Manuscript Copyedited: Settlement Calculation of Composite Foundation Reinforced With Stone Columns

International Journal of Geomechanics.
Submitted September 4, 2011; accepted January 31, 2012;

posted ahead of print February 2, 2012. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000212
SETTLEMENT CALCULATION OF COMPOSITE FOUNDATION
REINFORCED WITH STONE COLUMNS
Ling ZHANG1,*; Minghua ZHAO2; Caijun SHI3; and Heng ZHAO4
t
1
ip
Ph.D Candidate, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China.
(corresponding author) E-mail: zhanglhd@yahoo.com
d cr
2
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China. E-mail:
te s
di nu
mhzhaohd@21cn.com
3
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China. E-mail:
ye a
caijunshi@yahoo.com
op M
4
Ph.D Candidate, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan University, Changsha 410082, China.
C ted
E-mail: tridept@163.com
ot p
ABSTRACT: An axial compression will be generated in a stone column under vertical loads
N ce
on its top, and is often accompanied by a radial expansion against the surrounding soil near
Ac
the top portion of the column. Considering this deformation characteristic of the stone column,
an analytical solution for the settlement of the composite foundations reinforced with stone
columns was presented. The load sharing between column and soil and the distribution of
column-soil interfacial shear stresses were also incorporated into the solution. From the
present solution, the vertical settlement and lateral bulging of the column under any applied
loads can be evaluated at any depth. The validity of the solution was verified through the
comparison with the measurement data and other existing analytical solutions. The influences
1
Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

International Journal of Geomechanics. Submitted September 4, 2011; accepted January 31, 2012;
of stress concentration ratio, internal friction angle and cohesion of the surrounding soil, and
the elastic modulus of the column on the deformations of stone column were discussed. It was
found that the load acting on the top of the column had a great influence on its deformations.
Thereby the accurate determination of the load distribution between columns and the
surrounding soil is vital for analyses of settlement of composite foundations reinforced with
t
ip
stone columns during the design. It was also found that the increase of the internal friction
angle of the soil, the cohesion of the soil, and the modulus of the column had reduction effects
d cr
on column settlements and bulging.
te s
di nu
Keywords: Stone column; composite foundation; settlement; load transfer; lateral bulging
ye a
op M
Introduction
C ted
Stone columns (also known as granular columns or granular piles) have been used widely as
an economical foundation improvement technique to support loaded structures such as

ot p
embankments and large diameter storage tanks since 1960s, due to the following potential
N ce
benefits: to increase bearing capacity, to reduce ground settlements, and to accelerate

Ac
consolidation of soft foundation effectively (Juran and Guermazi 1988; Ambily and Gandhi
2007; Madhav et al. 2009; Deb and Dhar 2011).
The role of stone columns in limiting settlements is crucial in some cases, such as a road
embankment section that leads to a piled abutment. A number of empirical and theoretical
approaches have been proposed to predict the settlement of composite foundation system
reinforced with stone columns. A homogenization assumption, in which the improved soil is
assumed as a homogeneous material with the same properties, has been frequently employed
2

to estimate the settlement of the composite system consisting of stone columns and the soil
(i.e, Rao and Ranjan 1985; Alamgir et al. 1996; Chinese codes for foundation design 2002,
2007; Zahmatkesh and Choobbasti 2010). Several methods have been proposed to assess the
settlement reduction factor. For instance, Priebe (1995) proposed a method to estimate the
settlement of subsoil reinforced with end bearing stone columns. The relative design charts
t
ip
were developed as well. This method referred to a settlement improvement factor which was
established by three steps: the first step was a basic step calculated on the assumption that the
d cr
column material was incompressible and the settlement resulted from a column bulging; the
te s
di nu
second step considered the effect of the compressibility of column material and the third step
considered the effect of overburden. According to this improvement factor, the deformation
ye a
modulus of the composite system was increased respectively and foundation settlements were
op M
reduced. Until now, the method proposed by Priebe (1995) is still the most popular analytical
C ted
settlement prediction method in European ground improvement practice. Poorooshasb and
Meyerhof (1997) proposed a settlement ratio (a ratio of the settlement of untreated ground to
ot p
that of treated ground), to evaluate the settlement of end bearing stone columns.
N ce
However, these methods do not consider the bulging of a column (using the
Ac
homogenization assumption), or assumed the column bulging remains constant all over its
length (Priebe 1995). Nevertheless, the overall performance of a stone column is controlled
by the lateral support provided by the soil around the column. As this lateral support by the
surrounding soil typically increases with depth, then, bulging to failure near the top of the
column is the most common failure mechanism for the column (Mckelvey et al. 2004;
Sivakumar et al. 2007; Black et al. 2007). By using the Mindlin’s expressions of horizontal
and vertical displacements of an elastic semi-infinite body subjected to a combination of

3

horizontal and vertical point loads, Madhav et al. (2009) proposed a method to evaluate the
settlement of a granular piled raft with consideration of the radial displacement
compatibilities of granular pile. Deng et al. (2003) and Sun et al. (2008) divided a stone
column into two sections from the top to the bottom of the column: a bulging section with
length of h, and a non-bulging section with length of (l-h), where l is the length of the column,
t
ip
h is the bulging length. The total compression deformation of the column was the sum of the
compression deformations of these two sections. And the bulging length h was determined by
d cr
the equation developed by Brauns (1978): h = 2rp tan (S/4 + Mp /2) (rp is the radius of the
te s
di nu
column, Mp is the internal friction angle of the column material), which was used to estimate
the ultimate bearing capacity of a stone column.

