Settlement Calculation of Composite Foundation Reinforced

with Stone Columns

Ling Zhang1; Minghua Zhao2; Caijun Shi3; and Heng Zhao4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: An axial compression was generated in a stone column under vertical loads on its top, and was often accompanied by a radial ex-
pansion against the surrounding soil near the top portion of the column. Considering this deformation characteristic of the stone column, an
analytical solution for the settlement of the composite foundations reinforced with stone columns was presented. The load sharing between
the column and the soil and the distribution of column-soil interfacial shear stresses was also incorporated into the solution. From the present
solution, the vertical settlement and lateral bulging of the column under any applied loads can be evaluated at any depth. The validity of the
solution was verified through the comparison with the measurement data and other existing analytical solutions. The influences of stress-
concentration ratio, internal friction angle and cohesion of the surrounding soil, and the elastic modulus of the column on the deformations
of the stone column were discussed. The load acting on the top of the column had a great influence on its deformations. Thereby, the accurate
determination of the load distribution between columns and the surrounding soil was vital for analyses of settlement of composite foundations
reinforced with stone columns during the design. The increase of the internal friction angle of the soil, the cohesion of the soil, and the modulus
of the column had reduction effects on column settlements and bulging. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000212. © 2013 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Stone columns; Composite materials; Foundations; Foundation settlement; Load transfer; Displacement.
Author keywords: Stone column; Composite foundation; Settlement; Load transfer; Radial displacement; Bulging.

Introduction Choobbasti 2010). Several methods have been proposed to assess

Stone columns (also known as granular columns or granular piles)
have been widely used as an economical foundation improvement
technique to support loaded structures such as embankments and
large-diameter storage tanks since the 1960s because of the fol-
lowing potential benefits: increased bearing capacity, reduced
ground settlements, and accelerated effective consolidation of soft
foundation (Juran and Guermazi 1988; Ambily and Gandhi 2007;
Madhav et al. 2009; Deb and Dhar 2011).
The role of stone columns in limiting settlements is crucial in
some cases, such as a road embankment section that leads to a piled
abutment. A number of empirical and theoretical approaches have
been proposed to predict the settlement of a composite foundation
system reinforced with stone columns. A homogenization assump-
tion, in which the improved soil is assumed as a homogeneous
material with the same properties, has been frequently used to es-
timate the settlement of the composite system consisting of stone
columns and soil (Rao and Ranjan 1985; Alamgir et al. 1996;
Chinese Code for Building Foundation 2002, 2007; Zahmatkesh and
1
Ph.D. Candidate, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Chang-
sha 410082, China (corresponding author). E-mail: zhanglhd@yahoo.com
2
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha
410082, China. E-mail: mhzhaohd@21cn.com
3
Professor, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Changsha
410082, China. E-mail: caijunshi@yahoo.com
4
Ph.D. Candidate, College of Civil Engineering, Hunan Univ., Chang-
sha 410082, China. E-mail: tridept@163.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on September 4, 2011; approved
on January 31, 2012; published online on February 2, 2012. Discussion
period open until November 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, Vol. 13, No. 3, June 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/
2013/3-248–256/$25.00.
the settlement reduction factor. For instance, Priebe (1995) pro-
posed a method to estimate the settlement of subsoil reinforced with
end-bearing stone columns. The relative design charts were de-
veloped as well. This method referred to a settlement improvement
factor, which was established by three steps: the first step was a basic
step calculated on the assumption that the column material was
incompressible and the settlement resulted from a column bulging;
the second step considered the effect of the compressibility of the
column material; and the third step considered the effect of over-
burden. According to this improvement factor, the deformation
modulus of the composite system was increased and the foundation
settlements were reduced. Until now, the method proposed by Priebe
(1995) is still the most popular analytical settlement prediction
method in European ground improvement practice. Poorooshasb
and Meyerhof (1997) proposed a settlement ratio (a ratio of the
settlement of untreated ground to that of treated ground) to evaluate
the settlement of end-bearing stone columns.
However, these methods do not consider the bulging of a column
(using the homogenization assumption), or they assumed the column
bulging remains constant all over its length (Priebe 1995). Never-
theless, the overall performance of a stone column is controlled by
the lateral support provided by the soil around the column. Because
this lateral support by the surrounding soil typically increases with
depth, then bulging to failure near the top of the column is the most
common failure mechanism for the column (Mckelvey et al. 2004;
Sivakumar et al. 2007; Black et al. 2007). By using Mindlin’s
expressions of horizontal and vertical displacements of an elastic
semi-infinite body subjected to a combination of horizontal and
vertical point loads, Madhav et al. (2009) proposed a method to
evaluate the settlement of a granular piled raft with consideration of
the radial displacement compatibilities of granular pile. Deng et al.
(2003) and Sun and Gong (2008) divided a stone column into two
sections from the top to the bottom of the column: a bulging section

248 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

 with a length of h and a nonbulging section with a length of (l 2 h),
where l is the length of the column, and h is the bulging length. The
total compression deformation of the column was the sum of the
compression deformations of these two sections. The bulging length h
was determined by the equation developed by Brauns (1978):
h 5 2rp tanðp=4 1 wp =2Þ (where rp is the radius of the column and
wp is the internal friction angle of the column material), which was
used to estimate the ultimate bearing capacity of a stone column.
This study deals with the computation of the development of
bulging under a normal load on the top of a stone column and the
load distribution along the column, and their contributions to the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

settlement of subgrade reinforced with stone columns.

Analysis of the Unit Cell

A stone column foundation system usually consists of a large

number of columns installed in a regularly spaced pattern, and
a crushed stone (or gravel) mattress is usually placed above the stone
column-reinforced soil. However, the behavior of all column-soil
units in the foundation, except the ones near the edges of the
loading areas, can be regarded as the same (Balaam et al. 1978;
Ambily and Gandhi 2007), then only one column-soil unit, which
represents a single column that acts within a cylindrical surrounding
soil cell with an influence radius denoted by re , shown in Fig. 1, is
chosen to be analyzed. The equivalent radius re can be calculated
using the equation proposed by Balaam and Booker (1981)

re ¼ 0:5cS

where S 5 spacing between two columns (from center to center), and

c 5 constant between 1.05 and 1.13 for triangular and square
patterns, respectively.
To obtain an analytical solution, the following assumptions are
made:
1. The ground surface settlement is uniform across the stone Fig. 1. Analytic unit of the problem: (a) plan of the foundation; (b)
column and the soil. elevation of the unit cell
2. The column is treated as an elastic material. This assumption
implies that only the elastic lateral expansion of the column
under the action of vertical loads is taken into account. The soil- n
qp ¼ n  qs ¼ q ð1Þ
column interaction problem is more complicated in reality. The 1 þ ðn 2 1Þm
maximum bulging diameter of the column may reach to 1.1–1.3
times the column diameter at failure (Shivashankar et al. 2010; where n 5 stress-concentration ratio; and m 5 area replacement ratio
Deb et al. 2011). However, under a working load, the lateral of the reinforced foundation, m 5 rp2 =re2 . Under a working load close
deformation of the column may not reach that value because to the allowable bearing capacity of the stone column reinforced
of the group action of the columns (Sivakumar et al. 2007; foundation, the stress-concentration ratio n is suggested to be in the
Shivashankar et al. 2010). Therefore, to simplify the problem, an range of 3.0–4.0 (Juran and Guermazi 1988; Han and Ye 2002).
elastic model is used to analyze the stone column in this study. The unit cell is divided into N elements, as shown in Fig. 1(b).
3. The lateral pressure from the surrounding soil is the earth Each element acts upon by shear resistance t p,I , radial stress srp,i at
pressure at rest for the bulging section of the column, assuming the column-soil interface, and uniform vertical stress szp,i and szp,i11
that the lateral pressure from the soil as the passive earth pres- on the top and bottom of the column element, respectively, as shown
sure is much more appropriated. However, it is still difficult to in Fig. 2. To simplify the analysis, radial stress srp,i along the height
evaluate the passive earth pressure accurately in the literature of the element is uniform and equal to the radial stress at the
(Fang et al. 1994; Duncan and Mokwa 2001; Cole and Rollins midheight of the element.
2006). Thereby, to simplify the problem, the earth pressure at By using the generalized Hook law, the stress-strain relation-
rest is treated as the lateral pressure from the soil. This assump- ships for the ith stone column segment in the elastic situation is
tion was also adopted by Raithel and Kempfert (2000) to develop given by
numerical and analytical calculation models for calculation and " #
design of the geotextile coated sand columns foundation system. Ep mp  
In reality, the crushed stone mattress plays an important role in szp;i ¼ 2ɛ r;i þ ɛ z;i þ ɛ z;i
1 þ mp 1 2 2mp
modifying the stresses transferred to the stone column and the soil, " # ð2Þ
and the applied stress q is shared by the stone column, qp , and the Ep mp  
surrounding soil, qs [Fig. 1(b)]. Equilibrium of the vertical loads q, srp;i ¼ 2ɛ r;i þ ɛ z;i þ ɛ r;i
1 þ mp 1 2 2mp
qp , and qs can be expressed as follows:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 249

