"A Review of Field Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Soils"

Delivered by ICEVirtualLibrary.com to:
IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
Proceedings of the Institution of
Civil Engineers
Geotechnical Engineering 162
December 2009 Issue GE6
Pages 323–334
doi: 10.1680/geng.2009.162.6.323
Paper 900019
Received 09/03/2009
Accepted 21/05/2009
Keywords: embankments/field
testing & monitoring/foundations
Bryan A. McCabe
Lecturer, College of Engineering and
Informatics, National University of
Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Gordon J. Nimmons
Research student, College of Engineering
and Informatics, National University of
Ireland, Galway, Ireland; Senior Engineer,
Keller Foundations, Belfast, UK
Derek Egan
Chief Engineer, Keller Foundations,
Ryton-on-Dunsmore, Coventry, UK
A review of field performance of stone columns in soft soils
B. A. McCabe PhD, CEng, MIEI, G. J. Nimmons MEng and D. Egan PhD, CEng, MICE
The behaviour of stone columns has yet to be captured
fully by analytical and numerical techniques, and
predicting column behaviour in soft cohesive soils brings
specific challenges. This paper provides a comprehensive
review and assessment of some aspects of field
performance of stone columns in soft clays and silts,
from both published and unpublished data and for
loading over both wide areas (i.e. embankments) and
small areas (i.e. footings). In particular, a new database
of settlement improvement factors is developed, which
gives an indication of the reliability of a traditional
analytical approach, as well as distinguishing clearly
between the performance of the preferred dry bottom
feed system and other column construction systems. The
paper gives evidence highlighting the key construction
issues central to the successful performance of treated
ground. Some data are also presented on pore pressure
and total stress changes as a result of column installation
and loading, and interpretation of these data benefits
from a direct comparison with driven piles.
NOTATION
A area of ‘unit cell’ for a stone column in an infinite
grid
Ac average cross-sectional area of stone column
A/Ac area replacement ratio
B pile width
ch horizontal coefficient of consolidation
cu undrained shear strength
cv vertical coefficient of consolidation
D stone column diameter
Dp poker diameter
Ec Young’s modulus for column material
Es Young’s modulus for soil material
Ec/Es modular ratio
h distance above pile base
K lateral earth pressure coefficient
K0 lateral earth pressure coefficient at rest
k constant relating A/Ac to unit cell geometry
n settlement improvement factor ¼ suntreated/streated
nmeas measured settlement improvement factor
npred predicted settlement improvement factor
n0 Priebe’s basic settlement improvement factor
n1 Priebe’s n0 amended for column compressibility
n2 Priebe’s n1 amended for soil and stone unit weights
R radius of stone column or pile
Req equivalent radius of a square pile ¼ B/ˇð
r radial distance from column or pile centreline
s stone column (centre-to-centre) spacing
streated settlement of ground treated with stone columns
suntreated settlement of ground without stone columns
Th time factor for horizontal/radial consolidation
t time
U degree of pore pressure dissipation
˜u excess pore water pressure
˜umax maximum excess pore water pressure
YSR yield stress ratio (overconsolidation ratio measured
in oedometer tests)
ís Poisson’s ratio for soil
ö9 angle of friction of stone
ó9v0 free-field vertical effective stress
1. INTRODUCTION
An ability to create solutions tailored to meet specific
settlement and/or bearing capacity requirements has led to the
emergence of vibro flotation as one of the world’s most widely
used forms of ground improvement. Its versatility is reflected
in the literature by the variety of ground conditions that have
been treated successfully, including granular deposits,1,2
weak
natural cohesive deposits,3–5
hydraulically placed dredged
fills,6
mixed made ground7,8
and ground prone to liquefaction
during seismic events.9
Vibro flotation is an ‘umbrella’ term for
two distinct processes.
(a) Vibro compaction is used in ground with fines
(, 0.06 mm) content less than 15%;1
the poker’s
(predominantly) horizontal vibrations densify the coarse
(.0.06 mm) material.
(b) Vibro replacement is used in fine soils in which the density
is not enhanced by the vibrations themselves. Well-
compacted columns, typically of crushed stone or gravel,
are constructed in the voids formed in the ground by the
poker, improving bearing capacity and drainage while
reducing absolute and differential settlements.
Slocombe et al.1
, BRE10
and Sondermann and Wehr11
elaborate on the vibro flotation equipment and processes.
Mounting pressure to develop soft and very soft clay and silt
sites has focused attention on the potential of vibro
replacement stone columns to offer both technically and
economically viable solutions in these deposits. The use of
Geotechnical Engineering 162 Issue GE6 A review of field performance of stone columns in soft soils McCabe et al. 323
Remedy Geotechnics Ltd
Technical Paper R13
www.remedygeotechnics.com

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
stone columns in these ground conditions poses very specific
challenges. Ground displacement and associated stress changes
arising from (a) the formation of an array of cavities generated
by the penetration of the poker and (b) the subsequent
construction of compacted columns are critical factors that are
only beginning to be understood.5
The effects of plasticity
index and sensitivity on stone column performance have not
been widely investigated, and to date there is no consensus on
the extent to which stone columns arrest secondary settlement.
In general, settlement is a more stringent design criterion than
bearing capacity in these soils, and the most popular settlement
prediction method in European ground improvement practice12
contains many simplifying assumptions and some empiricism
in its formulation.13
Considerable advances have been made in developing
constitutive models for soft natural soils for use in conjunction
with finite-element software to incorporate characteristics such
as creep, anisotropy, destructuration and bonding.14–16
However, such models are not routinely used by industry
practitioners in ground improvement design, and, in general,
finite-element approaches are limited significantly by their
inability to capture installation effects satisfactorily, especially
the three-dimensional versions.
Under these circumstances, it was worthwhile to carry out a
detailed review of published and some unpublished records of
stone column field performance. In this paper, information is
collated from around 30 case studies in which stone columns
were used to improve soft cohesive soils with undrained shear
strengths cu below 30 kPa in most cases and below 15 kPa in
some cases. There is a dearth of published data on certain aspects
of stone column performance, so the paper concentrates on those
aspects for which a reasonable body of data is available. In
particular, a new database of settlement improvement factors
(i.e. the settlement of untreated ground divided by the settlement
of treated ground) for soft cohesive deposits is presented and
interpreted. Findings relating to pore pressures and total stresses
are also presented. Overall, the review gives confidence that the
vibro replacement method can be successfully applied to many
soft cohesive sites, provided adequate care is paid to the
construction technique and to workmanship. The quantitative
evidence presented in the paper provides a useful reference for
practitioners when designing future stone column ground
improvement schemes in soft cohesive deposits.
