GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING

STONE COLUMN

RESEARCH PAPER

Submitted By: - Aditya Kaplash

(Manipal University, Jaipur)

 INDEX: -

1) Abstract

2) Introduction

3) History

4) Recent Research

5) Principle

6) Influencing Factors

7) Installation Techniques

8) Installation Procedure

9) Design

10) Advantages of Stone Column

11) Limitations of Stone Column

12) Case History

13) Conclusions

14) Acknowledgement

15) References
GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING STONE COLUMN

ABSTRACT:-
The stone column technique of ground improvement is extensively used to improve the
strength of weak soil layers. The use of stone column has proved to be an economical and
technically viable ground improvement technique for construction on soft soils and has
been successfully applied for the foundation structure like oil storage tanks, earth
embankments, raft foundation etc. When the stone columns are installed in extremely soft
soils, the lateral confinement offered by the surrounding soil may not be adequate to form
the stone column. In such soil, encasing the stone column with a geotextile can induce
required lateral confinement. Soil improvement technique has been developed rapidly in
the past several years because on various occasions it is noted that the local soil by nature is
unable to bear the proposed structure. Considering the cost aspect of stone columns, the
major portion of the cost owes to the cost of stone. If replacing a portion of stone by some
other cheaper material, without affecting the performance, can reduce the total cost. In the
present work experimental studies are carried out to evaluate the behaviour of stone
column encased with geotextile, in which stone is replaced by cheaper quarry dust. The
effect of geotextile is also studied. It is revealed from the studies that a portion of stone can
be replaced by cheaper quarry dust without affecting the performance of the column.

INTRODUCTION:-
Ground improvement techniques are the techniques used to improve and alter poor ground
conditions in order construction can meet project performance requirements in an
economical way. The high cost of conventional foundations coupled with environmental
concerns has made development of week soil deposits a necessity. Out of various
techniques stone columns is trending technique for improving the weak strata. Based on
past experiences the stone column design is still empirical and always needs field trials
before execution.

Stone columns are significant in soil stabilization and are ideally welcome for improvement
of soft clays, silts and loose silty sands. They provide a cost effective method for ground
improvement. As India is a developing country, it requires more land for infrastructure
development. For construction the availability of land is depleting, hence it is necessary to
develop soil of low shearing strength, bearing capacity and high compressibility. Stone
columns work more effectively in large area of stabilization of soil mass. On the load
application column rapidly drains the excessive pore water pressure originated. Stone
columns behaved as rigid element to carry higher shear stresses to reduce settlement, and
improving the deformability and strength properties of soft soil. Stone column techniques
are proved successful in improvement of stability of slopes, increasing the bearing capacity,
reducing the differential and total settlements, reducing liquefaction property of sands and
increasing the settlement time.

Many methods for ground modification and improvement are available around the world
now, including dewatering, compaction, preloading with and without vertical drains,
grouting, deep mixing, deep densification and soil reinforcement are among those. Many of
these techniques, such as dewatering, compaction, preloading and grouting, have been used
for many years. However, there have been rapid advances in the areas of deep densification
(vibrocompaction, deep dynamic compaction, compaction piles, and explosive
densification), jet and compaction grouting, deep mixing, and vibro-replacement and vibro-
displacement in recent years. These methods have become practical and economical
alternatives for many ground improvement applications. While most of these technologies
were originally developed for uses other than seismic risk mitigation, many of the recent
advances in the areas of deep densification, jet and compaction grouting, and deep mixing
methods have been spurred on by the need for practical and cost effective means for
mitigating seismic risks. Many of these methods have also been applied to increase the
liquefaction resistance of loose, saturated, cohesion less soils. Ground improvement
techniques basically utilize the effects of increasing adhesion between soil particles,
densification and reinforcement to attain one or more of the following:

• Increased strength to improve stability,

• Reduced deformation due to distortion or compressibility of the soil mass,

• Reduced susceptibility to liquefaction, and

• Reduced natural variability of soils.

Of many techniques of ground improvements, stone column has gained lots of popularity
since it has been properly documented in the middle of the last century. Potential
applications of stone column include stabilizing foundation soils, supporting structures,
landslide stabilization, and reducing liquefaction potential of fine sands.