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

 Evaluation of Lateral Confinement srs

The lateral confining support provided by the surrounding soil is

assumed to be a lateral soil pressure at rest, and then the lateral
confinement srs can be determined by the following equation:

srs ðzÞ ¼ ps0 ðzÞ ¼ Ks0 ðg s z þ qs Þ ð9Þ

where ps0 5 lateral soil pressure at rest; Ks0 5 coefficient of soil

pressure at rest and can be estimated by Ks0 5 ms =1 2 ms or
Ks,0 5 1 2 sin ws (Brooker and Ireland 1965); ms and ws 5 Passion’s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ratio and the angle of internal friction of the surrounding soil, re-
Fig. 2. Stress and strain of the ith element of the column spectively; and gs 5 unit weight of the soil.

Determination of Radial Displacement DrP

where Ep and mp 5 Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the
column, respectively; and ɛ z and ɛ r 5 vertical and radial strain of the The radial stress acting on the column is
column, respectively.
By introducing a coefficient 2ɛ r;i =ɛ z;i 5 ki into Eq. (7), the srp ðzÞ ¼ srs ðzÞ ð10Þ
following equations are obtained:
Combined with Eqs. (4) and (9), the unknown coefficient ki can be
  determined by
Ep ð1 2 mp Þ
szp;i ¼ 2mp 2 ɛ r;i
1 2 mp 2 2m2p ki mp szp,i 2 ð1 2 mp Þps0,i
h i ki ¼
Ep szp,i 2 2mp ps0,i
¼ ð1 2 mp Þ 2 2mp ki ɛ z;i
1 2 mp 2 2mp2
mp szp,i 2 Ks0 ð1 2 mp Þðgs zi þ qs Þ
  ð3Þ ¼ ð11Þ
Ep mp szp,i 2 2mp Ks0 ðgs zi þ qs Þ
srp;i ¼ 12 ɛ r;i
1 2 mp 2 2m2p ki
Ep where zi 5 depth from the top of the column to the midheight of the
¼ ðm 2 ki Þɛ z;i column element i
1 2 mp 2 2m2p p
iP
21
1
Then, the following relationships can be derived from Eq. (3) zi ¼ lj þ li ð12Þ
j¼1 2

srp;i ki 2 mp Substituting ki into Eqs. (7) and (8), the lateral and vertical dis-
¼ ð4Þ
szp;i 2mp ki 2 ð1 2 mp Þ placement for the ith segment are determined.

szp;i 1 2 mp 2 2m2p
ɛ z;i ¼ ð5Þ Force Analysis in the Z-Direction
Ep ð1 2 mp Þ 2 2mp ki
When applying force equilibrium of the ith column element in the
szp;i 1 2 mp 2 2m2p z-direction, the following equation exists:
ɛ r;i ¼  ð6Þ
Ep ð1 2 mp Þ szp,i Ap,i þ gp Ap,i li ¼ szp,iþ1 Ap,i þ tps,i Up,i li ð13Þ
2mp 2
ki
where gp 5 unit weight of the column material; Ap,i 5 cross-
Combined with the relations ɛ z;i 5 Dsp,i =li and ɛ r;i 5 2 Drp,i =rp , sectional area of the column, Ap,i 5 pðrp 1Drp, i Þ2 ; Up,i 5 circum-
the following equations are obtained: ference of the column, Up,i 5 2pðrp 1 Drp,i Þ; li 5 length of the ith
column element; and t ps,i 5 shear stress at the column-soil interface,
szp,i 1 2 mp 2 2m2p which can be determined by
Dsp,i ¼ li   ð7Þ
Ep ð1 2 mp Þ 2 2mp ki
tps,i ¼ srp,i  tan wps þ cps ð14Þ

szp,i 1 2 mp 2 2m2p
Drp,i ¼ 2 rp   ð8Þ where wps and cps 5 friction angle and cohesion at the column-soil
Ep ð1 2 mp Þ interface.
2mp 2
ki By rearranging Eq. (13), the following is obtained:

where Dsp,i and Drp,i 5 vertical compression and lateral bulging of 2t ps,i li
szp,iþ1 ¼ szp,i þ gp li 2 ð15Þ
the column element i, respectively. The minus in the relationship of rp þ Drp,i
ɛ r,i and Drp,i is because the compression strain is supposed to be
positive in this paper. Obviously, for i 5 1, szp,i 5 szp,1 5 pp .

250 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

 Compression Deformation of the Column
The total compression deformation of the stone column [Fig. 1(b)],
sp , is the sum of the contributions of each layer
P
N
sp ¼ Dsp,i ð16Þ
i¼1
Settlement of the Foundation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
As previously mentioned, the ground surface settlement is assumed
uniform across the stone column and the soil, and then the total
settlement s of the improved foundation reinforced with stone
columns under the footing/raft can be estimated from
s ¼ sc þ ss ð17Þ
where sc 5 settlement of the reinforced layer with a thickness of l
[Fig. 1(b)], sc 5 sp 1 d; d 5 displacement of the column toe pen-
etrating into the underlying soil layer; and ss 5 settlement of the
underlying unreinforced layers. It is assumed that d 5 0. Thus,
sc 5 sp . The settlement of the subjacent unreinforced layer ss can be
determined by (Rao and Ranjan 1985; Braja 2008)
PNs q
i those methods proposed by Rao and Ranjan (1985), Deng et al.
ss ¼ Hi ð18Þ
i¼1 Esi
where qi 5 vertical stress because of the transfer of the applied
stress q down into the ith subjacent unreinforced soil layer; Hi and
Esi 5 thickness and compression modulus of the ith subjacent
unreinforced soil layer, respectively; and Ns 5 number of the soil
layer. The distribution of the applied stress q can be determined by
the 2:1 method (the slope of the distribution of q is 2:1; Fig. 3; Rao
and Ranjan 1985) or Boussinesq’s theory of stress transfer into the
subsoil and so on.
When the stone columns are allowed to rest on a hard stratum, the
value of ss is taken as zero.
Analytical Model Validation
A chimney foundation with a diameter of 8.0 m, reported by Sheng
(1986), was buried 2.2-m underground. The average additional
Fig. 3. Settlement of the foundation reinforced with stone columns in
Rao and Ranjan’s study (1985)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 251
Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.
pressure acting on the fundus of the chimney was 60 kPa. The soft
soil layers and their main physical mechanical properties from the up
ground to down are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1.
To increase the strength and stiffness and reduce the settlement of
the soft subsoil, 0.8-m diameter and 6.8-m-long stone columns were
installed at 1.6-m spacing with its end located on the silty sand layer.
The columns were arranged in a triangular pattern, as shown in
Fig. 5. A 0.3-m high-crushed stone cushion was placed on top of the
columns. It can be computed that the ratio of the area replace-
ment ratio of the reinforced foundation m 5 rp2 =re2 5 ð0:8=2Þ2 =
ð1:05 3 1:6=2Þ2 5 0:227.
Predicted settlements of the chimney foundation from the cur-
rent method, together with calculated settlements from other ana-
lytical methods (Rao and Ranjan 1985; Pierbe 1995; Deng et al.
2003; Sun and Gong 2008) and the measured settlements, are
summarized in Table 2. For comparison purpose, the used cal-
culation parameters, including mp 5 0:25 and wp 5 40°, were the
same as those used by Sun and Gong (2008). In Sun and Gong’s
study (2008), the constrained modulus of the column Eoed,p was
given as 15 MPa. Then, the elastic modulus of the column can be
evaluated from the relationship Eoed,p 5 Ep ½ð1 2 mp Þ=ð1 1 mp Þ
ð1 2 2mp Þ (Hassen et al. 2009) and Ep 5 12:5 MPa. The values of
the column-soil shear stress t ps were evaluated via the vane
shearing strength test, as shown in Fig. 4. A detailed description of
(2003), and Sun and Gong (2008) is presented in the Appendix. When
the design charts proposed by Pierbe (1995) were utilized to estimate
the settlement of the chimney foundation, only the settlement sc of the
reinforced layer was obtained, as listed in Table 2, because the column
was assumed to rest on an infinite rigid layer in the method (Pierbe
1995). The settlement ss was calculated using Eq. (21), but the applied
pressure qi was distributed by the 2:1 method, as used by Rao and
Ranjan (1985). In the other three methods, the distribution of the
pressure qi was estimated by Boussinesq’s theory. In Table 2, sp1 is the
compression deformation of the bulging section of the column and
sp2 is the compression deformation of the nonbulging section of the
column.
In the work by Rao and Ranjan (1985), the stone column-
reinforced foundation was regarded as a homogeneous material
with an equivalent constrained modulus Esp ; no radial deformation
was taken into account. Therefore, the calculated compression
deformation of the stone column sc was less than this from the
current method. In the work by Deng et al. (2003), the stone column
was treated as a wall, which resulted exaggerated effects of col-
umns on the reduction of foundation settlement. Thus the calcu-
lated sp was smaller than those from the current method when the
stress-concentration ratio n was the same in both methods, n 5 4. In
the method proposed by Sun and Gong (2008), the bulging depth h
was determined by the equation used to estimate the ultimate
bearing capacity of a stone column (Brauns 1978). Because the
calculated bulging depth of the column is larger than the current
method, the settlement sp1 is larger than those from the current
method when the stress-concentration ratio n is the same in both
methods, n 5 3. The bulging depth of the stone column is de-
veloped with the increase of vertical load on its top. At this point,
the current method provides more appropriate estimation. As
shown in Table 2, when the stress-concentration ratio n increases
from 3 to 4, the bulging depth h from the current method increases
from 0.8 to 1.6 m. Moreover, the load concentration ratio n has
a great influence on the bulging depth and the settlement of
foundation. It can be found in the following parametric study. Thus,
accurate determination of the n value is vital for the accurate
settlement analyses in the design of the composite foundation
reinforced with stone columns.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Typical profile of the soil in the chimney foundation

Table 1. Main Physical-Mechanical Property of Soils

Indexes Constrained
Thickness modulus Poisson’s
Layers (m) Eoed,s (MPa) ratio ms
Filled land 0.5 — —
Plastic clay layer 2.6 6.5 0.35
Very soft (silty) clay layer 6.0 4.0 4.00
Silty clay layer 3.5 4.0 4.00
Silty sand layer 6.0 — —
(hard stratum)

Deformation Responses of the Column under

Different Circumstances

The influences of vertical superstructure load q, stress-concentration

ratio n, angle of internal friction ws , and cohesion cs of the sur-
rounding soil, column elastic modulus Ep , on the deformation
responses of the stone column are discussed in this section. The
friction angle wps is assumed to be 0.67ws , and the cohesion cps is
assumed to be 0.67cs . The stone columns in a triangular pattern are
assumed to rest on an infinite rigid layer. In these parametric Fig. 5. Arrangement of the stone columns of the chimney foundation
analyses, only one parameter is changed, and all of the other
parameters are held constant at the base values listed in Table 3.
The increase of the concentration ratio n leads to the sharp de-
velopment of the tendency of the settlement and bulging of the
Influence of the Stress-Concentration Ratio n
column. For an applied load q 5 100 kPa, as shown in Figs. 6 and 7,
The influence of the stress-concentration ratio n on the performance when n increases from 2 to 5, the total compression deformation of
of the stone column is studied by varying n from 2 to 5, whereas the the column increases from 10.32 to 32.50 mm; the bulging depth
other parameters are kept constant, as shown in Table 3. increases from 0.34 for n 5 2 to 2:06 m for n 5 5. The reason for
As previously discussed, the stress-concentration ratio n from this is that the higher stress-concentration ratio implies more
the soil to the column has an effect on deformation of the column. vertical load acting on the top of the column when the total applied

252 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

 Table 2. Comparison of Settlements from Different Methods
Methods h (m) sp1 (mm) sp2 (mm) sc (mm) ss (mm) s (mm)
Rao and — — — 29.2 11.7 40.9
Ranjan (1985)
Pierbe (1995) — — — 32.7 — —
Deng et al. 1.7 3.3 36.1 39.4 12.0 51.4
(2003) (n 5 4)
Sun and Gong 1.7 12.2 19.5 31.7 12.0 43.7
(2008) (n 5 3)
Current 0.9 7.8 21.8 29.6 12.0 41.6
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

method (n 5 3)
Current 1.7 15.6 25.4 41.0 12.0 53.0
method (n 5 4)
Measured value — — — — — 41.0
Note: h is the bulging depth of the stone column; sp1 is the compression of
the bulging section of the column; sp2 is the compression of the nonbulging
section of the column; sc is the settlement of the composite soil layer with Fig. 7. Influence of the stress-concentration ratio n on the bulging depth
stone columns; ss is the settlement of the subjacent soil bed; s is the
foundation settlement; n is the stress-concentration ratio.

Table 3. Basic Calculation Parameters Used in Parameter Analyses

gs ws cs l rp S Ep
n (kN/m3) ms (degrees) (kPa) (m) (m) (m) mp (MPa)
3 16 3 103 0.35 10 10 10 0.4 1.6 0.25 15 MPa

Fig. 8. Influence of the angle of internal friction ws on the settlement

transferred into the higher depth. As a result, the settlement and

bulging of the column are decreased.

Influence of the Cohesion cs

Fig. 6. Influence of the stress-concentration ratio n on the settlement
load keep is constant, and then the larger compression and deeper
bulging of the column develop with the higher load on the column
top.
Influence of the Angle of Internal Friction ws
The influence of the angle of internal friction ws on the performance
of the stone column is studied by varying ws from 5 to 20°, whereas
the other parameters are kept constant, as listed in Table 3.
As shown in Figs. 8 and 9, the settlement on the top of the stone
column and the bulging depth of the column are both reduced with
the increase of the angle of internal friction ws of the soil. This is
because the column-soil interfacial shear resistance is related with
the angle of internal friction ws . When ws is increased, the shear
resistance is increased accordingly, and then less vertical pressure is
The influence of the cohesion cs of the surrounding soil on the
performance of the stone column is studied by varying cs from 5 to
20 kPa, whereas the other parameters are kept constant, as listed in
Table 3.
Because the increase of the cohesion cs of the surrounding soil
also has a contribution to improve the column-soil interfacial shear
resistance, the cohesion cs has a reduction effect on the settlement
and bulging of the column. As shown in Figs. 10 and 11, for an
applied load q 5 100 kPa, when cs increases from 5 to 20 kPa, the
settlement on the top of the column is decreased from 26.37 to
10.71 mm, and the bulging depth of the column decreases from 1.43
to 0.69 m. The reductions are 59.4 and 51.7%, respectively.
Influence of the Elastic Modulus Ep
The influence of the elastic modulus Ep of the column on the per-
formance of the stone column is studied by varying Ep from 10 to
25 MPa, whereas the other parameters are kept constant, as listed in
Table 3.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 253

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Influence of the angle of internal friction ws on the bulging depth Fig. 11. Influence of the cohesion cs on the bulging depth

Fig. 10. Influence of the cohesion cs on the settlement

Fig. 12. Influence of the elastic modulus of the column Ep on the
settlement
In Fig. 12, the increase of the elastic modulus Ep has a reduction
effect on the load-settlement behavior of the column. For an applied
load q 5 100 kPa, when Ep increases from 10 to 25 MPa, the set-
tlement on the top of the column is decreased from 27.02 to 10.80
mm. The reductions are 60.0%. However, as shown in Fig. 13, the
increase of the elastic modulus Ep from 10 to 25 MPa has no effect
on the bulging depth of the column.

Conclusions

An analytical approach to predict the deformation behavior of uni-

formly loaded soft foundation reinforced by stone columns was
presented. The approach incorporated the load sharing between
column and soil, the radial expansion of the column against the
surrounding soil, and the distribution of the column-soil interfacial
shear stresses. The column-soil interaction was assumed to be de-
veloped through bulging and interface shearing. The present solu-
tion was validated through a comparison of the settlements of
a chimney foundation reinforced with stone columns obtained from
different methods. The predictions show that the current method can
provide a more viable calculated bulging length of the stone column. Fig. 13. Influence of the elastic modulus Ep of the column on the
Using the equation h 5 2rp tan ðp=4 1 wp =2Þ (Brauns 1978) to bulging depth
determine the bulging depth of the column will lead to a larger total

254 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

 compression deformation of the column when the pressure acting
on the column does not reach its ultimate value.
The influences of the stress-concentration ratio, the internal
friction angle and cohesion of the surrounding soil, and the elastic
modulus of the column on the deformations of the stone column
were discussed. The discussion results indicate that: (1) the settle-
ment and bulging of stone column are developed with the increase of
the load acting on the top of the column; (2) the surrounding soil with
a larger internal friction angle or a larger cohesion can promote
a larger lateral confinement and a larger column-soil interfacial shear
resistance, and then can reduce the possibility of the column set-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
where Dt 5 increment of the thickness of the column wall; ss,i and
ssr,i 5 vertical and lateral stresses acting on the ith surrounding soil,
respectively; S1 5 column spacing in the transversal direction; and
Dss1,i 5 compression of the ith soil layer in the bulging section.
Then, the compression Dss1,i can be obtained by solving the
following equation:
A  B  Ds2s1,i þ A  C  Dss1,i 2 q  h  S1 ¼ 0
where
A 5 ½S1 2 S1 3 ms,i 2 t=hð1 1 ms,i Þð1 2 2ms,i ÞðS1 2 tÞEoed,s,i ; B 5

