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

net/publication/248876739

Limit Analysis of Rigid Foundations on Floating Columns

Article  in  International Journal of Geomechanics · May 2009

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2009)9:3(89)

CITATIONS READS

55 738

3 authors, including:

Mounir Bouassida Belgacem Jellali

University of Tunis El Manar École Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Tunis
331 PUBLICATIONS   2,080 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   240 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Soil Charaterization View project

Bridges Repair, Rehabilitation and Retrofitting - In Frensh : Expertises, Inspections, Diagnostics et Réhabilitation d'Ouvrages d’Art View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mounir Bouassida on 17 April 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 This article was originally published in a journal published by
Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the
author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for
non-commercial research and educational use including without
limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s
administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without
limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access,
or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s
website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
 Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111
www.elsevier.com/locate/compgeo

Improved soft clay characteristics due to stone column installation

py
Z. Guetif a, M. Bouassida a,*
, J.M. Debats b

a
Geotechnical Engineering Research Team, 05/UR/11-06, National Engineering School of Tunis, BP 37 Le Belvédère 1002 Tunis, Tunisia

co
b
The vibroflotation Group, 1445 Chemin des Lauves, 13100 Aix en Provence, France

Received 12 July 2005; received in revised form 20 September 2006; accepted 29 September 2006
Available online 18 January 2007

Abstract

al
A method is proposed for evaluating the improvement of the Young modulus of soft clay in which a vibrocompacted stone column is
installed. By considering a composite cell model a numerical analysis is carried out using Plaxis software to simulate the vibrocompaction
on
technique, which leads to a form of primary consolidation of the soft clay. For the numerical simulation Mohr Coulomb perfect plastic
behaviour is considered for the improved soil constituents. From numerical results the degree of improvement of the Young modulus soft
clay has been estimated. Also, the zone of influence of the improved soft clay has been predicted.
 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
rs

Keywords: Consolidation; Composite cell; Young modulus; Improvement; Numerical simulation; Soft clay; Stone column; Vibrocompaction
pe

1. Introduction treatment. As examples measured undrained shear strength

The degree of improvement of a soft soil by stone col-
umns is due to two factors. The first one is inclusion of a
stiffer column material (such as crushed stones, gravel,
and so alike. . .) in the soft soil. This is largely reported in
's
values were provided by Vautrain [8], and recorded mea-
surements at the vicinity of the column at various depths
of the surrounding soft clay were reported by Al-Khafaji
and Craig [9]. Alamgir and Zaher [10] and Sanglerat [11]
illustrated, in natural and reinforced soft ground, that the

the literature [1–6]. The second factor is the densification standard penetration resistance of the soft ground has been
of the surrounding soft soil during the installation of the increased significantly after a stone column installation.
vibrocompacted stone column itself and the subsequent N-value ranges from 2 to 7 for natural ground but it
or

consolidation process occurring in the soft soil before the increases from 5 to 12 in the reinforced soft ground. A sig-
final loading of improved soil. The experimental work per- nificant increase, averaging three times pre-treatment val-
formed by Wattes et al. [7], and Vautrain [8] verifies that ues in number of blows, was measured in a cohesive soil
th

the installation of vibrocompacted stone columns leads to at one meter distance from the column centre, Wattes
an improvement of the in situ soft soil characteristics et al. [7]. Also a higher increase happened within a granular
and, consequently, enhances the load displacement soil in similar conditions. Vane test results recorded before
Au

response of the reinforced soil.
In addition, from field observations, it was reported the
mechanical characteristics (Young modulus, undrained
cohesion, etc. . . .) of the in situ soft soil surrounding stone
columns were much higher than those measured before
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +216 71 872729.
E-mail addresses: mounir@lmsgc.enpc.fr, mounir.bouassida@enit.
rnu.tn (M. Bouassida).
and after an embankment construction on soft clay rein-
forced by columns showed up similar improvement of soft
soil characteristics [12]. From measurements recorded at
different distances from the column centre it has been
checked the decrease of column installation effect as the
radial distance increases.
For a better illustration field data are plotted in the dia-
gram ‘‘normalized soil characteristics versus the normal-
ized depth’’. Focusing in Fig. 1, where z and Hc denote,

0266-352X/$ - see front matter  2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.09.008
 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111
Nomenclature
Notations
E0 drained Young modulus
p00 effective mean stress
q deviatoric stress
r0r effective radial stress
r0z
effective vertical stress
respectively, the depth, from the top of level ground, and
column’s length, it is shown the range where improvement
of soft soil characteristics takes place at different locations
around the column with radius rc. In terms of mean values
the improvement effect in the soft soil ranges from 1.5 to 5
times the pre-treatment values. The degree of soft soil
improvement depends obviously on the soil type.
Not taking this improvement into account may lead, in
the corresponding design methods, to an overestimation of
the required quantities of column material.
Although the improvement of soft soil characteristics is
currently determined from field data it is interesting to pre-
dict it from laboratory test results. Indeed, a large number
of laboratory tests has been performed, for example oedo-
metric and triaxial tests, to prove the increase of Young
rs
modulus as a function of consolidation stress, Biarez
et al. [13].
It should be said that the soil improvement effect has not
pe
been widely discussed in the geotechnical literature as done
by Almeida et al. [12] and Shen et al. [14]. One reason for
this may be that neither numerical nor analytical methods
exist to estimate the improvement of soft soil characteris-
tics by means of the vibrocompacted column installation.
However, Greenwood [15] proposed an empirical design
method for estimating the reduction of settlement of rein-
's
forced soil taking into account the installation process of
stone columns.
The main goal of this paper is to estimate, particularly,
or
the increase of Young modulus occurring after a column
th
Normalized undrained cohesion and SPT values
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 also contributes to the improvement of characteristics of
Au
Cu / Cu0 (r = 48rc), Al-Khafaji et al [9]
Cu / Cu0 (r = 10rc), Al-Khafaji et al [9]
z
Cu1 / Cu0 Almeida et al [12]
Hc
N-values / N0 Alamgir et al [10]
Cu2 / Cu0 Almeida et al [12]
Cu /Cu0 Vautrain [8]
1
Fig. 1. Soil improvement effect from field data.
105
er radial strain
c total unit weight
c0 drained cohesion
u0 friction angle
k coefficient of permeability
py
K0 coefficient of earth lateral pressure at rest
installation in soft clay. For this purpose a numerical sim-
co
ulation of column installation process is proposed to ana-
lyze the increase of the stiffness of in situ soft soil in
which a vibrocompacted stone column is installed. With
the proposed simulation an attempt of evaluation of the
improved Young modulus of the soft clay is provided
and the extent of the influenced zone where such improve-
ment takes place is determined.
al
This paper is presented in the following sequences. First,
the simulation of the column installation in soft clay by
means of vibrocompaction technique is introduced. Next,
on
an explanation is given concerning the adopted process to
evaluate the increase of Young modulus of soft clay. Sub-
sequently, the evolution of the state of stress is presented.
Conclusions are drawn from the obtained results in this
study and further developments of this research are also
suggested.
2. Adopted methodology
As reported in several contributions, contrarily to the
important increase in strength of granular soils owing to
vibratory action of the probe, the significant increase of
soft soils characteristics is only due to the radial displace-
ment from the expansion of the column toward the sur-
rounding soil.
The lateral expansion of a vibrocompacted column
installation is immediately followed by the dissipation of
excess pore water pressures generated in soft clay. Conse-
quently an increase of the effective stresses is recorded
within the column and the surrounding soft clay, Wattes
et al. [7]. Consequently, it is expected that, after the pri-
mary consolidation process, the expansion of the column
the surrounding soft clay. Indeed, from pressuremeter tests,
carried out before and after columns installation, a signif-
icant increase of the pressuremeter modulus has been
noticed in soft clay, Vautrain [8].
Moreover, from laboratory tests the dependence
between the state of stress and stiffness modulus of soils
has been showed by Biarez et al. [13] and Long [16]. As
an example, from triaxial tests data, carried out at the
National Engineering School of Tunis on reconstituted
Tunis soft clay, the increase of soil stiffness as a function
of the consolidation stress has been observed. Fig. 2 shows
the increase of stiffness modulus (taken as the initial slope
106 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111