Considering the cost aspect of stone column, the major portion owes to the cost of stone. If
some other cheaper material, can replace the stones, without affecting the performance,
the cost of construction can be reduced. Here an attempt is made to replace the stone
partly with quarry dust and the performance is studied in terms of load settlement
behaviour. The effect of geotextile encasement is also studied using a natural geotextile.
HISTORY:-
Amongst stone columns various techniques for improving in-situ ground conditions; stone
columns are probably the most versatile, due to their ability to perform a variety of
important geotechnical functions. First stone column was used in ancient Egypt in 2600 BC.
In India, the use of stone columns began in the early 1970s. Hughes and Withers (1974)
carried out series of model tests in normally consolidated clay. The test results indicated
that ultimate capacity of stone column was governed primarily by the maximum radial
reaction of the soil against the bulging and extend of vertical movement in the stone column
was limited to about four times the diameter. Shankar and Shroff (1997) conducted
experimental studies to study the effect of pattern of installation of stone columns and
showed that triangular pattern seems to be optimum and rational. Mitra and Chatopadhyay
(1999) studied the effect of different factors influencing the capacity of stone column
improved ground from the available literature and showed that in the case of columns
failing by bulging the critical length is about three to five times the stone column diameter.
Mitchell and Huber (1985) compared the field performance of stone columns with the
predictions by finite element analysis and reported that the agreement was generally good.
It was concluded further that settlement predictions using other simpler methods also gave
values, which agreed reasonably with the measured values. However, when used in
sensitive clays, stone columns have certain limitations. There is increase in the settlement of
the bed because of the absence of the lateral restraint. The clay particles get clogged
around the stone column thereby reducing radial drainage. To overcome these limitations,
and to improve the efficiency of the stone columns with respect to the strength and the
compressibility, stone columns are encased (reinforced) using geogrids/ geocomposites.
Deshpande & Vyas (1996) have brought out conceptual performance of stone columns
encased in geosynthetic material. Malarvizhi and llamparuthi (2002) has studied load versus
settlement response of the stone column and reinforced stone column i.e., geogrid-encased
stone column in the laboratory. Load test were performed on soft clay bed stabilized with
single stone column and reinforced stone column having various slenderness ratio and using
different type of encasing material. The settlement in reinforced stone column is lesser than
the stone column and the settlement decreased with the increasing stiffness of the encasing
material.

RECENT RESEARCH:-
Recent innovative and high quality model tests carried out at the University of Glasgow
(Muir Wood et al, 2000) and Queens University Belfast (McKelvey et al, 2004, Black et al,
2006) has improved our understanding of stone column behaviour. Details of the apparatus
and procedures used may be found in the relevant references, but a summary of the main
practical findings is provided here. Muir Wood et al. (2000) conducted what is considered to
be the most comprehensive laboratory model investigations of large groups of columns. The
results suggest that the pre-failure mechanisms and failure modes of column groups are
different from those of an isolated column. It was reported that the area replacement ratio
(Ac/A) influences the extent of column interaction and the load sharing between the
columns and intervening ground. The research also claims that significant improvement to
bearing capacity requires an area replacement ratio of ≈25% or greater. Perhaps the most
fundamental aspect of this work was the postulation of a realistic group failure mechanism.
The deformation patterns in the columns were observed upon excavating the ground
around the loaded columns. Columns adjacent to the centre column exhibited the most
distortion. This observation is in good agreement with the stress levels measured at this
location. Most of the bulging, shearing and lateral deflection occurred within a ‘conical’
region directly beneath the foundation. The depth of this failure wedge increased as the
area replacement ratio increased. A four-part failure mechanism was proposed based upon
these observations. A conical zone (Zone 1) exists immediately beneath the footing in which
there is no column deformation as the clay itself and confinement of the rigid footing
provide adequate passive resistance. In Zone 2 (which is immediately below Zone 1),
deformations are plastic and column bulging, shearing and buckling of the columns were all
observed. Zone 3 is referred to as the ‘retaining unit’ which effectively provides lateral
support to the failure wedge underneath the footing. Zone 4 represents the ‘extension’
zone of the mechanism. McKelvey et al (2004) used a transparent medium with ‘clay-like’
properties to allow visual monitoring of the columns throughout foundation loading. The
main findings of this research relate to optimum column aspect ratio L/d (L =column length,
d =column diameter). Careful examination of the digital images taken during loading (Figure
8) showed that in the case of ‘short’ columns (i.e. L/d = 6), bulging took place over the entire
length of the columns and they punched into the clay beneath their bases. The ‘long’
column (L/d = 10) deformed significantly in the upper region whereas the bottom portion
remained undeformed. This suggests that there was little or no load transfer to the base in
longer columns, with failure arising from bulging or shear. McKelvey et al (2004) postulated
a ‘critical column length’ of L=6d, which is in keeping with earlier work (Hughes and Withers,
1974, Muir Wood et al 2000). Black et al (2006) developed a more sophisticated triaxial
apparatus in which the boundary conditions imposed on a clay bed (reinforced with stone
columns) can be regulated. Publication of this work is pending at the time of writing. The
Finite Element method has been used in some academic studies, most using the
homogenisation technique (i.e. Lee and Pande, 1998) in which the constitutive models are
developed from composite soil properties assigned to the entire reinforced zone. However,
the FE Method’s potential to address some of the key shortcomings in stone column design
has not been harnessed. Collaborative research between NUI Galway’s Civil Engineering
Department and Keller Ground Engineering aims to use the FE Method in an applied sense
to address issues such as:

(i) The behaviour of floating columns (or partial depth treatment); Priebe’s (1995)
formulation assumes that columns are terminated at a rigid layer, and
(ii) The extent to which stone columns arrest secondary or creep settlement, which is most
prevalent in organic soils.

PRINCIPLE:-
The stabilization of soils by displacing the soil radially, with the help of a deep vibrator,
refilling the resulting space with granular material and compacting the same with the
vibrator is called vibro-stone columns or simply stone columns. In other words, stone
columns are constructed where in the soft soil is strengthened by replacing a certain
percentage of soil with aggregate. The aggregate column will act as a drainage channel to
release the excess pore water present in the subsoil. The degree of improvement of soft
soils by stone columns is because of the densification of the surrounding soft soil during the
installation of stone column itself and the subsequent consolidation process occurring in
soft soil before the final loading of improved soil.

INFLUENCING FACTORS:-

A. Soil:-

Subsurface soils whose undrained shear strength range from 7 to 50 kPa or loose sandy soils
including silty or clayey sands represent a potential class of soils requiring improvement by
stone columns. Subsurface conditions for which stone columns are in general not suited
include sensitive clays and silts (sensitivity > 4) which lose strength when vibrated and also
where suitable bearing strata for resting the toe of the column is not available under the
weak strata.

B. Treatment depth:-

The treatment depth with stone column for a given soil profile should be so determined that
the stone columns extend through the most significant compressible strata that contribute
to the settlement of the foundation. Average depth of stone column accomplished in India
may be around 15m, although with equipment modification, higher depths beyond 20 m are
now becoming widespread.

C. Area of treatment:-

Stone columns work most effectively when used for large area stabilization of the soil mass.
Their application in small groups beneath building foundations is limited and is not being
used. Thus, large loaded areas which apply uniform loading on foundation soils, such as
beneath embankments, tank farms and fills represent a major area of application.
INSTALLATION TECHNIQUES:-

A. Non Displacement Method:-

The process of installation where soil is taken out during boring is called non displacement
type of installation.

Bored Rammed System:

The bored rammed stone columns are used in cohesive soils. In this technique, a casing pipe
is used to remove the cohesive soil protecting the sides of the bore, thus minimizing
disturbance to the surrounding soil. The stones are laid into the bore and rammed to a
larger diameter as the casing pipe is withdrawn. These columns achieve their strength by
the lateral restraint offered by the surrounding soil. It is therefore very essential that the
shear strength of the surrounding soil not be reduced by the construction of the stone
column. Hence, the stone column technique could be adopted in clays of low sensitivity.
These columns also act as drainage paths to accelerate settlements under loading.

B. Displacement Method:-

If the soil is laterally displaced while making the hole due to driving of a tube or a casing, it is
the displacement type of boring.

Vibro Replacement Method:

