Small Stone-Column Groups: Mechanisms of Deformation at

Serviceability Limit State

Bryan A. McCabe1 and Micheál M. Killeen2

Abstract: Stone columns are a popular form of ground improvement that can be applied to a variety of foundation solutions involving soft soil
deposits. Many design methods are based on an assumption that columns with a length-to-diameter ratio greater than 4 bulge uniformly along
their length. This mode of deformation is not valid for small groups of columns in which interaction between individual columns and the footing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

gives rise to more complex behavior. The deformational behavior of stone columns at serviceability limit state is of utmost importance, because
settlement rather than bearing capacity criteria are generally more onerous in soft soils. The results of some high-quality laboratory studies have
been informative in this respect, but the extrapolation of results from small-scale tests comes with the caveats associated with single-gravity
laboratory testing. The FEM, in combination with advanced constitutive models, can provide a link between the deformational behavior and
settlement performance of discrete column groups at working stress levels. A series of analyses was conducted to examine the influence of key
design parameters such as column length, spacing, and the number of columns. The influence of a stiff crust was also examined, because the
reference soil profile adopted for these analyses was that of the well-characterized Bothkennar test site. The following three modes of deforma-
tion were identified by examining the distribution of stress and strain within columns and the surrounding soil: individual punching, block
punching, and bulging. Individual and block punching developed in short or closely spaced columns, whereas block punching was more preva-
lent in larger groups. Bulging develops in long, widely spaced columns and generally occurs at the point of lowest lateral restraint. In addition,
novel parameters referred to as compression and punching ratios were developed to validate the in-depth analysis and identify the principal
design parameters that influence the behavior of small groups of stone columns. The results indicate that the mode of deformation is governed
by column spacing and length rather than the number of columns. This finding is important, because it indicates that settlement design methods
that are developed for large groups of columns are applicable to discrete groups at similar spacings and lengths. It was also observed that the
influence of the stiff crust forces bulging to occur deeper and might have led authors in the past to suggest the existence of a critical length.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000700. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Footings; Stone columns; Deformational behavior.

Introduction
The vibro replacement stone-column technique is a popular form of
ground improvement that can be used to enhance the strength and
stiffness properties of ground intended to support large loaded areas
(e.g., floor slabs, embankments) or small loaded areas (e.g., foot-
ings, strips). Bearing capacity and settlement requirements can be
satisfied by appropriately choosing the area replacement in plan and
treatment depth. These factors, and the group size, dictate the mech-
anisms by which columns behave.
The seminal work by Hughes and Withers (1974) on small-scale
physical models identified two modes of deformation for isolated
stone columns, punching and bulging, with a transition from the for-
mer to the latter mechanism as the column length-to-diameter ratio
increased beyond 4. The authors also postulated that column bulg-
ing can be idealized as a uniform cylindrical expansion, which is a
1
Lecturer, College of Engineering and Informatics, National Univ. of
Ireland, Galway H91 HX31, Ireland (corresponding author). E-mail:
bryan.mccabe@nuigalway.ie
2
Geotechnical Engineer, Arup, Ringsend Road, Dublin D04 T6X0,
Ireland; formerly, Research Student, College of Engineering and
Informatics, National Univ. of Ireland, Galway H91 HX31, Ireland.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 2, 2014; approved
on March 23, 2016; published online on October 5, 2016. Discussion pe-
riod open until March 5, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
hypothesis that forms the basis of many analytical design methods,
for both bearing capacity and settlement prediction [e.g., Priebe
(1995); Castro and Sagaseta (2009), Pulko et al. (2011)]. However,
Muir Wood et al. (2000) found that the behavior of small clusters of
columns supporting footings is far more complex than that of an iso-
lated column. Interaction between the footing and individual columns
results in a spatial variation in the restraint experienced by columns
beneath the footing; that is, the level of restraint reduces toward the
footing edge. Muir Wood et al. (2000) conducted a series of labora-
tory tests to examine the influence of column diameter, length, and
spacing on the load-transfer mechanism of small groups of stone col-
umns. The deformed shape of model stone columns was examined at
ultimate conditions using an exhumation technique that uncovered
the following four modes of deformation: punching, bulging, bend-
ing, and shearing. Punching was most pronounced in closely spaced
columns, whereas long, widely spaced columns tended to bulge.
The deformational behavior at working stress levels is of
utmost importance because settlement criteria, rather than bear-
ing capacity, generally govern foundation design in soft soils
(Priebe 1976). McKelvey et al. (2004) conducted a series of labora-
tory experiments to examine the deformation of columns at opera-
tional stress levels within a transparent material with clay-like
properties. Output from three miniature pressure cells was used to
ascertain stress-concentration ratios, defined as the quotient of ver-
tical stress in columns and the surrounding soil ðs 0col =s 0soil Þ, and
they were correlated with observations of deformed shape. At low
applied loads, longer columns bulged and carried a larger propor-
tion of the load ðs 0col =s 0soil  4Þ than shorter columns, which