2. STONE COLUMN CONSTRUCTION METHODS
The correct choice of stone column construction method and
proper on-site implementation are the keys to successful
improvement of soft and very soft soils. The main methods
available for vibro replacement are discussed below, where the
terms ‘top feed’ and ‘bottom feed’ describe the method of stone
supply, and ‘wet’ or ‘dry’ relates to the jetting medium.
2.1. Construction methods
2.1.1. Dry top feed. Dry top feed is predominantly used for
shallow to medium treatment depths of coarse and more
competent fine deposits for vibro compaction or vibro
replacement stone columns, where the hole formed by the first
penetration of the poker remains stable as the column is
constructed. This method often uses controlled air flush to aid
construction, and is commonly used for lightly loaded to
heavily loaded developments, but is rarely suitable for use in
soft cohesive soils.
2.1.2. Wet top feed. Wet top feed is used for medium to deep
treatment below the water table, and for the treatment of softer
cohesive deposits for vibro compaction or vibro replacement
stone columns. In cohesive soils, water flush helps remove
arisings from the void formed by the vibrating poker and
maintain its stability. Wet top feed is used less frequently
nowadays, as disposal of the flush arisings is often
troublesome, so it is often reserved for larger-scale moderately
loaded to highly loaded developments.
The wet top feed system has been used with success in soft
cohesive soils: for example, Mitchell and Huber17
and Munfakh
et al.18
describe successful treatment for a wastewater facility
and a trial embankment respectively, in which only limited
intrusion of fines from the treated ground was noted within the
columns, mainly around the periphery. However, McKenna et
al.19
suggest that the softening of the void lining by water
flush, combined with the use of a coarse backfill stone (38 mm
single-size crushed limestone), may have been responsible for
the failure of a central portion of a 7.9 m high test
embankment on soft clay treated with stone columns. Water
flush may have resulted in a soft clay slurry encroaching on
the stone columns and reducing the effectiveness of the
drainage properties. It should be noted that Greenwood20
puts
forward alternative explanations for the collapse: that is, that
the columns performed as friction piles with little or no
bulging, but were of inadequate depth.
2.1.3. Dry bottom feed. Dry bottom feed21
has now largely
replaced the wet top feed method since its development in the
late 1970s, and is predominantly used for treatment of water-
bearing and soft cohesive deposits (usually for the vibro
replacement process). Controlled air flush is used to aid
construction and maintain stability of the void formed by the
vibrating poker.
There is considerable evidence that the dry bottom feed method,
now the preferred construction technique in soft soils, can
successfully treat ground with cu well below 15–20 kPa
frequently quoted as the lower practical limit of the system’s
applicability.10,22
Wehr23
gives several examples (in Poland,
Germany and Malaysia) where stone columns were installed in
soils with cu as low as 4–5 kPa, but emphasises the importance
of automated monitoring of the construction process if such
low-strength soils are to be treated. Egan et al.5
discuss the
behaviour of trial strip foundations relevant to a two- and three-
storey housing development in Scotland, where dry bottom feed
columns were used (subsequently referred to as Keller
Foundations Contract B, to be consistent with Egan et al.5
).
Ground conditions at the site comprised a 1.5 m thick clay crust
(30 kPa , cu , 100 kPa), underlain by 12 m of soft Carse clay
(average cu ¼ 10 kPa). Load tests were carried out on a number
of strip footings (see Figure 1a) to demonstrate the feasibility of
stone columns in these soils. A typical settlement–time graph is
shown in Figure 1b (with the first 24 h of immediate elastic
settlement removed, since this would occur during
construction), from which it can be seen that the majority of
primary consolidation settlement was complete within 8 weeks.
324 Geotechnical Engineering 162 Issue GE6 A review of field performance of stone columns in soft soils McCabe et al.
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
Venmans3
also reports successful dry bottom feed treatment for
embankment support in clays with cu ¼ 15–20 kPa. An
interesting comparative trial was carried out with a rarely used
wet bottom feed method that actually liquefied the clay,
preventing construction of a well-compacted and permeable
stone column. The behaviour of the wet bottom feed trial
section was actually worse than that of a reference section with
prefabricated vertical drains.
Stone columns and surcharging in combination is also an
option in soils where cu values are considered marginal. Raju
et al.24
show average increases in cu from 8 kPa to 32 kPa
when this combined approach was used to improve clayey silt
mining slimes supporting an embankment height of up to 15 m
in Malaysia. The average treatment depth was 13.5 m, column
diameter was 1.05 m, and the spacing of columns on a square
grid was 1.9 m. Bhushan et al.25
use a similar combined
approach for two storage tanks on soft cohesive ground. These
columns were 12.2 m in length and spaced on a 2.4 m
triangular grid.
2.1.4. Other methods. Other construction methods have also
been used: for example, some case histories exist describing
bottom rammed26
columns, which have evolved from the
classic Franki pile. A tube is bottom-driven to the required
penetration depth. As it is withdrawn, successive charges of
stone are introduced and progressively forced into the
surrounding soil by intensive ramming. This method would be
neither practical nor economical for soft soils.
2.2. Construction defects and overworking
Development of automated rig instrumentation (Figure 2) has
been very beneficial in facilitating a high level of construction
control for columns formed in soft cohesive deposits. Bell27
highlights the dangers of poor construction technique for a
routine project in the UK in mixed ground conditions
incorporating clay. Excavation revealed that some columns
were very poorly constructed, with many having diameters
much smaller than the poker diameter. This would have been
realised at the time of construction if stone consumption had
been monitored and compared with expected quantities, or if
poker current demand had been used to check the compaction
and verify that the column had been constructed in discrete
lifts. The relationship between the poker current demand and
cu for the installation of dry bottom feed columns at a soft
clay site5
is shown in Figure 3 (and pertains to initial
penetration).
A skilled practitioner will recognise that the benefit of a tightly
compacted stone column may be offset by the extent of
disturbance caused by imparting excessive energy to the
ground. For this reason, stone columns in soft cohesive
deposits should ideally be approximately uniform in diameter
over their length. This may be facilitated by constructing to a
stone consumption rather than a rig compaction energy
criterion. A previously adopted approach of ramming stone at
the base of a column to form an enlarged base28
has become(b)
0
5
10
15
20
22.907.
29907..
61007..
131007..
201007..
271007..
31107..
101107..
171107..
241107..
11207..
81207..
151207..
221207..
291207..
5108..
12108..
19108..
26108..
2208..
9208..
16208..
Date
Settlement(excludingfirst24h):mm
Settlement point A
Settlement point B
Settlement point C
Settlement point D
Pz 1
2m
0·55 m dia.
(a)
0·7m
0·75 m 0·75 m 0·75 m 0·75 m 0·75 m 0·75 m1·5 m
Pz 2
4·5 m
Figure 1. Keller Foundations Contract B: (a) trial strip footing
(Pz ¼ piezometer); (b) settlement–time behaviour of trial
strip footing
Figure 2. In-rig instrumentation for construction quality
control
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
discredited for this reason. In this trial,28
at Bothkennar,
Scotland, ,360 mm of heave is reported at the surface of
treated ground, which occurred with the development of high
pore water pressures and long dissipation periods for a group
of 25 bottom feed stone columns supporting an 8.1 m square
raft foundation with a thickened perimeter edge beam. The
disturbance is attributed to the excessive (pressure and
duration) use of air flush during the non-standard construction
of expanded bases for the partial-depth stone columns; 60% of
the total stone volume was consumed over the bottom third of
the column length. In a separate study at the same site,
settlement performance of footings was found to deteriorate
when columns were used to support them, due to overworking
of the firm clay curst with the poker.29
Practitioners need to be
aware of the very significant benefit to performance offered by
even a relatively thin firm or stiff crust overlying soft soils. It
should be emphasised that modern practice of carefully
controlling column construction has contributed significantly
to the execution of many successful projects at soft clay sites
over the last 10 to 15 years.
3. DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW SETTLEMENT
DATABASE
The ability to meet absolute (and probably more importantly
differential) settlement criteria is normally the governing factor
for vibro replacement design in soft soil, and therefore most
published case histories concentrate on settlement performance
ahead of bearing capacity. In any case, a measurement of
bearing capacity requires a failure to occur. The authors have
developed a new database with settlement information from a
total of over 20 case histories in cohesive or predominantly
cohesive soils. While most of these cases relate to loading of
areas that are wide in relation to the column length
(subsequently referred to as ‘widespread loading’), such as
embankments and storage tanks, three of the cases relate to
footings supported by small column groups.
Settlement performance is captured in the form of a settlement
improvement factor n, defined as
n ¼
suntreated
streated
1
where suntreated is the settlement (of the loaded zone) in the
absence of stone column treatment, and streated is the
corresponding settlement with stone column treatment. The
database necessarily comprises two parts, distinguished as
follows.
(a) Table 1 lists the projects where streated and (a reference
value of) suntreated have both been measured, so the value of
n is entirely measurement based.
(b) In Table 2, streated values have been measured; however,
suntreated values have not been measured but instead have
been predicted either analytically or from experience of
measurements in similar or local ground conditions.
The quantity used by Priebe12
to capture the concentration of
the column array in an infinite grid is referred to as the area
replacement ratio, A/Ac where A is the plan area of the ‘unit
cell’ attributed to a single column, and Ac is the cross-sectional
area of one column. The value of A/Ac may be deduced from
the column diameter D and spacing s according to
A
Ac
¼ k
s
D
2
2
where k is 4/ð and (2ˇ3)/ð for square and triangular column
grids respectively. A/Ac values are also given in Tables 1 and 2
for the widespread loading cases, with Ac either measured
directly or derived from stone consumption records.
0
0·5
1·0
1·5
2·0
2·5
3·0
3·5
4·0
4·5
5·0
5·5
6·0
0
Poker current demand: A
0
0·5
1·0
1·5
2·0
2·5
3·0
3·5
4·0
4·5
5·0
5·5
6·0
0
derived from conecu
penetration tests: kPa
Depth:m
cu from
hand vane
12510075502510080604020
Figure 3. Relationship between undrained shear strength and current demand of poker5
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
3.1. Widespread loading
Values of n (from Tables 1 and 2) are plotted against A/Ac in
Figure 4 for the widespread loading cases. In order to provide a
frame of reference for the data, Figure 4 also includes
Priebe’s12
basic improvement factor n0 prediction (Equation 3;
Poisson’s ratio of the soil ís ¼ 0.33 assumed, as is customary)
adopting an operational friction angle ö9 ¼ 408 for the stone.
n0 ¼ 1 þ
Ac
A
5 À
Ac
A
4 1 À
Ac
A

tan2 45 À
ö9
2
À 1
2
66
6
4
3
77
7
53
This assumption is made since case-specific values of ö9 are
generally not presented in the literature, and ö9 % 408 is
typical of the range of values used in design38
for weak
deposits. Moreover, additional parameters needed for predicting
Priebe’s12
n1 and n2 factors (amendments to n0 and n1 to
account for column compressibility and soil and column unit
weights respectively) are not available.
Although there is a spread of data around the Priebe12
n0
curve, the match is nevertheless considered to be good, given
that the conditions are not consistent across all tests, and given
the uncertainty associated with the assumptions that have had
to be made in analysing the published data. It is clear that
Equation 3 predicts the shape of the measured n–A/Ac
variation reasonably well, even though there is insufficient
resolution from the published data to take account of all of the
factors that would have influenced the degree of settlement
control. These factors include the following.
(a) There are variations in the prediction methods used to
determine the n values in Table 2.
(b) There is uncertainty in the ‘as-constructed’ column
diameter and spacing.
(c) The stage of loading/time period after loading at which n is
measured is not consistent throughout all of the case
studies. Because of the drainage effect of stone columns,
primary settlement will occur at a faster rate and will be
complete sooner for treated areas than for similarly loaded
untreated areas. Therefore if, for example, the settlement of
the untreated area is measured before primary settlement is
complete, unfavourably low n values will be obtained. In
the longer term the actual n values will improve, since the
untreated settlement (suntreated) will continue while treated
settlement (streated) will be well advanced or even complete.
