GROUND IMPROVEMENT USING STONE COLUMNS: PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED

A.Verghese Chummar1

ABSTRACT The stone column technique of ground improvement is extensively used to improve the strength of weak soil layers. Stone columns essentially increase the bearing capacity of cohesive soils. In cohesive soils, the drainage path provided by stone columns accelerates the rate of residual settlement due to consolidation. The paper gives the design and construction methods of stone columns and highlights the errors that can affect stone columns. Two case studies of stone column failure are presented in detail. These studies reveal the errors that occurred in the design and construction methods. The case studies also highlight the probable field conditions that could create excessive settlements. Based on these observations, conclusions are derived indicating the specific care that should be taken in the design and execution of stone columns. INTRODUCTION Stone column technique for ground improvement is being extensively used to undertake constructions in weak soils. The stone columns essentially increase the bearing capacity of loose cohesionless soils. In cohesive soils, along with the increase of bearing capacity, the consolidation settlement of the ground under loading is also considerably reduced. In addition, in cohesive soils stone columns act as drainage paths to accelerate the rate of consolidation of the residual settlement. Even though stone columns are very useful for these purposes, designs made without proper concept of the behaviour of the stone column and execution of work not understanding the stone column and behaviour pattern of the non-treated ground leads to complications. Failures have occurred where stone columns have been used for ground improvement. This paper attempts to highlight these factors. A case study where the foundation failure of a structure constructed on a soil improved by stone columns highlights the various aspects discussed. CONCEPT OF DESIGN Stone columns are essentially designed to take load when the columns bulge under loading and the surrounding soil offers passive resistance. In a cohesive soil, when stone columns are constructed, a considerable portion of improved ground can be reduced to as much as 30% of the natural ground. In addition, the stone columns act as a drainage path, which would accelerate further settlement under loading. In a cohesionless soil like loose silty sand, when stone columns are constructed by vibro-floatation, the ground is densified by the reduction in voids and the intrusion of gravel and stones. Thus, in totality, the bearing capacity increases. The drainage and residual settlements are not important in such soil conditions. The general behaviour of the stone column is indicated in Figure 1. Figure 1 : Single Granular Pre-Bulging Failure Mode

Director, M/S. F.S.Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 109 Velachery Road, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032, INDIA

LIMIT CONDITIONS IN THE DESIGN OF STONE COLUMNS Even though the individual stone column capacity is computed based on the resistance offered by the surrounding soil, the upper limit to which the bearing capacity of a cohesive soil can be improved in relation to its natural strength is limited. As indicated in Figure 2, this would show that however close the stone columns are placed, the upper limit to which the strength could be improved is nearly 25 times its original value of undrained shear strength. Given a safety factor of 3, the safe bearing capacity could be improved to a maximum of 8 times the Cu value. In the same manner the settlement of the ground can be reduced only to a limiting value as indicated in Figure 3. Spacing of stone columns closer than the limit value will not have any additional effect in reducing the settlements. Similarly the spacing of the column beyond a certain limiting value would not have the required effect on reduction of settlements due to consolidation.

Figure 2 : Relation between Undrained Sheer Strength of Cohesive Deposit and Allowable Vertical Stress on Granular Pile (After Thorburn, 1975)

Figure 3 : Spacing of Granular Pile and Settlement of Treated Ground in Uniform Soft Clay

The above factors clearly indicate the limit conditions that must be considered when designing stone columns, even though the design is based on the individual capacities of the columns.

SUITABILITY OF THE GROUND FOR STONE COLUMNS Two common methods of stone column constructions are: Vibro-floatation Bored rammed system In the floatation technique (Figure 4), a vibrating needle working with the water jet reduces the friction of the surrounding cohesionless soil, filling the voids and thus achieving compaction. This creates a cavity into which borrowed granular material is filled and compacted. Thus, in general, the density of the ground increases with the increase in friction angle. As a result, bearing capacity increases. This technique is therefore possible only in cohesionless soils. The bored rammed stone columns are used in cohesive soils. In this technique (Figure 5), a casing pipe is used to remove the cohesive soil protecting the sides of the bore, thus minimising disturbance to the surrounding soil. The stones are laid into the bore and rammed to a larger diameter as the casing pipe is withdrawn. These columns achieve their Figure 4 : Vibro-Compaction Process strength by the lateral restraint offered by the surrounding soil. It is therefore very essential that the shear strength of the surrounding soil not be reduced by the construction of the stone column. Hence, the stone column technique could be adopted in clays of low sensitivity. These columns also act as drainage paths to Figure 5 : Cased Rammed Stone Column accelerate settlements under loading. ERRORS IN CONSTRUCTION As indicated in the vibro-floatation technique above, compaction of surrounding soil creates a cavity. This cavity is filled by borrowed granular material, which has to be cohesionless. If the soil has cohesion, the disturbance reduces the strength of the surrounding soil, resulting in no densification. Even with the use of cased rammed stone column technique when ramming, the surrounding soil gets disturbed to some extent. Sensitive clays do not adequately regain shear strength. Due to this, ground improvement by stone column cannot be achieved in clays with sensitivity greater than 3. This aspect is often neglected in adopting stone columns for ground improvement. In cohesive soil as explained, apart from increasing the bearing capacity, the stone columns act as a drainage path to accelerate the settlement due to consolidation under loading. It is therefore necessary to have a free drainage path through the stone columns and through a blanket of clean cohesionless soil on top of the stone column to allow pore pressure dissipation. This aspect is often neglected. The top surface of the stone column is not properly cleaned and proper care is not taken to provide a 15 cm thick , blanket drainage layer of sand on top. This results in breakage of drainage path and prevention of consolidation settlement under loading. Often, due to the problems in handling heavy casing pipes, bentonite circulation is adopted to protect the sides of the bore. This definitely blocks the entire drainage path and spoils the essential functioning of the stone column.

