Rate of Consolidation of Stone Column–Improved Ground

Considering Variable Permeability and Compressibility in

Smear Zone
Kousik Deb1 and Aparajita Behera2

Abstract: Use of stone columns in soft soil reduces the excessive settlement and improves the bearing capacity with the additional advantage
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

of providing a drainage path, which accelerates the rate of consolidation of the soil. Because of stone column installation in soft soil, surround-
ing soil properties are altered in such a manner that permeability and compressibility of the soil in the smear zone reduces and increases toward
the drain, respectively. In the present paper, the effect of variable permeability and shear strength or compressibility in the smear zone due to
stone column installation on the rate of consolidation of the stone column–improved ground was studied. The equal strain approach was con-
sidered in the analysis. The following three possible variation patterns of horizontal permeability and volume compressibility within the dis-
turbed zone were considered: (1) reduced constant permeability with reduced constant compressibility, (2) linear variation of permeability
with linear variation of compressibility, and (3) parabolic variation of permeability with parabolic variation of compressibility. The degree of
consolidation computed by considering parabolic distribution of permeability and compressibility in the smear zone gives close prediction
with field observation. Reduction of permeability in the smear zone increases the time requirement to achieve a particular degree of consolida-
tion, and reduction of shear strength further increases the required time in the range of 5–21%. Degree of consolidation is significantly influ-
enced due to strength reduction in the smear zone for lower diameter ratio, higher extent of smear zone, and lower stress concentration ratio.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000830. © 2016 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Consolidation; Variable permeability; Variable volume compressibility; Smear zone; Stone column.

Introduction
Stone columns installed in soft soils are used to improve the bearing
capacity and to reduce the settlement as well as accelerate the rate
of consolidation of the soils. Vertical drains improve the rate of con-
solidation by providing a shorter horizontal drainage path along,
which excess pore-water pressure that developed due to surcharge
loading can dissipate faster than that along a vertical drainage path.
The installation of vertical drains or stone columns in the field
causes significant change in soft soil properties, especially near the
drains. Because of this effect, lateral permeability of the soil within
the disturbed or smear zone decreases. The shear strength of the soft
soil within the disturbed zone also decreases due to the installation
of stone columns, which causes an increase in the compressibility
of the soil. The combined effect of change in lateral permeability
and compressibility within the smear zone causes a significant
effect on rate of consolidation of stone column–improved ground.
Based on the unit cell approach and considering smear and well
resistance effects, Han and Ye (2002) presented a simplified solu-
tion to determine the rate of consolidation of stone column–
reinforced ground. Considering smear and well resistance effects,
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India (corresponding author).
E-mail: kousik@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in
2
M. Tech Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur 721302, India. E-mail: starlipsa@
gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 17, 2016; approved on
September 13, 2016; published online on October 26, 2016. Discussion
period open until March 26, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the International Journal of
Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641.
Wang (2009) also presented an analytical solution for the consolida-
tion of stone column–reinforced soft soil under time-dependent
loading. Numerical studies were also conducted on stone column–
supported embankment considering soil arching, clogging, and
smear effects under static as well as cyclic loads (Indraratna et al.
2013; Basack et al. 2016). Deb and Shiyamalaa (2016) studied the
effect of clogging and smear on rate of consolidation of stone
column–improved ground by considering particle migration. In
most of the available studies or analytical models on rate of consoli-
dation of stone column–improved ground, the smear effect has been
incorporated by constant reduced lateral permeability throughout
the smear zone. However, studies show that the disturbance in the
smear zone increases toward the drain (Chai and Miura 1999;
Sharma and Xiao 2000; Hawlader et al. 2002; Walker and
Indraratna 2006, Sathananthan and Indraratna 2006). Thus, perme-
ability is not constant throughout the smear zone. Laboratory stud-
ies also show a parabolic decay in the horizontal permeability to-
ward the drain (Onoue et al. 1991; Walker and Indraratna 2006).
Based on the laboratory observation, Walker and Indraratna (2006)
developed an analytical model to compute the rate of consolidation
or settlement of vertical drain–improved ground considering para-
bolic distribution of permeability in the smear zone. Basu et al.
(2006) developed closed-form solutions for the rate of consolida-
tion of the vertical drain by considering different hydraulic conduc-
tivity profiles in the smear and transition zones. Walker and
Indraratna (2007) developed an analytical model to determine rate
of consolidation of the vertical drain with overlapping smear zones
considering linear reduction in permeability toward the drain.
However, all of the described analytical models with variable per-
meability in the smear zone were developed for vertical drains.
Based on centrifuge model tests conducted for smear zone iden-
tification, Weber et al. (2010) also reported variable porosity within

© ASCE 04016128-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 the smear zone around a stone column installed in clay. Analytical
models were also developed to determine the rate of consolidation
of stone column–improved clay considering variable permeability
in the smear zone. Zhang et al. (2006) presented a consolidation so-
lution for stone column–improved soil by considering linear varia-
tion of the horizontal permeability coefficient of soil in the disturbed
zone. Xie et al. (2009) presented an analytical solution for calculat-
ing the average degree of consolidation of stone column–improved
ground under equal strain conditions considering reduced constant,
linear, and parabolic variation of permeability in the disturbed zone.
Considering variation of soil permeability within the disturbed soil
zone, Lu et al. (2010) presented a consolidation theory for a stone
column–improved foundation under radial and vertical flows within
the column. Both reduced constant and linear variation of perme-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
incorporated into the model presented by Han and Ye. The assump-
tions are as follows:
1. No vertical flow is considered within the surrounding soil.
Because the drainage path in the vertical flow direction is sig-
nificantly larger than that of the horizontal flow direction, and
the permeability in the horizontal direction often exceeds the
vertical permeability, consolidation due to vertical flow is
much less as compared to the horizontal flow, and consolida-
tion due to vertical flow is neglected (Bari et al. 2013).
2. The stone column has a circular influence area.
3. For simplicity, the influence zone for permeability and volume
compressibility is assumed to be the same, and that zone is
taken as the smear zone.
4. The stone column–reinforced foundation is fully saturated, and

ability in the disturbed zone are considered. Lu et al. (2011) also water is assumed to be fully incompressible.
presented a consolidation solution for a stone column–improved 5. The stone column and surrounding soil have an equal vertical
foundation considering a time- and depth-dependent stress incre- strain at every depth and deform only in the vertical direction.
ment along with reduced constant, linear, and parabolic variation of The load is applied instantly and maintained constantly during
permeability in the disturbed zone. Ben Salem et al. (2016) devel- the consolidation period.
oped an analytical model to study the effect of stone column instal- 6. Soil properties are assumed to be the same during the consoli-
lation on excess pore pressure variation during soil liquefaction by dation process.
considering reduced constant, linear, and parabolic variation of per- The applied load is shared by the stone column, disturbed, and
meability in the disturbed zone. undisturbed zone. Thus
In the available analytical models for consolidation of a vertical
drain or stone column–improved ground, the smear effect has been s s As þ s sm Asm þ s c Ac ¼ pA (1)
incorporated only by reduced constant, linear, or parabolic variation
of lateral permeability in the smear zone. However, studies show where s  s; s
 sm ; and s
 c = average total vertical stresses within the
that stone column installation removes the interparticle bonding of undisturbed zone, disturbed zone (smear zone), and stone column,
clay near the column interface. The shear strength of the soil is also respectively; p = applied pressure on the total influence area; and As,
reduced due to the column installation in clay (Castro and Asm, and Ac = area of undisturbed zone, smear zone, and stone column,
Karstunen 2010). However, the effect is limited to the soil near to respectively. Thus, the total influence area (A) can be written as
the stone column. Similar shear strength reduction is measured in A ¼ Ac þ As þ Asm (2)
field due to installation of the pile in soft sensitive marine clay (Roy
et al. 1981). The reduction of the shear strength increases the vol- After putting s s ¼ s 0s þ us and s  0sm þ usm in
 sm ¼ s
ume change or compressibility of the surrounding soil within the Eq. (1) and simplifying, one can get
disturbed zone. Also, for both the pile and stone column, the
reduced shear strength is not constant throughout the disturbed pA  ur ð A  Ac Þ  s 0s As  s 0sm Asm
s c ¼ (3)
zone, and the reduction is more toward the stone column or pile. Ac
Thus, the increment in compressibility of the clayey soil within the
disturbed zone will occur more near the stone column. However, where ur = average pore pressure within the total soft soil area
densification by a rammed stone column installed in sandy soil (undisturbed zone and disturbed zone) and can be written as
causes an increase in the deformation modulus and decreases in the
coefficients of permeability and volume change. To study the densi- us As þ usm Asm

ur ¼ (4)
fication and dilation effect of a stone column in liquefaction mitiga- ð A  Ac Þ
tion, Murali Krishna and Madhav (2008) developed an analytical
model by considering linear and exponential variation of permeabil- where s s ; and s
 sm = average effective stress within the undisturbed
ity and compressibility. However, in the available analytical models zone and disturbed zone, respectively; and us and usm = average
to determine the rate of consolidation of the stone column–improved excess pore-water pressure within the undisturbed and disturbed
clay, the compressibility in the disturbed and undisturbed zone is the zones, respectively.
same. Therefore, an analytical model is developed in the present pa- Eq. (3) can be further written as
per to determine the rate of consolidation of stone column–improved
ground considering variable permeability as well as variable com- p  ur ð1  as Þ  s 0s ð1  as  bs Þ  s 0sm bs
s c ¼ (5)
pressibility in the smear zone. as

where as ¼ Ac =A; and bs ¼ Asm =A.

Mathematical Formulation Putting s
c ¼ s 0c þ uc in Eq. (5), one can write
Assumptions are made during the development of mathematical
p  ur ð1  as Þ  s0s ð1  as  bs Þ  s 0sm bs
formulation for rate of consolidation of the stone column– s 0c ¼  uc (6)
reinforced foundations considering installation effects of stone col- as
umn in soft soil. A few assumptions are similar to those considered
by Han and Ye (2001, 2002), because in the present study, the effect where s c and uc = average effective stress and excess pore-water
of variation of permeability and volume compressibility in the pressure within the stone column; and as = area replacement ratio.
smear zone resulting from stone column installation in soft clay is Considering equal strain along the radial distance, one can write

© ASCE 04016128-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 p

Stone column

Undisturbed zone

Smeared or
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

disturbed zone

rc
rsm
(a)
re

re re
rsm rsm
rc rc

Disturbed Undisturbed Disturbed Undisturbed

zone zone zone zone
kc
mvsm 1
3 ks
2
Stone 2
column
3 ksm 1
mvs
mvc

1 Constant 1 Constant
2 Linear variation 2 Linear variation
(b) 3 Parabolic variation (c) 3 Parabolic variation

Fig. 1. (a) Stone column and surrounding disturbed and undisturbed zones; (b) variation of compressibility in smear zone; (c) variation of permeabil-
ity in smear zone (not to scale)

∂ɛ ¼ mvc ∂s0c ¼ mvs ∂s0s ¼ mvsm ðrÞ∂s 0sm ðrÞ (7) Case 1: Constant Permeability and Volume
where mvc, mvs, and mvsm = volumetric compressibility of stone col- Compressibility
umns, undisturbed zone soil, and disturbed zone soil, respectively;
« = vertical strain; and r = radial distance. In the present study, the Considering reduced constant permeability and constant compressi-
compressibility is varied within the smear zone. Thus, to satisfy the bility in the smear zone (Fig. 1) with a constant strain approach,
equal strain or constant strain approach, stress distribution within average effective stress within the smear zone can be written as
the smear zone is also varied. The disturbed soil also carries a lesser
s 0sm ¼ λ1 s 0s (8)
load as compared to the undisturbed soil due to differences in vol-
ume compressibility within the zones. In the previous studies with
variable permeability in the smear zone, three variations were where λ1 ¼ 1=a; and a ¼ mvsm =mvs (where a is the compressibility
mainly considered, such as reduced constant, linear, and parabolic. ratio). Average pore pressure within the surrounding soil of the
Thus, in the present study, three different distributions of perme- stone column with constant permeability in the smear zone can be
ability and compressibility are considered: (1) reduced constant per- written as (Han and Ye 2002)
meability and volume compressibility, (2) linear variation of perme-
ability and volume compressibility, and (3) parabolic variation of g w re2 ∂ɛ
ur ¼ F þ uc (9)
permeability and volume compressibility. 2ks ∂t

© ASCE 04016128-3 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 where ks ∂us   ∂ɛ
2p rdz ¼ p re2  r2 dz for rsm  r  re (14)


  g w ∂r ∂t
2 2
N N ks 3 S ks
F¼ 2 ln þ ln S  þ 2 1
N 1 S ksm 4 N 1 ksm


 kh ðrÞ ∂usm   ∂ɛ
S2 ks 1 1 de dsm 2p rdz ¼ p re2  r2 dz for rc  r  rsm (15)
 1 2 þ 1  ;N¼ ;S¼ g w ∂r ∂t
4N ksm N  1
2 4N 2 dc dc
Eqs. (12) and (13) can be simplified as
where de (= 2re), dc (= 2rc), and dsm (= 2rsm) = diameter of influence

zone, stone column, and smear zone, respectively; g w = unit weight ∂us g w re2 ∂ɛ
¼ r for rsm  r  re (16)
of water; t = time; ks and ksm = radial permeability of the undisturbed ∂r 2ks r ∂t
soil and disturbed soil (smear zone), respectively; and N = diameter
ratio.