In this method, creation of hole in the ground and compaction of granular fill backfilled in
the hole is done mechanically using a mechanical unit called vibrofloat. Stone columns may
be constructed using vibrofloat either by Wet process, which is suitable for soft to firm soil
with high water table condition where borehole stability is questionable, or by dry process
which is suitable for soils of relatively high initial strength with low water table, where the
hole can stand of its own upon extraction of the probe, such as unsaturated fills .
INSTALLATION PROCEDURE:-
To form a vibro-replacement point the vibrator with its follower tubes is placed over the
selected point by means of a suitable supporting rig (crane). After starting the motor the
vibrator is lowered into the ground. It simultaneously releases water from the lower jets
which remove the soft soil directly under the vibrofloat nose forming a hole. This operation
allows practically an unimpeded penetration of the vibrofloat into the soil under its own
weight. No increase in density of the soil is achieved during this operation of the probe
penetration. When the vibrofloat has reached the desired depth, the water supply to the
lower jet is reduced suitably and the top jets are put on. Wash water from these upper jets
returns to the ground surface through the annulus between the outside of the follow on
tubes and the crater sides. This upward flow maintains an open channel along the sides of
the vibrofloat permitting backfill material shoved from the surface to reach the bottom and
it also prevents the probe from sticking. The annular wash water flow is established by
raising (surging) the vibrofloat twice or thrice to clean the loose soft soils from the hole.
When the water flow continuously returns to the surface, the probe is raised by suitable lift,
say 1.5 m and the backfill is poured into the annular space between the poker and the side
walls of the hole. The vibrator is then lowered back into the hole between 0.70 to 0.80 m,
thereby creating a 0.7m length of stone column. The horizontal vibrations generated by the
poker drive the stones laterally into the soil to form a column of an enlarged diameter.
Combination of bottom and top water jets may also be used depending upon the soil.
Irrespective of the method used to construct the stone columns, the blanket laid over the
top of the stone columns should consist of clean medium to coarse sand compacted in
layers to a relative density of 75-80%. Minimum thickness of the compacted sand blanket
should be 0.5 m. This blanket should be exposed to atmosphere at its periphery for pore
water pressure dissipation. Over the granular blanket, a geotextile mat is laid and then it’s
again covered with a granular blanket over which the foundation would rest. This is to
uniformly distribute the load coming on the stone column and there by create a region of
uniform loading.
A. Top Feed System:

In the Top Feed System, the poker is completely withdrawn after initial penetration to the
design depth. Stone (12-75mm in size) is then tipped into the hole in controlled volumes
from the ground surface allowing it to fall under gravity to the bottom side of hole. The
column is compacted in layers (the stone is forced downwards and outwards) through
continued penetration and withdrawal of the poker. The Top Feed System is suitable if the
hole formed by the poker will remain open during construction of the column.

B. Bottom Feed System:

The gravel may be fed from a rig-mounted hopper through a permanent delivery tube along
the side of the poker, which bends inwards and allows the stone to exit at the poker tip. This
Bottom Feed process requires a smaller grade of stone (2-45mm). By remaining in the
ground during column construction, the poker cases its own hole and hence is suited to
ground with a high water table or running sand conditions. Wet top feed process is called
vibro-replacement and dry top/bottom feed process is called vibro-displacement.

DESIGN:-
While stone columns will transmit some load to the soil by shear stresses (along the column-
soil interface) and end bearing (at the column base), the predominant load-transfer
mechanism (unless the column is very short) is lateral bulging into the surrounding soil. The
passive resistance of the surrounding soil dictates the column performance under load.
Generally the column bulging will be greatest close to the top of the column where the
overburden pressures are lowest.

Design Parameters:-

1) Stone Column Diameter:

Installation of stone columns in soft cohesive soils is basically a self-compensating process

that is softer the soil, bigger is the diameter of the stone column formed. Due to lateral
displacement of stones during vibrations/ramming, the completed diameter of the hole is
always greater than the initial diameter of the probe or the casing depending upon the soil
type, its undrained shear strength, stone size, characteristics of the vibrating probe/rammer
used and the construction method. Diameter usually varies from 800 to 1500 mm

2) Pattern of arrangement:

Stone columns should be installed preferably in an equilateral triangular pattern which gives
the densest packing although a square pattern may also be used. Typical layouts of the
patterns are shown here:-

Triangular and Square pattern of arrangement.

3) Spacing:
The design of stone columns should be site specific and no precise guidelines can be given
on the maximum and the minimum column spacing. However, the column spacing may
broadly ranges from 2 to 3 depending upon the site conditions, loading pattern, column
factors, the installation technique, settlement tolerances, etc. For large projects, it is
desirable to carry out field trials to determine the most optimum spacing of stone columns
taking into consideration the required bearing capacity of the soil and permissible
settlement of the foundation.

4) Replacement ratio:

To quantify the amount of soil replaced by the stone, the term replacement ratio, a s is used.
as = 0.907 (D/S)2

where the constant 0.907 is a function of the pattern used which, in this case, is the
commonly employed equilateral triangular pattern.