© ASCE 04016114-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 punched into the underlying soil ðs 0col =s 0soil  2Þ. However,
stress-concentration ratios for both long and short columns tended
toward a similar value ðs 0col =s 0soil  3Þ at higher applied loads
(i.e., ultimate conditions). This phenomenon is in accordance with
field measurements, albeit from large groups, by Greenwood
(1991) who reported that stress-concentration ratios decrease with
applied load when columns are bulging and increase with applied
load when bulging is precluded. The results of McKelvey et al.
(2004) and Greenwood (1991) imply that the mode of deformation
at low working loads might differ from that at ultimate conditions.
Black et al. (2011) conducted a series of high-quality physical
model tests to examine the settlement performance of small groups
of stone columns. The authors acknowledge the influence of defor-
mational behavior on settlement performance, because they attrib-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ute the underperformance of a small group of closely spaced
columns, which punch en bloc into the underlying soil, to the load-
transfer mechanism. However, it is difficult to extrapolate the
results of single-gravity model tests because of scale effects and,
therefore, to draw definite conclusions regarding the deformational
behavior at working stress levels.
The FEM used in conjunction with advanced constitutive mod-
els holds most promise in the mission to understand the link
between the mode of deformation and settlement performance.
Although previous numerical analyses have been informative,
many are based on plane strain (Muir Wood et al. 2000; Wehr
2004) or axisymmetric (Elshazly et al. 2008; Hanna et al. 2013)
conditions, which approximate the presence of stone columns as
infinitely long strips or cylindrical rings, respectively. Therefore,
they fail to fully capture the discrete nature of column interaction
observed in the preceding model tests on small groups of columns.
This shortcoming is overcome by 3D analyses, such as those con-
ducted by Kirsch (2008) and Shahu and Reddy (2011); the Kirsch
(2008) study, in particular, showed the effectiveness of this approach
by successfully back-analyzing the primary load-settlement behav-
ior of a group of five columns in soft alluvial soil.
In a previous paper by the authors (Killeen and McCabe
2014), a parametric study of the factors that affect the settlement
of small groups at working loads in Bothkennar clay, based on a
three-dimensional (3D) finite-element analysis (FEA), was reported.
Drawing on the same output, the influences of key design parameters
such as column length, spacing, and the number of columns on the
deformational mechanisms of small groups of stone columns at
working load levels are considered in this paper. The modes of
deformation are identified for three specific column lengths through
an in-depth analysis of the distribution of shear strain within the col-
umns and soil, in addition to the variation of vertical strain, horizon-
tal strain, and stress-concentration ratio along the length of columns.
The analysis is extended using novel parameters, referred to as
column compression and punching ratios, to determine the influence
of column length and the stiff crust on the mode of deformation.
Finite-Element Analysis
Geometrical Considerations
A 3D FEA was undertaken using PLAXIS 3D Foundation
(Brinkgreve and Broere 2006) to investigate the long-term (i.e.,
drained) behavior of small groups and infinite grids of stone col-
umns. The small groups of columns were modelled at the center of
a 3D mesh, the outer boundary of which was laterally restrained but
permitted vertical movement. The analysis of an infinite grid of col-
umns was represented by the conventional unit-cell concept
© ASCE 04016114-2
Int. J. Geomech., 04016114
(Balaam and Booker 1981), which simplifies the analysis to a single
column and its surrounding zone of influence.
The numerical model was discretized using 15-noded wedge ele-
ments that were composed of 6-noded triangles and 8-noded quadri-
laterals. There were three translational degrees of freedom at each
node, and stresses were computed at 6 gauss points located within
these elements. Symmetry was used to reduce computational time.
The various mesh configurations comprised 14,000–45,000 ele-
ments, which were refined in regions of rapid stress change (i.e.,
beneath the footing and surrounding the stone columns). The ele-
ments in this region were typically 0.1  0.3 m, which corresponds
to an aspect ratio of 3. Appropriate mesh-sensitivity studies and
checks on distances to boundaries were also performed to ensure
continuous stress and strain contours at interelement boundaries
(Killeen 2012).
The deformational behavior of various configurations of stone
columns was examined by varying the number of columns (N), col-
umn spacing (s), and column length (L). Columns were positioned
on a square grid, and the footing width (B) was chosen to extend
0.5s beyond the edge of the outer columns. A column diameter (d)
of 600 mm was adopted in the subsequent FEA, because it is
typical for columns formed in soft soils using a standard 430-mm-
diameter poker.
The area replacement ratio, or area ratio, is a parameter that cap-
tures the proportion of in situ soil replaced with stone columns. For
small groups of columns, the area ratio is defined as the ratio of the
footing area (A) to the total area of columns beneath the footing (AC)
A 4B2
¼ (1)
AC N p d 2
However, for an infinite grid of columns, as can be assumed for
large loaded areas modelled using the unit-cell concept, the area ra-
tio is defined as the ratio of the area of the zone of influence of one
column (A = s2 for a square grid) to the area of a single column (AC)
A 4s2
¼ (2)
AC p d 2
The area ratio was varied from 3.5 to 14.1, which corresponds to a
spacing of 1–2 m to reflect the typical range adopted in practice. The
column length was increased in 1-m increments in the subsequent
FEA from L = 0 m (i.e., an untreated footing) to L = 13 m to examine
the deformational behavior for partial-depth treatment. The final
analysis at L = H = 13.9 m (H is the distance from the base of the foot-
ing at a depth of 0.6 m to the base of the Carse clay) represents a full-
length stone column founded on a stiff (assumed rigid) layer. The
various column group parameters are illustrated for a 3  3 group of
columns beneath a 3-m-wide square footing in Fig. 1.
Hardening Soil Model
The advanced elastoplastic hardening soil (HS) model is capable of
simulating the behavior of soft and stiff soils (Schanz 1998) and,
hence, was adopted for both the stone columns and surrounding soft
soil. This model is an extension of the hyperbolic model developed
by Duncan and Chang (1970). It supersedes the hyperbolic model
because it is based on the theory of plasticity rather than elasticity,
includes soil dilatancy, and introduces a yield cap. The HS model
accounts for the stress-level dependency of soil stiffness by relating
the soil stiffness to the confining stress using a power law, with an
exponent m. This model also defines the stiffness response of soil
using a secant Young’s modulus at 50% deviatoric stress (E50) and
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Typical layout of a 3  3 group of columns beneath a 3-m-wide square footing in the Bothkennar soil profile
an unload-reload Young’s modulus (Eur). The ultimate strength for
the HS model is defined using the Mohr-Coulomb failure criterion,
and plastic volumetric strains are captured using the stress-dilatancy
theory developed by Rowe (1962). The HS model does not account
for anisotropic strength, the strain-dependent nature of soil stiffness,
or creep behavior. Further details on the theoretical framework of
this model can be found by Schanz et al. (1999) and Brinkgreve and
Broere (2006).
Other Modeling Issues
The load was applied through a 0.6-m-thick footing, which was
modelled using a linear elastic material model with typical proper-
ties of reinforced concrete, i.e., unit weight, g = 24 kN/m3, Young’s
modulus, E = 30 GPa, and Poisson’s ratio, y = 0.15. The footing
was loaded to 50 kPa, which is deemed a typical working load on
the basis of operational stress levels (20–80 kPa) quoted by
McKelvey et al. (2004).
The long-term behavior of soil can be modelled using either of
two procedures in PLAXIS 3D Foundation, (1) drained analysis or (2)
undrained loading, followed by consolidation analysis. A 3D FEA on
groups of 4, 5, and 9 columns (Killeen and McCabe 2014) confirmed
that both procedures produce similar results for stone columns, as did
an analytical study on an infinite grid of columns by Castro and
Sagaseta (2011). The drained analysis requires significantly less com-
putational time and was adopted for the subsequent FEA.
An extensive literature review was undertaken to ascertain the
most appropriate modeling procedure for stone columns. In total,
24 finite-element studies were reviewed; these studies included sim-
ulations of small-scale laboratory tests and field trials for a variety
of configurations ranging from single columns to large groups. All
of these studies assumed full contact at the column–soil interface,
which is consistent with field observations that stone columns are
tightly interlocked with the surrounding soil as a result of the lateral
displacement that occurs on relowering the poker during column in-
stallation. McCabe et al. (2009) reported that columns formed using
the dry bottom-feed process with a standard 430-mm-diameter
poker are typically 500–600 mm in diameter. Therefore, to remain
consistent with the approach of several authors (Domingues et al.
2007; Gäb et al. 2008; Elshazly et al. 2008), a bonded interface was
adopted along the column–soil interface.
© ASCE 04016114-3
Int. J. Geomech., 04016114
It might be argued that the column–soil interlock would not be
as pronounced for stiff soils and, consequently, a bonded interface
would not be appropriate for the stiff crust in this study. However,
the low confining stress in this layer due to its proximity to the
ground surface enables lateral displacement of the stone backfill
during column installation. Another important consideration in
modeling the column–soil interface is the mode of deformation. For
example, columns that punch develop larger shear stresses along
the interface, in contrast to columns that bulge. Muir Wood et al.
(2000) cite punching as a dominant mode of deformation for short,
closely spaced columns. Muir Wood et al. (2000) and Wehr (2004,
2006) successfully recreated the observed mechanisms from these
laboratory tests with the assumption of a bonded interface.
Furthermore, Kirsch (2008) and Shahu and Reddy (2011) adopted a
bonded interface to model load tests on small groups of floating
stone columns.
Development and Validation of Soil Profile
Bothkennar Soil Profile
The well-characterized U.K. soft clay test bed at Bothkennar,
Scotland, provided the reference soil profile for this research. The
site has been characterized extensively by the Institution of Civil
Engineers (1992) and consists primarily of soft uniform clay
underlying a 1.5-m stiff crust. The Carse clay ranges in thickness
from 13 to 20 m across the site and rests on Bothkennar gravel.
Piezometers indicate that the groundwater level is hydrostatic and
ranges from 0.5 to 1.0 m below ground level (Hight et al. 1992).
The Carse clay was deposited in stable marine conditions and, in
light of findings by Paul et al. (1992) that the clay fraction varies
from 35 to 50%, was classified as silty clay by Nash et al. (1992a).
Classification testing by Nash et al. (1992a) also indicates that the
unit weight ( g ) and organic content generally vary from 15.6 to
17.6 kN/m3 and 3 to 8%, respectively. Hight et al. (1992) suggested
that postdepositional processes such as erosion, changes in ground-
water level, and bonding occurred at the Bothkennar test site.
According to the geological history, these processes could account
for a 15-kPa drop in effective overburden pressure, which explains
the high coefficients of lateral earth pressure at rest in the upper
Int. J. Geomech.
 layers observed by Nash et al. (1992a). However, the lower layers
might be influenced by aging, because the in situ stress state is better
represented by an overconsolidation ratio of 1.5.
The mechanical properties of reconstituted Carse clay were
examined by Allman and Atkinson (1992). Soil samples were
reconstituted, formed into slurry (at 1.25 times the liquid limit), and
loaded to normally consolidated, or swelled to lightly overconsoli-
dated, stress states. The samples were then transferred to the triaxial
cell for testing, and a critical-state friction angle of f 0 = 34° in com-
pression was measured. This angle is larger than would be expected
for high-plasticity clay and might be a result of the high proportion
of angular silt particles. No effective cohesion was observed in the
tests; however, nominal values were adopted to ensure numerical
stability in the FEA.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The HS model material parameters adopted for the Bothkennar
soil profile are summarized in Table 1. The value of E50 for the stiff
crust quoted in this table seems to be quite low; however, it should
be noted that this value is specific to pref = 13 kPa. Normalizing E50
for pref = 100 kPa (the default setting in PLAXIS 3D Foundation)
yields E50 = 8,215 kPa. Furthermore, the stiff crust is influenced sig-
nificantly by Eur (which is equal to 41,398 kPa for pref = 100 kPa)
for the initial stages of loading because of its overconsolidated
stress state.
Simulation of Load Test on Bothkennar Soil Profile
A field trial on small groups of stone columns was conducted at
the Bothkennar test site by Serridge and Sarsby (2008).

