Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 1997, 15 247-258

TECHNICAL

NOTE

Stabilization of embankment foundations by using stone columns

ST. CHRISTOULAS 1, CH. GIANNAROS 2 and G. TSIAMBAOS 2.
1National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece 2Central Laboratory of Public Works, 166 Pireos Street, 118 54 Athens, Greece

Received 26 October 1995 Accepted 30 March 1997

Summary
In this Technical Note a parametric study, based on Dimaggio's (1978) approach, of the reinforcing effect of stone columns on the stability of road embankments is examined. For a certain embankment geometry, stability analyses of discrete soil and stone column elements were also carried out. The results of the above analyses are compared to the results of the analyses based on Dimaggio's approach.
Keywords: Stone columns; embankment; foundation; soil improvement

Introduction
Stone columns, as a method of foundation soil improvement, contribute towards: (a) accelerating the consolidation of clay layers, due to the lateral drainage of pore water, and the corresponding reduction of the excess pore water pressures; (b) reducing foundation settlements, as the stone columns have an increased compression modulus compared to the surrounding soil; (c) increasing the average shear strength of the soft clay layers which results in an increase of the factors that guard against shear failure of the foundation soil. When analysing the stability of embankments on soils having weak shear strength, one may use either 'average' shear strength parameters (e.g. according to Dimaggio (1978), Priebe (1978) and Aboshi et al. (1979)), or the actual shear strength parameters of the soil and the stone columns. In these cases, one may also use either a uniform distribution of the surcharge or a redistributed pressure, if the assumptions are fulfilled, due to the differential compressibility of the soil and the stone columns (Fig. 1). This Technical Note presents the results of a parametric analysis using average parameters according to Dimaggio, for a clay soil bearing an embankment with variable geometric characteristics. For comparison, several additional analyses have been performed using discrete shear strength parameters and assuming a uniform pressure * To whom correspondenceshould be addressed. 0960-3182 1997 Chapman & Hall

248

Christoulas, Giannaros and Tsiambaos

It

Fig. 1. Stone columns used to improve slope stability

distribution of the embankment load or different pressures on the soil and the stone columns corresponding to a specific ratio of the redistributed pressures. For a preliminary design of the stone-column grid, the embankment stability analyses were limited to circular rupture surfaces. A detailed design would also require the consideration of column-soil interaction, and the settlements involved.

Calculation assumptions
To study the influence of stone columns on embankments founded on soft clays, a series of conventional slip circle analyses was carried out, before and after the installation of the columns. Typical cross-sections of road embankments were examined having the following geometrical characteristics: crest width B (in metres): 8, 15, 20, 25; ratio of crest width to height of embankment (B/H): 1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10. The slope of the embankments were assumed to have a 3:2 inclination (Fig. 2). It was supposed that the bedrock was deep enough to allow for the most critical slip circle to develop. It was also assumed that the length of the stone columns was sufficient for the most critical cylindrical failure surfaces to intersect the reinforcing elements rather than pass below the tip of the stone columns. The groundwater level was considered to be at the ground surface. This is an extremely adverse assumption. For deep groundwater table elevations, the shear strength due to the stone columns is approximately double, and thus, the increase in the factor of safety is significant. Short-term stability analyses were considered, and for simplicity no increase in strength/stiffness of the soil due to consolidation accelerated by stone columns were taken into account. Generally, it is assumed that the rate of embankment construction is greater than the relative consolidation of foundation soil, which is quite realistic for soft soils such as those examined in this paper. In these soils long-term stability analysis gives more

Stabilization of embankment foundations

249

1'

t
H
1

"%
I I
I
I

i
|

_,

.J

I A

Fig. 2.