∂usm gw re2 ∂ɛ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

¼ r for rc  r  rsm (17)

∂r 2kh ðrÞ r ∂t

The quantity of water entering through the smeared zone into the
Case 2: Linear Variation of Permeability and Volume
stone column is equal to that coming out from the stone column
Compressibility

 
 2
ksm ∂usm  kc ∂ uc
Considering linear variation of permeability and volume compressi- 2p rc dz ¼  p r 2
dz (18)
bility in the smear zone (Fig. 1), the variation of permeability and g w ∂r r¼rc c
g w ∂z2
compressibility can be expressed as
ks  ksm From Eqs. (17) and (18), the following equation can be obtained
kh ðrÞ ¼ ksm þ  ðr  rc Þ ¼ ksm þ A1 ðr  rc Þ (10) as
rsm  rc
∂2 u c g w ð 2 ∂ɛ
where ¼ N  1Þ (19)
∂z2 kc ∂t
ks  ksm
A1 ¼ After integrating Eqs. (16) and (17), one can get
rsm  rc
"


and ∂ɛ g w S 1  
us ¼  D1 ln  ðrsm  rc Þ þ ðrc  h Þ  ln k
∂t 2 k A1
mvsm  mvc
mv ðrÞ ¼ mvsm  ðr  rc Þ ¼ mvsm  B1 ðr  rc Þ
rsm  rc
#
∂ɛ g w 2 r r2  rsm
2
(11) þ r ln  þ uc (20)
∂t 2ks e rsm 2
where
" 
 
mvsm  mvs ∂ɛ g w h
B1 ¼ ¼
r

1
rsm  rc usm
∂t 2
D1 ln
rc h þ ðr  rc Þ A1
From the equal strain concept [Eq. (7)], the distribution  #
r þ h  rc
pattern of effective stress within the smear zone can be written  ðr  rc Þ þ ðrc  h Þln þ uc (21)
as h
mvs
∂s 0sm ðrÞ ¼ ∂s 0 (12) where
mv ðrÞ s
re2 ks  ksm ksm ks
D1 ¼ ; A1 ¼ ;h¼ ;k¼
The average effective stress within the smear zone can be written ksm  A1 rc rsm  rc A1 ksm
as
rÐsm and S ¼ ðrsm =rc Þ.
1 Average excess pore-water pressure at any depth (z) can be com-
mv ðrÞ dr
rc ln a puted as
s 0sm ¼ mvs s 0s rÐsm ¼ s 0s ¼ λ1 s 0s (13)
ða  1Þ 2 3
dr rð
sm rðe

6 7
rc 1
ur ¼  2 4 usm 2p rdr þ us 2p rdr5 (22)
p re  rc2
where rc rsm

ln a mvsm
λ1 ¼ and a ¼ Substituting Eqs. (20) and (21) into Eq. (22), one can get
a1 mvs
g w re2 ∂ɛ
Equating the amount of water expelled from the cylindri- ur ¼ F þ uc (23)
2ks ∂t
 (2prdz) with the volume change within the soil
cal surface
mass ½p re2  r2 dz, one can write where F = F1 þ F2.

© ASCE 04016128-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 " ( mvsm  mvs mvsm  mvs
2
N 2  S2 k ðS  1Þ S ðS  1Þ k ðS  1Þk P2 ¼ ; Q2 ¼ 2rsm ; and
F1 ¼ 2 ln   ðrsm  rc Þ2
ðrsm  rc Þ2
N  1 ðS  k Þ k ðk  1ÞN 2 ðk  1ÞN 2
) #

2
mvsm rsm þ mvs rc2  2mvs rc rsm
R2 ¼
ðS  1Þ2 k N2 N ðN 2  S2 Þð3N 2  S2 Þ ðrsm  rc Þ2
 ln k þ 2 ln 
ðk  1Þ2 N 2 N 1 S 4N 4
Average effective stress within the smear zone can be written as
rÐsm
" ( ) 1 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 k ð S  1Þ 2 ðS  k Þ2 mv ðrÞ dr
F2 ¼ 2 S ln S þ ðln k Þ S tan 1 a  1
s0sm ¼ mvs s0s  ¼ λ1 s0s
2 rc
¼ ss
0
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (26)
N  1 ðS  k Þ ðk  1Þ2 rÐsm
a1
( )# dr
ðS  1ÞðS  k Þ k ð S  1Þ 1 rc
 
ðk  1Þ ðk  1ÞN 2 ðN 2  1Þ
" ( ) where
ðS  1Þð2S2  1  SÞ ðk  SÞ 2 ðS  k Þ2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

 þ S  pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 ðk  1Þ ðk  1Þ2 tan 1 a  1
# λ1 ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ðS2  1Þ ðS  k ÞðS  1Þ a1
 ln k  þ
2 ðk  1Þ
and
mvsm
a¼
mvs
Case 3: Parabolic Variation of Permeability and
Volume Compressibility Following Eqs. (14)–(17), one can obtain the excess pore-water
pressure within the undisturbed and disturbed zone for parabolic
Considering parabolic variation of permeability and volume com- distribution of permeability and compressibility as
pressibility in the smear zone (Fig. 1), the variation of permeability "

and compressibility can be expressed as ∂ɛ g w re2 A2 A2

us ¼  b 1 ln S þ b 2 ln þ b 3 ln


 ∂t 2D3 A2  1 A2 þ 1
kh ðrÞ ¼ ksm ðk  1Þ A2  B2 þ D2
r
A2 þ B2  D2
r "
 ##
rc rc ∂ɛ g w 2 r r2  rsm2
þ re ln  þ uc (27)
(24) ∂t 2ks rsm 2

To determine A2, B2, and D2, the boundary conditions for perme- ∂ɛ g w re2 r A2  B2 þ D2 rrc
ability are considered as follows: usm ¼  b 1 ln þ b 2 ln
∂t 2D3 rc A2  1
r

at r ¼ rc ; kh ðrÞ ¼ ksm A2 þ B2  D2 rc
þ b 3 ln þ uc (28)
A2 þ 1

∂kh ðrÞ where

at r ¼ rsm ; kh ðrÞ ¼ ks and ¼0
∂r  
1 A2  B2 1
b1 ¼ ; b2 ¼  ;
After applying the boundary conditions, the constants are com- A22  B22 2A2 D22 N 2 2A2 ðA2  B2 Þ
puted as  
1 A2 þ B2
b3 ¼  þ ; and D3 ¼ ksm ðk  1Þ
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2A2 ðA2 þ B2 Þ 2A2 D22 N 2
k S 1 ks rsm
A2 ¼ ; B2 ¼ ; D2 ¼ ;k¼ ; and S ¼
k 1 S1 S1 ksm rc
Average excess pore-water pressure at any depth (z) can be com-
Variation of compressibility in the smear zone can be expressed puted as 2 3
rð
sm rðe

6 7
as 1
ur ¼  2 4 usm 2p rdr þ us 2p rdr5
mv ðrÞ ¼ P2 r2 þ Q2 r þ R2 (25)
p re  rc2
rc rsm
g w re2
∂ɛ
To determine P2, Q2, and R2, the boundary conditions for com- ¼ F þ uc
pressibility are considered as follows: 2ks ∂t (29)

At r ¼ rc ; mv ðrÞ ¼ mvsm where F ¼ F1 þ F2 .

