Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Numerical analysis under seismic loads of soils improvement with floating stone columns

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Hazards Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Geotechnical Engineering has developed many methods for soil improvement so far. One of these methods is the stone column method. The structure of a stone column generally refers to partial change of suitable subsurface ground through a vertical column, poor stone layers which are completely pressed. In general terms, to improve bearing capacity of problematic soft and loose soil is implemented for the resolution of many problems such as consolidation and grounding problems, to ensure filling and splitting slope stability and liquefaction that results from a dynamic load such as earthquake. In this study, stone columns method is preferred as an improvement method, and especially load transfer mechanisms and bearing capacity of floating stone column are focused. The soil model, 32 m in width and 8 m in depth, used in this study is made through Plaxis 2D finite element program. The clay having 5° internal friction angle with different cohesion coefficients (c 10, c 15, c 20 kN/m2) are used in models. In addition, stone columns used for soil improvement are modeled at different internal friction angles (ϕ 35°, ϕ 40°, ϕ 45°) and in different s/D ranges (s/D 2, s/D 3), stone column depths (B, 2B, 3B) and diameters (D 600 mm, D 800 mm, D 1000 mm). In the study, maximum acceleration (a max = 1.785 m/s2) was used in order to determine the seismic coefficient used. In these soil models, as maximum acceleration, maximum east–west directional acceleration value of Van Muradiye earthquake that took place in October 23, 2011 was used. As a result, it was determined that the stone column increased the bearing capacity of the soil. In addition, it is observed that the bearing capacity of soft clay soil which has been improved through stone column with both static and earthquake load effect increases as a result of increase in the diameter and depth of the stone column and decreases as a result of the increase in the ranges of stone column. In the conducted study, the bearing capacity of the soil models, which were improved with stone column without earthquake force effect, was calculated as 1.01–3.5 times more on the average, compared to the bearing capacity of the soil models without stone column. On the other hand, the bearing capacity of the soil models with stone columns, which are under the effect of earthquake force, was calculated as 1.02–3.7 times more compared to the bearing capacity of the soil models without stone column.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adalier K, Elgamal A, Meneses J, Baez JI (2003) Stone columns as liquefaction countermeasure in nonplastic silty soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 23:571–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-Homoud AS, Degen WS (2006) Marine stone columns to prevent earthquake induced soil liquefaction. Geotech Geol Eng 24:775–790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asgaria A, Oliaeia M, Bagherib M (2013) Numerical simulation of improvement of a liquefiable soil layer using stone column and pile-pinning techniques. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 51:77–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basack S, Indraratna B, Rujikiatkamjorn C (2016) Analysis of the behavior of stone column stabilized soft ground supporting transport infrastructure. Procedia Eng 143:347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayraktar A, Altunışık AC, Türker T, Karadeniz H, Erdoğdu Ş, Angın Z, Özşahin TŞ (2015) Structural performance evaluation of 90 RC buildings collapsed during October 23 and November 9, 2011 Van, Turkey, Earthquakes. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 29(6):04014177-1-19

  • Bayraktar A, Altunışık AC, Muvafik M (2016) Field investigation on the performance of masonry buildings during the October 23 and November 9, 2011 Van earthquakes in Turkey. J Perform Constr Facil ASCE 30(2):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budhu M, Al-Karni A (1993) Seismic bearing capacity of soils. Geotechnique 43(1):181–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casablanca O, Cascone E, Biondi G (2016) The static and seismic bearing capacity factor Nγ for footings adjacent to slopes. Procedia Eng 158:410–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cascone E, Casablanca O (2016) Static and seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 84:204–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castelli F, Motta E (2012) Seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundation, earthquake resistant structures-design, assessment and rehabilitation, Abbas Moustafa (Ed.), ISBN: 978-953-51- 0123-9, InTech

  • Castro J (2014) Numerical modelling of stone columns beneath a rigid footing. Comput Geotech 60:77–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castroa J, Cimentadaa A, Costa A, Cañizal J, Sagaseta C (2013) Consolidation and deformation around stone columns: comparison of theoretical and laboratory results. Comput Geotech 49:326–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choudhury D, SubbaRao KS (2005) Seismic bearing capacity of shallow strip footings. Geotech Geol Eng 23(4):403–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Çinicioğlu SF (2005) Zeminlerde statik ve dinamik yükler altında taşıma gücü anlayışı ve hesabı. Seminar-İMO, İstanbul (in Turkish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Connor SS, Gorski AG (2000) A timely solution for the Nojoqi Grade landslide. Repair US 101 South of Buellton. In: 51st annual highway geology symposium, Seattle, pp 1–11