ye a
This study deals with the computation of the development of bulging under a normal
op M
load on the top of a stone column and the load distribution along the column, and their
C ted
contributions to the settlement of subgrade reinforced with stone columns.

ot p
Analysis of the unit cell

N ce
A stone column foundation system usually consists of a large number of columns installed in
Ac
a regularly spaced pattern and a crushed stone (or gravel) mattress is usually placed above the
stone column-reinforced soil. However, the behavior of all column-soil units in the foundation,
except the ones near the edges of loading areas, can be regarded as the same (Balaam et al.
1978; Ambily and Gandhi 2007), then, only one column-soil unit which represents a single
column acts within a cylindrical surrounding soil cell with an influence radius denoted by re
shown in Fig.1, is chosen to be analyzed. The equivalent radius re can be calculated using the
equation proposed by Balaam and Booker (1981):

4

re 0.5cS
where S is the spacing between two columns (from center to center); c is a constant between
1.05 and 1.13 for triangular and square patterns, respectively.
In order to obtain an analytical solution, the following assumptions are made:
(1) The ground surface settlement is uniform across the stone column and the soil.
t
ip
(2) The column is treated as an elastic material. This assumption implies that only the
elastic lateral expansion of the column under the action of vertical loads is taken into account.
d cr
The soil-column interaction problem is more complicated in reality. The maximum bulging
te s
di nu
diameter of the column may reach to 1.1~1.3times of the column diameter at failure
(Shivashankar et al. 2010; Deb et al. 2011). However, under a working load, the lateral
ye a
deformation of the column may not reach that value due to the group action of columns
op M
(Sivakumar et al. 2007; Shivashankar et al. 2010). Therefore, to simplify the problem, an
C ted
elastic model is employed to analyze the stone column in this study.
(3) The lateral pressure from the surrounding soil is the earth pressure at rest. It should
ot p
be mentioned here that for the bulging section of the column, assuming the lateral pressure
N ce
from the soil as the passive earth pressure is much more appropriated. However, it is still
Ac
difficult to evaluate the passive earth pressure accurately in the literature (Fang et al. 1994;
Duncan and Mokwa 2001; Cole and Rollins 2006). Thereby, to simply the problem, the earth
pressure at rest is treated as the lateral pressure from the soil. This assumption was also
adopted by Raithel and Kempfert (2000) to develop numerical and analytical calculation
models for calculation and design of the geotextile coated sand columns foundation system.
In reality, the crushed stone mattress plays an important role in modifying the stresses
transferred to the stone column and the soil, and the applied stress q is shared by the stone
5

column, qp, and the surrounding soil, qs (Fig.1.b). Equilibrium of the vertical loads q, qp and qs
can be expressed as follows:
n
qp n qs q (1)
1 (n 1)m
where n is the stress concentration ratio; m is the area replacement ratio of the reinforced
foundation, m rp2 re2 . Under a working load close to the allowable bearing capacity of the
t
ip
stone column reinforced foundation, the stress concentration ratio n is suggested to be in the
d cr
range of 3.0 to 4.0 (Juran and Guermazi 1988; Han and Ye 2002).
te s
The unit cell is divided into N elements as shown in Fig.1 (b). Each element acts upon by
di nu
shear resistance Wp,i radial stress Vrp,i at the column-soil interface, and uniform vertical stress
ye a
V zp ,i and V zp ,i 1 on the top and bottom of the column element as shown in Fig.2. To simplify
op M
the analysis, radial stress Vrp,i along the height of element is uniform and is equal to the radial
stress at the mid-height of the element.

C ted
By using the generalized Hook law, the stress-strain relationships for the ith stone
column segment in the elastic situation is given by:

ot p
N ce
Ep ª P p º
°V zp ,i «
1 P p «¬1 2 P p
2H r ,i H z ,i H z ,i »
° »¼
® (2)
Ac
° Ep ª P p º
°V rp ,i «
1 P p ¬«1 2 P p
2H r ,i H z ,i H r ,i »
¯ ¼»
where Ep and μp are the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the column, respectively; εz
and εr are vertical and radial strain of the column, respectively.
H r ,i
By introducing a coefficient ki into Eq.(7), the following equations are
H z ,i
obtained,

Ep (1 P p ) Ep
°V zp ,i [2 P p ]H r ,i [(1 P p ) 2 P p ki ]H z ,i
° 1 P p 2P p 2
ki 1 P p 2 P p2
® (3)
°V Ep Pp Ep
(1 )H r ,i ( P p ki )H z ,i
° rp ,i 1 P p 2 P p2 ki 1 P p 2P p2
¯
Then, the following relationships can be derived from Eq.(3),
V rp ,i ki P p
(4)
V zp ,i 2 P p ki (1 P p )
t
ip
V zp ,i 1 P p 2P p2
H z ,i (5)
E p (1 P p ) 2P p ki
d cr
V zp ,i 1 P p 2P p2
te s
H r ,i
Ep (1 P p ) (6)
2P p
di nu
ki
's p ,i
°H z ,i
ye a
° li
Combining with the relations ® , the following equations are obtained,
'rp ,i
op M
°H
° r ,i rp
¯
V zp ,i 1 P p 2P p2
C ted
's p ,i li (7)
Ep (1 P p ) 2P p ki
V zp ,i 1 P p 2P p2
'rp ,i rp
(1 P p ) (8)
ot p
Ep
2P p
ki
N ce
where Δsp,i, Δrp,i are the vertical compression and lateral bulging of the column element i,
Ac
respectively. The minus in the relation of εr,i and Δrp,i is due to the compression strain is
supposed to be positive in this paper.
Evaluation of lateral confinement V rs
In this study, the lateral confining support provided by the surrounding soil is assumed to be a
lateral soil pressure at rest, then, the lateral confinement V rs can be determined by the
following equation:
7

