Suitability of Different Materials for

Stone Column Construction

Dipty Sarin Isaac and Girish M. S.

Department of Civil Engineering
College of Engineering, Trivandrum, Kerala
diptyisaac@yahoo.com, girishmadhavan@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
The influence of column material in the performance of stone column is studied through laboratory experiments on
model stone columns installed in clay. Five reinforcement materials were studied: stones, gravel, river sand, sea
sand and quarry dust. Load versus settlement response was determined. The grain size of the stone column material
is one of the main controlling parameters in the design of stone columns. The unreinforced soil under the same
loading condition was analysed. It was found that stones are the most effective stone column material. Quarry dust,
though a waste product is effective in improving the load deformation characteristics of the soil used. There is no
significant difference in the load deformation behaviour of soil with stone columns using river sand and sea sand.
Experimental study on behaviour of group of three columns and seven columns was also conducted. A finite
element analysis using 15-noded triangular elements with the software package PLAXIS was also carried out.

KEYWORDS: stone column; clay; quarry dust; sand; gravel; stones; load; settlement; model test.

INTRODUCTION
Among the various methods for improving in situ ground conditions, stone columns are considered one of the
most versatile and cost-effective ground improvement techniques. Stone columns have been used extensively in weak
deposits to increase the load carrying capacity, reduce settlement of structural foundations and accelerate
consolidation settlements due to reduction in flow path lengths. Another major advantage with this technique is the
simplicity of its construction method. The type and grain size of stone column material is one of the controlling
parameters in the design of stone column. Five materials i.e. stones, gravel, river sand, sea sand and quarry dust,
which are stiffer and stronger than the ambient soil were used as column material. The degree of improvement of a
soft soil by stone columns is due to two factors. The first one is inclusion of a stiffer column material (such as crushed
stones, gravel, etc.) in the soft soil. The second factor is the densification of the surrounding soft soil during the
installation of the stone column itself and the subsequent consolidation process occurring in the soft soil before the
final loading of improved soil. A detailed experimental investigation was carried out on a single stone column and
group of seven and three columns to study the improvement achieved. Spacing of the column also plays an important
role in the performance of stone columns.

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

LITERATURE REVIEW
Several researchers have worked on theoretical, experimental and field study on behaviour of stone columns.
Ambily and Gandhi (2007) carried out a detailed experimental study on behaviour of single column and group of
seven columns by varying parameters like spacing between the columns, shear strength of soft clay and loading
condition. Finite element analysis has also been performed using 15-noded triangular elements with software package
PLAXIS. Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2008) studied load versus settlement response of the stone column and
reinforced stone column i.e. geogrid-encased stone column 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. Andreou et al. (2008) studied the influence of the main controlling parameters in
the design of stone columns through a series of laboratory experiments. The effect of drainage conditions, the grain
size of the stone column material, the confining pressure of the soil and the rate of deformation were investigated.
Triaxial compression tests were performed on composite soil specimens of soft kaolin clay.
The present study aims to determine the most effective material that can be used for stone column construction
and to compare the suitability of different materials. River sand is scarce and costly than sea sand. Gravel is also not
readily available. Quarry dust is a waste product and is easily available. This study provides guidelines for the
selection of proper stone column material which can be used effectively and economically.

