Load versus Settlement of Claybed stabilized with Stone & Reinforced

Stone Columns

S.N. Malarvizhi
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 25.
malarvizhi_ramesh@hotmail.com
K. Ilamparuthi
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 25.
kanniilam@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT: Stone columns are extensively used to improve the bearing capacity of poor ground and reduce
the settlement of structures built on them. In the present investigation, load versus settlement response of the
stone column and reinforced stone column i.e. geogrid-encased stone column was studied in the laboratory.
Load tests were performed on soft clay bed stabilized with single stone column and reinforced stone column
having various slenderness ratios and using different type of encasing material. The settlement in reinforced
stone column is lesser than the stone column and the settlement decreased with the increasing stiffness of the
encasing material. For smaller loads the settlement reduction ratio is less in stone columns but for higher loads
it is less in geogrid encased stone column.

1 INTRODUCTION and recently by Madhav et al. (1994). Mitchell and

Soft clay deposits are extensively located in many
coastal areas and they exhibit poor strength and
compressibility. Stone column that consist of
granular material compacted in long cylindrical holes
is used as a technique for improving the strength and
consolidation characteristics of soft clays. Load
carrying capacity of a stone column is attributed to
frictional properties of the stone mass, cohesion/
cohesion and frictional properties of soils surrounding
the column, flexibility or rigidity characteristics of
the foundation transmitting stresses to the improved
ground and the magnitude of lateral pressure
developed in the surrounding soil mass and acting on
the sides of the stone column due to interaction
between various elements in the system. The stone
column derives its axial capacity from the passive
earth pressure developed due to the bulging effect of
the column and increased resistance to lateral
deformation under superimposed surcharge load.
The theory of load transfer, estimation of ultimate
bearing capacity and prediction of settlement of stone
columns was first proposed by Greenwood (1970),
Vesic (1972), Hughes and Withers (1974) and later
by Priebe (1976), Aboshi et al. (1979), Datye and
Nagaraju (1981), Greenwood and Kirsch (1983), Van
Impe and De Beer (1983), Balaam and Poulos (1983)
Huber (1985) proved that the stone columns reduced
the settlement significantly.
Stone columns also have secondary roles. It acts as
vertical drains and thus speeding up the process of
consolidation, replaces the soft soil by a stronger
material and initial compaction of soil during the
process of installation thereby increasing the unit
weight. Stone columns also mitigate the potential for
liquefaction and damage by preventing build up high
pore pressure by providing drainage path.
However, when used in sensitive clays, stone
columns have certain limitations. There is increase in
the settlement of the bed because of the absence of
the lateral restraint. The clay particles get clogged
around the stone column thereby reducing radial
drainage. To overcome these limitations, and to
improve the efficiency of the stone columns with
respect to the strength and the compressibility, stone
columns are encased (reinforced) using geogrids
/geocomposites. Deshpande & Vyas (1996) have
brought out conceptual performance of stone columns
encased in geosynthetic material. Katti et al (1993)
proposed a theory for improvement of soft ground
using stone columns with geosynthetic encasing
based on the particulate concept.
In this study, performance of the encased stone
column was studied with reference to strength and is

322
compared with that of the conventional stone
columns.
2 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 Properties of materials
Marine clay of high plasticity was collected from the
coastal area of Chennai city in India for forming the
soft clay bed. Granite chips were used to form the
stone column. Netlon Nova curtain (net1) net of
1mm x 1mm aperture, Square mesh net of 4mm x
4mm aperture size (net2) and CE121 (net3) were used
to form cylindrical tubes to encase the stone column.
The Soil was collected at a depth of 5m. Sample
collected was air-dried and pulverised. The
pulverised sample was sieved through 4.75mm sieve
for easy mixing and quicker hydration. The index
properties tests showed that the fine contents are 74%
out of which clay is 44%. The liquid limit and
plasticity index are 55% and 37% respectively. This
soil is classified as clay of high plasticity (CH). The
undrained shear strength of clay is 6 kN/m2 at
moisture content of 52%.
Granite stone chips varying from 5 to 10 mm were
used to form the columns. The particle sizes for the
columns are as per the guidelines of Nayak (1983),
which suggest that should be in the range of 1/6 to
1/7 diameter of the column.
The properties of the nets used for encasement are
tabulated in Table 1.
Table 1. Specifications of the Nets used
Netlon Wt. Aperture Referred
Identification (gm/m )2 size as
Diamond
Nova Curtain 260 net1
1mm x 1mm
Square
Square mesh 475 net2
4mm
Diamond
CE121 730 net3
8mm x 6mm
The Net3 geogrid had a thickness of 3.1mm with
maximum tensile strength of 7.68kN/m. Columns
encased using Net3 was additionally encased with a
geotextile to allow for drainage without clogging of
soil into the aperture.
2.2 Preparation Of Soft Clay Bed
The air-dried and pulverized clay sample was mixed
with required quantity of water to achieve a
consistency index of 0.1. Water content of 52% was
used. Initially the soil was thoroughly mixed with the
water and kept covered for 48 hours in order to
achieve uniform consistency. After 48 hours of
hydration, the soil was mixed and kneaded well and
checked for moisture content. Loss of water, if any
due to evaporation was compensated by adding water
before forming the bed. The conditioned soil was
used to prepare soft clay bed. Care was taken to
avoid the entrapped air by tapping the clay layers
gently with a wooden plank.
2.3 Stone/Reinforced Stone Column installation
The center of the cylindrical tank was properly
marked and a PVC pipe of the required diameter was
placed at the center of the tank. Around this pipe,
clay bed was formed. The clay layer was tamped
with a wooden tamper frequently and gently to expel
air during the process of filling. The stone required
to form the column was carefully charged in the tube
in three layers. Each layer was compacted using
12mm diameter rod to achieve a density of 15kN/m3.
For reinforced stone columns the reinforcement
was stitched and placed around the PVC tube. After
preparing the clay bed, the tubes were charged with
stone chips and compacted in layers. The PVC tube
was withdrawn to certain level and charging of stones
for the next layer was continued. The operations of
charging of stones, compaction and withdrawal of
tubes were carried out simultaneously.
Further the bed thus prepared was loaded with a
seating pressure of 5kN/m2 to the entire area of the
bed for 24 hours to obtain uniform bed, which also
ensured proper contact between clay and reinforced
stone column. The test after 24 hours of preparation
of the bed has also ensured gain in their strength of
disturbed clay.
2.4 Experimental setup for the load test
Tests were conducted on a single column of diameter
30 mm for various l/d ratios on a standard loading
frame as a stress-controlled test. The diameter of the
circular steel plate of adequate thickness and rigidity
may be based on the effective tributary soil area of
the stone column for a single column as per the codal
provisions. The diameter is chosen to be 2.3d and
this is slightly higher than size of the plate used for
studies by Narasimha Rao (2000). The lateral
dimension of the tank should be such that the
minimum free distance between the periphery of the
column and the side of the tank should not interface

