1.624 1.047

31 1.6 56 0.5 2.5 1.25 28 1.567 1.021

32 1.65 56 0.5 4 2 28 1.566 1.054

33 1.6 56 0.5 6 3 28 1.565 1.022

34 1.65 56 0.5 8 4 28 1.564 1.055

35 1.6 56 0.5 10 5 28 1.563 1.024

36 1.45 56 0.65 2.5 1.625 36.4 1.523 0.952

37 1.45 56 0.65 4 2.6 36.4 1.521 0.953

38 1.65 56 0.65 6 3.9 36.4 1.520 1.086

39 1.5 56 0.65 8 5.2 36.4 1.520 0.987

40 1.5 56 0.65 10 6.5 36.4 1.518 0.988

41 1.7 56 0.65 11.75 7.6375 36.4 1.517 1.121

42 1.35 56 0.8 4 3.2 44.8 1.477 0.914

43 1.4 56 0.8 6 4.8 44.8 1.476 0.949

44 1.4 56 0.8 8 6.4 44.8 1.474 0.950

86 
 
CHAPTER – VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

 

87
 CHAPTER – VI

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

6.1 SUMMARY

Ground improvement become imperative while constructing a civil engineering structure, where
ever difficult sub soil conditions are encountered and if is not possible to alter the site. Stone
columns are one method of ground improvement where in the weak soils are partially replaced
with compacted vertical column of stones that may are may not completely penetrate the weak
strata. Intrusions of stone columns in weak soils are known to improve the soil by expediting the
consolidation and by the reinforcing effect of stiffer granular column. In soft clays stone column
improve the performance of foundations both by reducing settlements and increasing the load
carrying capacity. Stone columns bulge upon loading especially close to the top of the column
where the overburden pressures are less. The performance of stone column is greatly influenced
by the partial resistance of the surrounding soil to the lateral bulging of the stone column. Load
transfer due to lateral bulging is reportedly predominaly than due to end bearing at the column
base and skin friction along the column soil interface. The degree of bulging largely depends on
the strength of surrounding soil. The ultimate load carrying capacity of a stone column is
dependent on length of stone column. However, no significant increasing in stone column
capacity is expected for lengths greater than critical length which is of the order ranging from 4D
to 6D. In other words load carrying capacity of stone columns longer than critical length is
independent of length of the stone column. It implies that the load carrying capacity of stone
columns intruding soft clays is governed by length of stone column, soil type and its strength.
Therefore in this investigation an attempt has been made to study the effect of liquid limit (LL)
and consistency index (IC) of soil and L/D ratio of stone column. On the load carrying capacity
and bulging of stone column for footing supported on stone columns embedded in soft clay beds.
It is also intended to study the effect of LL and IC on critical column length. Relative effect of
each of the three factors namely LL, IC and L/D as well as their interaction effects on load
carrying capacity, bulging length and bulging width is quantified using the principles of 23
factorial experimentation.

88
The scope of the present investigation encompasses studying the load settlement and lateral and
vertical extant of bulging in high plastic clay soils. Chapter 1 gives a brief introduction followed
by detailed listing of scope and objectives. Chapter 2 is devoted for review of literature
concerning techniques of instigation, analysis and designing of stone columns. Chapter 3 give
the details of 23 factorial experimentation, materials used, series of tests conducted and testing
procedures adapted in this investigation. Results of the load tests on stone columns are presented,
analyzed and discussed in chapter 4 and chapter 5. Chapter 4 gives the detailed account of tests
conducted to determine critical length and load carrying capacity of stone columns. The results
were analyzed to development of regression models to predict critical length and load carrying of
stone columns in terms of influencing factors. Results pertaining to lateral and vertical extent of
bulging of a stone column with different L/D, IC and LL are presented and discussed in chapter
5. Here also the results are analyzed using 23 factorial experimentation techniques to quantify the
effect of LL, L/D and IC on depth of bulging, bulging length and width. There results were also
analyzed to develop regression models to predict depth of bulging, bulging length and width of
stone column in terms of influencing factors.

Based on the results presented in this investigation, the following important conclusions are
drawn.