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES
Materials
Six basic materials used for this study are clay, quarry dust, sea sand, river sand, gravel and stones.
The clay used was collected from Kuttanad (Champakkulam) in Alappuzha district. In order to maintain
uniformity of test results block sample was taken at a depth below 1m. Particle size distribution is shown in Fig. 1.
The other properties are specific gravity=2.72, liquid limit=78.5%, plastic limit=48.8%, maximum dry
density=16.1kN/m3, and optimum moisture content=28.4%.
Sea sand was compacted to a dry density of 16 kN/m3 while constructing stone columns for the experiments.
Properties of sea sand used are specific gravity=2.6, maximum dry density=18.76kN/m3, minimum dry
density=15.2kN/m3, D10=0.185mm, =39.50, Cc =1.09, and Cu =2.46. River sand was compacted to a density of
16.2 kN/m3 while constructing stone columns for the experiments. Properties of river sand used are specific
gravity=2.64, maximum dry density=18.9kN/m3, minimum dry density=15.5kN/m3, D10=0.18mm, =39.50, Cc
=1.24, and Cu =2.52.
Quarry dust is a cohesionless material which consists mainly of sand size particle and specific gravity from 2.74
to 2.8. Quarry dust was compacted to a density of 15.8 kN/m3 while constructing columns for the
experiments.Properties of quarry dust are specific gravity=2.79, D10=2.7mm, Cc =0.9, and Cu =1.37.
Gravel was compacted to a density of 16.4 kN/m3 for constructing stone column.Grain size distribution is shown
in Fig. 2.
Crushed stones (aggregates) of sizes between 10 and 2mm have been used to form stone column. The stones were
compacted to a density of 16.6kN/m3 while constructing stone columns for the experiments. Grain size distribution is
shown in Fig. 3.

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

Procedure
All experiments were carried out on a 50 mm diameter stone column surrounded by the required soil in a
cylindrical tank of 270mm height and 210mm diameter to represent the required unit cell area of clay around each
column. For group of columns, a tank of 270mm height and 520mm diameter was used. Clay was filled in the tank at
field water content. Care was taken to ensure that no significant air voids were left out in the test bed. A thin coat of
grease was applied along the inner surface of tank wall to reduce friction between clay and tank wall. The centre of
the cylindrical tank was properly marked and a PVC pipe of 50mm diameter was placed at the centre of the tank.
Around this pipe clay bed was formed. The clay layer was tamped frequently and gently to expel air during the
process of filling. Slight grease was applied on both inner and outer surface of the pipe for easy withdrawal without
any disturbance to the surrounding soil. Required stone column material was carefully charged in the tube in three
layers to achieve required density. 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.

Percentage finer

For installation of group of columns, same procedure was adopted. Enough care was taken to keep the pipes in
vertical position. In clay bed the stone columns were prepared from edges towards the centre. Arrangement of
columns in seven group and three group column tests are shown in Fig. 4(a). The tests were conducted on both three
column and seven column groups. A typical test arrangement for single column test and group column test are shown
in Fig. 4(b). The stone column was extended to the full depth for a height 250mm so that l/d ratio (length of
column/diameter of the column) is a minimum of 4.5 which is required to develop full limiting axial stress on the
column. Vertical stress was applied over the entire tank area. The load was applied through a proving ring at a
constant displacement rate of 0.048mm/min. A proving ring was used to measure the load and a dial gauge is used to
measure the deformation. Load was applied through an 8 mm thick mild steel plate.

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001

0.01
0.1
Particle size(mm)[log scale]

Figure 1: Grain size distribution of clay

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

120

Percentage Finer

100
80
60
40
20
0
1

Particle size(mm)[log scale]

10

Figure 2: Grain size distribution of gravel

120
100
Percentage finer

80
60
40
20
0
1

Particle size(mm)[log scale]

10

Figure 3: Grain size distribution of stones

Analysis of Stone Columns

The analysis was carried out using the commercially available finite-element program PLAXIS, to compare the
load settlement behavior with the model test. Properties of different materials are shown in Table 1. An axisymmetric
analysis was carried out using Mohr-Coulomb criterion. A drained behaviour was assumed for all materials. Fifteennoded triangular elements were used for meshing. Along the periphery of the tank (interface between the soft clay and
the cylindrical surface of the unit cell), radial deformation was restricted but settlement was allowed. Along the
bottom of the tank both radial deformation and settlement were restricted.
The basic axisymmetric finite-element mesh and boundary conditions used to represent the stone column and the
surrounding clay and the typical deformed mesh for single column is shown in Fig. 5(a). Analysis for a group of
seven columns was also carried out as shown in Fig. 5(b) using an axisymmetric model with surrounding six columns
replaced by a ring having equivalent thickness and properties of that material.