Nash et al. (1992b) undertook a comprehensive study to examine
the 1D stiffness properties of Carse clay. The variation of the coeffi-
cient of compressibility (CC) with depth is amply documented, and
the Bothkennar soil profile can be subdivided into three strata on the
basis of these data, namely, crust, upper Carse clay, and lower
Carse clay. However, the behavior before yielding was not meas-
ured routinely, and reference was made to Allman and Atkinson
(1992), who reported the ratio between the slopes of the normal
compression (l ) and swelling lines (k ) to be 7.2, which thereby
allows the coefficient of swelling (CS) to be determined, i.e., l /k =
CC/CS = 7.2. The 1D stiffness properties, adapted from incremental
load-test data, may then be converted into Eoed and Eur for the HS
model, using the following expressions outlined by Brinkgreve and
Broere (2006):
2:3ð1 þ e0 Þpref
ref
Eoed ¼
CC
2:3ð1 þ e0 Þð1 þ  Þð1  2 Þpref
ref
Eur ¼
CS ð1   Þ
where Eref = reference stiffness corresponding to the reference con-
fining pressure (pref).
The stress-level dependency of the Carse clay stiffness can be
captured accurately using a power law with an exponent m = 1.0
(Killeen 2012), which is typical of soft clay. Although no direct
relationship exists between Eoed and E50, it was deemed reasonable
to assume a relationship as outlined in Eq. 5 (Brinkgreve and
Broere 2006)
ref
E50 ¼ 1:25Eoed
ref
However, the authors reported that the tests contained signifi-
cant installation effects because excessive air jetting and com-
paction pressure were applied to form an enlarged bulb at the
base of stone columns. Therefore, it was not appropriate to vali-
date the finite-element model using these field data. Instead, the
adopted soil profile and material parameters were validated by
simulating a field test on an unreinforced footing at the
Bothkennar test site using PLAXIS 3D Foundation. Field load
tests were conducted on two rigid pad footings documented by
Jardine et al. (1995). In Fig. 2, a simulation of the short-term
load test (i.e., without significant creep settlement) is com-
pared with the observed load-displacement curve. Because of
the short-term nature of the loading, the Carse clay is mod-
elled as an undrained material using an effective stress analy-
sis with pore water pressure. Effective strength properties
(3) were used in conjunction with the HS model for this analysis.
This procedure replicates undrained conditions by adding a
large bulk modulus for the pore water pressure to the stiffness
matrix to generate excess pore pressure. As an alternative, the
(4)
undrained shear strength could have been defined directly, but
it would have required the stress dependency of soil stiffness
and compression-hardening features of the HS model to be
deactivated. It can be seen in Fig. 2 that PLAXIS 3D Foundation
captures the variation of settlement with foundation pressure
quite well, although it overestimates settlement slightly at low
applied pressures. This may be attributed in part to the presence
of a localized bed of shelly fragments at the base of the crust,
which would have enhanced the stiffness response of the field
test without affecting the bearing capacity. Overall, this result
gives confidence in the combination of soil model and material
(5) parameters.