V rs ( z ) ps 0 ( z ) K s 0 J s z qs (9)
where ps0 is the lateral soil pressure at rest; Ks0 is the coefficient of soil pressure at rest and
Ps
can be estimated by K s 0 , or K s ,0 1 sin M s (Brooker and Ireland 1965); P s and
1 Ps
M s are the Passion’s ratio and the angle of internal friction of the surrounding soil,
respectively; γs is the unit weight of the soil.
t
ip
Determination of radial displacement ΔrP
d cr
The radial stress acting on the column is
te s
V rp ( z ) V rs ( z ) (10)
di nu
Combining with Eqs. (4) and (9), the unknown coefficient ki can be determined by:
P pV zp ,i K s 0 (1 P p ) J s zi qs
ye a
P pV zp ,i (1 P p ) ps 0,i
ki (11)
V zp ,i 2 P p ps 0,i V zp ,i 2 P p K s 0 J s zi qs
op M
where zi is the depth from the top of the column to the mid-height of the column element i,
C ted
i 1
1
zi ¦l
j 1
j li
2
(12)
Substituting ki into Eqs.(7) and (8), the lateral and vertical displacement for the ith
ot p
N ce
segment are determined.
Force analysis in z-direction

Ac
When applying force equilibrium of ith column element in z-direction, the following equation
exists:
V zp ,i Ap ,i J p Ap ,i li V zp ,i 1 Ap ,i W ps ,iU p ,i li (13)
where γp is the unit weight of the column material; Ap,i is the cross-section area of the column,
S rp 'rp ,i ; Up,i is the circumference of the column, U p ,i 2S rp 'rp ,i ; li is the

2
Ap ,i
length of ith column element; Wps,i is the shear stress at the column-soil interface which can be

determined by:
W ps ,i V rp ,i tan M ps c ps (14)
where Mps, cps are the friction angle and cohesion at the column-soil interface.
By re-arranging Eq. (13), we get:
2W ps ,i li
V zp ,i 1 V zp ,i J p li (15)
rp 'rp ,i
t
ip
Obviously, for i=1, V zp ,i V zp ,1 pp .
d cr
Compression deformation of the column
te s
The total compression deformation of the stone column (Fig.1.b), sp, is the sum of the
di nu
contributions of each layer:
ye a
N
sp ¦ 's p ,i
(16)
op M
i 1
Settlement of the foundation

C ted
As mentioned above, the ground surface settlement is assumed uniform across the stone
column and the soil, and then the total settlement s of the improved foundation reinforced
ot p
with stone columns under the footing/raft can be estimated from:

N ce
s sc ss (17)
Ac
where sc is the settlement of the reinforced layer with a thickness of l (Fig.1.b), sc sp G ;
δ is the displacement of the column toe penetrating into the underlying soil layer; ss is the
settlement of the underlying unreinforced layers. In this study, it is assumed that δ = 0. Thus,
sc s p . The settlement of the subjacent un-reinforced layer ss can be determined by (Rao
and Ranjan 1985; Braja 2008):

Ns
qi
ss ¦E
i 1
Hi (18)
si

where qi is the vertical stress due to the transfer of the applied stress q down into ith
subjacent un-reinforced soil layer; Hi and Esi are the thickness and the compression modulus
of the ith subjacent un-reinforced soil layer, respectively; Ns is the number of the soil layer.
The distribution of the applied stress q can be determined by 2:1 method (the slope of the
distribution of q is 2:1, see Fig.3, Rao and Ranjan 1985), or the Boussinesq theory of stress
t
ip
transfer into the subsoil and so on.
When the stone columns are allowed to rest on a hard stratum, the value of ss is taken as
d cr
zero.
te s
di nu
Analytical model validation
A chimney foundation with a diameter of 8.0m, reported by Sheng (1986), was buried 2.2m
ye a
underground. The average additional pressure acting on the fundus of the chimney was 60kPa.
op M
The soft soil layers and their main physical mechanical properties from the up ground to
C ted
down are shown in Fig.4 and Table 1.
To increase the strength and stiffness and reduce the settlement of the soft subsoil, 0.8m
ot p
diameter and 6.8m long stone columns were installed at 1.6m spacing with its end located on
N ce
the silty sand layer. The columns were arranged in triangular pattern as shown in Fig.5. A
Ac
0.3m high crushed stone cushion was placed on top of the columns. It can be computed that
the ratio of area replacement ratio of the reinforced foundation,
0.8 / 2 1.05 u1.6 / 2

2 2
m rp2 re2 0.227 .
Predicted settlements of the chimney foundation from the current method, together with
calculated settlements from other analytical methods (Rao and Ranjan 1985; Piered 1995;
Deng et al. 2003; Sun and Gong 2008) and the measured settlements are summarized in Table
2. For comparison purpose, the used calculation parameters, including P p = 0.25, M p =40q,
10

were the same as those used by Sun and Gong (2008). In Sun and Gong’s study, the
constrained modulus of the column Eoed,p was given as 15 MPa. Then, the elastic modulus of
the column can be evaluated from the relation Eoed , p Ep

