Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
DOI 10.1007/s10706-012-9555-9
STATE-OF-THE-ART REVIEW
A Critical Review of Construction, Analysis and Behaviour
of Stone Columns
M. R. Dheerendra Babu • Sitaram Nayak •
R. Shivashankar
Received: 20 May 2009 / Accepted: 3 September 2012 / Published online: 13 September 2012
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Stone columns have been used as an
effective technique for improving the engineering
behaviour of soft clayey grounds and loose silt
deposits. The soil improvement via stone columns
are achieved from accelerating the consolidation of
weak soil due to shortened drainage path, increasing
the load carrying capacity and/or settlement reduction
due to inclusion of stronger granular material. This
paper discusses the techniques, methods of construc-
tion of stone columns, mechanisms of stone column
behaviour under load and associated design philoso-
phies along with some practical findings from recent
research programs.
Keywords Stone Column  Methods of construction 
Design parameters  Ultimate load analysis 
Settlement evaluation  Reinforced stone columns
1 Introduction
The increasing value of land and the limited availabil-
ity of suitable sites for construction are greatly
encouraging engineers to consider in situ improvement
M. R. Dheerendra Babu (&)  S. Nayak 
R. Shivashankar
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal,
Mangalore, Karnataka, India
e-mail: dheerendra_dheeraj@yahoo.com
of weak soil deposits. To economically develop
marginal sites a number of ground improvement
techniques have been developed. Stone columns are
one method of ground improvement having a proven
record of experience. Apparently, the concept was first
applied in France in 1830 to improve a native soil.
Stone columns have been used in many difficult
foundation sites throughout the world to increase the
bearing capacity, to reduce the total and differential
settlements, to increase the rate of consolidation, to
improve slope stability of embankments and also to
improve the resistance to liquefaction (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983; Alamgir et al. 1996).
Stone column construction involves the partial
replacement of unsuitable subsurface soils with a
compacted vertical column of stones that usually
completely penetrates the weak strata. The presence of
the stiffer column creates a composite material of
lower overall compressibility and higher shear
strength than the native soil alone. Stone column
system in soft, compressible soils are somewhat like
pile foundations, except that pile caps, structural
connections, and deep penetration into underlying firm
strata are not required, and the stone columns are, of
course, more compressible (Mitchell 1981). When
loaded, the stone columns deforms by bulging into the
subsoil strata and distributes the stresses at the upper
portion of the soil profile rather than transferring the
stresses into deeper layer, unlike in case of pile
foundation, thus causing the soil to support it (Bergado
et al. 1994). Stone columns, if installed in loose sands,
123
2 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
minimize the likelihood of liquefaction of these
deposits due to earthquakes because of their tendency
to dilate while shearing and dissipate the excess pore
pressures generated (Mitchell and Huber 1985). The
component material being granular and with higher
permeability, stone columns could also accelerate the
consolidation settlements and minimize the post
construction settlements (Han and Ye 1992). More-
over, in situ stress conditions get improved due to the
installation of the stone columns.
Stone columns are used to support structures
overlying both very soft to firm cohesive soils and
also loose silty sands having greater than about 15 %
fines (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). Applications of
stone columns include the support of embankments,
liquid storage tanks, raft foundations and other low
rise structures. Stone columns are most effective in
clayey soils with undrained shear strength ranging
from 7–50 kPa (Barksdale and Bachus 1983; Juran
and Guermazi 1988, IS: 15284-2003). ‘‘State-of-the-
art’’ installation equipment and more rigorous control
methods have allowed stone columns to be formed to
greater depths of up to 30 m (Black et al. 2007a).
These advances have allowed vibrated stone columns
to be used as a practical alternative to traditional
treatment methods such as a piling for low-rise
structures.
2 Methods of Construction of Stone Columns
The construction of stone columns involves creation
of a hole in the ground which is later filled with
granular material. The granular fill consisting of stone
or stone sand mixture of suitable proportion, is
compacted by suitable means to create a compacted
column of required strength. Various methods for
installation of stone columns have been used all over
the world depending on their proven applicability and
availability of equipment in the locality. With the
available literature, the principal construction methods
are briefly reviewed in the following sections.
2.1 Vibro-Replacement Method
Vibro-replacement methods are widely used for stone
column installation in cohesive soils (Baumann and
Bauer 1974) in a manner similar to vibrofloation
(Mitchell 1981). In this method, creation of hole in the
123
ground and compaction of granular fill backfilled in
the hole is accomplished mechanically using a vibra-
tory unit called vibroflot. Stone columns may be
constructed using this equipment either by wet process
or dry process. The main advantage of this method is
the speed and depth of execution.
2.1.1 Wet Process
In this method, a hole is formed in the ground by
jetting a probe down to the desired depth with water
(Fig. 1). On reaching the desired depth, the uncased
hole is flushed out and stone backfill with 12–75 mm
size is added in 0.3–1.2 m increments and densified by
means of an electrically or hydraulically actuated
vibrator located near the bottom of the probe. This
method is employed in soft relatively impervious and
cohesive soil generally in the range of strengths
15–50 kPa and at locations with high ground water
table where borehole stability is questionable (Green-
wood and Kirsch 1983).
The principal disadvantage of the wet technique
involves the large quantity of water which is required
and which must later be disposed off without causing
pollution. After being used for stone column con-
struction, the water contains a significant quantity of
suspended silt and clay. Environmental regulations
and low-lying or urban site conditions may restrict the
drainage and disposal of the excess water-soil sus-
pension. Unless properly handled by constructing
sediment pots, ditches and other drainage structures,
pollution may occur. Further, standing pools of water
may disrupt work and slow production.
2.1.2 Dry Process
The main difference between dry process and wet
process is the absence of jetting water during initial
formation of the hole in the wet process. To be able to
use the dry process the vibrated hole must be able to
stand open upon extraction of the probe and hence this
method is employed in stable insensitive cohesive soils
of undrained shear strength in the range of 30–60 kPa
(Greenwood and Kirsch 1983), with a relatively low
ground water table being present at the site.
The dry process is much cleaner than the previously
discussed wet technique since it does not use jetting
and flushing water. The dry method is frequently used
to construct stone columns through weak fills in
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Fig. 1 Vibro-replacement
method -wet process
developed areas because of the problems associated
with the acquisition, retention, and disposal of signif-
icant amounts of water. Air is sometimes used as a
jetting medium to facilitate extraction of the probe
which occasionally adheres to the hole walls.
Stabilization of sites underlain by soft soils and
high ground water is made possible by using a new
‘‘bottom feed’’ type vibrator. Eccentric tubes adjacent
to the probe allow delivery of stone, sand or concrete
to the bottom of the excavated hole without extracting
the vibrator. Using this method the vibrator serves as a
casing which prevents collapse of the hole.
2.2 Vibro Composer Method
The method is popularized in Japan and is used for
stabilizing soft clays in the presence of high ground
water levels (Aboshi et al. 1979). The installation
procedures are illustrated in Fig. 2. The resulting pile
is usually termed sand compaction pile. The sand
compaction piles are constructed by driving the casing
pipe to the desired depth using a heavy, vertical
vibratory hammer located at the top of the pipe. The
casing is filled with a specified volume of sand and the
casing is then repeatedly extracted and partially re-
driven using the vibratory hammer starting from the
bottom. The process is repeated until a fully penetrat-
ing compacted granular pile is constructed. Usually
600–800 mm diameter of the pile can be conveniently
constructed using this method.
2.3 Cased Borehole Method or Rammed Columns
In this method, the piles are constructed by ramming
granular materials in the pre-bored holes in stages
3
using heavy falling weight, usually of 15–20 kN from
a height of 1.0–1.5 m (Datye and Nagaraju 1975). The
method is good substitute for vibrator compaction
considering its low cost and has been found to yield
stone columns of higher capacity over stone columns
formed by vibro float (Nayak 1996). However,
disturbance and subsequent remolding by the ramming
operation may limit its applicability to sensitive soils.
The method is useful in developing countries utilizing
only indigenous equipment in contrast to the methods
described above which require special equipment and
trained personnel. This method is very slow and
uneconomical when depth of treatment becomes more
than 12–15 m. The sequence of construction of stone
columns with this method is shown in Fig. 3.
3 Basic Design Parameters
3.1 Stone Column Diameter, D
Installation of stone columns in soft cohesive soils is
basically a self compensating process i.e. softer the
soil, bigger is the diameter of the stone column
formed. Due to lateral displacement of stones during
vibrations/ramming, the completed diameter of the
hole is always greater than the initial diameter of the
probe or the casing. The column diameter installed by
vibroflot (diameter 300–500 mm) varies between
0.6 m in case of stiff clays to 1.1 m in very soft
cohesive soils (Ranjan 1989). The diameter of the
stone column constructed by dry method is less than
that of a wet method (Greenwood and Kirsch 1983).
Datye and Nagaraju (1981) have reported construction
of stone columns ranging from 400 to 750 mm using
123
4 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Fig. 2 Vibro-composer
method (Aboshi et al. 1979)
Fig. 3 Cased borehole
method (rammed columns)
(Datye and Nagaraju 1975)
rammed process. Approximate diameter of the stone
column in the field may be determined from the known
compacted volume of material required to fill the hole
of known length and maximum and minimum densi-
ties of the stone.
3.2 Pattern
Stone columns should be installed preferably in an
equilateral triangular pattern which gives the most
dense packing although a square pattern may also be
used (IS: 15284-2003). A typical layout in an equilat-
eral triangular pattern and square pattern are shown in
Fig. 4.
3.3 Spacing
The design of stone columns should be site specific
and no precise guidelines can be given on the
maximum and the minimum column spacing. The
spacing of stone columns is generally determined by
123
settlement tolerances for the loads to be applied and to
provide overlapping zones to cover a wide area of
ground (Greenwood 1970). Column spacing is also
dependent on the degree of improvement required for
providing a satisfactory foundation under the applied
design load. It has been recognized in practice that
closer spacing are preferred under isolated footings
than beneath large rafts (Greenwood 1970).
However, the column spacing may broadly range
from 2 to 3 times the diameter of the column
depending upon the site conditions, loading pattern,
column factors, the installation technique, settlement
tolerances, etc. (IS:15284-2003). For large projects, it
is desirable to carry out field trials to determine the
most optimum spacing of stone columns taking into
consideration the required bearing capacity of the soil
and permissible settlement of the foundation.