∂mv ðrÞ N 2  S2 k A2 A2
At r ¼ rsm ; mv ðrÞ ¼ mvs and ¼0 F1 ¼ b ln S þ b ln þ b ln
∂r N2  1 k  1 1 2
A2  1 3
A2 þ 1

1 N ðN  S Þð3N  S Þ
2 2 2 2
After applying the boundary conditions, the constants are com- þ 2 N 2 ln 
puted as N 1 S 4N 2

© ASCE 04016128-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 2 3
S2  1 b 2 ðA2  B2 Þ  b 3 ðA2 þ B2 Þ
b 1 S ln S  ð b 1 þ b 2  b 3 Þ
2
þ ðS  1Þ
1 k 66 2 D2
7
7
F2 ¼ 2 6 2 2 7
N  1k  14 D22 S2  ðA2  B2 Þ A2 D22 S2  ðA2 þ B2 Þ A2 5
þb 2 ln þ b ln
D22 A2  1 3
D22 A2 þ 1

Considering the three different cases, substituting Eqs. (8), where

(13), and (26) into Eq. (6), and combining Eqs. (6) and (7), one
mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ
can get mm ¼ m

mvc ð1  as Þ
∂s 0s mvc as 1  as ∂
u r ∂uc

¼ þ ; 1  as  j bs as ns
∂t mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ as ∂t ∂t ¼m þ
1  as 1  as

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

j ¼ 1  λ1 (30)
N 2  1  j ðS2  1Þ ns
¼m þ 2
Thus, Eq. (7) can be written as N2  1 N 1

mvs 1 S2  1
∂ɛ mvs mvc as 1  as ∂
u r ∂uc ns ¼ ; as ¼ 2 and bs ¼
¼ þ (31) N2
∂t mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ as ∂t ∂t mvc N

Substituting Eq. (31) into Eq. (9) (for Case 1), Eq. (23) (for Case N2
r 2m ¼ r 2
2), Eq. 29 (for Case 3), and Eq. (19), one can get N21

Eqs. (36) and (37) can be written as

g w re2 mvs mvc as
ur ¼  F 
2ks mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ ur ¼ Cuc (38)

where C = constant.
1  as ∂
u r ∂uc
 þ þ uc (32) Eqs. (32) and (33) can be further written as
as ∂t ∂t
∂ur as ∂uc
  þ ¼  m m ður  uc Þ (39)
∂2 u c g w ð 2 mvs mvc as 1  as ∂ur ∂uc ∂t 1  as ∂t
¼ N  1 Þ þ
∂z2 kc mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ as ∂t ∂t
(33) ∂2 uc
¼  r 2 ður  uc Þ (40)
∂z2
By canceling out variable uc or 
u r from Eqs. (32) and (33), one Combining Eqs. (39) and (40) and using boundary condition
can get uc|z = 0 = 0 and @uc/@z|z = H = 0, one can get


∂3 ur mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ ∂2 ur 1 ∂ur
pz
uc ¼ C1 sin (41)
þ m  r2 ¼0 2H
∂z2 ∂t mvc ð1  as Þ ∂z2 1  as ∂t
(34)
p2
C ¼1þ (42)
4 r 2 H2
∂3 uc mvs as þ mvc ð1  as  j bs Þ ∂2 uc 1 ∂uc
þ m  r2 ¼0 where H = depth/length of stone column; and constant C1 can be
∂z2 ∂t mvc ð1  as Þ ∂z2 1  as ∂t
written as
(35) 2 3
p 2tm m
6 7
where 6 4H 2 r 2 7
C1 ¼ C2 exp 6 7 (43)
4 p2 1 5
8cr 2 8ks ðN 2  1Þ ks þ
m¼ ;r ¼ ; and cr ¼ 4 r 2 H 2 1  aS
de2 F kc de2 F mvs g w
The average excess pore-water pressure within the surrounding
Eqs. (34) and (35) can be further simplified as soil in terms of depth can be written as

∂3 u r ∂2 ur ∂ur ð
H
þ m  r 2m ¼0 (36) 1
∂z2 ∂t m
∂z2 ∂t ur ¼ ur dz (44)
H
0

∂3 u c ∂2 uc ∂uc The constant C2 can be obtained by using the initial condition

þ m  r 2m ¼0 (37) ur jt¼0 ¼ u0 as
∂z2 ∂t m
∂z2 ∂t

© ASCE 04016128-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 2p r 2 H 2 u0 embankment geometry and the soil profile are shown in Fig. 2. The
C2 ¼ (45) 20-m-wide (half width) and 1.8-m-high embankment is filled with
p 2 þ 4 r 2 H2
sandy material with permeability 1.16  10−5 m/s, saturated unit
Thus, the average pore-water pressure within the undisturbed weight 20 kN/m3, bulk unit weight 18 kN/m3, and elastic modulus
and disturbed zone and stone column can be written as 15,000 kPa. Stone columns (800-mm diameter) are installed at a

 spacing of 2.4 m in a square grid arrangement. Thus, for a square
p u0 pz arrangement, the diameter of the influence zone is 1.13  2.4 = 2.71 m.
ur ¼ sin  exp ð b rm tÞ (46) The N value is taken as 3.4. The upper crust layer is 1-m-thick fill
2 2H
of hard soil with horizontal permeability, vertical permeability, sat-

 urated unit weight, bulk unit weight, and elastic modulus of 3.47 
2p r 2 H 2 u0 pz 10−7 m/s, 1.16  10−7 m/s, 18 kN/m3, 17 kN/m3, and 15,000 kPa,
uc ¼ sin  exp ð b rm tÞ (47)
4 r 2 H2 þ p 2 2H respectively. The crust layer is provided to improve the soft ground
surface for a stable construction platform by replacing the soft
where clay. It also acts as a drainage path for water during the consolida-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

tion process. The stone columns are installed through soft clay of
p2mm N 2  1  j ðS2  1Þ ns horizontal permeability (ks), vertical permeability, saturated unit
4 r 2 H2 8cr 21
þ 2 weight, bulk unit weight, and elastic modulus of 3.47  10−9 m/s,
b rm ¼ ¼ 2  N N 1
1.16  10−9 m/s, 15 kN/m3, 15 kN/m3, and 1,100 kPa, respectively.
p2 1 de F N 2 4 r 2 H2
þ 1þ 2 The horizontal and vertical coefficient of consolidation of the soft
4 r 2 H2 1  as N  1 p2 clay is taken as 5.24 and 1.75 10−7 m2/s, respectively, based on
8crm the given data. The groundwater table is 1 m below the ground sur-
¼ 2
de Fm face. The columns are installed up to a depth of 6 m from the
embankment base and placed over a stiff clay layer. The horizontal
permeability, vertical permeability, saturated unit weight, bulk unit
and weight, and elastic modulus of the stiff clay are 3.47  10−9 m/s,

