See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322117796

Prediction of Bearing Capacity of Stone Columns Placed in Soft Clay Using

ANN Model

Article  in  Geotechnical and Geological Engineering · December 2017

DOI: 10.1007/s10706-017-0436-0

CITATIONS READS

3 948

1 author:

Manita Das
National Institute of Technology, Silchar
6 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Ground improvement technique View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Manita Das on 19 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-017-0436-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Prediction of Bearing Capacity of Stone Columns Placed
in Soft Clay Using ANN Model
Manita Das . Ashim Kanti Dey
Received: 16 January 2017 / Accepted: 22 December 2017 / Published online: 29 December 2017
 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017
Abstract It is known that the construction over soft
clay is always a great challenge to the geotechnical
engineers. The soft clay poses high compressibility
and low bearing capacity. It is a common practice to
construct piles in the soft clay to transfer the super-
imposed load to the hard strata below. Construction of
stone columns is also a technique of ground improve-
ment normally applied to the soft clay for increase in
bearing capacity and reduction in compressibility.
Many theories are developed to determine the bearing
of a soft soil reinforced with stone columns. However,
most of the theories are site specific and do not show a
very good match with the field observations. Artificial
neural network (ANN) is an analytical tool which can
be used to predict some specific behavior of soil like
bearing capacity, settlement, etc. based on some input
properties like density, shear strength parameters, void
ratio, etc. In the present study, 90 data were collected
from the previously published literatures to build an
ANN model. Five parameters, namely, un-drained
cohesion of soft clay (cu), friction angle of stone
column material (/), ratio of spacing to diameter of
the stone columns (s/d), length of the stone column
(l) and number of the stone columns (n) were taken as
M. Das (&)  A. K. Dey
Civil Engineering Department, N.I.T. Silchar, Silchar,
India
e-mail: manitta403@gmail.com
A. K. Dey
e-mail: ashim_kanti@yahoo.co.in
input data and the bearing capacity as an output. The
predicted bearing capacity was compared with the
laboratory experimental data and Plaxis 2D data. The
predicted values were also compared with the values
obtained from the established theories. ANN predi-
cated values showed a very good match even better
than any of the established theories. Sensitivity
analysis showed that the effect of the / value is
maximum on determination of the bearing capacity.
Keywords Artificial neural network  Bearing
capacity of stone columns  Soft clay
1 Introduction
Construction over soft clay is always a great challenge
to the geotechnical engineers. High compressibility
and low shear strength are the two primary reasons for
the same. It is a usual practice to construct piles in this
type of soil to transfer the load to the hard stratum
below. For low to medium rise buildings cost of
construction of piles is very high as compared to the
cost of the structure. Hence, some ground improve-
ment techniques may be adopted to solve the problem.
Construction of stone columns is one of the most
commonly used ground improvement techniques in
the soft clay. Stone columns increase the bearing
capacity (Bouassida et al. 1995) and expedite the
consolidation (Balaam and Booker 1981) of the soft
123
1846
clay. However, use of stone columns is limited for
residential buildings, since settlement cannot be
significantly reduced. In order to minimize the settle-
ment it is a pre-requisite to understand the factors
affecting the bearing capacity and settlement of the
stone columns. In the present study, artificial neural
network (ANN) is used to study the different factors
affecting the bearing capacity and finally to predict the
bearing capacity of the stone columns.
The improved bearing capacity and expected
settlement of soft clay due to installation of stone
columns are available in the Indian Standard code IS
15284-Part 1 (2003) and other published papers. Many
researchers calculated the bearing capacity and settle-
ment experimentally (Afshar and Ghazavi 2014b;
Ambily and Gandhi 2004, 2007; Castro 2014;
Mohanty and Samanta 2015). Other researchers con-
ducted theoretical study or used numerical solution
through available commercial software and observed
the behavior of the stone columns (Afshar and
Ghazavi 2014a; Etezad et al. 2015; Frikha et al.
2013; Goh et al. 1998; Lee and Pande 1998; Das and
Deb 2016; Six et al. 2012; Fattah and Majeed 2012;
Nassaji and Asakereh 2013; Niroumand et al. 2011;
Borges et al. 2009; Deb et al. 2010; Tabchouche et al.
2017; Castro 2017). Etezad et al. (2015) studied the
group effect of the stone columns on the bearing
capacity by assuming a general shear failure. They
used a limit equilibrium method for the bearing
capacity determination. Castro (2014) found an ana-
lytical solution for predicting the settlement of the
stone columns beneath rigid footings. Basack et al.
(2017) made a numerical model based on the lateral
deformation of stone columns placed in soft clay.
Although the field tests are more accurate, yet
importance of analytical studies cannot be ignored.
Sometimes experimental studies become more costly
and time consuming and show lack in repeatability
when a number of parameters are involved for a
certain solution. Moreover, the experimental results
have some uncertainties due to some errors such as
error due to weather forecast, error due to installation
effects, etc. So the analytical or numerical studies are
also important. Andreou and Papadopoulos (2014)
discussed on the factors, which affect on the settle-
ment of stone column reinforced soft soils. Elshazly
et al. (2008a) found out the effect of spacing between
the stone columns due to installation of stone columns,
because spacing is the most important factor which
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861
affects the bearing capacity and settlement of stone
columns. Elshazly et al. (2008b) studied on the
reliability of the settlement value for the soft soil
reinforced with stone columns. Al-Homoud and
Degen (2006) discussed on the dynamic properties
of soil reinforced with stone column. They found a
new idea to prevent the liquefaction by using marine
stone columns.
Artificial neural network (ANN) is a computational
technique to find out an output from a given number of
inputs. It has the capability of input–output mapping.
In geotechnical engineering, many researchers used
ANN to solve various problems (Goh et al. 1998; Kosti
and Vasovic 2015). Chik et al. (2014) and Chik and
Aljanabi (2014) used ANN to find out the settlement of
the stone columns. Taha and Firoozi (2012) applied
artificial intelligence system to predict the cohesion
value of clayey soil. In the present study, ANN is used
to predict the bearing capacity of the stone columns.
For obtaining an ANN model, data were collected
from the published literatures. To select the best ANN
model, four different validation technique and four
algorithms were used. The results from the best fit
ANN model were compared with the results from the
laboratory tests, from Plaxis 2D analyses and from
well established theories. A good match was observed
with the laboratory results. An equation to find the
bearing capacity of stone columns was derived from
the best fit ANN model. Finally a sensitivity analysis
was carried out to obtain the most important input
parameter affecting the bearing capacity of the stone
columns.
2 Short Description of the ANN Model
Back-propagation neural network (BPN) was used
instead of radial basis function network (RBFN) since
BPN has a superior capability in pattern classification
system (Haykin 1998; Chik and Aljanabi 2014).
Around 90 data were collected from the previously
published literatures. Four validation techniques,
namely, 90-10 validation (q90-10, ten-cross validation),
80-20 validation (q80-20), 70-30 validation (q70-30) and
50-50 validation (q50-50) were used. For every model,
four algorithms namely, Bayesian Regularization
(BR), Levenberg–Marquardt (LM), Gradient descent
with momentum (GDM), and Broyden-Fletcher-Gold-
farb-Shannon (BFGS) were used as shown in Fig. 1.
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861 1847

