Stone column- Ground improvement

technique
 Vibro-replacement technique

 Vertical column of compacted

aggregate

 Improving the engineering

performance

 Stiffer column creates a composite

material of lower overall
compressibility and higher shear
Source – www.google.com
 History of stone column
• The concept was first applied in France
in 1830 to improve a native soil.

• Case histories, extensive studies, and

experience permit a conservative
semi-empirical design approach since
the 1970’s decade

• Stone columns have been in

somewhat limited use in the U.S. since
1972. However, this method has been
used extensively in Europe for since
the late 1960's
Source - www.geotill.com
Features of stone column
• Increases bearing capacity and shear
strength

• Reduce the Settlement

• Increase the stiffness of composite

ground

• Provide the shorter drainage path

• Reduce the consolidation settlement

and consolidation time

Source - www.geotill.com
Bulging effect

• Under Loading, the bulging in top

portion of stone column occur
• The bulging zone is up-to a depth
of 2 to 4 times the diameter of
stone column from the top
• The stone column derives its axial
capacity from the passive earth
pressure developed due to the
bulging effect
• Improve the stiffness of
composite ground by densifying
the surrounding soil

Bulging effect of stone column under loading (Barksdale and

Bachus 1983)
Consolidation of composite
ground
• Inclusion of granular column provide a
free drainage path in soil mass
• The Pore pressure generated while in
the loading process dissipates rapidly
• Decrease the consolidation
settlement and reduce the period of
consolidation
• Stone columns improve liquefiable
soil by virtue of their high
permeability, strength, and stiffness.
Source - www.geotill.com
Design parameters of stone column
The design parameters that controls the stone column construction are,
• Soil conditions
• Column size
• Column spacing
• Pattern of stone column
• Replacement ratio
• stress concentration factor
• Backfill for Stone Columns
• Granular Blanket
Soil conditions :-
Soft clay with undrained shear
strength 7 to 50 kPa or silty or
clayey sands are the suitable soil
type for improvement by stone
columns.
The sensitive clays and silts
(sensitivity≥4) which lose strength
when vibrated are not
recommended for stone column
Suitability of the soil distribution for different metod of
construction installation
Adjacent figure shows the particle size distribution illustrating applicability of
vibro-Compaction and vibro-replacement given by McCabe et al. (2007)
Diameter of stone column
• Installation of stone
column is self
compensating process,
softer the soil, bigger is
the diameter of stone
column formed
• Diameter of column
varies between 0.6m in
case of stiff clays to
The diameter of stone column is always bigger than diameter
1.1m in very soft of hole made by probe
cohesive soils
Unit cell concept
• The stone column is
associate with
surrounding influenced
soil
• The resulting composite
ground of stone column
and surrounding soil with
equivalent circular area
is called unit cell

Unit cell idealizations (Barksdale and Bachus 1983)

Column spacing
• The column spacing may range from 2 to 3 times the diameter of the column
depending upon the site conditions, loading pattern, installation technique,
design load, soil tolerances (IS:15284-2003).

• Ambily, A.P., and Gandhi, S.R. (2007), stated that stone column with spacing
more than 3 times the diameter of the column does not give any significant
improvement.

• Dash, S.K and Bora, M. C. (2013), suggested that for maximum improvement an
optimum spacing of 2.5 times the diameter of stone column is required.
Pattern of stone
column
• Stone Column should be installed
preferably in an equilateral
triangular pattern which provides
the densest packing, although a
square pattern may also be used (IS:
15284-1:2003).
• Figure shows the triangular and
square arrangements of stone
columns adopted commonly to
improve the soil.
Stone column positions with a) Triangular pattern
b) square pattern
Replacement Ratio (as)
• Replacement ratio is the ratio of area of
stone column after compaction (As) to the
total area within the unit cell (A)
• It may also be expressed as:

where, the constant 0.907 is a function of

pattern used
• Increasing the area ratio, improves the
overall performance of composite ground
(Shahu et.al, 2000)
• For an improved bearing capacity for
stone column treated ground, as of 0.25
or greater is required (Wood et.al, 2000)
Stress Concentration
Factor (n)
• The stress concentration factor ‘n’ is
defined as the ratio of the stress in
the stone column (σs) to the stress
in the surrounding cohesive soil
(σc).

• ‘n’ value increases with the increase

in area ratio (Shahu et.al,2000).

• The value of ‘n’ generally lies

between 2.5–5 at ground surface (IS
15284-1:2003)
 The stress in the clay and stone using the stress concentration factor
can be calculated by the following equations

where, μc and μs are the ratio of stresses in the clay and stone
respectively, to the average stress (σ) over the tributary area

These above equations are extremely useful in both settlement and

stability analysis (Ayadat, T and Hanna, A.M., 2008)
Backfill for Stone Columns
• Ralph E. Brown (1977) has defined a suitability number for vibro-flotation
backfills, which is given as:

• Where D50, D20, D10 are diameters in mm through which 50%, 20%, 10%
respectively of materials passes. Table below shows suitability numbers and
backfill ratings.
Backfill for Stone Columns
• Well graded stones of 75-200 mm size shall be used

• In case of bottom feed method, maximum size of aggregates should

be restricted to 40 mm to avoid the blockages in the machine (Babu
et.al, 2013).
• The individual stones should be chemically inert, hard and resistant to
breakage (IS 15284:2003).
• Laboratory investigation observes that stones were the effective
column material compared to materials like quarry dust, river sand
and sea sand
Critical Column Length (Lc)
• The critical column length is the shortest column length which
can carry the ultimate load regardless of settlement.
• The critical length should be 4.1 times the column diameter for
optimum load carrying capacity (Hughes, J.M.O and Withers,
N.J, 1974).
• Columns longer than the critical length does not show much
increase in load carrying capacity; however, it may be required
to control the settlements (McKelvey et.al, 2004).
Failure mechanism
Type of failure mechanism are
• Bulging
The stone column fail because of excessive
bulging of stone column
• General shear failure
This Type of failure of occur because of shear
failure of composite ground because vertical
external forces and lateral forces acted by
bulging effect
• Punching failure
This type of failure mechanism takes place Modes of failure of stone columns (Barksdale and Bachus, 1983)

when stone column- surrounding soil

interface bond will fail
Factor affecting failure mechanism
Bulging
For columns having length greater than its critical length and
irrespective whether it is end bearing or floating, it fails by bulging
effect
General shear failure
Short stone column are likely to fail in general shear if it is end
bearing on a rigid base
Punching shear failure
Floating short column fails by punching shear failure
The performance of stone column is affected because of
the reasons,
• Excessive bulging due low lateral confinement in case of very soft soil
• Blockage of drainage path because of squeezing of soil particle into stone column

There is scope for improvement in performance by,

• By restriction in excessive bulging by external confinement
• Providing a filter media between stone column and soil
• Providing stiffness to stone column by binding the column aggregates with
cementing admixture
Method of improvement the performance of stone column

a. Ordinary stone column

b. Skirted stone column
c. Nailed
sf stone column
d. Geosynthetic encased stone
column
e. Horizontally encased stone
column
f. Cemented stone column
g. Underreamed cemented stone
column
Cemented Stone Column
• Cemented stone column is the column in
which aggregates are bound by thin film of
cementing admixture such as cement and fly
ash
• In this approach, the conventionally used
coarse fill material was converted into a
semirigid-type porous mass.
• These cemented stone columns are porous in
nature which accelerates the consolidation
• This is effective, economical, and easy to
installation modified stone column technique Cemented stone column
 Basic principal
• The workable mix of crushed stone
and gravel are mixed with marginal
amount of cementitious admixture
such as 3–4% cement and 6–7% fly
ash by weight of the is used
• After curing under wet clay ground
conditions, the result is a porous
mass with cementation bonds
between particles at points of
contact, as shown in figure
• Thus, the cemented stone column was found to exhibit insignificant lateral
bulging thereby improves the stiffness of soil stone column system
The conceptual stress–
strain curves

 Above Figure presents the stress–strain

curve of cemented stone column sample
 The schematic representation of the observed in the compression test.
 It exhibited an almost linear relationship
conceptual stress–strain curves for two
different media in unit cells ,namely, soft clay between stress and strain up to a stage of
and the stiff stone column cracking
Idealised load transfer mechanism
• In view of non bulging nature of the cemented stone column, the
axial stress in column, 𝛔c will be maximum at top level and will
decrease with depth
• Accordingly, the vertical downward displacement of column (𝛅) will
be decreasing with depth and may become negligible at certain level
• The cemented stone column visualized to exhibit similar behavior as
axially loaded pile with respect to development of shaft surface
resistance and tip resistance.
• During the early stage of loading, or at small penetration , the shaft
resistance develops fully over its entire length up to the Ze level