For purposes of settlement and stability analysis, it
is convenient to associate the tributary area of soil
surrounding each stone column as illustrated in Figs. 4
and 5. The tributary area can be closely approximated
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Fig. 4 Various patterns of Stone columns
as an equivalent circle having the same total area. For
an equilateral triangular pattern of stone columns the
equivalent circle has an effective diameter (De) of
1.05S and for a square grid it is equal to 1.13S, where
‘S’ is the spacing of stone columns. The resulting
equivalent cylinder of material having a diameter De
enclosing the tributary soil and one stone column is
known as the Unit cell.
3.4 Replacement Ratio (as)
The volume of soil replaced by stone columns has an
important effect upon the performance of the
improved ground. To quantify the amount of soil
replacement, define the Area Replacement Ratio, as, as
the ratio of the area of the stone column after
compaction (As) to the total area within the unit cell
(A). Increasing the area ratio, improves the overall
response of granular pile reinforced ground (Shahu
et al. 2000). For a significant improvement in bearing
capacity for stone column treated ground, requires an
area replacement ratio of 0.25 or greater (Wood et al.
2000).
5
3.5 Stress Concentration Factor (n)
When the stone column reinforced ground is loaded,
concentration of stress occurs in the stone column, and
an accompanying reduction in stress occurs in the
surrounding less stiff soil (Fig. 5c). The distribution of
vertical stress within a unit cell can be expressed by a
stress concentration factor ‘n’ defined as the ratio of the
stress in the stone column (rs) to the stress in the
surrounding cohesive soil (rc). The magnitude of stress
concentration depends on the relative stiffness of the
stone column and the surrounding soil. The value of n
generally lies between 2 and 6 (Goughnour and Bayuk
1979; Aboshi et al. 1979) with values of 3–4 usual, at the
ground surface. The stress concentration factor
(n) increases with time of consolidation (Juran and
Guermazi 1988; Han and Ye 1991) and decreases along
the length of the stone column. Higher n value at ground
surface may result if load is applied to the composite
ground through a rigid foundation as compared to the
flexible foundation (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). The
stress concentration factor was found to decrease with
the increasing in the applied load (Bergado et al. 1988)
and increases with the increase in the area replacement
ratio (Shahu et al. 2000). Experimental study conducted
by Ambily and Gandhi (2007) revealed that the stress
concentration factor (n) increases with the increase in
modular ratio and decreases with the increase in the
strength of the surrounding soil. From the experimental
investigation, Fattah et al. (2011) concluded that for end
bearing stone columns, the stress concentration factor
(n) is more than that of floating stone columns.
The stress concentration factor, n, may be predicted
using elastic theory as a function of the modular ratio
of the stone and the clay assuming equal vertical
displacements. The stress in the clay and stone using
the stress concentration factor n are calculated using
the following equations.
r
rc ¼ ¼ lc r ð1aÞ
½1 þ ðn  1Þas 
and
nr
rs ¼ ¼ ls r ð1bÞ
½1 þ ðn  1Þas 
where lc and ls are the ratio of stresses in the clay and
stone, respectively, to the average stress r over the
tributary area. The above two equations, which gives
the stress due to the applied loading in the stone
123
6 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Fig. 5 Unit cell
idealizations (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983)
column and surrounding soil, are extremely useful in
both settlement and stability analysis.
3.6 Back Fill for Stone Columns
Crushed stone or gravel for the column backfill shall be
clean, hard, unweathered stone free from organics,
trash or other deleterious materials (Barksdale and
Bachus 1983). The criteria for selecting a suitable
backfill material are availability, suitability and econ-
omy. Well graded stones of 75–2 mm size shall be used
(IS:15284-2003). In case of bottom feed method,
maximum size of the aggregate is restricted to 40 mm
to avoid blockages in the machine (Greenwood and
kirsch 1983). It may be noted that stones of uniform
size may permit penetration of clay into the large sized
voids thereby jeopardizing the capacity of the column
and/or its function as a vertical drain. A mixture of
crushed stone and sand may also be used in proportion
of 1: 0.2–0.5 by volume (Datye and Nagaraju 1981).
The grading was designed to ensure good drainage and
mobilization of the column strength after a relatively
small settlement. Brown (1977) has defined a suitabil-
ity number for vibroflotation backfills that is given by
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
3 1
0
Brown s suitability no: ¼ 1:7 þ þ
D250 D220 D210
123
Where D50, D20, D10 are in mm at 50, 20 and 10 %
passing by weight. Corresponding suitability numbers
and backfill ratings are given in Table1.
4 Behavior of Composite Ground
Stone columns improve the performance of founda-
tions on soft ground both by reducing the settlement to
an acceptable level and by increasing the load carrying
capacity. In addition, stone columns densify the in situ
soil, dissipate rapidly the generated pore pressures,
accelerate consolidation and minimize post-installa-
tion settlement. Stone columns will transmit some load
to the soil by shear stresses (along the column-soil
interface) and end bearing (at the column base),
the predominant load transfer mechanism (unless the
column is very short) is lateral bulging into the
surrounding soil. The passive resistance of the sur-
rounding soil dictates the column performance under
load. Generally the column bulging will be greatest
close to the top of the column where the overburden
Table 1 Brown’s suitability Numbers
1 Suitability 0–10 10–20 20–30 30–50 [50
No
Rating Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsuitable
ð2Þ
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
pressures are lowest. Efforts have been made by
various investigators to asses the performance of
treated ground through analytical and or experimental
studies which are reviewed in this section.
4.1 Critical Column Length
The bulging of stone columns was more prominent in
the upper portion of the column as suggested by
Hughes and Withers (1974), Greenwood (1970),
Charles and Watts (1983), and Balaam and Booker
(1981). The depth of bulging was observed to be
approximately four times the diameter of the column
(Hughes and Withers 1974; McKelvey et al. 2004; IS:
15284-2003; Black et al. 2007b). Bae et al. (2002)
found that the depth of bulging zone of stone column
was affected by column diameter rather than depth
ratio and strength of soil. The degree of bulging
largely depends on the strength of the in situ clay
(Sivakumar et al. 2007). In several of the above studies
the authors also suggested the critical length of the
column that defined the overall column failure
mechanism.
The critical column length is the shortest column
which can carry the ultimate load regardless of
settlement (Hughes et al. 1975). Hughes and Withers
(1974) found from their model study that the load
carrying capacity of the column increases up to
L/D = 4.1, beyond which there is no increase in
column capacity. Mitra and Cahttopadhyay (1999)
suggested a minimum L/D ratio of 4.5, which is
required to develop the full limiting axial stress on the
stone column. McKelvey et al. (2004), Black et al.
(2007a) reported from their experimental study that
L/D ratio of minimum 6 is required to develop the full
limiting axial stress on the column. Samadhiya et al.
(2008) found from their model study that the critical
length to be 4–5 D i.e. beyond this length of stone
column, no significant increase in its capacity has been
observed. Najjar et al. (2010), from their experimental
investigation, support the hypothesis of a critical
column length corresponding to about six column
diameters.
Columns longer than critical length did not show
further increase in load-carrying capacity, however,
longer columns may be needed to control the settle-
ments. Accordingly, rational decisions can be taken to
tailor design of stone column installations to achieve
maximum performance at optimum cost.
7
4.2 Failure Mechanisms
Current state-of-the-art reveals different modes of
failures for a single stone column contained in a weak
subsoil deposit, such as bulging (Hughes and Withers
1974); general shear failure (Madhav and Vitkar
1978), and sliding (Aboshi et al. 1979). For columns
having length greater than its critical length and
irrespective whether it is end bearing or floating, it
fails by bulging (Barksdale and Bachus 1983,
IS:15284-2003, Black et al. 2007b) as illustrated in
Fig. 6. However, column shorter than the critical
length are likely to fail in general shear if it is end
bearing on a rigid base and in punching if it is a
floating column. While the tendency for bulging is
predominant, it occurs in conjunction with the pile
action (Madhav et al. 1994). Particular attention
should be paid to the presence of very weak organic
clay layers of limited thickness where local bulging
failure may take place (Barksdale and Bachus 1983,
IS:15284-2003).
Failure modes of stone column groups are different
from those of an isolated stone column, where the
columns can interact and restrain the expansion of the
neighboring columns. Wood et al. (2000) found from
their model investigations on large groups of columns
that most of the bulging, shearing and lateral deflec-
tion occurred within a ‘conical’ region directly
beneath the foundation. The depth of this failure
wedge increased as the area replacement ratio
increased. In stone column groups, the central column
deforms or bulges uniformly, whereas the edge
column bulges away from the neighboring columns
(McKelvey et al. 2004). From the observations of
columns subjected to loading from circular and strip
footings, Sivakumar et al. (2007), found that punching
is more prevalent in short columns whilst bending
failure is predominant in perimeter columns located
beyond the centre of the footing and bulging was more
generally common in long columns.
Different techniques were used by various
researches for examining the deformation and failure
mode of stone column treated ground. X-ray technique
has been used successfully to monitor the deformation
of an isolated granular column and surrounding clay
(Hughes and Withers 1974). Rao and Reddy (1996)
studied the deformation pattern of stone column by
scooping out soil slowly around the stone column after
the load test was completed. Wood et al. (2000),
123
8 Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Fig. 6 Failure mechanisms
of a single Stone column in a
homogeneous soft layer
(Barksdale and Bachus
1983)
Ambily and Gandhi (2007) investigated the failure
mechanism by exhuming the column material and
forming plaster-casts of the vacated holes at the end of
the test. This allowed the failure pattern of the columns
to be examined when the loading cycle had termi-
nated. McKelvey et al. (2004), Sivakumar et al. (2007)
used a transparent medium that exhibited clay like
properties which allowed constant observation of
column deformations with a foundation load in real
time. Shivashankar et al. (2010, 2011), Nayak et al.
(2011), Deb et al. (2011) studied the deformed shape
by pouring the concentrated cement slurry into the
stone column after the test is over and allowed to set
for an about 10 h and the deformed shape was
obtained by scooping the surrounding soil carefully.
4.3 Ultimate Load Analysis
Since most constructed stone columns have length to
diameter ratios equal to or greater than 4–6, a bulging
failure usually develops whether the tip of the column
is floating in soft soil or resting on a firm bearing
layer (Barksdale and Bachus 1983). A number of
approaches have been presented by the researchers for
predicting the ultimate capacity of an isolated single
stone column surrounded by a soft soil, which are
reviewed in this section.
The lateral confining stress r3 which supports the
stone column is usually taken as the ultimate passive
resistance which the surrounding soil can mobilize as
123
the stone column bulges outward against the soil.