1.16  10−9 m/s, 20 kN/m3, 18 kN/m3, and 40,000 kPa, respec-
N 2  1  j ðS2  1Þ ns tively. Thus, the effective length/depth of the stone columns is
crm ¼ cr þ and Fm ¼ F þ G
N2  1 N2  1 taken as 5 m, and the value of H/dc = 6.25. The permeability of the
stone column (kc) (both vertical and horizontal) is 1.16  10−4 m/s.
where G = well resistance, which is the same as that given by Han Thus, ks/kc is taken as 2.99  10−3. The saturated unit weight, bulk
and Ye (2002) and can be written as unit weight, and elastic modulus of the stone column are 20 kN/m3,


 19 kN/m3, and 30,000 kPa, respectively. Two settlement plates
32 H 2 ks (SP1 and SP2) were placed in situ to measure the settlements, one
G¼ (48)
p 2 dc kc at the center of the embankment and another at a distance of 8 m
from its edge. During comparison, the settlement value measured
The average radial degree of consolidation can be written as in the field at the end of consolidation (when settlement is constant
0 1 with time) is considered as the final settlement, and based on that,
Ð
H overall degree of consolidation in field is determined with time.
B ur dzC The radial degree of consolidation (Ur) is calculated from Eq. (50),
1 @0 A
Ur ¼ 1  ¼ 1  exp ð b rm tÞ (49) as the present study determined only radial degree of consolidation.
H u0 However, in the field along with the radial consolidation, there is
also a possibility of vertical consolidation (although very small as
Thus, the average degree of consolidation can be expressed in a compared to the radial consolidation). Thus, for comparison, verti-
general format as cal degree of consolidation (Uv) is also calculated by Terzaghi’s
crm cr one-dimensional (1D) consolidation theory. The overall degree of
Ur ¼ 1  eFm Trm ; where Trm ¼
8
t and Tr ¼ 2 t (50) consolidation (U) (predicted) is calculated as U = 1 – (1 – Ur) (1 –
de2 de
Uv). The horizontal permeability of the smear zone (ksm) is taken as
where crm = modified radial consolidation coefficient considering
variable compressibility in the smear zone and stress concentration 20 m
ratio (ns) for stone column–improved ground; cr = radial consolida- El. (m)
2 +1.8
tion coefficient; and Trm and Tr = modified time factor and time fac- SP1 Embankment 1 Crust
SP2
tor for radial flow, respectively. In the general average degree of 0
consolidation expression, F and j (= 1 – l 1) change depending on -1
the selection of variation of permeability and compressibility of the
smear zone, respectively. Soft clay

-6
Comparison with Data from Case History 800 mm diameter stone columns Stiff clay
@ 2.4 m spacing
SP1, 2: Settlement plates
The degree of consolidation obtained from different cases is com-
pared with the field consolidation data of an embankment con-
Fig. 2. Cross section of stone column–supported embankment consid-
structed for the Penchala Toll Plaza project at New Pantai ered for case study (Note: El. = elevation)
Expressway, Malaysia, in 2003 presented by Tan et al. (2008). The

© ASCE 04016128-7 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 0
N=3.4
S=2.5
S 2.5

%
solidation (U)%
20 a=2
ks/ksm=10
ns=6
40
Degree of cons H/dc=6.25
2 99*10-55
ks/kc=2.99*10
60
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

80
D

100
0 01
0.01 0
0.1
1 1 10 100 1000

Field data ( at centre)

Han & Ye (2002)
Permeability (Constant)+Compressibility (Constant)
Permeability (Linear)+Compressibility (Linear)
Permeability (Parabolic) + Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 3. Comparison of computed and measured values for different cases (at center of embankment)

0
N=3.4
S=2.5
ation (U)%

20 a=22
ks/ksm=10
ns=6
consolida

40
H/dc=6.25
ks/kc=2.99*10-5
gree of c

60
Deg

80

100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Time (days)
Field data (at 8m from edge)
H &Y
Han Ye (2002)
Permeability (Constant)+Compressibility (Constant)
Permeability (Linear)+Compressibility (Linear)
Permeability (Parabolic) + Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 4. Comparison of computed and measured values for different cases (8 m from embankment edge)

1/10 of the horizontal permeability of the undisturbed zone (ks) as is approximately 2.5 times the radius of the stone column. Bowles
considered by Han and Ye (2002). The radius of the disturbed or (1997) suggested that the modulus of elasticity (Es) can be corre-
smear zone (rsm) is taken as 2.5 times the radius of stone columns lated with shear strength (cu) for clayey soils as follows: for clay
(rc) based on centrifuge model tests. Weber et al. (2010) reported and silts with plasticity index greater than 30 or organic, Es = 100–
that the radius of the smear zone of a stone column installed in clay 500 cu, and for silty or sandy clays with plasticity index less than

© ASCE 04016128-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 0
S=2
a=2

gree of Radial Consollidation (Ur)%

N=5 ns=2
20
4 H/dc=10

on (Ur)%
3
ks/ksm=10
80 2
40 kc/ks=1000

onsolidatio
82

84

Radial Co
60
86
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

egree of R

88
80
90
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Deg

De

Time Factor (Tr)

100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Time Factor (T
( r)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (No Effect)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 5. Effect of diameter ratio on degree of consolidation with and without variable compressibility

30 or stiff, Es = 500–1,500 cu. Thus, the modulus of elasticity is Reduced constant permeability and volume compressibility in the
proportional to the shear strength of clay. Again, the deformation smear zone gives the lowest degree of consolidation for a particular
modulus of cohesive soils can be estimated as Es = M [(1 þ ) (1 – time. Parabolic distribution shows the highest degree of consolida-
2)/(1 – )], where  is Poisson’s ratio of soil, and M is referred to tion. Linear distribution gives the degree of consolidation in between
as 1D deformation modulus (constrained modulus), which can the constant and parabolic case. Based on the study of different per-
written as M = 1/mv (mv is the volume compressibility). The vol- meability variation patterns in the smear zone (keeping the same
ume compressibility of soil can be written as mv = {[(1 þ )(1 – compressibility in the disturbed and undisturbed zone), Xie et al.
2)]/[Es(1 – )]}. Thus, volume compressibility is inversely pro- (2009) also presented similar results on the degree of consolidation
portional to shear strength of clay. Shear strength reduction toward for reduced constant, linear, and parabolic cases. However, the differ-
the drain due to installation of the stone column means an increase ence between the computed degree of consolidation for different
of volume compressibility toward the drain. The volume compres- cases also depends on the radius of the smear zone. The Han and Ye
sibility of the smear zone is taken as 2 times the volume compressi- (2002) approach (where effect of variation of compressibility in the
bility of the undisturbed soil. From the field pile installation in soft smear zone is not considered) gives the degree of consolidation
sensitive marine clay, it is observed that shear strength near the pile between the constant and linear case. This is because Han and Ye
surface is reduced by approximately 50% as compared to the shear (2002) considered the same compressibility in the case of the dis-
strength of undisturbed soil (Roy et al. 1981; Castro and Karstunen turbed and undisturbed zone and a reduced constant permeability in
2010). Based on a numerical study, Castro and Karstunen (2010) the smear zone. However, in the present study, reduced values were
also observed an approximately 60% reduction of shear strength considered in the smear zone for both permeability and strength with
near the stone column. Castro and Karstunen (2010) suggested different types of variation. Thus, because of reduction of soil
that, for practical purposes in the stone column design, an average strength or increment of volume compressibility in the smear zone,
strength reduction (constant throughout the smear zone) of 15– there was a lower degree of consolidation (for the reduced constant
20% can be used for normal stone column spacings. However, in case) as compared to the Han and Ye (2002) approach. However, the
the present study, a higher reduction of strength at the stone col- other two cases (linear and parabolic variation) give a higher degree
umn surface is considered (50% reduction) due to parabolic and of consolidation as compared to Han and Ye (2002) due to considera-
linear variation of compressibility in the smear zone (Fig. 1), tion of different variations. It is also observed that the degree of con-
because the reduction of strength (or increment of compressibil- solidation values calculated based on field observation is close to the
ity) is closer to the stone column surface due to more disturban- values predicted by considering parabolic distribution of permeabil-
ces. Mitchell (1981) indicated that the stress concentration value ity and compressibility in the smear zone. Walker and Indraratna
falls in the range of 2–6. Han and Ye (2001) and Balaam and (2006) reported that laboratory test results on reconstituted clays also
Booker (1981) considered stress concentration values from 1 to show that a parabolic decay in horizontal permeability toward the
10. Thus, during the comparison, the stress concentration (ns) drain is appropriate (Onoue et al. 1991; Indraratna and Redana
value is considered as 6. 1998). Field pile installation data in soft sensitive marine clay
Figs. 3 and 4 show the comparison of the degree of consolidation reported by Roy et al. (1981) also show that parabolic decay is the
computed for different cases and measured in field at the center of the appropriate variation of shear strength toward the pile surface
embankment and at a distance of 8 m from its edge, respectively. (Castro and Karstunen 2010).