1 P
p
(Hassen et al.
1 P 1 2P
p p
2009) and Ep = 12.5 MPa. The values of the column-soil shear stress Wps were evaluated via
the vane shearing strength test, as shown in Fig.4. A detailed description of those methods
t
ip
proposed by Rao and Ranjan (1985), Deng et al (2003), Sun and Gong (2008) is presented in
d cr
Appendix. When the design charts proposed by Piered (1995) were utilized to estimate the
te s
settlement of the chimney foundation, only the settlement sc of the reinforced layer was
di nu
obtained as listed in Table 2 because the column was assumed to rest on an infinite rigid layer
ye a
in the method (Piered, 1995). The settlement ss was calculated using Eq.(21), but the applied
op M
pressure qi was distributed by 2:1 method as used by Rao and Ranjan (1985). In the other
three methods, the distribution of the pressure qi was estimated by Boussinesq theory. In Table
C ted
2, sp1 is the compression deformation of the bulging section of the column; sp2 is the
compression deformation of the non bulging section of the column.

ot p
N ce
In the work by Rao and Ranjan (1985), the stone column reinforced foundation was
regarded as a homogeneous material with an equivalent constrained modulus Esp, no radial

Ac
deformation was taken into account. Therefore, the calculated compression deformation of the
stone column sc was less than this from the current method. In the work by Deng et al. (2003),
the stone column was treated as a wall, which resulted in exaggerating the effects of columns
on the reduction of foundation settlement. Thus the calculated sp was smaller than those from
the current method when the stress concentration ratio n is the same in both methods, n = 4. In
the method proposed by Sun and Gong (2008), the bulging depth h was determined by the
11

equation used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of a stone column (Bruans, 1978). As
the calculated bulging depth of the column is larger than the current method, the settlement sp1
is larger than those from the current method when the stress concentration ratio n is the same
in both methods, n = 3. It is obvious that the bulging depth of stone column is developed with
the increase of vertical load on its top. At this point, the current method provides more
t
ip
appropriate estimation. As shown in Table 2, when the stress concentration ratio n increases
from 3 to 4, the bulging depth h from the current method increases from 0.8m to 1.6m.
d cr
Moreover, it can also be found that the load concentration ratio n has a great influence on the
te s
di nu
bulging depth and the settlement of foundation. It can be found in the following parametric
study.Thus, accurate determination of n value is vital for the accurate settlement analyses in
ye a
the design of the composite foundation reinforced with stone columns.
op M
Deformation responses of the column under different circumstances

C ted
The influences of vertical superstructure load q, stress concentration ratio n, angle of internal
friction Ms and cohesion cs of the surrounding soil, column elastic modulus Ep, on the
ot p
deformation responses of stone column are discussed in this section. The friction angle Mps is
N ce
assumed to be 0.67Ms; and the cohesion cps is assumed to be 0.67cs, respectively. The stone
Ac
columns in triangular pattern are assumed to rest on an infinite rigid layer. In these parametric
analyses, only one parameter is changed and all of the other parameters are held constant at
the base values listed in Table 3.
Influence of the stress concentration ratio n
The influence of stress concentration ratio n on the performance of the stone column is
studied by varying n from 2 to 5, while the other parameters are kept constants as shown in
Table 3.
12

As discussed above, the stress concentration ratio n from the soil to the column has an
effect on deformation of the column. The increase of the concentration ratio n leads to the
sharp development of the tendency of the settlement and bulging of the column. For an
applied load q=100kPa, as shown in Figs.6 and 7, when n increases from 2 to 5, the total
compression deformation of the column increases from 10.32mm to 32.50mm; the bulging
t
ip
depth increases from 0.34m for n=2 to 2.06m for n=5. The reason for this is that the higher
stress concentration ratio implies more vertical load acting on the top of the column when the
d cr
total applied load keep in constant, then, the larger compression and deeper bulging of the
te s
di nu
column develop with the higher load on the column top.
Influence of the angle of internal friction Ms

ye a
The influence of the angle of internal friction Ms on the performance of the stone column is
op M
studied by varying Ms from 5q to 20q, while the other parameters are kept constants as listed in
C ted
Table 3.
As shown in Figs.8 and 9, the settlement on the top of the stone column and the bulging
ot p
depth of the column are both reduced with the increase of the angle of internal friction Ms of
N ce
the soil. This is because the column-soil interfacial shear resistance is related with the angle of
Ac
internal friction Ms. When Ms is increased, the shear resistance is increased accordingly, then,
less vertical pressure is transferred into the higher depth. As a result, the settlement and
bulging of the column are decreased.
Influence of the cohesion cs
The influence of the cohesion cs of the surrounding soil on the performance of the stone
column is studied by varying cs from 5kPa to 20kPa, while the other parameters are kept
constants as listed in Table 3.

13

As the increase of the cohesion cs of the surrounding soil also has a contribution to
improve the column-soil interfacial shear resistance, then, the cohesion cs has a reduction
effect on the settlement and bulging of the column. As shown in Figs.10 and 11, for an applied
load q=100kPa, when cs increases from 5kPa to 20kPa, the settlement on the top of the
column is decreased from 26.37mm to 10.71mm, and the bulging depth of the column is
t
ip
decreases from 1.43m to 0.69m. The reductions are 59.4% and 51.7%, respectively.
Influence of the elastic modulus Ep
d cr
The influence of the elastic modulus Ep of the column on the performance of the stone column
te s
di nu
is studied by varying Ep from 10MPa to 25MPa, while the other parameters are kept constants
as listed in Table 3.
ye a
From Fig.12, it can be observed that the increase of the elastic modulus Ep has a
op M
reduction effect on the load-settlement behavior of the column. For an applied load q=100kPa,
C ted
when Ep increases from 10MPa to 25MPa, the settlement on the top of the column is
decreased from 27.02mm to 10.80mm. The reductions are 60.0%. However, as shown in
ot p
Fig.13, the increase of the elastic modulus Ep from 10MPa to 25MPa has no effect on the
N ce
bulging depth of the column in this study.