Fig. 1 Flow chart of proposed ANN model

Thus, altogether 16 algorithms were performed to prediction of bearing capacity of stone column
investigate the performance of ANN in determination and it shows the better performance than any
of bearing capacity of the stone columns. Results from other algorithms as it shows a very good
all these 16 models were compared to observe the agreement between the results (Fig. 4b).
accuracy of their performances. (b) Levenberg–Marquardt (LM) learning algo-
The algorithms used in this study are briefly rithm: LM algorithm works as an iterative
discussed below: technique which reduces the performance func-
tion in each iteration. That is why it is the fastest
(a) Bayesian Regularization (BR) Learning Algo-
method to train the feed-forward neural network
rithm: Bayesian back propagation algorithm
of moderate size as in the present case. In case
was introduced by MacKay (1991) and Neal
of supervised learning, this algorithm gives the
(1992), which is based on the Bayesian statis-
most accurate result. In mathematics and com-
tical approach (Box and Tiao 1973). BR is a
puting techniques, the LM algorithm is also
mathematical phenomenon that transforms a
known as the damped least-squares (DLS)
nonlinear regression to a ‘‘well-posed’’ statisti-
method. This algorithm can also be used in
cal approach in the similar manner of a ridge
case of curve fitting problems. LM algorithm
regression. This algorithm creates a well gen-
contains the minimum of a multivariate func-
eralized network and forms simple weight
tion which is expressed in terms of sum of the
functions. Like most other algorithms, it does
squares of non-linear real valued functions.
not predict the single optimum prediction;
(c) Gradient descent with momentum (GDM)
rather it provides the probability distribution
learning algorithm: It is a first-order iterative
over all the predicted values which are very
optimization algorithm, which is used to find
important. It provides characteristic error infor-
local minima of a function. This algorithm is the
mation of the prediction which arises from the
steepest descent with momentum which ignores
uncertainties developed with interpolating the
the small features existing in error surface.
noisy data. This algorithm contains an objective
GDM algorithm is the most commonly used
function which includes sum of squared weights
algorithm for the optimization in neural net-
and residual sum of squares to reduce the errors.
work. This algorithm can also be used as a
In the present study, BR algorithm was used to
black-box optimization algorithm because in
observe the performance of ANN model for the

123
1848
this case, practical explanations of the strengths
and weaknesses are very difficult. This algo-
rithm can be used to measure the output error, to
estimate the error gradient with the adjustment
of the weights in the direction of descending
gradient.
(d) Broyden–Fletcher–Goldfarb–Shannon (BFGS)
quasi-Newton back-propagation learning algo-
rithm: The BFGS algorithm is an iterative
optimization method which can be used to
solve unconstrained nonlinear problems as in
the present case. This algorithm is the compu-
tationally lowest cost algorithm which is error
tolerant. This algorithm gives best results for the
solution of low to moderate size problems. This
algorithm utilises a local quadratic approxima-
tion of the corresponding error function and
update the weights by approximating the
inverse of the Hessian matrix. BFGS algorithm
results good solutions through a small number
of iterations (Dennis and Schnabel 1996).
3 Artificial Neural Network (ANN) Formation
The ANN model for the present study was formed
through following steps:
3.1 Collection of Data
For the neural network model, total 90 data were
collected from the published papers (Ali et al. 2010;
Black et al. 2007; Choobbasti et al. 2011; Deb et al.
2011; Fattah and Majeed 2009; Golait et al. 2009;
Hassen et al. 2010; Malarvizhi and Ilampurthi 2007;
Mohanty and Samanta 2015; Murugesan and Rajago-
pal 2006, 2008; Nassaji and Asakereh 2013; Poor-
ooshasb and Meyerhof 1997; Shivashankar et al.
2010, 2011; Vekli et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2013).
Some data are from experimental study, some are from
numerical study and the rest from analytical study.
40% of the total data were taken from the experimental
studies. In order to reduce the variations in the values
due to different types of tests, a data is presented by a
scaled value given by Eq. (1).
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861
ðunscaled value  minimum valueÞ
Scaled value ¼
ðmaximum value  minimum valueÞ
ð1Þ
It is obvious from the above equation that the range
of the scaled value is 0–1. Table 1 shows the various
data collected from the literature. The statistical
dispersion is measured by the coefficient of variation
(CV). The CV is determined by the following equation
SD
CV ¼  100 ð2Þ
Mean
where SD is the standard deviation.
3.2 Optimizing Number of Hidden Neurons
The ANN problem is normally a function of opti-
mization problem, where the best network parameters
such as weights and biases can be determined by
minimizing the network error. For multilayer percep-
tron-neural network (MLP-NN), the optimization of
number of hidden neurons is the most important factor.
The use of more number of hidden neurons results
more accurate output. But use of too many neurons
results lengthy and time consuming outputs and over-
fitting of data. In this study, the optimum number of
hidden neurons was obtained from the minimum value
of the mean squared error (MSE). Taking the number
of neurons from 1 to 20, the optimum number of
hidden neurons was found out as follows:
• By plotting MSE versus number of hidden neuron
graphs.
• For the 90-10 validation technique with BR
algorithm, the MSE versus number of hidden
neuron graph was plotted as shown in Fig. 1.
• From the graph, corresponding to minimum MSE
value, the number of hidden neuron was taken as
optimum number of hidden neuron. In Fig. 2, the
optimum number of hidden neuron is noticed as
four.
• Likewise, for all other models with all the algo-
rithms, the MSE versus number of hidden neuron
graph was plotted separately and optimum number
of hidden neurons was determined.
• For all the models, the optimum numbers of hidden
neurons are listed in Table 2.
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861 1849