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

5
Table 1: Properties of Materials Used

0.44

cu
(kN/m2)
3.1

(degree)
-

dry
(kN/m3)
13.8

bulk
(kN/m3)
18.2

12000

0.3

38

15.8

Sand

20000

0.3

39.5

16

Gravel

45000

0.3

42

16.4

Stones

60000

0.3

43

16.6

Clay

E
(kN/m2)
60

Quarry dust

Materials

TEST RESULTS
Typical diagrams of variation of load with displacement were drawn for all the testing conditions. The loaddisplacement curves are, in general, nonlinear.

Load Deformation Characteristics of Clay Treated with Single Stone

Column
Load tests were carried out on Kuttanad clay and load deformation curves were plotted for untreated clay and clay
treated with stone column made of five column materials i.e. quarry dust.sea sand, river sand, gravel and stones
designated as m1, m2, m3, m4 and m5 respectively. These curves are shown in Fig. 6.It is found that stones are most
effective as stone column material compared to other materials. Gravel is more effective than sand. River sand
perform better than sea sand as the load deformation curve is higher for river sand as the load is increased. Quarry
dust, though a waste product is effective in increasing load carrying capacity of clay. Hence it can be economically
used as it is cheap and easily available.

Figure 4 (a): Arrangement of seven and three columns in a group

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

Figure 4 (b): Test Setup for Single Column and Group column Test

Figure 5 (a): Finite-element discretization for clay with single column, Typical deformed mesh

Figure 5 (b): Finite-element discretization for seven group column

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

7
Load(kN)
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

m2

m3

0.5

0.6

0
1
Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
untreated

m1

m4

m5

Figure 6: Load Settlement Curve for Clay with Single Stone Column

Load Deformation Characteristics of Clay Treated with Column Groups

Load-deformation curves for seven column group and three column group showed similar trend as shown in Fig.
7(a), 7(b), 7(c) and 7(d). It is found that load deformation characteristics improved using group of three columns and
much using group of seven columns. Tests were conducted for two spacings; 2.5d and 3d.It is found that load carrying
capacity increased as spacing between the columns is decreased.

Comparison of Laboratory Tests and FEM Analysis

Fig. 8(a) and Fig. 8(b) shows typical axial stress versus settlement behaviour for improved and unimproved
grounds based on model tests as well as finite-element analysis for single column. Fig. 9(a) and Fig. 9(b) shows stress
versus settlement relation for group of seven columns from the two methods(s=3d). Comparison is also done with
decreased spacing(s=2.5d) and the graphs are shown in Fig. 10(a) and Fig. 10(b). Results from experimental and
finite-element analysis matched well regarding stress-settlement relationship.
0

Load(kN)
2

0
1
2
Settlement(mm)

3
4
5
6
7
8
untreated

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

Figure 7 (a): Load settlement curve for clay with group of seven columns(s=3d)

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

Load(kN)
2

0
1
2
Settlement(mm)

3
4
5
6
7
8
Untreated

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

Figure 7 (b): Load settlement curve for clay with group of seven columns(s=2.5d)
0

0.5

Load(kN)
1.5
2

2.5

Settlement(mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

untreated

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

Figure 7 (c): Load settlement curve for clay with group of three columns(s=3d)
0

Load(kN)

Settlement(mm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
untreated

m1

m2

m3

m4

m5

Figure 7 (d): Load settlement curve for clay with group of three columns(s=2.5d)

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

9
0

Stress(kN/ m 2 )
6
8

10

12

0
1
Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
untreated(exp)
untreated(plaxis)

m1(exp)
m1(plaxis)

m2(exp)
m2(plaxis)

Figure 8 (a): Comparison of stress settlement relation for clay with single column
5

Stress(kN/m2)
10

m3(exp)
m3(plaxis)

m4(exp)
m4(plaxis)

15

20

0
1
Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
m5(exp)
m5(plaxis)

Figure 8 (b): Comparison of stress settlement relation for clay with single column

Stress(kN/m2)
4
6

10

0
1

Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

untreated(exp)
untreated(plaxis)

m1(exp)
m1(plaxis)

m2(exp)
m2(plaxis)

Figure 9 (a): Comparison of stress settlement relation for clay with group of seven columns(s=3d)