Table 1. Summary of Material Parameters Adopted for Bothkennar Test Site and Stone Column

Soil parameter Crust Upper Carse clay Lower Carse clay Stone column
Depth (m) 0.0–1.5 1.5–2.5 2.5–14.5 —
Bulk unit weight [ g (kN/m3)] 18.0 16.5 16.5 19.0
Overconsolidation ratio — — 1.5 —
Pre-overburden stress (kPa) 15 15 — —
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure (K0) 1.5 1.0 0.75 0.29
Secant Young’s modulus at 50% deviatoric stress [E50 (kPa)] 1,068 506 231 70,000
Unload-reload Young’s modulus [Eur (kPa)] 5,382 3,306 1,164 210,000
Reference pressure [pref (kPa)] 13 20 30 100
Stress dependency power-law exponent (m) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.3
Poisson’s ratio (y ) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Effective cohesion ½c0 ðkPaÞ 3 1 1 1
Angle of internal friction ½ f 0 ð Þ 34 34 34 45
Angle of dilation ½ c 0 ð Þ 0 0 0 15

© ASCE 04016114-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 140

120
Jardine et al. (1995) PLAXIS 3D Foundation

Applied pressure (kPa)

100

80

60

40

20
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertical displacement (mm)

Fig. 2. Comparison of PLAXIS 3D Foundation with actual load-displacement behavior for a pad footing at Bothkennar test site observed by Jardine
et al. (1995)

Stone Backfill
The bulk unit weight of stone columns was chosen as g = 18.6 kN/m3,
which is consistent with that of previous studies (Mitchell and Huber
1985; Domingues et al. 2007; and Gäb et al. 2008). On the basis of a
settlement database of field load tests on stone columns compiled
by McCabe et al. (2009) and a laboratory study by Herle et al. (2006),
f 0 = 45° was adopted for stone columns. The angle of dilation ( c )
was determined from the empirical relationship c 0 = f 0 – 30°, as
suggested by Brinkgreve and Broere (2006). The stiffness param-
eters are similar to those adopted by Gäb et al. (2008) (i.e., E50 =
70 MPa, Eur = 210 MPa, and m = 0.3), who modelled stone
columns in loose–medium dense sand and weak clayey silt beneath
an embankment. These values are higher than Young’s moduli (E =
30–58 MPa) reported by Mitchell and Huber (1985) but are justified
by the fact that columns formed by the newer bottom-feed process
were found by McCabe et al. (2009) to yield an enhanced settlement
performance.
Results of Numerical Analysis
The mode of deformation for different configurations of columns was
identified by examining the distribution of shear strain within columns
and the surrounding soil. In addition, the characteristic column behav-
ior was also examined through plots of horizontal strain, vertical
strain, and stress-concentration ratio along the length of the columns.
Using this approach, Killeen (2012) analyzed the deformational
behavior for the following commonly used group configurations for
square footings: single columns, 2  2, 3  3, and 4  4 groups, and
infinite grids. The various modes of deformation identified were all in
evidence for a 3  3 group at different lengths and spacings.
Therefore, for the purposes of brevity, the results presented herein are
confined to those of a 3  3 group of columns at lengths of 3, 8, and
13.9 m. The analysis was extended using newly defined compression
and punching ratios to investigate the deformational behavior of all
configurations and, also, the influence of the stiff crust.
Distribution of Total Shear Strain
The distributions of shear strain for a 3  3 group of columns at
lengths of 3, 8, and 13.9 m are shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5,
respectively. The modes of deformation inferred from these plots
are discussed later.
Column Punching
It can be seen in Fig. 3 that the majority of shear strain develops
beneath the base of 3-m-long columns, which indicates that punch-
ing is the dominant mode of deformation. Moreover, the distribu-
tion of shear strain beneath the base of the group is more uniform at
low area ratios and becomes more localized around the column
bases with increasing area ratios, which suggests that short, closely
spaced columns tend to punch as a block [Fig. 3(a)], whereas short,
widely spaced columns tend to punch individually [Fig. 3(c)]. The
high levels of shear strain generated along the outer face and
beneath the base of floating columns in Figs. 3(a) and 4(a) shows
that punching, in the form of a block, remains the dominant mode of
deformation for all floating columns at low area ratios. Block
punching is a form of column punching and is characterized by low
levels of shear strain in the central zone of soil bounded by columns.
This mode of deformation was also observed by Black et al. (2011)
for a closely spaced group of three columns (A/AC = 2.5 and 3.6) in
small-scale laboratory tests.
Column Bulging
It can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5 that the mode of deformation transits
from punching to bulging with increasing area ratios in the case of
8- and 13.9-m-long columns. Bulging is most pronounced at the top
of the lower Carse clay layer, because this level corresponds to the
weakest part of the soil profile. Bulging does not occur with increas-
ing area ratios for 3-m-long columns because of the high levels of
restraint provided by the stiff upper layers.
Transition from Punching to Bulging
The transition from punching to bulging with increasing area ratios
for 8- and 13.9-m-long columns might be explained by the increase
in load carried per column at higher area ratios. Hughes and
Withers (1974) showed that the occurrence of punching or bulging
was contingent on the relative contributions of side friction, base re-
sistance, and lateral resistance experienced by stone columns. In
short, bulging tends to occur if the combined side friction and base
resistance exceed the lateral resistance provided to columns; other-
wise, punching occurs. It is well known from piling theory that side

© ASCE 04016114-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 (×10-3) (×10-3) (×10-3)
Crust

Upper Carse clay

Lower Carse clay

Uniform strain at
base of columns

Localised punching
at column bases
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 3. Total shear strains for a 3  3 group of 3-m-long columns at area ratios (A/AC) of (a) 3.5, (b) 8.0, and (c) 14.1

(×10-3) (×10-3) (×10-3)

Crust

Upper Carse clay

Lower Carse clay

Low γ in soil
bounded by
outer columns

Bulging occurs at top of

Lower Carse clay

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 4. Total shear strains for a 3  3 group of 8-m-long columns at area ratios (A/AC) of (a) 3.5, (b) 8.0, and (c) 14.1

friction and base resistance become fully mobilized at low and high
strain levels, respectively. Therefore, as the magnitude of applied
pressure increases, the combined effects of side friction and base re-
sistance also increase. As a result, punching is most likely at low
levels of applied pressure when the combined effects of side friction
and base resistance are low, whereas bulging is most likely at high
levels of applied pressure. This is consistent with the work of
McKelvey et al. (2004) who observed that the vertical stress carried
by punching columns increases with the level of applied pressure
before ultimately reaching a similar value to that for bulging col-
umns, which implies that the mode of deformation of columns
depends not only on the geotechnical capacity of columns but also
on the magnitude of applied pressure.
Secondary Mode of Deformation
It can also be seen in Figs. 4 and 5 that a secondary mode of defor-
mation begins to develop in the form of a shear plane between the
corner of the pad footing and the point of maximum bulging, which
is akin to a general shear failure. A similar mechanism was
observed in small-scale model tests by Muir Wood et al. (2000) and
confirmed in a FEA by Wehr (2004). However, the shear planes in
these studies were more pronounced and intersected to bound a
cone of undeforming soil beneath the base of footings. This result
may be explained by the fact that these studies correspond to ulti-
mate conditions, at which point general shear failure tends to occur.
The authors observed that the footing width was one of the principal
factors affecting the extent of this zone and tentatively suggested a
critical length of 1.5B, whereby columns shorter and longer than
this length exhibit punching and bulging, respectively. This finding
seems to be specific to ultimate conditions, because it is not sup-
ported in current numerical analysis at working load levels; in fact,
the opposite trend can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5 as the mode of defor-
mation shifts from punching to bulging with a reduction in L/B
[e.g., Figs. 4(a–c)]. This result adds further evidence to suggest that