5) Stress Concentration factor:

The stress concentration factor, n, due to externally applied load σ, is defined as the ratio of
average stress in the stone column σs, to the stress σg, in the soil within the unit cell,

n=σs / σg

The value of n generally lies between 2.5 and 5 at the ground surface.

6) Stress:

By assuming a tri-axial state of stress in the stone column and both the column and the
surrounding soil at failure, the ultimate vertical stress σ 1, which the stone column can take,
may be determined from the following equation:

σ1/ σ3 = (1+sin φs) / (1-sin φs)

where,

σ3 = lateral confining stress mobilized by the surrounding soil to resist the bulging of the
stone column;

φs = angle of internal friction of the stone column;

σ1/ σ3 =coefficient of passive earth pressure of the stone column.

7) Settlement:
Consolidation settlement of the composite (treated) soil S is given by:

S= mvσgH

where,

mv = Coefficient of volume change;

σg = Vertical stress in surrounding ground;

H = Thickness of treated soil.

8) Aggregate:

Crushed stone or gravel which is chemically inert, devoid of organic matter, hard etc. is used
for constructing the aggregate column. Well graded stones of 75mm to 2mm may be used.

ADVANTAGES OF STONE COLUMN:-

1) Improves shear strength of subsoil to increase the bearing capacity.

2) Construction is simple and cost effective.

3) Stone columns help in improving slopes of both embankments and natural slopes.

4) Being granular and free draining, consolidation settlements are accelerated and post
compaction settlements are minimized.

5) Increase in resistance of soil to liquefaction, reduction of foundation settlements and

increase in load carrying capacity.

6) Stone columns can also resist lateral load.

7) Embankment construction can begin soon after installation.

8) No dewatering or excavation is required.

9) No waiting period after installation unlike PVD.

10)  Installation in a uniform grid pattern ‘homogenizes’ variable soil properties => reducing
the potential for differential settlement.

LIMITATIONS OF STONE COLUMN:-

1) Sensitive clays do not adequately regain shear strength. Ground improvement by stone
column cannot be achieved in clays with sensitivity greater than 4.

2) Stone columns when installed at a distance of less than 3.66m can cause high lateral
pressures and displacement of adjacent structures. Severe cracks could be seen in
structures close by the stone column site due to the vibrations of 30-50Hz.

3)  Stone column installation in extremely cohesive clays and silts is suitable only if
preloading facility is available.

CASE HISTORY:-

1) Retirement Village, Ballinasloe, Co. Galway:

At the time of writing, a new retirement village is under construction on the banks of the
River Suck in Ballinasloe. The development comprises a two-storey nursing home and a four-
storey apartment block, with site levels raised by 1- 1.5m for flood protection. Ground
conditions at the site are mixed but typically comprise of up to 1.5m of soft organic fill
overlying medium dense and dense silty sandy gravel with occasional cobbles and boulders.

Rather than piling to depth to support the four-storey block, a ground improvement solution
was implemented whereby the soft organic fill was removed and replaced with clean stone
(<75mm), with the same material used to raise site levels. Approximately 700 Vibro Stone
Columns were installed from this elevated platform level to depths of up to 4m to densify
the new fill and any underlying loose natural soils. Conventional strip foundations were then
used, designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 175kN/m 2 in the four-storey block. Floor
slabs were also treated.

Ironically, the two-storey nursing home has deeper deposits of soft organic clay and peat
underneath, needing piled support. The piling system used is referred to as Vibro Concrete
Columns (VCCs) and these may be constructed using the same rig as Vibro Stone Columns,
with a change of poker. A further description of the VCC technique may be found in McCabe
and McNeill (2006). It is not uncommon to use a suitable combination of Vibro Stone
Columns and VCCs at one site.

Conclusion:

The Irish construction industry has been slower than many of its European counterparts to
recognise the technical and economic advantages that Vibro Stone Columns can provide.
Ireland has an abundance of soft estuarine and alluvial soils and these may be improved
sufficiently to allow standard foundations to be constructed at shallow depth, without the
need to resort to deep piling.

Where ground conditions are suitable, stone column solutions have been shown to be more
cost effective than trench fill in excess of 2m depth. In addition, stone columns can offer
considerable contract programme savings over other ground improvement methods, such
as preloading and vertical drains.

As with all geotechnical projects, a thorough site investigation with adequate information on
soil strength and compressibility is essential.