(d) Settlement at the ground surface will reflect settlement
over the treated depth plus any additional settlement
generated in the ground below the columns (the latter is
relevant for partial depth treatment). A majority of the
cases in Tables 1 and 2 have had full depth treatment but
some have had partial depth treatment. It is not always
possible to separate out the settlement arising from the
treated zone in studies carried out in construction projects:
hence in such situtations the degree of improvment
attributed to the installation of the stone columns would
probably be underestimated.
All of these different aspects are difficult to quantify, but an
experienced column designer would need to take them into
account.
ReferenceSitelocationMaterialtreatedAverage
treatment
depth:m
Stonecolumn
spacing:m
Treatment
configuration
Average
diameter:m
Treatment
method
LoadingtypeArea
replacement
ratio,A/Ac
Settlementimp.
factor,n
CooperandRose4
Bristol,UKClay4.352.10TR0.602BFEmbankment13.401.85
4.351.50TR0.602BFEmbankment6.842.55
Wattsetal.7
Bacup,
Lancashire,UK
Clay,ash,made
ground
3.501.80L0.6DTFTeststrip4.781.47
Munfakhetal.18
NewOrleans,
USA.
Clay,202.10TR1.11WTFEmbankment3.951.70
Greenwood30
Bremerhaven,
Germany
Clay,peat6.02.30TR1.2WTFEmbankment3.851.63
WTF,wettopfeed;DTF,drytopfeed;BF,bottomfeed;TR,triangular.
Table1.Casehistoriesinwhichbothstreatedandsuntreatedvalueshavebeenmeasured
Technical Paper R13

DeliveredbyICEVirtualLibrary.comto:
IP:140.203.12.241
Tue,01Dec200915:43:03
ReferenceSitelocationMaterialtreatedAverage
treatment
depth:m
Stonecolumn
spacing:m
Treatment
conﬁguration
Average
diameter:m
Treatment
method
LoadingtypeAreareplacement
ratio,A/Ac
Settlementimp.
factor,n
Venmans3
Holendrecht-
Abcoude,
Netherlands
Clay5.21.5TR0.65BFEmbankment5.881.54
Greenwood20
CanveyIsland,UKClay/silt10.01.52TR0.75WTFStoragetank4.532.38
Rajuetal.24
Kajang,MalaysiaSilt,madeground13.51.90SQ1.05WTF+BFEmbankment4.172.60
DeCockand
D’Hoore26
Antwerp,BelgiumPeatyclay8.51.60TR0.9BRStoragetank3.483.00
Oreye,BelgiumSilt11.01.60TR0.8BRStoragetank4.411.83
Baumannand
Bauer31
Konstanz,GermanySilt5.51.40TR1.0WTFRaft2.124.03
Wattetal.32
Teesport104,UKSilt6.11.91TR1.09WTFStoragetank3.382.80
Teesport165,UKSilt6.11.91TR1.09WTFStoragetank3.383.43
Hedon,UKClay6.72.13TR1.06WTFStoragetank3.722.77
Greenwood33
Stanlow,UKWTFStoragetank3.245.47
Goughnourand
Bayuk34
Hampton,USA.Silt,clay6.41.8TR1.1WTFEmbankment2.952.40
Raju35
Kinrara,MalaysiaSilt,madeground17.01.80SQ1.2BFEmbankment2.864.00
Kebun,MalaysiaClay15.02.20SQ1.1BFEmbankment5.092.50
Bell36
Stockton,UKClay4.42TR0.615WTFEmbankment11.701.38
2.50.61518.201.24
2.50.61526.201.15
Kirsch37
Essen,GermanySilt5.01.70STSQ1.12WTFStoragetank2.902.35
Kirsch
(unpublished)
Berlin-Brandenburg
TestB,Germany
Clay/silt7.11.45SQ0.6BFFooting14.301.94
Berlin-Brandenburg
TestC,Germany
Clay/silt6.82.0SQ0.6BFFooting7.702.10
Keller
Foundations
ContractB
ScotlandClay5.51.5L0.55BFTeststrip4.421.20
WTF,wettopfeed;BF,bottomfeed;BR,bottomrammed;TR,triangular;SQ,square;STSQ,staggeredsquare;L,linear.
Table2.Casehistoriesinwhichstreatedvalueshavebeenmeasuredbutsuntreatedvalueshavebeenpredicted
RemedyGeotechnicsLtd
TechnicalPaperR13
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
Additional wet top feed data by Raman39
not included in Table
1 or Figure 4 (owing to the large amount of data and
considerable scatter, reflecting, at least in part, local variations
over the several sections of expressway totalling nearly 4 km),
would plot significantly above the ö9 ¼ 408 reference curve.
3.2. Widespread loading and small foundation loading
combined
Predicted values of n (npred) are plotted against measured
values (nmeas) in Figure 5. Tests that plot below the npred ¼
nmeas line denote measurements that exceed predictions. Much
of the data in Figure 5 is taken from Figure 4 (i.e. npred is n0
with ö9 ¼ 408). However, Figure 5 also includes data from
two test strips (Watts et al.7
and Keller Foundations Contract
B) and two pad footings (Kirsch, unpublished). In the case of
the strips, the Priebe12
correction was applied to npred to allow
for the reduced efficiency of small groups. No such correction
was applied for the pads, as the loaded columns underneath
the footings were surrounded by ‘buttressing’ columns, so
‘unit cell’ conditions were
assumed for the loaded
columns. In Figure 5 a
distinction is made between
Table 1 data (true n
measurements, filled
symbols) and Table 2 data
(open symbols); also, the
different systems used to
construct the columns are
highlighted.
The higher nmeas/npred ratios
in Figure 5 (i.e. denoting
measurements that are better
than predictions) tend to
relate to bottom feed projects
(rather than the top feed and
bottom rammed projects),
which endorses the use of the
bottom feed system for
treating these soft ground
conditions. Figure 5 implies
that a design friction angle of ö9 ¼ 408 may not always give
safe settlement predictions for the top feed system, but as
already stated, there may be other possible explanations
besides the friction angle. For example, the deposits within the
treatment zone at the Bremerhaven site30
incorporated some
peaty material.