© ASCE 04016128-9 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 0
N=3

nsolidation (Ur)%
ks/ksm=10 S=2.5
20 3 ns=2

Ur)%
1

al Consollidation (U
80
a=2
H/dc=10
40 82
kc/ks=1000
dial Con
84

60 86
e of Radia
e of Rad

88
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Degree

90
Degree

80
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time Factor (Tr)

100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Time Factor (Tr)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (No Effect)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 6. Effects of permeability in smear zone on degree of consolidation with and without variable compressibility

0
nsolidattion (Ur))%

kc/ks=10
20 100
1000

40
dial Con

60 N=3
e of Rad

S=2.5
a=2
ns=2
2
Degree

80
ks/ksm=10
H/dc=10
100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time Factor (Tr)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (No Effect)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 7. Effects of permeability of stone column on degree of consolidation with and without variable compressibility

Parametric Study between different cases shows that incorporation of reduced strength
or increased compressibility in the smear zone along with reduced
In the available methods to determine the degree of consolidation, permeability has a significant effect on degree of consolidation.
smear effect is incorporated by considering only reduced permeabil- It also shows that incorporation of compressibility effect reduces the
ity in the smear zone. Lu et al. (2010) presented the effect of various degree of consolidation for a particular time. Thus, a parametric study
parameters on the difference in degree of consolidation of stone was conducted to show the effect of different parameters on degree of
column–improved ground considering reduced constant and linear radial consolidation due to incorporation of increased compressibility
variation of permeability in the smear zone. However, comparison in the smear zone along with the reduced permeability. During the

© ASCE 04016128-10 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 0
N=3

nsolidatiion (Ur)%
%
S=2.5
a=1 ns=2
20

dation (Ur))%
15
a=1.5 ks/ksm=10
10
80
a=2 kc/ks=1000
82
40
adial Con

al Consolid
84

60 86
Degrree of Ra

ee of Radia
88
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Degre

80 90
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Time Factor (Tr)

100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Time Factor (Tr)

Fig. 8. Effects of compressibility ratio (a) on degree of consolidation with and without variable compressibility

0
N=3
S=3 a=2
%
olidation (Ur)%

2.5 ns=2
20
2.0
Ur)%

H/dc=10
11
1.1
Degree of Radiall Consolidation (U

80 ks/ksm=10
40 82
kc/ks=1000
al Conso

84

60 86
of Radia

88
egree o

80 90
0.2 0.4 0.6
Time Factor ((Tr)
De

100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Time Factor (Tr)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (No Effect)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 9. Effects of extent of smear zone on degree of consolidation with and without variable compressibility

parametric study, only parabolic variation of permeability and com- consideration of varying compressibility in the smear zone along
pressibility in the smear zone is considered, because degree of consol- with reduced permeability. As the N value increases, the difference
idation values computed by considering parabolic variation of perme- between the results obtained with and without considering variable
ability and compressibility in the smear zone is close to the degree of compressibility in the smear zone decreases. To achieve 90%
consolidation measured in field. degree of consolidation, 15% more time is required when variable
Fig. 5 shows the effect of diameter ratio on change in degree compressibility in the smear zone is considered as compared to the
of consolidation of stone column–improved ground due to no effect of compressibility condition for N = 2. However, for N =

© ASCE 04016128-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 0

N 3
N=3

n (Ur)%
S=2.5

al Consollidation (Ur)%
20 ns=2 a=2

olidation
80 4 ks/ksm=10
10 kc/ks=1000
40 82
egree off Radiall Conso H/dc=10
84

60 86
e of Radia
88
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Degree

80 90
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Time Factor (Tr)
De

100
0.001 0.01 0.1 1
Time Factor (Tr)
Permeability (Parabolic)+ Compressibility (No Effect)
Permeability (Parabolic)+Compressibility (Parabolic)

Fig. 10. Effects of stress concentration ratio on degree of consolidation with and without variable compressibility

