Engineering Geology

Engineering Geology

 Experimental Investigation of Equivalent Shear Strength of Loose Sand Reinforced with Stone Column 

Authors
1 Department of Civil Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Civil Engineering, Shahr-e-Qods Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction

Stone column installation method is one of the popular methods of ground improvement. One of the common uses of stone columns is to increase slope stability. Several studies have been performed to examine the behavior of stone columns under vertical loads. However, limited research, mostly focused on numerical investigations, has been performed to evaluate the shear strength of soil reinforced with stone column. The study presented herein is an experimental program, aimed to explore the shear strength of loose sand bed reinforced with stone column. Direct shear tests were carried out on specimens of sand bed material, stone column material and sand bed reinforced with stone column, using a direct shear device with in-plane dimensions of 305*305 mm2 and height of 152.4 mm. Experiments were performed under normal stresses of 35, 55 and 75 kPa . In this study, 4 different area replacement ratios (8.4, 12, 16.4 and 25%), and 3 different stone column arrangements (single, square and triangular) were considered for investigation. The obtained results from this study showed that stone column arrangement had an impact on improving the shear strength of stone columns. The most increase in shear strength and stiffness values was observed for square arrangement of stone columns and the least increase was for single stone columns. This study also compares the equivalent shear strength values and equivalent shear strength parameters (internal friction angle and cohesion) measured during experiments with those predicted by analytical relationships. Results show that shear strength values and shear strength parameters measured from experiments are higher than those obtained from analytical relationships. Accordingly, a corrective coefficient was calculated for each column arrangement to represent the correlation between experimental and analytical results.

Material Properties of Loose Bed and Stone Column

Fine-grained sand with particle size ranging from 0.425 to 1.18 mm was used to prepare loose sand bed, and crushed gravel with particle size ranging from 2 to 8 mm was used as stone column material. The sand material used as bed material had a unit weight of 16 kN/m3 and a relative density of 32.5%, and the stone material used in stone columns had a unit weight of 16.5 kN/m3 and a relative density of 80%. The required standard tests were performed to obtain the mechanical parameters of bed material and stone column material. As the diameters of model scale stone columns were smaller than the diameters of stone columns installed in the field, the particle dimensions of stone column material were reduced by an appropriate scale factor to allow an accurate simulation of stone columns behavior.

Testing Procedure

In this study, large direct shear device with in-plane dimensions of 305*305 mm2 and height of 152.4 mm was used to evaluate the shear strength and equivalent shear strength parameters of loose sand bed reinforced with stone column. Experiments were performed under normal stresses of 35, 55 and 75 kPa.

Two class C load cells with capacity of 2 ton were used to measure and record vertical forces and the developed shear forces during the experiments, and a Linear Variable Differential Transformer (LVDT) was used to measure horizontal displacement. All achieved data from the experiments including data on vertical forces, shear forces and horizontal displacements were collected and recorded using a data logger, and an especial software was used to transfer data between the computer and the direct shear device. All specimens were sheared under a horizontal displacement rate of 1 mm/min.

Testing Program

Experiments were performed on single stone columns and group stone columns arranged in square and triangular patterns. The selected area replacement ratios were 8.4, 12, 16.4, and 25% for single stone columns, and 8.4, 12 and 16.4% for square and triangular stone column arrangements. To eliminate boundary effects, the distance between stone columns and the inner walls of the shear box was kept as high as 42.5 mm. In total, 12 direct shear tests were carried out, including 2 tests on loose sand bed material and stone column material, and 10 tests on stone columns with different arrangements. From the tests performed on group stone columns, 4 tests were performed on single stone columns, 3 tests on stone columns with square arrangement and 3 tests on stone columns with triangular arrangement. Hollow pipes with wall thickness of 2 mm and inner diameters equal to stone column diameters were used to construct stone columns. To prepare the specimens, first, the hollow pipes were installed in the shear box according to the desired arrangement. Then, bed material with unit weight of 16.5 kN/m3 was placed and compacted in the box in 5 layers, each 3 cm thick. Stone material was uniformly compacted to construct stone columns with uniform unit weight. The compaction energy was 67 kJ/m3 in all tests.

Results and discussion

In this paper, the behavior of stone columns under shear loading was experimentally investigated in large direct shear device by performing tests with different area replacement ratios (8.4, 12, 16.4, and 25%), different stone column installation arrangements (single, square and triangular), and different normal stresses (55, 75 and 100 kPa). The key findings of this study are as follows:

1. Shear strength increases with increase of area replacement ratio due to the higher strength of combined soil-stone column system, and due to the increase of stone column area effective in shear plane. The amount of shear strength increase with area replacement ratio is low for ratios lower than 15%. However, this amount is higher for area replacement ratios higher than 15%.