Since the column is assumed to be in a state of failure,
the ultimate vertical stress, r1 which the column can
take is equal to the coefficient of passive pressure of
the stone column, kp times the lateral confining stress.
Greenwood (1970) was one of the first who came up
with mechanisms and explained the load transfer
phenomenon in stone columns. He proposed the Bell’s
formula to obtain the passive resistance which is given
by
pffiffiffiffiffi
rr ¼ czkp þ 2cu kp ð3Þ
where c = unit weight of soil z = average bulge
depth cu = undrained strength of soil kp = passive
1þSin/s
pressure coefficient of soil = 1 Sin/ where
s
/s = angle of internal friction of soil.Axial stress in
the column, when it approaches shear failure due to
bulging rv is given by,
1 þ Sin/c
rv ¼ rr kp;col ¼ rr ð4Þ
1  Sin/c
where /c = angle of internal friction of column
material. The approach assumes a plane strain loading
condition and hence does not realistically consider the
three-dimensional geometry of a single column.
Hughes and Withers (1974) indicated that ultimate
capacity of stone column was governed primarily by
the maximum radial reaction of the soil against the
bulging and the extent of vertical movement in the
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
stone column was limited to about 4 times the
diameter. They found that cylindrical cavity expansion
theory represented the measured column behavior
very well, and proposed that the ultimate vertical
stress (qu) in a stone column could be predicted by:
1 þ Sin/c  0  the benefit of using the granular trench is clearly
qu ¼ rro þ 4cu ð5Þ
1  Sin/c
where /c is the friction angle of the column material,
0
rro is the free-field lateral effective stress and cu is the
undrained strength of soil. Hughes et al. (1975) further
substantiated above predictions by estimating settle-
ments. This equation is widely used in practice today,
to predict the load carrying capacity of stone columns
in cohesive soils.
Datye (1982) used the analogy of expansion of
cylindrical cavity (Vesic 1972) to estimate the
ultimate capacity of single granular column. Vesic
(1972) has developed a general cylindrical cavity
expansion solution for soils with both friction and
cohesion. The ultimate lateral resistance r3 developed
by the surrounding soil can be expressed as
0 0
r3 ¼ cFc þ qFq ð6Þ
where: c = cohesion of the surrounding soil;
q = mean (isotropic) stress at the equivalent failure
0 0
depth; Fc, Fq = cavity expansion factors, which are a
function of the angle of internal friction of the
surrounding soil and the Rigidity Index,
E et al. 2000; Ambily and Ganghi 2007). (2) Plane strain
Ir ¼ f2ðlþmÞðcþq tan / Þg
c method, where the cylindrical columns are converted
Ultimate stress that can be applied to the stone
column becomes:
1 þ Sin/s
qult ¼ r3 ð7Þ
1  Sin/s
where: /c = angle of internal friction of column
material, /s = angle of internal friction of soil
Both the short and long-term ultimate capacity of a
stone column can be estimated using cavity expansion
theory. Also, the increase in strength of the soft soil
should be considered due to preloading and/or
consolidation which occurs during construction.
Madhav and Vitkar (1978) considered a general
shear failure type mechanism for the analysis of soft
soil reinforced by a gravel trench or pile and obtained a
solution for estimating the ultimate capacity, which is
given by
9
cc B
qult ¼ Nc þ cNc þ Df cc Nq ð8Þ
2
Where Nc, Nc, and Nq are bearing capacity factors.
The above study is limited to strip footings in
cohesive soils only. Thus the utility is limited, though
demonstrated.
The load bearing capacity of a single granular
column is a complex problem involving interaction of
the granular pile material constituting the pile and the
soil surrounding the column. As such, no exact
mathematical solution is available to estimate the
ultimate bearing capacity. Thornburn (1975) proposed
an empirical relationship based on laboratory model
tests between allowable load on a granular column and
the undrained shear strength, cu of the cohesive soil
mass surrounding the column. These empirical meth-
ods as well as the charts proposed by Greenwood
(1970) are still in use, at least for preliminary design
purpose.
Many researchers have proposed analytical and
numerical approaches for estimating bearing capacity
and settlement of reinforced foundations by stone
columns. Five main approaches used by the researches
in modeling the composite ground treated with stone
columns are: (1) Unit cell approach, in which only one
column and its surrounding soil, is modeled in axial
symmetry (Priebe 1976; Aboshi et al. 1979; Balaam
and Booker 1981; VanImpe and Madhav 1992; Shahu
to gravel trenches (VanImpe and DeBeer 1983). It is
commonly used under long loads, such as embank-
ments. (3) Axial symmetry technique, in which the
cylindrical columns are converted to gravel rings
when columns are used under circular loads, such as
tanks (Mitchell and Huber 1985; Elshazly et al.
2008a). (4) Homogenization technique, in which the
soil and columns are modeled as a homogeneous soil
with improved properties (Schweiger 1986; Lee and
Pande 1998; Wang et al. 2002; Jellali et al. 2005;
Abdelkrim and Buhan 2007) and (5) Full 3D model,
where complex numerical models are used to model
the system in 3D (Weber et al. 2008).
First suggestions were based on elastic approach
(Aboshi et al. 1979; Balaam and Booker 1981). It was
shown that elastic methods overestimate the effects of
stone columns on settlement reduction (Balaam and
123
10
Booker 1985). Therefore elasto-plastic analytical
methods were introduced, where the problem was
idealized by assuming that the stone column is in a
triaxial stress state and perhaps yielding, that there is
no shear stress at the stone-soil interface and that there
is no yielding in the soil. These common assumptions
have been implemented in a number of methods where
stone column is considered to be in a state of plastic
equilibrium and under a triaxial stress state (Priebe
1976; VanImpe and DeBeer 1983; Balaam and Booker
1985; VanImpe and Madhav 1992; Pulko and Majes
2005, 2006).
During the past three decades, many research works
have been reported in literature based on laboratory
model tests and large scale field load tests, to
investigate the behavior of stone column treated
grounds. Bergado et al. (1984) conducted full scale
load tests and indicated that the granular piles
increased the bearing capacity more than 3–4 times
that of untreated ground. Further, the adjacent piles
acted independently when the pile spacing is 3 times
the pile diameter or greater. An investigation of the
behavior of granular piles with different densities and
different proportions of gravel and sand on soft
Bangkok clay was carried out by Bergado and Lam
(1987). They reported higher ultimate pile capacity for
pure gravel and it increases with the density and
friction angle of the granular materials. Rao and
Reddy (1996) investigated the contribution of end
bearing for different values of L/D and reported that
the end bearing is only 13 % of the applied load for
L/D value of 2.5 and its value is negligible when L/D
values exceeding 10. Li et al. (2000) investigated the
interactions between gravel column inclusions and
surrounding soil in composite ground through triaxial
model tests and concluded that the modules and
strength of gravel strongly depend on the confining
pressure. In addition, dilatency of gravel brings lateral
interaction between column and surrounding soil.
Bae et al. (2002) studied the failure mechanism and
various parameters influencing the behavior of end-
bearing stone column groups by conducting loading
tests and unit cell consolidation tests and the results of
model tests are verified through FEM analysis. They
found that the bearing capacity of stone column is
affected by undrained strength of surrounding ground
and area replacement ratio (or pile spacing) of
composite ground, installation of mat and diameter
of column. McKelvey et al. (2004) used a transparent
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
medium with ‘clay-like’ properties to allow visual
monitoring of the columns throughout foundation
loading. They found that in the case of ‘short’ columns
(i.e. L/D = 6), bulging took place over the entire
length of the columns and they punched into the clay
beneath their bases. The ‘long’ column (L/D = 10)
deformed significantly in the upper region whereas the
bottom portion remained undeformed. This suggests
that there was little or no load transfer to the base in
longer columns, with failure arising from bulging or
shear. Black et al. (2006) developed a more sophis-
ticated triaxial apparatus in which the boundary
conditions imposed on a clay bed (reinforced with
stone columns) can be regulated. Black et al. (2007b)
conducted tests on isolated stone column and on a
group of three columns with same area replacement
ratio with different lengths under drained triaxial
conditions. They concluded that grouping of columns
can lead to a possible reduction in the stiffness when
compared with a single column at similar area
replacement ratio.
Ambily and Gandhi (2007) carried out experimen-
tal and finite-element analyses based on unit cell
concept to study the behavior of stone columns. As
spacing increases, axial capacity of the column
decreases and settlement increases up to an s/d of 3,
beyond which the change is negligible. Stiffness
improvement factor is found to be independent of
shear strength of surrounding clay and depends mainly
on column spacing and angle of internal friction of the
stones. Najjar et al. (2010) investigated the improve-
ment in the mechanical properties of soft clays
reinforced with sand columns. Sand columns
improved the undrained strength significantly even
for low area replacement ratios accompanied by a
decrease in pore pressure generation during shear and
an increase in Young’s modulus. The drained shear
strength parameters were found to be relatively
unaffected by the sand column reinforcement, except
for fully penetrating columns with high area replace-
ment ratios. Shahu and Reddy (2011) conducted fully-
drained, load-controlled laboratory model tests and
FEM analysis on floating stone column group foun-
dations placed in slurry deposited clayey soil beds
with known effective stress states. The major founda-
tion parameters affecting the group response were
identified as area ratio, normalized column length,
Young’s modulus of column, over consolidation ratio,
initial geostatic stresses and clayey soil parameters.
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
From the experimental investigation of stone columns
in layered soils, Shivashankar et al. (2011) found that
the presence top soft layer has a significant influence
on the stiffness, load bearing capacity and bulging
behaviour of stone columns. Stiffness and load
carrying capacity of stone column treated layered
ground decreases with the increase in the top weak
layer thickness. Entire bulging was noticed mostly in
the top weak layer zone.
Many of the researchers have attempted to identify
and evaluate the main characteristics of stone column
treated soil, yet the proposal by Hughes and Withers
(1974) is widely considered a realistic, theoretical
basis for vibro-column technique as seen today.
4.4 Effect of Stone Column Installation
The insertion of stone columns into weak soil by vibro
installation technique is not just a replacement oper-
ation. This is due to the fact that such installation
technique is accompanied by vibrations and horizontal
displacement of the soil. Consequently, it is believed
to cause positive changes in both the material prop-
erties and the state of stresses in the treated soil mass.
