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

net/publication/233701082

Numerical simulations of stone column installation

Article  in  Canadian Geotechnical Journal · October 2010

DOI: 10.1139/T10-019

CITATIONS READS
44 943

2 authors:

Jorge Castro Minna Karstunen

Universidad de Cantabria Chalmers University of Technology
50 PUBLICATIONS   435 CITATIONS    99 PUBLICATIONS   1,621 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Progressive failure and Post-failure modelling of slopes with Material Point Method View project

Cavity expansion View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jorge Castro on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Numerical simulations of stone column installation

by
Jorge Castro ( )(*) and Minna Karstunen (2)
1

Department of Civil Engineering

University of Strathclyde
John Anderson Building
107 Rottenrow
Glasgow G4 0NG, United Kingdom
Tel.: +44 141 548 3252
Fax: +44 141 553 2066
e-mail: (1)castrogj@unican.es (2)minna.karstunen@strath.ac.uk

(*) Corresponding Author

Date: October 2009

Number of words: 6,257

Number of tables: 3

Number of figures: 19

(*) Current address and affiliation of the corresponding author:

Group of Geotechnical Engineering
Department of Ground Engineering and Materials Science
University of Cantabria
Avda. de Los Castros, s/n
39005 Santander, Spain
Tel.: +34 942 201813
Fax: +34 942 201821
e-mail: castrogj@unican.es

1
ERRATA:

Curve for S-CLAY1S in Figure 5 is not correct.

Corrected Figure 5:

4
S-CLAY1
Effective horizontal stress, σ'x / σ'x0

S-CLAY1S
3

1
rc=0.4 m

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance to column axis, r / rc

That also affects Figure 6 and Figure 7:

4
Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K / K0

S-CLAY1
S-CLAY1S
3

2 K=1

1
K0=0.544
rc=0.4 m

0
0 5 10 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

2.0
Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K / K0

S-CLAY1
S-CLAY1S
1.8 Kirsch (2006) - Field 1
Kirsch (2006) - Field 2

1.6

1.4

1.2
rc=0.4 m

1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Distance to column axis, r / rc

2
Abstract

The paper describes the results of numerical simulations investigating the installation

effects of stone columns in a natural soft clay. The geometry of the problem is

simplified to axial symmetry, considering the installation of one column only. Stone

column installation is modelled as an undrained expansion of a cylindrical cavity. The

excess pore pressures generated in this process are subsequently assumed to dissipate

towards the permeable column. The process is simulated using a finite element code

that allows for large displacements. The properties of the soft clay correspond to

Bothkennar clay, which is modelled using S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S, which are Cam

clay type models that account for anisotropy and destructuration. Stone column

installation alters the surrounding soil. The expansion of the cavity generates excess

pore pressures, increases the horizontal stresses of the soil and most importantly

modifies the soil structure. The numerical simulations performed allow quantitative

assessment of the post installation value of the lateral earth pressure coefficient and the

changes in soil structure caused by column installation. These effects and their influence

on stone column design are discussed.

Keywords: stone columns, installation, numerical modelling, anisotropy,

destructuration.

3
Introduction

Stone columns are a ground improvement technique, which not only increases the

overall strength and stiffness of the foundation system, but also modifies the properties

of the soil surrounding the columns. Design of stone columns is usually based on their

performance as rigid inclusions (Balaam and Booker 1981; Barksdale and Bachus 1983;

Priebe 1995; Castro and Sagaseta 2009) and the alteration caused in the surrounding soil

by column installation is commonly not considered. However, the installation effects,

whether they are positive, negative or negligible, are one of the major concerns for an

accurate design (Egan et al. 2008).

Field measurements (Watts et al. 2000; Watts et al. 2001; Kirsch 2004; Gäb et al. 2007;

Castro 2008) have shown some of the effects of column installation, like the increase of

pore pressures and horizontal stresses, and the remoulding of the surrounding soil

caused by the vibrator penetration. However, based on these measurements it is difficult

to achieve conclusions that can be used in stone column design, because they relate to a

specific case and hence cannot be generalised in a straightforward manner. There have

also been attempts to investigate these effects through physical modelling of the process

by means of centrifuge testing (Lee et al. 2004; Weber et al. 2006), but the soils used

are reconstituted and hence not representative of natural clays.

Numerical modelling is a useful tool that may well help to derive some conclusions or

recommendations of installation effects for column design, if the assumptions made in

the model are validated by experimental measurements. Few attempts (Kirsch 2006;

Guetif et al. 2007) have been made in this field. In both cases, the soil model used was

very simplistic, and not representative of real soil behaviour: elastic-perfectly plastic

4
with a non-associate Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion. Hence, for example, it was not

possible to account for any hardening of the soil due to installation.

In this paper, numerical simulations of installation effects of stone columns are carried

out using two advanced constitutive models: S-CLAY1 (Wheeler et al. 2003) and S-

CLAY1S (Karstunen et al. 2005), which have been especially developed to represent

natural structured soft soils, a common type of soils to be treated with stone columns.

The numerical models account only for pure cavity expansion effects of installation, and

ignore e.g. the shearing and soil disturbance due to the penetration of the poker, the

vibration of the poker, etc. It is, however, thought that the main effect is the cavity

expansion and the advanced soil models allow, for the first time, quantitative

predictions of e.g. the influence of the cavity expansion on earth pressure at rest and the

soil structure.

Numerical model

The finite element code Plaxis v8 (Brinkgreve 2004) was used to develop a numerical

model of a reference problem to study installation effects of stone columns. The

installation of only one stone column was considered to simplify the problem to an

axisymmetric two dimensional geometry. In order to consider a realistic situation,

properties of Bothkennar clay were used for the soft soil. The Bothkennar soft clay test

site has been the subject of a number of comprehensive studies (Géotechnique

Symposium in print 1992). The soil at Bothkennar consists of a firm to stiff silty clay

crust about 1.0 m thick, which is underlain by about 19 m of soft clay. The ground

water level is 1.0 m below the ground surface. Typically to a structured soil the in situ

water content is close to the liquid limit.