Table 1 Details of collected data

Number of stone Undrained cohesion, s/d ratio Friction angle, / Length, Load carrying capacity
columns, n cu in kPa in degree (l) in mm (q) in kPa

Minimum 7 5 1.5 20 10.5 20

Maximum 14 32 4 48 600 905
Mean 10.7 14.7783 2.431698 36.95755 298.7594 260.0283
SD 6.8 8.713176 0.735956 11.54476 191.9605 208.4899
CV 28.33 58.95925 30.26511 31.2379 64.25253 80.1797

0.0972 repeating this process, ten iterations were completed

until all the subsets were used for training.
Figure 3a–d show the Mean Standard Error (MSE)
0.0972
versus epoch graph of 90-10 (tenfold cross validation)
model for the algorithms BR, LM, GDM, and BFGS
0.0971 algorithms respectively. From the figure, it can be seen
that in all the cases as the number of epoch increases,
MSE

MSE value decreases which confirms that there is no

0.097
0.097
0.0969
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
No of hidden neuron
Fig. 2 Number of neurons versus mean standard error (MSE)
graph
3.3 Training and Testing of ANN Model
The collected data from the previous literature on
bearing capacity of stone columns was divided into
training, testing and validation data. With the training
data, the network was developed and with the testing
and validation data, the trained model was verified.
3.3.1 90-10 Validation Technique (Tenfold Cross
Validation, q90-10)
In 90-10 validation model, the whole data were
divided into ten equal sections. Firstly, the first nine
sets of data were used for training and the remaining
one set was used for testing. In the second iteration, out
of these ten sets of data, other nine subsets were used
for training and remaining one was used for testing. By
chance of over-fitting.
Figure 4a–d show the BPN network output versus
training of 90-10 (tenfold cross validation) model for
the algorithms BR, LM, GDM, and BFGS respec-
tively. From the figure, it is seen that the BR algorithm
shows the best prediction with experimental value
18 20
among all other algorithms. In case of 90-10 validation
model, the BR algorithm shows the best result for four
numbers of hidden neurons.
It is observed from the Fig. 4, that the four
algorithms (BR, LM, GDM, and BFGS) show differ-
ent results for the same ANN model (90-10 i.e. tenfold
cross validation model). In case of BR algorithm, the
correlation value, R, defined as the coefficient of
determination is obtained as R = 0.99781; for LM
algorithm, R = 0.99617 and for GDM and BFGS
algorithms these values are R = 0.98134 and
R = 0.97926 respectively. Standard error (SE) is
defined as the minimum distance between the data
points and the fitted line. The Standard Error values for
these algorithms are SE = 1.6124, 1.612, 2.305 and
2.321 respectively. All the prediction values are within
the 95% prediction interval. From R and SE values it
can be seen that the BR and LM learning algorithms
show almost similar results but BR shows the best
performance.

123
1850 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861

Table 2 Optimum number ANN models Algorithms R SE No of hidden neurons

of hidden neurons
q90-10 BR 0.99781 1.613 4
LM 0.99617 1.612 11
GDM 0.98134 2.305 18
BFGS 0.97926 2.321 16
q80-20 BR 0.98865 1.914 4
LM 0.9841 2.342 11
GDM 0.96038 2.505 9
BFGS 0.96862 2.621 7
q70-30 BR 0.979 2.114 4
LM 0.973 2.53 7
GDM 0.959 2.625 13
BFGS 0.958 2.632 14
q50-50 BR 0.972 2.414 11
LM 0.964 2.73 9
GDM 0.95335 2.825 16
BFGS 0.94347 3.032 15

3.3.2 80-20 Validation (Fivefold Cross Validation,
q80-20)
In 80-20 validation model, the whole data were
divided into five equal sections. Firstly, the first four
sets were used for training and remaining one set was
used for testing and validation. Iteratively the remain-
ing sets were used for training, testing and validation.
In this technique, four algorithms were used to know
the performance such as BR, LM, GDM and BFGS.
3.3.3 70-30 Validation (Non-cross Validation, q70-30)
testing and validation. To know the best performance
of this technique, four algorithms were also used.
The correlation value (R), SE and optimum number
of hidden neurons (n) for all the 16 models are listed in
Table 2. From the table, it is seen that among all the 16
models, the BR algorithm of 90-10 model shows the
best performance as its R value is the largest and the SE
value is the lowest of all the values from other models.
4 Validation of ANN Model with Experimental
and Plaxis-2D Results

In 70-30 validation model, 70% of the total collected
data were used for training and the remaining 30% of
the data were used for testing and validation of the
ANN model. In this case also, previously defined four
algorithms were used. The details of all the algorithms
can be seen in Table 2.
3.3.4 50-50 Validation (Two-Cross Validation, q50-50)
In 50-50 validation model, in the first iteration, first
50% of the total collected data were used for training
and the remaining 50% of the data were used for
testing and validation of the ANN model. In second
iteration, second 50% of the total collected data were
used for training and the first 50% were used for
4.1 Experimental Investigation
An experiment is an investigating method by which a
hypothesis can be scientifically tested. In an experi-
ment, by assuming various independent variables, the
effect of dependent variable can be measured. Nor-
mally the independent variables are assumed as the
cause and the dependent variables as the effect.
Moreover, the experimental methods allow the control
of variables. In this study, total ten plate load tests
were conducted and the bearing capacity for each test
was determined. All the tests were conducted in a
square tank of size 1 m 9 1 m 9 1 m. Locally avail-
able soft clayey soil and stones of size 2–6 mm were
used for the investigation. To construct the model, first
of all, the tank was wrapped with a polythene sheet and