These variations should be considered for the optimal
design of stone columns. Experimental work per-
formed by Watts et al. (2000) verifies that the
installation of vibrocompacted stone columns leads
to an improvement of the in situ soft soil character-
istics and consequently enhances the load displace-
ment response of the reinforced soil. The improved
undrained shear strengths at the vicinity of the
columns at various depths of the surrounding soft soil
were reported by Al-Khafaji and Craig (2000). Kirsch
and Sondermann (2001) reported that the type of vibro
process has a great effect on both the state of stresses
and densification of soil surrounding column. Alamgir
and Zaheer (2001) were found that the standard
penetration resistance of the soft ground has been
increased significantly after a stone column installa-
tion. N values ranges from 2 to 7 for natural ground but
it increases from 5 to 12 in the reinforced ground.
From the finite element analysis, Elshazly et al.
(2006) revealed that the vibro-installation of stone
columns significantly alters the soil state of stress.
Post-installation soil parameters and load–settlement
records taken from a full-scale field load test were
utilized to back-calculate the ratio of horizontal to
vertical soil stress, K*. A practical range for the post-
11
installation lateral earth pressure ratio, K*, may vary
from 1.1 to 2.5, with the best estimate being around
1.5. Neglecting these radial stress changes in the
settlement prediction analysis will overestimate the
real corresponding field settlements and under esti-
mate the real ultimate capacity of the stone columns.
Guetif et al. (2007) from their numerical study
demonstrated a significant improvement of Young’s
modulus due to the consolidation caused by the
installation of vibro compacted column. In the drained
condition, the effective mean stress increases to about
four times to that of soft clay. Kirsch (2008) studied
the individual and the global installation effects for
loading a group of 25 stone columns on the soil
properties. Both effects were modeled numerically by
using cavity expansion. Both effects cause an increase
in the stress state and an improvement in the
surrounding soil. Elshazly et al. (2008b) obtained the
relation between the inter column spacing and the
corresponding alteration of soil state of stress due to
the vibro installation technique. The alteration, repre-
sented by the increase in the post installation horizon-
tal to vertical soil stress, K* found to decrease in its
magnitude as the inter column spacing increases.
(Casrto and Karstunen 2010) investigated numerically
the installation effects of stone columns in natural soft
clay. The installation increased the horizontal stresses
and after the excess pore pressure dissipation the
lateral earth pressure coefficient was found to be 1.4
times the initial value at rest.
4.5 Settlement of the Composite Ground
Most of the approaches in estimating settlement of the
composite ground assumed an infinitely wide, loaded
area reinforced with stone columns having a constant
diameter and spacing. For this condition of loading
and geometry the extended unit cell concept is
theoretically valid. Pribe (1976) proposed the reduced
stress method for the estimation of reduction in
settlement due to ground improved with stone col-
umns. Balaam et al. (1977) used finite element method
to study elastic deformations of flexible loaded areas
on stone columns both partially and totally penetrating
the elastic half space using unit cell concept. Aboshi
et al. (1979) proposed the equilibrium method which is
based on the concept that the vertical stress concen-
tration on the stone column gives the reduced average
stress on the soft soil. Barksdale and Bachus (1983)
123
12
introduced the concept of equivalent parameters for
composite ground. Balaam and Booker (1985),
Schweiger and Pande (1986)used predictive methods
taking the elastic as well as the yield (i.e. plastic)
properties of both reinforced soil constituents into
account, in the settlement analysis. Juran and Guer-
mazi (1988) conducted triaxial compression tests
under different boundary conditions on composite
soil specimens with sand column and found that the
group effect, the replacement factor, and the consol-
idation of the soft soil have a significant effect on the
settlement reduction of the foundation soil. Ranjan
(1989) used the analogy of expansion of cylindrical
cavity (Vesic 1972) and the concept of equivalent
coefficient of volume compressibility in homoge-
neous, isotropic and infinite soil mass to estimate the
ultimate bearing capacity and settlement of ground
treated with granular piles. VanImpe and Madhav
(1992) derived expressions to predict the effect of
dilatency of the granular pile material on the settle-
ment behavior of the stone column reinforced ground.
The densified stone column material is considered to
be at the yield condition and hence dilating. Alamgir
et al. (1996) proposed an elastic approach to predict
the load sharing and resulting settlement of ground
improved by stone columns assuming free strain
condition. Poorooshasb and Meyerhof (1997) pro-
posed the performance ratio, which is defined as the
ratio of the settlement of the improved ground to
unimproved ground under identical surcharges. They
considered linear elastic behavior for stone column.
Abdelkrim and Buhan (2007) presented a homogeni-
zation technique applied to column-reinforced soils,
developed in the context of elastoplasticity, and
similar to the intuitive procedures proposed by Canetta
and Nova (1989) or Lee and Pande (1998).
The equilibrium method described by Aboshi et al.
(1979) offers a very simple yet realistic engineering
approach for estimating the reduction in settlement of
ground improved with stone columns based on the
extended unit cell idealization. Settlement reduction
ratio R, which is the ratio of settlement with treatment
to the settlement with out treatment, is given by
St log10 ½ðr0 þ lc rÞ=r0 Þ
¼ ð9Þ
S log10 ½ðr0 þ rÞ=r0 Þ
where: ro = average initial effective stress in the clay
layer, rc = change in stress in the clay layer due to the
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
externally applied loading = lcr, r = average exter-
nally applied stress.
This equation shows that the level of improvement
is dependent upon the stress concentration factor n (as
reflected in lc), initial effective stress in the clay, and
the magnitude of applied stress. The above equation
indicates, if other factors are constant, a greater
reduction in settlement is achieved for longer columns
(the average ro, increases with stone column length)
and for smaller applied stress increments.
For very large ro (long length of stone column) and
very small applied stresses r, the settlement ratio
relatively approaches
St 1
¼ ¼ ls ð10Þ
S ½1 þ ðn  1Þas 
where n is the stress concentration factor and as is the
area replacement ratio.
Because of its simplicity, versatility and reasonably
good assumptions made in its derivation, the equilib-
rium method offers a practical approach for estimating
settlement reduction due to ground improvement with
stone columns.
Priebe (1976) proposed a method to estimate the
settlement of foundation resting on the infinite grid of
stone columns based on unit cell concept. In this
concept, the soil around a stone column for area
represented by a single column, depending on column
spacing, is considered for the analysis. As all the
columns are simultaneously loaded, it is assumed that
lateral deformations in soil at the boundary of unit cell
are zero. The settlement improvement factor is derived
as a function of area ratio (total area of stone columns
to original area of unreinforced soil), the soil’s
poisson’s ratio and angle of internal friction of column
material. The calculation of the improvement factor
was done by considering that the stone column
material is incompressible and column is based on a
rigid layer (end-bearing). Priebe (1995) considered the
effect of compressibility of the column material and
the overburden. He developed design charts to calcu-
late the settlement of single and strip footing rein-
forced by a limited number of stone columns. Priebe’s
‘basic improvement factor’ may be derived from the
chart shown in Fig. 7. Priebe’s formulation assumes
that columns are terminated at a rigid layer, and hence
the method not suitable for predicting the behavior of
floating columns.
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Fig. 7 Priebe’s basic improvement factor (Priebe 1995)
The finite element method offers the most theoret-
ically sound approach for modeling stone column
improved ground. Nonlinear material properties, inter-
face slip and suitable boundary conditions can all be
realistically modeled using the finite element technique.
Although three-dimensional modeling can be used,
from a practical standpoint either an axisymmetric or
plane strain model is generally employed. Most studies
have utilized the axisymmetric unit cell model to
analyze the conditions of either a uniform load on a large
group of stone columns or a single stone column.
Balaam et al. (1977) used finite element method to study
elastic deformations of flexible loaded areas on stone
columns both partially and totally penetrating the elastic
half space using unit cell concept. Undrained settle-
ments were found to be small and neglected. Only about
6 percent difference in settlement was found between
elastic and elastic–plastic response. The amount of stone
column penetration into the soft layer and the diameter
of the column were found to have a significant effect on
settlement; the modular ratio of stone column to soil was
of less importance. Balaam (1978) revised the analysis
for smooth rigid rafts, pointing out the stiffening effect
of raft on columns and resulting increased efficiency of
columns. The finite element solutions are generally
claimed to provide good agreement with observations
on actual sites and therefore provide a rational basis for
settlement prediction. However, their utility depends
upon the accuracy of input parameters.
4.6 Settlements of Foundations of Limited Extent
In the available literature, however, only few attempts
were made to relate settlements of infinitely wide
13
foundations, as simulated by the unit cell idealization,
to their corresponding settlements of foundations with
limited sizes. Barksdale and Bachus (1983) suggested
an approximate method that uses Boussinesque stress
distribution theory to approximately consider the
reduction in settlement due to the spreading of stress
under foundations with limited extent. This strategy,
however, does not account for soil nonlinearity and
plasticity. Priebe (1991) presented design charts to
estimate the settlement of a rigid foundation on a
limited number of stone columns as a function of the
settlement of large extended raft, supported by an
infinite grid of columns. Elshazly et al. (2008b)
revealed that the unit cell analysis may, in some
cases, lead to erroneous estimation for the settlements
of foundations with limited extents. Correction fac-
tors, dependent on the treated soil properties as well as
the foundation size, are suggested.
4.7 Rate of Primary Consolidation Settlement
Field observations showed that stone columns could
also accelerate the rate of consolidation of soft clays
(Baumann and Bauer 1974; Goughnour and Bayuk
1979; Han and Ye 1992). This is due to the following
two mechanisms. First, the high column permeability
causes radial drainage resulting in faster dissipation of
excess pore water pressure and second, the high
column stiffness reduces foundation load or vertical
stress on the soil body and so reduces the generation of
excess pore water pressure. In most cases the consol-
idation of the stabilized layer is completed by the end
of the construction period (Baumann and Bauer 1974).
Goughnour and Bayuk (1979) suggested that con-
ventional sand-drain theory is suitable for time-
settlement computations. In a cohesive soil reinforced
with stone columns, water moves toward the stone
column in a curved path having both vertical and
radial components of flow. Considering the vertical
and radial consolidation effects separately, the average
degree of primary consolidation (U) of the layer can be
expressed as:
U ¼ 1  ð1  Uz Þð1  Ur Þ ð12Þ
where Uz = the degree of consolidation considering
only vertical flow, Ur = the degree of consolidation
considering only radial flow
The degree of consolidation in the vertical direction
is calculated by Terzaghi’s one dimensional theory,
123
14
while that in the radial direction is calculated by
Barron’s theory. The Terzaghi 1D consolidation
solution and the Barron solution for drain wells in
fine-grained soil underestimate the rate of consolida-
tion of stone column reinforced foundations due to the
fact that stone columns have a larger drained elastic
modulus than the surrounding soft clay and have a
smaller diameter ratio (influence diameter/column
diameter) than drain wells (Han and Ye 2001). Also,
the contribution of vertical stress reduction to the
dissipation of excess pore water pressure does not
exist in the foundation with drain wells due to which
stone columns are more effective than drain wells in
accelerating the rate of consolidation of soft clays.