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Conceptualized stress and displacements in cemented stone column: (a) soil–stone column system of unit
cell; (b) downward displacement (𝛅) of stone column under stresss (𝛔c) and stresses on unit cell; (c)
distribution of axial stresss (𝛔c) in stone column; (d) variation of displacement (𝛅) with depth z
 bearing-capacity reduction
factor (rd)
• The development of tip resistance will
depend on the magnitude of column
displacement
• At a depth of 3ds, where the column
movement is large, full development of tip
resistance is expected
• At depth of Ze, where practically no column
movement takes place, negligible or zero tip
resistance will be mobilized. (a) (b)
• Thus, reduction factor will be increase by o to
(a) Relative vertical displacement of stone
1 from depth 3ds to depth Ze column
(b) Reduction in ultimate bearing resistance
Unit cell analysis
The conceptual load-transfer mechanism described
leads to three component forces resisting the
ultimate applied axial force (Qf) on unit cell, as
expressed as
Qf = Rs + Rf + Rt
Where,
Qf = failure load on unit cell
Rs = soil resistance offered by tributary soil at local
shear failure of soft clay
Rf = ultimate shaft surface resistance mobilized over
length L
Rt = mobilized tip resistance of column
Load carrying capacity
Assumption for analytical analysis of cemented stone column are,
• The approach of static load equilibrium between applied load and
the resisting forces within a unit cell holds well
• Soil is saturated soft clay whose angle of internal friction 𝛟 is very
small (𝛟 <12°), and undrained cohesion Cu is less than 25 kPa
• The effective length of the column, Le, over which shaft resistance
and tip resistance develop pertains to length to diameter ratio 23
• Only the top layer of soil within the depth of Du participates in the
local shear failure of soil below the circular Loading base
 Unit cell analysis
• The final form of equation for (qf)t is,

Where,
ra - area ratio (Area of stone column/ Area of unit cell)
rl – Length to diameter ratio of stone column
⍶ - adhesion factor (0.95 for soft clay with Cu ≤ 25 kPa)
cu -The undrained cohesion of soil
Bearing capacity improvement factor
• The degree of improvement of ultimate bearing capacity is
characterized by the bearing capacity improvement factor (Fb) that is
expressed as

• It is evident that the Fb value depends on two nondimensional

parameters, that is area replacement ratio (ra), column length ratio
(rL)
Bearing capacity
improvement factor
for cemented stone
column
The variation of Fb with ra (10 to 20)
and rl (10 to 20) computed from the
mathematical analysis is shown in
adjacent figure
Settlement Analysis
Basic Considerations for settlement analysis are ,
• Rigid circular base transferring uniform applied pressure, 𝛔 , to the
treated ground
• The hyperbolic model obtained from the unconfined compressive
strength (UCS) test was used for analysis of short-term settlement.
• For long-term settlement analysis, the consolidation behavior of soil
as obtained from consolidation test was considered valid.
• The uniform settlement, 𝛒 , of the rigid loading base is assumed to be
the same as the vertical settlement of tributary soil, 𝛒s, and as
vertical settlement of a stone column, 𝛒c , Thus, 𝛒 = 𝛒s = 𝛒c
Short term settlement
• The stress–strain curve from the test was
assumed to be hyperbolic in nature and
as result of UCS test taken on soft soil
• Duncan and Chang (1970) expressed
such a curve by the Equation,

Where,
𝛔v = axial stress,
𝛆v = axial strain,
a, b = hyperbolic soil model parameters as
determined from adjacent figure Stress strain curve obtained from UCS test
Short term settlement equation
Long term settlement
analysis
The long term settlement of cemented stone
column- soft soil system takes place as a result of
consolidation of soil and as result of oedometer
tests test taken on soft soil
The nonlinear relationship of the 𝛔v vs 𝛆v plot is
assumed to be hyperbolic and can be expressed
as

Where,
a’ and b’ = hyperbolic soil model parameters for
consolidation behavior
Long term settlement
Modification in cemented stone column
• The technique of straight-shafted
cemented stone columns become more
effective by providing enlarged
underreamed bulbs over the shaft length
• The results of analytical and experimental
studies on such underreamed cemented
stone columns are presented by Golait
and Padade (2018)
• Two underreamed bulb positions was
considered for analysis are,
1. Bottom position Cemented stone column with
underreamed bulb a. bottom position b.
2. Intermediate positions intermediate position
Features of underreamed cemented stone column