In general, the data indicate that a design friction angle of
ö9 ¼ 408 is a conservative assumption in the case of the
bottom feed system. Interestingly, Herle et al.38
advocate the
use of higher ö9 values (i.e. in excess of 508) than are
commonly adopted in UK and Irish design (based on shear box
tests carried out on stone at high relative density levels).
However, caution is advised if adopting ö9 values from direct
shear tests; good design practice should consider the degree of
stone compaction and the confining strength of the soil, which
again highlights the importance of good construction control
and the benefits of instrumentation.
4. STRESS CHANGES
4.1. Lateral total stress measurements
There are some published studies with measured lateral/radial
stress changes immediately after the installation of stone
columns. However, there are few data to clarify what has
happened to the total lateral stresses (and hence effective
lateral stresses) by the time excess pore pressures have
dissipated, which is unfortunate, as these stresses represent the
initial conditions for loading. In general, permanent lateral
total stress increases are known to arise after driving piles in
soft cohesive soils,40
and it seems reasonable to assume a
similar situation arising during stone column construction.
The most comprehensive data on the installation of stone
columns are reported by Kirsch.41
The measurements of lateral
total stress were taken during column installation within a 5 3
5 column group in silty clay (described as weak to stiff and of
medium plasticity). The maximum lateral total stresses reached
(soon after installation) are presented in the form of a lateral
Baumann and Bauer31
Watt .et al 32
Greenwood33
Goughnour and Bayuk34
Raju35
Bell36
Kirsch37
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
Area replacement ratio, /A Ac
Settlementimprovementfactor,n
Venmans3
Cooper and Rose4
Munfakh .et al 18
Greenwood20
Raju .et al 24
De Cock and d’Hoore26
Greenwood30
26·2
18·2Priebe’s with 40°, 1/312
0n φ νЈ ϭ ϭ
15141312111098765432
Figure 4. Settlement improvement factor against area replacement ratio for sites with
widespread loading
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
nmeas
Bottom feed (Table 1)
Bottom feed (Table 2)
Bottom rammed (Table 2)
Dry top feed (Table 1)
Wet top feed (Table 1)
Wet top feed (Table 2)
Worse than
predicted
Better than
predicted
Strip
foundations
Pad
foundations
654321
n npred measϭ
nnpred0(Priebe’s,with40°)φЈϭ
Figure 5. Predicted against measured settlement improvement
factor for all widespread loading and footings
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
earth pressure coefficient K normalised by the at-rest value K0.
Values of K/K0 exceeded 1 to a distance of 9Dp, reaching a
maximum of ,1.6 at 4Dp –5Dp (where Dp is the poker
diameter). Kirsch41
attributes the lower values closer to the
column to remoulding by the poker and dynamic excitation
caused by its vibrations. Watts et al.28
and Serridge and
Sarsby29
both (coincidentally) report maximum horizontal total
stresses during installation of ,80 kPa for a raft and for small
column groups respectively, falling to lower values soon after
installation; however, it is difficult to interpret these data,
given the aforementioned problems with the construction
processes in each instance.
There is some uncertainty whether the deepest lateral total
stress measurements presented by Watts et al.7
relate to an
ashy or cohesive fill, although the latter is suspected. No
increase was registered until the poker reached the cell level,
but up to 60 kPa was registered with further penetration to the
design depth by a cell 900 mm from the centreline of a
600 mm diameter column. Lower increases were observed
1.5 m from the column centreline. Withdrawing the poker to
compact the stone caused an immediate return to pre-
penetration pressure levels, and similar elevated levels were
reached once stone compaction took place. The increases
disappeared again once the column was completed. With the
exception of this study, none has reported equalised lateral
total stress measurements, to the authors’ knowledge. Such
information is key to understanding how the process of column
construction modifies the ground in advance of loading.
4.2. Pore pressure measurements
4.2.1. Maximum installation pore pressures. Case histories
presenting measurements of excess pore water pressure
generated by stone column installation along with relevant
consolidation parameters are also limited. Castro42
showed that
installation pore pressures (recorded by piezometers) at any
level are at their maximum approximately when the poker tip
passes that level. This is broadly in keeping with equivalent
data for displacement piles.43,44
Unlike a driven pile, a poker
will pass any given horizon more than once as the stone is
compacted in lifts, and Castro’s42
data show a second pore
pressure peak, which is lower in magnitude than the original,
when the poker is again passing the level of the sensor.
It is of interest to compare maximum pore pressures generated
by stone column installation with those generated by
displacement piles. Data for single piles and five-pile groups in
Belfast clay44
are reproduced in Figure 6a; other published
single-pile data45,46
are also included. Maximum excess pore
pressure ratios ˜umax=ó9v0 (where ˜umax is the maximum
excess pore pressure reached, and ó9v0 is the free-field vertical
effective stress) are plotted as a function of distance from the
pile centre normalised by the pile radius, r/R (or equivalent pile
radius r/Req; Req ¼ B/ˇð, B ¼ pile width). Acknowledging the
relationship between excess pore pressure and yield stress ratio
YSR (˜u /YSR0:36
),47
it can be seen that the pore pressure field
for pile groups is of greater magnitude and radial extent than
that for single piles. The McCabe et al.44
data at r/R ¼ 1 shows
the well-established h/D effect (h ¼ distance above pile tip, D
¼ 2R) for driven piles in clay. Equivalent ˜umax=ó9v0 data (as
interpreted by the authors) for stone column case histories are
presented in Figure 6b, with supporting information, including
approximate YSR values, in Table 3. Once again r is the
distance (or average distance) of the measuring device from the
column centre, and R is the column radius.
Despite some scatter, it is apparent that the pore pressure fields
around stone columns and driven piles are quite similar (with
the exception of the data from Castro,42
where the significant
sand content of the material is likely to be responsible for the
lower ˜umax=ó9v0 values). Moreover, the higher ˜umax=ó9v0
values from Gab et al.48
reflect the greater size of this stone
column group. In general, the data suggest that the pore
pressures are cumulative as each successive column is installed,
but the cumulative values will of course be a function of,
among other things, the average duration between
installations. It is interesting to note that the ˜umax=ó9v0 value
from Serridge and Sarsby29
plots quite high compared with the
rest of the data, possibly indicative of the aforementioned
overworking during the formation of the columns.