Bergado et al. (1990) found from field studies that the
improved performance of stone columns compared to
prefabricated vertical drainage.
Juran and Guermazi (1988) based on their exper-
imental study revealed that the rate of generation and
dissipation of the excess pore water pressure depends
primarily upon the replacement factor and the ratio of
the loading rate to the soil permeability. The consol-
idation and partial drainage of the soil during loading
have an important effect on the load transfer mech-
anism and should be considered in the analysis/design
procedure. Han and Ye (2001) developed a simplified
and closed form solution for estimating the rate of
consolidation of the stone column reinforced founda-
tions accounting for the stone column soil modular
ratio or stress concentration ratio and found that the
rate of consolidation can be accelerated by increasing
the modular ratio and reducing the diameter ratio. Han
and Ye (2002) developed a theoretical solution for
computing the consolidation rates of stone column
reinforced foundations accounting for smear and well
resistance effects. Tan et al. (2008) proposed two
simplified methods of converting the axisymmetric
unit cell into the equivalent plane-strain model
required for two-dimensional numerical modeling of
multicolumn field applications for the analysis of rate
of consolidation. Xie et al. (2009) developed a general
solution for computing the consolidation rate of a
composite foundation reinforced with stone columns
by taking into account variation in the horizontal
permeability coefficient of disturbed soil, changes in
the total average stress in a composite foundation with
depth and construction time effects. Wang (2009)
presents a closed-form analytical solution of consol-
idation of soft clay foundations reinforced by stone
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
columns under various forms of time-dependent
loading considering smear and well resistance.
Based on the centrifuge tests, Weber et al. (2010)
investigated the smear and disturbance zones owing to
the stone column installation. The region influenced
can be divided into three sections: a penetration zone
where the sand particles squeezed through the clay; a
smear zone where the soil particles have experienced a
significant reorientation; and a densification zone
where the structure of the clay does not appear to
change, but compaction of clay is measurable. The
extremes of the disturbed zone around model stone
columns are estimated to extend to about 2.5 times the
column radius. Lu et al. (2011) obtained a closed-form
solution to the consolidation of composite foundation
by considering the stress increment due to external
loads changing simultaneously with time and depth,
and three possible variation patterns of soil’s horizon-
tal permeability coefficient (constant, linear and
parabolic distribution pattern) were considered to
account for the detrimental influence of column
installation. Cimentada et al. (2011) studied the
consolidation and vertical deformation of samples on
soft clay reinforced with stone column. Pore pressure
readings shows that the coefficient of consolidation is
2.10–3.7 times the value of the kaolin coefficient. This
coefficient is higher when the replacement area is
increased. Vertical compressibility is reduced due to
the column stiffness. Values of vertical strain calcu-
lated using Priebe’s (1976) method is more similar to
the test results than the values obtained with the elastic
solution. Application of the elastic solution overesti-
mates the effect of the improvement.
4.8 Granular Blanket
Irrespective of the method used to construct the stone
columns, a granular layer of sand or gravel, 0.3 m or
more in thickness, is usually provided on the top of the
stone column system which acts as drainage layer and
also to distribute stresses coming from the superstruc-
ture (Mitchell 1981).
Shahu et al. (2000) brought out the effects of a
granular mat over the improved ground on its overall
response within the framework of equal strain theory
and unit cell concept. The provision of granular bed on
top of stone column reinforced ground leads to a
desirable reduction in stress concentration near the top
of the column. For lower values of area replacement
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
ratio (B0.25), provision of adequate thickness of
granular mat is highly beneficial in improving the
performance of reinforced ground. Ambily and Gan-
dhi (2006) found from their experimental study that, in
case of rigid loading, stress concentration ratio
decreases with increase in tsand/d up to a value of
0.75, beyond which the effect is negligible and as in
case of flexible loading, stress concentration ratio
increases with increases in tsand/d up to a value of 1.0,
beyond which the effect is negligible. Deb (2008)
developed a mechanical model for predicting the
behaviour of stone column-improved soft ground with
granular bed placed over the stone columns. It has
been observed that the presence of granular bed on top
of stone column-reinforced ground reduces the stress
concentration near top of the columns. The granular
bed also helps to reduce the maximum as well as
differential settlement and increase the load-carrying
capacity of the stone column-improved soft soil.
The granular bed can be further reinforced with
geogrid to enhance the load-carrying capacity and
reduce the settlement of the stone column-improved
soft clay. Based on lumped parameter modelling
approach, models have been developed for single layer
(Deb and Basudhar 2007) and multilayer (Deb et al.
2008) geosynthetic-reinforced granular bed resting on
stone column-improved soft soil. Deb et al. (2011)
performed laboratory model tests on unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced sand bed resting on stone column-
improved soft clay. It has been observed that the
presence of sand bed reduces the bulging of stone
columns and the reduction is more significant with the
inclusion of geogrid layer in the sand bed.
4.9 Stone Columns in Embankment Construction
Construction of embankments on soft soil is very
challenging task for geotechnical engineers due to
possible bearing failure, excessive settlement and
local and global instability. Use of stone columns
below the embankments reduces the excessive settle-
ment, improves the stability and increases the bearing
capacity of soft foundation soil with additional
advantage of providing a drainage path (Deb 2008).
Bergado et al. (1990) found from field studies that
the installation of granular piles increased the factor of
safety of slopes by approximately 25 %. Christoulas
et al. (1997) studied analytically the reinforcing effect
of stone columns on the stability of road
15
embankments. It has been observed that stone columns
contribute significant increase in factor of safety for
soft clays (cu = 10 kPa). For medium to stiff clays
(cu = 30–50 kPa), the stone columns do not contrib-
ute to an appreciable increase of the safety factor.
The method of stability analysis of an embankment
stabilized using stone columns is performed exactly in
the same manner as for a normal slope stability
problem except stress concentration must be consid-
ered. Sabhahit et al. (1997) presented an analytical
procedure to estimate the minimum factor of safety for
an embankment constructed over a soft foundation soil
reinforced with granular columns. A non circular slip
surface was considered for the analysis. For higher
area ratios the factor of safety is independent of the
thickness of the clay layer. For a given embankment
geometry and soil, and foundation soil properties,
there exists a minimum length for granular columns
beyond which the factor of safety is unaffected by the
granular column length. Kirsch and Sondermann
(2003) analyzed the deformations and the stability of
embankments on stone column improved ground
using numerical and analytical methods. Ghazavi
and Shahmandi (2008) investigated the static stability
of slopes reinforced with multi-rows of stone columns
and developed a closed-form solution based on limit
equilibrium method. The results have shown that the
safety factor of slope-reinforced with stone columns
generally increases. Moreover, it has been found that
to achieve the greatest safety factor for slopes, the best
location of the column is at the top of the slope and
around it. With increasing equivalent width of stone
columns and friction angle of column materials, safety
factor values increase remarkably.
Borges et al. (2009) based on numerical analysis, a
new design method for embankments on soft soil
reinforced with stone columns was proposed, relating
the settlement improvement factor to the replacement
area ratio and the deformability ratio. Increasing the
replacement area ratio or the stiffness of the column
material significantly reduces settlements and hori-
zontal displacements, increases the improvement
factor and accelerates the consolidation. A two-
dimensional (2D) parametric study based on coupled
hydraulic and mechanical modeling was conducted by
Huang and Han (2010), to study the time-dependent
behavior of Geosynthetic-reinforced column-sup-
ported (GRCS) embankments under various condi-
tions. The elastic modulus of the soft soil and the
123
16
spacing of columns are the two most important design
parameters for the performance (except the consoli-
dation) of the GRCS embankment. Abusharar and Han
(2011) estimated the factor of safety against deep-
seated failure of embankment over stone column
improved soft clay based on individual column and
equivalent area models, using finite difference
method. Based on the numerical results, a reduction
factor of 0.9 was proposed to convert the calculated
factor of safety by the equivalent area model to that by
individual column model.
4.10 Encased Stone Columns
It is well established that the stone columns derive
their load capacity from the lateral confining pressure
from the surrounding soils (Greenwood 1970; Hughes
et al. 1975; Barksdale and Bachus 1983). When the
stone columns are installed in very soft clays, they
may not derive significant load carrying capacity
owing to low lateral confinement. The undrained shear
strength of the surrounding soil is generally used as the
criterion to decide the feasibility of the treatment, with
lower bound in the range 5–15 kPa (Wehr 2006).
McKenna et al. (1975) reported cases where the stone
column was not restrained by the surrounding soft
clay, which led to excessive bulging, and also the soft
clay squeezed into the voids of the aggregates.
In such situations, the stone column itself may need to
be provided with additional confinement for its
improved performance. In recent years, geotextile
encasement has been successfully used to extend the
use of stone columns to extremely soft soils. This
encasement imparts additional confinement to the stone
column and brings in several advantages like increased
stiffness of column, preventing the loss of stones into the
surrounding soft clay, preserving the drainage and
frictional properties of the stone aggregates, etc., as
described by Raithel et al. (2002); Alexiew et al. (2005);
Brokemper et al. (2006); Murugesan and Rajagopal
(2006, 2007); Kempfert and Gebreselassie (2006), and
di Prisco et al. (2006). Lately, other geosynthetics, such
as geogrids, are also used for column encasement
(Sharma et al. 2004; Lee et al. 2007; Gniel and Bouazza
2009) because of their high tensile stiffness. The
encased stone columns are installed in the field by using
methods similar to those employed for installation of
precast driven piles and bored cast in situ piles
(Kempfert and Gebreselassie 2006).
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
The concept of encasing the stone column by
wrapping with geotextile was proposed by Van Impe
in the year 1985 (Van Impe 1989). Katti et al. (1993)
proposed a theory for improvement of soft ground
using stone columns with geosynthetic encasing based
on the particulate concept. Later Bauer and Al-Joulani
(1994) have investigated the performance of sleeve
reinforced stone columns through laboratory uniaxial
and triaxial compression tests. Raithel and Kempfert
(2000) developed an analytical, axisymmetric model
based on unit cell concept for designing a geotextile
encased column foundation. Ayadat and Hanna (2005)
have reported the benefits of encasing the stone
column installed in collapsible soils. Murugesan and
Rajagopal (2006) have evaluated the behavior of
ordinary stone columns (OSCs) without encasement
and geosynthetic encased stone columns (ESCs)
through numerical analyses. They reported that the
ESCs are stiffer than the OSCs and were found to be
less dependent on the strength of surrounding clay soil
for their load capacity. It was reported that the depth of
encasement equal to two times the diameter of stone
column is adequate to substantially increase its load
carrying capacity. Murugesan and Rajagopal (2007)
have performed laboratory model tests on the stone
column installed in a unit cell tank. It was reported that
the modulus of the encasement plays major role in
strength of the encased column. The performance of
encased stone columns of smaller diameters was found
to be superior to that of larger diameter stone columns
because of mobilization of higher confining stresses.