89
6.2 CONCLUSIONS

1. Ultimate capacity and load-settlement behavior of a stone column are dependent on

dimensions of the stone column represented by L/D ratio, state of soil mass and soil
properties represented by Liquid limit (LL) and Consistency index (IC).
2. Ultimate capacity of a stone column increases with L/D ratio. Up to certain critical L/D,
beyond which three will be no further increase in ultimate capacity with L/D.
3. Critical L/D ratio of a stone column is a function of IC of a soil and is independent of soil
type. A regression model is developed to predict critical L/D ratio in terms of IC which is
validated using results from literature.
4. The effect of main factors LL, IC and L/D as well their interaction effect on ultimate
capacity is quantified using the principle of 23 factorial experimentation. L/D ratio is
found to have dominating influence on load carrying capacity of stone column followed
by IC, interaction effect of IC&L/D (IC * L/D) and LL in that order.
5. A regression model is developed for prediction of load carrying capacity in terms of
influencing factors. Validity of the proposed model is verified using the results reported
in the literature and 36 load tests conducted in this investigation which were not used in
the development of the model. The ratio of observed to predicted capacities were found
to be close to unity in almost all the cases.
6. Bulging behavior of stone column is also found to be dependent on the main factors (LL,
L/D&IC) as well as their interaction.
7. Vertical extent of bulging (BV) is dominatingly influenced by L/D, IC and interaction
effect of IC & L/D in that order. The effect of LL on BV is found to be Significant where
as the interaction effect of (L/D*LL), (IC*LL) and (L/D*IC*LL) is moderate.
8. IC is found to have dominating influence on maximum lateral extent of bulging(BL)
followed by LL. Interaction among the factors (IC * L/D) and (IC*LL) have moderate
effect on BL.
9. Depth to the center of bulging(DB) is dominatingly influenced by IC, L/D, interaction of
factors IC &L/D in that order followed by LL and interaction of all the three main
factors(L/D*IC*LL).
10. Empirical regression models were developed to predict (DB), (BV) and (BL) in terms of
influencing factors inclusive of interaction effects. Validity of the proposed models is
verified using test data of present investigation which were not used in the development
of model.

90
 REFERENCES

1. Ambily AP, Gandhi SR (2004) Esperimental and Theoretical Evaluation Of Stone

Column In Soft Clay, Journal of ICGGE2004: PP 201-206.
2. Aboshi H, Ichimoto E, Harada K,Emoki (1979) The composer a method to improve the
characteri stics of soft clays by inclusion of large diameter sand columns. In: proceeding
of interactional conference on soil reinforcement. Paris, PP 211-216.
3. Bachus RC, Barksdale RD (1984) Vertical and Lateral behavior of model stone columns.
In: Proceedings of international conference on in situ soil and rock reinforcement, Paris,
PP 99-104.
4. Balaam NP, Poulos HG (1983). The behavior of foundation supported by clays stabilized
by stone columns. The University of Sydney Research Report No. R424, Sydney,
Australia.
5. Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983). Design and construction of stone columns. Report No.
FHWA/RA- 831026, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia,
USA.
6. Baurman, Bauer (1974). The Performance of foundation on various soils stabilized by
vibro compaction method. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol II.
7. Black JA, Siva Kumar V, Madhav MR, Hamill GA (2007) Reinforced Stone Columns In
Weak Deposits: Laboratory Model Study Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
engineering ASCE, Vol. 133: PP 1154-1161.
8. Bryan A, McCabe, James A, Mc Neil Jonathan ABlack (2007) Ground Improvement
Using the Vibro-Stone Column Technique Paper presented to a joint meeting of
Engineers Ireland West Region and the Geotechnical Society of Ireland, NUI Galway.
9. Chungsik Yoo AM (2010) Performance of Geosynthetic-Encased Stone Columns in
Embankment Construction: Numerical Investigation Journal of Geotechnical and
Environmental Engineering. PP: 1148-1160.
10. Datye KR Nagaraju SS (1975) Installation and testing of rammed stone column. In:
Proceedings, 5th Asian regional conference on soil mach and found. Engg,. Bangalore,
India. PP:101-104

91
11. Demir Ahmet, Talha Sarici, Mustafa Laman, Baki Bagriacik, Bahadir Ok (2013) An
experimental study on behavior of Geosynthetic reinforced stone columns. 2nd
International Balkans Conference on Challenges of Civil Engineering, [Link]-
841.
12. Dipty Sarin Isaac, Girish MS (2009) Suitability of Different Materials for Stone Columns
Construction, Journal of EJGE, Vol.14.
13. Goughnour RR (1983) Settlement of vertically loaded stone columns in soft ground.
Proc. Specialty Session- 8th European Conf. no Soil Mech. and Found. Engg., Helsinki 2.
14. Greenwood (1970). Mechanical Improvent of soils below ground surface, Proceedingg of
Ground Engineering Conference, Institute of civil Engineers, London. PP: 9-20.
15. Greenwood DA, Kirsch K (1983) Specialist ground treatment by vibratory and dynamics.
In: proceedings, inter-national conference on piling and ground treatment, Tho-mas
Telford, London. PP: 17-45.
16. Hanna AM, Etezad M, Ayadat T (2013) Mode of Failure of a Group of Columns In Soft
Soil, International Geotechnical Journal, Vol.13, PP: 87-96.
17. Huges, Wither (1974) Reinforcing of soft cohesive soil with stone column, Ground
Engineering.
18. IS: 15284(part1)-2003, “Design and construction for ground improvement guidelines.
Part 1: stone columns”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
19. IS: 1498-1970, “Classification and Identification of Soils for General Engineering
Purpose”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
20. IS: 2720 (Part 5)-1985, “Standard Method for Determination of Liquid and Plastic
Limit”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 
21. IS: 2720-(Part 40)-1987, “Determination of Free Swell Index of Soils”, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
22. James K Mitchell, Timothy RHuber, (1985) Performance of a Stone Column Foundation,
journal of J. Geotech engg. 1985. PP: 205-223.
23. Kais TShlash, Mohammed YFattah, Mohammed Al- Waily Maki J (2009) Laboratory
Investigation on Efficiency of Model Stone Column Groups, Journal of Engineering and
technical ,vol.27.