3, 4, and 5, the time differences are 7, 4, and 2.5%, respectively. Fig. 9 shows the effect of smear zone size on change in degree of
Thus, variable compressibility in the smear zone has a significant consolidation of stone column–improved ground due to considera-
effect for a smaller diameter ratio, because in the case of a smaller tion of varying compressibility in the smear zone. As the S (= rsm/rc)
diameter ratio, most of the soil in the influence zone is disturbed value increases, the difference in the results obtained with and with-
due to the installation of the column. It is further observed that, as out considering variable compressibility in the smear zone
the diameter ratio increases from 2 to 5, the time required to increases. To achieve 90% degree of consolidation, 21% more time
achieve 90% degree of consolidation is increased by 2.1 times is required when variable compressibility in the smear zone is con-
when variable permeability and compressibility in the smear zone sidered as compared to the no effect of compressibility condition
are considered. for S = 3. However, for S = 2.5, 2, and 1.1, the time difference is 13,
Figs. 6 and 7 show the effect of ks/ksm and kc/ks on change in 7, and 4.5%, respectively. Thus, variable compressibility in the
degree of consolidation between the results obtained with and with- smear zone has a significant effect when more soil is disturbed due
out considering the variable compressibility in the smear zone. to installation of the stone column. It is further observed that, as the
Variation in ks/ksm and kc/ks value does not have any effect on the S value increases from 1.1 to 3, the time required to achieve 90%
change in degree of consolidation obtained with and without con- degree of consolidation is increased by 3.1 times when variable per-
sidering the variable compressibility in the smear zone. In the case meability and compressibility in the smear zone are considered.
of selected parameters, to achieve 90% degree of consolidation, Fig. 10 shows the effect of stress concentration ratio on change
13% more time is required when variable compressibility in the in degree of consolidation of stone column–improved ground due to
smear zone is considered as compared to the no effect of compressi- consideration of varying compressibility in the smear zone. As the
bility condition for all values of ks/ksm and kc/ks. It is further ns value increases, the difference in the results obtained with and
observed that, when ks/ksm increases from 1 (ks/ksm = 1 means no without considering variable compressibility in the smear zone
permeability reduction in the smear zone is considered) to 10, the decreases. To achieve 90% degree of consolidation, 13% more time
time required to achieve 90% degree of consolidation is increased is required when variable compressibility in the smear zone is con-
by 2.4 times. Thus, reduction of permeability in the smear zone by sidered as compared to the no effect of compressibility condition
10 times increases the time requirement to achieve 90% degree of for ns = 2. However, for ns = 4 and 10, the time difference is 10.5
consolidation by 2.2 times, and reduction of shear strength or incre- and 7%, respectively. Thus, variable compressibility in the smear
ment in compressibility by 2 times further increases the required zone has a significant effect on lower stress concentration ratio (i.e.,
time by 13%. Fig. 8 also shows almost the same time increment to lower amount of stress acts on the stone column. It is further
achieve 90% degree of consolidation when the a (= mvsm/mvs) value observed that, as the ns value increases from 2 to 10, the time
increases from 1 (a = 1 means no strength reduction or compressi- required to achieve 90% degree of consolidation decreases by 1.9
bility increment in the smear zone is considered) to 2. Thus, reduc- times when variable permeability and compressibility in the smear
tion of permeability in the smear zone has more effect on degree of zone are considered.
consolidation as compared to the reduction of strength or increment In the present study, the soil properties are assumed to be the
of compressibility. This is because the permeability reduction in the same during the consolidation process. However, permeability
smear zone is more as compared to the reduction of shear strength changes with void ratio (void ratio also changes with consolida-
of soil due to the installation effect. tion), and compressibility of soil varies along the consolidation

© ASCE 04016128-12 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 curve (compressibility is a function of effective stress and void ra-
tio). Thus, these properties are not constant during the consolidation
period. Therefore, a mathematical formulation should be developed
to determine the rate of consolidation of stone column–improved
ground considering change in soil properties during the consolida-
tion period. It is also assumed that the stone column and surround-
ing soil deform only in the vertical direction (i.e., an equal vertical
strain at every depth is considered). The equal strain assumption is
strictly valid when the applied load on the improved ground surface
is rigid in nature (i.e., raft on improved ground). The equal strain
assumption can also be applied in the case of an embankment or
granular platform when the platform layer thickness and the soil
density increase (Indraratna et al. 2013). Smear or disturbed zone
soil parameters (compressibility or permeability) due to stone col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
It is further observed that, because of the increase in diameter ratio
(from 2 to 5) or smear zone radius (from 1.1 to 3 times) or reduction
in smear zone permeability (by 10 times) or stress concentration ra-
tio (from 10 to 2), the time required to achieve 90% degree of con-
solidation is increased by 2–3 times when variable permeability and
compressibility in the smear zone are considered.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A ¼ total influence area (m2);
Ac ¼ area of stone column (m2);
As ¼ area of undisturbed zone (m2);
Asm ¼ area of smear zone (m2);

umn or vertical drain installation can be identified through labora- a ¼ compressibility ratio
tory investigation by collecting small soil samples at different loca- ða ¼ mvsm =mvs Þ(dimensionless);
tions (close to and away from the drain) after the installation and
as ¼ area replacement ratio
conducting oedometer tests of the collected samples (Indraratna and
ðas ¼ Ac =AÞ(dimensionless);
Redana 1998). The disturbed zone can also be identified after study-
bs ¼ Asm/A (dimensionless);
ing the soil microstructure by applying environmental scanning
cr ¼ radial coefficient of consolidation (m2/s);
electron microscopy and mercury intrusion porosimetry (Weber
crm ¼ modified radial consolidation coefficient
et al. 2010). The undrained shear strength of the disturbed soil along
the radial distance has been determined by field vane shear test after (m2/s);
the installation of pile in soft sensitive marine clay (Roy et al. G ¼ well resistance (dimensionless);
1981). Thus, during comparison of the results with the case study, H ¼ depth/length of stone column (m);
reported disturbed zone parameters are used. The radius of the dis- kc ¼ permeability of stone column (m/s);
turbed or smear zone is taken as 2.5 times the radius of the stone col- ks ¼ radial permeability of undisturbed soil (m/s);
umns (rc) as observed by Weber et al. (2010). The volume compres- ksm ¼ radial permeability of disturbed soil smear
sibility of the smear zone near the stone column surface is taken as 2 zone (m/s);
times the volume compressibility of the undisturbed soil (i.e., pa- mvc ¼ volumetric compressibility of stone column
rameter a =2), because Roy et al. (1981) reported that shear strength (m2/kN);
near the pile surface is reduced by approximately 50% as compared mvms ¼ volumetric compressibility of disturbed soil
to the shear strength of undisturbed soil due to pile installation. The (m2/kN);
horizontal permeability of the smear zone (ksm) is taken as 1/10 of mvs ¼ volumetric compressibility of undisturbed soil
the horizontal permeability of the undisturbed zone (ks), as reported (m2/kN);
by Han and Ye (2002). However, the disturbed zone soil parameters N ¼ ratio of radius of influence zone to the ratio of
and extension of the disturbed zone may depend on the type of soil, stone column (dimensionless);
method of installation, and dimension of the stone column. ns ¼ stress concentration ratio (dimensionless);
p ¼ applied vertical pressure (kN/m2);
rc(dc/2) ¼ radius of stone column (m);
Conclusions re (de/2) ¼ radius of influence zone (m);
rsm (dsm/2) ¼ radius of smear zone (m);
In the present study, degree of consolidation of stone column–
S ¼ dsm/dc (dimensionless);
improved soil is determined considering reduced strength (or
Tr ¼ time factor (dimensionless);
increased compressibility) along with reduced permeability toward
Trm ¼ modified time factor (dimensionless);
the column due to installation effect. Consideration of variable
t ¼ time (s);
compressibility in the smear zone has a significant effect on degree
U ¼ overall degree of consolidation (%);
of consolidation for smaller diameter ratio, higher extent of smear
zone, and lower stress concentration ratio. Reduced constant perme- Ur ¼ degree of consolidation due to radial flow
ability and volume compressibility in the smear zone give lowest (%);
degree of consolidation for a particular time. Parabolic distribution Uv ¼ degree of consolidation due to vertical flow
shows the highest degree of consolidation. Linear distribution gives (%);
the degree of consolidation between the constant and parabolic u0 ¼ initial excess pore-water pressure (kN/m2);
case. However, the degree of consolidation computed by consider- uc ¼ average excess pore-water pressure within
ing parabolic distribution of permeability and compressibility in the stone column (kN/m2);
smear zone gives a close prediction with field observation. The us ¼ average excess pore-water pressure within
amount of reduction of permeability in the smear zone is more as undisturbed zone (kN/m2);
compared to the amount of reduction of shear strength of soil due to usm ¼ average excess pore-water pressure within
the installation effect. Thus, reduction of permeability in the smear disturbed zone (kN/m2);
zone has more effect on degree of consolidation as compared to the g w ¼ unit weight of water (kN/m3);
reduction of strength or increment of compressibility. Reduction of h ¼ ksm/A (dimensionless);
permeability in the smear zone increases the time required to k ¼ ks/ksm (dimensionless);
achieve a particular degree of consolidation, and reduction of shear s c ¼ average total vertical stresses within stone col-
strength further increases the required time in the range of 5–21%. umn (kN/m2);

© ASCE 04016128-13 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128

 s0c ¼ effective vertical stresses within stone column
(kN/m2);
s s ¼ average total vertical stresses within undis-
turbed zone (kN/m2);
ss ¼ average vertical effective stress within undis-
0
turbed zone (kN/m2);
s sm ¼ average total vertical stresses within disturbed
zone (smear zone) (kN/m2); and
s0sm ¼ average vertical effective stress within dis-
turbed zone (kN/m2).
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Istanbul Universitesi on 05/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Balaam, N. P., and Booker, J. R. (1981). “Analysis of rigid rafts supported
by granular piles.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech., 5(4),
379–403.
Bari, M. W., Shahin, M. A., and Nikraz, H. R. (2013). “Probabilistic analy-
sis of soil consolidation via prefabricated vertical drains.” Int. J.
Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000244, 877–881.
Basack, S., Indraratna, B., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2016). “Modeling the
performance of stone column–reinforced soft ground under static and
cyclic loads.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943
-5606.0001378, 04015067.
Basu, D., Basu, P., and Prezzi, M. (2006). “Analytical solutions for consoli-
dation aided by vertical drains.” Geomech. Geoeng., 1(1), 63–71.
Ben Salem, Z., Frikha, W., and Bouassida, M. (2016). “Effect of granular-
column installation on excess pore pressure variation during soil lique-
faction.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000516,
04015046.
Bowles, J. E. (1997). Foundation analysis and design, 5th Ed., McGraw-
Hill, Singapore.
Castro, J., and Karstunen, M. (2010). “Numerical simulation of stone col-
umn installation.” Can. Geotech. J., 47(10), 1127–1138.
Chai, J. C., and Miura, N. (1999). “Investigation of factors affecting vertical
drain behavior.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090
-0241(1999)125:3(216), 216–226.
Deb, K., and Shiyamalaa, S. (2016). “Effect of clogging on rate of con-
solidation of stone column-improved ground by considering particle
migration.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622
.0000492, 04015017.
Han, J., and Ye, S. L. (2001). “Simplified method for consolidation rate of
stone column reinforced foundations.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10
.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:7(597), 597–603.
Han, J., and Ye, S. L. (2002). “A theoretical solution for consolidation
rates of stone column-reinforced foundations accounting for smear
and well resistance effects.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532
-3641(2002)2:2(135), 135–151.
Hawlader, B. C., Imai, G., and Muhunthan, M. (2002). “Numerical study of
the factors affecting the consolidation of clay with vertical drains.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 20(4), 213–239.
Indraratna, B., Basack, S., and Rujikiatkamjorn, C. (2013). “A numerical
solution of stone column improved soft soil considering arching,
© ASCE 04016128-14
Int. J. Geomech., 2017, 17(6): 04016128
clogging and smear effects.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061
/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000789, 377–394.
Indraratna, B., and Redana, I. W. (1998). “Laboratory determination of
smear zone due to vertical drain installation.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:2(180), 180–184.
Lu, M. M., Xie, K. H., and Guo, B. (2010). “Consolidation theory for a com-
posite foundation considering radial and vertical flows within the col-
umn and the variation of soil permeability within the disturbed soil
zone.” Can. Geotech. J., 47(2), 207–207.
Lu, M. M., Xie, K. H., Li, C. X., and Wang, K. (2011). “Consolidation
solution for composite foundation considering a time- and depth-
dependent stress increment along with three distribution patterns of
soil permeability.” J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. A (Appl. Phys. Eng.),
12(4), 268–277.
Mitchell, J. K. (1981). “Soil improvement: State of the art report.” Proc.,
10th ICSMFE, Vol. 4, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 509–565.
Murali Krishna, A., and Madhav, M. R. (2008). “Densification and dilation
effects of granular piles in liquefaction mitigation.” Indian Geotech. J.,
38(3), 295–316.
Onoue, A., Ting, N. H., Germaine, J. T., and Whitman, R. V. (1991).
“Permeability of disturbed zone around vertical drains.” Proc.,
Geotechnical Engineering Congress, Vol. 2, ASCE, New York,
879–890.
Roy, M., Blanchet, R., Tavenas, F., and La Rochelle, P. (1981). “Behaviour
of a sensitive clay during pile driving.” Can. Geotech. J., 18(1), 67–85.
Sathananthan, I., and Indraratna, B. (2006). “Laboratory evaluation of
smear zone and correlation between permeability and moisture content.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:
7(942), 942–945.
Sharma, J. S., and Xiao, D. (2000). “Characterization of a smear zone
around vertical drains by large-scale laboratory tests.” Can. Geotech. J.,
37(6), 1265–1271.
Tan, S. A., Tjahyono, S., and Oo, K. K. (2008). “Simplified plane-
strain modeling of stone-column reinforced ground.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2008)134:2(185),
185–194.
Walker, R., and Indraratna, B. (2006). “Vertical drain consolidation with para-
bolic distribution of permeability in smear zone.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2006)132:7(937), 937–941.
Walker, R., and Indraratna, B. (2007). “Vertical drain consolidation with
overlapping smear zones.” Geotechnique, 57(5), 463–467.
Wang, G. (2009). “Consolidation of soft clay foundation reinforced by stone
columns under time-dependent loadings.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000178, 1922–1931.
Weber, T. M., Plötze, M., Laue, J., Peschke, G., and Springman, S. M.
(2010). “Smear zone identification and soil properties around stone col-
umns constructed in-flight in centrifuge model tests.” Geotechnique,
60(3), 197–206.
Xie, K. H., Lu, M. M., and Liu, G. B. (2009). “Equal strain consolidation
for stone columns reinforced foundation.” Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods
Geomech., 33(15), 1721–1735.
Zhang, Y., Xie, K., and Wang, Z. (2006). “Consolidation analysis of
composite ground improved by granular columns considering varia-
tion of permeability coefficient of soil.” Ground Modification
Seismic Mitigation, 152, 135–142.
Int. J. Geomech.