The improvement in the load capacity was quantified
based on the modulus of the geosynthetic and the
diameter. It was also shown that the geosynthetic
ESCs were found to act as semirigid piles not
undergoing any catastrophic failures. Black et al.
(2007a) examined the performance of small-scale
stone columns that were enhanced by jacketing with
tubular wire mesh and found that the load-carrying
capacity and the settlement performance of stone
columns in peat can be improved by this method.
Malarvizhi and Ilamparuthi (2007) have compared the
performance of stone columns with and without
geosynthetic encasement and found the ESCs to be
more effective. Murugesan and Rajagopal (2009) have
reported the results from laboratory model tests on the
lateral load capacity of stone columns against shear
movements and brought out the qualitative improve-
ments in their shear load capacity.
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Gneil and Bouazza (2009) investigated the behav-
ior of geogrid encased columns by conducting a series
of small-scale model tests and indicated a steady
reduction in vertical strain with increasing encased
length for both isolated columns and group columns.
Bulging of the column was observed to occur directly
beneath the base of the encasement. Murugesan and
Rajagopal (2010) found from their model tests con-
ducted in large scale testing tanks on single as well as
group of stone columns with and without encasement,
that the encased columns have much higher stress
concentration compared to that of ordinary columns
and it increases with increase in the modulus of the
encasement, which shows that encased columns act
like semi rigid piles. Yoo (2010) numerically inves-
tigated the improved performance of geosynthetic-
encased stone columns installed in soft ground for
embankment construction. Gneil and Bouazza (2010)
proposed an alternative method of encasement con-
struction, by overlapping the geogrid encasement by a
nominal amount and relying on interlock between the
stone aggregate and section of overlap to provide a
level of fixity similar to welding. Biaxial geogrids are
best suited to the technique, with increased encase-
ment stiffness resulting in increased column capacity
and column stiffness. Castro and Sagaseta (2010)
presented an analytical closed form solution to study
the settlement reduction and the acceleration of
consolidation caused by encased stone columns. They
found that the column encasement has negligible
effect for an elastic column and starts to be useful only
after column yielding. The effectiveness of the
encasement is directly related to its stiffness and
hence, encasing stone columns is recommended in soft
soils using stiff encasements and under moderate loads
because for high applied loads, the encasement
reaches its tensile strength and does not provide any
further improvement. The settlement reduction pro-
vided by the encasement does not depend on the area
replacement ratio.
4.11 Internally Reinforced Stone Columns
In order to enhance the performance of stone columns
when treating weak deposits it is imperative that the
tendency of the column to bulge should be restricted
effectively. Although the external reinforcement in the
form of encapsulating the column with a geofabric,
will prevent the column failing by bulging or by shear,
17
it will not allow the column to dilate and accordingly
to increase the in situ stresses (Ayadat and Hanna
2008). This technique can be limited by the relatively
large settlements that occur as a result of minimal
compaction (to avoid damage to geotextile encase-
ment material) received during installation and geo-
textile strain during loading (Gniel and Bouazza
2009). On the other hand, when the stone columns
are reinforced internally by stabilization of column
material using concrete plugs, chemical grouting or by
adding internal inclusions (geogrids, plastic fibers
etc.), will stiffen the column and increase the lateral
stresses in the surrounding soil, and accordingly its
bearing capacity.
Al-Refeai (1992) examined the behavior of soft soil
strengthening with fibre reinforced sand columns.
These tests showed that the column replacement ratio
and depth of the fibre reinforced sand layer inside
column have a significant effect on load carrying
capacity and settlement response of the reinforced soft
soil. Triaxial compression tests were conducted by
Ranjan et al. (1999) on soft clay samples with central
sand fibre core and it was observed that sand fibre core
was more effective in increasing the strength of soft
clay as compared to granular material alone. Sam-
adhiya et al. (2008) studied the performance of
granular column reinforced with fibers and found that
the load carrying capacity increases with the increase
in fibre content up to 1 % and showed declining trend
at 2 % fibre content.
Sharma et al. (2004) investigated the performance
of granular pile in soft clay by placing horizontal
layers geogrids reinforcement in the upper region of
the column. The study revealed that the load carrying
capacity increases and the bulge diameter & bulge
length decreased when the granular pile was rein-
forced with geogrids. The improvement increases with
the increase in the number of geogrids and decreasing
the spacing of the geogrids. Ayadat and Hanna (2008)
investigated experimentally and analytically the per-
formance of gravel columns reinforced internally with
horizontal wire meshes made of plastic, steel and
aluminium materials. Test results showed that the
performance of gravel columns significantly enhanced
by increasing the number of meshes. This increase is
relatively lower for steel and much lower for plastic
meshes compared to aluminium meshes. Wu and
Hong (2008) investigated analytically and experimen-
tally the response of granular columns reinforced with
123
18
horizontally laminated geotextile sheets in the top
layers. Analytical results reveal that the interactive
mechanism at the soil–inclusion interface and the
mechanical behavior of the inclusion significantly
affect the axial stress–strain response of the reinforced
stone column. Shivashankar et al. (2010) investigated
the performance of stone columns reinforced with
vertical circumferential nails installed in soft soils. It
was found that reinforcing stone column with vertical
circumferential nails at the top portion to a depth equal
to three times the diameter of stone columns, will be
adequate to prevent the column from excessive
bulging and to improve its load carrying capacity
substantially. The improvement increases with the
increase in number of nails. Bulge diameter and bulge
length are decreased substantially for a stone column
reinforced with vertical circumferential nails.
4.12 Rigid Stone Columns
In very soft soils with organic layers which do not
provide sufficient lateral support, columns can be
formed by injecting a hydraulic binder into the column
material (stones, gravel) during installation (Kempfert
2003). In the case of grouted stone columns, a grout is
injected during the compaction of the stones/gravel. A
further development of this technique uses premixed
materials (grout ? stone/gravel) or concrete, which
are installed by using a bottom feed vibrator. In
Europe for some applications cement has been added
to the compacted stone column, thus forming a rigid
column of concrete. Rigid stone columns appear to be
best suited for strengthening the stone column in
locally weak zones (Barksdale and Bachus 1983).
From the results of the laboratory triaxial compression
tests, Juran and Oraccio (1991) revealed that low-level
cementation in compacted sand columns can signifi-
cantly improve the settlement response and load
carrying capacity. Its behavior is independent of the
confining pressure mobilized in the surrounding soil.
The bottom feed vibro replacement method can be
used cost effectively to permit low level cementation
of the in situ compacted granular column. Black et al.
(2007a) investigated the performance of stone col-
umns in a weak peat deposit using concrete plug and
concluded that the load-carrying capacity and the
settlement performance can be improved significantly.
A novel method of improving the performance of
stone columns in soft soils is being studied by the
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
authors, by reinforcing the top portion of the stone
columns with porous concrete. The principle advan-
tage of this method, apart from ease in construction
and economy, is imparting rigidity in the top portion of
the stone columns, thus preventing bulging collapse
and retaining the drainage characteristics of the stone
column.
5 Conclusions
Stone columns have a definite role in the area of
ground improvement. Stone columns are best suited
for sites consisting of very soft and soft compressible
silts and clays, and also for loose silty sands. Stone
column design to a large extent is still empirical and
past experience and practice plays an important role in
the design. Specific conclusions based on the critical
review of the available literature on stone columns are
as follows:
1. Stone columns in cohesive soils are normally
constructed by vibro-replacement method either
by wet process or dry process or less frequently by
ramming. In environmentally sensitive areas,
stone columns are frequently constructed by the
dry process rather than the wet process (which
discharges large quantities of silty water). Where
ground conditions are suitable, stone column
solutions have been shown to be more cost
effective and can offer considerable contract
programme savings over other ground improve-
ment methods, such as preloading and vertical
drain.
2. By replacing a portion of the soft soils with a
compacted granular backfill, a composite material
is formed which is both stiffer and stronger than
the unimproved native soil. Stone columns act as
drains and significantly decrease the time for
primary consolidation to occur. Because of rapid
consolidation settlement secondary settlement
becomes a more important consideration when
stone columns are used. Stone columns reduce the
build-up in pore pressure in granular layers during
an earthquake, and hence decrease liquefaction
potential.
3. Many studies based on physical modeling, math-
ematical analysis and full-scale testing have been
carried out to understand and predict the behavior
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
of stone columns. These studies have highlighted
the various parameters that influence overall
performance of the technique. They include
column diameter, column length, column spacing,
area replacement ratio, size and flexibility of the
footing, strength of the in situ soil, strength of the
column material and method of installation.
However, it should be noted that experimental
evidence is limited when the stone columns do not
reach the firm stratum but float in the soft layer.
Further tests should be performed under drained
conditions, particularly with drainage being per-
mitted from the top of the columns.
4. When the stone columns are installed in very soft
clays, they may not derive significant load
capacity owing to low lateral confinement, which
led to excessive bulging. Many researchers used
geosynthetic encasement to impart the necessary
confinement to improve their strength and stiff-
ness. To overcome some of the limitations and
practical difficulties associated with geosynthetic/
geogrid encased columns, further research is
required to identify the effective and alternate
methods which should be practically feasible to
enhance the performance of stone columns in very
soft soils.