2) Indo Gangetic Plain, 150 km south of New Delhi, Co. India:

The site under consideration is located about 150 km southeast of New Delhi in the Indo-
Gangetic plain of India. Ground improvement had been carried out in the past at the near
vicinity of the same site to densify the ground and as a counter measure against
liquefaction, since this site falls under seismic zone III/IV. Structures like 106 m tall Prilling
tower, compressors, storage tanks for ammonia and naphtha, pipe rack, process columns up
to 70 m height, a two span workshop and bagging plant were successfully supported in the
past on vibro-stone column improved ground.

Keeping in view the successful use in past, vibro-stone column scheme was proposed to
strengthen the ground of this factory premise. The units and sections of plant under
purview of ground strengthening were: Ammonia Fire Heater (AFH-Cluster 1); Ammonia
Cooling Tower (ACT-Cluster 2); Urea Cooling Tower (UCT-Cluster 3); Urea Solution Tanks
(UST-Cluster 4); Bulk flow conveyor and other related ancillary units (shown in Figure-1).

Figure-1 (Ground Strengthening Location Clusters)

Idealized sub-surface condition at the proposed area is reported in the Figure-2. The borelog
indicates top 2.5 m stratum consisting of Clayey Silt (ML–CL) with SPT blow count typically in
the range of 5 to 6. Underlying stratum chiefly comprised Fine Sand (SM) having increasing
relative density values with increasing depth. Blow count was seen to increase from 6–13 at
a depth range of 4 to 10 m to about 33– 84 at 20 m depth. At certain locations, intervening
layer of Stiff Silty Clay (CL) with calcareous nodules were reported. This layer was reported
beyond 12 m, with SPT N varying from 16 to 30. Ground Water Table was reported at 2.8 m
below ground.

Figure-2 (Generalized Sub-surface Features)

2300 Vibro-stone columns 7.5 m deep were proposed, spaced at 1.8 m and 2.5 m c/c in
triangular grid depending on the structures. Average diameter of the stone column was
expected to be in the range of 800 to 850 mm. Overall work on ground strengthening was to
be carried out to ensure that the sandy stratum attained a relative density of 75 to 85%.
Backfill materials for stone column installation were 75 mm down stone aggregates
conforming to gradation indicated in Figure-3. These materials were hard basaltic, durable
material brought from Haldavani village at a lead of 180 kms.

Figure-3 (Acceptable Range of Particle Size for Stone Columns)

Installation and Monitoring:

Installation of stone columns was carried out in a grid as per approved plan. Vibroflot probe
of about 400 mm diameter was suspended from a crane vertically over a pre-decided stone
column point. Valve in the hydraulic pack was opened to induce vibration to the vibroflot
(frequency kept between 1600 to 1800 rpm). Simultaneously, water valve was released to
emanate water jet through nose cones at the bottom of the vibro probe at a pressure
between 3.5 kg/cm2 to 5 kg/cm2. The Vibroflot penetrated into the ground under its own
weight and through the combined action of vibration and water jet.

Following criteria for Stone column termination was adopted, whichever was observed
earlier:

i) Achieving required depth of 7.5 m from existing ground level.

ii) Decrease in rate of penetration of vibro-float to 0.5 m per minute.
iii) Tilting of vibro-float /rattling sound.

On reaching the required depth, bottom water jet was shut off while the flow of water
from top of vibroflot was switched on. Nominal 75 mm down stone aggregates were
poured from the top through the annular space. The vibroflot was withdrawn in stages
maintaining maximum lift to 0.8 m and stone back filling was continued up to ground
level. For effective vibro compaction of the stone aggregate increase in hydraulic
pressure was maintained in the range 17 to 20 kg/cm2 and the vibroflot extraction rate
was maintained compatible with the rate of stone backfilling.
The boring time, compaction time, length of boring were recorded for each stone
column. The consumption of stone backfill material was also recorded area
wise/structure wise.

Performance of Ground Improvement Measures:

Prior to ground improvement measures, Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were

conducted in the vicinity of treated areas, which were part of the initial geotechnical
investigations. For establishing the effectiveness of stone column installation, post
treatment SPT/Dynamic Cone Penetration Tests (DCPT) were undertaken using
continuous bentonite mud circulation at selected points as per IS: 2131 and IS: 4968
(Part II) respectively. These tests were conducted at the centroid of the intervening area
between the stone columns.