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861 1851

Best Validation Performance is 0.095966 at epoch 1000 Best Validation Performance is 0.082873 at epoch 2
0
10 Train
0
10 Train Validation
Validation Test

Mean Squared Error (mse)

Best
Mean Squared Error (mse)

Test
Best

-1
-1
10
10

-2
10
-2 10
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
2 Epochs
1000 Epochs
(a) (b)
Best Validation Performance is 0.064272 at epoch 13 Best Validation Performance is 0.1021 at epoch 2
0 0
10 10 Train
Train
Validation Validation
Test Test
Mean Squared Error (mse)
Mean Squared Error (mse)

Best Best

-1
10
-1 10

-2
-2 10
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 5 10 15
19 Epochs 2 Epochs
(c) (d)

Fig. 3 Mean Standard Error (MSE) versus epoch graph of 90-10 (tenfold cross validation) model for the algorithms a BR, b LM,
c GDM, and d BFGS algorithms respectively

then 0.9 m depth of the tank was filled with the soft the centre. For experimental set-up, one hydraulic jack
soil in layers with uniform compaction to each layer. of capacity 5 t was used for the loading, two dial
The tank was covered with a thick polythene sheet and gauges were used to measure the settlement and one
kept idle for about a month for self consolidation of the proving ring was used to measure the applied load as
soil. Table 3 shows the properties of the soft clay shown in Fig. 6. For all the tests, one circular footing
which was used for all the experiments. To construct a of diameter 10 cm was placed centrally over the
stone column, a hole was made with the help of an arrangement of stone columns, i.e. over the central
auger of size 50 mm, the stones were inserted and stone column. It was tried to keep the water content
compacted with uniform compaction in layers. As per constant during all the experiments. The experiments
IS 15284-Part 1 (2003), seven stone columns in a were conducted by varying the input parameters such
triangular patter as shown in Fig. 5 are to be installed as the compactness of stone i.e. friction angle of stones
to determine the behavior of a single column placed at (u), spacing to diameter ratio (s/d) and, length of the

123
1852 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861

Fig. 4 BPN network output versus training of 90-10 (tenfold cross validation) model for the algorithms a BR, b LM, c GDM, and
d BFGS algorithms respectively

stone column (l). The data from the experiments are
listed in Table 4.
4.2 Plaxis 2D
PLAXIS 2D is a FEM package which is being used for
a two dimensional analysis for the deformation and
stability of different types of structures in geotechnical
engineering. With this user-friendly interface, the
models can be efficiently created with a logical
geotechnical workflow. The finite element mesh can
be immediately created with the automatic meshing
procedure.
In this study, for determination of the bearing
capacity of stone columns five parameters such as the
number of stone columns (n), undrained cohesion of

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861 1853

Table 3 Properties of clay mesh which was constructed in Plaxis-2D, is presented

Specific gravity 2.51
in Fig. 7. The ultimate bearing capacity of the stone
Bulk unit weight 1.7–1.75 gm/cc
column was obtained from the double tangent method
Liquid limit 61%
applied to the load settlement curve. The results from
the Plaxis-2D analysis are presented in Table 5.
Plastic limit 34.7%
Unified soil classification system CH
4.3 Comparison of Bearing Capacity Values

Since from the ANN study BR algorithm of q90-10

Fig. 5 Plan view of seven stone column
Hydraulic jack
Proving ring
So clay
Dial gauge
Stone column
1mx1m tank
Fig. 6 Experimental set up
soft soil, (cu), the friction angle of stones (u), spacing
to diameter ratio (s/d) and, length of the stone column
(l) were varied. The triangular arrangement of the
stone columns was considered for the analysis. The
plate size was kept constant as 10 cm for all the
analyses. In the finite element mesh, a 15-noded
triangular element and Mohr–Coulomb failure criteria
were considered. One of the figures of the deformed
model shows the best performance, hence, all the
experimental and Plaxis-2D data are validated with
this model. The comparisons of all the bearing
capacity values are shown in Table 6. The first column
of Table 6 shows the experimental and Plaxis 2D
results and the second column shows the results of
ANN model. A comparison with the established
theories on bearing capacity obtained from IS
15284-Part 1 (2003), Etezad et al. (2015) and Afshar
and Ghazavi (2014a) is also shown in Table 6 against
column number 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
From the Table 6, it is observed that the ANN
model shows a better match with the experimental and
Plaxis 2D results than any other established method.
The comparison shows that ANN model is reliable in
predicting the bearing capacity of the stone columns. It
also shows that whereas the established theories are
site specific, the ANN model is soil specific.
4.4 Performance Evaluation of the Proposed
Models
The performance of all the prediction models are
evaluated by different statistical parameters such as
Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Variance
Absolute Relative Error (VARE), Median Absolute
Error (MEDAE) as mentioned in Eqs. (3), (4), and (5).
Table 7 shows the performance of all the prediction
models with their corresponding algorithms.
"  #
1 Xn 
t  x 
MAPE ¼   i i   100 ð3Þ
n  ti 
i¼1
"     !#
1 Xn t i  xi  ti  xi 2
VARE ¼     
n  t   mean t 
i¼1 i i
 100
ð4Þ
MEDAE ¼ medianðti  xi Þ ð5Þ

123
1854 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861

Table 4 Experimental data

Number of stone columns, n cu (kPa) s/d ratio / (degree) L (mm) qu (kPa) measured value

7 22 1.5 40 400 206

7 21.5 2 40 400 185
7 21.3 2.5 40 400 165
7 21.5 3 40 400 148
7 21.2 3.5 37.27 400 120
7 21.5 1.5 37.27 500 145
7 21.5 2 37.27 500 134
7 21.5 2.5 35 500 128
7 21.5 3 35 500 118
7 21.5 3.5 35 500 106