4.2.2. Dissipation of installation pore pressures. Field
observations suggest that stone columns accelerate the rate of
consolidation of soft clays. Han and Ye49
recorded the rates of
settlement of two similar building foundations on the same
site, one with stone column support and one on unreinforced
clay. Over a 480-day period the degrees of consolidation for
the unreinforced and reinforced cases were 66% and 95%
respectively. Munfakh et al.18
reported that by the time 100%
0
0·5
1·0
1·5
2·0
2·5
3·0 Venmans3
Serridge and Sarsby29
Gab .et al 48
Keller Foundations Contract B (Phase 1)5
Keller Foundations Contract B (Phase 2)
5·11
Castro
range
35
∆umaxv0/σЈ
1 10010
0
0·5
1·0
1·5
2·0
2·5
3·0
1
r R r R/ or / eq
McCabe . G4 (group)et al 44
McCabe . G1 (group)et al 44
McCabe . G4 (single pile)et al 44
Pestana . (single pile)et al 45
Roy (single pile)et al.46
/ 10h D ϭ
h D/ 1·5ϭ
YSR 1·2Ͻ
∆umaxv0/σЈ
10010
(a)
YSR 1·3ϭ
YSR 2·2ϭ
r R/
(b)
Figure 6. Maximum excess pore pressures around: (a) driven
piles in clay;33
(b) stone columns
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
primary consolidation had taken place beneath a stone
column supported trial embankment, only 25% primary
consolidation had taken place in a corresponding untreated
area. The aforementioned Raju et al.24
report a sixfold
increase in consolidation rate compared with unimproved
ground, and accelerated consolidation rates were also noted
by Bhushan et al.25:
The simplified analytical approach of Han and Ye50
may be
used to quantify the extent to which stone columns accelerate
drainage, and the method suggests that the drainage rate
depends on the modular ratio Ec/Es, where Ec and Es are the
Young’s moduli for columns and soil respectively. If a 5 m
thick double-draining layer of soft clay is treated full depth
with a square grid of columns having A/Ac ¼ 4 (shown by
Figure 4 to be a reasonable average treatment density) and 2 m
spacing, Ec/Es ¼ 10, the method predicts that the columns will
increase both ch and cv by a factor of ,2.4. Adopting ch/cv ¼
2, the predictions suggest that only ,10% dissipation will have
occurred in untreated ground in the time required for in excess
of 90% dissipation in treated ground. This enhancement to
drainage is in keeping with the case histories mentioned.
The same conclusion may be arrived at by comparing the pore
pressure dissipation around stone columns with that around
displacement piles. In Figure 7 the degree of dissipation U is
plotted as a function of a time factor (Th ¼ cht/4R2
, where ch is
the horizontal coefficient of consolidation and R is the column
radius, or Req for the square piles). The curves in Figure 7 are
derived from measurements
(a) at r/R % 5 for the stone columns5
in Figure 1
(b) at r/R ¼ 1 (i.e. at the pile shaft) on a single jacked pile in
Bothkennar clay51
(c) at r/R ¼ 1 on a single jacked pile in Belfast clay52
(d) at r/R . 5 for a driven five-pile group in Belfast clay.40
The value of ch assumed in Figure 7 is 30 m2
/year. Nash et al.53
show that field ch values can considerably exceed laboratory
values in a soft cohesive soil. Lehane51
back-figured this value
of ch from instrumented displacement pile tests in Carse and
other clays, while McCabe54
back-figured similar values from
piezometer data around driven piles in Belfast clay.
It is clear from Figure 7 that post-installation consolidation is
complete much faster for the
stone columns than for the
piles, thereby providing a
further indication of the
drainage benefit that stone
columns offer.
4.2.3. Pore pressures during
loading. Cooper and Rose4
show that the pore pressures
measured during
embankment construction are
very significantly below the
weight of fill placed —
evidence of the enhanced
drainage facilitated by the
stone columns. Pore pressures
measured between a group of
three columns at Konstanz
student residences31
increased to a maximum of
40–50% of the applied
footing load, and again the
columns were the key to
rapid pore pressure
dissipation.
Reference Site location Approx.
YSR
Column
length: m
Average column
diameter: m
No. of
columns
Piezometer
depth: m
Venmans3
Holendrecht-Abcoude,
Netherlands
,1 5.5 0.65 Large grid
Egan et al.5
Scotland, UK 1.2 5.5 0.55 5 2, 4
Serridge and Sarsby29
Bothkennar, UK 1.5 5.7 ,0.75 4 1.6
Castro42
Valencia, Spain ,1 9.0 0.80 7 4, 7
Gab et al.48
Klagenfurt, Austria ,1 14.5 0.70 36 12
Keller Foundations
Contract B (unpublished)
Scotland, UK 1.2 5.5 0.55 .10 3
Table 3. Case histories with installation pore pressure measurements
Driven five-pile group, / 5r R Ͼ
(Belfast clay)40
Jacked single pile, / 1r R ϭ
(Bothkennar clay)51
Jacked single pile, / 1
(Belfast
r Rϭ
clay)52
Stone column, / 5
(Keller GE
r R ϭ
Contract B)
0
0·1
0·2
0·3
0·4
0·5
0·6
0·7
0·8
0·9
1·0
0·01
Time factor, /4 or /4T c t R c t Rh h
2
h
2
eqϭ
Degreeofdissipation,U
1001010·1
Figure 7. Comparative excess pore pressure dissipation rates for displacement piles and stone
columns
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
5. CONCLUSION
A comprehensive literature search has distilled some very
useful information and guidance for the ground improvement
designer, which may be summarised as follows.
(a) The dry bottom feed method is the preferred approach for
constructing stone columns in soft soils. Soils with cu as
low as 5 kPa have been treated successfully, and the
settlement improvement database developed here suggests
that this method performs better than other methods such
as wet top feed.
(b) The Priebe12
design method with conventionally adopted
friction angles of ,408 provides a safe lower-bound
estimate of actual bottom feed performance in practice.
This method, which continues to be the favoured design
approach of leading stone column designers, is proved to
be reliable, even though it does not capture all of the
fundamental soil and stress changes that take place during
column construction and subsequent loading. More
sophisticated approaches, such as finite-element (FE)
analysis, provide another useful tool to geotechnical
engineers, although FE analysis has not evolved to a stage
of readiness for routine design.