Main geometric parameters

favourable results. The undrained shear strength of the ground (soft clay) was assumed to have the values: c u = 10,30,50 kPa, which are typical for soft cohesive soils. The strength parameters of the stone columns were taken as c = 0, q~ = 38 . A square grid pattern of stone columns was considered with ratios S/D = 2,3,5, where S = centre-to-centre column spacing, and D = diameter of stone columns. To evaluate the factors of safety of the treated soil (after the installation of the columns) composite values of unit weight, 7, and strength parameters c, and q~ were used, replacing the real composite material (soft soil-stone columns) with a homogeneous material of equivalent strength behaviour. The values of % c, q~ were determined by the formulae proposed by Dimaggio (1978): ~/= (1 - ~) % + oL %ol c = (1 - c~). c s + ~ . C~o ~ tan ~p = (1 - o0 tan % + oL.tan ~col

(1) (2) (3)

where c s and % = strength parameters of the untreated soil; Ccd and q%o~= strength parameters of the stone column material; oL = replacement ratio = Aoo~/CAcoI + As) = Acol/ A; Aco1 is the cross-sectional area of the stone column; A S is the plan area of clay per column; A = A~o~+ As, the area of influence of each column (Fig. 3). The stability analyses were carried out using the programme P E T A L developed by the Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chausse6s (LCPC). The programme P E T A L (LCPC, 1988) deals with all the stability problems encountered in civil engineering practice. Some of its main features are: the rupture surface can be circular or not; the programme deals with any kind of geometry; several methods of calculation are used(perturbations, Fellenius, Bishop); any hydraulic regime can be introduced for the analysis (e.g. internalexternal water table, zones of different hydraulic gradients).

250

Christoulas, Giannaros and Tsiambaos

REAS A s

A = Acol * A s 2R = 1.05 s ( T R I A N G U L A R ) 2R =l Jr, s ( S O U A R E )

Fig. 3. Area relationships for widespread array of stone columns

Results of the analyses using 'average' parameters

The relationship between the factor of safety (FS) and the ratio B/H was examined, for different crest widths of the embankment, B = 8 m (Fig. 4), B = 15 m (Fig. 5), B = 20 m (Fig. 6) and B = 25 m (Fig. 7). Each figure shows graphs for undrained shear strength values, cu, of 10, 30 and 50 kPa. The lines marked E in the figures refer to the untreated soil, with the lines for the treated soil being identified by the S/D ratio. Linear relations were observed between FS and B/H (correlation coefficient r 2 ranging from 0.995 to 1.000) as illustrated in Figs. 4-7. For clays with a low value of undrained shear strength (c, = 10 kPa) there is a significant increase of the safety factors for all ratios B/H (and consequently for all heights H of the embankments), after the installation of stone columns (Figs 4a, 5a, 6a, 7a). For clays with higher undrained shear strengths (cu = 30, 50 kPa) the improving effect of stone columns is limited to embankments of certain geometric characteristics, that is for small values of the B/H ratios. For higher values of the B/H ratio, the safety factor of the composite system (soil-stone columns) is lower than that of the untreated soil. This is anticipated due to the initial adverse assumption of a shallow groundwater table, which gives low effective strength within the stone columns. More precisely (a) In the case of cu = 30 kPa, the safety factors of the composite system are lower than those of the untreated soil for ratios: B/H > 2.8 (for B = 8 m, Fig. 4b), B/H > 5.5 (for B = 1 5 m , Fig. 5b), B/H>7.2 (for B = 2 0 m , Fig. 6b) and B/H>9.0 (for B = 25 m, Fig. 7b), that is for an embankment of less than about 2.70 m height. (b) In the case of cu = 50 kPa, the composite system gives lower safety factors than those of the untreated soil for ratios: B/H > 1.70 (Fig. 4c), B/H > 3.20 (Fig. 5c), B~ /4 > 4.2 (Fig. 6c), B/H > 5.8 (Fig. 7c), that is for embankments of less than about 4.70 m height.

Stabilization of embankment foundations

251

l B=8m FS
3

I
/,~S

sip=2
I D--3 ID=5

2.5 2 1.5 1
.5

0 o F 51o

(a)
Cu= 30kPa
-,-E_.-..S I D=5 ~,~/,~;"'-S I D.3 SID=2

8
6

/., 2
0 1 [ ! I 1 I I I I --'-

&

10 H
.,.~---..S I D=5 -----6 a D=3 -'-~S I D=2

F$
10
8 6

(b)

L 2
0 i I I o 1 ;

-'-~ 7 H

(c)
Fig. 4. Factors of safety (FS) vs B/H ratio, for crest width B = 8 m

252

Christoulas, Giannaros and Tsiambaos

B=15m

]
.......S/D= 2
//-~ID ~/-'SID E =3 :S

F $
Cu= t 0 k P I

2
1.5

la

0 F S

(a)

&

10 H E__.SID=5

sT

SID.3

SlO=2

o
F S

L
(b )

9 E~o H
~'SID:5

~sID=2

8 H

(c)
Fig. 5. Factors of safety (FS) vs B/H ratio, for crest width B = 15 m

Stabilization of embankment foundations

253

FS
2

I B.2Om 1

"00
FS

I,

(a)S

'~0 H
- - . . S ID=S S f D=3 D=2

~ ~"

C= " ~ S I u~

o
FS 7

.B_
(b)

Cu

= 50kPa

F.. -SaO=5 ~ s m D_-3 SI

D2 =

0o

(c)

"~

Fig. 6.