5 MVR Model Development

To validate the best ANN model presented in this

Fig. 7 Deformed mesh of Plaxis-2D model
where ti is the measured value of bearing capacity of
the stone columns, and xi is the predicted value of the
bearing capacity of stone column.
From Table 7, it can be seen that for the model q90-
10 (ten-cross validation), the algorithm BR has the
lowest values of MAPE, VARE, and MEDAE. For the
model q80-20 (five-cross validation), the algorithm BR
has the lowest values of all the statistical parameters
(MAPE, VARE, and MEDAE). For the other two
models (i.e. q70-30 and q50-50) also, the algorithm BR
has the lowest values. Kayri (2016) also obtained a
better performance with BR algorithm than with LM
algorithm.
study, an MVR analysis (multi-variable regression
analysis) was also performed with the same dataset for
the prediction of bearing capacity of the stone
columns. In the present study, to conduct the MVR
model, n, cu, s/d, / and l were considered as the
independent variables and the bearing capacity qu was
considered as the dependent variable. The relation
between the dependent and independent variables is
expressed in form of a standard equation as in Eq. (6)
Y ¼ c þ B1 X1 þ B2 X2 þ B3 X3 þ . . .Bn Xn  e ð6Þ
where c is the constant on Y intercept. X1 , X2 , X3 and
Xn are the independent variables and B1 , B2 , B3 and Bn
are the slopes associated with the above mentioned
independent variables; Y is the dependent variable and
e is the approximated error.
5.1 Comparison of ANN Model
with the Statistical Approach of MVR Model
The BR algorithm with ten-fold cross validation
technique is also validated with the MVR model with
the same set of data. The comparisons of all the results
are presented in Table 8. The statistical presentation
from Table 8 shows the superior capability of ANN
model than MVR model for the prediction of bearing
capacity of stone columns. The regression analysis of
data was performed with F-test and t test at 95%
confidence interval. The statistical results of MVR

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861 1855

Table 5 Plaxis 2D data

Number of stone columns, n cu (kPa) s/d ratio / (degree) L (mm) qu (kPa) measured value

7 25 1.5 40 400 232

7 25 2 40 400 210
7 25 2.5 40 500 194
7 25 3 40 500 175
7 25 3.5 37.27 500 150
7 22.5 1.5 37.27 600 190
7 21.5 2 37.27 600 165
7 21.5 2.5 35 600 142
7 23 3 35 600 125
12 25 2.5 37.27 400 227
12 23 2.5 37.27 400 199
12 21.5 2.5 37.27 400 175
19 25 2.5 37.27 400 250
19 23 2.5 37.27 400 227
19 21.5 2.5 37.27 400 200

model are presented in Table 9. The t-stat value,
p value and upper and lower limits associated with the
individual coefficients are listed in Table 9. From
Table 9, it is observed that p values associated with the
parameters n and l are very high i.e. the confidence
level is very low [(1 - P) \ 95%] which represents
an insignificant results for the MVR model. Again, for
the parameters cu, s/d, and /, the P value is very low,
which results a significant coefficient in MVR model.
Therefore, it is concluded that the MVR model rejects
the significance of the parameters n and l in bearing
capacity prediction and hence, it fails to predict
precisely the bearing capacity of stone columns.
6 ANN Model Equation to Determine the Bearing
Capacity of Stone Columns (q) Based on Trained
Neural Network
Goh et al. (1998) expressed the mathematical equation
based on the weights of input and output for ANN
model as shown in Eq. (7).
( " ! #)
X h X
m ð8Þ
Y ¼ fsig b0 þ wk fsig bhk þ wik Xi ð7Þ
k¼1 i¼1
where fsig is the sigmoid transfer function (in this case
logistic); b0 is the bias at the output layer; wk is the
connecting weight between kth neuron of the hidden
layer and the single output neuron; bhk is the bias at
neuron k of the hidden layer; wik is the connecting
weight between input variable i and neuron k of the
hidden layer; Xi is the input variable i; and Y is the
output parameter. In this study, by using this equation,
the normalized Y value (in this case 0–1) is found out.
In this case an ANN model is performed to find out the
bearing capacity of stone column.
The three layered neural network structure of this
ANN model is presented in Fig. 8. The middle layer is
called hidden layer which receives inputs from the
input layer and sends output to the output layer. The
connection weights from input to hidden and hidden to
output are shown in this figure which was determined
from the matlab R2013a programming. The values of
weights and biases of the trained ANN model of BR
algorithm with four numbers of hidden neurons are
presented in Table 10.
To obtain the correlation of Y, the following
expressions are written:
s
A1 ¼ 1:235 þ 0:2345n  0:1915cu þ 0:4325
d
þ 0:3125/ þ 0:1190l
s
A2 ¼ 0:2420 þ 0:3122n þ 0:2321cu þ 0:3128
d
 0:1280/ þ 0:2235l
ð9Þ

123
1856 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861

Table 6 Comparison of qu (kPa) values obtained from experiments and Plaxis, ANN model and other established theories
qu (kPa) measured value from qu (kPa) predicted qu (kPa) from IS qu (kPa) from Etezad qu (kPa) from Afshar and
experiment and Plaxis 2D value from ANN CODE (2003) et al. (2015) Ghazavi (2014a)