323
with the failure wedges. Meyerhof and Sastry (1978)
and Bowels (1988) established that the failure zone
extends over a radial distance of about 1.5 times the
diameter and over a depth approximately equal to 2
times the diameter of pile from the periphery of the
pile.
The loading arrangement is shown in the Figure 1
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Loading of the composite bed
a. Stone Column of diameter d for the full length.
b. Floating Stone Column for different l/d ratios.
d = diameter of the column
l = length of the column
h = thickness of the clay bed
Load test were carried out on single columns of
30mm diameter. Loading was done on a plate of
72mm diameter, which was 2.3 times the diameter of
the single column, placed over the clay filled in the
tank of size 300mm diameter and 280mm in height.
Loading was done over clay alone, clay stabilized by
stone column and clay stabilized with stone column
encased within geogrids of the same diameter as that
of the stone columns alone. Load was incremented in
hourly intervals and the settlement of the plate was
recorded by means of two dial gauges set
diametrically opposite.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Load Settlement Response Of Claybed and Stone
Column Treated Bed
In Figure 2, load-settlement behavior of soft clay bed
c and stone column reinforced bed c+sc is
presented. The load-settlement response of clay
column is very identical to that of the behavior of
highly plastic clay. For treated bed, the shape of the
324
stress/strain curve becomes more brittle compared
with untreated ground; after bulging occurs
settlement increases rapidly. The clay bed treated
with stone column to the entire thickness of the bed
i.e. column resisting on hard strata (l/d=9.33)
exhibited rapid increase in the resistance with
settlement. However the rate of increase of resistance
decreases with settlement. Similar trend was
observed in beds treated with stone column of smaller
length (l/d=5 and l/d=7.5).
Load (N)
0 100 200 300 400
0
10
Settlement (mm)
15
20
25
c
30 c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
35
Figure 2. Load Vs Settlement Curve of Stone
Columns having different l/d ratios
c refers to loading the claybed alone.
c+sc refers loading the stone column stabilized bed
The yield load of these columns are estimated by
plotting load-settlement on a log-log scale and the
load corresponding to the point at which the change
in slope occurred is taken as the yield load. The yield
loads estimated by the log-log method are 116N,
113N and 97N for l/d ratios of 9.33, 7.5 and 5
respectively. The yield resistance of untreated bed is
68N. The increase in carrying capacity is of the order
of 1.71, 1.66 and 1.42 times that of the untreated beds.
The loads are also obtained of settlement of 10% of
the diameter of the column as well as a maximum
settlement of 10mm. The loads obtained by various
composite columns are presented in Table 2.
The yield loads obtained by log-log method are
lesser than that of the loads corresponding to 3mm
(10% diameter of the column) settlement. The load
corresponding to 10mm settlement is always higher
than that of obtained by log-log method. However, Load (N)
the load corresponding to 10% of diameter of column 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
is closer to that of the load obtained by log-log plot. 0
Therefore, the ultimate load of the columns is taken
as the load corresponding to the settlement equal to
5 c
10% of the diameter of the column. c+sc
c+sc+net1
Table 2. Load Vs Settlement Response of composite 10 c+sc+net2
columns c+sc+net3
Load at Settlement of

Yield load from log-

Settlement (mm)
Load at Settlement

Bearing Capacity
15
of 10mm(N)

log plot (N)

Ultimate
3mm(N)

(kN/m2)
Type of
bed L/d 20

25

c 61 103 68 15.0
30
9.33 123 203 116 30.1
c+sc 7.5 87 165 113 21.4
35
5 78 113 97 19.0
Figure 3. Load Vs Settlement of composite bed with
c+sc+net1 9.33 139 226 136 34.1 various encasement

9.33 161 316 184 39.4 C+sc+net3 bed offered higher resistance than
c+sc+net2 c+sc+net2 bed for a given settlement of the stabilized
5 90 152 113 22.2
bed. The load-settlement response for the three types
9.33 194 407 194 47.4 of reinforcement is identical but maximum resistance
is offered by net3. As the stiffness of the encasing
c+sc+net3 7.5 129 194 129 31.6
material increases the load carrying capacity of the
5 116 119 129 28.4 composite column increases. The tensile strength of
net1 is very less and therefore the load capacity is
c+sc+net1 refers loading claybed stabilized with the also not remarkable. The load-settlement plot almost
stone column encased with net1 follows the plot of that of the stone column. Whereas
c+sc+net2 refers loading claybed stabilized with the when net3 is used for encasing, the load capacity
stone column encased with net2 increases and the settlement reduced remarkably.
c+sc+net3 refers loading claybed stabilized with the To find the stiffness of the reinforced stone
stone column encased with net3 columns, unconfined compression test was conducted
on short specimens of l/d = 2. The stiffness values
3.2 Load Settlement Response Of Claybed with were calculated from the pressure versus settlement
Stone Column encased with nets plots and are tabulated in Table 3.