© ASCE 04016114-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 (×10-3)
Crust
Upper Carse clay
Lower Carse clay
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
(a) (b)
Fig. 5. Total shear strains for a 3  3 group of 13.9-m-long end-bearing columns at area ratios (A/AC) of (a) 3.5, (b) 8.0, and (c) 14.1
the parameters that govern the mode of deformation vary with the
magnitude of applied pressure.
Characteristic Column Behavior
The characteristic column behavior for a 3  3 group is examined
through plots of vertical strain (« y), horizontal strain (« h), and the
stress-concentration ratio ðs 0col =s 0soil Þ along the length of 3-, 8-, and
13.9-m-long columns. PLAXIS 3D Foundation determines strain
along three orthogonal axes (i.e., x, y, and z); « y = strain along the
vertical axis, and « h = average of the two orthogonal strains along
the horizontal axis [i.e., « h = (1/2)(« x þ « z)]. The stress-concentra-
tion ratio ðs 0col =s 0soil Þ presented in the following section compares
the vertical effective stress in columns to the average vertical effec-
tive stress in the soil beneath the footprint area of the footing. The
stresses (s 0 ) in this quotient refer to the cumulative total of the in
situ stress ðs 00 Þ and the increment of stress that results from applied
loading ðDs 0 Þ (i.e., s 0 ¼ s 00 þ Ds 0 ); initially, before the applica-
tion of footing pressure, s 0col =s 0soil is close to unity. The results pre-
sented herein are the average of the corner, edge, and center
columns.
Column Punching
It was established in the previous section that punching was the
dominant mode of deformation for short columns and closely
spaced columns. These configurations are characterized by high
vertical strain beneath the base of floating columns [Figs. 6(a) and 7
(a)] and negligible horizontal strain within columns [Figs. 6(b) and
7(b)]. It is interesting to note that 3-m-long columns at higher area
ratios attempt to bulge, as evidenced by the increase in horizontal
strain shown in Fig. 6(b), but punching remains the primary mode
of deformation. It can be seen in Figs. 6(c), 7(c), and 8(c) that
stress-concentration ratios for short columns and closely spaced
columns are highest at the ground surface and decrease steadily to-
ward unity at the base of columns. This trend is a result of the reduc-
tion of vertical stress in columns through side friction and, also, as
the in situ stress component in s 0col =s 0soil becomes larger with
increasing depth. These stress-concentration ratios are at the upper
end of a typical range (2.5–5.0) quoted by Barksdale and Bachus
(1983).
© ASCE 04016114-7
Int. J. Geomech., 04016114
(×10-3) (×10-3)
Shearing
Bulging is primary
mode of deformation
(c)
Column Bulging
Column bulging is readily identified for 8-m-long columns in
Figs. 7(a and b) and 13.9-m-long columns in Figs. 8(a and b) at
A/AC values of 8.0 and 14.1 by high levels of vertical and horizon-
tal strain within columns, respectively. The magnitude and extent
of strain both increase with the area ratio and column length,
which reflects the increased load carried per column and
enhanced load-carrying capacity of columns, respectively. The
location of maximum strain, however, remains constant at a depth
of approximately 2.5 m, which is close to the top of the lower
Carse clay (i.e., the point of lowest lateral restraint). Stress-
concentration ratios are closely correlated to the distribution of
strain, because s 0col =s 0soil decreases from the ground surface to a
local minimum at the point of maximum bulging. Sections of
columns that are bulging are in a contained state of plasticity,
which reduces their load-carrying capacity. Stress-concentration
ratios increase temporarily below this point because of the
enhanced levels of confinement associated with increasing over-
burden stress, before decreasing with depth in sections of col-
umns that do not yield, which again reflects the increasing influ-
ence of the in situ stress component in s 0col =s 0soil .
Compression and Punching Ratios
Definition of Compression and Punching Ratios
As illustrated in Fig. 9, the compression and punching ratios are
derived from displacement at the surface of footings (ufooting), the
base of columns (ucol), and the soil surrounding the base of columns
(usoil) averaged over a 1-m-square zone. The width of this zone also
could have corresponded to the column spacing, but it was felt that
selecting a constant width ensured a consistent means of compari-
son for all column configurations (Killeen 2012).
The compression ratio is defined as the column compression
(ufooting – ucol) normalized by ufooting [Eq. (6)]. This ratio is essen-
tially a measure of the axial strain along the length of columns. It
varies from 0 to 1 in the case of perfectly rigid columns to fully
compressible or end-bearing columns, respectively. Muir Wood
et al. (2000) and Black et al. (2011) measured the load transfer to
the base of columns using a related ratio, ucol/ufooting, which allows
for a comparison of results.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Vertical strain, εy (× 10-3) Horizontal strain, εh (× 10-3) Stress concentration, σ'col/σ'soil
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 5 10 15 20 1 3 5 7 9
0

4
Depth, z (m)

8
3×3 cols 3×3 cols 3×3 cols
10 (average) (average) (average)
A/Ac = 3.5 A/Ac = 3.5 A/Ac = 3.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

12 A/Ac = 8.0 A/Ac = 8.0 A/Ac = 8.0

A/Ac = 14.1 A/Ac = 14.1 A/Ac = 14.1
14

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 6. Distributions of the average (a) vertical strain, (b) horizontal strain, and (c) stress-concentration ratio with depth for a 3  3 group of 3-m-long
columns

Vertical strain, εy (× 10-3) Horizontal strain, εh (× 10-3) Stress concentration, σ'col/σ'soil

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 5 10 15 20 1 3 5 7 9
0

2
σ'col/σ'soil ↓ in
4 section which
is bulging
Depth, z (m)