206 215 182.76 262 350

185 182 170 238.05 335
165 161 155.8 212 330
148 148 131.77 179 327
120 116 118 152 194.07
145 152 164.43 213 257
134 133 142 203 245.89
128 131 153.3 196 182.45
118 118 161 190 170.11
106 109 152 182 159.32
232 250 230 306.8 380.44
210 217 218 296 380.06
194 189 211.5 262 356
175 173 199 228.5 329.7
150 150 185 190 228.55
190 185 189.072 233 206.038
165 160 168.5 206 195.89
142 145 148 182 171.45
125 121 134 205.45 179.5
227 232 199 218.16 259
199 205 188 205 240.8
175 172 149 194 217.2
250 247 211 242.5 298.55
227 223 205 232 260.6
200 203 197 223 226.79

s
A3 ¼ 0:790 þ 0:0353n þ 0:5323cu  0:2972 1:214
d B3 ¼ ð14Þ
½1 þ eA3 
þ 0:0491/  0:3232l
ð10Þ 0:2573
B4 ¼ ð15Þ
s ½1 þ eA4 
A4 ¼ 0:2143 þ 0:0544n þ 0:6520cu þ 0:1781
d C1 ¼ 0:3125 þ B1 þ B2 þ B3 þ B4 ð16Þ
þ 0:6563/  0:3724l
ð11Þ 1
Y¼ ð17Þ
½1 þ eC1 
0:2212
B1 ¼ ð12Þ The Y value in Eq. (17) is the normalized value
½1 þ eA1 
which is to be denormalized to obtain the actual
0:3250 bearing capacity of the stone column (q).
B2 ¼ ð13Þ
½1 þ eA2  q ¼ Ymin þ ðYmax  Ymin ÞY ð18Þ

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861 1857

Table 7 Statistical errors for all the ANN models for different For cu = 30 kPa, applying Skempton’s formula for
algorithms square footing on the ground surface, the net ultimate
ANN models Algorithms MAPE VARE MEDAE bearing capacity of soil is given by
  
q90-10 BR 2.54166 2.537 1.075 Df B
qnu ¼ 5cu 1 þ 0:2 1 þ 0:2
LM 2.5421 2.539 0.995 B L
GDM 3.1612 3.142 1.743 ¼ 5  30  ð1 þ 0:2  0Þð1 þ 0:2Þ
BFGS 3.0625 3.062 1.401 ¼ 180 kN=m2
q80-20 BR 2.342 2.343 1.213
Considering around two and half times improve-
LM 2.35012 2.322 1.003
ment in qnu due to installation of stone columns, the
GDM 3.1111 3.107 1.821
improved net ultimate bearing capacity
BFGS 3.0272 3.018 1.522
qnu ¼ 2:5  180 ¼ 450 kN/m2 :
q70-30 BR 2.67056 2.648 1.402
Assuming a suitable factor of safety, the net safe
LM 2.646 2.607 1.009
bearing capacity, qns ffi 250 kN/m2 (say).
GDM 3.062 3.041 1.915
Therefore, size of the footing can be assumed as
BFGS 2.9711 2.970 1.523
follows:
q50-50 BR 2.630244 2.641 1.431 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
LM 2.53025 2.510 1.011 800
B¼ ¼ 1:78 ffi 1:8 m:
GDM 3.1121 3.107 1.942 250
BFGS 3.0642 3.047 1.550
Again, for stone column, qns ffi 250 kN/m2 , mini-
mum and maximum values of Y are considered as
Table 8 Comparision of ANN and MVR model Ymin = 200 kPa and Ymax = 260 kPa respectively.
Model R SE MAPE VARE MEDAE Now, to design the group of stone columns, the
following steps are used:
ANN 0.99781 1.613 2.54166 2.537 1.075
MVR 0.99584 1.825 2.98441 2.512 1.135 • From Eq. (18), Y value is determined.
• C1 value is found out from Eq. (17).
• Then by using Eqs. (8)–(16), with the trial and
where Ymax and Ymin are maximum and minimum error method, all the design parameters (n, s/d and
values of Y respectively which are taken from the l) are estimated as presented in Table 11.
dataset.

8 Sensitivity Analysis of the Input Parameters

7 Mechanistic Analysis
of Experimental and Plaxis-2D Data
Let us consider a column taking an axial load of 800
In this study five input parameters were considered to
kN resting on a group of stone columns installed in a
obtain the bearing capacity of the stone columns. All
soft clayey soil with cu = 30 kPa, angle of friction of
the input parameters affect the bearing capacity little
stone materials, / = 42. The stone column group is
more or less. In order to obtain the parameter which
to be designed.

Table 9 Statistical Coefficients SE t-Stat p value Lower 95% Upper 95%

parameters of MVR model
Intercept - 6.86 3.52 - 5.61539 2.48E-07 - 30.07 -13.603
n - 0.53 0.32 - 0.43 0.253 - 0.62 0.26
cu 1.7 0.003 - 1.342 0.000 - 0.35 0.32
s/d 3.1 0.07 14.8 0.000 0.44 0.98
/ 1.33 0.022 11.5 1.01E-28 0.14 0.44
l 0.05 0.14 8.402 0.293 0.03 0.06

123
1858 Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861

Fig. 8 Structure of
proposed ANN model

Table 10 Connection weights and biases for the trained ANN model for BR algorithm of 90-10 model
Neuron Weights Biases
Input 1 Input 2 Input 3 Input 4 Input 5 Output Hidden layer Output layer

Hidden neuron 1 (i = 1) 0.2345 - 0.1915 0.4325 0.3125 0.1190 0.2212 1.235 0.3125
Hidden neuron 2 (i = 2) 0.3122 0.2321 0.3128 - 0.1280 0.2235 - 0.3250 0.2420
Hidden neuron 3 (i = 3) 0.0353 0.5323 - 0.2972 0.0491 - 0.3232 1.214 0.790
Hidden neuron 4 (i = 4) 0.0544 0.6520 0.1781 0.6563 - 0.3724 0.2573 0.2143

Table 11 Design of group Number of stone columns, n Spacing to diameter ratio, s/d Length of stone columns, l in m
of stone columns arranged
in a triangular pattern to 7 2 2.8
carry a vertical load of 800
7 2.5 2.9
kN
7 3 3.0
12 3 2.9
12 3.5 3.02
12 4 3.14

mostly affects the bearing capacity of the stone
columns, a sensitivity analysis of the input parameters
was performed. The sensitivity of an input parameter
is defined as the change in the output expressed as
percentage for 1% increase in the input parameter. For
an example, 1% increase in u value of the soil changes
the value of bearing capacity by 5.88% hence, the
sensitivity of u is 5.88%. This sensitivity analysis was
performed in matlab R2013a. The outcome of the
analysis is shown in Fig. 9. It is observed that the
fourth parameter i.e. friction angle, u of the stone
column material affects the bearing capacity the most
among all other parameters. The second parameter
affecting the bearing capacity is spacing to diameter
ratio (s/d) of a stone column and the parameter which