tlement and bulging; and (3) the increase of the column modulus has ðn 2 1Þ 3 t; and C 5 h 3 ðn 3 t 1 S1 2 tÞ.
a reduction effect on the column settlement, but has no effect on the For the nonbulging section, the following equations existed:
bulging depth of the column.
nss,i t þ ss,i ðS1 2 tÞ ¼ qi  S1
Appendix. Kp  nss,i ¼ Ks,i  ss,i
!
 ms,i
Method Proposed by Rao and Ranjan (1985) li
Dss2,i ¼ 1 2 m2s,i ss,i 2 ssr,i
Eoed,s,i 1 2 ms,i
In Rao and Ranjan’s (1985) study, the total settlement s of the
improved ground reinforced with stone columns was estimated by ms,i
0 ¼ ssr,i 2 ss,i
1 2 ms,i
PN q
i PNs qi9
s¼ hi þ Hi
i¼1 Esp,i i¼1 Eoed ,s,i where Dss2,i 5 compression of the ith soil layer in the nonbulging
section.
where Eps 5 composite modulus of the reinforced subsoil, Then
Eps,i 5 mEoed,p 1 ð1 2 mÞEoed,s,i ; other notations present the same   
meanings as previously mentioned; and the applied stress q is as- 1 þ ms,i 1 2 2ms,i  li  Kp  qi  S1
sumed to be distributed by the 2:1 method, as shown in Fig. 3. Dss2,i ¼   
Eoed,s,i 1 2 ms,i t  Ks,i þ S1  Kp 2 t  Kp
Method Proposed by Deng et al. (2003) where Kp 5 mp =1 2 mp and Ks,i 5 ms,i =1 2 ms,i .
Deng et al. (2003) treated the compression of the whole stone column Then
with a length of l as the compression sp1 of the bulging section of the
column with a length of h and the compression sp2 of the nonbulging P
N1 P
N2
sp1 ¼ ss1 ¼ Dss1,i ; sp2 ¼ ss2 ¼ Dss2,i
section of the column with a length of (l 2 h). The bulging depth h i¼1 i¼1
was determined by the following equation to calculate the ultimate
bearing capacity of the stone column (Brauns 1978): where N1 5 number of the soil layers in the bulging section
  ð0 # z # hÞ; and N2 5 number of the soil layers in the nonbulging
h ¼ 2rp  tan p=4 þ wp =2 section ðh , z # lÞ.

Furthermore the following idealized conditions were assumed: Method Proposed by Sun and Gong (2008)
1. The column with a diameter d was modeled as an equivalent
wall having the thickness of t 5 pd2 =ð4S2 Þ, where S2 is the Sun and Gong (2008) modified the method proposed by Deng et al.
column spacing in the longitudinal direction. Then the prob- (2003) by taking out the plane-strain assumption, whereas the other
lem was simplified to be a plain strain problem. assumptions were the same as these made in Deng et al.’s study. In
2. The bulging of the column remained constant all over the Sun and Gong’s study, a unit column-soil cell was analyzed, and
bulging depth h. Hook’s stress-strain relationships for the three-dimensional prob-
3. The horizontal sections in the ground remained horizontal in lems used. The derivation processes were similar to Deng et al.’s.
the course of settlement (equal strain theory), and no shear Then, the compression sp1 was obtained by solving the following
force existed at the interface between the column and the equation:
surrounding soil.
4. The bulk density of the column and the soil was neglected. A9  B9  Ds3p1 þ 4h  A9  B9  Ds2p1
The following equations were obtained from the force analysis  
of the bulging section of the column: þ 4A9  h2  B9 þ 4l2  Dsp1 2 16n  q  h2  S1  S2
2t  li  Dt ¼ Dt  Dss1,i ¼0
nss,i ðt þ DtÞ þ ss,i ðS1 2 t 2 DtÞ ¼ qi  S1
! where A9 5 Ep =hð1 2 mp Þð1 1 2ms,i Þ and B9 5 pd2 ðn 2 1Þ.
 ms,i
li The compression sp2 was obtained by
Dss1,i ¼ 1 2 m2s,i ss,i 2 ssr,i
Es,i 1 2 ms,i   
! ðl 2 hÞ 1 þ mp 1 2 2mp  q  S1  S2
 sp2 ¼  
S 2t ms,i   Ks 2 Kp pd2 Kp
Dt ¼ 1 1 2 m2s,i ssr,i 2 ss,i Ep 1 2 mp þ S1  S2
2Eoed,s,i 1 2 ms,i Ks 4 Ks

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013 / 255

Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.