(c) Maximum excess pore pressure fields around a penetrating
poker are quite similar to those round driven piles, and the
effect of group size is reflected in a similar way. However,
these excess pore pressures dissipate faster with the stone
columns, because they act as vertical drains.
(d) The evidence suggests that undrained shear strengths can
be expected to increase permanently with stone column
construction, provided construction standards are adequate.
Lateral effective stresses seem to increase around the
column because of the installation process, although
higher-quality measurements are needed for greater
confidence.
The literature search has identified a lack of high-quality data
on aspects of stone column behaviour in soft cohesive soils,
such as the stress split between soil and stone, long-term
changes to the lateral effective stress regime imposed by
column construction, and the effect on long-term creep
settlements. The vast majority of the data pertain to large
loaded areas, and not to strip or pad footings. There remains a
need for high-quality instrumented field tests to improve our
understanding of the factors controlling stone column
behaviour.
REFERENCES
1. SLOCOMBE B. C., BELL A. L. and BAEZ J. I. The densification
of granular soils using vibro methods. Geótechnique, 2000,
50, No. 6, 715–725.
2. DUZCEER R. Ground improvement of oil storage tanks using
stone columns. Proceedings of the 12th Pan American
Conference in Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Cambridge, MA, 2003, 1681–1686.
3. VENMANS A. A. J. Design, construction and lifetime
behaviour on a highway widening on stone column
improved ground. Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Problematic Soils, Tohoku, 1998, pp. 105–
108.
4. COOPER M. R. and ROSE A. N. Stone column support for an
embankment on deep alluvial soils. Proceedings of the
Institution of Civil Engineers—Geotechnical Engineering,
1999, 137, No. 1, 15–25.
5. EGAN D., SCOTT W. and MCCABE B. A. Installation effects of
vibro replacement stone columns in soft clay. Proceedings
of the 2nd International Workshop on the Geotechnics of
Soft Soils, Glasgow, 2008, 23–30.
6. RENTON-ROSE D. G., BUNCE G. C. and FINLAY D. W. Vibro
replacement for industrial plant on reclaimed land,
Bahrain. Geótechnique, 2000, 50, No. 6, 727–737.
7. WATTS K. S., JOHNSON D., WOOD L. A. and SAADI A. An
instrumented trial of vibro ground treatment supporting
strip foundations in a variable fill. Geótechnique, 2000, 50,
No. 6, 699–708.
8. CLEMENTE J. L. M. and PARKS C. D. Stone columns for
control of power station foundation settlements. In
Innovations in Grouting and Soil Improvement. ASCE,
Reston, VA, 2005, GSP 136, pp. 1–10.
9. MITCHELL J. K., COOKE H. G. and SCHAFFER J. Design
considerations in ground improvement for seismic risk
mitigation. In Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics III. ASCE, Reston, VA, 1988, GSP 754, Vol.
1, pp. 580–613.
10. BUILDING RESEARCH ESTABLISHMENT. Specifying Vibro Stone
Columns: BRE Press, 2000, BR 391.
11. SONDERMANN W. and WEHR W. Deep vibro techniques.
In Ground Improvement, 2nd edn (MOSELEY M. P. and
KIRSCH K. (eds)). Spon Press, Abingdon, 2004, pp. 57–92.
12. PRIEBE H. J. The design of vibro replacement. Ground
Engineering, 1995, 28, No. 10, 31–37.
13. BOUASSIDA M., ELLOUZE S. and HAZZAR L. Investigating
Priebe’s method for settlement investigation of foundation
resting on soil reinforced on stone columns. Proceedings of
the 2nd International Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft
Soils, Glasgow, 2008, 321–326.
14. KARSTUNEN M. and KOSKINEN M. Plastic anisotropy of soft
reconstituted clays. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2008,
45, No. 5, 314–328.
15. KARSTUNEN M., KRENN H., WHEELER S. J., KOSKINEN M. and
ZENTAR R. The effect of anisotropy and destructuration on
the behaviour of Murro test embankment. ASCE
International Journal of Geomechanics, 2005, 5, No. 2,
87–97.
16. LEONI M., KARSTUNEN M. and VERMEER P. Anisotropic creep
model for soft soils. Geótechnique, 2008, 58, No. 3, 215–
226.
17. MITCHELL J. K. and HUBER T. R. Performance of a stone
column foundation. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
1985, 3, No. 2, 205–223.
18. MUNFAKH G. A., SARKAR S. K. and CASTELLI R. P.
Performance of a test embankment founded on stone
columns. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advances in Piling and Ground Treatment for Foundations,
London, 1983, pp. 259–265.
19. MCKENNA J. M., EYRE W. A. and WOLSTENHOLME D. R.
Performance of an embankment supported by stone
columns in soft ground. Geótechnique, 1975, 25, No. 1,
51–59.
20. GREENWOOD D. A. Load tests on stone columns. In Deep
Foundations and Improvements: Design, Construction and
Testing (ESRIG M. I. and BACHUS R. C. (eds)). American
Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1991,
ASTM STP 1089, pp. 148–171.
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
21. MOSELEY M. P. and PRIEBE H. J. Vibro techniques. In
Ground Improvement (MOSELEY M. P. (ed.)). Blackie
Academic, Glasgow, 1993, pp. 1–18.
22. GREENWOOD D. A. and KIRSCH K. Specialist ground
treatment by vibratory and dynamic methods. In Piling and
Ground Treatment of Foundations. Thomas Telford,
London, 1993, pp. 17–45.
23. WEHR J. The undrained cohesion of the soil as criterion for
the column installation with a depth vibrator. Proceedings
of TransVib Conference, Paris, 2006, pp. 157–162.
24. RAJU V. R., YEE Y. W., TAM E. and SREENIVAS P. Vibro
replacement for the construction of a 15 m high highway
over a mining pond. Proceedings of the Malaysian
Geotechnical Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 2004, technical
paper 12-67E.
25. BHUSHAN K., DHINGRA A., SCHEYHING C. and ZHAI E. Ground
improvement by stone columns and surcharge at a tank
site. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Case Histories in Geotechnical Engineering, New York,
2004, paper 8.36.
26. DE COCK F. and D’HOORE S. Deep soil improvement by
rammed stone columns: two case histories for large
diameter storage tanks. Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Piling and Deep Foundations, Bruges, 1994,
5.21.1–5.21.9.