2. For stone columns with equal area replacement ratios, higher shear strength was mobilized in stone columns with square and triangular installation arrangements compared to single stone columns. Among the installation patterns investigated in this study, stone columns with square arrangement experienced the highest increase in shear strength value, while single stone columns experienced the lowest. One of the reasons of shear strength increase in square and triangular patterns is the increase of confining pressure applied by stone columns to the soil between them. Another reason is the increase the total lateral surface by changing the column arrangement from single column to square and triangular patterns. This increased lateral surface increases the lateral force imposed on the stone columns, resulting in higher shear strength mobilization of stone material.

3. The slope increase of shear strength-horizontal displacement curves shows that soil-stone column system has higher stiffness than loose sand bed, and this stiffness varies with area replacement ratio and installation pattern. The maximum stiffness values refer to stone columns installed in square pattern and the minimum values refer to single stone columns. In general, stone column installation pattern has an effective role in increasing stiffness.

4. Results show that shear strength parameters increase in soil reinforced with stone column. The maximum increase in internal friction angle refers to stone columns with square pattern and the minimum increase refers to single stone columns.

5. The equivalent shear strength values measured from experiments are higher than those obtained from analytical relationships. Accordingly, it is conservative to use analytical relationships to calculate shear strength parameters. It is worthy to mention that these relationships assume that the value of stress concentration ratio is equal to 1. Results from this study indicate that the value of stress concentration ratio should be accurately calculated and used in the relationships.

6. As discrepancy was observed between values measured from experiments and those obtained from analytical relationships, corrective coefficients were calculated to modify analytical relationships. These coefficients were computed and presented based on stone column installation pattern, area replacement ratio and the applied normal stress values../files/site1/files/133/2Extended_Abstracts.pdf
Keywords