Factors of safety (FS)

vs B/H ratio, for crest width B = 20 m

254

Christoulas, Giannaros and Tsiambaos

F,

I B2] 1.5 Cu =10 kPa

I
.__...510=2 ..._...S t D=3 -----~St D=S E

O0

~,

10

11

FS 3.5 t

(a) . Cu 30 kPa

j..,....~.S

""~S i D = 2

--"St I

D=S D=3

1.

FS550

a, 5
(b}

8 g ~0 ~

~E-----~S ID=5

/,5 3.5 2.5

1.5

/ / ' " ' ~ SI O=3 ""~S / D 2 =

.5
0 , : ,
= : . . . .

&

(c)

10 ~

Fig. 7.

Factors of safety (FS) vs B/H ratio, for crest width B = 25 m

Stabilization of embankment foundations

Results o f the analyses using discrete p a r a m e t e r s

255

In the case of using discrete shear strength parameters (Fig. 8), two separate cases were examined. The foundation loads were considered: (i) to be evenly distributed between the columns and the soft clay (Fig. 8a) and (ii) the loads were distributed in proportion to the relative stiffness of the two materials, the cross-sectional area of the columns and their spacing (Fig. 8b). For the latter case, if AcoI is the cross-sectional area of the stone column and A s the plan area of clay per column, then (AcoI + As) o" = Aco1 O'co + A s o"s ~ (4)

where o- is the average applied stress of the composite system, o-s is the vertical stress on the surrounding soft soil, O-co is the vertical stress on the column. x If n is defined as the ratio of the vertical stress in the column O-co to that in the soft ~ ground o-s (n = O-col/O's), and a = Acol/(Aco~+ As) (as defined earlier), then
o"s = or/[1 + (n - 1) a] Crco = n(r/[ 1 + (n - 1) oq 1

(5)

n falls in the range 2--6, with usual values of 3 - 4 (Mitchell, 1981; Pilot, 1978). However, Greenwood (1991) suggests that measured ratios can be much higher than 4. Conventional slip circle analyses were carried out using the PETAL programme. Since the analyses were two-dimensional, implying homogeneity in the third dimension, the stone columns had to be considered as equivalent strip elements (Fig. 9), using composite values derived by a formula analogous to those of Dimaggio:

as

Ocot

1
~:.. :...

Iq'
:.~:-,.

(a)
~.'4.N

]:"=.:.5~ (b)

":'_.:=K.':. : :

Fig. 8.

Discrete soil-stone column elements

256

Christoulas, Giannaros and Tsiambaos

Composite
v(]lues

Gu

Fig. 9.

Equivalent strip elements

Table 1.

Calculated factors of safety Discrete soilcolumn elements uniform loads F = 1.26 F = 2.95 F = 4.48 Discrete soilcolumn elements O'col/O'soil = 4 F = 1.37 F = 2.89 F = 4.29

c u (kPa) 10 30 50

Untreated soil F = 1.03 F = 2.93 F = 4.60

Dimaggio's approach F = 1.24 F = 2.92 F = 4.43

c = (1 - r) G + r . Cco1 t a n p = (1 - r) t a n ~p, + r t a n q~col w h e r e r = r e p l a c e m e n t ratio = D/S, D = d i a m e t e r o f c o l u m n , a n d S = c e n t r e to c e n t r e spacing. T h e stability a n a l y s e s w e r e carried out for B = 8 m, S/D = 3, B/H = 3 (H = 2.66 m). T a b l e 1 p r e s e n t s the v a l u e s o f safety factors that w e r e calculated: (a) b y the D i m a g g i o ' s approach, (b) w i t h discrete soil a n d stone c o l u m n e l e m e n t s a n d u n i f o r m share o f loads, (c) w i t h discrete soil a n d stone c o l u m n e l e m e n t s a n d u n e v e n share o f loads (O-co]O-,oi]= 4). It c a n b e o b s e r v e d i n T a b l e 1 that the factors o f safety d e r i v e d f r o m stability a n a l y s e s u s i n g D i m a g g i o ' s a p p r o a c h are v e r y close to those d e r i v e d b y stability a n a l y s e s c o n s i d e r i n g discrete soil a n d stone c o l u m n e l e m e n t s .