References
Abdelkrim M, Buhan PD (2007) An eleastoplastic homogeni-
zation procedure for predicting the settlement of a foun-
dation on a soil reinforced by columns. Europian J Mech
A/Solids 26:736–757
Aboshi H, Ichimoto E, Harada K, Emoki M (1979) The com-
poser-A method to improve the characteristics of soft clays
by inclusion of large diameter sand columns. In: Pro-
ceedings of international conference on soil reinforcement,
Paris, pp 211–216
Abusharar SW, Han J (2011) Two-dimensional deep-seated
slope stability analysis of embankments over stone col-
umn-improved soft clay. Eng Geol 120(10):103–110
Alamgir M, Zaheer SM (2001) Field investigation on a soft
ground of Bangladesh reinforced by granular piles. In:
Proceedings, international symposium on earth reinforce-
ment. Land marks in earth reinforcement, pp 517–522
Alamgir M, Miura N, Poorooshasb HB, Madhav MR (1996)
Deformation analysis of soft ground reinforced by
columnar inclusions. J Comput Geotech 18(4):267–290
Alexiew D, Brokemper D, Lothspeich S (2005) Geotextile
encased columns (GEC): load capacity, geotextile selec-
tion and predesign graphs. Geotech Spec 130–142:
497–510
19
Al-Khafaji ZA, Craig WH (2000) Drainage and reinforcement
of soft clay tank foundation by sand columns. Geotech-
nique 50(6):709–713
Al-Refeai T (1992) Strengthening of soft soil by fibre-reinforced
sand column. In: Proceedings, international symposium on
earth reinforcement, VI, Rotterdam, pp 677–682
Ambily AP, Ganghi SR (2006) Effect of sand pad thickness on
load sharing in stone column. In: Proceedings Indian geo-
technical conference, Chennai, pp 555–556
Ambily AP, Ganghi SR (2007) Behavior of stone columns based
on experimental and FEM analysis. J Geotech geoenviron
Engg ASCE 133(4):405–415
Ayadat T, Hanna AM (2005) Encapsulated stone columns as a
soil improvement technique for collapsible soil. Ground
Improv 9(4):137–147
Ayadat T, Hanna AM (2008) Soil improvement by internally
reinforced stone columns. Ground Improvement 161(GI2):
55–63
Bae WS, Shin BW, An BC (2002) Behavior of foundation
system improved with stone columns. In: Proceedings 12th
international offshore and polar engineering. conference,
Kitakyushu, Japan, pp 675–678
Balaam NP (1978) Load settlement behavior of granular piles.
Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, Australia
Balaam NP, Booker JR (1981) Analysis of rigid rafts supported
by granular piles. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech
5:379–403
Balaam NP, Booker JR (1985) Effect of stone column yield on
settlement of rigid foundations in stabilized clay. Int J
Numer Anal Method Geomech 9:331–351
Balaam NP, Poulos HG, Brown PT (1977) Settlement analysis
of soft clays reinforced with granular piles. In: Proceed-
ings, 5th Asian conference on soil engineering, Bangkok,
pp 81–92
Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of
stone columns federal highway administration, RD-83/
026
Bauer GE, Al-Joulani N (1994) Strengthening of marginal soils
by confined stone columns. Proceedings, 7th international
cold regions engineering—A global perspective, edmon-
ton, alberta specialty conference, University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, pp 97–117
Baumann V, Bauer GEA (1974) The performance of founda-
tions on various soils stabilized by the Vibro-Compaction
Method. Can Geotech J 11(4):509–530
Bergado DT, Lam FL (1987) Full-scale load test of granular
piles with different densities and different proportions of
gravel and sand on soft Bangkok clay. Soils Found
27(1):103–134
Bergado DT, Rantucci G, Widodo S (1984) Full scale load tests
on granular piles and sand drains in the soft Bangkok clay.
In: Proceedings international conference on in situ soil and
rock reinforcement, Paris, pp 111–118
Bergado DT, Panichayatum, Sampaco CL (1988) Reinforce-
ment of soft bangkok clay using granular piles. In: Pro-
ceedings, international symposium on theory and practice
of earth reinforcement, Kyushu, Japan, pp 179–184
Bergado DT, Singh N, Sim SH, Panichayatum B, Sampaco CL,
Balasubramaniam AS (1990) Improvement of soft Bang-
kok clay using vertical geotextile band drains compared
with granular piles. Geotext Geomembr 9(3):203–231
123
20
Bergado DT, Chai JC, Alfaro MC, Balasubramanium AS (1994)
Improvement techniques of soft ground in subsiding and
lowland environment. Balkema, Rotterdam
Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, McCabe BA (2006) An
improved experimental test setup to study the behavior of
granular columns. Geotech Testing J, ASTM 29(3):193–199
Black JA, Sivakumar V, Madhav MR, Hamill GA (2007a)
Reinforced stone columns in weak deposits: laboratory
model study. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(9):
1154–1161
Black JA, Sivakumar V, McKinley JD (2007b) Performance of
clay samples reinforced with vertical granular columns.
Can Geotech J 44:89–95
Borges JL, Domingues TS, Cardoso AS (2009) Embankments
on soft soil reinforced with stone columns: numerical
analysis and proposal of a new design method. Geotech
Geol Eng 27:667–679
Brokemper D, Sobolewski J, Alexiew D, Brok C (2006) Design
and construction of geotextile encased columns supporting
geogrid reinforced landscape embankments: bastions Vi-
jfwal Houten in the Netherlands. Proceedings, 8th interna-
tional conference on geosynthetics, Millpress, Rotterdam,
The Netherlands, 889–892
Brown RE (1977) Vibrofloatation compaction of cohesionless
soils. J Geotech Eng Div, ASCE 103(12):1437–1451
Canetta G, Nova R (1989) A numerical method for the analysis
of ground improved by columnar inclusions. Comput
Geotech 7:99–114
Casrto J, Karstunen M (2010) Numerical simulations of stone
column installations. Can Geotech J 47(10):1127–1138
Castro J, Sagaseta C (2010) Deformation and consolidation around
encased stone columns. Geotext Geomembr 29:268–276
Charles JA, Watts KA (1983) Compressibility of soft clay
reinforced with granular columns. In: Proceedings, 8th
Europ. conference on soil mech. and found. Eng., Helsinki,
pp 347–352
Christoulas ST, Giannaros CH, Tsiambaos G (1997) Stabiliza-
tion of embankment foundations by using stone columns.
Geotech Geol Eng 15:247–258
Cimentada A, Costa AD, Canizal J, Sagaseta C (2011) Laboratory
study on radial consolidation and deformation in clay rein-
forced with stone columns. Can Geotech J 48(1):36–52
Datye KR (1982) Settlement and bearing capacity of foundation
system with stone columns. In: Proceedings, symposium
on recent developments in ground improvement tech-
niques, Bangkok, pp 85–101
Datye KR, Nagaraju SS (1975) Installation and testing of ram-
med stone columns. In: Proceedings, 5th Asian regional
conference on soil mech. and found. Eng., Bangalore,
India, pp 101–104
Datye KR, Nagaraju SS (1981) Design approach and field
control for stone columns. In: Proceedings, 10th interna-
tional conference on soil mech. and found. eng. Stockholm,
Vol. 3, pp 637–640
Deb K (2008) Modelling of granular bed-stone column-
improved soft soil. Int J Numer Anal Meth Geomech
32:1267–1288
Deb K, Basudhar PK (2007) Generalised model for geosyn-
thetic-reinforced granular fill-soft soil with stone column.
Int J Geomech ASCE 7(4):266–276
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Deb K, Chandra S, Basudhar PK (2008) Response of multilayer
geosynthetic-reinforced bed resting on soft soil with stone
columns. J Comput géoméch 35:323–330
Deb K, Samadhiya NK, Namdeo JB (2011) Laboratory model
studies on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed
over stone column-improved soft clay. Geotext Geomembr
29:190–196
di Prisco C, Galli A, Cantarelli E, Bongiorno D (2006) Geore-
inforced sand columns: small scale experimental tests and
theoretical modeling. Proceedings, 8th international con-
ference on geosynthetics, Millpress, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 1685–1688
Elshazly HA, Hafez D, Mosaad M (2006) Back calculating vi-
bro-installation stresses in stone columns reinforced
grounds. J Ground Improv 10(2):47–53
Elshazly HA, Hafez D, Mosaad M (2008a) Reliability of con-
ventional settlement evaluation for circular foundations on
stone columns. J Geotech Geol Eng ASCE 26:323–334
Elshazly HA, Elkasabgy M, Elleboudy A (2008b) Effect of
inter-column spacing on soil stresses due to vibro-installed
stone columns: interesting findings. J Geotech Geol Eng
26:225–236
Fattah MY, Shlash,KT, Al-Waily MJM (2011) Stress concen-
tration ratio of model stone columns in soft clays. Geotech
Testing J, Vol. 34, No. 1, Paper ID GTJ103060
Ghazavi M, Shahmandi A (2008) Analytical static stability
analysis of slope reinforced by stone columns. In: Pro-
ceedings 12th international conference of IACMAG, Goa,
pp 3530–3537
Gniel J, Bouazza A (2009) Improvement of soft soils using
geogrid encased stone columns. J Geotext Geomembranes
27:167–175
Gniel J, Bouazza A (2010) Construction of geogrid encased
stone columns: a new proposal based on laboratory testing.
Geotext Geomembr 28(1):108–118
Goughnour RR, Bayuk AA (1979) A field study of long-term
settlements of loads supported by stone columns in soft
ground. In: Proceedings, international conference on soil
reinforcement, Paris, pp 279–285
Greenwood DA (1970) Mechanical improvement of soils below
ground surfaces. In: Proceedings, ground engineering
conference, institution of civil engineers, London, pp 11–22
Greenwood DA, Kirsch K (1983) Specialist ground treatment by
vibratory and dynamics methods. In: Proceedings, inter-
national conference on piling and ground treatment, Tho-
mas Telford, London, pp 17–45
Guetif Z, Bouassida M, Debats JM (2007) Improved soft clay
characteristics due to stone column installation. J Comput
Geotech 34:104–111
Han J, Ye SL (1991) Field tests on clays stabilized by stone
columns at coastal areas in China. Proceedings of 4th
International Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations,
Stresa, Italy
Han J, Ye SL (1992) Settlement analysis of buildings on the soft
clays stabilized by stone columns. In: Proceedings, inter-
national conference on soil improvement and pile found,
118: 446–451
Han J, Ye SL (2001) Simplified method for consolidation rate of
stone column reinforced foundation. J Geotech Geoenviron
Eng, ASCE 127(7): 597–603
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Han J, Ye SL (2002) A theoretical solution for consolidation
rates of stone column-reinforced foundations accounting
for smear and well resistance effects. J Geomechanics,
ASCE, 2(2):135–151
Huang J, Han J (2010) Two-dimensional parametric study of
geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankments
by coupled hydraulic and mechanical modelling. Comput
Geotech 37:638–648
Hughes JMO, Withers NJ (1974) Reinforcing of soft cohesive
soils with stone columns. Ground Eng 7(3):42–49
Hughes JMO, Withers NJ, Greenwood DA (1975) A field trial of
the reinforcing effect of a stone column in soil. Geotech-
nique 25(1):31–44
IS:15284-2003 Indian standard code of practice for design and
construction for ground improvement-guidelines. Part 1:
Stone columns, India
Jellali B, Bouassida M, Buhan PD (2005) A homogenization
method for estimating the bearing capacity of soils rein-
forced by stone columns. Int J Numer Analyt Method
Geomech 29(10):989–1004
Juran I, Guermazi A (1988) Settlement response of soft soils
reinforced by compacted sand columns. J Geotech Geo-
environ Eng ASCE 114(8):903–943
Juran I, Riccobono O (1991) Reinforcing soft soils with artifi-
cially cemented compacted-sand columns. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 117(7):1042–1060
Katti RK, Katti AR, Nayak S (1993) Monograph to analysis of
stone columns with and without geosynthetic encasement.
