Professional Documents
Culture Documents
dry
(kN/m
3
)
wet
(kN/m
3
)
25 4500 0.45 30 15.4 19.25
30 2000 0.45 12 14 18.2
35 1200 0.45 6.5 13 17.8
(b) Properties of Stones
The compressibility modulus and angle of internal friction
have been found by laboratory experiments and Poisson's
ratio is assumed based on Bowles (1988) as given below;
Modulus of compacted stones : 48000kPa
Poisson's ratio : 0.3
Angle of internal friction : 42
0
The basic axisymmetric finite element mesh and
boundary conditions used to represent the individual load
tests are given in figure 3. 15-noded triangular elements
are used for meshing. Along the periphery radial
deformation is restricted but settlement is allowed. Along
the bottom of the tank both radial deformation and
settlement are restricted.
An equal settlement analysis is done when column alone
loaded. Analysis for entire area loaded is done by
applying uniform load over the area. In case of column
alone loaded failure is by bulging of the column at a depth
Fig. 3. Finite element mesh for test model (s/d = 3)
(a) Column alone loaded (b) Entire area loaded
Fig. 4. Deformed mesh
Tank wall (radial
deformation) = 0
50mm dia
Center line of stone column
Fixed boundary
Stone
colum
n
Soft clay
450mm
Deformed Mesh
Center line of
stone column
Sand
layer
Soft
clay
Stone
column
Center line of
stone column
Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay ICGGE-2004
Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA 205
of 0.5 to 1 times diameter of the column. Figure4(a)
shows a typical deformed mesh at the time of failure when
column alone loaded. When entire area loaded the
analysis is done for a load capacity corresponding to that
of model test. Figure 4(b) shows a typical deformed mesh
when entire area loaded. No bulging of the column is seen
as in the case of model test.
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 Column Area Alone Loaded
Fig.5 compares the load settlement curves from model test
and finite element analysis for different shear strength
with same s/d ratio of 2. As seen from the figure failure is
clear and found to be due to bulging of the column. The
ultimate load capacities obtained from the model test and
finite element analysis are given in table2
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 200 400 600 800
Load intensity (kN/sq.m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
30kPa
12kPa
6.5kPa
s/d =2
Model teat
FEM
Fig. 5. Load settlement curves at different shear
strength
Figure 6 compares the load settlement curve from model
test and finite element analysis for different spacing to
diameter ratio with same shear strength of 12kPa. The
curves obtained from the finite element analysis compares
well with that from model test. Table 2 compares the
ultimate load capacities obtained from model test and
finite element analysis
Table 2: Comparison of ultimate load capacity
Ultimate load capacity (kPa) s/d s
u
(kPa)
Model test FEM
2 30 780 725
2 12 365 345
2 6.5 195 185
3 12 325 305
4 12 255 225
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 100 200 300 400
Load intensity (kN/sq.m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
s/d = 3
s/d = 2
s
u
= 12kPa
s/d = 4
Model test
FEM
Fig. 6. Load settlement curves for different s/d ratios
5.2 Entire Area Loaded
Figure 7 compares load settlement curves from model test
and finite element analysis for different shear strength and
same s/d ratio of 2. In model test because of the confining
effect from the tank wall and since the full area is loaded,
failure has not taken place. Curves from the finite element
analysis also follow the same pattern. The stiffness of the
improved ground can be obtained by the back calculation
from the curves, which can be adopted for settlement
analysis. Table 3 compares the stiffness values obtained
from model test and finite element analysis.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 50 100 150 200 250
Load intensity (kN/sq.m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
30kPa
6.5kPa
12kPa
s/d = 2
Model test
FEM
Fig. 7. Load settlement curves for different shear
strength
Table 3: Comparison of stiffness
Stiffness (kPa) s/d s
u
(kPa)
Model test FEM
2 30 16070 16200
2 12 9640 9000
2 6.5 8020 8090
3 12 7230 7740
4 12 3870 3620
Ambily & Gandhi, Evaluation of Stone Column in Soft Clay ICGGE-2004
206 Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Bombay, Mumbai, INDIA
Figure 8 compares the load settlement curves from model
test and finite element analysis for different s/d ratios and
same shear strength of 12kPa. Table 3 compares the
stiffness obtained from model test and finite element
analysis.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Load intensity(kN/sq.m)
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
s
u
=12kPa
s/d = 4
s/d = 3
s/d = 2
Model test
FEM
Fig. 8. Load settlement curves for different s/d ratios
6 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The present work compares the load settlement behaviour,
ultimate axial capacity of stone column and stiffness of
the improved ground from experimental work with finite
element analysis. Following conclusions are drawn based
on the study.