8
3×3 cols 3×3 cols 3×3 cols
10 (average) (average) (average)
A/Ac = 3.5 A/Ac = 3.5 A/Ac = 3.5
12 A/Ac = 8.0 A/Ac = 8.0 A/Ac = 8.0
A/Ac = 14.1 A/Ac = 14.1 A/Ac = 14.1
14
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 7. Distributions of the average (a) vertical strain, (b) horizontal strain, and (c) stress-concentration ratio with depth for a 3  3 group of 8-m-long
columns

ufooting  ucol
compression ratio ¼
ufooting
A limitation of the compression ratio is that it does not capture
column punching properly, which is cited as the prevalent mode
of deformation for short columns and closely spaced columns in
various model studies (Muir Wood et al. 2000; McKelvey et al.
2004; Black et al. 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to introduce a
punching ratio that quantifies the proportion of applied load trans-
ferred to the base of columns. This ratio is defined as the relative
displacement at the base of columns (ucol – usoil), again normal-
ized by ufooting [Eq. (7)]
ucol  usoil
punching ratio ¼
ufooting
These ratios should be considered in tandem to assess the mode
(6)
of deformation. For example, a punching column will yield low
compression and high punching ratios because a large proportion of
the load is transferred to the base, whereas a bulging column will
yield high compression and low punching ratios because load trans-
fer to the base is limited by excessive radial deformation of the
column.
Modes of Deformation
The modes of deformation are discussed in terms of the influences
of column length and group size with respect to area ratio. The influ-
ence of column length is split into two categories: columns with an L
value of ≤3 m are influenced primarily by the stiff upper layers,
whereas columns with an L value of >3 m are influenced primarily
(7)
by the soft clay. The key observations are summarized next.

© ASCE 04016114-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 Vertical strain, εy (× 10-3) Horizontal strain, εh (× 10-3) Stress concentration, σ'col/σ'soil
0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 5 10 15 20 1 3 5 7 9
0

2
σ'col/σ'soil ↓ in
4 section which
is bulging
Depth, z (m)

8
3×3 cols 3×3 cols 3×3 cols
10 (average) (average) (average)
A/Ac = 3.5
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A/Ac = 3.5 A/Ac = 3.5

12 A/Ac = 8.0 A/Ac = 8.0 A/Ac = 8.0
A/Ac = 14.1 A/Ac = 14.1 A/Ac = 14.1
14
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8. Distributions of the average (a) vertical strain, (b) horizontal strain, and (c) stress-concentration ratio with depth for a 3  3 group of 13.9-m-long
end-bearing columns

Fig. 9. Displacement at surface of footing, base of columns, and soil surrounding base of columns

Column Length, L ≤ 3 m. Column Length, L > 3 m.

• Punching is the dominant mode of deformation. It can be seen
in Figs. 10(a), 11(a), and 12(a) that punching ratios increase
with column length up to a maximum at L = 3 m. These ratios are
coupled with low compression ratios, as shown in Figs. 10(b),
11(b), and 12(b), which suggests that columns do not deform
appreciably along their length, which confirms a punching mode
of deformation.
• Punching ratios increase with column length. The increase in
punching ratios with column lengths up to L = 3 m can be
attributed to a progression through the layers of reducing stiff-
ness (i.e., the crust is the stiffest layer) followed by the upper
Carse clay and then the lower Carse clay (as reflected in the CC
and K0 values shown in Table 1). Higher punching ratios occur
when the base of columns are founded in more compressible
strata, as shown in the PLAXIS 3D Foundation output for an
infinite grid of columns in Fig. 13. It is interesting to note that
maximum punching ratios occur for L = 3 m, despite the fact
that the base of 2-m-long columns coincides with the weakest
part of the soil profile. This may be explained as the stressed
zone of soil surrounding the base of 2-m-long columns extends
upward into the overlying (stiffer) upper Carse clay, which
thereby reduces punching ratios.
• Punching remains the dominant mode of deformation at low
A/AC values. With the exception of an infinite grid of columns
at an A/AC value of 3.5, it can be seen in Fig. 10(a) that punch-
ing ratios reduce with increasing column length, which is a
result of an enhanced side friction and stiffer soil at the base of
columns. The reduction in punching ratios is coupled with an
increase in compression ratios, as shown in Fig. 10(b). The
rate of change of these ratios with column length is important
in determining the mode of deformation. For example, it can
be seen in Figs. 11(b) and 12(b) that the increase in compres-
sion ratios with column length occurs at a faster rate for higher
area ratios. This reflects a shift in the mode of deformation
from punching to bulging for widely spaced columns longer
than 3 m, and the latter mechanism is characterized by exces-
sive radial deformation. In contrast, the slower increase in
compression ratios with column length for closely spaced col-
umns shown in Fig. 10(b) suggests that the mode of deforma-
tion observed for short columns (i.e., punching) continues to
occur with increasing column length. This result is consistent
with a punching mode of deformation and agrees with the dis-
tribution of shear and normal strains presented in the previous
sections. This indicates that punching remains the dominant

© ASCE 04016114-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 Punching ratio, (ucol-usoil)/ufooting Compression ratio, (ufooting-ucol)/ufooting
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0
A/AC = 3.5
2 2 1 col
2×2
Column length, L (m)

Column length, L (m)

3×3 - average
4 4 4×4 - average
Unit Cell
6 6

8 8
A/AC = 3.5
10 1 col 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2×2
12 3×3 - average 12
4×4 - average
Unit Cell
14 14

(a) (b)

Fig. 10. Influence of column confinement on (a) punching and (b) compression ratios for various lengths and configurations of columns spaced at an
area ratio (A/AC) of 3.5

Punching ratio, (ucol-usoil)/ufooting Compression ratio, (ufooting-ucol)/ufooting

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0
A/AC = 8.0
2 2 1 col
2×2
Column length, L (m)

Column length, L (m)

3×3 - average
4 4 4×4 - average
Unit Cell
6 6

8 8
A/AC = 8.0
10 1 col 10
2×2
12 3×3 - average 12
4×4 - average
Unit Cell
14 14

(a) (b)

Fig. 11. Influence of column confinement on (a) punching and (b) compression ratios for various lengths and configurations of columns spaced at an
area ratio (A/AC) of 8.0

mode of deformation with increasing column lengths for a
group of closely spaced columns.
• Bulging mode of deformation occurs at high A/AC values. The
decrease in punching ratios and increase in compression ratios
are most pronounced for higher area ratios (Figs. 11 and 12). In
effect, widely spaced columns transfer a smaller proportion of
the applied load to their base and exhibit increased axial defor-
mation, which again is consistent with plots of shear and normal
strain outlined in the previous sections.
Influence of the Group Size.
• Block punching occurs for larger groups at low A/AC values.
It is evident in Fig. 10(a) that the magnitude of punching ratio
is reduced significantly for larger groups at low area ratios.
This is evident for all column lengths and is most pronounced
for L = 3 m, as illustrated by plots of the deformed shape for an
infinite grid of columns in Fig. 14. It can be seen in Fig. 14(a)
that columns at a low area ratio act with the surrounding soil
and punch as a single entity into the underlying soil. This is
referred to as block punching, which is frequently observed for
closely spaced groups of piles. In contrast, column interactions
diminish at a higher area ratio because columns tend to act in
increasing isolation from each other [Figs. 14(b and c)], which
yields higher punching ratios, as observed in Figs. 11(a) and
12(a).
Implications for Design of Stone Columns
A simplified design method, which relates the settlement of small
groups (d ) to that of a unit cell (d uc) with knowledge of the area