140
σ3=20 kPa
In Eq. (1) E (E0) and p0 ðp00 Þ designate, respectively, the
σ3=60 kPa
Young modulus and effective mean stress, p0 ¼ ðr0r þ
120
r0h þ r0z =3Þ, of the soil. The exponent m represents the rela-
deviatoric stress (σ1−σ3) (kPa)

σ3=120 kPa
100 tionship between the normalized modulus and that of the
corresponding effective mean stress. For sands and silts dif-
80
ferent values of parameter m are suggested in the range
60 0.5 < m < 1. For normally consolidated clays and sands in-
stead of E0 it is recommended to use the secant modulus

py
40 E50 as reference value of Young modulus [18]. From
20
stress–strain curve recorded from a classical triaxial test
the secant modulus E50 corresponds to the deviatoric stress
0 equals the half of failure stress. For normally consolidated

0 1
vertical strain ε (%)
Fig. 2. Deviatoric stress versus vertical strain in soft clay during
consolidated drained triaxial test, [17].
of the stress–strain curve) along with the applied effective
confining pressure during the consolidation phase of con-
co
2 3 4
clays, as specified in Plaxis users’ manual, it is recom-
mended to take m = 1. In this case, from Eq. (1) a linear
relationship is obtained between normalized stiffness mod-
ulus and effective mean stress. Therefore, the evolution of
Young modulus during consolidation of soft clay is that
predicted from the effective mean stress distribution.
Based on this reasoning, the simulation of vibrocom-

al
solidated drained triaxial test, Tounekti et al. [17]. pacted column installation within soft clay is investigated
Fig. 3 clearly illustrates the dependence between the using a composite cell model. Then, the evolutions of the
state of stress and oedometric modulus of soft clay. effective mean stress immediately after the column installa-
on
Eoed ðEref 0 0ref tion and during the period of primary consolidation taking
oed Þ and rz ðrz Þ designate, respectively, the oedo-
metric modulus and the consolidation stress. The super- place in the soft clay are predicted.
script ‘‘ref’’ indicates a given reference (or initial) state. A numerical analysis is undertaken by using the com-
In Fig. 3, the increase of oedometric modulus as a function puter software Plaxis [18] where the stone column installa-
rs

of the consolidation stress can be approximately fitted, in tion is simulated as the expansion of a cylindrical cavity
the range of small deformation, with a good linear within soft clay. The proposed analysis is developed to
regression. examine the behaviour of improved soil, on one hand,
pe

Based on these experimental observations, the improve- immediately after column installation and, on the other
ment of stiffness modulus for soils would be generally hand, during a given period of the primary consolidation
deduced from experiments in which the dependence process involved in the surrounding saturated soft clay
between stiffness modulus and state of stress is formulated before final loading.
by the following power law as suggested in [13]:
 0 m 3. Composite cell model
E p
¼ ð1Þ
's

E0 p00 The composite cell model has been widely considered by

many researchers to investigate several aspects of rein-
forced soils by columns: increase of bearing capacity, pre-
or

diction of settlement reduction and evolution of soil

6 Sample (1) consolidation [4,5,19,20].
Sample (2)
In the present study, the data are taken from the stone
Sample (3)
th

5 column project investigated by Namaa Engineering and

Consultation S.A.E, [21]. The soil profile is made up of a
soft clay layer with 12.25 m thickness covered by a sandy
4
Au

layer of 12.75 m thickness. The data presented in [21]

oed
/Eref

revealed higher mechanical characteristics for the under

oed

layer located beyond the soft clay. Therefore, this lower

E

3
base of the soil profile is assumed as rigid stratum (see
Fig. 4).
2
The soft clay is expected to be reinforced with vibro-com-
pacted stone columns with 1.1 m diameter. The natural
1 characteristics of the in situ soft clay and the column mate-
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
, ,ref rial used in this project are given in Table 1. For the consti-
σz / σz
tutive column material the convenient choice that is well
Fig. 3. Variation of normalized modulus versus normalized consolidation graded non-treated gravel justifies its low drained cohesion
stress from oedometer test. and reliable friction angle value. As recommended in
 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111 107

z Since stone columns are installed in a short period of

5m time the expansion process is considered to occur in
1m undrained conditions. Along the thickness of soft clay layer
compacted sand
a numerical procedure called ‘‘Dummy material’’ is per-
12.75m formed to simulate this installation where the column is
considered to behave as a cylindrical cavity subjected to
lateral expansion. The numerical procedure called
1.1m
soft clay ‘‘Dummy material’’ consists, firstly, in modelling the cylin-
A A' 12.25m

py
drical hole occupied by the vibroprobe with radius of
0.25 m (which is a typical value with the wet-top-feed tech-
nique) by a fictitious purely elastic material having a weak-
Impervious 1.42m
Boundary
est Young modulus i.e. Edm = 20 kPa (see Fig. 5a). Then,

co
along the border of cylindrical hole the soft clay is sub-
Fig. 4. Composite cell model. jected to radial displacement that simulates the vibrocom-
paction installation until the horizontal expansion reaches
the column radius of 0.55 m (see Fig. 5b). Finally, the real
Brinkgreve and Vermeer, [18] the angle of dilatancy is usu- characteristics of column material are introduced to start,
ally taken null for soft clays. with Plaxis, the numerical computation of soft clay consol-
The case history of Damiette project is simulated by the idation (see Fig. 5c).

composite cell model depicted in Fig. 4 that reproduces the
soil profile (cf. Fig. 4). The boundary conditions are those
of an oedometric test. Due to the vibrocompacted installa-
on
tion the interface between the column and soft clay might
be assumed as perfect (total adhesion). Such fact implies
that shear stresses may occur at the contact between the
column material and soft clay. The contact between the
rs
al
Plaxis software is used to carry out numerical computa-
tions in the framework of an axisymmetric study which
well matches with the composite cell model. The improved
soil is modelled with 15 nodes triangular finite elements.
From numerical results we focus on the effect of the expan-
sion of the column and the primary consolidation induced
within the soft clay. Predicted results are presented at the

column and soft clay is assumed pervious while the borders mid-thickness of soft clay layer (cf. dashed line AA 0 in
of the composite cell model are kept impervious excepting Fig. 4) at distances 0.6 m, 1.5 m and 2.4 m from the axis
the top level of compacted sand layer. of the column.
pe

Table 1
Material properties of the improved soil [21]
c (kN/m3) m0 E 0 (kPa) c 0 (kPa) u 0 () w () k (m/day)
Soft clay 17 0.25 4000 5 21 0 0.94 · 105
Column material 20 0.33 32000 10 38 8 100
's

Initial sand 18 0.33 25000 1 35 5 10

Compacted sand 20 0.33 50000 1 38 8 10
or

z z
th

Dummy material
Au

12.25 m Edm
Edm Soft clay Soft clay 12.25m

0.25m 0.25m
5m
0.55m
a b c
Fig. 5. Simulation by the composite cell model of stone column expansion: (a) model of improved soil; (b) modelling column expansion; (c) discretized
improved soil.
108 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111

The lateral expansion generates large strains, estimated
about of 45%, in soft clay neighbourhood the column. This
fact is taken into account by adopting the ‘‘updated mesh’’
option provided by Plaxis software (cf. Fig. 5c). In order to
analyze the reinforcing effect during the column installation
and the consolidation occurring in soft clay, a multistage
modelling is performed. It includes three stages: undrained
expansion of the column within the soft clay, compaction
after the expansion of column material. The second stage
corresponds to the end of primary consolidation which
takes place in the soft clay. As a result of the expansion
of the column the deviatoric stress, denoted q, is increased
at the vicinity of the column until the failure state is
reached in the surrounding soft clay where large plastic
radial strains are predicted (see Fig. 6, phase 1). This result
is not in accordance with the assumption adopted in several

of the overlying sand layer playing the role of surcharge,
and consolidation of the improved soil during 11 months,
Debats et al. [22]. Modelling the behaviour of soft clay
and column material can be done by means of various con-
py
contributions postulating that a yielding state is reached
only in the column material, while the surrounding soft soil
remains in the elastic phase [23,3].
Fig. 6 clearly indicates that the effect of the column

stitutive laws provided in Plaxis software. Since this first
study aimed to be qualitative rather than quantitative the
adequate choice for numerical predictions should be ori-
ented to a simple model like Mohr Coulomb’s behaviour
which parameters are easily determined from current labo-
ratory tests. Then, as a first approximation of soil behav-
iour the perfect elastoplastic Mohr Coulomb’s model is
co
expansion decreases in term of deviatoric stress while plas-
tic strains become smaller and smaller as the distance, from
the column’s axis, increases (from 0.6 m to 2.4 m).
Immediately after the expansion of the column to its
final diameter and the substitution of the ‘‘dummy mate-
rial’’ for the granular column material, the surrounding
soft clay is relaxed and a significant decrease of the devia-

al
considered both for soft clay and column material. Despite toric stress is noted close to the interface between the soft
this simple choice of soil behaviour it will be illustrated, in clay and column (r = 0.6 m, cf. Fig. 6). Consequently, a
Section 4, by using the same modelling the soft clay might
on
have different mechanical characteristics, especially its
80
Young modulus, at two different stages of the soil improve- Phase 2: vibro-probe removed
ment project. After the results of parametric study detailed 75
r= 0 .6 m
in Guetif et al. [20] the external radius of composite cell 70
r= 1 .5 m
Phase1: Column expansion
rs
r= 2 .4 m
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

model is taken equal to 5 m (cf. Fig. 4). Indeed, beyond this

65
value it has been indicated that the column installation has
no effect on the response of the improved soil. The state of 60 Phase 3: Consolidation phase
pe

stress at rest has been adopted as initial condition for 55

numerical computations both in the column and in soft
50
clay i.e. K0 = 1  sinu 0 . K0 = coefficient of lateral earth
pressure at rest. 45

40
4. Results and interpretations 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
Effective mean stress (kPa)
's

After the column installation two stages, in time, are dis- Fig. 7. Stress paths in p 0 –q plane at mid thickness of soft clay layer at radii
cussed. The first one corresponds to the immediate time 0.6 m, 1.5 m and 2.4 m.
or

80

75
Phase1 : Column expansion
th

70
Deviatoric stress (kPa)

Phase 2 Vibro-probe removed-

65
r=0.6m
Au

r=1.5m
60
Phase 3: Consolidation

r=2.4m
55

50

45

40
0 5 10 15 20 25
Radial strain (%)

Fig. 6. Deviatoric stress versus radial strain at mid thickness of soft clay layer at radii 0.6 m, 1.5 m and 2.4 m.
 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111 109

lateral compression (confining pressure) is exerted by the 2

surrounding soft clay on the column. However, the effec-
tive mean stress is kept unchanged (cf. Fig. 7, phase 2) in

Normolized effective stresses

the soft clay where the consolidation process (cf. Fig. 7,
phase 3) is just starting.
The stress paths predicted from the numerical simula-
tion (cf. Fig. 7) demonstrate the evolution of stress invari- 1
ants during the expansion of the column and the

py
consolidation phase taking place in the soft clay.
σ'r /σ 'r0
σ'z /σ 'z0
5. Effect of the expansion of the column p'/p'0

co
Since the reinforcing column is installed by a lateral 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
expansion the excess pore water pressures are generated r (m)
in the saturated in situ soft soil. Immediately after the
Fig. 9. Variation of normalized effective stresses in soft clay before
expansion of the column, the variation of excess pore pres- consolidation, with distance from the column.
sures with radial distance (see Fig. 8) illustrates very large
predicted values near the soil–column interface. The pre-
dicted pore water pressures decrease when the distance 260

al
from the edge of the column increases. While the distribu- 240 Within the column
tion of effective mean stress remains unchanged in soft clay r=0.6 m
220
Effective mean stress (kPa)

r=1.5 m
(cf. Fig. 7, phase 1) the radial effective stress largely
on r=2.4 m
increases to the detriment of the vertical effective stress, 200
which decreases uniformly by some 20%. Such numerical 180
prediction, owed to the adopted Mohr Coulomb behav-
160
iour, remains debatable especially the decrease of vertical
rs

stress in soft clay. Fig. 9 shows the variations of normalized 140

radial, vertical and mean effective stresses at the mid-thick-
120
ness of the soft clay layer.
pe

Immediately after the installation of the column, it is 100

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
shown that effective mean stresses are not modified in the Time (days)
surrounding soft clay (cf. Fig. 9). The increase of radial
stress is compensated by a decreased vertical stress, while Fig. 10. Variation of effective mean stress with time at mid-width of soft
clay layer at radii 0.6 m, 1.5 m and 2.4 m.
values of tangential stress remain more or less constant.
However, it should be noted (see Fig. 10) that the compres-
sive effective mean stress induced in the drained column period of 11 months. From the latter an increase of the
's

(which increases significantly between phase 2 and phase Young modulus of column material is also expected.
3) is predicted about three to four times the effective mean After the expansion of the column a new distribution of
stress generated in the soft clay during the consolidation stresses takes place in the surrounding soft clay (see Fig. 11)
or

that can be quantified by the ratio between effective radial

12
1.5
th

10

8
Au
u / u0

6
σ r' /σ z

1
'

4
Before consolidation
2 After consolidation

0 0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
r (m) r (m)

Fig. 8. Variation of normalized excess pore pressure in soft soil before Fig. 11. Variation of normalized effective stresses (r 0 r/r 0 z), at mid-
consolidation with distance from the column. thickness of soft clay layer, with distance from the column.
110 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111

and vertical stresses ðr0r =r0z Þ. From the predicted increase of

effective radial stress the lateral strains in soft clay are sig- σ 'r /σ 'r0

Normalized effective stresses

nificantly reduced. Consequently the coefficient of lateral 2 σ 'z /σ 'z0
earth pressure at rest, denoted by K0, increases from its ini- p'/p'0
tial value (K0 = 1  sin u 0 = 0.64) in soft clay to values
exceeding one at the vicinity of the column. It should be
mentioned that a hydrostatic state (K0 = 1) being an effect
1
of stone columns installation in the initial soil was assumed

py
by Priebe [3] for settlement calculation.

6. Effect of the consolidation in the surrounding soft clay

0

co
As mentioned in Section 2, upon the installation of a 0 1 2 3 4 5
vibrocompacted stone column, there is a subsequent con- r (m)
solidation process involved in the surrounding soft clay Fig. 13. Variation of normalized effective stresses in soft clay, after
that results from the dissipation of excess pore water pres- consolidation, with distance from the column.
sures (see Fig. 12).
In the case of Damiette project investigated here, the
consolidation period of 11 months (335 days) after column

al
installation corresponds to the actual tank construction Normalized effective mean stress 3
schedule. This period appears to be larger than the real
time needed to achieve the primary consolidation which
on
contributes to the increase of soft clay strength characteris-
tics. Consequently, due to this quasi-total dissipation of 2
excess pore water pressure an important increase of the
effective radial stress, averaging 60% (see Fig. 13) within
rs

a radius of 5 m from the axis of the column, is recorded,

Debats et al., [22]. 1
The normalized radial, vertical and mean effective stres-
pe

ses evolutions as a function of radial distance, at the mid- 0 1 2 3 4 5

thickness of the completely consolidated soft clay layer,
are plotted in Fig. 13.
Thus, numerical results show, after the primary consol-
idation of soft clay, the existence of a zone of influence sur-
rounding the column up to a distance (from the centre of
the column) estimated by six times the radius of the column
's
r (m)
Fig. 14. Variation of normalized effective mean stress, in the reinforced
soil after soft clay consolidation, with distance from the column axis.
Wattes et al. [7] postulating a significant stress increasing
measured at a distance equivalent to five times the col-

(i.e. 3 m). Within this zone of influence, the effective mean umn’s radius. From Fig. 13 it can be also concluded that
stress increases by some 30% in average (cf. Fig. 13). the increase of effective mean stress is mainly due to the
Beyond this zone the effective mean stress is practically increase of radial stress.
or

unchanged. A similar observation has been reported by The diminishing effect with increasing distance from the
column centre was also observed after measurements
recorded from pressure cells located at different distance
th

200 from the column axis, Wattes et al. [7].

At the end of primary consolidation, it is predicted an
increase of the effective mean stress in the reinforced soil
Excess pore pressure (kPa)

150
with higher values within the column as compared to those
Au

r=0.6m
r=1.5m taking place in the soft clay (Fig. 14). This fact is due to
r=2.4m
100 much higher Young modulus of column material regarding
that of the soft clay.

50
7. Concluding remarks

0
The installation of stone column in soft clay has been
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 simulated by adopting a composite cell model. The inher-
Time (days) ent numerical computations are conducted by the use of
Fig. 12. Variation of excess pore pressure with time in soft clay during Plaxis software. The simulation demonstrates a significant
consolidation. improvement of the characteristics of soft clay subjected
 Z. Guetif et al. / Computers and Geotechnics 34 (2007) 104–111
to vibrocompacted column installation. The main conclu-
sions of this contribution, based on Mohr Coulomb’s
behaviour adopted for the constituents of improved soil,
are as follows:
1. For the short term behaviour, i.e. immediately after col-
umn installation, high excess pore pressures are devel-
oped in the surrounding soft clay with unchanged
effective mean stress. However, in the drained material
column the effective mean stress increases to about four
times with respect to that predicted in soft clay.
2. After a period of 11 months, during which the primary
consolidation in the soft clay has taken place after the
stone column installation, the predictions are:
– A quasi-total dissipation of excess pore water pres-
sures with significant increase of the effective mean
stress caused by the increase of effective radial stress.
– The effective vertical stress, remaining almost
unchanged, it follows an increase of the coefficient
of lateral earth pressure at rest.
– From such initial soil improvement taking place at
distance equivalent to six times the column radius a
on
revised soft soil Young modulus can be adopted for
predicting the settlement of reinforced soil, Guetif
et al. [24].
– The estimation of the radius of the influence zone
rs
shall lead to an optimised column spacing where the
group effect is better mobilized.
– These results predicted by Mohr Coulomb behaviour
pe
need to be assessed through elaboration of laboratory
model tests.
3. The improvement of the Young modulus of soft clay, due
to the consolidation caused by the installation of the
vibrocompacted column, should be considered in the
design procedure. As a result the settlement reduction
is expected to be more pronounced than that predicted
's
by previous contributions which usually consider the
characteristics of initial soil unchanged after column
installation.
or
This contribution focused only on the effect of column
installation and subsequent consolidation preceding the
th
final loading of the improved soil. In further developments,
the response under permanent loads can be examined using
either the Mohr Coulomb behaviour or the hardening soil
Au
model for constituents of the reinforced soil.
References
[1] Balaam NP, Booker JR. Analysis of rigid rafts supported by granular
piles. Int J Numer anal Meth Geomech 1981;5(4):379–403.
[2] DTU 13.2 (Documents Techniques Unifiés). Colonnes ballastées;
1992, [Chapitre VII].
[3] Priebe H. The design of vibro replacement. Ground Eng 1995:31–7.
[4] Poorooshasb HB, Meyerhof GG. Analysis of behaviour of stone
columns and lime columns. Comput Geotech 1997;20(1):47–70.
111
[5] Bouassida M, Guetif Z, de Buhan P, Dormieux L. Estimation par une
approche variationnelle du tassement d 0 un sol renforcé par colonnes.
Revue Française de Géotech 2003;102:21–9.
[6] Dhouib A, Blondeau F. Colonnes ballastées. Edition Presses de
l 0 école nationale des ponts et chaussées, Paris; 2005.
[7] Wattes KS, Johnson D, Wood LA, Saadi A. An instrumented trial of
vibro ground treatment supporting strip foundations in a variable fill.
Géotechnique 2000;50(6):699–708.
[8] Vautrain J. Comportement et dimensionnement des colonnes bal-
lastées. Revue Française de Géotech 1980;11:59–73.
py
[9] Al-Khafaji ZA, Craig WH. Drainage and reinforcement of soft clay
tank foundation by sand columns. Géotechnique 2000;50(6):709–13.
[10] Alamgir M, Zaher SM. Field investigation on a soft ground of
Bangladesh reinforced by granular piles. In: Ochiai et al., editors.
Proceedings of international symposium on earth reinforcement,
co
November 14–16th 2001. Landmarks in earth Reinforcement,
p. 517–22.
[11] Sanglerat G. Contrôle des colonnes ballastées à l 0 aide du pénétromè-
tre statique AMAP 0 sols. Jubilé Jimenez Salas, Madrid; 2002.
[12] Almeida MSS, Santa Maria PEL, Martins ISM, Spotti AP, Coelho
LBM. Consolidation of very soft clay with vertical drains. Géotech-
nique 2000;50(6):633–43.
[13] Biarez J, Gambin M, Gomes-Corriea A, Falvigny E, Branque D.
al
Using pressuremeter to obtain parameters of elastoplastic models for
sands. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on site
characterization, ISC 0 98, Atlanta Georgia, USA, April 19–22nd 1998.
p. 747–52.
[14] Shen SL, Miura N, Koga H. Interaction mechanism between deep
mixing column and surrounding clay during installation. Can
Geotech J 2003;40(2):293–307.
[15] Greenwood DA. Mechanical improvement of soils below ground
surface. In: Proceedings of the conference on ground engineering.
Institution of Civil Engineers 1970, London, paper II. p. 11–22.
[16] Long M. Modeling the stress–strain behavior of Onsoy clay. In:
Vermeer et al., editors. Proceedings of Workshop on Geotechnics of
Soft Soils. Theory and practice. Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands,
September 17–19th 2003. p. 461–6.
[17] Tounekti F, Klay M, Bouassida M. Assessment of an elastoplastic
behaviour model for Tunis soft clay. In: Proceedings of thirteenth
Danube conference ljubljana, May 29th–31st 2006.
[18] Brinkgreve RB, Vermeer PA. Plaxis-finite element code for soil and
rocks analysis. Version 8. Rotterdam Brookfield: AA. Balkema;
1998.
[19] Bouassida M, de Buhan P, Dormieux L. Bearing capacity of a
foundation resting on a soil reinforced by a group of columns.
Géotechnique 1995;45(1):25–34.
[20] Guetif Z, Bouassida M, Debats JM. Parametric study of the
improvement due to vibrocompacted columns installation in soft
soils. in: Proceedings of thirteenth African Regional Conference of
Soil Mech. and Geotech. Eng, Marrakech (Morocco), December 8–
11th 2003. p. 463–6.
[21] Namaa Engineering and Consultation (SAE). Geotechnical report of
‘‘Damiette LNG tanks’’ project. 2001, Vibroflotation Europe.
[22] Debats JM, Guetif Z, Bouassida M. Soft soil improvement due to
vibro-compacted columns installation. In: Vermeer et al., editors.
Proceedings of Workshop Geotechnics of Soft Soils. Theory and
Practice, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands, September 17–19th
2003. p. 551–7.
[23] Balaam NP, Booker JR. Effect of stone columns yield on settlement
of rigid foundations in stabilized clay. Int J Numer Anal Meth
Geomech 1985;9(4):351–81.
[24] Guetif Z, Debats JM, Bouassida M, Ellouze S. Amélioration du
module de déformation d’une argile molle due à la mise en place
d 0 une colonne ballastée par vibrocompactage. In: Proceedings of
International Geotechnical Conference, Beyrouth, May 19–22nd
2004. p. 343–9.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL AND ANALYTICAL METHODS IN GEOMECHANICS
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 2005; 29:989–1004
Published online 2 June 2005 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/nag.441

A homogenization method for estimating the bearing

capacity of soils reinforced by columns

B. Jellali1, M. Bouassida1,n,y and P. de Buhan2

1
ENIT, De´partement de Ge´nie Civil, BP 37 Le Belve´de`re, 1002 Tunis, Tunisia
2
LMSGC.(LCPC, ENPC, CNRS, UMR/113), 6–8 Av. B. Pascal, Cité Descartes,
77455 Marne-La-Valle´e, Cedex2, France

SUMMARY
The ultimate bearing capacity problem of a strip foundation resting on a soil reinforced by a group of
regularly spaced columns is investigated in the situation when both the native soil and reinforcing material
are purely cohesive. Making use of the yield design homogenization approach, it is shown that such a
problem may be dealt with as a plane strain yield design problem, provided that the reinforced soil
macroscopic strength condition has been previously determined. Lower and upper bound estimates for
such a macroscopic criterion are obtained, thus giving evidence of the reinforced soil strong anisotropy.
Performing the upper bound kinematic approach on the homogenized bearing capacity problem, by using
the classical Prandtl’s failure mechanism, makes it then possible to derive analytical upper bound estimates
for the reinforced foundation bearing capacity, as a function of the reinforced soil parameters (volume
fraction and cohesion ratio), as well as of the relative extension of the reinforced area. It is shown in
particular that such an estimate is closer to the exact value of the ultimate bearing capacity, than that
derived from a direct analysis which implicitly assumes that the reinforced soil is an isotropic material.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: bearing capacity; columns; cohesion ratio; homogenization theory; macroscopic strength
criterion; reinforced soil; substitution factor; upper bound; yield design theory

1. INTRODUCTION

The incorporation into a weak foundation soil of cylindrical inclusions (columns) made up of a
material having higher strength characteristics, will obviously result in an increase of its bearing
capacity. Considering for instance a soft clay with a relatively low shear strength (say 20 kPa),
two kinds of column reinforcement techniques might be envisaged:

* the ‘stone column’ technique which consists in introducing within the soft clay a
vibrocompacted stone or ballast material, the friction angle of which may exceed 408:

n
Correspondence to: M. Bouassida, ENIT, Département de Génie Civil, BP 37 Le Belvédère, 1002 Tunis, Tunisia.
y
E-mail: moumir.bouassida@enit.rnu.tn

Received 14 April 2004

Revised 6 March 2005
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 7 March 2005
990 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

* the ‘lime column’ technique obtained from mixing the weak soil mass with a given
percentage of lime or lime–cement, thus producing a considerable increase of the soil initial
shear strength (up to 20 times), together with a relatively small friction angle.

Design procedures aimed at estimating the bearing capacity improvement which could be
expected from these reinforcement techniques have been developed, first in the particular
situation of a reinforcement by one single inclusion (isolated column model) [1, 2], then by
referring to the composite soil model [3, 4], where the analysis is focused on a representative
volume of reinforced soil in the case of a periodic arrangement of columns within the soil.
Anyhow, apart from a significant contribution devoted to the lime-column reinforcement
technique [5], the general case when the soil is reinforced by a group of columns has been rarely
investigated.
The limit analysis (or yield design) theory [6] provides an adequate framework for
determining, or at least evaluating, the bearing capacity of column-reinforced foundations, by
resorting either to the lower bound static or to the upper bound kinematic approach. Relevant
results have for instance been obtained in the case of reinforcement by a trench located beneath
a strip foundation [7, 8], then generalized to the situation of a group of columns [9, 10]. It turns
out that in the case of a purely cohesive soil reinforced by a group of columns made of a
cohesive-frictional material, the implementation of the yield design approaches, and more
specifically the upper bound kinematic approach, proves rather cumbersome, if not impossible.
Indeed, as pointed out in Reference [11], failure mechanisms involving velocity discontinuities
across surfaces subject to intersecting both the purely cohesive soil and frictional column
material, cannot be easily handled, owing to the three-dimensional geometry of the
reinforcement.
Such a situation may be overcome by resorting to a homogenization approach, as advocated
in Reference [11] or Reference [12]. The purpose of the present contribution is to generalize to
the configuration of a soft clay reinforced by cylindrical inclusions made of a purely cohesive
material, some results previously obtained by de Buhan [11] in the particular case when the
reinforced soil is modelled as a multilayered material. At first, the procedure implies the
determination of a macroscopic criterion describing the strength properties of the reinforced soil
as a homogeneous material. This is carried out by solving a yield design boundary value
problem attached to a representative elementary volume of reinforced soil. Lower bound, as
well as upper bound estimates of this criterion are derived, both leading to a formulation in
terms of anisotropic cohesion. In the second stage of the procedure, the bearing capacity of the
reinforced soil is evaluated through the upper bound kinematic approach, making use of the
previously determined macroscopic condition.

2. STATEMENT OF PROBLEM AND PRINCIPLE OF THE

HOMOGENIZATION APPROACH

Our objective is to assess the ultimate bearing capacity of a rigid strip footing of width B; resting
upon a homogeneous purely cohesive soil (cohesion C) which has been reinforced by a group of
vertical columns made of a cohesive material of cohesion kC; ðk51Þ: The reinforcements are
placed into the native soil following a periodic arrangement, so that the reinforced zone of
width B1 may be regarded as an assemblage of identical composite cells such as that sketched in

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE BEARING CAPACITY 991

Figure 1. Each such cell, which has a square shaped cross section of side s (spacing between two
neighbouring columns), contains one single circular cylindrical reinforcement of radius r; so
that the reinforcement volume fraction is simply
pr2
Z¼ ð1Þ
s2
Let Q be the uniform vertical load per unit length along the Oz-axis, applied to the reinforced
soil, assumed to be weightless, through the strip footing. Referring to the theory of yield design
[13], the ultimate load bearing capacity of the strip shallow foundation is defined as the
maximum possible value of Q; denoted by Qþ ; such that there exists at least one stress field in
equilibrium with the applied load, while complying in each point with the strength criterion of
either the native soil, or the column material. Despite some successful attempts in the particular
case where the group of columns is entirely located beneath the footing ðB5B1 Þ [10], the direct
implementation of the yield design approach proves rather difficult, if not impossible, due to the
strong heterogeneity of the reinforced soil. The homogenization method [14, 15] is based on the
concept of associated homogeneous problem (Figure 2), defined on a structure having the same
geometry as the initial one, and subjected to the same loading conditions, but where the
composite reinforced soil is replaced by a so-called ‘equivalent’ homogeneous material. The
implementation of such a method within the context of yield design theory implies two

Figure 1. Bearing capacity of a strip footing resting upon a reinforced half space.

Figure 2. Initial (a) and associated (b) homogeneous bearing capacity problems.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
992 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

successive steps:
* The determination of the macroscopic strength criterion of the reinforced soil. Owing to
the reinforcement orientation, such a criterion is expected to be anisotropic, with the
vertical direction Oy as symmetry axis.
* The application of the yield design approaches to the associated homogeneous problem,
making use of the previously determined macroscopic criterion.
It should be kept in mind that such a homogenization procedure is all the more relevant as the
typical size of the reinforcement, namely the spacing s between two adjacent columns, is small in
comparison with a characteristic length of the problem such as the foundation’s width B: This
means, from a practical point of view, that the number of columns involved in the reinforcement
is sufficiently large. The determination of the macroscopic strength condition relies upon the
solution of a yield design boundary value problem defined on the representative composite cell
of reinforced soil, denoted by C (Figure 1). More specifically, any ‘macroscopic’ state of stress S
will comply with such a macroscopic strength condition expressed in the form %

FðSÞ40 ð2Þ
%
if and only if there exists a stress field s defined on C satisfying the following requirements:
%
* S is equal to the average value of s over C; then
% % 1 Z
S¼ s dC ¼ hsi ð3Þ
% jCj C % %
* s is in equilibrium, that is
%
div ðsÞ ¼ 0 ð4Þ
% %
along with the condition of continuity of the stress vector across possible stress
discontinuity surfaces.
* s:n is anti-periodic, that it takes opposite values on opposite sides of C; where n denotes the
%
%outer unit normal to C; %
* and finally s satisfies the strength criterion at any point x of C
% ( %
C if x 2 Cs
ðs1
s3 ÞðxÞ4 % ð5Þ
% kC if x 2 Cr
%
where s1 5s2 5s3 are the principal stress components (positive in traction), and Cs (resp. Cr )
denotes the sub-domain of C occupied by the native soil (resp. the reinforcing column).
It is important to note that the associated homogeneous problem depicted in Figure 2(b), may
be treated as a plane-strain yield design problem in the Oxy-plane. Consequently, such an
analysis only requires the use of the so-called ‘plane-strain’ macroscopic strength criterion,
which can be defined as follows. Denoting by S * the two-dimensional tensor formed by the
components of S in the Oxy-plane %
%
S* ¼ Sab ea  eb ; a; b ¼ x; y ð6Þ
% % %
the two-dimensional ‘plane-strain’ condition associated with the macroscopic three-dimensional
condition (2) writes
* ¼ min fFðS
* SÞ
Fð * þ Szz ex  ez Þg40 ð7Þ
% Szz % % %

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE BEARING CAPACITY 993

In other terms, denoting by Ghom the macroscopic strength domain in the space of stresses S;
defined as %

S 2 Ghom , FðSÞ40 ð8Þ

% %
the ‘plane-strain’ strength domain G* hom associated with Fð * may be defined as follows:
* SÞ
%
G * 9Szz such that S
* hom ¼ fS; * þ Szz ez  ez 2 Ghom g ð9Þ
% % % %

3. DERIVATION OF LOWER BOUND AND UPPER BOUND ESTIMATES

FOR THE ‘PLANE-STRAIN’ MACROSCOPIC STRENGTH CONDITION

3.1. Lower bound estimate

* hom will
A lower bound approximation of the above defined ‘plane strain’ strength domain G
now be obtained by considering piecewise constant stress fields of the form
0 1
Sxx Sxy 0
B C
sðxÞ ¼ B@ Syx syy
s
0 CA if x 2 C
s
ð10Þ
% % %
0 0 Szz
and
0 1
Sxx Sxy 0
B C
sðxÞ ¼ B
@ Syx sryy 0 C
A if x 2 Cr ð11Þ
% % %
0 0 Szz
It can be immediately shown that such a stress field is in equilibrium with the macroscopic stress
S ¼ Sab ea  eb þ Szz ez  ez ð12Þ
% % % % %
if the following condition is satisfied:
Syy ¼ ð1
ZÞssyy þ Zsryy ð13Þ
since the continuity of the stress vector across the soil–column interface is automatically verified.
Furthermore, choosing Szz as intermediate principal stress of s in both constituents, the strength
criterion may be expressed as %
ss1
ss3 ¼ ½ðSxx
ssyy Þ2 þ 4S2xy 1=2 42C ð14Þ
in the native soil and
sr1
sr3 ¼ ½ðSxx
sryy Þ2 þ 4S2xy 1=2 42kC ð15Þ
in the reinforcement. These conditions can be rewritten as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sxx
2 C 2
S2xy 4ssyy 4Sxx þ 2 C 2
S2xy with jSxy j4C ð16Þ
and
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Sxx
2 k2 C 2
S2xy 4sryy 4Sxx þ 2 k2 C 2
S2xy with jSxy j4kC ð17Þ

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
994 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

so that, making use of (13), one obtains

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jSxx
Syy j42Z k2 C 2
S2xy þ 2ð1
ZÞ C2
S2xy ð18Þ

along with
jSxy j4C ð19Þ

Conditions (18) and (19) define a lower bound estimate for G * hom ; which can be geometrically
represented as follows in the space of stresses. Introducing the following stress variables:
Sxx
Syy pffiffiffi
S¼ pffiffiffi ; T¼ 2Sxy ð20Þ
2

the lower bound conditions may be rewritten as

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
jSj4 ð1
ZÞ 2C 2
T 2 þ Z 2k2 C 2
T 2
pffiffiffi ð21Þ
jTj4 2C

the corresponding domain being shown in Figure 3, in the ðS; TÞ-plane, where hCi ¼
ð1
ZÞC þ ZkC: This same figure displays a very simple geometrical way to draw the lower
bound domain’s boundary in the ðS; TÞ-plane. Indeed, a point m of this boundary is obtained
through the following vector relationship:
hm ¼ ð1
ZÞhm1 þ Zhm2 ð22Þ

where h; m1 and m2 are points aligned pffiffiffisame horizontal line ðT ¼ ct:Þ and located on the
pffiffiffi on the
vertical axis and circles of radii 2C and 2kC; respectively, the latter being the yield loci of
the native soil and column material in the deviatoric plane.

α α

Figure 3. Lower bound estimate for the ‘plane-strain’ strength criterion of the reinforced soil.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE BEARING CAPACITY 995

The following relationships may be written as:

S1
S3 S1
S3
S ¼ pffiffiffi cos 2a; T ¼ pffiffiffi sin 2a ð23Þ
2 2
where S1 5S3 are the major and minor principal macroscopic stresses (Szz ¼ S2 is intermediate)
and a is the angle made by the major principal stress with respect to Ox: It follows from these
relations that the polar co-ordinates ðr; yÞ of a point MðS; TÞ are (Figure 3)
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi S1
S3
r ¼ S 2 þ T 2 ¼ pffiffiffi and y ¼ 2a ð24Þ
2
so that the lower bound condition can be expressed as
S1
S3 42C
ðaÞ; S1 5S3 ð25Þ
where C
ðaÞ satisfies the following equation:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C
ðaÞ cos 2a ¼ ð1
ZÞ C 2
ðC
ðaÞÞ2 sin2 2a þ Z ðkCÞ2
ðC
ðaÞÞ2 sin2 2a ð26Þ
for
!
1 1
jaj4a0 ¼ tan
1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ð27Þ
2 n k2
1
and
C
C
ðaÞ ¼
otherwise ð28Þ
sin 2a
C
ðaÞ may be interpreted as an anisotropic cohesion with the particular values
p
C
ð0Þ ¼ C
¼ ð1
ZÞC þ ZkC ¼ hCi ð29Þ
2

Figure 4. Polar diagram representing the cohesion as a function of the macroscopic stress orientation.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
996 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

and
 p
C
 ¼ C ð30Þ
4
The corresponding polar diagram is sketched in Figure 4.

3.2. Derivation of an upper bound estimate

An upper bound estimate for the macroscopic strength criterion of the reinforced soil is
obtained by using the yield design kinematic approach applied to the representative composite
cell of reinforced soil. Leaving aside some theoretical developments which may be found in
References [14, 16], the main important result will be briefly recalled here.
Let U be a (virtual) velocity field defined over the cell C by
%
UðxÞ ¼ F:x þ vðxÞ ð31Þ
% % % % % %
where vðxÞ is a periodic function of x: The upper bound kinematic approach of yield design states
% % macroscopic stress S which
that any % complies with the strength condition (2) will satisfy the
following inequality: %
FðSÞ40 ) 8U; S : D4hpðdÞi ð32Þ
% % % % %
where
D ¼ 12 ðF þtFÞ ð33Þ
% % %
is called the macroscopic strain rate tensor associated with U; while
Z %
1
hpðdÞi ¼ p½dðxÞ dC ð34Þ
% jCj C % %
with
dðxÞ ¼ 12 ðgrad U þtgrad UÞðxÞ ð35Þ
% % % % % % %
and
p½dðxÞ ¼ sup fs : dðxÞ; ðs1
s3 Þ4C ðor kCÞg ð36Þ
% % s % % %
%
The calculation of function p gives
( P 
C ðor kCÞ K jdK j if trðdÞ ¼ 0
pðdÞ ¼ % ð37Þ
% þ1 otherwise
hpðdÞi is called the maximum resisting work developed in the velocity field U, where dK ; K ¼ 1–
% the principal components of the strain rate tensor d.
3, are %
%
3.2.1. First upper bound estimate. It is obtained by using the following simple velocity field:

U ¼ D:x ) dðxÞ ¼ D ð38Þ

% % % % % %
so that (32) becomes

FðSÞ40 ) 8D; S : D4hpðdÞi ð39Þ

% % % % %
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE BEARING CAPACITY 997

with
( P 
hCi K jdK j if trðDÞ ¼ 0
hpðdÞi ¼ % ð40Þ
% þ1 otherwise
that is
FðSÞ40 ) 8D; S : D4 sup fS : DðxÞ; S1
S3 42hCig ð41Þ
% % % % S % % %
%
or
FðSÞ40 ) S1
S3 42hCi ð42Þ
%
The latter implication means that a first upper bound estimate for the macroscopic strength
capacities of the reinforced soil is given by those of a purely cohesive material whose isotropic
cohesion is equal to the average value of the soil and reinforcement cohesions with their
respective volume fractions.

3.2.2. Second upper bound estimate. A piecewise rigid block mechanism, sketched in Figure 5, is
now considered, defined as follows.
The unit cell is divided into two parallelepipedic blocks denoted by 1 and 2, respectively,
and separated by a planar surface Sv normal to the Ox-axis and located in the soil. Block
No. 2 is given a uniform velocity V ey ; while the block No. 1 is kept motionless, so that the
%
velocity jump across Sv is purely tangential. In such a case, the macroscopic strain rate tensor is
given by
V
D ¼ ð ex  ey þ ey  ex Þ ð43Þ
% 2 % % % %

Figure 5. Piecewise rigid block mechanism used in the upper bound kinematic approach.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
998 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

Figure 6. Upper and lower bound estimates for the macroscopic strength criterion of reinforced soil,
under plane-strain conditions.

whereas the maximum resisting work developed in such a velocity field reduces to the sole
contribution of the discontinuity surface
Z
1
hpðdÞi ¼ CjVj dS ¼ CjVj ð44Þ
% jCj Sv
Consequently,
FðSÞ40 ) 8V; S : D ¼ Sxy V4CjVj ð45Þ
% % %
or
2C
FðSÞ40 ) jSxy j4C , S1
S3 4 ð46Þ
% sin 2a

3.3. Synthesis of results

The lower bound and upper bound estimates of the macroscopic strength criterion (2) under
‘plane-strain’ conditions obtained through the static and kinematic approaches of yield design,
may be summarized as follows:
*
 G
G * hom  G
*þ ð47Þ
with
G * S1
S3 42C
ðaÞg
*
¼ fS; ð48Þ
%
and
G * S1
S3 42C þ ðaÞg
* þ ¼ fS; ð49Þ
%
Both domains are represented in Figure 6 in the ðS; TÞ-plane.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE BEARING CAPACITY 999

For a reinforcement volume fraction Z ¼ 0:15 and a reinforcing material having a cohesion
equal to ten times that of the native soil ðk ¼ 10Þ; the maximum relative difference between
C
ðaÞ and Cþ ðaÞ is 12%, thus producing a fairly accurate estimate for the actual macroscopic
strength of the reinforced soil. Such a difference becomes negligible for k520; which is the case
of lime column reinforcement [5].

4. LOAD BEARING CAPACITY PROBLEM

The associated homogeneous bearing capacity problem, shown in Figure 2(b), can now be dealt
with as a ‘plane-strain’ yield design problem, in which the column-reinforced zone, is replaced
by an equivalent homogeneous material, whose strength capacities have been previously
estimated by means of the homogenization procedure.
Since it can be proved that the ultimate load value Qn is independent of the gravity [17], the
specific weight of both constituents (soil and reinforcement) will be taken equal to zero in the
subsequent developments. Following simple dimensional analysis arguments, it appears that this
ultimate load value takes the form
Qn ¼ BCN n ðk; lÞ ð50Þ
n
where N is a non-dimensional factor depending on the non-dimensional arguments k and
l ¼ B1 =B; where B1 is the reinforced zone width, the depth of the reinforced zone being taken as
sufficiently large.
Our objective is to evaluate N n ; and more particularly to produce upper bound estimates of
this factor, making use of the yield design kinematic approach applied to the equivalent
homogenized problem. More precisely, it will be shown that the classical Prandtl’s mechanism,
which gives the exact value of N n ¼ p þ 2 in the case of an unreinforced soil (that is for k ¼ 1 or
l ¼ 0), can be implemented in such a problem. Such a mechanism is shown in Figure 7. The
triangular block A0 AI located beneath the footing is given a rigid body motion characterized by

Figure 7. Prandtl’s mechanism on the homogenized bearing capacity problem.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
1000 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

a velocity
U ey with U50; while the lateral rectangular blocks ADE and A0 D0 E 0 are given
% pffiffi
2
velocities of same modulus U 2 but inclined at ðp=4Þ with respect to the vertical. In the
intermediate ‘fans’ A0 ID0 and ADI; the velocity field is given by
pffiffiffi
2
Ur ¼ 0; Uy ¼ U ð51Þ
2
where Ur and Uy denote the radial and orthoradial components of U; respectively, with A or A0
% the external forces simply
taken as origin of the co-ordinate system. While the virtual work of
writes
We ¼ QU ð52Þ
the maximum resisting work developed in such a mechanism may be computed as follows:
s hom
Wmr ðUÞ ¼ Wmr ðUÞ þ Wmr ðUÞ ð53Þ
% % %
s hom
where Wmr ðUÞ and Wmr ðUÞ denote the respective contributions of the native soil and the
% %
reinforced zone. The first contribution is calculated in the same way as in the classical Prandtl’s
solution for an isotropic purely cohesive soil.
Z Z 
s
Wmr ðUÞ ¼ 2 pðdÞ dx dy þ pðn; ½UÞ ds ð54Þ
% BCD % BD[DE % %
with

pðdÞ ¼ CðjdI j þ jdII jÞ ð55Þ

%
dI ¼
dII 50 are the principal values of d; and
%
pðn; ½UÞ ¼ Cj½Uj ð56Þ
% % %
½U is the tangential velocity jump across the discontinuity lines BD and DE:
% The second contribution of the maximum resisting work concerns the reinforced zone, where
the macroscopic strength condition prevails. It may be put in the form
Z Z 
hom
Wmr ðUÞ ¼ 2 pðdÞ dx dy þ pðn; ½UÞ ds ð57Þ
% IACB % IB[IA % %
with
* hom g
phom ðdÞ ¼ supfS : d; S 2 G ð58Þ
% % % %
and

phom ðn; ½UÞ ¼ supfðS:nÞ:½U; S 2 G* hom g ð59Þ

% % % % % %
where G* hom
is the ‘plane-strain’ macroscopic strength domain.
Now making use of the upper bound estimate G * þ of G
* hom defined by (49), function pðdÞ is
such that %
 
2C
phom ðdÞ4pþ ðdÞ ¼ S* : d; S1
S3 42C þ ðaÞ ¼ min ; 2hCi ð60Þ
% % % % sin 2a

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 A HOMOGENIZATION METHOD FOR ESTIMATING THE BEARING CAPACITY 1001

It can be proved that the latter inequality can be put in the form
(
cos 2ðb
b0 Þ if sin 2b5sin 2b0
phom ðdÞ4pþ ðdÞ ¼ 2dI hCi ð61Þ
% % 1 otherwise
where dI is the maximum principal strain rate, b its angle with Ox and b0 is defined as
C
sin 2b0 ¼ ð62Þ
hCi
It follows in particular that for b ¼ ðp=4Þ

phom ðdÞ4pþ ðdÞ ¼ 2dI hCi sin 2b0 ¼ 2dI C ð63Þ

% %
hom
The same kind of inequality is valid for function p ðn; ½UÞ relative to a tangential velocity
jump % %
(
hom þ
cos 2ðb
b0 Þ if sin 2b5sin 2b0
p ðn; ½UÞ4p ðn; ½UÞ ¼ j½UjhCi ð64Þ
% % % % % 1 otherwise
Making use of the above-described Prandtl’s failure mechanism with U50; the kinematic
approach of yield design provides an upper bound estimate for Qn

Wc ¼ Qþ U4Wmr ðUÞ ¼ Wmr

s þ
ðUÞ þ Wmr ðUÞ ð65Þ
% % %
or
1 s þ
Qn 4 fWmr ðUÞ þ Wmr ðUÞg ð66Þ
U % %
where
Z Z 
þ þ þ
Wmr ¼2 p ðdÞ dx dy þ p ðn; ½UÞ ds ð67Þ
IACB % IB[IA % %
The latter quantity can be computed analytically by means of (61) and (64), thus providing an
upper bound estimate for Qn through (66).

5. RESULTS AND COMMENTS

The following particular values are obtained for the upper bound estimate of Qn =BC ¼ N n as a
function of the relative width l ¼ B1 =B of the reinforced zone:
* l ¼ 0 (unreinforced foundation)
N n 4N þ ¼ ðp þ 2Þ ð68Þ

* l¼1


p pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi 1
N n 4N þ ¼ ð1 þ rÞ 1 þ þ r2
1
r cos
1 ð69Þ
2 r
where r ¼ hCi=C ¼ ð1
ZÞ þ Zk (r ¼ 1 in the case of unreinforced soil).