The load-settlement response of reinforced stone Table 3. Stiffness of composite encased columns
column i.e. stone column encased using three types of Net1 Net2 Net3
nets is compared with the response of untreated bed Stiffness
and the bed treated with the stone column alone is 45 125 148
(kN/m2/m)
presented in Figure 3. The load carrying capacity of
the composite bed increases when encasement is used. It was found that as the stiffness of the composite
The difference in load resistance between stone column increases, the yield load of the composite bed
column and column reinforced with net1 (insect also increases proportionally. This is presented in
screen) is negligible irrespective of settlement of Figure 4.
column.

325
 250 stone column treated ground for the l/d ratio of 9.33
and 5 respectively.
200
Yield load (N)

150 3.4 Load Settlement Response of c+sc+net3

stabilized bed
100
The load-settlement response of clay beds treated
50
with reinforced stone column of various lengths with
0 net3 is presented in Figure 6. The ultimate load of
0 50 100 150 net3 reinforced stone column and stone column of l/d
3
Stiffness (kN/m ) ratio of 9.33 are 194N and 123N respectively. The
Figure 4. Yield load versus stiffness of composite increase in ultimate resistance is about 67% and
columns 200% higher than the ultimate resistance of stone
column treated bed and untreated bed respectively.
3.3 Load Settlement Response of c+sc+net2 For l/d ratio of 5 the increase is nearly 100% and 50%
stabilized bed higher than the untreated and stone column treated
clay bed.
The results of tests conducted using net2 with l/d
ratios of 5 and 9.33 are compared with stone column Load (N)
of corresponding l/d ratios is shown in Figure 5. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0

Load (N)
0 100 200 300 400 500 5
0

10
5
Settlement (mm)

15
10
20
Settlement (mm)

15
25

20 c
30 c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
25 c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c c+sc+net3(l/d=5)
35
c+sc(l/d=5) c+sc+net3(l/d=7.5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5) c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)
30
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net2+l/d=5 Figure 6. Load Vs Settlement of Stone Columns
c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33) Reinforced with Net3
35

Figure 5. Load Vs Settlement Curve of Stone Column
Reinforced with Net 2
The shape of the load-settlement curves is
identical and independent of the length of the column,
but the load increased with the l/d ratio of the stone
column. The ultimate load of reinforced stone column
with l/d ratio of 9.33 and 5 are 161N and 90N
respectively, which are 2.6 times and 1.5 times the
strength of untreated beds. Further, the reinforced
stone column strengths are 1.32 and 1.16 times the
The increase in length of column increases the
ultimate load for a given thickness of the soft clay
bed. The column terminated in hard layer (bottom of
bed) offered higher resistance. The ultimate load of
stone column treated bed is twice that of the untreated
bed for l/d ratio of 9.33 or l/h (depth ratio) of unity.
Similarly, increase in the stiffness of the reinforcing
material also increases the ultimate load for a
particular l/d ratio.
The reinforced stone column has enhanced the
strength of stabilized bed irrespective of the length of

326
the column. The increase in length of the column 500 c
exhibited increase in load, but the increase is not c+sc(l/d=9.33)
450
linear. Further, the increase is higher for l/d ratio of c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)
400 c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)
9.33 when compared to other l/d ratios; this may be
c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)
attributed to the bearing resistance offered by the hard 350

Modulus (kN/m2)
surface in which the column was founded. 300
250
3.5 Comparison of Subgrade Modulus of various 200
composite beds 150
100

16000 50
0
Subgrade Modulus (kN/m3)

12000 0 5 10 15 20 25
Settlement (mm)
8000
Figure 8. Modulus of the end-bearing composite
column with various reinforcing material
4000

For end-bearing columns, the difference in modulus

0 value is more significant than in floating columns.
c

c+sc(l/d=5)

c+sc+net2(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=9.33)

c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)

c+sc+net3(l/d=7.5)

This is because the loads are transferred to the ground

in the case of end-bearing columns.

