Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay ICGGE-2004

EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL EVALUATION OF STONE

COLUMN IN SOFT CLAY
A.P. Ambily
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, INDIA
Email: ambilychn @rediffmail.com

S.R. Gandhi
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600 036, INDIA
Email: srgandhi@.iitm.ac.in

ABSTRACT: In recent years stone columns have been increasingly used for improvement of soft soils to increase the
load bearing capacity and to reduce the settlements. This ground improvement technique has been successfully applied
for the foundations of structures like oil storage tanks, earthen embankments, raft foundations etc where large settlement
is possible. Despite the wide spread use of stone columns, present design methods are largely empirical. No codes have
been developed. In the present work experimental studies are carried out to evaluate the behaviour of stone column by
varying spacing, shear strength of soft clay, moisture content etc. The results obtained are analysed 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.

1 INTRODUCTION 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

India has large coastline exceeding 6000kms. In view of
the developments on coastal areas in the recent past, large
number of ports and industries are being built. In addition,
the availability of land for the development of
commercial, housing, industrial and transportation,
infrastructure etc. are scarce particularly in urban areas.
This necessitated the use of land, which has weak strata,
wherein the geotechnical engineers are challenged by
presence of different problematic soils with varied
engineering characteristics. Many of these areas are
covered with thick soft marine clay deposit, with very low
shear strength and high compressibility.
Out of several techniques available for improving the
weak strata, stone columns have been used to a large
extend for several applications. The design of stone
column is still empirical, based on past experience and
needs field trials before execution. No well-defined
guidelines or codes are available.
To study the stiffness and deformation behaviour of the
improved ground for various column spacing,
experimental study has been carried out in a cylindrical
tank representing one stone column and surrounding soft
clay equivalent to the effective area of a column (unit
cell). Ten tests have been carried out for three different
spacing and moisture content. The experimental results
are compared with finite element analysis using PLAXIS
and found to be comparable.
Several researchers have worked on theoretical,
experimental and field study on behavior of stone
columns. However very little information is available on
design procedure that can be used for a given situation.
Semi empirical design approach based on the allowable
stress on stone columns and the undrained shear strength
of clay have been proposed by Greenwood (1970),
Hughes and Withers (1974), Saha (1992,1999). Semi-
empirical design approach based on pressuremeter theory
was proposed by Hughes et al (1975). Cavity expansion
approach proposed by Vesic (1972) have been used by
Ranjan and Rao(1986) and Datye and Nagaraju(1981)
In experimental approach, Hughes and Withers
(1974) carried out series of model tests in normally
consolidated clay. The test results indicated that ultimate
capacity of stone column was governed primarily by the
maximum radial reaction of the soil against the bulging
and the extend of vertical movement in the stone column
was limited to about 4 times the diameter. Shankar and
Shroff (1997) conducted experimental studies to study the
effect of pattern of installation of stone columns and
showed that triangular pattern seems to be optimum and
rational. Mitra and Chatopadhyay (1999) studied the
effect of different factors influencing the capacity of stone
column improved ground from the available literature and
showed that in the case of columns failing by bulging the
critical length is about 3 to 5 times the stone column

Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA 201

Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay
diameter. Mitchell and Huber (1985) compared the field
performance of stone columns with the predictions by
finite element analysis and reported that the agreement
was generally good. It was concluded further that
settlement predictions using other simpler methods also
gave values, which agreed reasonably with the measured
values. Saha et al (2000) studied the load response behavior
of stone columns in soft soil environment by using a finite
element software package (ANSYS). The parameters
studied are the variation of lateral deformation, lateral
pressure and vertical stress with depth for various intensity
of loading. The results of computer aided numerical
solutions are presented in the form of non-dimensional
quantities. Madhav (2000) presented an overview of
recent contributions for the analysis and design of stone
columns. Different equations available in the literature for
finding bearing capacity and settlement of stone column
improved ground have also being given.
3 EXPERIMENTAL WORK
The experimental study is carried out with following
objectives:
( i ) To estimate the load carrying capacity of a stone
column.
( ii ) To estimate the stiffness of the improved soil for
different shear strength of surrounding clay and for
different spacing.
Accordingly, two types of tests are carried out in test
tank where a stone column of 100mm diameter is
constructed at the center of a cylindrical tank, which is
filled with soft clay of required consistency. Tank
diameter is chosen to represent a required spacing
between the columns. To estimate the load carrying
capacity of the column, column area alone is loaded.
Whereas the entire area represented by the column is
loaded to estimate the stiffness of the improved ground.
The test program is given in Table1.
Table 1: Test program
s/d w Su Loading condition
(%) (kPa) Entire Column
area alone
2 25 30
2 30 12
2 35 6.5
3 30 12
4 30 12
3.1 Experimental Set - up
Typical test arrangement is shown in fig 1.
202
ICGGE-2004
Load
30mm
1
2
3
4 500 mm
5
450mm
210 to 420 mm φ
1. Loading plate 4. Stone column(100mmφ)
2. Sand pad 5. Cylindrical test tank
3. Soft clay
Fig. 1. Typical Test arrangement (entire area loaded)
Cylindrical tank of height 500mm is used as model tank.
Diameter of the tank is taken as the diameter of the area of
zone of influence around each column. Stone column
diameter used for the test is 100mm. To study the effect of
spacing the diameter of the tank was varied from 210mm
to 420mm. Assuming triangular pattern and spacing to
diameter ratio (s/d) as 2, 3 and 4 the model tank diameters
used are 210, 315 and 420mm. In the tank clay is placed
for a height of 450mm in which the stone column is
installed at the center.
Experimental set-up comprises of a cylindrical tank
filled with soft clay and with a stone column of 100mm
diameter at its center. A sand layer of 30 mm thick is
placed at top as a blanket. Vertical load is applied either
over the entire tank area or over diameter equal to that of
stone column. Sand layer of 30mm height is placed on the
clay bed around the column in the case of column alone
loaded. The load was applied through a proving ring at a
constant strain rate of 1.2mm/min.
3.2 Properties of Material Used
Two basic materials are used for this study: Clay and
Stones
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA
Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay ICGGE-2004

(a) Properties of clay
The clay used is natural clay from IIT Madras campus.
Surface clay was excavated after removal of vegetation,
air-dried and pulverized. Properties of clay used are:
weight of the gravel placed was weighed and the dry
density of material as placed considering diameter of
100mm is 16 kN/m3. A sand layer of 30mm height is
placed over the prepared stone column and clay bed.

Type of Clay : CH 3.5 Test Procedure

Specific Gravity : 2.492
Liquid Limit (%) : 52 After preparing the stone column, the load deformation
Plastic Limit (%) : 21 behavior of the column is studied by loading it in a triaxial
Plasticity Index (%) : 31 loading frame at a strain rate of 1.2mm/minute. To load
Clay Content (%) : 25 the stone column area alone a loading plate of 98mm
Silt Content (%) : 45 diameter is placed exactly at the center of the stone
Max. Dry Density (kN/m3) : 16.63 column and the load is applied till failure. To load the
Optimum Moisture Content (%) : 19.25 entire tank area a loading plate of diameter 5mm less than
the inside diameter of the test tank is placed over the sand
(b) Properties of Stones blanket and the load is applied over the plate. Load is
observed for equal intervals of settlements up to an
Crushed stones (aggregates) of size below 10mm have average deformation of 14mm.
been used to form stone column. The finer fraction
passing through 2mm was removed by wet sieving and 4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
used after drying. Typical properties of aggregate for
stone column are: Predictions of the load test results by a finite element
analysis were compared with the model test results to
Angle of Internal Friction : 420 evaluate the ability of the method to model the actual
behaviour of stone column effectively. The finite element
Size : 2 – 10 mm analysis is done using a package – PLAXIS, developed for
Uniformity Coefficient :2 the analysis of soil and rock. Validation of the package is
done and reported below.
Coefficient of curvature : 1.125
Modulus of Elasticity (kPa) : 48000 4.1 Validation of finite element package used

3.3 Preparation of Soft Clay Bed
Oil is applied in the tank wall to reduce any friction
between clay and tank wall. Required quantity of clay is
mixed with different moisture content of 25%, 30% and
35%. Thoroughly mixed paste is filled in the tank in
layers of 50mm each giving uniform compaction to
achieve a uniform dry density of 15.4kN/m3, 14kN/m3 and
13kN/m3 respectively. Care was taken to ensure that no
significant air voids are formed in the test bed. At the
center of clay bed prepared, vane Shear test is carried out
to measure the shear strength of the clay bed. The results
are shown in table 1.
3.4 Construction of Stone Column
The column is constructed by replacement method. A
100mm outer diameter thin open-ended seamless pipe is
pushed into the clay at its center up to bottom of tank. The
clay within the pipe is scooped out using a helical auger.
Gravels of size 2 – 10mm are charged into the hole in
layers of 50mm each giving uniform compaction to each
layer. Casing pipe is raised in stages ensuring minimum
5mm penetration below the gravel placed. The total
Finite element package (PLAXIS) is validated by
analyzing the load test result published based on the work
done by Narasimha rao et al (1992). The test tank is 650
mm diameter and height of clay bed prepared is 350mm.
A stone column of diameter 25mm and height 225mm
was made at the center of the clay bed and loaded with a
plate of diameter equal to two times diameter of stone
column. Properties of clay and stones are given below
(a) Properties of clay:
Modulus of elasticity : 2000kPa
Poissons ratio : 0.45
Shear strength : 20kPa
(b) Properties of stones
Modulus of elasticity : 40000kPa
Poissonns ratio : 0.3
Angle of internal friction : 380
Figure 2 compares the results obtained from model test
and finite element analysis. Load settlement curve, and
ultimate load obtained from finite element analysis
matches well with experimental result.

Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA 203

Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay ICGGE-2004

Load (N)
Center line of stone column
0 100 200 300 400 500
0

10
Settlement (mm)

15 Stone
colum
20 model test n Tank wall (radial
deformation) = 0
plaxis
25
450mm
30

35

Fig. 2. Validation of PLAXIS Soft clay

4.2 Analysis of Stone Column

A non – linear, plastic, axisymmetric analysis is done..

Material properties used for the analysis are given below.
(a) Properties of Clay 50mm dia Fixed boundary
For the three different consistency of clay used in the
experiments, the compressibility modulus (Ec) was
obtained from the consolidation test and Poisson's ratio is Fig. 3. Finite element mesh for test model (s/d = 3)
assumed based on Bowels (1988) as given below;

w Ec Poisson's su Center line of Center line of

γdry γwet
(%) (kPa) ratio (kPa) (kN/m ) 3
(kN/m ) 3 stone column stone column

25 4500 0.45 30 15.4 19.25

30 2000 0.45 12 14 18.2
Sand
35 1200 0.45 6.5 13 17.8
layer

(b) Properties of Stones

The compressibility modulus and angle of internal friction
have been found by laboratory experiments and Poisson's Soft
clay
ratio is assumed based on Bowles (1988) as given below;

Modulus of compacted stones : 48000kPa

Poisson's ratio : 0.3
Angle of internal friction : 420 Stone
column
The basic axisymmetric finite element mesh and
boundary conditions used to represent the individual load
tests are given in figure 3. 15-noded triangular elements
are used for meshing. Along the periphery radial
deformation is restricted but settlement is allowed. Along
the bottom of the tank both radial deformation and Deformed Mesh

settlement are restricted.

An equal settlement analysis is done when column alone
loaded. Analysis for entire area loaded is done by (a) Column alone loaded (b) Entire area loaded
applying uniform load over the area. In case of column
alone loaded failure is by bulging of the column at a depth Fig. 4. Deformed mesh

204 Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA

Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay ICGGE-2004

of 0.5 to 1 times diameter of the column. Figure4(a)

Load intensity (kN/sq.m)
shows a typical deformed mesh at the time of failure when 0 100 200 300 400
column alone loaded. When entire area loaded the 0
analysis is done for a load capacity corresponding to that
of model test. Figure 4(b) shows a typical deformed mesh 5

Settlement(mm)
when entire area loaded. No bulging of the column is seen
10 su = 12kPa
as in the case of model test.
15

5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 20 Model test

FEM s/d = 2
25 s/d = 4
5.1 Column Area Alone Loaded s/d = 3

Fig.5 compares the load settlement curves from model test

and finite element analysis for different shear strength
with same s/d ratio of 2. As seen from the figure failure is
clear and found to be due to bulging of the column. The
ultimate load capacities obtained from the model test and
finite element analysis are given in table2
Load intensity (kN/sq.m)
0 200 400 600
0 failure has not taken place. Curves from the finite element
5 s/d =2
Settlement(mm)
Fig. 6. Load – settlement curves for different s/d ratios
5.2 Entire Area Loaded
Figure 7 compares load settlement curves from model test
and finite element analysis for different shear strength and
same s/d ratio of 2. In model test because of the confining
800
effect from the tank wall and since the full area is loaded,
analysis also follow the same pattern. The stiffness of the
improved ground can be obtained by the back calculation

10
from the curves, which can be adopted for settlement
15 analysis. Table 3 compares the stiffness values obtained
20 from model test and finite element analysis.
6.5kPa
12kPa Load intensity (kN/sq.m)
25
0 50 100 150 200 250
30 Model teat 0
35 FEM 30kPa
2 Model test
FEM
Settlement(mm)

4
Fig. 5. Load – settlement curves at different shear
strength 6
s/d = 2
8
Figure 6 compares the load settlement curve from model
test and finite element analysis for different spacing to 10
12kPa
diameter ratio with same shear strength of 12kPa. The 30kPa
12 6.5kPa
curves obtained from the finite element analysis compares
well with that from model test. Table 2 compares the
ultimate load capacities obtained from model test and Fig. 7. Load – settlement curves for different shear
finite element analysis strength