5
Stone columns have been applied in Bothkennar clay (Watts et al. 2001; Serridge and

Sarsby 2008) or other Carse clays (Egan et al. 2008). For the numerical model in this

paper, a column length of 10 m is used. The untreated clay underneath is not modelled,

because the installation effects in this part of the soil are not particularly significant and

furthermore, modelling the tip of the column may lead to some numerical instabilities.

The behaviour of Bothkennar clay was modelled using two advanced constitutive

models, namely S-CLAY1 (Wheeler et al. 2003) and S-CLAY1S (Karstunen et al.

2005). S-CLAY1 is a Cam clay type model with an inclined yield surface to model

inherent anisotropy, and a rotational component of hardening to model the development

or erasure of fabric anisotropy during plastic straining. The S-CLAY1S model accounts,

additionally, for interparticle bonding and degradation of bonds, using an intrinsic yield

surface and a hardening law describing destructuration as a function of plastic straining.

The models have been implemented as User-defined soil models in Plaxis.

The values for S-CLAY1 model parameters (soil constants) for Bothkennar clay were

calibrated by McGinty (2006) and are listed in Table 1. Hydraulic conductivity of

Bothkennar clay has been assumed to be anisotropic: the horizontal permeability is

assumed to be twice the vertical one. The initial state variables of Bothkennar clay are

taken from Vogler (2008) (Table 2). He obtained initial void ratios from laboratory tests

(Géotechnique Symposium in print 1992) and the initial inclination of the yield surface,

α 0 , through considering the deposition history (see Wheeler et al. 2003 for details). The

additional parameters for S-CLAY1S, outlined in Table 3, were calibrated by McGinty

(2006). The initial bonding parameter, χ 0 = S t − 1 , agrees with the reported sensitivity

(Géotechnique Symposium in print 1992) of St = 5 − 8 . For this constitutive model the

6
slope of the post yield compression line, λ , corresponds to an intrinsic value, λi , which

can be obtained from oedometer tests on reconstituted samples. In contrast, for S-

CLAY1, the value for λ is determined from oedometer tests on intact soil samples.

The numerical model is 10 m high and 15 m wide (see Figure 1). Parametric studies

were carried out to check how wide the model should be to have a negligible influence

of the outer boundary. A width of 15 m was considered sufficient. Roller boundaries

were assumed on all sides to enable the soil to move freely due cavity expansion. The

finite element mesh is extra fine close to the column cavity, where the installation

effects are expected to be noticeable and mesh sensitivity studies were performed to

confirm the accuracy of the mesh.

Column installation is modelled as the expansion of a cylindrical cavity, which is

considered to occur in undrained conditions, because columns are usually installed in a

short period of time. The expansion of the cavity is modelled as a prescribed

displacement from an initial radius, a0 , to a final one, a f . Although there are other

possibilities to model the expansion of the cavity, such as applying an internal

volumetric strain, a prescribed displacement is superior to the other methods due to

numerical stability, as Kirsch (2006) has already pointed out.

In reality the cylindrical cavity is expanded from an initial cavity radius of zero while

the numerical calculations must necessarily begin with a finite cavity radius, a0 , to have

finite circumferential strains. However, the authors have verified that this restriction

does not pose any inconsistency of the results. Carter et al. (1979) elegantly explain that

in plane strain the solution for expansion from a finite radius will ultimately furnish the

7
solution to the expansion from zero initial radius. For an elastic-perfectly plastic

material, the effects of the cavity expansion are determined by the parameter a 2f − a02 ,

once the limit internal pressure of the cavity has been reached. Carter et al. (1979)

decided to double the cavity size, because after that the internal pressure is within 6 per

cent of the ultimate limit pressure. A further expansion of the cavity was numerically

expensive and the increase gained in the solution accuracy is negligible. In the present

analysis, as the constitutive models used are much more complex, the solution for

doubling the cavity was compared with the solution that quadruples the cavity size.

Both simulations gave almost identical results, and therefore, the comments made for

the elastic-perfectly plastic model are also applicable to the advanced constitutive

models used (S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S). A typical column radius, rc , of 0.4 m was

chosen. Consequently, initial cavity radius of 0.1 m and 0.23 m and final cavity radius

of 0.41 m and 0.46 m were, respectively, used to double and quadruple the size of the

cavity. The expansion of a cavity is assumed to model reasonably well the effects

caused by the installation of bottom feed vibro displacement columns in Bothkennar

clay, as the vibratory action of the probe is expected to have only a small influence on

soft structured soils.

The excess pore pressures generated in the expansion of the cavity are subsequently

assumed to dissipate towards the column and the surface. Since the analysis focuses on

the surrounding soil, there is no need to model the column material and therefore the

cavity is kept as a hole with infinite permeability during the consolidation phase. This

modelling technique has two drawbacks: the infinite permeability of the column and the

lack of interaction between soil and column during consolidation. However, firstly, the

column permeability is high enough in comparison with the soil one to be modelled as

8
infinite. Secondly, the lateral displacement of the soil-column interface after the

installation of the column is pretty small and has only a small effect on the soil

properties. The lateral displacement of the soil-column interface could be represented by

means of a slight relaxation of the prescribed displacement if it were of interest.

To sum up, two calculation phases are performed after the generation of initial stresses:

the expansion of a cavity in undrained conditions followed by consolidation process.

The cavity expansion generates large strains, making necessary to account for large

displacements in the calculation. The “updated mesh” option in Plaxis software allow

for this kind of calculation. Despite the name, a large displacement calculation implies

considerably more than simply updating nodal coordinates (Brinkgreve 2004). This

updated Lagrangian formulation is described by McMeeking & Rice (1975). The co-

rotational rate of Kirchhoff stress (or known as Hill stress rate) is adopted. The details

on the implementation can be found in Van Langen (1991). In addition, the value of the

pore pressures was also updated in each step, even tough it is not particularly important

for this problem. In terms of controlling the solution of the non-linear problem with

Plaxis, the arc-length control was deactivated, the over-relaxation was set to 1.0 and the

step size parameter of the S-CLAY1 model was -0.5 to avoid numerical instabilities

with the User-defined soil model.

Pore pressures

Field measurements (Gäb et al. 2007; Castro 2008) clearly show that pore pressures

immediately increase during vibrator penetration. The pore pressures reach a peak

during column construction and are later on dissipated. The value of these peak pore

pressures and their dissipation are the first installation effect to be analysed.

9
The excess pore pressures generated by column construction, ∆u , are shown in Figure

2 for two different depths. Following common practice, the distance to column axis, r ,

is normalised by the column radius, rc . Because the excess pore pressures increase with

the depth, two different depths, namely 3 and 7 m, were chosen for inspection. The

increase of excess pore pressures with depth has been also measured in field tests

(Castro 2008). The authors reckon that this phenomenon stems from the increase of

undrained shear strength with depth, which can be theoretically proven for an elastic-

perfectly plastic material in plane strain (Randolph et al. 1979). Although other authors

(Guetif et al. 2007) tend to normalise the pore pressures by their initial value, here the

excess pore pressures are normalised by the undrained shear strength, cu , because it

allows for direct comparison between different depths, soil models and field

measurements (Figure 3). The normalised values of the excess pore pressure, ∆u / cu ,

agree very well for all depths with the exception of the dry crust.

The area affected by column installation is constant with depth, and clearly visible in

Figures 2 and 3. In this case, for Bothkennar clay, its value is around 13.5 times the

column radius. This radius of influence depends on the rigidity index, I r , the quotient

between shear apparent modulus and undrained shear strength, G / cu , and given that

both increase with depth in a similar way, linearly with p '0 , the radius of influence is

constant with depth. This is the radius of influence in terms of pore pressures and it may

well be different for other parameters, as it will be seen later on. The radius of influence

where excess pore pressures develop coincides with the extension of the plastic zone,

R , with a soil area that has reached the critical state.

10
The differences between the two constitutive models used, S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S,

are very small; only close to the column, where the destructuration caused by the

expansion of the cavity is most evident, the S-CLAY1S model predicts slightly higher

excess pore pressures than S-CLAY1. Additionally, both models predict a nearly linear

decrease of the pore pressures with the distance to the column axis beyond about five

column radiuses, while the decrease is very steep close to the column. Consequently,

the shapes of the curves do not present a logarithmic decrease of the pore pressure with

the distance to the column axis, as predicted by the cavity expansion theory for an

elastic-perfectly plastic material (Randolph et al. 1979). Furthermore, the radius of

influence, R , using an elastic-perfectly plastic model would be 12.2 rc ( R / rc = I r )

and the maximum value at the cavity wall would be 5 cu ( umax cu = ln I r ) because the

value of I r for Bothkennar clay in this numerical model is about 150.

To highlight the influence of the soil anisotropy in the generation of excess pore

pressures during stone column construction, the Modified Cam-Clay (MCC) model was

also used, setting the initial anisotropy and the parameters of the rotational hardening

law equal to zero. Close to the cavity wall, the excess pore pressures are higher than

predicted by S-CLAY1, but they decrease quicker with the radius, resulting in a radius

of influence slightly higher than 11 column radiuses. The values calculated using the

MCC model were also used compared with the semi-analytical solution of Collins and

Yu (1996), showing a good agreement.

The numerical model suggests excess pore pressures in the same range as the values

measured in the field (Egan et al. 2008; Serridge and Sarsby 2008). However, the scatter

of the limited field measurements and the lack of detailed information make a thorough

11
comparison impossible. The field measurements in overconsolidated clays (OCR>2)

(Castro 2008) give clearly lower values than in normally or slightly overconsolidated

clays (OCR<2) and therefore do not offer suitable comparisons. Field measurements

during pile driving (Poulos and Davis 1980) recorded higher excess pore pressures for

sensitive marine clay than for clays of low-medium sensitivity. However, the

differences are larger than computed in this case.

Pore pressure dissipation is outlined in Figure 4 corresponding to a depth of 7 m with S-

CLAY1 model. Dissipations at other depths and for S-CLAY1S follow similar trends as

the example drawn. The peak excess pore pressures generated near the column during

the undrained expansion of the cavity are quickly dissipated towards the column, i.e.

towards the internal permeable boundary in the numerical model. In fact, as the column

installation is not perfectly in undrained conditions and takes some time, field

measurements are expected to be more similar to the short time isochrones than to the

curve that corresponds to the undrained situation. For Bothkennar clay, which has a

very low permeability, the peak excess pore pressure reduces from roughly 120 kPa at 7

m depth to half, 60 kPa, in only 1 day. The results are in agreement with the

observations by Serridge and Sarsby (2008), although direct comparison is not possible

due to differences in column lengths. According to the numerical results excess pore

pressures need over 100 days to be fully dissipated owing to the low permeability of

Bothkennar clay.

Lateral earth pressures

Column installation evidently generates an increase in the horizontal stresses of the

surrounding soil. In fact, the positive effects of column installation in soft soils are due

12
to the increase of effective horizontal stresses after the consolidation process that

follows the expansion of the cavity. For example, Priebe (1995) already assumed in his

analysis a value of the soil lateral earth pressure coefficient of 1, which is higher that the

initial value at rest for most soils. The lateral earth pressures clearly influence the

improvement factor achieved with a stone column treatment since it gives the amount of

lateral support for the column and influences its yielding. The K value is therefore an

important state parameter in stone column design.

The predicted effective horizontal stresses after consolidation are shown in Figure 5.

They are normalised by their initial values to remove the influence of the depth. S-

CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S show very different responses. The destructuration that takes

places near the column, which can only be modelled using S-CLAY1S, limits

significantly the increase of horizontal stresses. The plot of the coefficient of lateral

earth pressure (Figure 6) additionally includes the influence of the vertical stresses,

which also change, mainly close to the column. Between 4 and 8 column radiuses from

the column axis, the curves show a plateau with a nearly constant value of the lateral

earth pressure coefficient. This will be the value that should be used for the stone

column design, as long as the pore pressures generated during column construction have

been dissipated. With S-CLAY1 the post installation lateral earth pressure coefficient is

nearly 1 while this value is clearly lower using S-CLAY1S, which illustrates that the

destructuration caused by column installation has a negative effect not only in the

undrained shear strength, but also in the increase of the lateral confinement of the

column.

13
As far as the authors are aware, the only published field measurements of the post

installation lateral earth pressure coefficient were done by Kirsch (2004, 2006) in two

different field sites. The soil of the first field site was a silty clay with a relatively high

initial lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest, K 0 = 0.91 , while the second trial was

done in a silty sand with K 0 = 0.57 . The columns were constructed by the bottom feed

vibro displacement method and their diameter was 0.8 m. Despite the differences

between the two field sites, the same range of values and the same pattern of variation

with the distance to the column axis of the normalised lateral earth pressure coefficient

were found. The values calculated with the numerical model presented in this paper for

the Bothkennar clay field site have very similar trends (Figure 7).

Destructuration

The main goal of using an advanced constitutive model such as S-CLAY1S was to

study the installation effects of stone columns in the structure of the surrounding soil.

Some field measurements (Watts et al. 2000; Serridge and Sarsby 2008; Castro 2008)

alert on the reduction of the undrained shear strength caused by the installation of vibro

displacement columns in sensitive soft soils. Therefore, it would be very desirable to be

able to account for this effect in the column design.

Figure 8 shows the predicted decrease of the bonding parameter χ of S-CLAY1S, as a

result of column installation, which is directly linked to the sensitivity of the soil. The

reduction in the values suggests strain softening, from a peak value of the undrained

strength to the respective remoulded value when χ is equal to zero. Additional

numerical studies made demonstrated that the initial value of the bonding parameter has

no influence on the process, and therefore the bonding parameter is normalized by its

14
initial value in Figure 8. The major changes are limited to the area near the column, and

for example, beyond 4 column radiuses, the reduction is within 10 per cent. The results

suggest that the main part of the destructuration is caused by the undrained expansion of

the cavity and the consolidation process has little influence. In a sensitive soil, the

destructuration caused just immediately after column installation will reduce the

apparent undrained shear strength of the soil, but during the consolidation its value will

increase again, as a consequence of the increase of the mean effective stress and the

limited destructuration caused during consolidation.

Although it is difficult to have extensive and reliable field data on the destructuration or

reduction in undrained shear strength, Roy et al. (1981) measured a good set of values

immediately after pile driving in soft sensitive marine clay, namely Saint-Alban clay,

and report the variation of the normalized in situ vane strength with the radial distance.

The decrease of the undrained shear strength measured in the field is compared with the

decrease of the bonding parameter in Figure 9. Despite the scatter of the field

measurements, the agreement is very good. Contrary to pile driving, where the main

interest is on the soil at the pile wall, in the case of stone columns, the average value

between columns is most important. For practical purposes in stone column design, a

reduction of 15-20% of the initial value can be used for normal stone column spacings.

Similar reductions of the in situ vane strength (15%) were measured in the middle of

piles groups (Fellenius and Samson 1976; Bozozuk et al. 1978). Roy et al. (1981)

concluded that the radius of influence of the destructuration is smaller than the radius of

influence of the excess pore pressures. The numerical results illustrate that this is true

for practical purposes because the destructuration developed in the outer part of the

critical state area is negligible.

15
In the comparison shown in Figure 9, the influence of the effective mean pressure on the

undrained shear strength is not taken into account in the bonding parameter. The

variations of the mean pressures are shown in Figure 10. An estimation of the undrained

shear strength immediately after column installation is derived from the values of these

mean pressures, given the linear variation of cu with p ' OCRα and assuming an

approximate value of α = 0.7 (Figure 11).

The values predicted by S-CLAY1 are also plotted in Figure 11 to highlight the

influence of destructuration and changes in effective mean pressure. The decrease of the

undrained shear strength close to the cavity wall is caused by the loss of apparent

bonding, while in contrast beyond 5 column radiuses, the slight decrease of the

undrained shear strength is due to the decrease of the effective mean pressure.

Obviously, the relative relevance of both factors depends on the soil sensitivity, which

was assumed 6 in this analysis.

As it was mentioned above, after consolidation the effective mean pressure increases

(Figure 12) and consequently the undrained shear strength (Figure 13). The expansion

of the cavity wall increases considerably the effective horizontal stresses after

consolidation (Figure 5) and also then the effective mean pressure, which exceeds the

initial overconsolidation pressure within 5 column radiuses.

The undrained shear strength after consolidation is estimated in the same way as for the

undrained case. Figure 13 confirms that for a non-sensitive soil, the undrained shear

strength increases after the dissipation of the excess pore pressures generated during the

16
cavity expansion. However, the undrained shear strength of a sensitive soil can still be

lower than the initial value. The increase of the undrained shear strength after

consolidation predicted by the MCC model is also drawn in Figure 13 and is

comparable with the results obtained by Randolph et al. (1979) for Boston Blue clay.

The results of both calculations are very similar and the maximum value at the cavity

wall is the same (1.6), although the specific shape of both curves is slightly different.

Anisotropy

The initial cross-anisotropy of Bothkennar clay is also altered by stone column

installation, which changes the inclination of the yield surface (Figure 14). No

distinction is made between S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S because both models predict the

same results when dealing with anisotropy. The area of influence is limited to 10

column radiuses and the consolidation process only modifies the anisotropy of the

surrounding soil nearer than 5 column radiuses. Although Figure 9 tries to show the

erasure of cross-anisotropy, the scalar parameter of the inclination of the yield surface,

α , increases near the column due to the development of anisotropy in other direction.