Ac
Conclusions
An analytical approach to predict the deformation behavior of uniformly loaded soft
foundation reinforced by stone columns was presented. The approach incorporated the load
sharing between column and soil, the radial expansion of the column against the surrounding
soil and the distribution of column-soil interfacial shear stresses. The column-soil interaction
was assumed to be developed through bulging and interface shearing. The present solution
was validated through a comparison of the settlements of a chimney foundation reinforced

14

with stone columns obtained from different methods. The predictions show that the current
method can provide a more viable calculated bulging length of the stone column. Using the
equation h = 2rp tan (S/4 + Mp /2) (Brauns 1978) to determine the bulging depth of the column,
will lead to larger the total compression deformation of the column when the pressure acting
on the column does not reach its ultimate value.
t
ip
The influences of the stress concentration ratio, the internal friction angle and cohesion
of the surrounding soil, and the elastic modulus of the column on the deformations of the
d cr
stone column were discussed. The discussion results indicate that: (1) the settlement and
te s
di nu
bulging of stone column are developed with the increase of the load acting on the top of the
column; (2) the surrounding soil with a larger internal friction angle or a larger cohesion can
ye a
promote a larger lateral confinement and a larger column-soil interfacial shear resistance, then
op M
can reduce the possibility of the column settlement and bulging; and (3) the increase of the
C ted
column modulus has a reduction effect on the column settlement, but has no effect on the
bulging depth of the column.

ot p
N ce
Acknowledgements
Ac
This research was funded through the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC
No. 50878083 & No. 51078138), and the Ministry of Education 985 Project.
References
Alamgir, M., Miura N., Poorooshasb H.B., and Madhav M.R. 1996. Deformation Analysis of
Soft Ground Columnar Inclusions Reinforced by Columnar Inclusions. Computers and
15

Geotechnics, 18(4), 261-290.
Ambily, A.P., and Gandhi, Shailesh R. 2007. Behavior of stone columns based on
experimental and FEM analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 133(4), 405-415.
Balaam, N.P., and Booker, J.P. 1981. Analysis of rigid rafts supported by granular piles.
t
ip
International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechnics, 5,
379-403.
d cr
Balaam, N.P., Poulos, H.G., and Brown, P.T. 1978. Settlement analysis of soft clays
te s
di nu
reinforced with granular piles. Proc., 5th Asian Conference on Soil Engineering,
Bangkok, Thailand, 81-92.

ye a
В.А.Флорин (translated by Xu Zhi-ying). 1973. Fundamentals of soil mechanics (First
op M
volume). China Architecture and Building Press, Beijing, China.

C ted
Black, J.A., Sivakumar, V., Madhav, M.R., and Hamill, G.A. 2007. Reinforced stone columns
in weak deposits: laboratory model study. Journal of Geotechnical and

ot p
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(9), 1154-1161.

N ce
Braja, M.D. 2008. Advanced soil mechanics (3rd ed.). Taylor & Francis, New York.
Ac
Brauns, J. 1978. Die anfangstraglast von schottersäulen im bindigen untergrund. Die
Bautechnik, 55(8), 263-271.
Brooker, E.W. and Ireland, H.O., 1965. Earth pressures at rest related to stress history.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2(1), 1-5.
Chinese code for design of building foundation, (2002). China architecture and building press,
Beijing, China.
Cole, Ryan T., and Rollins, Kyle M. 2006. Passive earth pressure mobilization during cyclic
16

loading. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 132(9),
1154-1164.
Deb K., and Dhar A. 2011. Parameter estimation for a system of beam resting on stone
column-reinforced soft soil. International Journal of Geomechanics. In press
Deb, K., Samadhiya, N.K., Namdeo, J.B. 2011. Laboratory model studies on unreinforced and
t
ip
geogrid-reinforced sand bed over stone column-improved soft clay. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 29(2), 190-196.
d cr
Deng, X.F., Liu, X.H., and Zhang, L. 2003. A method to calculate the settlement of
te s
di nu
stone-column composite ground. Chinese Journal of Xiangtan Mining Institute, 18(4),
55-57.
ye a
Duncan, J.M., and Mokwa, R.M. 2001. Passive earth pressures: Theories and tests. Journal of
op M
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(3), 248-257.

C ted
Fang, Y.S., Chen, T.J., Wu B.F. 1994. Passive earth pressures with various wall movements.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 120(8), 1307-1323.

ot p
Han, J., and Ye, S.L. 2002. A theoretical solution for consolidation rates of stone
N ce
column-reinforced foundations accounting for smear and well resistance effects.