CBIP Publication, New Delhi
Kempfert HG (2003) Ground improvement methods with spe-
cial emphasis on column-type techniques. In: Proceedings,
international workshop on geotechnics of soft soils—the-
ory and practice, pp 101–112
Kempfert HG, Gebreselassie B (2006) Excavations and foun-
dations in soft soils. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Kirsch F (2008) Evaluation of ground improvement by groups of
vibro stone columns using field measurements and
numerical analysis. Proceedings of the Second Interna-
tional Workshop on Geotechnics of Soft Soils, Scotland,
pp 241–248
Kirsch F, Sondermann W (2001) Ground improvement and its
numerical analysis. In: Proceedings 15th international con-
ference on soil mech. and found. eng., Istanbul, pp 1775–1778
Kirsch F, Sondermann W (2003) Field measurements and
numerical analysis of the stress distribution below stone
column supported embankments and their stability. Inter-
national workshop on geotechnics of soft soils-theory and
practice. Vermeer, Schweiger, Karstunen & Cudny (eds.)
Lee JS, Pande GN (1998) Analysis of stone-column reinforced
foundations. Int J Numer Anal Method Geomech
22:1001–1020
Lee D, Yoo C, Park S (2007) Model tests for analysis of load
carrying capacity of geogrid encased stone columns. In:
Proceedings 17th international offshore and Polar Eng.
Conf, Lisbon
Li G, Huang W, Ugai K (2000) Interactions between column
inclusions and surrounding soil in composite ground.
J Lowl Technol Int 2(1):23–34
Lu M, Xie K, Li C, Wang K (2011) Consolidation solution for
composite foundation considering a time- and depth-
dependent stress increment along with three distribution
21
patterns of soil permeability, Journal of Zhejiang Univer-
sity-SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering)
12(4):268–277
Madhav MR, Vitkar PP (1978) Strip footing on weak clay sta-
bilized with a granular trench or pile. Can Geotech J
15(4):605–609
Madhav MR, Alamgir M, Miura N (1994) Improving granular
column capacity by geogrid reinforcement. In: Proceed-
ings, 5th International Conference On Geotextiles, Geo-
membrains, and Related Products, Singapore, pp 351–356
Malarvizhi SN, Ilamparuthi K (2007) Comparative study on the
behavior of encased stone column and conventional stone
column. Soil Found 47(5):873–886
McKelvey D, Sivakumar V, Bell A, Graham J (2004) Modelling
vibrated stone columns in soft clay. In: Proceedings of the
institute of civil engineers geotechnical engineering, Vol.
157, Issue GE3, pp 137–149
McKenna JM, Eyre WA, Wolstenholme DR (1975) Perfor-
mance of an embankment supported by stone columns in
soft ground. Géotechnique 25(1):51–59
Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement—state of the art report.
In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on soil
mech. and found. eng., Stockholm, pp 509–565
Mitchell JK, Huber TR (1985) Performance of a stone column
foundation. J. Geotech. Engrg., ASCE 111(2):205–223
Mitra S, Chattopadhyay BC (1999) Stone columns and design
limitations. In: Proceedings, Indian geotechnical confer-
ence, Calcutta, India, pp 201–205
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2006) Geosynthetic encased stone
columns: numerical evaluation. J Geotext Geomembr
24(6):349–358
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2007) Model tests on geosynthtic
encased stone columns. Geosynthet Int J 24(6):346–354
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2008) Shear load tests on stone
columns with and without geosynthetic encasement. Geo-
technical testing journal, ASTM, 32(1)
Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2010) Studies on the behaviour of
single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns.
ASCE, J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(1):129–139
Najjar SS, Sadek S, Maakaroun T (2010) Effect of sand columns
on the undrained load response of soft clays. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 136(9):1263–1277
Nayak NV (1996) Foundation design manual, Dhanapathi Rai
publications (P) Ltd, Fourth ed
Nayak S, Shivashankar R, Babu MRD (2011) Performance of
stone columns with circumferential nails. Ground Improv
164(2):97–106
Poorooshasb HB, Meyerhof GG (1997) Analysis of behaviour of
stone columns and lime columns. J Comput Geotech
20(1):47–70
Priebe HJ (1976) Evaluation of the settlement reduction of a
foundation improved by Vibro-Replacement. Bautechnik
5:160–162 (in German)
Priebe HJ (1991) Vibro Replacement—Design Criteria and
Quality Control, ASTM STP 1089—Deep foundation
improvements-Design. Construction and Testing
Priebe HJ (1995) The design of vibro replacement. J Ground
Eng 28(12):31–37
Pulko B, Majes B (2005) Simple and accurate prediction of
settlements of stone column reinforced soil. In: Proceed-
ings of 16th international conference on soil mechanics
123
22
and foundation engineering, Osaka, Japan, vol. 3,
pp. 1401e1404
Pulko B, Majes B (2006) Analytical method for the analysis of
stone-columns according to the Rowe dilatancy theory.
Acta Geotechnica Slovenica 3(1):37–45
Raithel M, Kempfert HG, Kirchner A (2002) Geotextile-
encased columns (GEC) for foundation of a dike on very
soft soils. In: Proceedings of the 7th international confer-
ence on geosynthetics, Nice, France, pp. 1025–1028
Ranjan G (1989) Ground treated with granular piles and its
response under load. Indian Geotech J 19(1):1–86
Ranjan G, Singh B, Charan HD (1999) Experimental study of
soft clay reinforced with sand-fiber core. Indian Geotech J
29(4):281–290
Rao SN, Reddy KM (1996) Load transfer in stone column in soft
marine clay. In: Proceedings, Indian geotechnical confer-
ence, Madras, India, pp 403–406
Sabhahit A, Basudhar PK, Madhav MR (1997) Generalised
stability analysis of embankments on granular piles. Soils
Found 37(4):13–22
Samadhiya NK, Maheswari P, Basu P, Kumar MB (2008) Load-
settlement characteristics of granular piles with randomly
mixed fibres. Indian Geotech J 38(3):345–354
Schweiger HF, Pande GN (1986) Numerical analysis of stone
columns supported foundations. J Comput Geotech
2:347–372
Shahu JT, Reddy YR (2011) Clayey soil reinforced with stone
column group: model tests and analyses, J Geotech Geo-
environ Eng, ASCE, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.
0000552
Shahu JT, Madhav MR, Hayashi S (2000) Analysis of soft
ground—Granular pile-granular mat system. J Comput
Geotech 27(1):45–62
Sharma SR, Phanikumar BR, Nagendra G (2004) Compressive
load response of granular piles reinforced with geogrids.
Canadian Geotech J 41(1):187–192
Shivashankar R, Babu MRD, Nayak S, Manjunath R (2010)
Stone columns with vertical circumferential nails-Labo-
ratory model study. Geotech Geol Eng 28(4):695–706
Shivashankar R, Babu MRD, Nayak S, Kumar VR (2011)
Experimental studies on behavior of stone columns in
layered soils. Geotech Geol Eng 29(5):749–757
Sivakumar V, Glynn D, Black JA, McNeill (2007) A laboratory
model study of the performance of vibrated stone columns
in soft clay. In: Proceedings, 14 th European conference on
soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Madrid
Tan SA, Tjahono S, Oo KK (2008) Simplified plane-strain
modeling of stone-column reinforced ground. J Geotech
Geol Eng 134(2):185–194
123
Geotech Geol Eng (2013) 31:1–22
Thorburn S (1975) Building structures supported by stabilized
ground. Géotechnique 25:83–94
Van Impe WF (1989) Soil improvement techniques and their
evolution. Balkema, Rotterdam
VanImpe WF, DeBeer E (1983) Improvement of settlement
behavior of soft layers by means of stone columns. In:
Proceedings 8th European Conference on Soil Mech. ad
Found. Eng. Helsinki 1:309–312
VanImpe WF, Madhav MR (1992) Analysis and settlement of
dilating stone column reinforced soil. Osterreichische Ing
und Arch-Zeitschrift 137:114–121
Vesic AS (1972) Expansion of cavities in infinite soil mass.
J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 98:265–290
Wang G (2009) Consolidation of soft clay foundations rein-
forced by stone columns under time-dependent loadings.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 135(12):1922–1931
Wang WG, Leung CF, Ichikawa Y (2002) A simplified
homogenization method for composite soils. J Comput
Geotech 29:477–500
Watts KS, Johnson D, Wood LA, Saadi A (2000) An instru-
mental trial of vibro ground treatment supporting strip
foundations in a variable fill. Geotechnique 50(6):699–708
Weber TM, Springman SM, Gäb M, Racansky V, Schweiger HF
(2008) Numerical modelling of stone columns in soft clay
under an embankment. In: Karstunen M, Leoni M (eds)
Geotechnics of soft soils-focus on ground improvement.
Taylor & Francis, London, pp 305–311
Weber TM, Laue JPM, Peschke G, Springman SM (2010)
Smear zone identification around stone columns con-
structed in-flight in centrifuge model tests. Geotechnique
60(3):197–206
Wehr J (2006) The undrained cohesion of the soil as criterion for
the column installation with a depth vibrator. In: Pro-
ceedings of the international symposium on vibratory pile
driving and deep soil Vibratory compaction. TRANSVIB,
Paris, pp. 157–162
Wood DM, Hu W, Nash DFT (2000) Group effects in stone
column foundations: model tests. Géotechnique 50(6):
689–698
Wu CS, Hong YS (2008) The behavior of a laminated reinforced
granular column’’. J Geotext Geomembr 26:302–316
Xie K, Lu M, Hu A, Chen G (2009) A general theoretical
solution for the consolidation of a composite foundation.
J Compu Geotech 36:24–30
Yoo C (2010) Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone col-
umns in embankment construction: numerical investiga-
tion. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 136(8):1148–1160