Therefore, it is more convenient to plot the components of the fabric tensor, α (Figure

15). Because of the axial symmetry, polar coordinates are used. The decrease of α z

from 1.36 to 0.86 at the cavity wall after consolidation shows clearly the erasure of

cross-anisotropy. On the other hand, the lateral strains caused by the cavity expansion

lead to an increase of α r while αθ keeps roughly constant, what shows the

development of anisotropy towards planes that are perpendicular to the radial direction.

This rotation of the yield surface from the vertical axis to the radial one is shown in

Figure 16, where the inclination vector is viewed from the isotropic axis

( α r = αθ = α z ). As one gets closer to the cavity wall, the yield surface rotates towards

17
the radial axis following a nearly straight line. The rotation gets greater after

consolidation. The rotation along a nearly straight line is what causes the slight decrease

of the scalar parameter of the inclination of the yield surface, α , and its later increase.

One of the special features of the S-CLAY1 model is that at critical states it predicts a

unique inclination of the yield curve. This explains the constant value of anisotropy near

the column after the undrained expansion of the cavity. During the undrained expansion

of the cavity, if there are not any vertical displacements, the effective intermediate stress

is equal to the average value of the effective major and minor stresses,

σ '2 = (σ '1 +σ '3 ) 2 . So, at critical state the stress ratio vector is

[σ 'r σ 'θ σ ' z ] = [1 + M / 2 1 − M / 2 1] and the inclination vector is

[α r αθ α z ] = [1 + M / 6 1 − M / 6 1] , what agrees quite well with the calculated

values but for the small discrepancies caused by the vertical displacements of the

numerical model. The scalar anisotropy parameter, α , is 3M / 6 for this stress path. It

is noted that for triaxial compression α = M / 3 at critical state. The calculated value

(0.5) is higher than the theoretical one (0.4) because α r (1.29) is slightly higher than the

theoretically predicted (1.23) for plane strain conditions along the vertical direction.

These numerical simulations predict a systematic distortion of the soil’s fabric after

column installation as has been measured in the field by Bond and Jardine (1991) after

the installation of closed-ended steel piles in heavily overconsolidated London clay.

Fellenius and Samson (1976) also measured the inclination of bedding planes that were

initially horizontal after the installation of displacement piles in sensitive clay. As a

rough comparison, Fellenius and Samson (1976) measured an inclination of 27º of the

initially horizontal bedding planes for soil samples at a radial distance of 4 pile radiuses,

18
and for that distance the numerical simulation estimates an inclination of 39º. Although

the comparison is for different soils, it seems that the values measured in the field are

somehow lower than the values computed numerically for an “ideal” process of cavity

expansion.

Stress paths

The stress paths followed during the undrained expansion of the cavity help to

understand some of the installation effects commented above. The stress paths of a

point near the cavity wall (at r = 1.05 r0 and 7 m depth) are plotted in a p-q diagram and

in the π plane (view from the hydrostatic axis, σ 'r = σ 'θ = σ ' z ) in Figure 17.

During the initial elastic part, the stress paths follow a straight line, vertical in the p-q

diagram and horizontal in the π plane because the increment of the effective vertical

stress is equal to the average value of the increments of the effective radial and hoop

stresses. In this elastic part, there are not any changes of pore pressure and soil structure.

When the yield surface is inclined (S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S), it is reached earlier than

for the MCC model, this is clearly visible in the π plane and leads to a rotation of the

yield surface towards the radial axis, and changes in anisotropy. The excess pore

pressures generated during this rotation of the yield surface are small (p-q diagram).

Once the yield surface is reached, the stress path bend towards the critical state point

that is in the yield surface at the maximum deviatoric stress and in the horizontal line

aligned with the origin in the π plane. Almost all the excess pore pressure is generated

after reaching this point.

19
When soil destructuration is included (S-CLAY1S), the yield surface shrinks towards

the intrinsic one, and therefore the stress paths make a small loop (p-q diagram) and go

along a horizontal line towards the origin (π plane). If Figure 16 is compared with

Figure 17 (b), it is seen how the stress path followed makes the yield surface rotate

towards the radial axis.

Ground displacements

Although the ground displacements caused by column construction are not particularly

relevant for the stone column design, they are briefly commented in this section for the

sake of completeness. The radial displacements after the undrained expansion of the

cavity are shown in Figure 18. They do not depend on the soil model and the theoretical

solution is well known in plane strain conditions along the vertical direction. It is easily

obtained applying the conservation of volume:

[1] r 2 − r02 = a 2f − a02 = rc2

where r is the location of a point initially situated at r0 .

The values shown in Figure 18 are taken from a depth of 7 m but it is observed that

vertical displacements have a small influence below 3 m depth. The accuracy of the

numerical model is revealed when compared with the theoretical solution. The results

match very well but for the small differences derived from the situation of the outer

boundary that imposes a null radial displacement at r = 15 m. The radial displacements

that take place during consolidation are very small and therefore they are not analyzed.

The vertical displacements at the surface are clearly more interesting and may be of

interest when dealing with footings (Egan et al. 2008). The undrained heave is

independent of the soil model and it is shown in Figure 19. Near the column, there are

20
little differences depending on the initial cavity radius, a0 , that is chosen. The values

shown in Figure 19 are for a0 = 0.1 m. The Shallow Strain Path Method (SSPM)

(Sagaseta and Whittle 2001) predicts the ground movements caused by the installation

of driven (or jacked) piles in clay and therefore it is also plotted for comparison. The

results match reasonably well. The numerical model predicts slightly lower values of

the heave close to the pile because the cavity is expanded from a finite radius. On the

other hand, the numerical model computes a little higher heave at the outer part because

the model is not infinite in extension.

