Ground Improvement Using Vibro Stone Columns—Capacity of Stone Column

IGC 2009, Guntur, INDIA

GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING VIBRO STONE COLUMNS—

CAPACITY OF STONE COLUMN

Sandeep Bhosle
Sohams Foundation Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai–400614, India.
E-mail: sandeep@sohams.com
V.V. Vaishampayan
MD, Sohams Foundation Engg. Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai–400614, India.
E-mail: sohams@vsnl.com

ABSTRACT: Vibro Stone Columns of 900 mm diameter were installed to improve the safe bearing capacity of the ground to
take the loading of heavy container yard. Tests were conducted on the columns to check the load carrying capacity and study
the behaviour of the column under loading. The capacity of the column was tested for a single stone column and for group of
stone columns. The paper describes the construction of stone columns; set up for the load tests and the test results

1. INTRODUCTION
RL + 05

1.1 Project RL - 05

Construction of new container terminal at Vallarpadam RL - 15

RL - 19 TOP OF SAND LAYER

Island at Cochin, India is in progress. For design of the RL - 25

proposed container yard the preliminary investigation was

LCPT 22
RL - 35

carried out during 2006-07 which revealed that the strength RL - 45

LBH 14
LBH 12
LBH 10

of the existing soil was very low and ground improvement is

LCPT 22

RL - 55
Silty Sand with Shell

necessary before the actual construction of container

RL - 65 Soft Clay (Compressible Layer)

Loose Fine Sand

terminal.
RL - 75
Loose Fine Sand
RL - 85
Stiff Clay

From the study of these data, the subsurface stratification RL - 95

CH 1000
was identified as –
CH 300

CH 400

CH 500

CH 600

CH 700

CH 800

CH 900
1. Layer 1: Silty Sand with Shells
2. Layer 2: Soft Clay (Compressible Layer) Fig. 1: Sub-soil Conditions
3. Layer 3: Loose Silty Sand
4. Layer 4: Soft Clay (Compressible Layer) 1.2.2 Design of Stone Column
5. Layer 5: Dense Sand Based on the criteria the stone columns were designed as per
6. Layer 6: Stiff Clay IS 15284. The Salient features of the improvement technique
SCPT Tests were also conducted in the area to estimate the are –
depth variation of the soft stratum. Dia of Stone Columns 900 mm 1100 mm
Depth of Stone Columns 20–22 m 20–22 m
The existing Safe Bearing Capacity (SBC) of the soil was 4
Grid Pattern Triangular Triangular
T/m² and the expected settlement of the untreated soil was
Spacing of stone Columns 1.70 m 2.10 m
1000 to 1500 mm.
Design Capacity of Column 25 T 40 T
1.2 Ground Treatment Using Stone Columns The depth of the stone column was finalised based on Global
Stability Analysis.
1.2.1 Design Criteria
The stone columns were designed to provide – 2. CONSTRUCTION OF STONE COLUMNS
1. Minimum Area Ratio of 0.25 Stone Columns were installed by vibro-replacement method
2. Minimum average angle of friction of treated soil 30°. using Pennine Hydraulic Vibroflot of amplitude 8–11 mm.
3. Allowable bearing capacity of ground not less than 100 kPa The columns were installed using top feed wet process. The

510
 Ground Improvement Using Vibro Stone Columns—Capacity of Stone Column

method for construction of the stone columns is illustrated in 2. Settlement of 25–30 mm at design load for a three
Figure 2. column load test

3.2 Single Column Load Test

For Single column load test, centre column in a group of
seven columns was selected as test column. The design load
was considered as the safe load on column (excluding the
safe load which will be taken by soil) i.e. 25 T.
Hence, the test load was 25 * 2.50 = 62.50 T.
Figures 3 and 6 shows the test set up arrangements.
The total settlement of 28.04 mm and net settlement of 24.97
mm was observed. The settlement at design load of 25 T was
5.22 mm. The load settlement graph is shown in Figures 8
and 9.

Fig. 2: Installation of Vibro Stone Columns

1.70
The quantity of 900 mm dia stone columns was 2,42,410
Rmt whereas that of 1100 mm dia was 88,256 Rmt.

2.2.3 Material Specification

The back fill stones were clean, durable, angular, hard and 1.70 1.70
resistant to breakage. Stones were quarry crushed, well
graded stones of 75 mm down to 12 mm size. The uniformity
coefficient was 3. Ø0.90
3. LOAD TESTS ON STONE COLUMNS
Load Tests were performed to study the behaviour of stone
columns as single as well as in group. The tests conducted
were Initial Load test and hence the load applied was 2.50
times the design load. Fig. 3: Layout for Single Column Load Test
The load was applied by operating a hydraulic jack against a
suitable kentledge. The load was applied in the range of 10% Ø0.90 1.70
of safe load (design load). Settlements were recorded for
each load increment with the help of 4 dial gauges.
Settlements were recorded at every 1, 4, 9, 16, 30 and 60
minutes for each interval. Next loading increment was 1.70
applied if the rate of settlement was less than 0.05 mm or less 1.70
in first 15 minutes. The design test load was maintained for a
period 24 hours. The test load was removed in 5 to 6 stages.
Each unloading stage was maintained till the rebound
attained a rate of 1.00 mm in first 15 min. Load-settlement
curve was plotted for each test.