Cluster areas for improvement stated earlier and reported in Figure-1 were used for
validating the effectiveness of ground strengthening measures. As a part of studies, Pre-
and post-SPT/DCPT were compared thoroughly; any ambiguous data were discarded and
not considered for comparison.

Comparative results of pre- and post-SPT at Cluster areas 1, 2 and 3 are reported in
Figure-4. It is seen that, the only contradictory observation that exists is similar post- SPT
value at GL in AFH-Cluster 1 and is possibly due to soil disturbance. Again, in the same
figure, a very high post-SPT is indicated at 3m, which may be ambiguous, but
nevertheless represent ground strengthening. Barring these observations, significant soil
densification is indicated in Figure-4.

Figure-4 (Comparative Performance of Ground Strengthening Using Pre-Post SPT Data)

Validation exercise at various clusters is also undertaken by converting pre-SPT blow
counts to equivalent DCPT blow count. Preliminary comparative exercises indicated an
approximate correlation factor of 1.5 between measured SPT and DCPT Blow count (that
is, Ndcpt ≈ 1.5 Nspt). Pre-treatment SPT N values were converted to DCPT N, and the
resulting comparative curves are reported separately for each cluster in Figure-5.

Improvement in stratum strength is seen in top 6 m, which is considered as a depth

under the direct influence of stone columns. Beyond about 6m, the pre-and post- DCPT
curves are nearly seen to overlap (Figure-5, Clusters 3 & 4). Noteworthy trend in the
improvement is seen in form of sudden increase in the post-DCPT values at about 3m
depth, which is the transition from clayey silt layer (ML-CL) and Loose to Medium Fine
Sand (SM).

Figure-5 (Comparative Performance of Ground Strengthening Using Pre-Post DCPT Data)

Concluding Remarks:

In the foregoing sections, limited comparative data of the case study illustrate the
effectiveness of vibro-stone columns in strengthening silty sandy alluvial typical of Indo-
gangetic plains.

Higher relative stiffness of stone columns leads to a very significant reduction of the
overall compressibility of the treated soil. Vibro-stone columns have on several
occasions replaced piles to support many critical structures like oil tankages, pipe racks
and industrial sheds leading to a very high degree of economy and speedy construction.

CONCLUSIONS:-
The use of stone column is accepted as a means for ground improvement in soft clayey
soils. The cost of construction mainly depends on the cost of stone using for filling the
stone column. Here an alternative is thought of, to replace partially, the stones filling the
column by cheaper materials. The following observations could be made from this study.

• Stone column improves the bearing capacity and settlement behaviour of soft soil.

• Encasing the stone column with geotextile result in an increase in load carrying
capacity and reduction in settlement when compared to that with the case without
geotextile.

• A portion of stone in the column can be replaced by quarry dust without affecting the
strength of the improved ground

• From the studies it is revealed that the replacement of 30% (by weight) of stones by
quarry dust can be possible without affecting the strength and performance of the
system.

• Thorough subsoil investigation from borelogs supplemented by penetration tests and

other in-situ test results should be strictly carried out before designing the stone
column.

• Owing to rapid consolidation due to the accelerated dissipation of excess pore water
pressure into the drainage path formed by stone columns, construction can be started
quickly.

• Stone columns when installed at a distance of 4.87m or more eliminate the damage
caused by vibrations.

• Further studies in this direction have to be conducted so as to get more understanding

of the system especially in the context of liquefaction.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:-

I would like to pay my sincere gratitude to my supervisor ____________________,

__________________ (C-Phi Consult Private Limited), for providing liberal guidance and
sparing discussion time. I admire and acknowledge the kindness and infinite patience
shown in all matters. I reveal my sincere thanks to ____________________,
__________________ (C-Phi Consult Private Limited) for bestowing his immense
support and encouragement. I also want to thank our institution (Manipal University,
Jaipur) for providing us the opportunity to intern at C-Phi Consult Private Limited. I will
always be grateful to all those who have helped me complete my internship successfully.

REFERENCES:-

https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2920&context=icrageesd

https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/bitstream/handle/10379/6339/2007_[EI]_McCabe,_Mc
Neill_and_Black_(IEI_West_Region_-_Geotech_Soc_lecture).pdf?sequence=1

https://www.ijitee.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v8i7c2/G10990587C219.pdf

http://www.ijirset.com/upload/2013/november/73_A%20STUDY.pdf

https://gndec.ac.in/~igs/ldh/conf/2009/articles/T07_28.pdf
THANK YOU