The heave after consolidation is still important (Figure 19). As expected, the S-

CLAY1S model gives a greater settlement during consolidation than the S-CLAY1

model. It is worth to remember that these values are for the installation of only one

column and group effects are not considered.

21
Conclusions

Finite element simulations were done to quantitatively study some of the installation

effects of stone columns in structured soft soils. The installation of only one column in

the Bothkennar soft clay was used as a reference problem. Two advanced constitutive

soil models were used for Bothkennar clay, namely S-CLAY1 and S-CLAY1S, what

made possible an accurate estimation of the installation effects.

Stone column installation, which was modelled as the expansion of a cavity in

undrained conditions, generates excess pore pressures in the surrounding soil that are

later dissipated towards the column. The excess pore pressures increase with the depth

in a similar way to the undrained shear strength. On the contrary, the radius of

influence, i.e. the area where the pore pressures increase, is constant with depth, in this

case it is equal to 13.5 times the column radius.

Additionally, the installation increases the horizontal stresses and after the excess pore

pressure dissipation, the lateral earth pressure coefficient is roughly 1.4 times the initial

value at rest, what means an increase of the column lateral constraint and therefore of

the improvement factor.

The destructuration caused by column installation erases all the interparticle bonding at

the column interface. However, the destructuration is limited to the soil very close to the

column, nearer than 4-5 column radiuses for Bothkennar clay. The average reduction of

the undrained shear strength for normal stone column spacings may be assumed as

roughly as 15-20%. Finally, the initial horizontal anisotropy changes systematically

towards planes perpendicular to the radial axis.

22
Acknowledgements

The work presented was carried out as part of a Marie Curie Research Training Network

“Advanced Modelling of Ground Improvement on Soft Soils (AMGISS)” (MRTN-CT-

2004-512120) supported by the EC through the programme “Human Resources and

Mobility” and Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways project on

“Modelling Installation Effects in Geotechnical Engineering (GEO-INSTALL)” (PIAP-

GA-2009-230638). The first author was a Research Fellow appointed by the AMGISS

network and received also a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Education (Ref. FPU

AP 2005-0195).

23
References

Balaam, N.P., and Booker, J.R. 1981. Analysis of rigid rafts supported by granular

piles. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics,

5(4): 379-403. doi:10.1002/nag.1610050405.

Barksdale, R.D., and Bachus, R.C. 1983. Design and construction of stone columns.

National Technical Information Service Report FHWA/RD-83/026, Federal

Highway Administration, Springfield, Virginia.

Bond, A.J., and Jardine, R.J. 1991. Effects of installing displacement piles in a high

OCR clay. Géotechnique, 41(3): 341-363.

Bozozuk, M., Fellenius, B.H., and Samson, L. 1978. Soil disturbance from pile driving

in sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15(3): 346-361. doi:10.1139/t78-

032.

Brinkgreve, R.B.J. 2004. Plaxis 2D - Version 8. Plaxis, Delft.

Carter, J.P., Randolph, M.F., and Wroth, C.P. 1979. Stress and pore pressure changes in

clay during and after the expansion of a cylindrical cavity. International Journal for

Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 3(4): 305-322.

doi:10.1002/nag.1610030402.

Castro, J. 2008. Análisis teórico de la consolidación y deformación alrededor de

columnas de grava. PhD Thesis, University of Cantabria, Santander, Spain.

Castro, J., and Sagaseta, C. 2009. Consolidation around stone columns. Influence of

column deformation. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in

Geomechanics, 33(7): 851-877. doi:10.1002/nag.745.

Collins, I.F., and Yu, H.S. 1996. Undrained cavity expansions in critical state soils.

International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 20(7):

489-516.

24
Egan, D., Scott, W., and McCabe, B. 2008. Installation effects of vibro replacement

stone columns in soft clay. In Geotechnics of Soft Soils – Focus on Ground

Improvement, Glasgow, 3-5 September 2008. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 23-

29.

Fellenius, B.H., and Samson, L. 1976. Testing of drivability of concrete piles and

disturbance to sensitive clay. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 13(1): 139-160.

Gäb, M., Schweiger, H.F., Thurner, R., and Adam, D. 2007. Field trial to investigate the

performance of a floating stone column foundation. In Proceedings of the 14th

European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid, 24-

27 September 2007. Millpress, Amsterdam, pp. 1311-1316.

Géotechnique Symposium in print. 1992. Bothkennar soft clay test site: characterisation

and lessons learned. Géotechnique, 42(2).

Guetif, Z., Bouassida, M,. and Debats, J.M. 2007. Improved soft clay characteristics due

to stone column installation. Computers and Geotechnics, 34(2): 104-111.

doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.09.008.

Karstunen, M., Krenn, H., Wheeler, S.J., Koskinen, M., and Zentar, R. 2005. Effect of

anisotropy and destructuration on the behavior of Murro test embankment. ASCE

International Journal of Geomechanics, 5(2): 87-97.

Kirsch, F. 2004. Experimentelle und numerische Untersuchungen zum Tragverthalten

von Rüttelstopfsäulengruppen. Dissertation, Technische Universität Braunschweig.

Kirsch, F. 2006. Vibro stone column installation and its effect on ground improvement.

In Proceedings of Numerical Modelling of Construction Processes in Geotechnical

Engineering for Urban Environment, Bochum, Germany, 23-24 March 2006. Taylor

and Francis, London, pp. 115-124.

25
Lee, F.H., Juneja, A., and Tan, T.S. 2004. Stress and pore pressure changes due to sand

compaction pile installation in soft clay. Géotechnique, 54(1): 1-16.

doi:10.1680/geot.54.1.1.36331.

McGinty, K. 2006. The stress–strain behaviour of Bothkennar clay. PhD thesis,

University of Glasgow.

McMeeking, R.M., and Rice, J.R. 1975. Finite-element formulations for problems of

large elastic-plastic deformation. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 11:

606-616.