 Acknowledgments
This research was funded through the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (NSFC No. 50878083 and No. 51078138)
and the Ministry of Education 985 Project.
References
Alamgir, M., Miura, N., Poorooshasb, H. B., and Madhav, M. R. (1996).
“Deformation analysis of soft ground columnar inclusions reinforced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY on 08/15/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
by columnar inclusions.” Comput. Geotech., 18(4), 267–290.
Ambily, A.P., and Gandhi, S. R. (2007). “Behavior of stone columns based
on experimental and FEM analysis.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
133(4), 405–415.
Balaam, N. P., and Booker, J. P. (1981). “Analysis of rigid rafts supported by
granular piles.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 5(4), 379–403.
Balaam, N. P., Poulos, H. G., and Brown, P. T. (1978). “Settlement analysis
of soft clays reinforced with granular piles.” Proc., 5th Asian Conf. Soil
Eng., Bangkok, Thailand, 81–92.
Black, J. A., Sivakumar, V., Madhav, M. R., and Hamill, G. A. (2007).
“Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: Laboratory model study.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 133(9), 1154–1161.
Braja, M. D. (2008). Advanced soil mechanics, 3rd Ed., Taylor & Francis,
New York.
Brauns, J. (1978). “Die anfangstraglast von schottersäulen im bindigen
untergrund.” Bautechnik, 55(8), 263–271.
Brooker, E. W., and Ireland, H. O. (1965). “Earth pressures at rest related
to stress history.” Can. Geotech. J., 2(1), 1–5.
Chinese Code for Design of Building Foundation. (2002). China Archi-
tecture and Building Press, Beijing.
Cole, R. T., and Rollins, K. M. (2006). “Passive earth pressure mobilization
during cyclic loading.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(9), 1154–1164.
Deb, K., and Dhar, A. (2011). “Parameter estimation for a system of beam
resting on stone column-reinforced soft soil.” Int. J. Geomech., in press.
Deb, K., Samadhiya, N. K., and Namdeo, J. B. (2011). “Laboratory
model studies on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed over stone
column-improved soft clay.” J. Geotextile Geomembr., 29(2), 190–196.
Deng, X. F., Liu, X. H., and Zhang, L. (2003). “A method to calculate the
settlement of stone-column composite ground.” Chin. J. Xiangtan
Mining Institute, 18(4), 55–57.
256 / INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GEOMECHANICS © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2013
Int. J. Geomech. 2013.13:248-256.
Duncan, J. M., and Mokwa, R. M. (2001). “Passive earth pressures: Theories
and tests.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 127(3), 248–257.
Fang, Y. S., Chen, T. J., and Wu, B. F. (1994). “Passive earth pressures with
various wall movements.” J. Geotech. Eng., 120(8), 1307–1323.
Han, J., and Ye, S. L. (2002). “A theoretical solution for consolidation rates
of stone column-reinforced foundations accounting for smear and well
resistance effects.” Int. J. Geomech., 2(2), 135–152.
Hassen, G., Dias, D., and de Buhan, P. (2009). “Multiphase constitutive
model for the design of piled-embankments: Comparison with three-
dimensional numerical simulations.” Int. J. Geomech., 9(6), 258–
266.
Juran, I., and Guermazi, A. (1988). “Settlement response of soft soils
reinforced by compacted sand columns.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
114(8), 930–943.
Madhav, M. R., Sharma, J. K., and Sivakumar, V. (2009). “Settlement of
and load distribution in a granular piled raft.” Geotech. Eng., 1(1),
97–112.
Mckelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., and Graham, J. (2004). “Modeling
vibrated stone columns on soft clay.” Geotech. Eng., 157(3), 137–149.
Poorooshasb, H. B., and Meyerhof, G. G. (1997). “Analysis of behavior
of stone columns and lime columns.” Comput. Geotech., 20(1), 47–70.
Priebe, H. J. (1995). “The design of vibro replacement.” Ground Eng.,
28(12), 31–37.
Raithel, M., and Kempfert, H. G. (2000). “Calculation models for dam
foundations with geotextile coated sand columns.” Proc., Int. Conf.
Geotech. Geol., Melbourne, Australia.
Rao, B. G., and Ranjan, G. (1985). “Settlement analysis of skirted granular
piles.” J. Geotech. Eng., 111(11), 1264–1283.
Sheng, C. W. (1986). “Estimation of settlement of composite ground
reinforced by stone columns.” China Civil Eng. J., 19(1), 72–79.
Shivashankar, R., Dheerendra Babu, M. R., Nayak, S., and Manjunath, R.
(2010). “Stone columns with vertical circumferential nails: Laboratory
model study.” Geotech. Geol. Eng., 28(5), 695–706.
Sivakumar, V., Glynn, D., Black, J., and McNeill, J. (2007). “A laboratory
model study of the performance of vibrated stone columns in soft clay.”
Proc., 17th Eur. Conf. Soil Mech. Geotech. Eng., Madrid, Spain.
Sun, L. N., and Gong, X. N. (2008). “Research on settlement calculation
method of composite foundation of discrete material piles.” Chin. J. Rock
Soil Mech., 29(3), 846–848.
Zahmatkesh, A., and Choobbasti, A. J. (2010). “Settlement evaluation of
soft clay reinforced with stone columns using the equivalent secant
modulus.” Arabian J. Geosci.