1. When column area alone is loaded, the failure is by
bulging of the column with maximum bulging at 0.5 to 1
times the column diameter below the top.
2. When the column and surrounding area represented by
the column is loaded with confinement of tank wall, the
bulging failure cannot take place.
3. The load settlement behaviour when entire area is
loaded is almost linear and it is possible to arrive at the
stiffness of the improved ground. The stiffness obtained
from model test compares well with that obtained from
the finite element anaysis.
4. Compared to the load settlement for s/d of 2 and 3, s/d
of 4 is not having any significant improvement.
5. The load settlement behaviour and the ultimate axial
capacities obtained from model test compares well with
that of finite element analysis.
REFERENCES
Bowles (1988). Foundation Analysis and Design, 4
th
edition, McGraw Hill International Editions,New
Delhi.
Datye, K.R. and Nagaraju,S.S. (1981). Design Approach
and Field Control for Stone Columns, Proc. Tenth Int.
Conf. On SMFE., Stockholm, Vol. 3, 637 640.
Greenwood, D.A. (1970). Mechanical Improvement of
Soils Below Ground Surfaces, Proc. Ground
Engineering Conf., Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, 11-22.
Hughes, J.M.O. and Withers, N.J. (1974). Reinforcing of
Soft Cohesive Soils with Stone Columns, Ground
Engineering, Vol.7, No.3, 42-49.
Hughes, J.M.O., Withers, N.J. and Greenwood, D.A.
(1975). A Field Trial of Reinforcing Effect of Stone
Column in Soil , Geotechnique, Vol.25, No.1, 32-44.
Madhav, M.R.(2000).Granular Piles - Recent Contributions.
A short term course on Ground Improvement and Deep
foundations held at IIT Madras, Dec 2000, MRM1 -
MRM38.
Mitchel, J.K. and Huber, T.R. (1985). Performance of a
Stone Column Foundation. Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, Vol. 111, No. 2, ASCE.
Mitra, S. and Chathpadhyay, B.C. (1999). Stone Columns
and Design Limitations. Proc. of Indian Geotechnical
Conference held at Culcutta , 201 205.
Narasimharao, S., Madhiyan, M. and Prasad, Y. V. S. N.
(1992). Influence of Bearing Area on the Behaviour of
Stone Columns, Proc. of Indian Geotechnical
Conference held at Culcutta, 235 237.
Ranjan, G. and Rao, B.G. (1986). Granular Piles for Ground
Improvement, Proc. of Int. Conf. On Deep Foundations,
Beijing, Vol.1
Saha, S. (1992). Design Approach and Performance of
Stone Columns. Proc. of Indian Geotechnical
Conference held at Culcutta, 195 198.
Saha, S. and Saha, S. (1999). Optional Design of Ground
Improvement for Large Oil storage Tanks. Proc. of
Indian Geotechnical Conference held at Culcutta.,
Vol.1, 163 166.
Saha, S., Saha, S. and Roy, A. (2000). Analysis of Stone
Column in Soft Ground, Indian Geotechnical
Conference 2000 held at Bombay, 297 300.
Sankar, K. and Shroff, A.V. (1997). Experimental Study
on Floated Stone Column in Soft Kaolinite Clay. Proc.
of Indian Geotechnical Conference held at Vadodara.,
265-268.
Vesic, A.S. (1972). Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil
Mass, J. SM and FE Div., ASCE, Vol 98, SM3, 265
290.