Poulos, H.G., and Davis, E.H. 1980. Pile foundation analysis and design. John Wiley

and Sons, New York.

Priebe, H.J. 1995. Design of vibro replacement. Ground Engineering, 28(10): 31-37.

Randolph, M.F., Carter, J.P., and Wroth, C.P. 1979. Driven piles in clay-the effects of

installation and subsequent consolidation. Géotechnique, 29(4): 361-393.

Roy, M., Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F., and La Rochelle, P. 1981. Behaviour of a sensitive

clay during pile driving. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 18(2): 67-85.

Sagaseta, C., and Whittle, A.J. 2001. Prediction of ground movements due to pile

driving in clay. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,

127(1): 55-66.

Van Langen, H. 1991. Numerical analysis of soil-structure interaction. PhD thesis, Delft

University of Technology.

Vogler, U. 2008. Numerical modelling of deep mixing using volume averaging

technique. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Strathclyde,

Glasgow.

Watts, K.S., Chown, R.C., and Serridge, C.J. 2001. Vibro stone columns in soft clay: A

trial to study the influence of column installation on foundation performance. In

26
 Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

Geotechnical Engineering, Istanbul, 28-31 August 2001. Taylor and Francis,

London, pp. 1867-1870.

Watts, K.S., Johnson, D., Wood, L.A., and Saadi, A. 2000. An instrumented trial of

vibro ground treatment supporting strip foundations in a variable fill. Géotechnique,

50(6): 699-708.

Weber, T.M., Laue, J., and Springman, S.M. 2006. Centrifuge modelling of sand

compaction piles in soft clay under embankment load. In Proceedings of the 6th

International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Hong Kong, 4-6

August 2006. Taylor and Francis, London, pp. 603-608.

Wheeler, S.J., Naatanen, A., Karstunen, K., and Lojander, M. 2003. An anisotropic

elastoplastic model for soft clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 40(2): 403-418.

doi:10.1139/t02-119.

27
List of symbols

a Absolute effectiveness of destructuration in S-CLAY1S

a0 Initial cavity radius

af Final cavity radius

b Relative effectiveness of destructuration in S-CLAY1S

cu Undrained shear strength

e0 Initial void ratio (state parameter)

G Shear modulus

I r = G / cu Rigidity index

K Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

kh Permeability in horizontal direction

kv Permeability in vertical direction

M Slope of the critical state line

p' Effective mean stress

p 'm Preconsolidation pressure (state parameter)

p 'mi = p 'm (1 + χ ) Intrinsic preconsolidation pressure (state parameter)

q Deviatoric stress

r Distance from column axis

rc Column radius

St Sensitivity

u Pore pressure

∆u Excess pore pressure

28
α Inclination of the yield surface (state parameter)

β Relative effectiveness of rotational hardening in S-CLAY1

χ Amount of bonding in S-CLAY1S (state parameter)

δ Displacement

γ Unit weight

κ Slope of swelling line from e − ln p ' diagram

λ Slope of post yield compression line from e − ln p ' diagram

λi Slope of intrinsic post yield compression line from e − ln p ' diagram

µ Absolute effectiveness of rotational hardening in S-CLAY1

ν' Poisson’s ratio

σ 'x Effective horizontal stress

OCR Overconsolidation ratio

POP Pre-overburden pressure

29
Table captions

Table 1. S-CLAY1 parameters for Bothkennar clay.

Table 2. S-CLAY1 initial state variables.

Table 3. S-CLAY1S additional parameters.

30
Table 1. S-CLAY1 parameters for Bothkennar clay.

depth γ kh kv κ ν' λ M µ β
3
(m) (kN/m ) (m/s) (m/s)
0-1 18.0 2.8×10 1.4×10-9 0.02 0.2 0.48 1.4 30 0.94
-9

1-10 16.5 1.4×10-9 0.7×10-9 0.02 0.2 0.48 1.4 30 0.94

31
Table 2. S-CLAY1 initial state variables.

depth e0 α 0 OCR POP K0

(m) (kPa)
0-1 1.1 0.539 - 30 1.35
1-10 2 0.539 1.5 - 0.544

32
Table 3. S-CLAY1S additional parameters.

depth λi χ0 a b
(m)
0-1 0.18 5 11 0.2
1-10 0.18 5 11 0.2

33
Figure captions

Figure 1. Model geometry and finite element mesh.

Figure 2. Excess pore pressures generated by stone column installation: (a) at 3 m depth

and (b) at 7 m depth.

Figure 3. Normalised excess pore pressures generated by stone column installation.

Figure 4. Isochrones of pore pressure dissipation for S-CLAY1 at 7 m depth.

Figure 5. Effective horizontal stresses after consolidation.

Figure 6. Increase of lateral earth pressure coefficient due to column installation.

Figure 7. Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficient computed numerically and

measured in field after column installation.

Figure 8. Destructuration caused by column installation.

Figure 9. Destructuration computed numerically compared with field measurements

after pile driving.

Figure 10. Effective mean pressures after column installation at 7 m depth.

Figure 11. Decrease of the undrained shear strength after column/pile installation.

Figure 12. Effective mean pressures after consolidation at 7 m depth.

Figure 13. Estimated undrained shear strength after consolidation.

Figure 14. Variation of the inclination of the yield surface due to column installation.

Figure 15. Changes in anisotropy caused by column installation.

Figure 16. Rotation of the yield surface caused by column installation.

Figure 17. Stress paths during undrained cavity expansion near the cavity wall

(at r = 1.05 r0 and 7 m depth): (a) MCC ; (b) S-CLAY1 and (c) S-CLAY1S.

Figure 18. Radial displacement after undrained expansion of the cavity.

Figure 19. Surface heave caused by column installation.

34
Figure 1. Model geometry and finite element mesh.

15 m

Upper crust

a0
Bothkennar clay

10 m

af - a0

35
Figure 2. Excess pore pressures generated by stone column installation: (a) at 3 m depth

and (b) at 7 m depth.