27. BELL A. L. The development and importance of
construction technique in deep vibratory ground
improvement. In Ground and Soil Improvement (RAISON
C. A. (ed.)). Thomas Telford, London, 2004, pp. 103–111.
28. WATTS K. S., CHOWN R. C., SERRIDGE C. J. and CRILLY M. S.
Vibro stone columns in soft clay: a trial to study the
influence of column installation on foundation
performance. Proceedings of the 15th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Istanbul, 2001, 3, 1867–1870.
29. SERRIDGE C. J. and SARSBY R. W. A review of field trials
investigating the performance of partial depth vibro stone
columns in a deep soft clay deposit. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils,
Glasgow, 2008, 293–298.
30. GREENWOOD D. A. Mechanical improvements of soil below
ground surface. Proceedings of the Conference on Ground
Engineering, London, 1970, Vol. 2, pp. 11–22.
31. BAUMANN V. and BAUER G. E. A. The performance of
foundations on various soils stabilized by the vibro-
compaction method. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 1974,
11, No. 4, 509–530.
32. WATT A. J., DE BOER J. J. and GREENWOOD D. A. Load tests
on structures founded on soft cohesive soils strengthened
by compacted granular columns. Proceedings of the 3rd
Asian Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Haifa, 1967, 1, 248–251.
33. GREENWOOD D. A. Differential settlement tolerances of
cylindrical steel tanks for bulk liquid storage. Proceedings
of the Conference on Settlement of Structures, Cambridge,
1974, pp. 361–367.
34. GOUGHNOUR R. R. and BAYUK A. A. A field study of long
term settlements of loads supported by stone columns in
soft ground. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Soil Reinforcement, Paris, 1979, pp. 279–285.
35. RAJU V. R. The behaviour of very soft soils improved by
vibro-replacement. In Ground Improvement Geosystems:
Densification and Reinforcement (DAVIS M. C. R. and
SCHLOSSER F. (eds)). Thomas Telford, London, 1997, pp.
253–259.
36. BELL A. L. Report on Performance of Vibro Replacement
Ground Improvement Beneath Embankment at Stockton.
Keller Internal Report, 1993, 21 pp.
37. KIRSCH K. Erfahrungen mit der Baugrundverbesserung
durch Tiefenruttler. Geotechnik, 1979, 1, 21–32.
38. HERLE I., WEHR J. and ARNOLD M. Soil improvement with
vibrated stone columns: influence of pressure level and
relative density on friction angle. Proceedings of the 2nd
International Conference on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils,
Glasgow, 2008, 235–240.
39. RAMAN S. Comparison of Predicted Settlement Behaviour to
the Field Measurement of Stone Column Improved Ground.
Masters of Engineering Report, University of Technology,
Malaysia, 2006.
40. MCCABE B. A. and LEHANE B. M. The behaviour of axially
loaded pile groups driven in clayey silt. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
2006, 132, No. 3, 401–410.
41. KIRSCH F. Evaluation of ground improvement by groups of
vibro stone columns using field measurements and
numerical analysis. Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop on the Geotechnics of Soft Soils, Glasgow, 2008,
241–248.
42. CASTRO J. Pore pressures during stone column installation.
Proceedings of the 17th European Young Geotechnical
Engineers Conference, Ancona, 2007.
43. GAVIN K. G. and LEHANE B. M. The shaft capacity of pipe
piles in sand. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2003, 40,
No. 1, 36–45.
44. MCCABE B. A., GAVIN K. G. and KENNELLY M. Installation of
a reduced-scale pile group in silt. Proceedings of the BGA
Conference on Foundations, Dundee, 2008, Vol. 1, pp. 607–
616.
45. PESTANA J. M., HUNT C. E. and BRAY J. D. Soil deformation
and excess pore pressure field around a driven pile in clay.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, 2002, 128, No. 1, 1–12.
46. ROY M., BLANCHET R., TAVENAS F. and LA ROCHELLE P.
Behaviour of a sensitive clay during pile driving. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 1981, 18, No. 2, 67–85.
47. LEHANE B. M., JARDINE R. J., BOND A. J. and CHOW F. C. The
development of shaft resistance on displacement piles in
clay. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, New Delhi,
1994, 473–476.
48. GAB M., SCHWEIGER H. F., THURNER R. and ADAM D. Field
trial to investigate the performance of floating stone
columns. Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Madrid,
2007, 1311–1316.
49. HAN J. and YE S. L. Settlement analysis of buildings
on the soft clays stabilized by stone columns.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Soil
Improvement and Pile Foundations, Nanjing, 1992,
446–451.
50. HAN J. and YE S. L. Simplified method for consolidation
rate of stone column reinforced foundations. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE,
2001, 127, No. 7, 597–603.
Technical Paper R13

IP: 140.203.12.241
Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:43:03
51. LEHANE B. M. Experimental Investigations of Pile Behaviour
Using Instrumented Field Piles. PhD thesis, University of
London (Imperial College), 1992.
52. GALLAGHER D. An Experimental Investigation of Open and
Closed Ended Piles in Belfast Soft Clay. PhD thesis,
University College Dublin, 2006.
53. NASH D. F. T., POWELL J. J. M. and LLOYD I. M. Initial
investigations of the soft clay site at Bothkennar.
Geótechnique, 1992, 42, No. 2, 163–181.
54. MCCABE B. A. Experimental Investigations of Driven Pile
Group Behavior in Belfast Soft Clay. PhD thesis, University
of Dublin, Trinity College, 2002.
What do you think?
To discuss this paper, please email up to 500 words to the editor at journals@ice.org.uk. Your contribution will be forwarded to the
author(s) for a reply and, if considered appropriate by the editorial panel, will be published as discussion in a future issue of the
journal.
Proceedings journals rely entirely on contributions sent in by civil engineering professionals, academics and students. Papers should be
2000–5000 words long (briefing papers should be 1000–2000 words long), with adequate illustrations and references. You can
submit your paper online via www.icevirtuallibrary.com/content/journals, where you will also find detailed author guidelines.
Technical Paper R13

"A Review of Field Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Soils"

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to "A Review of Field Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Soils" (20)

More from Remedy Geotechnics Ltd (11)

Recently uploaded (20)

"A Review of Field Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Soils"