3.1 Acceptance Criteria

As per IS 15284, the stone columns are acceptable if meets
the following criteria –
1. Settlement of 10–12 mm at design load for single column Fig. 4: Layout for Three Column Load Test
load test

511
Ground Improvement Using Vibro Stone Columns—Capacity of Stone Column

Graph of Load Vs Settlement

Load in Tons
Ø0.90 1.70
0.00
-2.00 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

-4.00
-6.00
1.70 -8.00
1.70
-10.00

Settlement in mm
-12.00
-14.00
-16.00
-18.00
-20.00
-22.00
-24.00
-26.00
-28.00
-30.00

Fig. 8: Load Settlement Curve for Single Column Load Test

Graph of Load Vs Settlement

Fig. 5: Layout for Seven Column Load Test
100.00

Aggregate Filling 600 x 600

15 Twin Channel 90 90 90 90 90
Load in Tons

Twin RSJ 30cm deep x 15 cm

45
Packing plates / Box as required 10.00

60 Support
2.5cm Thick M.S. plate 90 φ Jack

GL Dial Gauge GL
50 50
70 cm long casing pipe / 2- ISMB300
Sand back fill in outside annular space

100 mm sand blanket 2.5cm Thick MS plate(90 φ cm)

1.00
1 10 100
270 270 Ultimate Load = 47 T
Settlement in mm
Safe Load = 23.50 T

Fig. 9: Log-log Curve for Single Column Load Test

90.00

ARRANGMENT FOR SINGLE COLUMN LOAD TEST 3.3 Three Column Load Test
For Three Column load test, three columns at the centre in a
group of fifteen columns were selected as test columns. The
Fig. 6: Test Arrangement for Single Column Load Test design load was considered as the safe load on column
(excluding the safe load which will be taken by soil) i.e.
75 T.
Hence, the test load was = 75 * 2.50 = 105 T.
Aggregate Filling 600 x 800

15 Twin Channel 90 90 90 90 90
Figures 4 & 7 shows the test set up arrangements.
The total settlement of 24.95 mm and net settlement of 17.57
Twin RSJ 30cm deep x 15 cm
45
Packing plates / Box as required

60 Support
2.5cm Thick M.S. plate Jack
mm was observed. The settlement at design load of 75 T was
7.51 mm. The load settlement graph is shown in Figures 10
Dial Gauge
GL GL
50 50
150 mm Thk PCC Pad and 11.
300 mm Thk Aggregate Material

Radius: 1.43 m
Diameter: 2.86 m
Area: 6.4343 sqm
3.4 Seven Column Load Test
For seven Column load test, seven columns at the centre in a
90.00 90.00 90.00 group of twenty eight columns were selected as test columns.
Stone Column 0.90 m Dia
The design load was considered as –
ARRANGMENT FOR THREE COLUMN LOAD TEST
As per the requirement the friction angle of the treated soil
Fig. 7: Test Arrangement for Three Column Load Test shall be 30 degrees.

512
 Ground Improvement Using Vibro Stone Columns—Capacity of Stone Column

Graph of Load Vs Settlement Graph of Load Vs Settlement

Load in Tons Load in Tons
0.00 0.00

-2.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 0 200 400 600 800 1000
-15.00
-4.00
-6.00 -30.00
-8.00
-45.00
-10.00
Settlement in mm

Settlement in mm
-12.00 -60.00
-14.00
-75.00
-16.00
-18.00 -90.00
-20.00
-105.00
-22.00
-24.00
-120.00
-26.00
-28.00 -135.00

-30.00
-150.00

Fig 10: Load Settlement Curve for 3-Columns Load Test Fig. 12: Load Settlement Curve for 7-Columns Load Test

Graph of Load Vs Settlement Graph of Load Vs Settlement

1000.00
10000.00

100.00
1000.00
Load in Tons

Load in Tons

10.00
100.00

1.00
10.00
1 10 100
Ultimate Load = 150 T 1 10 100 load = 850 T
Ultimate 1000
Settlement in mm Safe Load = 150 / 2 = 75 T Settlement in mm Safe Load = 850 / 2 = 425 T

Fig. 11: Log-log Curve for 3-Columns Load Test Fig. 13: Log-log Curve for 7-Columns Load Test

The ultimate bearing capacity of treated soil was worked out

4. CONCLUSIONS
as per Terzaghi’s theory i.e. qult = 1.3 cNc + γ Df Nq + 0.3 γ
B Nγ The Vibro Stone Columns were installed for ground
improvement works. The load tests were conducted on
For this test; C = 0; Df = 0 (surface footing); B = 4.76 &
single, group of 3 and group of 7 columns upto 2.5 times the
Nγ = 20
design load. The settlements observed at design loads were
Hence, within the limits specified in IS 15284.
qult = 0.3 * 18 * 4.76 * 20 = 514 kN/m² and
REFERENCES
Hence the ultimate load = 514 * π / 4 * (4.76)² = 988 T
FHWA Report No: FHWA/RD-83/026: Design and
The total settlement of 112 mm and net settlement of 75 mm Construction of Stone Column Vol. I.
was observed. The settlement at design load of 385 T was 26 mm.
IS 15284 Part 1 (2003): Design and Construction for Ground
The load settlement graph is shown in Figures 12 and 13.
Improvement – Guidelines Part 1–Stone Columns.
Greenwood D.A., Mechanical Improvement of soils below
Ground surface.

513