© ASCE 04016114-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 Punching ratio, (ucol-usoil)/ufooting Compression ratio, (ufooting-ucol)/ufooting
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 0
A/AC = 14.1
2 2 1 col
2×2
Column length, L (m)

Column length, L (m)

3×3 - average
4 4 4×4 - average
Unit Cell
6 6

8 8
A/AC = 14.1
10 1 col 10
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2×2
12 3×3 - average 12
4×4 - average
Unit Cell
14 14

(a) (b)

Fig. 12. Influence of column confinement on (a) punching and (b) compression ratios for various lengths and configurations of columns spaced at an
area ratio (A/AC) of 14.1

Fig. 13. Deformation of an infinite grid of floating stone columns at an area ratio (A/AC) of 14.1 for various column lengths: (a) L = 1 m; (b) L = 2 m;
(c) L = 3 m

ratio, column length, footing width, and depth of soft soil, was
proposed by Killeen and McCabe (2014). This study has shown
the importance of area ratio and column length in dictating the
mechanism by which groups behave. It is important to note that
the study also shows that the reason why a simple d /d uc ratio
approach can be adopted is that the unit cell and groups show fun-
damentally similar mechanisms of behavior (Figs. 10, 11, and
12). Therefore, group settlements that are derived from d uc values
inherently capture the appropriate mechanism. The only differ-
ence between the unit-cell and group configurations arises from
the stress distribution beneath the footing, which allows the well-
established design methods developed for unit-cell conditions
[e.g., Priebe (1995); Castro and Sagaseta (2009); and Pulko et al.
(2011)] to be used in conjunction with an empirical correction
based on geometry, to determine the settlement of a stone-column
group.
Influence of Stiff Upper Layers
The laboratory studies referenced in the previous sections were con-
ducted in homogenous test beds that did not include a stiff crust.
This is salient feature of many soft-soil profiles, and its importance
at the Bothkennar test site was highlighted by Serridge and Sarsby
(2008), who conducted load tests on stone column–reinforced pad
footings. Therefore, to put the findings from previous laboratory
studies into context, an additional analysis was conducted to investi-
gate the effect of the stiff upper layers. The deformational behavior
of a 2  2 group of columns at an A/AC value of 8.0 was examined
for a uniform soil profile, which consisted entirely of lower Carse
clay (i.e., with the crust removed).
The variations of punching and compression ratios with column
length are presented in Figs. 15(a and b), respectively, along with
data adapted from Muir Wood et al. (2000) and Black et al. (2011).
The uniform soil profile yields high punching ratios for short

© ASCE 04016114-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 14. Deformation of an infinite grid of 3-m-long columns at various area ratios (A/AC): (a) 3.5; (b) 8.0; (c) 14.1

Punching ratio, (ucol - usoil)/usurface Compression ratio, (usurface - ucol)/usurface

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 Normalised column length, L/d 0
Normalised column length, L/d

Absence of crust
5 increases column 5
punching for short
columns
10 10
Absence of crust reduces load
transfer to base of long columns Absence of crust increases
column compression
15 15

20 20 Black et al. (2011)

Muir Wood et al. (2000)
PLAXIS: 4 cols; A/AC=8.0 PLAXIS: 4 cols; A/AC=8.0
PLAXIS: 4 cols; A/AC=8.0; no crust PLAXIS: 4 cols; A/AC=8.0; no crust
25 25
(a) (b)

Fig. 15. Influence of stiff upper layers on (a) punching and (b) compression ratios for various lengths of a 2  2 group of columns at an A/AC = 8.0

columns that decay sharply with depth. This is coupled with rela-
tively high compression ratios, which is indicative of a bulging
mode of deformation. Compression ratios for the uniform soil pro-
file agree quite well with laboratory data for small groups at A/AC
values of 3.3–10 (Muir Wood et al. 2000) and single columns at
A/AC values of 2.5–5.9 (Black et al. 2011). However, the model
tests yield compression ratios of unity for L/d > 10, which are
slightly higher than those from PLAXIS 3D Foundation and might
be attributed to increased bulging (and reduced load transfer to the
base of columns) at ultimate conditions. This has prompted authors
in the past to suggest the existence of a unique critical length. This
finding is not supported in the current analysis for the reference soil
profile at working load levels. Instead, it appears that a combination
of punching and bulging contributes to the deformed shape of col-
umns, and bulging becomes more prominent at higher loads. This is
an important finding that gives greater flexibility when designing
stone column–reinforced foundations, because longer columns
(previously assumed to be ineffective for settlement control) might
be used as a viable alternative configuration.
Conclusions
The deformational behavior of various configurations of columns
beneath rigid square pad footings in the Bothkennar soil profile has
been examined in this study and found to be a complex process. The
conclusions are summarized in three categories, as follows.
Mode of Deformation
The following modes of deformation were identified: individual
punching, block punching, and bulging.