CASE STUDY OF A FOUNDATION FAILURE For the installation of spherical liquid petroleum gas storage tanks, raft foundation system was suggested in very soft, sensitive clay. The clay layer initially had a value of cohesion of 0.1 kg/cm2 and sensitivity of 5. The stone column technique was adopted to improve the layer of 11 to 12 M thickness. Vibro-floatation technique of stone column construction was adopted. Each stone column of dia 1 M was designed to take the load of 25 T and spacing was adjusted such that the bearing capacity of the soil was improved to 2.5 kg/cm2. Plate load test conducted on individual stone column confirmed the design value of load carrying capacity. After the stone column was created, the structure was constructed on top. Total collapse and failure of the entire foundation occurred when hydro-testing for the storage tank was at just 1/3 its capacity. Analysis of the cause of failure indicated the following errors in the design and construction of the stone columns: 1. The original soil bearing capacity of 0.1 kg/cm2 had a limit to which it could be increased to 0.8 kg/cm2. Considering only individual capacity of the stone column the design was made to improve the ground capacity to 2.5 kg/cm2 of loading by reducting the spacing of the column. 2. The soil in which the ground was to be improved had a sensitivity of 5. The vibro-floatation technique thoroughly disturbed the surrounding soil. The residual strength of the disturbed sensitive clay came down to nearly 0.02 to 0.03 kg/cm2. The only possible construction technique that could be adopted for the type of clay layer is cased rammed stone column with controlled ramming ramming giving minimum disturbance to the sensitive clay. 3. The failure occurred at a load intensity of 0.6 kg/cm2 indicating the value of cohesion that remained after disturbance as low as 0.02 kg/cm2. 4. The top surface of the stone column was not cleaned before laying the sand blanket resulting in blockage of pore pressure dissipation. 5. The storage tanks were filled at a fast rate not giving any time for possible pore pressure dissipation even through the partially blocked drainage path. This would have gradually increased the shear strength of the surrounding soil with the consolidation settlement. 6. The load test of an individual stone column using a small plate did not reveal these defects. ERRORS IN TESTING STONE COLUMN As indicated, individual stone columns achieve the capacity by the resistance offered by the surrounding soil. If the testing of 1 M dia stone column is done, using a 30 cm plate in the middle, an abnormally high value is obtained for obvious reasons. It is therefore necessary to do testing on a group of stone columns. Even then, the testing of the stone columns particularly in cohesive soil will not indicate the residual timebound settlement that could take place. THE NECESSITY OF PRE-LOADING Stone columns in cohesive soils reduce the settlement due to consolidation by a maximum of 70%. The balance 30% of the settlement has to be taken out by pre-loading. In the construction of storage tanks, hydro-testing of the tank with gradual loading could take care of this settlement. If the structure constructed does not have the facility for pre-loading distress in the structure could take place with the residual settlements which can be more than the permissible limits. Stone columns in cohesive soils is therefore

suitable only if pre-loading facility is available, as in the case of storage-tank construction.

CONCLUSIONS From the analysis it is concluded that to avoid errors in design and execution of the stone column the following precautions have to be taken. 1. Understanding the limits to which the stone columns can improve the ground capacity and reduce the settlement irrespective of the behaviour of the individual stone column. 2. Choice of the correct technique of the stone column construction depending upon the soil properties. 3. Assessment of the properties of the soil layers that can be improved by stone column. 4. Proper execution of the stone column to take sure that the functions of the stone columns is not blocked by the technique of construction adopted. 5. The necessity for pre-loading to remove the residual settlement in cohesive soils. REFERENCES Greenwood, D.A. (1970). Mechanical Improvement of Soils below Ground Surface, Proceedings Ground Engineering Conference, Inst of Civil Engineering, London. Hughes, J.M.O Withers, N.J. (1974), Reinforcing of Soft Cohesive Soils with Stone Columns, Ground Engineering, London, Vol.17, No.3, pp. 42-49. Thornburn, S. (1975), Building Structures Supported by Stabilized Ground, Geotechnique, London, Vol. 25, No.1, pp. 83-94. Chummar, Verghese A., Sub-soil Exploration Reports of F.S.Engineers (P) Ltd.