300
Type of bed
250 c
Figure 7. Subgrade modulus of various
c+sc(l/d=5)
composite beds
Modulus (kN/m2)

200 c+sc+net2(l/d=5)
c+sc+net3(l/d=5)
The subgrade modulus of treated beds for various 150
composite columns are compared for a settlement of
3mm in Figure 7. It can be seen that as the l/d ratio 100
increases, the subgrade modulus also increases
proportionally. The high value of subgrade modulus 50
for l/d=9.33 can be attributed to the end bearing of
the column to the base of the bed. The subgrade 0
modulus also increases with the tensile strength of the 0 5 10 15 20 25
material used for encasing. Settlement (mm)

Figure 9. Modulus of the floating composite column

3.6 Modulus of variation of end-bearing and
with various reinforcing material
floating columns with settlement

In order to understand the reduction in the stiffness of 3.7 Comparison of Modular ratio for various
composite columns with settlement, modulus of composite beds
composite columns were determined from the load-
settlement results for various strain levels. Figures 8 Modular ratio is a parameter, which indicates relative
and 9 shows the modulus of the composite bed for stiffness of the materials used for the stabilization.
end-bearing and floating columns respectively. The Further this parameter gives an idea on ratio of load
rate of decrease of the modulus with respect to sharing between reinforced column and clay. In
settlement is high in case of the column reinforced order to understand this, the modular ratios of
with net3 and low in the virgin clay bed. At a stabilized beds were obtained from the results of load
settlement of 3mm, the modulus value is very high test by applying the principle of equal strain for
for c+sc+net3 bed. various settlement values. The modular ratios thus

327
obtained are presented in Figure 10 for columns with the lengths of the floating column studied the
l/h = 1 and area ratio () = 0.174. variation of ultimate bearing capacity is negligible.

Ultimate Bearing Capacity (kN/m )

2
30 50
c+sc(l/d=9.33) = 0.174 c+sc+net2
c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33) 40 c+sc+net3
25 c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)
c+sc
c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33) 30
Modular ratio (Esc/Eclay)

20
20

15 10
0 1 2 3 4 5

(h-l)/d ratio
10
Figure 11. Variation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity
with (h-l)/d ratio
5

3.9 Settlement ratio of the composite bed

0
0 5 10 15
Setttlement (mm)
Figure 10. Variation of Modular ratios with
Settlement
From the graph one can infer that the modular
ratio is a function of deformation (settlement) of
column. For stone column (c+sc) and stone column
with net1 (c+sc+net1), the modular ratio is higher at
initial loads and decreases with deformation till the
20 The reduction in settlement between the claybed
treated with reinforced stone columns and stone
column are presented in Figure 12 for end-bearing
stone columns. At initial stage of loading, settlement
in the reinforced stone column is marginally higher
than that of the bed treated with stone column, which
is about 1.1 times.
1.20
Settlement RSC/Settlement SC

deformation is less than 10% of the diameter of

0.80
column thereafter the ratio remains almost constant
irrespective of deformation. However, the modular
ratio of these two columns is lesser than the beds
stabilized with c+sc+net2 and c+sc+net3 for 0.40 c+sc+net1
settlements higher than 3mm. c+sc+net2
In case of beds stabilized with c+sc+net2 and
c+sc+net3
c+sc+net3, the modular ratio increases with
0.00
settlement but the increase beyond the settlement of 3 0 50 100 150 200 250
to 4mm is gradual. However, c+sc+net3 exhibited
Load (N)
higher modular ratio with higher rate of increase
while comparing with other reinforced columns. Figure 12. Settlement reduction ratio of reinforced
stone column treated bed with stone column bed
3.8 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Stabilized Bed
The marginal increase in settlement of composite
The variation of ultimate bearing capacity of end- beds is due to initial readjustment of the stone
bearing and floating columns are compared in Figure particles in the reinforced casing. However, as the
11. As the thickness of the claybed at the bottom of load increases, the settlement ratio decreases rapidly
the column increases bearing capacity decreases until certain intensity of load thereafter the rate of
irrespective of the stiffness of the columns. However, reduction in settlement is lesser. The rate of
the bearing capacity of composite columns is higher reduction in settlement with load is higher if the
than the bed treated with stone column, irrespective stiffness of the column is higher.
of whether the column is end-bearing or floating. For