123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861
6 (b)
5 with correlation, R = 0.98865 and SE = 1.914.
Change in output in %
4
3
2
1 best as compared to other algorithms.
0 predicting the bearing capacity of stone col-
del n del cu del s/d del phi del l
Input parameter
Fig. 9 Sensitivity analysis of each input data
has the least effect on bearing capacity is the length of
the stone column.
9 Conclusions
In this study, total 16 ANN models were performed
with four different combinations and four different
learning algorithms to predict the bearing capacity of
stone columns. For this purpose, 90 data were
collected from the previous technical literatures with
different input values. The bearing capacity of stone
column mainly depends on the friction angle (u) of the
stone column materials, diameter (d), length (l),
spacing between the stone columns (s), numbers of
stone column (n), and undrained cohesion (cu) of the
surrounding soft soil. So all these parameters were
considered as inputs and bearing capacity of stone
column was taken as output. To conduct the ANN
model, a three-layer feed-forward back propagation
neural network was used. By optimizing the number of
hidden neurons for every models separately, different
numbers of hidden neurons were used to get the best
results. Four types of algorithms i.e. BR, LM, GDM,
and BFGS were used in this case. From the analysis,
the following conclusions are drawn:
(a) In case of 90-10 model, the algorithm BR with 4
numbers of hidden neurons gives the best result
with correlation, R = 0.99781 and SE = 1.612.
1859
In case of 80-20 model, the algorithm BR with 7
numbers of hidden neurons performs the best
(c) For 70-30 model, the algorithm BR shows the
best solution with 19 number of hidden neurons
with correlation, R = 0.979 and SE = 2.114.
(d) For 50-50 model also, the algorithm BR also
shows the best solution with nine hidden
neurons with correlation, R = 0.972 and
SE = 2.414.
(e) Overall performance of the BR algorithm is the
(f) ANN model has the superior capability in
umns over MVR model.
(g) From the MVR model, it is reported that the
parameters cu, s/d, and / are significant in
prediction of bearing capacity of stone columns.
(h) ANN model shows a better match with the
experimental and Plaxis 2D results than any
other established method.
(i) The established theories are site specific; the
ANN model is soil specific.
(j) For all the models, the algorithm BR has the
lowest value of all the statistical parameters
such as Mean Absolute Percentage Error
(MAPE), Variance Absolute Relative Error
(VARE), and Median Absolute Error
(MEDAE).
(k) From the sensitivity analysis, the bearing
capacity of stone column is mostly affected by
the friction angle of the stone column material
and is least affected by the length (l) of the stone
columns.
(l) A prediction model equation based on the
weights of the trained ANN model is presented
to predict the bearing capacity of stone column.
References
Afshar JN, Ghazavi M (2014a) A simple analytical method for
calculation of bearing capacity of stone column. Int J Civ
Eng 12(1). (Transaction B: Geotechnical Engineering)
Afshar JN, Ghazavi M (2014b) Experimental studies on bearing
capacity of geosynthetic reinforced stone columns. Arab J
Sci Eng 39:1559–1571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-
013-0709-8
123
1860
Al-Homoud AS, Degen WS (2006) Marine stone columns to
prevent earthquake induced soil liquefaction. Geotech
Geol Eng 24:775–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-
005-2783-5.G=8
Ali K, Shahu JT, Sharma KG (2010) Behaviour of reinforced
stone columns in soft soils: an experimental study. In:
Indian geotechnical conference, 2010, GEOtrendz
December 16–18, IGS Mumbai Chapter and IIT Bombay
Ambily AP, Gandhi SR (2004) Experimental and theoretical
evaluation of stone column in soft clay. In: ICGGE
Ambily AP, Gandhi SR (2007) Behavior of stone columns based
on experimental and fem analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng 133:405–415. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-
0241(2007)133:4(405)
Andreou P, Papadopoulos V (2014) Factors affecting the set-
tlement estimation of stone column reinforced soils. Geo-
tech Geol Eng 32:1175–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-014-9788-x
Balaam NP, Booker JR (1981) Analysis of rigid rafts supported
by granular piles. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech
5:379–403
Basack S, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C, Siahaan F (2017)
Modeling the stone column behavior in soft ground with
special emphasis on lateral deformation. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 143(6):04017016
Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, Hamill GA (2007)
Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: laboratory
model study. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(9):1154–
1161. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2007)133:
9(1154)
Borges JL, Domingues TS, Cardoso AS (2009) Embankments on
soft soil reinforced with stone columns: numerical analysis
and proposal of a new design method. Geotech Geol Eng
27:667–679. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-009-9266-z
Bouassida M, De Buhan P, Dormieux L (1995) Bearing capacity
of a foundation resting on a soil reinforced by a group of
columns. Ghotechnique 45(1):25–34
Box GEP, Tiao GC (1973) Bayesian inference in statistical
analysis. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Castro J (2014) An analytical solution for the settlement of stone
columns beneath rigid footings. Acta Geotech. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11440-014-0358-4
Castro J (2017) Groups of encased stone columns: influence of
column length and Arrangement. Geotext Geomembr
45(2017):68–80
Chik Z, Aljanabi QA (2014) Intelligent prediction of settlement
ratio for soft clay with stone columns using embankment
improvement techniques. Neural Comput Appl 25:73–82.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00521-013-1449-0
Chik Z, Aljanabi QA, Kasa A, Taha MR (2014) Tenfold cross
validation artificial neural network modeling of the set-
tlement behavior of a stone column under a highway
embankment. Arab J Geosci 7:4877–4887. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12517-013-1128-6
Choobbasti AZ, Zahmatkesh A, Noorzad R (2011) Performance
of stone columns in soft clay: numerical evaluation. Geo-