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

10
0

Stress(kN/m2)
10

15

20

0
1
Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
m3(exp)
m3(plaxis)

m4(exp)
m4(plaxis)

m5(exp)
m5(plaxis)

Figure 9 (b): Comparison of stress settlement relation for clay with group of seven columns(s=3d)
2
5 Stress(kN/m ) 10

15

0
1
Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
untreated(exp)
untreated(plaxis)

m1(exp)
m1(plaxis)

m2(exp)
m2(plaxis)

Figure 10 (a): Comparison of stress settlement relation for clay with group of seven columns(s=2.5d)
0

Stress(kN/m2)
10

15

20

0
1
Settlement(mm)

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

m3(exp)

m4(exp)

m5(exp)

m3(plaxis)

m4(plaxis)

m5(plaxis)

Figure 10 (b): Comparison of stress settlement relation for clay with group of seven columns(s=2.5d)

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

11

CONCLUSION
The following conclusions are drawn from the present study:
1. Inclusion of stone columns considerably improves the load deformation characteristics of Kuttanad clay.
2. Among the different stone column materials used, stones are found to be more effective from single column
test and group column test.
3. Quarry dust, though a waste product is effective in improving the load deformation characteristics of the soil
used and its performance is comparable with that of sand. Hence quarry dust can be economically and effectively used
for stone column construction as it is cheap and easily available.
4. River sand is more effective than sea sand.
5. Gravel is more effective than sand in general, though river sand behaves similar to gravel in some cases.
6. Spacing of the column play an important role in affecting the load deformation characteristics. Effectiveness
increases as spacing decreases.
7. Stress-settlement response is predicted by the finite element method and found matching with experimental
results.

REFERENCES
1. Ambily, A.P., and Gandhi, S.R.,Behaviour of Stone Columns Based on Experimental and FEM Analysis,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol.133, 2006, pp.405-415.
2. Andreou, P., Frikha, W., Canou, J., Papadopoulos, V., and Dupla, J.C.,Experimental Study on Sand and
Gravel columns in Clay, Ground Improvement, vol.161, 2008, pp.189-198.
3. Black, A.J., Sivakumar, M.R., Madhav, M.R., and Hamill, G.A.,Reinforced Stone Columns in Weak
Deposits: Laboratory Model Study, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, vol.133,
2007, pp.1154-1161.
4. Christoulas, S.T., Giannaros, C.H., and Tsiambao, G., Stabilization of embankment Foundations by using
stone columns, Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, vol.15, 1997, pp.247-258.
5. Guetif, Z., Bouassida, M., and Debats, J.M.,Improved Soft Clay Characteristics due to Stone Column
Installation, Computers and Geotechnics, vol.34, 2007, pp. 104-111.
6.

Juran, I., and Riccobono, O.,Reinforcing Soft Soils with Artificially Cemented Compacted-Sand Columns,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, vol.117, 1991, pp.1042-1060.

7. Kempfert, H.G., Ground Improvement with Special Emphasis on Column-type Techniques, Int. Workshop
on Geotechnics of Soft Soils-Theory and Practice, 2003.
8. Mitchell, J.K., and Huber, T.R.,Performance of Stone Column Foundation, Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, vol.111, 1985, pp.205-223.
9. Murugesan, S., and Rajagopal, K.,Geosynthetic Encased Stone Columns: Numerical Evaluation,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, vol.24, 2006, pp.349-358.

Vol. 14 [2009], Bund. M

12

10. Murugesan, S., and Rajagopal, K.,Model Test on Geosynthetic-Encased Stone Column, Geosynthetics
International, vol.14, 2007, pp.346-354.
APPENDIX I. LIST OF NOTATIONS
The following symbols are used in this paper
Cc = Coefficient of curvature
Cu = Uniformity coefficient
D10 = Effective size
= Internal friction angle
s
= Spacing of columns
d = Diameter of stone column
E = Modulus of elasticity

= Poissons ratio
dr = Dry density
bulk = Bulk density
cu = Undrained shear strength or cohesion

2009 ejge