Advertisement

International Journal of Civil Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 253–263 | Cite as

Bearing Capacity of Group of Stone Columns with Granular Blankets

  • Javad NazariafsharEmail author
  • Nima Mehrannia
  • Farzin Kalantary
  • Navid Ganjian
Research paper

Abstract

In this research, the bearing capacity of group of floating stone columns with granular blankets was studied using laboratory tests. To investigate the effect of geosynthetic reinforcement on the bearing capacity of these stone columns, geotextiles and geogrids were used for the reinforcement of the stone columns and blankets, respectively. In this paper, certain large body laboratory tests were performed on stone columns with a diameter of 60 mm and lengths of 200 and 350 mm. The main objective of this research is to evaluate the bearing capacity of group of stone columns with granular blankets, record the stress concentration ratio in the group of stone columns without blankets, and investigate the load ratio parameter. The results indicate that the simultaneous application of group of stone columns and granular blankets significantly increased the ultimate bearing capacity of soft soils. Using geosynthetics for the reinforcement of granular blankets or stone columns improved the efficiency of these granular blankets or stone columns. As length of stone columns increased or stone columns were encased in geotextiles, the stress concentration ratio and stiffness of such stone columns were increased. Increasing the length of the short stone columns is more efficient than reinforcing them. Bulging was decreased in reinforced and unreinforced stone columns that were placed under the granular blanket.

Keywords

Group of stone columns Granular blanket Bearing capacity Reinforcement Ground improvement 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding information available.

References

  1. 1.
    Akinmusuru JO, Akinbolade JA (1981) Stability of loaded footings on reinforced soil. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 107 (ASCE 16320 Proceeding)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yetimoglu T, Wu JT, Saglamer A (1994) Bearing capacity of rectangular footings on geogrid-reinforced sand. J Geotech Eng 120(12):2083–2099Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Patra C, Das B, Atalar C (2005) Bearing capacity of embedded strip foundation on geogrid-reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 23(5):454–462Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zidan A (2012) Numerical study of behavior of circular footing on geogrid-reinforced sand under static and dynamic loading. Geotech Geol Eng 30(2):499–510Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenwood DA (1970) Mechanical improvement of soils below ground surface. In: Proceedings of Ground Improvement Conference. Institute of Civil Engineering, pp 9–29Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hughes J, Withers N (1974) Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone columns. Ground Eng 7 (3)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McKenna J, Eyre W, Wolstenholme D (1975) Performance of an embankment supported by stone columns in soft ground. Geotechnique 25(1):51–59Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Impe WF (1989) Soil improvement techniques and their evolution.Balkema, RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Murugesan S, Rajagopal K (2009) Studies on the behavior of single and group of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Journal of Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering 136(1):129–139Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ali K, Shahu J, Sharma K (2014) Model tests on single and groups of stone columns with different geosynthetic reinforcement arrangement. Geosynthetics International 21(2):103–118Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yoo C (2015) Settlement behavior of embankment on geosynthetic-encased stone column installed soft ground—a numerical investigation. Geotext Geomembr 43(6):484–492Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tang L, Cong S, Ling X, Lu J, Elgamal A (2015) Numerical study on ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation using stone columns encased with geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembr 43(2):190–195Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yu Y, Bathurst RJ, Damians IP (2016) Modified unit cell approach for modelling geosynthetic-reinforced column-supported embankments. Geotext Geomembr 44(3):332–343Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miranda M, Da Costa A (2016) Laboratory analysis of encased stone columns. Geotext Geomembr 44(3):269–277Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nazariafshar JN, Ghazavi M (2014) Experimental studies on bearing capacity of geosynthetic reinforced stone columns. Arab J Sci Eng 39(3):1559–1571Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Priebe HJ (1995) The design of vibro replacement. Ground EngineeringGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Muir Wood D, Hu W, Nash D (2000) Group effects in stone column foundations: model tests. Geotechnique 50(6):689–698Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ambily A, Gandhi SR (2007) Behavior of stone columns based on experimental and FEM analysis. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(4):405–415Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanna A, Etezad M, Ayadat T (2013) Mode of failure of a group of stone columns in soft soil. Int J Geomech 13(1):87–96Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghazavi M, Nazariafshar J (2013) Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Geotext Geomembr 38:26–36Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nazariafshar J, Ghazavi M (2014) A simple analytical method for calculation of bearing capacity of stone-column. Int J Civil Eng 12(1):15–25Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Etezad M, Hanna A, Ayadat T (2014) Bearing capacity of a group of stone columns in soft soil. Int J Geomech 15(2):0401404332Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Iai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure fluid models in 1ggravitational field. Soils Found 29(1):105–118Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Westine P, Dodge F, Baker W (2012) Similarity methods in engineering dynamics: theory and practice of scale modeling, vol 12. ElsevierGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Dash SK, Bora MC (2013) Improved performance of soft clay foundations using stone columns and geocell-sand mattress. Geotext Geomembr 41:26–35Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hong Y-S, Wu C-S, Yu Y-S (2016) Model tests on geotextile-encased granular columns under 1-g and undrained conditions. Geotext Geomembr 44(1):13–27MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meyerhof G, Sastry V (1978) Bearing capacity of piles in layered soils. Part 1. Clay overlying sand. Can Geotech J 15(2):171–182Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Selig E, McKee K (1961) Static and dynamic behavior of small footings. J Soil Mech Found Div 87(6):29–50Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chummar AV (1972) Bearing capacity theory from experimental results.” J Soil Mech Found Div 98(12):1311–1324Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 27(4):281–294Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fattah MY, Shlash KT, Al-Waily MJM (2011) Stress concentration ratio of model stone columns in soft clays. Geotech Test J 34(1):1Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mohapatra SR, Rajagopal K, Sharma J (2016) Direct shear tests on geosynthetic-encased granular columns. Geotext Geomembr 44(3):396–405Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dash SK, Bora MC (2013) Influence of geosynthetic encasement on the performance of stone columns floating in soft clay. Can Geotech J 50(7):754–765Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Omar M, Das B, Puri V, Yen S (1993) Ultimate bearing capacity of shallow foundations on sand with geogrid reinforcement. Can Geotech J 30(3):545–549Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    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(2):190–196Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mosallanezhad M, Hataf N, Ghahramani A (2010) Three dimensional bearing capacity analysis of granular soils, reinforced with innovative grid-anchor system. Iran J Sci Technol 34(B4):419Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Barksdale R, Bachus R (1983) Design and construction of stone columns volume II, appendixes. Federal Highway Administration Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chen J-F, Li L-Y, Xue J-F, Feng S-Z (2015) Failure mechanism of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft soils under embankment. Geotext Geomembr 43(5):424–431Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Shahu J, Madhav M, Hayashi S (2000) Analysis of soft ground-granular pile-granular mat system. Comput Geotech 27(1):45–62Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Christoulas S, Bouckovalas G, Giannaros C (2000) An experimental study on model stone columns. Soils Found 40(6):11–22Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    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, Proc., Int. Conf. on Soil Reinforcement., ENPC, pp 211–216Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Madhav M, Vitkar P (1978) Strip footing on weak clay stabilized with a granular trench or pile. Can Geotech J 15(4):605–609Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Iran University of Science and Technology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Shahr-e-Qods BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of Civil Engineering, Tehran Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  3. 3.K.N.Toosi University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations