Missouri University of Science and Technology

Scholars' Mine
International Conference on Case Histories in (1993) - Third International Conference on Case
Geotechnical Engineering Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

Jun 1st

Failure of Foundation Systems Using Stone

Columns
A. Verghese Chummar
F. S. Engineers Private Limited, Madras, India

Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge

Part of the Geotechnical Engineering Commons

Recommended Citation
A. Verghese Chummar, "Failure of Foundation Systems Using Stone Columns" ( June 1, 1993). International Conference on Case
Histories in Geotechnical Engineering. Paper 27.
http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/icchge/3icchge/3icchge-session01/27

This Article - Conference proceedings is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in International
Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright
Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact
scholarsmine@mst.edu.
 Proceedings: Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri,
June 1-4, 1993, Paper No. 1.21

Failure of Foundation Systems Using Stone Columns

A. Verghese Chummar
Managing Director, F. S. Engineers Private Limited,
Madras, India

SYNOPSIS The paper presents the case history of the failure of a major foundation system comprlSlng of ground irnj.lroved
by stone column technique. An in-depth analysis of the soil parameters, design and construction details, gives valuable lessons
for the precautions to be adopted while implementing stone column technique.

ations are constructed has very soft silty clay layers upto
I. INTRODUCTION
a depth of about II tv!. The ground improvement technique
A Petroleum Company in India constructed four Sj.lherical by stone columns was therefore adoj.lted to increase the
tanks called bullets for storing liquid j.letroleum gas. These bearing capacity of soil to the required level. Excessive
bullets of 18 M dia were to rest on a saucer shaped rein- settlements of these tanks occured soon after the constru-
forced concrete foundation. The area where the found- ction of tanks and prior to any loading and the total failure

Standard Graphlcal

....
-
·;;
.
..... .., ....
~
u P~netration
Test data
rep res entation
of pen etra Hon
ci "'0 ...."
):
..... 1.~
resistance
):
0 .! c 0
0~! ~
...,u ... .
...
c ...
; :o.~
c;
0... Ill
.. . .. .. .. u
... c
.a
~

.
ii
0
a. ...
.~

..
u ...c
u
a.E:
.. " 0
QUlU --):

",.u
:·.:~
2
>"
·-0> ...-.
Q
"' Q ...
.t:. a.ooc
o.s. u.o.s. a" ..... u0 z
I -u c0
cru 10 20 30 ~0 s0
0
~ ~;;,~~;)LAY 1.2

~
2 1.8
2 ·2 0

" ... o
4·4 0

I~
6 CLAY g.a 6.2
(Bluish grey)
&.5 2

8
8.5
8,8 3
10
10· 4 4
11.0 11.0
10·8 :......
)"---..
12
12.1.5
~i~{:: GRAVEL
(Bluish grey)
1·45
12.45
11-8 29 )'a

1413-6 ~~ ~y~~~~~E5~E~r=~~)K 1.15

13.6

~
SANDY GRAVEL/
WEATHERED ROCK 2·6
16 ~ (Brown)
16.2
~

~~~
18 BRECCIA
til~ (BlUISh grey)

20

FIG.1. SOIL PROFILE

Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering

85
Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu
by tilting of the foundation system occured when test load-
ing by water was in progress in one of the tanks. The
paper deals with the details of soil properties, the design
adopted, analysis of the causes of failure and the conclu-
sions made based on the details of the failure.
2. SOIL PROPERTIES
The generalised soil profile of the area where the bullets
are constructed is given in Fig. I. It could be seen that
the soil layers upto a depth of nearly II M comprise of
very soft highly sensitive silty clays followed by clayey
gravel with underlying layer of disintegrated rocks. The
value of cohesion of the silty clay layer was determined
by laboratory vane shear tests, field vane shear tests and
triaxial tests. The sensitivity of the clay was determined
from the vane shear tests. The range of these values
obtained along with the other basic properties like liquid
limit, plastic limit and compression index are given in
Table - I.
3. DESIGN OF FOUNDATION SYSTEM
The type of foundation system adopted for the structure
is given in Fig. 2. The 18 M dia tank is supported on a
14.4 M dia reinforced concrete raft with a central cup
shaped section of 9.9 M dia. The total weight when the
hydro-testing of the spherical tank is done is 4500 T. This
load with the weight of the foundation, distributed over
a dia of 15 M, induces a load intensity of 25 T /M.Sq. The
ground was improved with stone columns to a dia of
21.5 M.
The design of the stone column was made by computing
the load carrying capacity of each stone column using the
lateral deformation theory. The allowable capacity of 90
Cms dia stone column is worked out as 27.5 T. The value of
cohesion of surrounding soil considered is 0.2 Kg/Cm.S4.
The factor of safety taken is 1.5. Based on these details,
the total number of stone columns re4uired to achieve
an improved ground safe bearing capacity of 25 T /M.S4.

..,.,><
f. ..!:
~

t
"'"'-
~
!! c:
t ·-E .,_ ~
-~
~:2~
:::E
~ ~ ""'
g~ C:,!! .~.~.c
--"' .
Ill
Ill

.,..
~ .<;
a..
"0
·:;
0"
.\!
iii
0
e.'Q "'e
e ><-u
-C) Ut-
e..,e;~
e- .. -
-.~.S:.c:n
e ~ ..."'e
,g.o2~
·u;
c.
EtJ-
0 c Ul
a.E
0
5 0 ::; a: u~~~ UU..t()~ u3~~ ~~g~ c.>

SILTY CLAY 0 - 1·Z 95 - 105 40- 45 0·1 - 0-18 - - - -

(Brown)

CLAY
(Biuis;h grey)
1.2 - 11· 0 100 - 124 40 - 48 0·08 - 0·12 0-03- 0·3 0·05- 0·18 3-14 0·6 - 0·'0

TABLE- 1

is worked out. Accordingly, the spacing of stone column

obtained was 1.2 M. The design was finalised based on
these calculations with the assurance of settlement of 50
mm under full loading conditions.

4. CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUE

The stone column construction was implemented by Vibro-

Flotation Technique using the replacement method. The
vibrofloat through which water is pumped at high pressure
is lowered to the required depth and the cavity created
is filled with 20 to 70 mm size granite stone chips. The
float size of 35 to 37 Cms gave a stone column diameter
of 90 Cms.

5. LOAD TEST ON STONE COLUMNS

The load tests on stone columns were conducted using a

single column and a group of three columns. The load
settlement patterns as obtained are given in Figs. 3 & 4.
0.9m DIA STONE From the results, it is seen that the settlement obtained
COLUMNS is as required within 50 mrn under the prescribed loading
SPACING rate.
- f - - - - - - 21.Sm - - - - - - J . .
No. OF STONES 1t.l ·Sf!HI!.RI TA N.K 6. F AlLURE OF THE STRUCTURE
FOUNDATION. 293
The differential settlements to the tune of 50 to 60 mm
FIG.2. FOUNDATION SYSTEM and the total settlements of the order of 300 mm occured

Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 86

Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu
 TflTED
TANK

e
e 4
!!:
...z
11.1
:E 6

.........
11.1

11.1
Cl) 8

10
\
0
'- ........
12 .........
""0...--
FIG.S. FAILURE OF TANK

7. ANALYSIS OF THE CAUSES FOR FAILURE

FIG. 3. LOAD TEST ON SINGLE COL-UMN a) Design:

For the design of the capacity of the stone column, initial

value of cohesion of 0.2 Kg/Cm.Sq. is considered. This
value was taken as an average value from the field vane
shear tests. Many of the observed test values were less
than 0.2 Kg/Crn.Sq. The laboratory vane shear test gave
an average value of cohesion of 0.1 Kg/Cm.Sq. The value
of cohesion taken as N/10 I<g/Cm.Sq., where N is the
standard penetration test value gives the values less than
LOAD IN TONNES
0.1 Kg/Cm.Sq.
0 20 . 40 60 80 100 120 11.0
b) Sensitivity Of Clay:

The sensitivity of the order of 3 to 14 has been observed

4 for the silty clay in which the stone columns were
constructed. This factor was not considered in the design.
In sensitive clays the minimum spacing required between
::;;: 8 the stone columns has to be 2 M, whereas in this case the
::;:
sapcing available was only 1.2 l\11. The factor of safety
~ that should be adopted in sensitive clays has to be 3
!z 12 0 against which a value of 1.5 was adopted.
LU
::;:
LU c) Limit Capacity Of Stone C.olumn:
....
-'
ti:i
<I)
16
--- ---- Adopting the theory given by Hughes and Wither and also
Me Vicar as given in Fig. 6, the maximum ultimate
capacity to which the ground could be improved is only
20 25 times its original value of cohesion. Considering that
actual failure occured at 1.2 Kg/Cm.Sq., the corresponding
value of cohesion which was active is of the order of only
24
FIG·4 LOAD TEST ON 3 COLUMNS 0.05 Kg/Cm.S4. In many of the shear tests, C-values of
this order was actually noted.

According to the theory by Smoltzyk (Ref. Fig. 7), it could

be seen that the ground improvement would not be
in the tank foundations soonafter the fabrication of the effective when the initial value of cohesion is less than
tank on the RC raft was completed. However, since the
0.1 Kg/Crn.Sq. In this case the clay layer in many sections
differential settlements were not alarming at this stage,
one of the tanks was subjected to stage loading by filling had values of cohesion less than 0.1 Kg/Cm.Sq. and hence
the tank with water. When the tank was nearly half-full probably the choice of stone column technique itself is not
with the load intensity of the order of 12 T /M.Sq. on the justified.
soil, the complete raft system tilted to one side and the
entire tank collapsed and rested on the ground as indicated
in Fig. 5. d) Errors In Load Test:

Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 87

Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu
 e) Net Settlement Of The Ground:

The stone columns could effectively reduce the settlement

I due to the consolidation of the ground by a maximum of
Allowable stress
on gnlnular pile
I 60%. The settlement of the untreated ground due to the
loading of 25 Kg/Cm.Sq. over a diameter of 15 M is worked
400 according to I out as about 600 mm. The settlements that should be
I
..
"'e
Thor.bum and · expected after the construction of stone column would thus

~'-"'"-
Me V•car(19&a) be 180 nun. This factor was not taken in the design•
...
:.:
.,·
'D. 300 8. LESSONS FROM THE FAILURE
~
:; on granular pile From the failure of the ground improved by stone columns,
c according to
II
.... the following major observations may be made:
Cll Hughes and
c Withers (1974) i) Ground improvement irrespective of the spacing of the
0 200
qa:r¥cu stone columns could be done only to an ultimate value of
.
"=
'lli
25 times the value of cohesion of surrounding soil.

;" ii) In sensitive clays extreme care has to be taken to

II restrict the spacing of column to 2 M and the factor of
100
f safety of 3 has to be always adopted in such clays.
~
iii) When the designs are made, proper weightage has to
be given for the lower values of the soil parameters
observed in the tests.
0 iv) In very sensitive clays, vibro-flotation techni4ue is
likely to generate disturbance to the soil, thus considerably
reducing the value of cohesion.

v) The net settlement of the ground even after the stone

FIG. 6. DESIGN CURVES columns are provided should be taken as nearly 30% of the
settlement of the ground without improvement.

vi) Attempt should not be made to imf>rove the ca}lacity

of soft clay layers using stone columns when the initial
E 3oor---~--.--r----~----~--~~
value of cohesion is less than 0.1 Kg/Cm.SlJ.
~· vii) Test loading of a few stone columns would not
..
·a
0 200
0
u
·e correctly represent the behaviour of the entire improved
ground under full loading.
:; :a0 0

....
c
i
.
Cll
100
J:·i
::~. ..
0
u
c
:I 9. CONCLUSIONS
A.
'0
0
Settlement
Eventhough the stone column technique is a very useful
...
0
0
tool when the bearing capacity of the soil for a large area
0 10 20 30 40 50
has to be improved, one has to carefully consider the nature
Shear strength of undrained soil of the soil and determine whether it is suitable to be
Cu (kNim2 )
develo}led by stone column technique. Very sensitive soft
clays normally are not suitable for improvement by the stone
column techniques. The settlement of the ground even
after the stone column is adopted should be within the
FIG. 7. SUITABILITY OF SOIL FOR STONE COLUMNS permissible limits for the structure }lroposed.

The load test of stone column by testing one or group of
three columns does not fully represent the actual loading
condition. The load tests are done for a period of 24
hours, whereas considerably more time is required for the
settlements to take place. It could also be seen from the
load settlement curves (Ref. Figs. 3 & 4) that failure mode
has set in at a stage when capacity of 25 T per column.
This factor was not observed in the analysis of the results.
The fact that actual settlements under loading were much
more than the settlements observed in the load test clearly
shows the load tests on stone column do not represent the
actual behaviour pattern.
10. REFERENCES
Bhandari R.K. (1987) - Proceedings of the Eighth Asian
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering - Kyoto.
Hughes, J.M.O., Withers N.J. (1974) - Reinforcing of Soft
Cohesive Soils with Stone Columns, Ground Engineering
- London - Vol. 17.
Verghese Chum mar, A. ( 1989) - Soil Exploration Reports
- F.S. Engineers Private Limited, India.

Third International Conference on Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering 88

Missouri University of Science and Technology
http://ICCHGE1984-2013.mst.edu