80
S-CLAY1
S-CLAY1S
Excess pore pressure, ∆u (kPa)

60

40

20
rc=0.4 m

0
0 5 10 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

(a)

160
S-CLAY1
140
S-CLAY1S
Excess pore pressure, ∆u (kPa)

120

100

80

60

40

20
rc=0.4 m
0
0 5 10 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

(b)

36
Figure 3. Normalised excess pore pressures generated by stone column installation.

5
Normalised excess pore pressure, ∆u /cu MCC
S-CLAY1
4 S-CLAY1S

1
rc=0.4 m

0
0 5 10 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

37
Figure 4. Isochrones of pore pressure dissipation for S-CLAY1 at 7 m depth.

120
rc=0.4 m
Excess pore pressure, ∆u (kPa)
100
Undrained
80

1 day
60

5 days
40

20 days
20
100 days
0
0 5 10 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

38
Figure 5. Effective horizontal stresses after consolidation.

4
Effective horizontal stress, σ'x / σ'x0 S-CLAY1
S-CLAY1S
3

1
rc=0.4 m

0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance to column axis, r / rc

39
Figure 6. Increase of lateral earth pressure coefficient due to column installation.

Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K / K0 S-CLAY1

S-CLAY1S
3

2 K=1

1
K0=0.544
rc=0.4 m

0
0 5 10 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

40
Figure 7. Comparison of lateral earth pressure coefficient computed numerically and

measured in field after column installation.

2.0
Lateral earth pressure coefficient, K / K0

S-CLAY1
S-CLAY1S
1.8 Kirsch (2006) - Field 1
Kirsch (2006) - Field 2

1.6

1.4

1.2
rc=0.4 m

1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25

Distance to column axis, r / rc

41
Figure 8. Destructuration caused by column installation.

1.0
rc=0.4 m

0.8
Bonding parameter, χ / χ0

0.6

0.4

0.2 Undrained situation

After consolidation

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance to column axis, r / rc

42
Figure 9. Destructuration computed numerically compared with field measurements

after pile driving.

1.2

rc
Bonding parameter, (χ+1) / (χ0+1)
Undrained shear strength, cu/cu0

1.0

0.8

Numerical simulation
0.6 Roy et al. (1981) - Pile 4
Roy et al. (1981) - Pile 5
Roy et al. (1981) - Pile 2

0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

43
Figure 10. Effective mean pressures after column installation at 7 m depth.

60
p'm

Effective mean pressures (kPa) 50

OCR0=1.5
χ0=5
40
p'

30

S-CLAY1
20 S-CLAY1S

10 p'mi
rc=0.4 m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

44
Figure 11. Decrease of the undrained shear strength after column/pile installation.

1.2

rc
Undrained shear strength, cu/cu0

1.0

0.8

Estimated S-CLAY1
Estimated S-CLAY1S
0.6 Roy et al. (1981) - Pile 4
Roy et al. (1981) - Pile 5
Roy et al. (1981) - Pile 2

0.4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

45
Figure 12. Effective mean pressures after consolidation at 7 m depth.

90
OCR0=1.5 S-CLAY1
80
χ0=5 S-CLAY1S
Effective mean pressures (kPa)

70

60
p'm
50

40 p'

30

20

10 p'mi
rc=0.4 m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

46
Figure 13. Estimated undrained shear strength after consolidation.

1.8
rc=0.4 m
Undrained shear strength, cu/cu0 MCC
1.6 S-CLAY1
S-CLAY1S

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

47
Figure 14. Variation of the inclination of the yield surface due to column installation.

0.55
Inclination of the yield surface, α α0=0.539

0.50

0.45

0.40

0.35 Undrained situation

rc=0.4 m
After consolidation

0.30
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance to column axis, r / rc

48
Figure 15. Changes in anisotropy caused by column installation.

1.5

1.4 αz0=1.36

1.3
αz
Inclination of the yield surface, αi

1.2

1.1

1.0
αr
0.9
αr0=αθ0=0.82
0.8
αθ
0.7
Undrained situation
0.6 rc=0.4 m After consolidation

0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Distance to column axis, r / rc

49
Figure 16. Rotation of the yield surface caused by column installation.

αz
1.45 Undrained situation
After consolidation

1.30

1.0α0 1.15
0.7α0

αθ αr

50
Figure 17. Stress paths during undrained cavity expansion near the cavity wall

(at r = 1.05 r0 and 7 m depth): (a) MCC ; (b) S-CLAY1 and (c) S-CLAY1S.

2
σz' / cu
√3
CSL
p'
q / cu

p
1

Note: Total stress values 1

K0 do not include
ambient pore pressure
2 √3
0 σθ' / cu σr' / cu
0 2 4 6 8

p / cu , p' / cu

(a) MCC

2
√3 σz' / cu
CSL p'
q / cu

p
1

Note: Total stress values 1

K0
2 √3
do not include
ambient pore pressure
0 σθ' / cu σr' / cu
0 2 4 6 8

p / cu , p' / cu

(b) S-CLAY1

2
Note: Total stress values σz' / cu0
√3 do not include
CSL ambient pore pressure
q / cu0

p
1
p'

K0 1
2 √3
0 σr' / cu0
0 2 4 6 8 σθ' / cu0

p / cu0 , p' / cu0

(c) S-CLAY1S

51
Figure 18. Radial displacement after undrained expansion of the cavity.

1.0

Undrained situation
Plane strain at Constant Volume
0.8
Radial displacement, δr / rc

0.6

0.4

0.2

rc
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

52
 Figure 19. Surface heave caused by column installation.

0.4
Undrained situation
SSPM
Vertical displacement, δz / rc

0.3 After consolidation (S-CLAY1)

After consolidation (S-CLAY1S)

0.2

0.1

rc

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Distance to column axis, r / rc

53

View publication stats