1. Murugesan S., Rajagopal K., "Studies on the behavior of single and group of geosynthetic encased granular columns", Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. ( 2010) 136 (1) 129-139.## 2. Murugesan S., Rajagopal K., "Model tests on geosynthetic encased granular columns", Geosynth. Int., (2007) 14 (6) 346-354. ## 3. Murugesan S. K. R., "Performance of encased stone columns and design guidelines for construction on soft clay soils", Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics (2008) ##. 4. Miranda M., Da Costa A., "Laboratory analysis of encased stone columns". Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44 (2016) 26-36. ## 5. Alamgir M., Miura N., Poorooshasbh H. B., Madhav M. R., "Deformation analysis of soft ground columnar inclusions", Comput, Geotech (1996) 18 (4) 261-290. ## 6. Hughes J. M. O., Withers N. J., "reinforced of soft cohesive soils with stone columns", Ground Engineering, (1974) 42-49. ## 7. Barksdale R. D., Bachus R. C., "Design and Construction of Stone Column" (1983) 1. ## 8. Black J.A S. V., McKinley J. D., "Performance of clay samples reinforced with vertical granular columns", Can Geotech J. ( 2007) M 44 (1) 89-95. ## 9. Murugesan S., Rajagopal K., "Geosynthetic-encased stone columns: Numerical evaluation". Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (2006) 24 (6) 349-358. ## 10. Castro J., "Groups of encased stone columns: Influence of column length and arrangement", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (2017) 45 (2) 68-80. ## 11. Chen JF L. L., Xue JF., Feng S. Z, "Failure mechanism of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in soft soils under embankment", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, (2015) 43(5) 424-431. ## 12. Choobbasti A., Pichka H., "Improvement of soft clay using installation of geosynthetic-encased stone columns: numerical study", Arab J Geosci, (2012) 133(9) 1154-1161. ## 13. Choobbasti A. J., Zahmatkesh A., Noorzad R., "Performance of Stone Columns in Soft Clay: Numerical Evaluation", Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 29 (2011) 675-684. ## 14. Hasan M., Samadhiya N. K., "Experimental and Numerical Analysis of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Floating Granular Piles in Soft Clays", Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng, (2016) 2 (22) 1-13. ## 15. Hosseinpour I., Riccio M., Almeida M. S. S., "Numerical evolution of a granular column reinforced by geosynthetics using encasement and laminated disks", Geomembr, 42 (2014) 363-373. ## 16. Kousik Deb., "Modeling of granular bed-stone column-improved soft soil", International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, (2008) 1267-1288. ## 17. Nazari Afshar J., Ghazavi M., "A simple analytical method for calculation of bearing capacity of stone column", International Journal of Civil Engineering, 12 (1) (2012) 15. ## 18. Six V., Mroueh H., Shahrour I., Bouassida M., "Numerical Analysis of Elastoplastic Behavior of Stone Column Foundation", Geotech Geol Eng, 30 (2012) 813-825. ## 19. Zhang L., Zhao M., Shi C., Zhao H., "Settlement Calculation of Composite Foundation Reinforced with Stone Columns", International Journal of Geomechanics, 13 (3) (2013) 248-256. ## 20. Deb K., Samadhiya N. K., Namdeo J. B., "Laboratory model studies on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed over stone column-improved soft clay", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 29(2), (2011) 190-196. ## 21. Fattah M. Y., A.-N., M., Al-Suhaily A. S., "Estimation of bearing capacity of floating group of stone columns", Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 20 (3) (2017) 1166-1172. ## 22. Vekli M., Aytekin M., I˙kizler B., Calik U., "Experimental and numerical investigation of slope stabilization by stone columns". Nat Hazards, 64 (1) (2012) 797-820. ## 23. Ghazavi M., Nazari Afshar J.," Bearing capacity of geosynthetic encased stone columns", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 38 (2013) 26-36. ## 24. Nazari afshar J., Mehrannia N., Kalantary F., Ganjian N., "Bearing Capacity of Group of Stone Columns with Granular Blankets", International Journal of Civil Engineering (2017). ## 25. Murugesan S., Rajagopal K.,."Shear load tests on granular columns with and without geosynthetic encasement", Geotech. Test. J, 32 (1) (2008) 35-44. ## 26. Schnaid F., Winter D., Silva A. E. F., Alexiew D., Kuster V., Hebmuller A., "Geotextile encased columns (GEC) under bridge approaches as a pressure-relief system: concept, experience and measurements", in 10th International Conference on Geosynthetics, (2014): Berlin, Germany. ## 27. Sunil Ranjan Mohapatra K. R., Jitendra Shar, "Direct shear tests on geosynthetic-encased granular columns", Geotextiles and Geomembranes 44 (3) (2016) 396-405. ## 28. BRAJA M. DAS, K. S., "Principles of Geotechnical Engineering", USA: GlobalEngineering (2014). ## 29. Ranjan G.. "Ground treated with granular piles and its response under load". Indian Geotech, 19 (1) (1989) 1-22. ## 30. Institution I. S., "Indian standard code of practice for design and construction for ground improvement-guidelines, New Delhi (2003). ## 31. Fox Z., "Critical State, Dilatancy and Particle Breakage of Mine Waste Rock"., colorado state university: Fort collins,USA (2011). ## 32. Stoeber J. N., "Effects of Maximum Particle Size and Sample Scaling on the Mechanical Behavior of Mine Waste Rock; a Critical State Approach", Colorado stste univerity: Fort Collins, USA. (2012). ## 33. Nayak N. V., "Recent Advances in Ground Improvements by Stone Column", in In: Proceedings of Indian Geotechnical Conference, Madras (1983) India. ## 34. Fattah M. Y., T. S. K., Al-Waily M. J. K., "Stress Concentration Ratio of Model Stone Columns in Soft Clays", Geotechnical Testing Journal, 34 (1) (2010). ## 35. ASTM-D3080, "Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained Conditions", in ASTM International West Conshohocken, United States (2011). ## 36. Brown R., "Vibroflotation Compaction of Cohesionless Soils", Journal of the Geo technical Engineering Division, ASCE, 103 (12) (1977) 1437-1451. ## 37. James K., Mitchell F., Timothy R., Huber M., "Performance of a Ston Column Foundation", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 111 (2) (1985) 205-223. ## 38. Liu S. H., "Simulating a direct shear box test by DEM", Can. Geotech, 43 (2) (2006) 155-168. ## 39. Bareither C. A., Benson C. H., Edil T. B., "Comparison of shear strength of sand backfills measured in small-scale and large-scale direct shear tests", Can. Geotech, 45 (9) (2008) 1224-1236. ## 40. Dadkhah R., Ghafoori M., Ajalloeian R., Lashkaripour G. R., "The Effect of Scale Direct Shear Test on the Strength Parameters of Clayey Sand in Isfahan City, Iran", Journal of Applied Sciences, 10 (2010) 2027-2033. ##