• The underreamed bulb is characterized by the underreaming ratio

(Ur), which is expressed as Db/ds, where Db is the diameter of the
enlarged bulb
• The column with Ur = 2.5 is suitable for this technique and It results
in trouble-free boring and underreaming operations
• The value from Ur = 2.5 is recommended from field experiences in
India and it is the value recommended in the Indian code of practice
(BIS 1980)
• Cost effective technique – small amount of cement (3–4%) is required
in the fill materials
Unit cell analysis
At failure of the system, applied load Qf is resisted by the following
forces,
1. Maximum resistance offered by the tributary soil of area (A – a) at
the local shear failure of soft clay (Rs)
2. Ultimate shaft surface resistance over the effective shaft length (Rf)
3. Mobilized resistance offered by the enlarged bulb (Rb)
4. Mobilized resistance offered by the soil below the tip of the column,
that is, tip resistance (Rt)
The static equilibrium of forces gives the equation,
Unit cell analysis with bottom
underreamd bulb position (CUb)
The resistance offered by underreamed Bulb
is considered as tip resistance offered in
vertical direction
Bottom position is comparatively less
effective since bearing capacity reduction
factor has a high value at bottom
All other resistance forces ( Rs, Rf, Rt) are same
as considered in straight shaft analysis

Underreamed stone column with

bottom position (CUb)
Unit cell analysis with bottom
underreamd bulb position (Cui)
• The relative vertical displacement is
comparatively more at top position
• The resistance provided by bulb
projection mobilised almost completely
as bearing capacity reduction factor has
lower value
• Intermediate position is more effective
than the bottom position

Underreamed stone column with

bottom position (Cui)
Experimental Investigation on Cemented
stone column
• To verify the validity of described theoretical analysis, a laboratory
model tests were conducted on the unit cell of the soil–column
system
• This series of model testing comprised three tests each on CUb and
CUi types of an underreamed cemented stone column.
• Additional series of four tests were conducted on unit cells with
straight-shafted conventional uncemented stone columns, SU, for
comparison purpose
Table gives the geometrical details of all 10 model tests conducted,
The experimental
set up :-

Schematic diagram of experimental setup used for Loading experimentation on cemented stone column
Tools used for experimentation

Underreaming bulb prepared

Underreaming tool used for experimental investigation

Load settlement analysis cemented stone
column

Load–settlement curves for the CUb and CUi Load–settlement curves for four unit cells of
cases of underreamed stone columns straight-shafted conventional uncemented stone
columns (SU)
Comparison between Experimental and
analytical results
Measured data for the unit cells of the CUb and CUi cases of underreamed
cemented stone columns and their comparison with theory are presented in table
below,
Variation of Bearing capacity improvement factor (F b) with respect
to area replacement ratio( ra) an Length to diameter ratio (rl)

Variation of Fb with ra and rL for CUb-type Variation of Fb with ra and rL for CUi-type
underreamed cemented stone columns with underreamed cemented stone columns with
Ur = 2.5: Ur = 2.5
Effectiveness of underreamned cemented stone
column in improvement of performance soil-stone
column system

Effectiveness of underreamed cemented stone Effectiveness of underreamed cemented stone

columns in increasing the load-carrying capacity of columns in increasing the stiffness of soft clay
soft clay.
Comparative analysis between possible
modification method
• The Load settlement curve of different possible method of modification of stone
column obtain from experimental analysis are as given in figure

Load settlement curve for different modification methods

Summary
• Stone column is vibro replacement technique used effectively as ground
improvement technique in very soft soil condition with modifications such
as cemented stone column
• Practically, its implementation is easy and involves not much additional
cost. In addition, the model studies carried out indicate its degree of
effectiveness to be the largest compared with the other main stone column
systems suggested in the literature
• The results of the laboratory investigation program (model studies on unit
cells) confirm the validity of proposed bearing-capacity analysis
• The cemented stone column technology can be further extended to the
cemented stone columns provided with an underreamed enlarged bulb
• The underreamed cemented stone columns were found to be highly
effective in enhancing the bearing capacity and stiffness of soft clay ground