Table 2: Comparison of ultimate load capacity Table 3: Comparison of stiffness

s/d su (kPa) Ultimate load capacity (kPa) s/d su (kPa) Stiffness (kPa)
Model test FEM Model test FEM
2 30 780 725 2 30 16070 16200
2 12 365 345 2 12 9640 9000
2 6.5 195 185 2 6.5 8020 8090
3 12 325 305 3 12 7230 7740
4 12 255 225 4 12 3870 3620

Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA 205

Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay
Figure 8 compares the load settlement curves from model
test and finite element analysis for different s/d ratios and
same shear strength of 12kPa. Table 3 compares the
stiffness obtained from model test and finite element
analysis.
Load intensity(kN/sq.m)
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
2 Model test
FEM
Settlement(mm)
4 Soft Cohesive Soils with Stone Columns, Ground
6
su =12kPa
8
10
s/d = 3
12
s/d = 4
Fig. 8. Load – settlement curves for different s/d ratios
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present work compares the load settlement behaviour,
ultimate axial capacity of stone column and stiffness of
the improved ground from experimental work with finite
element analysis. Following conclusions are drawn based
on the study.
1. When column area alone is loaded, the failure is by
bulging of the column with maximum bulging at 0.5 to 1
times the column diameter below the top.
2. When the column and surrounding area represented by
the column is loaded with confinement of tank wall, the
bulging failure cannot take place.
3. The load settlement behaviour when entire area is
loaded is almost linear and it is possible to arrive at the
stiffness of the improved ground. The stiffness obtained
from model test compares well with that obtained from
the finite element anaysis.
4. Compared to the load settlement for s/d of 2 and 3, s/d
of 4 is not having any significant improvement.
5. The load settlement behaviour and the ultimate axial
capacities obtained from model test compares well with
that of finite element analysis.
206
ICGGE-2004
REFERENCES
Bowles (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th
edition, McGraw – Hill International Editions,New
Delhi.
Datye, K.R. and Nagaraju,S.S. (1981). Design Approach
and Field Control for Stone Columns, Proc. Tenth Int.
Conf. On SMFE., Stockholm, Vol. 3, 637 – 640.
Greenwood, D.A. (1970). Mechanical Improvement of
120 140
Soils Below Ground Surfaces, Proc. Ground
Engineering Conf., Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, 11-22.
Hughes, J.M.O. and Withers, N.J. (1974). Reinforcing of
Engineering, Vol.7, No.3, 42-49.
Hughes, J.M.O., Withers, N.J. and Greenwood, D.A.
s/d = 2 (1975). A Field Trial of Reinforcing Effect of Stone
Column in Soil , Geotechnique, Vol.25, No.1, 32-44.
Madhav, M.R.(2000).Granular Piles - Recent Contributions.
A short term course on Ground Improvement and Deep
foundations held at IIT Madras, Dec 2000, MRM1 -
MRM38.
Mitchel, J.K. and Huber, T.R. (1985). Performance of a
Stone Column Foundation. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 2, ASCE.
Mitra, S. and Chathpadhyay, B.C. (1999). Stone Columns
and Design Limitations. Proc. of Indian Geotechnical
Conference held at Culcutta , 201 – 205.
Narasimharao, S., Madhiyan, M. and Prasad, Y. V. S. N.
(1992). Influence of Bearing Area on the Behaviour of
Stone Columns, Proc. of Indian Geotechnical
Conference held at Culcutta, 235 – 237.
Ranjan, G. and Rao, B.G. (1986). Granular Piles for Ground
Improvement, Proc. of Int. Conf. On Deep Foundations,
Beijing, Vol.1
Saha, S. (1992). Design Approach and Performance of
Stone Columns. Proc. of Indian Geotechnical
Conference held at Culcutta, 195 – 198.
Saha, S. and Saha, S. (1999). Optional Design of Ground
Improvement for Large Oil storage Tanks. Proc. of
Indian Geotechnical Conference held at Culcutta.,
Vol.1, 163 – 166.
Saha, S., Saha, S. and Roy, A. (2000). Analysis of Stone
Column in Soft Ground, Indian Geotechnical
Conference 2000 held at Bombay, 297 – 300.
Sankar, K. and Shroff, A.V. (1997). Experimental Study
on Floated Stone Column in Soft Kaolinite Clay. Proc.
of Indian Geotechnical Conference held at Vadodara.,
265-268.
Vesic, A.S. (1972). Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil
Mass, J. SM and FE Div., ASCE, Vol 98, SM3, 265 –
290.
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA