Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Stone Column PPT Abhi
Stone Column PPT Abhi
columns.(q3)
Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of 50 mm Diameter Granular Pile Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of 65 mm Diameter Granular Pile
Fig. Load-Settlement Curve of 80 mm diameter Granular Fig. Ultimate Load of Granular Pile with Varying Diameter
Pile. of Pile.
a series of laboratory model tests were performed in a circular
unit cell tank with the floating granular piles at the centre and the
soft soil surrounding it to study the influence of the length and
bulging characteristi
All laboratory tests were carried out on 60 mm diameter granular
piles installed in soft clay in a cylindrical tank of 200 mm
diameter and 500 mm by using unit cell concept. cs of
granular pile.
The length of granular pile taken from 4d - 6d.
Tests were conducted with area replacement ratio, Ar 9% with
corresponding spacing (s) of 3.1d.
The aim is to study the ultimate axial capacity of granular piles
with varying lengths.
Fig. Axial Stress-Settlement Variation of Fig. Variation of Ultimate Stress Ratio with
Granular Pile with 60 mm Dia.. Length of Granular Pile
They conducted series of model test on soft clay reinforced with
stone column with geocell mattress and with encased stone column
the encasement of stone column, length of stone column and
height of geocell mattress are varying parameter.
Clay used in their study was locally available black cotton soil.
Each test was carried out on group of 4 stone columns in a square
pattern having constant diameter 30 mm and length 150 mm.
It is seen that clay bed provided with four ordinary stone
columns (OSCs) and four encased stone column, the bearing
capacity is improved by 1.5 times and 2.0 times respectively
Fig. Variation of B.C.R With Respect
to Height Ratio of Geocell Mattress Figure Load Settlement Curves for Clay
with 4 OSC and Geocell mattress of
varying heights
Figure Load Settlement Curves for Clay with
Geocell mattress and different lengths of encased
stone columns
Mohammed Y. Fattah, Quitaba G. Majeed (2012) carried out a Finite
Element Analysis of Geogrid Encased granular pile.
The program CRISP-2D is used in the analysis of problems .
They used a soft soil with Cu=20kPa and carried tests for different
parameters of stone column as below:
• L/D = 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12
• Area replacement ratio as=0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.25, 0.3
• For OSC as well as ESC
Relationship between the bearing improvement ratio and length to
diameter ratio floating stone column (Cu=20 kPa, as =0.2)
Relationship between the bearing ratio and settlement ratio of end
bearing stone column (Cu=20 kPa for surrounding soil, Cu=150
kPa for End bearing soil, L/d=8, as =0.25)
Variation in the bearing improvement ratio with undrained shear
strength of end bearing soil for end bearing stone column (Cu=20
kPa for surrounding soil, L/d=10, as =0.25)
they concluded that:
• the effective length to diameter ratio of granular pile is found to be L/D
= (7–8) for all area replacement ratio
• The increase in the area replacement ratio increases the bearing
improvement ratio for encased floating stone columns especially when
area replacement ratio is greater than (0.25). The bearing improvement
ratio and settlement reduction ratio are higher when the undrained shear
(Cu) of the surrounding soil is also higher.
• The geogrid encasement of stone column greatly decreases the lateral
displacement compared with ordinary stone column. The effective
encasement length ratio (length of geogrid encasement along the stone
column/total stone column length) was found to be about (0.6).
The ratio of limiting axial stress on column to corresponding shear
strength of surrounding clay is found to be constant for any given S
/d and angle of internal friction of stones and it is independent of the
shear strength of the surrounding clay.
Single column tests with an entire unit cell area loaded compare well
with the group test results. Hence the single column behavior with
unit cell concept can simulate the field behavior for an interior
column when large number of columns is simultaneously loaded.
Studied behavior of floating granular pile with and without encasement
constructed in soft black cotton soil.
All experiment were performed on 55 mm diameter granular pile
surrounded by black cotton soil in cylindrical mould of 173 m diameter and
605 height.
The soil bed was prepared at dry density 14.32 kN/m3 and 32% water
content.
The test was performed at various L/D ratio (1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11), the ultimate
load Q for footing placed on soil was 0.42kN corresponding to settlement
value as 10% size of footing.
Graph between L/d ratio and load at settlement equal to 10% of pile
diameter
From above, following conclusions were drawn:
The load carrying capacity of a footing on granular pile is found more in
comparison to that resting on soil alone for all L/d ratio of the pile.
In case of a geogrid encased granular pile of particular L/d ratio, the
increase in load carrying capacity was observed to be higher than the
corresponding value in ordinary granular pile.
The critical length of granular pile is not observed in the present
investigation. As the L/d ratio of the pile increases, the ratio Qult.pile/Q is
found increasing.
show that the technique of improving the soft soils by granular piles/ stone
columns can also be used in soft soil. And the numerical analyses in this
section were carried out in three-dimensional space using the finite element
program (ABAQUS).
A group of 25 encased stone columns in which 80cm diameter stone
columns were located in a 2m center to center spacing(s) with a square
pattern was analyzed.
Thickness of the soft soil surrounding the columns and also length of stone
columns were assumed to be 10m
Conti…
Geosynthetic is used as reinforcement for stone column which
enhances soil stabilization properties.
Stone columns are mainly used for the stabilization of soft soils
such as soft clays, silts and silty sands.
Soil strata have great influence on stone column bulging and
encased stone column is the best option.
Increasing the geosynthetic stiffness of encasement makes the
column stiffer and increase in lateral confinement.
Properties Values
Properties of clay
Properties Values
Properties of stone
Geogrid Stiffness (kN/m)
Geo1 80
Geo2 120
Geo3 160
D(mm)
1 Pure clay 26 - 1
2 38 - 1
3 50 - 1
4 64 - 1
5 Ordinary stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
6 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
7 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
8 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
9 Encased stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
10 Stiffness 80 kN/m 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
11 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
12 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
13 Encased stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
14 Stiffness 120 kN/m 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
15 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
16 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
17 Encased stone column 26 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
18 Stiffness 160 kN/m 38 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
19 50 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
20 64 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 5
Total no. of model analyzed 3×84=252
Stone columns derive its load carrying capacity from the confinement
offered by the surrounding soil.
Encasement of stone column has been extended the use of stone columns to
soft clays. The present study contains tapered stone column with
circumferential encasement.
An axisymmetric analysis was carried out using Mohr-Coulomb's criterion
considering elasto-plastic behavior for soft clay and stone.
The type of surrounding soft soil is considered 20 kPa and the load carrying
capacity of footings located over tapered stone columns is compared with
equal size of footings located on the virgin soil that is without a stone
column underneath.
BCR (bearing capacity ratio): BCR is the ratio of bearing capacity of
improved soil to the bearing capacity of virgin soil. In present work, BCR is
calculated at definite settlements that is 10% of bearing plate diameter.
Obtaining resulting curves: Three types of curves are drawn for different
S/D ratio (i.e. 2.0, 3.0, 4.0) Which are as follow:
D vs. BCR for different geogrid at constant L/D ratio.
L/D vs. BCR for different geogrid at constant diameter of footing.
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different L/D ratio of stone columns at
constant diameter of footing.
D vs BCR for[L/D= 2, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 4, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 6, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 8, S/D=2]
D vs BCR for[L/D= 10, S/D=2]
For S/D=2, for L/D=10, encasement stiffness 160kN/m and diameter
2.5 inch, the BCR highest which is 5.87 for 10% settlement. Which
is 1.02 times of BCR for stone column of 1 inch diameter.
For S/D=3, for L/D=10, encasement stiffness 160kN/m and diameter
2.5 inch, the BCR highest which is 5.21 for 10% settlement. Which
is 1.07 times of BCR for stone column of 1 inch diameter.
For S/D=4, for L/D=10, encasement stiffness 160kN/m and diameter
2.5 inch, the BCR highest which is 4.51 for 10% settlement. Which
is 1.1 times of BCR for stone column of 1 inch diameter.
L/D vs. BCR for 1inch stone column and S/D=2
L/D vs. BCR for 1.5inch stone column and S/D
=2
L/D vs. BCR for 2inch stone column and S/D=2
L/D vs. BCR for 2.5inch stone column and S/D=2
BCR comes to be 2.5 for 10% settlement for L/D=2, encasement 160
kN/m, 2.5 inch diameter and S/D=2 which is increased upto 5.87
after L/D=10 for the same conditions.
BCR comes to be 2.68 for 10% settlement for L/D=2, encasement
160 kN/m, 2.5 inch diameter and S/D=3 which is increased upto 5.21
after L/D=10 for the same conditions.
Again for S/D=4, BCR comes to be 2.78 for 10% settlement for
L/D=2, encasement 160 kN/m and 2.5 inch diameter which is
increased upto 4.51 after L/D=10 for the same conditions.
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different
L/D ratios at 1inch diameter and for S/D
=2
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different
L/D ratios at 1.5inch diameter and for S/D
=2
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different L/D ratios
at 2inch diameter and for S/D =2
Stiffness of Geogrid vs. BCR for different
L/D ratios at 2.5inch diameter and for S/D
=2
For L/D ratio higher than 6 there is a visible improvement in BCR.
It can also observe that for lower value of stiffness of geogrid, BCR
get constant with a certain value of L/D.
for higher stiffness, BCR increases with the increase in L/D ratio.
For S/D =2 the maximum values of BCR is 2.5 for OSC which is
increased to 5.87 for 160 kN/m stiffness for 10% settlement taking
other conditions same.
There is increase in BCR for stone column encased with geogrid as
compared with ordinary stone column.
BCR increases with the diameter of stone column.
Effect of encasement is only visible for L/D>4.
BCR increases with L/D ratio upto a certain value of L/D after which
BCR becomes constant. The value of L/D, after which BCR becomes
constant, increases with stiffness of confinement.
Encasement of stone column resists the bulging of stone column. and
settlement occurs due to punching for L/D ratio 2 and 4.
Forstone columns of L/D ratio 6 and above, BCR increases with
stiffness of geogrid. Long columns fails in bulging which is resisted
by geogrid. Hence as the stiffness of geogrid increases the value of
BCR also increases.
For ordinary stone columns, BCR improves with L/D ratio upto 4.
BCR decreases with increase in S/D value.
Similar work can be conducted by changing the shear strength of the
soft soil.
Method of installation affects the performance of the Stone Column.
This aspects needs to be studied.
Single Stone Column was used in the present study. The behavior of
group of Stone Columns in soft soil may also be studied.
Similar work can be conducted by changing stone properties.
In the present investigation, the load was applied only on the Stone
Column whereas it may be applied on entire area of soil. This will
reveal the load settlement behavior of the composite material.
i. Arora, S., Kumar, R. and Jain, P.K. (2014) “Load-settlement behavior of
granular pile in black cotton soil” International Journal of Advances in
Engineering & Technology, 7(3), 773-781
ii. Ayadat T., Hanna A. and Etezad M. (2008). “Failure Process of Stone
Columns in Collapsible Soils.” International journal of Engineering (IJE),
21, 135-142.
iii. Black, J.A., Sivakumar, V., Madhav M.R. and Hamill, G.A. (2007).
“Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: laboratory model study.”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(9),
1154-1161.
iv. Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, McCabe BA (2006) “An improved
experimental test setup to study the behavior of granular columns.”
Geotechnical Testing Journal, ASTM, 29(3):193–199 .
v. Dipty S. I., and Girish M. S. (2009). "Suitability of different materials for
stone column construction." EJGE, 14, 1-11.
vi. Fattah, Mohammed Y., and Majeed, Quitaba G. (2012). “Finite Element
Analysis of Geogrid Encased Stone Columns.” Geotechnical and
Geological Engineering, 30(4), 713-726.
vii. Hughes, J.M.O., and Withers, N. J. (1974). “Reinforcing of soft
cohesive soils with stone columns.” Ground Engineering., 7(3), 42-
49
viii. Hughes J.M.O., Withers N.J., Greenwood D.A. (1975) “A field trial of
the reinforcing effect of a stone column in soil.” Géotechnique,
25(1), 31–44
ix. IS 15284 Part 1 (2003). “Indian standard code of practice for design
and construction for ground improvement-guidelines. Part 1: Stone
columns.”, New Delhi, India
x. IS: 2720 Part 10 (1991). “Methods of test for soils: Determination of
Unconfined Compressive Strength.”
xi. Katti, R.K. (1979), “Search for Solutions to problem in black cotton
Soil”, First annual lecture, Indian Geo–technical Society at IIT, Delhi.
xii. Kosho A. (2000). “Ground Improvement Using the Vibro-Stone
Column Technique.” A.L.T.E.A and Geostudio 2000, Durres, Albania.
xiii. Kumar R. and Jain P. K., (2013). “Expansive Soft Soil Improvement by
Geogrid Encased Granular Pile.” International Journal on Emerging
Technologies, 4(1), 55-61.
xiv. Kumar R. and Jain P. K., (2013). “Soft Ground Improvement with Fibre
Reinforced Granular Pile.” IJAERS, II(III), 42-45
xv. Dheerendr Babu M. R., Sitaram Nayak & Shivashankar R. (2013) “A
Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour of Stone
Columns” An International Journal in Geotechnical and Geological
Engineering, 31(1), 1-22.
xvi. McCabe B.A., McNeill J.A. and Black J.A. (2007). “Ground Improvement
Using the Vibro-Stone Column Technique.” paper presented to a joint
meeting of Engineers Ireland West Region and the Geotechnical Society
of Ireland, NUI Galway.
xvii. McKelvey, D., Sivakumar, V., Bell, A., Graham, J. (2004). “Modeling
vibrated stone columns in soft clay.” Proc., Institute of Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engg., 157(3), 137-149.
xviii. Mitra S, Chattopadhyay BC (1999) “Stone columns and design
limitations.” Indian geotechnical conference, Calcutta, India, pp. 201–205.
xix. Murugesan, S. and Rajagopal, K. (2006). “Geosynthetic-encased stone
columns: Numerical evaluation.” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 24(6),
349-358.
xx. Priebe HJ (1995) “the design of Vibro replacement.” J Ground
Engineering 28(12):31–37
xxi. Priebe HJ (1991) “Deep Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction,
and Testing, STP25051S, M. Esrig and R. Bachus, Ed., ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, pp. 62-72.
xxii. Ranjan, G. and Rao, B. G. (1983). “Skirted granular piles for ground
improvement.” European Conf. on Soil Mech. and Found. Eng., Halainki.
xxiii. Rao, B. G. (1982). "Behavior of skirted granular pile foundation." PhD
thesis, University of Roorkee, Roorkee, India.
xxiv. Samadhiya, N.K. and Hasan, M., (2015). “Experimental study on
performance of floating granular piles in soft clay.” 50th Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
xxv. Aldonkar S. Sidhi S., (2017) “Soil stabilization using stone column”
International Conference on Geotechniques for infrastructure projects,
Thiruvananthapuram.
xxvi. Tandel, Y.K., Solanki, C.H. and Desai, A.K. (2012) “Reinforced stone
column: remedial of ordinary stone column” International Journal of
Advances in Engineering & Technology, 3(2), 340-348.
xxvii.Thakare, S.W., and Ahmed, T., (2016), “Performance of Footing on Clayey
Soil with Encased Stone Columns and Geocell Mattress” International
Journal of Engineering Research, 5(1), 04-08.
Thank You