Ac
International Journal of Geomechanics, 2(2),135-152.
Hassen, G., Dias D. and de Buhan, P. 2009. Multiphase constitutive model for the design of
piled-embankments: comparison with three-dimensional numerical simulations.
International Journal of Geomechanics, 9(6), 258-266.
Juran, I., and Guermazi, A. 1988. Settlement response of soft soils reinforced by compacted
sand columns. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 114(8),
930-943.
17

Madhav, Madhira R., Sharma, J. K., and Sivakumar, V. 2009. Settlement of and load
distribution in a granular piled raft. Geomechanics and Engineering, 1(1), 97-112.
Mckelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., and Graham, J. 2004. Modeling vibrated stone
columns on soft clay. Geotechnical Engineering, 157(GE3), 137-149.
Poorooshasb, H.B., and Meyerhof, G.G. 1997. Analysis of behavior of stone columns and
t
ip
lime columns. Computers and Geotechnics, 20(1), 47-70.
Priebe, H.J. 1995. The design of vibro replacement. Ground Engineering, 28(12), 31-37.
d cr
Rao, B. Govind, and Ranjan, Gopal, 1985. Settlement analysis of skirted granular piles.
te s
di nu
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111(11), 1264-1283.
Raithel, M., Kempfert, H.G., 2000. Calculation models for dam foundations with geotextile
ye a
coated sand columns. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Geotechnical
op M
and Geological Engineering GeoEngg-2000, Melbourne.

C ted
Sheng, C.W. 1986. Estimation of settlement of composite ground reinforced by stone columns.
China Civil Engineering Journal, 19(1), 72-79.

ot p
Shivashankar, R., Dheerendra Babu, M. R., Nayak, S., Manjunath, R. 2010. Stone columns
N ce
with vertical circumferential nails: laboratory model study. Geotechnical and Geological
Ac
Engineering, 28(5), 695-706.
Sivakumar V., Glynn D., Black J., and McNeill J. 2007. A laboratory model study of the
performance of vibrated stone columns in soft clay. Proceeding of the 17th European
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid, Spain.
Sun, L.N., and Gong, X.N. 2008. Research on settlement calculation method of composite
foundation of discrete material piles. Chinese Journal of Rock and Soil Mechanics, 29(3),
846-848.
18

Zahmatkesh, A., and Choobbasti, A.J. 2010. Settlement evaluation of soft clay reinforced
with stone columns using the equivalent secant modulus. Arabian Journal of Geosciences.
Published on line.
t
ip
d cr
te s
di nu
ye a
op M
C ted
ot p
N ce
Ac
19

Appendix
Method proposed by Rao and Ranjan (1985)
In Rao and Ranjan’s (1985) study, the total settlement s of the improved ground reinforced
with stone columns was estimated by:
N
qi Ns
qic
s ¦
i 1 Esp ,i
hi ¦
i 1 Eoed , s ,i
Hi
t
ip
where Eps is the composite modulus of the reinforced subsoil, E ps ,i mEoed , p (1 m) Eoed , s ,i ;
d cr
other notations present the same meanings as mentioned above; the applied stress q is
te s
assumed to be distributed by 2:1 method as shown in Fig.3.
di nu
ye a
Method proposed by Deng et al. (2003)
op M
Deng et al. (2003) treated the compression of the whole stone column with length of l as the
compression sp1 of the bulging section of the column with length of h and the compression sp2
C ted
of the non-bulging section of the column with length of (l-h). The bulging depth h was
determined by the following equation used to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the
ot p
N ce
stone column (Brauns, 1978):
h 2rp tan S / 4 M p / 2
Ac
Furthermore the following idealized conditions were assumed:
(1) The column with a diameter of d was modeled as an equivalent wall having the
thickness of t S d 2 /(4S2 ) , where S2 is the column spacing in the longitudinal direction.
Then the problem was simplified to be a plain strain problem.
(2) The bulging of the column remained constant all over the bulging depth h.
(3) The horizontal sections in the ground remained horizontal in the course of settlement
20

(“equal strain” theory), and no shear force existed at the interface between the column and the
surrounding soil.
(4) The bulk density of column and soil was neglected.
Following equations were obtained from the force analysis of the bulging section of the
column,
t
2t li 't 't 'ss1,i
ip
°
°nV s ,i (t 't ) V s ,i ( S1 t 't ) qi S1
d cr
° § ·
°'s li P
® s1,i (1 P s2,i ) ¨ V s ,i s ,i V sr ,i ¸
Es , i ¨ 1 P s ,i ¸
° © ¹
te s
° § ·
S1 t P
di nu
°'t (1 Ps2,i ) ¨ V sr ,i s ,i V s ,i ¸
° 2 Eoed , s ,i ¨ 1 P s ,i ¸
¯ © ¹
ye a
where 't is the increment of the thickness of the column wall; σs,i and σsr,i are the vertical
op M
and lateral stresses acting on the ith surrounding soil, respectively; S1 is the column spacing in
the transversal direction; 'ss1,i is the compression of ith soil layer in the bulging section.
C ted
Then, the compression 'ss1,i can be obtained by solving the following equation:
A B 'ss21,i A C 'ss1,i q h S1 0
ot p
N ce
S1 S1 Ps ,i t
where A Eoed , s ,i ; B (n 1) t ; C h (n t S1 t ) .
h(1 P s ,i )(1 2Ps ,i )( S1 t )
Ac
For non-bulging section, following equations existed:
nV s ,i t V s ,i ( S1 t ) qi S1
°
° K p nV s ,i K s ,i V s ,i
° § ·
° li P
®'ss 2,i (1 Ps2,i ) ¨ V s ,i s ,i V sr ,i ¸
Eoed ,s ,i ¨ 1 P s ,i ¸
° © ¹
°
°0 V sr ,i P s ,i V s ,i
°¯ 1 P s ,i
where 'ss 2,i is the compression of ith soil layer in the non-bulging section.
21

Then,
(1 P s ,i )(1 2P s ,i ) li K p qi S1
'ss 2,i
Eoed , s ,i (1 Ps ,i )(t K s ,i S1 K p t K p )
Pp P s ,i
where K p ; K s ,i .
1 Pp 1 P s ,i
Then,
t
N1 N2
ip
s p1 ss1 ¦ 's
i 1
s1,i ; sp2 ss 2 ¦ 's
i 1
s 2,i
d cr
where N1 is the number of the soil layers in the bulging section ( 0 d z d h ); N2 is the number
te s
of soil layers in the non-bulging section ( h z d l ).
di nu
Method proposed by Sun and Gong (2008)
ye a
Sun and Gong (2008) modified the method proposed by Deng et al. (2003) by taking out of
op M
the plane-strain assumption, while the other assumptions were the same as these made in
Deng et al.’s study. In Sun and Gong’s study, a unit column-soil cell was analyzed and the
C ted
Hook’s stress-strain relationships for three-dimensional problem were employed. The
derivation processes were similar as did in Deng et al.’s.

ot p
N ce
Then, the compression s p1 was obtained by solving the following equation:
Ac Bc 's 3p1 4h Ac Bc 's 2p1 4 Ac h 2 ( Bc 4l 2 ) 's p1 16n q h 2 S1 S 2 0

Ac
Ep
where Ac ; Bc S d 2 (n 1) .
h(1 P p )(1 2Ps ,i )
and the compression s p 2 was obtained by:
(l h)(1 P p )(1 2 P p ) q S1 S2
sp2
§ K Kp Sd2 Kp ·
E p (1 P p ) ¨ s S1 S2 ¸
© Ks 4 Ks ¹
22

Figure captions list
Fig. 1. Analytic unit of the problem: (a) Plan of the foundation; (b) Elevation of the unit cell
Fig. 2. Stress and strain of ith element of column
Fig. 3. Settlement of foundation reinforced with stone columns in Rao and Ranjan’s study
(1985)
t
ip
Fig. 4. Typical profile of the soil in the chimney foundation
Fig. 5. Arrangement of stone columns of the chimney foundation
d cr
Fig. 6. Influence of the stress concentration ratio n on the settlement
te s
di nu
Fig. 7. Influence of the stress concentration ratio n on the bulging depth
Fig. 8. Influence of the angle of internal friction Ms on the settlement

ye a
Fig. 9. Influence of the angle of internal friction Ms on the bulging depth
op M
Fig. 10. Influence of the cohesion cs on the settlement

C ted
Fig. 11. Influence of the cohesion cs on the bulging depth
Fig. 12. Influence of the elastic modulus of the column Ep on the settlement
ot p
Fig. 13. Influence of the elastic modulus Ep of the column on the bulging depth
N ce
Ac
23

Tables
Table 1. Main physical-mechanical property of the soils
Indexes Thickness Constrained modulus Poisson’s ratio
Layers (m) Eoed,s (MPa) Ps
Filled land 0.5 ಧ ಧ
Plastic clay layer 2.6 6.5 0.35
Very soft (silty) clay layer 6 4.0 4.0
Silty clay layer 3.5 4.0 4.0
Silty sand layer (hard stratum) 6 ಧ ಧ
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
24

Table 2. Comparison of settlements from different methods
Methods h (m) sp1 (mm) sp2 (mm) sc (mm) ss (mm) s (mm)
Rao and Ranjan (1985) ಧ ಧ ಧ 29.2 11.7 40.9
Piered (1995) ಧ ಧ ಧ 32.7 ಧ ಧ
Deng et al.(2003), n=4 1.7 3.3 36.1 39.4 12.0 51.4
Sun and Gong (2008), n=3 1.7 12.2 19.5 31.7 12.0 43.7
Current method, n=3 0.9 7.8 21.8 29.6 12.0 41.6
Current method, n=4 1.7 15.6 25.4 41.0 12.0 53.0
Measured value ಧ ಧ ಧ ಧ ಧ 41
Note: h is the bulging depth of the stone column; sp1 is the compression of the bulging section
of the column; sp2 is the compression of the non bulging section of the column; sc is the
settlement of the composite soil layer with stone columns; ss is the settlement of subjacent soil
bed; s is the foundation settlement; n is the stress concentration ratio.
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
25

Table 3. Basic calculation parameters used in the parameter analyses
n γs μs Ms cs l rp S μp Ep
3 16×103 kN/m3 0.35 10q 10 kPa 10 m 0.4 m 1.6 m 0.25 15 MPa
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited
26

)LJXUHSGI
unit cell
re
rp
stone column
Accepted Manuscript
(a)
2re
Not Copyedited
2rp
qp
qs qs
1
l1
zi
s
h
i
li+1 li
deformed column composite

i+1 layer with
lp
stone columns
radial stress σrp
shear resistance τps

N
lN
ss
(b)
Fig.1. Analytic unit of the problem: (a) Plan of the foundation; (b) Elevation of the
unit cell

)LJXUHSGI
σzp,i
Ƹsp,i
σrp,i σrp,i
li
τps,i τps,i
σzp,i+1
Ƹr p,i Ƹr p,i
d
Fig.2 Stress and strain of ith element of column
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
Footing
q
q1
Reinforced subsoil
h1
Layer 1
q2
2
h2
l
qn
N
hn
q' 1
H1
Layer' 1
Virgin subsoil
q' 2
2
2
H2
H
1
q' n
Hn
Ns
Fig.3. Settlement of foundation reinforced with stone columns in Rao and Ranjan’s
study (1985)
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
Distribution Water content, w, % Void ratio e Vane shearing strenth, kPa

of soil layer 20 30 40 50 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1 2 3 4 5
Filled land 0
Clay
Very soft
clay 5
Very soft
silty clay
Very soft
clay
10
Silty clay
Silty sand
Fig.4. Typical profile of the soil in the chimney foundation
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
Stone column
Chimney
m
1.6
60°
60
°
60°
8.0 m
Fig.5. Arrangement of stone columns of the chimney foundation
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
Applied load q / kPa

