Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
Soils existing at a given site may not be suitable for supporting the desired facilities because of inadequate
bearing capacity and/or due excessive settlements under design load. A method now being used, most often, to
improve soft soils is the installation of stone columns. The design of stone column foundation primarily involves
the determination of suitable spacing of stone columns for a chosen diameter and length. The paper presents a
case study for the determination of optimum spacing of stone columns by conducting pre- and post installation
Standard Penetration tests for three different spacing, viz.. 1.6 m, 2.0 m and 2.5 m of stone columns installed in a
triangular pattern in a soft clay deposit. Based on the degree of improvement achieved the optimum spacing is
arrived at and the design carried accordingly. Load tests were conducted on single column and group of three
columns for confirming the design capacity of stone columns.
D e p th ( m )
Depth (m)
10
10 10
Figure 6 compares the test results of single and group diameter of stone columns as too close a spacing i.e. less
of three stone columns. In single column test maximum than 2 times the diameter is not feasible from construction
load applied is only 68 Tons, which is 1.5 times the design point of view.
load. Similarly in group column test, the maximum load Load tests were carried for single and group of stone
applied 240 tons which is 1.5 times the design load. In columns for chosen effective spacing of 2 m c/c. The results
both the cases, tests show very small settlements compared have shown that the settlements very well with in the limits
to the theoretical predicted values (Table 4). at test loads. It is recommended to conduct initial trials to
obtain the most effective spacing and initial load test on
0
L o a d (T o n s)
100 200 stone columns to economize the cost of the project.
0
REFERENCES
Ambily, A.P. and. Gandhi, S.R. (2006). Effect of sand pad
)m
(m
S in g le thickness on load sharing in stone column, IGC 2006,
tn
em G ro u p 555-556.
elt
e
S Greenwood, D.A. (1970). Mechanical improvement of soils
below ground surfaces, proc. Ground Engineering
10
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.
IS 15284 (Part 1): 2003. Design and Construction for
Fig. 6 Load vs Settlement of Single and Group of Columns
Ground Improvement Guidelines, Part 1 Stone
Table. 4 Predicted vs Observed Settlements Columns.
Madhav, M.R. (2000). Granular piles recent contributions.
Predicted Single Group A Short Term Course on Ground Improvement and Deep
Value Column Test Column Test
Foundations, IIT Madras, Dec , MRM1-MRM38.
Settlement 210 mm 10.07 mm 15.62 mm
Malavizhi, S. N. and Ilamparuthi, K. (2004). Load verses
8. CONCLUSIONS settlement of clay bed stabilized with stone and
reinforced stone column. Proceedings of 3rd Asian
Initial trials were carried for spacings of 1.6 m, 2.0 m and Regional Conference on Geosynthetics, GEOASIA,
2.5 m c/c to obtain the optimum spacing of stone columns Seoul, Korea, 322 - 329
for a chosen diameter of 800 mm and length of 11 m. SPT
Saha, A. and Das, S.C. (2000). Interaction analysis of stone
were conducted before and after installation of stone
column groups in foundations, Indian Geotechnical
columns for each spacing to evaluate the most optimum
Conference. Bombay, 279 284.
spacing.
Results of 1.6 m c/c spacing have shown very good Saha, S, and Saha. S, (1999). Optional design of ground
improvement while those for 2.5 m c/c spacing have shown improvement for large oil storage tanks, Proc. Indian
no improvement at all. The preferred effective spacing Geotechnical Conference. Kolkata., Vol.1, 163-166.
between stone columns should be between 2 to 3 times the