tech Geol Eng 29:675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-011-9409-x
Das AK, Deb K (2016) Modeling of stone column-supported
embankment under axi-symmetric condition. Geotech
Geol Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0136-1
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861
Deb K, Basudhar PK, Chandra S (2010) Axi-symmetric analysis
of geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill-soft soil system
with group of stone columns. Geotech Geol Eng
28:177–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-009-9291-y
Deb K, Samadhiya NK, Namdeo JB (2011) Laboratory model
studies on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed
over stone column-improved soft clay. Geotext Geomembr
2011(29):190–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.
2010.06.004
Dennis JE, Schnabel RB (1996) Numerical methods for
unconstrained optimization and nonlinear equations.
SIAM 168–174
Elshazly H, Elkasabgy M, Elleboudy A (2008a) Effect of inter-
column spacing on soil stresses due to vibro-installed stone
columns: interesting findings. Geotech Geol Eng
26:225–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-007-9159-y
Elshazly HA, Hafez DH, Mossaad ME (2008b) Reliability of
conventional settlement evaluation for circular foundations
on stone columns. Geotech Geol Eng 26:323–334. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10706-007-9169-9
Etezad M, Hanna AM, Ayadat T (2015) Bearing capacity of a
group of stone columns in soft soil. Int J Geomech ASCE.
ISSN 1532-3641/04014043(15)
Fattah MY, Majeed QG (2009) Behaviour of encased floating
stone columns. Eng Technol J 27(7):2009
Fattah MY, Majeed QG (2012) Finite element analysis of geo-
grid encased stone columns. Geotech Geol Eng
30:713–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9488-8
Frikha W, Bouassida M, Canou J (2013) Observed behaviour of
laterally expanded stone column in soft soil. Geotech Geol
Eng 31:739–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-013-
9624-8
Goh ATC, Kulhawy FH, Chua CG (1998) Bayesian neural
network analysis of undrained side resistance of drilled
shafts. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(1):84–93. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241
Golait YS, Satyanarayana V, Raju SSV (2009) Concept of under
reamed cemented stone columns for soft clay ground
improvement. IGC 2009, Guntur
Hassen G, Buhan PD, Abdelkrim M (2010) Finite element
implementation of a homogenized constitutive law for
stone column-reinforced foundation soils, with application
to the design of structures. Comput Geotech
37(2010):40–49
Haykin S (1998) Neural networks: a comprehensive foundation.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs
IS 15284-Part 1 (2003) Design and construction for ground
improvement-Guidelines. Part-1: Stone columns [CED 43:
Soil and foundation engineering], ICS 93.020
Kayri M (2016) Predictive abilities of bayesian regularization
and Levenberg–Marquardt algorithms in artificial neural
networks: a comparative empirical study on social data.
Math Comput Appl 21:20. https://doi.org/10.3390/
mca21020020
Kosti S, Vasovic D (2015) Prediction model for compressive
strength of basic concrete mixture using artificial neural
networks. Neural Comput Appl 26:1005–1024. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00521-014-1763-1
Lee JS, Pande GN (1998) Analysis of stone-column reinforced
Foundations. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
22:1001–1020
Geotech Geol Eng (2018) 36:1845–1861
MacKay DJC (1991) Bayesian model comparison and backprop
nets. Computation and Neural Systems California Institute
of Technology 139-14 Pasadena CA 91125
Malarvizhi SN, Ilampurthi K (2007) Comparative study on the
behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone
column. Soils Found Jpn Geotech Soc 47(5):873–885
Mohanty P, Samanta M (2015) Experimental and numerical
studies on response of the stone column in layered soil. Int J
Geosynth Ground Eng 1:27. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40891-015-0029-z
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2006) Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: numerical evaluation. Geotext Geomembr
24(2006):349–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.
2006.05.001
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2008) Performance of encased
stone columns and design guidelines for construction on
soft clay soils. In: Proceedings of the 4th Asian regional
conference on geosynthetics, June 17–20, Shanghai
Nassaji F, Asakereh A, (2013) Effect of granular bed on beha-
viour of stone column improved ground. Int J Sci Eng
Investig 2(23), December. ISSN: 2251-8843
Neal RM (1992) Connectionist learning of belief networks. Artif
Intell 56(1):71–113
Niroumand H, Kassim KA, Yah CS (2011) Soil improvement by
reinforced stone columns based on experimental work.
EJGE, vol 16, Bund. L., pp 1477–1499
Poorooshasb HB, Meyerhof G (1997) G (1997) Analysis of
behavior of stone columns and lime columns. Comput
Geotech 20(1):47–70
View publication stats
1861
Shivashankar R, Dheerendra Babu MR, Nayak S, Manjunath R
(2010) Stone columns with vertical circumferential nails:
laboratory model study. Geotech Geol Eng 28:695–706.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9329-1
Shivashankar R, Babu MRD, Nayak S, Rajathkumar V (2011)
Experimental studies on behaviour of stone columns in
layered soils. Geotech Geol Eng 29:749–757. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10706-011-9414-0
Six V, Mroueh H, Shahrour I, Bouassida M (2012) Numerical
analysis of elastoplastic behavior of stone column. Found
Geotech Geol Eng 30:813–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10706-012-9500-y
Tabchouche S, Mellas M, Bouassida M (2017) On settlement
prediction of soft clay reinforced by a group of stone col-
umns. Innov Infrastruct Solut 2:1. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s41062-016-0049-0
Taha MR, Firoozi AA (2012) Estimating the clay cohesion by
means of artificial intelligence technique. J Asian Sci Res
2(11):651–657
Vekli M, Aytekin M, Ikizler SB, Calik U (2012) Experimental
and numerical investigation of slope stabilization by stone
columns. Nat Hazards 64:797–820. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11069-012-0272-8
Zhang L, Zhao M, Shi C, Zhao H (2013) Settlement calculation
of composite foundation reinforced with stone columns. Int
J Geomech 13(3):248–256. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000212
123