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
1002 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

* l¼2

pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

1
N n 4N þ ¼ 1 þ r þ 2 r2
1 þ r sin
1 ð70Þ
r

* l53
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

n þ 2
1 1
N 4N ¼ ðp þ 2Þr þ 2 r
1
r cos ð71Þ
r
The latter upper bound estimate for N þ ðl53Þ has already been derived in References [11, 14].
It is worth comparing this bound with that calculated by means of the same Prandtl’s
mechanism, but where the reinforced soil is modelled as a homogeneous isotropic purely
cohesive material having a cohesion equal to hCi; that is
þ
Niso ¼ ðp þ 2Þr ð72Þ
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
þ
1
which remains always greater than N since ð r2
1
r cos ð1=rÞÞ is negative. This difference
may be explained by the fact that adopting an isotropic cohesion equal to hCi for the reinforced
soil amounts to overestimating its actual strength capacities while not capturing its anisotropic
characteristics as shown in Figure 6, where the solid curve which represents the upper bound
estimate of the macroscopic
pffiffiffi strength condition is obviously inside the domain bounded by the
circle of radius 2hCi which corresponds to the case of a material with an isotropic cohesion
equal to hCi:
Moreover, it appears that the isotropic cohesion assumption for the reinforced soil is
equivalent to performing the upper bound kinematic approach directly, that is making use of
the Prandtl’s mechanism on the reinforced soil considered as a composite heterogeneous
material, without any reference to the concept of homogenization. Indeed, considering for
instance a velocity jump surface such as that denoted by S; which separates the shear zone AID
from the underlying motionless reinforced soil, its contribution to the maximum resisting work
(per unit length along the Oz-axis) may be calculated as
Z Z
dir
Wmr ðIBÞ ¼ Cj½Uj dS þ kCj½Uj dS ¼ Cj½UjðjSs j þ kjSr jÞ ð73Þ
Sn % Sr % %
where Ss (resp. Sr Þ represents the intersection of this discontinuity surface with the native soil
(resp. reinforcing columns). Assuming that the space s between two adjacent columns is
sufficiently small in comparison with the foundation’s breadth B; it finally comes out
dir
Wmr ðIBÞ ffi Cj½Ujðð1
ZÞjSj þ kZjSjÞ ¼ hCij½UjjSj ð74Þ
% %
thus leading to the same value of the maximum resisting work as that derived from the isotropic
cohesion assumption. By way of example, for k ¼ 20 and Z ¼ 0:30; we obtain r ¼ 0:67; hence
for l53
þ þ
N n 4Nhom ¼ 28:655Ndir ¼ 34:45 ð75Þ
which shows that the upper bound kinematic approach implemented within the framework of
the homogenization method developed in this paper, makes it possible to improve by as much as
17% the estimate given by a direct implementation of the same kinematic approach.
Figure 8 displays a series of curves giving the calculated upper bound estimate for N þ as a
function of the reinforced zone relative width l; for different values of the substitution factor Z;

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

the cohesion of the reinforcing columns being twenty times greater than that of the native soil
ðk ¼ 20Þ:
This chart shows that, as could be predicted, the bearing capacity estimate is a continuously
increasing function of the reinforced zone relative width l; with a maximum constant value for
l53; that is when the extension of the reinforced zone becomes larger than that of Prandtl’s
mechanism. It is worth noting, that the tangent to these curves experiences a discontinuity for
l ¼ 1; seemingly dropping to almost zero when l exceeds this particular value. This may be
explained by the fact that, for the particular mechanism considered here, the contribution of the
reinforcements located in the immediate vicinity of both sides of the foundation is vanishing.
This could be interpreted by observing that, in these particular regions, the Prandtl’s mechanism
is mobilizing the minimum value of the reinforced soil anisotropic cohesion, equal to that of the
native soil.

6. CONCLUSION

The present contribution has presented a general homogenization procedure for evaluating the
ultimate bearing capacity factor of a purely cohesive foundation soil reinforced by a group of
evenly spaced columns, in the case when the column material is also purely cohesive. One of the
decisive advantages of such a homogenization concept, developed in the context of the yield
design (or limit analysis) theory, lies in its ability to capture the strength anisotropy of the
reinforced soil regarded as a homogeneous medium, whereas in most cases the use of a direct
calculation procedure amounts to overestimating this strength, thus leading to a rather crude
upper bound approximation of the reinforced foundation bearing capacity.
A first illustrative application of this yield design homogenization approach has been
performed on the problem of a strip foundation subject to vertical loading, resting upon a
1004 B. JELLALI, M. BOUASSIDA AND P. DE BUHAN

symmetrically reinforced soil, which can be dealt with as a plane-strain problem. Preliminary
results have thus been obtained by means of the kinematic approach using the classical Prandtl’s
mechanism, in the form of an upper bound estimate for the bearing capacity factor as a function
of the characteristics of soil reinforcement (proportion of reinforcing material, cohesion ratio),
as well as of the reinforced area relative extension. Of course, as regards this particular bearing
capacity problem, improved (that is optimized) upper bound estimates could have been
obtained from varying the parameters which define the failure mechanism.
Among the most attractive features of the homogenization approach is the fact that it remains
applicable to any kind of problem, with no particular restriction concerning the geometry or the
loading conditions. Its extension to the case of reinforcement by stone columns, where the
reinforcing material exhibits a very high friction angle, could therefore be considered in the near
future, provided that a formulation of the corresponding macroscopic strength condition be
obtained.

REFERENCES
1. Aboshi H, Ichlmoto E, Enoki M, Harada K. The compozer: a method to improve characteristics of soft clays by
inclusion of large diameter sand and columns. Comptes Rendus, Colloque International ‘Renforcement des sols en
place’, Paris, 1979; 1:211–216.
2. Brauns J. Initial bearing capacity of stone columns and sand piles. C.R. Symposium, Soil Reinforcing and Stabilizing
Techniques in Engineering Practice 1978; 1:479–512.
3. Datye KR. Settlement and bearing capacity of foundation system with stone columns. Proceedings of Symposium on
Soil and Rock Improvement Techniques Including Geotextiles, Reinforced Earth and Modern Piling Methods, vol. A1.
AIT: Bangkok, 1982; A1-1–A1-27.
4. Jamiolkowski M, Ghionna V. Colonne di ghiaia. X ciclo di conferenze dedicate ai problemi di meccanica dei terreni e
ingegneria delle fondazioni metodi di miglioramento dei terreni, vol. 507. Politecnico di Torino Ingegneria, atti
dell’istituto di scienza delle costruzioni, 1991.
5. Broms BB. Lime and lime/columns. Summary and visions. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Ground
Improvement Geosystems: Keynotes Lecture, Helsinky, 7–9 June 2000; 43–93.
6. Salençon J. Calcul á la rupture et analyse limite. Edit. Presses des Ponts et Chaussées, Paris, 1983.
7. Bouassida M, Hadhri T. Extreme load of soils reinforced by columns: the case of an isolated column. Soils and
Foundations 1995; 35(1):21–36.
8. Bouassida M, Jellali B. Capacité portante d’un sol renforcé par une tranchée. Revue Franc-aise de Génie Civil 2002;
6(7–8):1381–1395.
9. Bouassida M. Étude expérimentale du renforcement de la vase de Tunis par colonnes de sable-application pour la
validation de la résistance en compression théorique d’une cellule composite confinée. Revue Franc-aise de
Ge´otechnique 1996; 75:3–12.
10. Bouassida M, de Buhan P, Dormieux L. Bearing capacity of a foundation resting on a soil reinforced by a group of
columns. Ge´otechnique 1995; 45(1):25–34.
11. de Buhan P. Détermination de la capacité portante d’une fondation sur sol renforcé par une méthode
d’homogénéisation. Comptes Rendus, Colloque International ‘Renforcement des sols en place’, Paris, 1984; 127–132.
12. de Buhan P, Salençon J. Analyse de stabilité des ouvrages en sols renforcés par une méthode d’homogénéisation.
Revue Franc-aise de Géotechnique 1987; 41:29–43.
13. Salençon J. An introduction to the yield design theory and its applications to soil mechanics. European Journal of
Mechanics – A/Solids 1990; 9(5):447–500.
14. de Buhan P. Approche fondamentale du calcul à la rupture en sol renforcé. Thèse Dr e`s-sciences, Univ. P&M. Curie,
Paris VI, 1986.
15. de Buhan P, Mangiavacchi R, Nova R, Pelligrini G, Salençon J. Yield design of reinforced earth walls by a
homogenisation method. Revue Franc-aise de Ge´otechnique 1989; 39(2):189–201.
16. de Buhan P, Taliercio A. A homogenisation approach to the yield strength of composite materials. European Journal
of Mechanics – A/Solids 1987; 10(2):227–232.
17. Bouassida M, Hadhri T. Extreme load of soils reinforced by columns: the case of an isolated column: discussion
proposed by Porbaha A. Soils and Foundations 1996; 36(1):117–119.

Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech. 2005; 29:989–1004
View publication stats