0 40 80 120 160 200 240
0
10
20
30
40
Settlement /mm
50
60
70
80
90 n=2
100 n=3
n=4
110
n=5
120
Fig. 6. Influence of the stress concentration ratio n on the settlement
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
3.6
n=2
3.2 n=3
n=4
2.8
n=5
2.4
Bulging depth /m
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Fig. 7. Influence of the stress concentration ratio n on the bulging depth
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI

0 40 80 120 160 200 240
0
10
20
30
Settlement /mm
40
50
60
70 ϕs =5°
80 ϕs =10°
ϕs =15°
90
ϕs =20°
100
Fig. 8. Influence of the angle of internal friction ϕs on the settlement
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
2.4
ϕs =5°
2.0 ϕs =10°
ϕs =15°
1.6 ϕs =20°
Bulging depth /m
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Fig. 9. Influence of the angle of internal friction ϕs on the bulging depth
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI

0 40 80 120 160 200 240
0
10
20
30
Settlement /mm
40
50
cs = 5 kPa
60 cs = 10 kPa
cs = 15 kPa
70
cs = 20 kPa
80
Fig. 10. Influence of the cohesion cs on the settlement
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
2.4
cs = 5 kPa
2.0 cs = 10 kPa
cs = 15 kPa
1.6 cs = 20 kPa
Bulging depth /m
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Fig. 11. Influence of the cohesion cs on the bulging depth
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI

0 40 80 120 160 200 240
0
10
20
30
Settlement /mm
40
50
60
70 Ep = 10 MPa
80 Ep = 15 MPa
Ep = 20 MPa
90
Ep = 25 MPa
100
Fig. 12. Influence of the elastic modulus of the column Ep on the settlement
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

)LJXUHSGI
2.0
Ep = 10 MPa
Ep = 15 MPa
1.6
Ep = 20 MPa
Ep = 25 MPa
Bulging depth /m
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Fig. 13. Influence of the elastic modulus Ep of the column on the bulging depth
Accepted Manuscript
Not Copyedited

Manuscript Copyedited: Settlement Calculation of Composite Foundation Reinforced With Stone Columns

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Manuscript Copyedited: Settlement Calculation of Composite Foundation Reinforced With Stone Columns

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Geomechanics.

Submitted September 4, 2011; accepted January 31, 2012;

SETTLEMENT CALCULATION OF COMPOSITE FOUNDATION

REINFORCED WITH STONE COLUMNS

Ling ZHANG1,*; Minghua ZHAO2; Caijun SHI3; and Heng ZHAO4

(corresponding author) E-mail: zhanglhd@yahoo.com

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

an economical foundation improvement technique to support loaded structures such as

benefits: to increase bearing capacity, to reduce ground settlements, and to accelerate

2007; Madhav et al. 2009; Deb and Dhar 2011).

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

settlement prediction method in European ground improvement practice. Poorooshasb and

and vertical displacements of an elastic semi-infinite body subjected to a combination of

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

settlement of a granular piled raft with consideration of the radial displacement

the ultimate bearing capacity of a stone column.

contributions to the settlement of subgrade reinforced with stone columns.

Analysis of the unit cell

equation proposed by Balaam and Booker (1981):

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

1.05 and 1.13 for triangular and square patterns, respectively.

In order to obtain an analytical solution, the following assumptions are made:

elastic model is employed to analyze the stone column in this study.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

can be expressed as follows:

stress at the mid-height of the element.

column segment in the elastic situation is given by:

and εr are vertical and radial strain of the column, respectively.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Then, the following relationships can be derived from Eq.(3),

supposed to be positive in this paper.

Evaluation of lateral confinement V rs

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

respectively; γs is the unit weight of the soil.

segment are determined.

Force analysis in z-direction

S rp  'rp ,i ; Up,i is the circumference of the column, U p ,i 2S rp  'rp ,i ; li is the

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

By re-arranging Eq. (13), we get:

Settlement of the foundation

with stone columns under the footing/raft can be estimated from:

where sc is the settlement of the reinforced layer with a thickness of l (Fig.1.b), sc sp  G ;

sc s p . The settlement of the subjacent un-reinforced layer ss can be determined by (Rao

and Ranjan 1985; Braja 2008):

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

down are shown in Fig.4 and Table 1.

the ratio of area replacement ratio of the reinforced foundation,

0.8 / 2 1.05 u1.6 / 2

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

the column can be evaluated from the relation Eoed , p Ep

compression deformation of the non bulging section of the column.

regarded as a homogeneous material with an equivalent constrained modulus Esp, no radial

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Deformation responses of the column under different circumstances

the base values listed in Table 3.

Influence of the stress concentration ratio n

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Influence of the angle of internal friction Ms

bulging of the column are decreased.

Influence of the cohesion cs

constants as listed in Table 3.

Copyright 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers

Influence of the elastic modulus Ep

S rp 'rp ,i ; Up,i is the circumference of the column, U p ,i 2S rp 'rp ,i ; li is the

where sc is the settlement of the reinforced layer with a thickness of l (Fig.1.b), sc sp G ;

Ac Bc 's 3p1 4h Ac Bc 's 2p1 4 Ac h 2 ( Bc 4l 2 ) 's p1 16n q h 2 S1 S 2 0