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

net/publication/320036317

EFFECTS OF STRENGTH OF CONFINING MATERIAL ON STRENGTH AND

DEFORMATION OF STONE COLUMN

Conference Paper · October 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 171

2 authors:

s p Singh Pawan Kumar Chamling

National Institute of Technology Rourkela Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar
86 PUBLICATIONS   630 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Stabilization of Dispersive soil using Industrial by-products View project

Effect of Monotonic and Cyclic Loading on the Behavior of Railway Ballast View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Pawan Kumar Chamling on 26 June 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of National Conference”GEPSID” held on October 11-12, 2014, Ludhiana

EFFECTS OF STRENGTH OF CONFINING MATERIAL

ON STRENGTH AND DEFORMATION OF STONE
COLUMN

S. P. Singh1and P. K. Chamling2

1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Rourkela, Odisha, spsingh@nitrkl.ac.in
2
Post Graduate Student, Department of Civil Engineering, NIT, Rourkela, pkchamling1993@gmail.com

Abstract: Among the various ground improvement techniques, stone columns (SCs) are widely used
for supporting flexible and light weight structures. Stone column derives its load carrying capacity
from the confinement offered by the surrounding soil. Stone column fails due to bulging and its load
carrying capacity can be increased by preventing bulging length. A detailed finite-element analysis on
behaviour of single column of 50 mm diameter is studied by varying parameters like loading area and
shear strength of soft clay. Finite-element analyses have been performed using 15-noded triangular
elements with the software package PLAXIS. The effects of loading area and properties of confining
material on bulging response have been investigated in this study. The results indicated that diameter
of bulging decreases with increase in either the loading area or the strength of the confinement
material. The critical length of stone column is greater than four times of the diameter of column and it
depends on loading area of stone column. The strength of confining material has no effect on the
critical length but the length of bulging is found to be more for confining materials with higher
unconfined strength. However the lateral spread of the bulged surface for these conditions are
comparatively less.

Keywords: Stone Column, unconfined strength, PLAXIS

INTRODUCTION

Due to the rapid industrialisation and large scale infrastructure development, there is going to be lack
of useful land. In general practice, the construction is done only on normal useful land. The otherwise
useless grounds like municipal solid waste dump sites, sites with marine clays, compressible soils or
reclaimed lands etc. are now worthy of construction purpose. Construction on this type of land is a
challenge so ground improvement techniques are preferred due to economical consideration. Now- a-
days, stone columns (granular piles) are successfully used to improve the mechanical properties of the
soft clay due to its effectiveness and ease of installation. Main aim of inserting a stone column is to
146
 Proceedings of National Conference”GEPSID” held on October 11-12, 2014, Ludhiana

replace a percentage of the soft clay with stiffer granular material so that it could tolerate the load of
the structure. Stone column derives its load carrying capacity from the confinement offered by the
surrounding soil. In compression, stone column fails in different modes, such as bulging failure
(Hughes and Withers 1974; Hughes 1976), general shear failure (Madhav and Vitkar 1978), pile failure
or failure by sliding (Aboshi et al. 1979). Stone columns having a longer length than its critical length
(i.e. about 4 times the diameter of the stone column) fails by bulging irrespective that it is end bearing
or floating type (IS 2003). Depth of bulging zone of stone column is affected by column diameter
rather than depth ratio and strength of soil (Bae et al. 2002). The depth of bulging is observed to be
four times the diameter of the columns (IS: 15284-2003, Hughes and Withers 1974). Columns longer
than critical length does not show further increase in load-carrying capacity however, longer columns
may be needed to control the settlement (Babu et al.). Load carrying capacity of the stone column
increases due to encasement and increase in load capacity depends on the modulus of encasement and
the diameter of the stone column (Murugesan and Rajagopal 2010). Sharma et al. (2012) performed
tests on stone columns by providing reinforcement in the form of horizontal strips of geosynthetic at
different spacing over different column length and as encasement over the full column length.
As most of the stone columns fail due to the bulging and as stated depth of the bulging zone is
affected by column diameter (4 times the diameter of stone columns) rather than strength of material.
But no one has considered the effect of loading area on depth of bulging zone. Hence, in present work
an attempt has been made to see the effect of loading area on depth of bulging zone. Stone column fails
due to bulging and its load carrying capacity can be increased by preventing the bulging length. A
detailed finite-element analysis on behaviour of single column of 50 mm diameter has been studied by
varying parameters like loading area and shear strength of soft clay.

FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

The analysis was carried out using an available finite element package PLAXIS-2D. An axisymmetric
analysis was carried out using Mohr-Coulomb’s criterion considering elasto-plastic behaviour for soft
clay and stone. The finite-element discretization (meshing) was done using 15-noded triangular
elements and basic boundary conditions used to represent the stone column and surrounding clay as
shown in fig. 1. The diameter of tank is considered 5 times the loading area. Along the periphery or
vertical boundary, radial deformation is restricted where settlement is allowed but along the bottom,
both radial deformation and settlement are restricted. At the interface between the stone column and
soft clay, no interface elements have been used as the deformation of the column is mainly by radial
bulging and no significant shear is possible. Also the interface between a stone column and clay is a
mixed zone where the shear strength properties can vary depending on the method of installation. As
the method of installation is not precisely known, an interface element is not used. Mitchell and Huber
(1985), Saha et al. (2000), Ambily and Gandhi (2007), etc., also carried out a similar finite-element
analysis of a stone column without an interface element. The input parameters (E, µ, φ, ψ, cu, γd) are
given in table 1 taken from Ambily and Gandhi (2007).
Table 1. Properties of materials used
Material W E µ cu Ψ Φ γd γsat
(%) (kPa) (kPa) (deg) (deg) (kN/m3) (kN/m3)

Clay 25 5500 0.42 has 30 - - 15.56 19.45

30 3100 0.45 14 - - 14.60 18.98
35 2150 0.47 7 - - 13.60 18.38

147
 Proceedings of Nation
ional Conference”GEPSID” held on October 11-12, 2014, Ludhiana
Lu

Stone - 55000 0.30 - 10° 44° 16.

6.62 -

Axis of sym
mmetry

Clay
Stone
Column

Figure
F 1. A Typical Finite Element Mesh

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

N

Figure 2 shows the effect off area

a ratio (ratio of diameter of the loaded area too diameter
d of stone
column) on the ultimate loadd carrying capacity of the stone columns embedded in i a medium with
different unconfined compressivsive strength. The load carrying capacity of the soil-sto
tone column system
with the diameter of stone colu
olumn fixed at 50mm and the diameter of the loadingg aarea varying from
50mm to 400mm have been cal alculated. This is compared with the load carrying capapacity of the similar
size footings located on the virgin
vir soil that is soil without a stone column. The variation
var of the load
carrying capacity with the loade
ded area is shown in Figure2. The effect of area ratio on the load carrying
capacity is brought out and the
he percent increment in ultimate load carrying capacity ity is calculated and
presented in Table2. An incremement of 332% in ultimate stress is obtained when thee loaded area is the
same as the area of the stone ne column. However as the loaded area is increased ed the increment in
ultimate stress over the virginn soil
s reduces. There is a little improvement in ultimat ate stress after area
ratio of 5. Table 2 shows the percentage
pe increment in maximum stress for differentnt area ratio for cu =
30 kPa.
Table 2. Effect of area ratio
ra on increment in ultimate stress of stone column fo
for cu=30 kPa

Area Ratio Maxim

imum Load (kN) Ultimate Stress (kN/m2) Incr
crement in
Ultimat
ate Stress (%)
1 0.51 816 332
2 0.87 348 84
3 1.47 261 38
4 2.27 227 20
5 3.34 213.7 13
6 4.69 208.4 10
7 6.20 202 7
148
 Proceedings of National Conference”GEPSID” held on October 11-12, 2014, Ludhiana

8 7.90 197.5 4.6

There is 10 % increment in ultimate stress for area ratio of 6 with respect to virgin clay but it can be
increased up to 100 % by preventing the bulging by any means i.e. by providing geosynthetic
encasement or geogrid horizontal strip.

900

800

700
Ultimate Stress (σu)

600

500

400

300

200
cu =30

100 14
0 7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Area Ratio (Ar)

Figure 2. Effect of Area Ratio and cu on Ultimate Stress of Stone Column

Total depth of bulging increases with increase in area ratio as given in table 3. Total depth of bulging
does not depend only on diameter of stone column but also on the loading area i.e. critical length does
not depend only on the diameter of column but also on loading area. It also shows that as area ratio
increases depth of maximum diameter shifted downward with decreasing degree of bulging. Figure 3
shows the variation of diameter of maximum bulging with area ratio for different shear strength. As
area ratio increases the depth of maximum bulging increases and has increasing tendency. For same
area ratio depth of maximum bulging is decreased with decrease in shear strength of surrounding clay.
Table 3. Effect of area ratio on depth and diameter of bulging for cu =30 kPa

Area Ratio Dia. of Maximum Location of Maximum Total Bulging Depth

Bulging (mm) Bulging from top (mm) (mm)
1 82 15 220
2 72 25 350
3 68 50 370
4 66 62 400
5 64 66 420
6 62 90 430
7 62 125 440
8 64 135 450

149
 Proceedings of National Conference”GEPSID” held on October 11-12, 2014, Ludhiana

There is sharp bulging when area ratio is low but bulging is distributed along a larger length when area
ratio is high i.e. a greater length should be protected to prevent the bulging when area ratio is high and
a smaller should be protected when area ratio is low. In the present study it is found that when area
ratio is greater than 3 then for low confining strength the diameter of maximum bulging is more than
high confining strength as shown in fig. 4. But when area ratio is between the 1 to 3 then for low
confining strength the diameter of maximum bulging is less than high confining strength.

160
Depth of maximum bulging (mm)

140 cu=30
14
120
100
7
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Area Ratio (Ar)

Figure 3. Effect of Area Ratio on Depth of Maximum Bulging for Different cu

90
Diameter of maximum bulging (mm)

80
70 cu = 7
14
60
30
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Area Ratio (Ar)

Figure 4. Effect of Area Ratio on Diameter of Maximum Bulging for Different cu

CONCLUSION

150
 Proceedings of National Conference”GEPSID” held on October 11-12, 2014, Ludhiana

The present work describes the results obtained from the finite element analysis carried out to study the
effect of the strength of the confining material and the loading area on the bulging behavior of stone
column. Based on the results obtained from this study the following conclusions are made:
1. The critical length of stone column is greater than four times of the diameter of column and it
also it depends on loading area of stone column.
2. The strength of confining material has no effect on the critical length but the length of bulging
is found to be more for confining.
3. For confining materials with higher unconfined strength the lateral spread of the bulged
surface is less however the length of bulging is more.
REFERENCES

Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Harada, K., and Emoki, M. (1979), “The composer—A method to Improve
the characteristics of soft clays by inclusion of large diameter sand columns”, Proc., Int. Conf. on
Soil Reinforcement., E.N.P.C., 1, Paris 211–216.
Ambily, A. P. and Gandhi, S. R.(2007), “Behaviour of stone columns based on experimental and FEM
analysis”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE/APRIL 2007,405-
415.
Babu, M., Nayak, S. R., Shivashankar, R. (2013), “A critical review of construction, analysis and
behaviour of stone columns”, Journal of Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22.
Hughes, J. M. O., and Withers, N. J. (1974), “Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone columns.”
Ground Eng., 7_3_, 42–49.
Hughes, J. M. O., Withers, N. J., and Greenwood, D. A. (1976), “A field trial of reinforcing effect of
stone column in soil.” Proc., Ground Treatment by Deep Compaction, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, 32–44.
IS: 15284-2003 Indian standard code of practice for design and construction for ground improvement-
guidelines. Part 1: Stone columns, India
Madhav, M. R., and Vitkar, P. P. (1978), “Strip footing on weak clay stabilized with a granular trench
or pile.” Can. Geotech. J., 15(4), 605–609.
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2010), “Studies on the behaviour of single and group of geosynthetic
encased stone columns”. ASCE, J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(1):129–139.

151

View publication stats