© ASCE 04016114-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114

 • Individual and block punching are related, because high strain
levels develop along the outer face and beneath the base of col-
umns. These modes of deformation typically develop in short
or closely spaced columns, and block punching is more preva-
lent in larger groups.
• Bulging occurs for long, widely spaced columns and highly
depends on the lateral resistance provided by the surrounding
soil. Columns bulge at shallow depths (i.e., the point of lowest
lateral resistance), which limits load transfer to the base of
columns.
• At working stress levels, the occurrence of punching or bulg-
ing is dictated by the area ratio and column length rather than
the number of columns.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Stress-Concentration Ratios
• For punching columns, stress-concentration ratios are high-
est at the ground surface and decrease steadily toward unity
at the base of columns, which reflects the reduction in verti-
cal stress through side friction and increasing in situ stress
with depth.
• For bulging columns, stress-concentration ratios are closely
related to the distribution of strain within columns, because
they decrease from the surface to a local minimum at the
point of maximum bulging. Stress-concentration ratios
increase temporarily with depth, because of increasing con-
finement with overburden stress, before tending toward
unity.
Influence of Stiff Upper Layers
• The absence of a stiff crust increases the likelihood of column
bulging at shallower depths and, consequently, reduces the
load transfer to the base of columns. This might have prompted
authors in the past to suggest the existence of a unique critical
length on the basis of laboratory studies conducted in homoge-
neous test beds. However, the presence of a stiff crust forces
bulging to occur deeper and increases the load transfer to the
base of columns, which enables greater flexibility when
designing stone column–reinforced foundations.
In addition, the general compatibility between the mechanisms of
behavior for unit cells and groups has justified the use of design
methods relating the settlement of groups to that of a unit cell, such
as that reported by Killeen and McCabe (2014).
References
Allman, M. A., and Atkinson, J. H. (1992). “Mechanical properties of
reconstituted Bothkennar soil.” Geotechnique, 42(2), 289–301.
Balaam, N. P., and Booker, J. R. (1981). “Analysis of rigid rafts supported
by granular piles.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 5(4),
379–403.
Barksdale, R. D., and Bachus, R. C. (1983). “Design and construction of
stone columns.” Rep. No. FHWA/RD-83/026, National Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
Black, J. A., Sivakumar, V., and Bell, A. (2011). “The settlement perform-
ance of stone column foundations.” Geotechnique, 61(11), 909–922.
Brinkgreve, R. B. J., and Broere, W. (2006). PLAXIS 3D Foundation man-
ual, version 2, PLAXIS BV, Delft, Netherlands.
Castro, J., and Sagaseta, C. (2009). “Consolidation around stone columns:
Influence of column deformation.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 33(7), 851–877.
Castro, J., and Sagaseta, C. (2011). “Consolidation and deformation around
stone columns: Numerical evaluation of analytical solutions.” Comput.
Geotech., 38(3), 354–362.
© ASCE 04016114-13
Int. J. Geomech., 04016114
Domingues, T. S., Borges, J. L., and Cardoso, A. S. (2007). “Parametric
study of stone columns in embankments on soft soils by finite element
method.” Applications of Computational Mechanics in Geotechnical
Engineering V: Proc., 5th Int. Workshop, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL,
281–291.
Duncan, J. M., and Chang, C. Y. (1970). “Nonlinear analysis of stress and
strain in soil.” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., 96(5), 1629–1653.
Elshazly, H. A., Hafez, D. H., and Mossaad, M. E. (2008). “Reliability of
conventional settlement evaluation for circular foundations on stone col-
umns.” J. Geotech. Geol. Eng., 26(3), 323–334.
Gäb, M., Schweiger, H. F., Kamrat-Pietraszewska, D., and Karstunen, M.
(2008). “Numerical analysis of a floating stone column foundation using
different constitutive models.” Proc., 2nd Int. Workshop on Geotechnics
of Soft Soils, 137–142.
Greenwood, D. A. (1991). “Load tests on stone columns.” STP 1089: Deep
foundation improvements: Design, construction and testing, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, 141–171.
Hanna, A. M., Etezad, M., and Ayadat, T. (2013). “Mode of failure of a
group of stone columns in soft soil.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000175, 87–96.
Herle, I., Hentschel, M., Wehr, W., and Bohac J. (2006). “Role of density
on the behaviour of vibrated stone columns in soft soils.” Proc., Int.
Symp. on Vibratory Pile Driving & Deep Soil Vibratory Compaction,
Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, 141–146.
Hight, D. W., Bond, A. J., and Legge, J. D. (1992). “Characterization of the
Bothkennaar clay: An overview.” Geotechnique, 42(2), 303–347.
Hughes, J. M., and Withers, N. J. (1974). “Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils
with stone columns.” Ground Eng., 7(3), 42–49.
Institution of Civil Engineers. (1992). “Bothkennar soft clay test site:
Characterization and lessons learned.” Geotechnique, 42(2), 161–378.
Jardine, R. J., Lehane, B. M., Smith, P. R., and Gildea, P. A. (1995).
“Vertical loading experiments on rigid pad foundations at Bothkennar.”
Geotechnique, 45(4), 573–597.
Killeen, M. M. (2012). “Numerical modelling of small groups of stone col-
umns.” Ph.D. thesis, National Univ. of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Killeen, M. M., and McCabe, B. A. (2014). “Settlement performance of pad
footings on soft clay supported by stone columns: A numerical study.”
Soils Found., 54(4), 760–776.
Kirsch, F. (2008). “Evaluation of ground improvement by groups of
vibro stone columns using field measurements and numerical analy-
sis.” Proc., 2nd Int. Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils,
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 241–248.
McCabe, B. A., Nimmons, G. J., and Egan, D. (2009). “A review of field
performance of stone columns in soft soils.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Geotech. Eng., 162(6), 323–334.
McKelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A. L., and Graham, J. (2004).
“Modelling vibrated stone columns in soft clay.” Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.
Geotech. Eng., 157(3), 137–149.
Mitchell, J. K., and Huber, T. R. (1985). “Performance of a stone column
foundation.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1985)111:
2(205), 205–223.
Muir Wood, D., Hu, W., and Nash, D. F. T. (2000). “Group effects in stone
column foundations: Model tests.” Geotechnique, 50(6), 689–698.
Nash, D. F. T., Powell, J. J. M., and Lloyd, I. M. (1992a). “Initial investiga-
tions of the soft clay test site at Bothkennar.” Geotechnique, 42(2),
163–181.
Nash, D. F. T., Sills, G. C., and Davison, L. R. (1992b). “One-dimensional
consolidation testing of the soft clay from Bothkennar.” Geotechnique,
42(2), 241–256.
Paul, M. A., Peacock, J. D., and Wood, B. F. (1992). “The engineering geol-
ogy of the Came clay of the national soft clay research site,
Bothkennar.” Geotechnique, 42(2), 183–198.
Priebe, H. J. (1976). “Evaluation of the settlement reduction of a founda-
tion improved by vibro-replacement.” Bautechnik, 5, 160–162 (in
German).
Priebe, H. J. (1995). “The design of vibro replacement.” Ground Eng.,
28(10), 31–37.
Pulko, B., Majes, B., and Logar, J. (2011). “Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: Analytical calculation model.” Geotext. Geomembr., 29(1),
29–39.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Rowe, P. W. (1962). “The stress-dilatancy relation for static equilibrium of
an assembly of particles in contact.” Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A,
269(1339), 500–527.
Schanz, T. (1998). “Zur modellierung des mechanischen verhaltens von rei-
bungsmaterialien.” Thesis, Institut für Geotechnik, Univ. of Stuttgart,
Stuttgart, Germany (in German).
Schanz, T., Vermeer, P. A., and Bonnier, P. G. (1999). “The hardening-soil
model: Formulation and verification.” Beyond 2000 in Computational
Geotechnics: 10 Years of PLAXIS International, R. B. J. Brinkgreve,
ed., A. A. Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 281–290.
Serridge, C. J., and Sarsby, R. W. (2008). “A review of field trials investi-
gating the performance of partial depth vibro stone columns in a deep
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 10/06/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
soft clay deposit.” Proc., 2nd Int. Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft
Soils, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 293–298.
Shahu, J. T., and Reddy, Y. R. (2011). “Clayey soil reinforced with stone
column group: Model tests and analyses.” J. Geotech. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000552, 1265–1274.
Wehr, W. (2004). “Stone columns: Single columns and group
behavior.” Proc., 5th Int. Conf. on Ground Improvement
Techniques, CI-Premier Pte Limited, Singapore, 329–340.
Wehr, W. (2006). “Stone columns—Group behaviour and influence of
footing flexibility.” Proc., 6th European Conf. on Numerical
Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, Taylor & Francis, London,
767–772.

© ASCE 04016114-14 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 04016114