328
4 CONCLUSIONS
1. Encasing the stone column with geogrids resulted
in an increase of load carrying capacity
irrespective of whether the column is end-bearing
or floating. In case of floating columns the l/d
ratio has less influence on the capacity of column
for the lengths studied in this investigation.
2. The ultimate load capacity of the reinforced
column increases with the stiffness of the
reinforcement.
3. The ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced stone
column and stone column treated beds are three
times and two times that of the untreated bed.
4. The encased stone column is stiffer than stone
columns, thereby reducing the load on clay,
consequently reducing the settlement.
5. Modular ratio of reinforced columns (end-bearing)
increases with increase in settlement irrespective
of the type of encasing material, however, the
increase is negligible in case of stone column and
net1 encased stone column. But the increase is
appreciable and the modular ratio is 17 to 25 for
the settlement between 5 and 20mm.
The conclusions drawn are for an area ratio of 0.174.
In order to have better understanding on the
performance of reinforced stone column more tests
are warranted by varying area ratio, moisture content
of clay and l/d ratio of columns.
REFERENCES
Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Enoki, M. and Haraka, K.
The Compozer A Method to Improve
Characteristics of Soft Clays by Inclusion of Large
Diameter Sand Columns. Proceedings of
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement:
Reinforced Earth and other Techniques, Paris, Vol.
1, p.211-216(1979).
Balaam, N.P. and Poulos, H.G, The behavior of
foundations supported by clay stabilized by stone
columns, Proceedings of Specialty sessions, VII
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Helinski.Vol.2.(1983)
Bowels, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th
Edition, McGraw Hill, 278 p(1988).
Datye, K.R. and Nagaraju, S.S., Design Approach
and Field Control for Stone Columns.
Proceedings of 10th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, pp.637-640(1981).
Deshpande, P.M and Vyas, A.V., Interactive encased
stone column foundation, Sixth International
329
Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep
foundation, DFI96, ISSMFE, Bombay, pp1-
19(1996)
Greenwood, D.A., Mechanical Improvement of soils
below ground surface, Conference on Ground
Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, pp. 11-22(1970).
Greenwood, D.A. and Kirsch, K., Specialist Ground
Treatment by vibratory and dynamic methods
State of Art, Advances in Piling and Ground
Treatment for Foundations, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, England, pp 17-45(1983).
Hughes, J.M.O and Withers, N.J., Reinforcing of
soft cohesive soils with stone columns, Ground
Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3 pp. 42-42 and pp. 47-
49(1974).
Katti, R.K., Katti, A.R and Naik, S., Monograph to
analysis of stone columns with and without geo-
synthetic encasing, CBRI publication, New
Delhi.(1993)
Madhav, M.R., Miura, N. & Alamgir, M., Analysis
of Granular Column Reinforced Ground, 5th
International Conference on Geotextile,
Geomembranes and Related Products,
Singapore.(1994)
Meyerhof, G.G. and Sastry V.V.R.N, Bearing
capacity of piles in layered soils, part I and II,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, pp. 171-
189(1978).
Mitchell, J.K. and Huber, T.R., Performance of a
stone column foundation, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111, pp. 205-
223(1985).
Narasimha Rao S.N., Studies on groups of stone
columns in soft clays, Symposium on Ground
Improvement Techniques for practicing engineers,
Chennai, pp.84-93(2000).
Nayak, N.V., Recent advances in ground improvements
by stone column, Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Madras, Vol. 1, p. V-
19(1983).
Priebe, H. J., "An evaluation of settlement reduction
in soil improved by vibroreplacement". (en
alemn). Bautechnik, n 53, pp. 160-162(1976).
Van Impe, W. Y, De Beer, E., "Improvement of
settlement behaviour of softy layers by means of
stone columns", Proceedings of 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Helsinki. pp. 309-312(1983).
Vesic, A.S., Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil
Mass, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM3,
pp. 265-290(1972).