Stabilization of embankmentfoundations
Limitations of the analysis

257

The results presented here, despite the simplicity of the assumptions, aim to show a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of using stone columns in projects where the use of such an improvement method is economically attractive. The assumptions made could lead, in some cases, to conservative designs. For a more complete consideration, the following factors would be taken into account: (1) effective stress parameters for the soil should be used for stability analysis for embankment foundations; (2) account should be taken of gains in strength and stiffness due to consolidation, accelerated by drainage through the stone columns; (3) in practice, stone columns below embankments are constructed at spacings such that, during construction of the embankments, the columns are induced to bulge; (4) the installation of columns is not considered here. This can lead to higher stress concentrations on the columns. Greenwood (1991) suggests that values of column to soil stress ratios can be much higher than 4; (5) settlement of the embankment will also be a criterion for deciding on the necessity of improvement, not only stability.

Conclusions
(1) Analyses were performed for an embankment having variable geometrical characteristics on a clay soil, using the Dimaggio assumption combined with 'average' shear strength parameters and also discrete shear strength parameters assuming either uniform surcharge pressure or redistributed pressures. Short-term stability analyses were considered and for simplicity no increase in strength/stiffness of soil due to consolidation accelerated by drainage to the stone columns were taken into account. (2) In the case of analyses using uniform shear strength parameters according to Dimaggio, it was shown that a linear correlation exists between the factor of safety and the crest width to height ratio, B/H. Under the assumption of a surface groundwater table, it is shown that while for soft clays (cu = 10 kPa) the use of stone columns results in a definite increase of the factor of safety, for higher values of the shear strength (c, = 30-50 kPa), i.e. for medium to stiff clays, the stone columns do not contribute to an appreciable increase of the safety factor, even for relatively dense layouts. (3) The assumption of redistributed pressures (using the corresponding discrete shear strength parameters) in general contributes to an even larger increase in the safety factor. It is necessary, however, to consider the general soil conditions to verify that the use of such an assumption is justifiable. (4) The present work, despite the simplicity of its assumptions, aims to show a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of using stone columns in projects where the use of such an improvement method is economically attractive. A detailed design would also require the consideration of colunm-soil interaction and the settlements involved. The assumptions in some cases are probably conservative.

258

Christoulas, Giannaros and Tsiambaos

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Professor Roger Frank who provided many helpful suggestions.

References
Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Enoki, M., Harada, K. (1979) The 'Compozer', a method to improve characteristics of soft clays by inclusion of large diameter sand columns, in Colloque International sur le Renforcement des Sols: Terre arm~e et Autres M~thodes, ENPC-LCPC, Paris, Vol. 1, pp. 211-16. Dimaggio, J.A. (1978) Stone Columns: A Foundation Treatment, Demonstration project No 46, June 1978, FHWA, Washington DC, pp. 1-69. Greenwood, D.A. (1991) Load tests on stone columns, Proceedings of the ASTM specialty conference on Deep Foundation Improvement: design, construction and testing, ASTM Spec. Tech. Publ. 1089. Mitchell, J.K. (1981) Soil improvement. State of the Art Report. Proceedings of the lOth International Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Vol. 4, pp. 509-65. LCPC (1988) PETAL Programme d'~tude de la stabilit~ des talus par ruptures circulaires ou noncirculaires, Notice d'utilisation, Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chauss6es (LCPC), Paris. Pilot, G. (1989) Methods of improving the engineering properties of soft clays, State of the Art Report, Bulletin liaison Laboratoire Ponts et Chaussdes, Special Issue, April 1978, pp. 140-78. Priebe, H. (1978) Abschatzung des Scherwiderstandes eines durgh Stopfverdichtung verbesserten Baugrundes, Die Bautechnik, 55, (9) 281-4.