92
24. Kameshwar RaoTallspragada, Golat YS, Ashwini SZade (2011) Improvement of Bearing
Capacity of Soft Soil Using Stone Column With and Without Encasement of
Geosynthetics. International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology.
[Link] Vol 1.
25. Madhav MR, Iyengar NGR, Vitkar RP, Nandia A (1979). Increased bearing capacity and
reduced settlements due to inclusions in soil. Proc. Intl. Conf. on Soil Reinforcement:
Reinforced Earth and other Techniques 2, PP: 239-333.
26. Madhav MR, Viktar (1978). Strip footing with granular trench or pile. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal.
27. Malarvizhi SN, Ilamparuthi K (2004).Load Versus Settlement of Clay bed Stabilized
with Stone and Reinforced Stone Columns Journal of 3rd Asian Regional Conference
2004. [Link].
28. Matters, Poulu (1969). Settlement of single compressible pile. Journal of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering. ASCE, Vol. 95, PP: 189-207.
29. Mitchell JK, (1981) Soil improvement – state of the art report. In: Proceedings of the 10th
international conference on soil mach and found. engg., Stockholm, PP 509-565.
30. Mohammed YFattah, Kais TShlash, Mohammed Al-Waily MakiJ (2010) Stress
Concentration Ratio of Model Stone Columns in Soft Clays journal of Geotechnical
Testing Journal, vol.34, No.1, paper ID GTJ103060, Available online at
[Link]
31. Montgomery CD (2005) Design and Analysis of Experiments”, Jhon Wiley & Sons Inc,
New York.
32. Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2010) Studies on the behavior of single and Group of
Geosynthetic Encased Stone Columns. Journal of Geotechnical and Environmental
Engineering. ASCE PP: 129-139.
33. Mahallawy Nagy Abdel Hamid E1 (2012) Improvement of Soft Soils Using Reinforced
Sand over Stone Columns journal of Life Sciences Vol-9(2) PP:269-276
[Link] .
34. Narasimha Rao S, Ramji P, Prasad CV (1991) Use of Stone Columns for an oil storage
tank foundation, Proceeding of the National Seminar on Ground Improvement Using
Geotextiles, stone columns and Chemical Grouting, Institution of
Engineers,India,1991,Vol.1,PP:IV/-IV/12.

93
35. Nayak NV (1996) Foundation design manual, Dhanapathi Rai publications (P) Ltd,
Fourth ed.
36. Pivarc J, (2011) Stone Columns- Determination of the Soil Improvement Factor, Journal
of Slovak University of Technology, Radinskno11, 81368 Bratislava, Vol .X1X No 3,
PP:17-21.
37. Pradip Das, Sujit Kumar Pal (2013) A Study of the Behavior of Stone Column In Local
Soft and Loose Layered Soil, Journal of EJGE Vol 18, PP: 1777-1786.
38. Raju KVSB, Govinda raju L, Chandrashekhar AS (2013), “Cyclic Response of Stone
Columns,” journal of International Journal of scientific and Engineering Research,
Vol.4,PP:29-32.
39. Rakesh Kumar, Jani PK (2013) Soft Ground Improvement with Fiber Reinforced
Granular Pile, International Journal of advanced Engineering Research and studies Vol.
II,PP: 42-45.
40. Saroglou H, Antonjou AA, Pateras SK (2008) Ground Improvement of Clayey Soil
Formations Using Stone Columns: A case study from Greece, journal of The 12th
International Association for computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics, PP:
3664-3670.
41. Shivashankar R, Dheerendra Babu MR, Stiaram Nayak, Manjunath R (2011).
Experimental Studies on Behaviour of Stone Columns in Layered Soils, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Vol.29, PP: 749-757.
42. Tandel YK, Solanki CH, Desai AK (2012) Reinforced granular column for deep soil
stabilization: A review. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Vol.2,
PP: 720-730.
43. Van Impe WE, De Beer (1983) Improvement of settlement behavior of soft layers by
means of stone columns. Proc. 8th European Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Engg.,
Helsinki 1,PP: 309-312.
44. Vesic (1972). Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil Mass. Journal of SMFE Division.
45. Wong HY (1975) Vibroflotation- Its effect on weak cohesive soils. Cohesive soils. Civil
Engineering (London) 824,PP: 44-67.
46. Woo-Seok Bae, Bang-Woong Shin (2002) Behaviors of Foundation System Improved
With Stone Columns, Proc. International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Kitakyushu, Japan, May [Link]: 675-678.

94