  • Deb K, Basudhar PK, Chandra S (2008) Response of multilayer geosynthetic- reinforced bed resting on soft soil with stone columns. Comput Geotech 35:323–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fattah MY, Zabar BS, Hassan HA (2016) Experimental analysis of embankment on ordinary and encased stone columns. Int J Geomech 16(4):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghazavia M, Afsharb JN (2013) Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns. Geotext Geomembr 38:26–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh P, Choudhury D (2011) Seismic bearing capacity factors for shallow strip footings by pseudo-dynamic approach. Disaster Adv 4(3):34–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsu TS, Huang YC, Hsu S (2014) Seismic bearing capacity failure of berms. Procedia Eng 79:495–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahanandish M, Keshavarz A (2005) Seismic bearing capacity of foundations on reinforced soil slopes. Geotext Geomembr 23(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Killeena MM, McCabeb BA (2014) Settlement performance of pad footings on soft clay supported by stone columns: a numerical study. Soils Found 54(4):760–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JM, Son WD, Mahmood K, Ryu JH (2012) Site response and shear behavior of stone column-improved ground under seismic loading. 15 WCEE, Lisboa, pp 1–8

  • Kirsch F, Sondermann W (2003) Field measurements and numerical analysis of the stress distribution below stone column supported embankments and their stability. In: International workshop on geotechnics of soft soil theory and practice, Essen, pp 595–600

  • Meyerhof GG (1963) Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations. Canadian Geotech J 1(1):16–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng KS, Tan SA (2014) Design and analyses of floating stone columns. Soils Found 54(3):478–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomteux C, Porbaha A, Spaulding C (2004) MMC foundation system for embankment support. A case history. In: Proceedings of Geo Support Conference Orlando, Florida, USA, pp 980–992

  • Richards R, Elms DG, Budhu M (1993) Seismic bearing capacity and settlements of foundations. J Geotech Eng 116(5):662–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryu JH, Kim JM (2013) Seismic performance of stone-column- reinforced marine soft soil. EJGE 18:497–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarma SK, Iossifelis IS (1990) Seismic bearing capacity factors of shallow strip footings. Geotechnique 40(2):265–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sextona BG, McCabe BA, Karstunen M, Sivasithamparam N (2016) Stone column settlement performance in structured anisotropic clays: the influence of creep. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 8(5):672–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shenkman R, Ponomaryov A (2016) experimental and numerical studies of geotextile encased stone columns in geological conditions of perm region of Russia. Procedia Eng 143:530–538

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soubra AH (1999) Upper bound solutions for bearing capacity of foundations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 125(1):59–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tanga L, Conga S, Linga X, Luc J, Elgamalc A (2015) Numerical study on ground improvement for liquefaction mitigation using stone columns encased with geosynthetics. Geotext Geomembr 43(2):190–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taskin B, Sezen A, Tugsal UM (2013) The aftermath of 2011 Van earthquakes: evaluation of strong motion. Geotech structural issues. Bull Earthq Eng 11:285–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terzaghi K (1943) Theoretical Soil Mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Terzaghi K (1950) Mechanisms of Landslides. Harvard University, Department of Engineering

  • Tiznado JC, Paillao D (2014) Analysis of the seismic bearing capacity of shallow foundations Revista de la Construcción. J Constr 13(2):40–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Turan A, Naggar HE, Livaoglu R (2015) Evaluation of liquefaction in Ercis Plain during Van Earthquake. Geohazards Environ IJGE 1(2):63–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vekli M, Aytekin M, İkizler SB, Çalık Ü (2012) Experimental and numerical investigation of slope stabilization by stone columns. Nat Hazards 64(1):797–820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vesic AS (1973) Analaysis of ultimateloads of shallow foundations. J Soil Mech Found Eng 99(1):45–76

    Google Scholar 

  • White DJ, Wissmann KJ, Barnes AG, Gaul AJ (2002) Embankment support: a comparison of stone column and rammed aggregate pier soil reinforcement. Transportation Research Board. 81st Annual Meeting, Washington D.C

  • Zhanga Z, Hanb J, Yea G (2014) Numerical investigation on factors for deep-seated slope stability of stone column-supported embankments over soft clay. Eng Geol 168(16):104–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was financially supported by the Bozok University Scientific Research Projects Unit (Project Code 2014 MMF/A133). The authors express their appreciation for the support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Bozok University, Yozgat, Turkey

    Ferhat Şahinkaya & Cenk Cuma Çadır

  2. Independent Researcher, Yozgat, Turkey

    Mustafa Vekli

Authors
  1. Ferhat Şahinkaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Vekli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cenk Cuma Çadır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mustafa Vekli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Şahinkaya, F., Vekli, M. & Çadır, C.C. Numerical analysis under seismic loads of soils improvement with floating stone columns. Nat Hazards 88, 891–917 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2897-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-017-2897-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation