Analytical Method of Stone Columns Compared with an Analysis as Per Rowe Dilatancy Theory

"Two analytical closed-form elastic-rigid-plastic solution methods to predict the rigid foundation behaviour on stone-column reinforced soil are compared, both of which takes into account the stone material yield within the host soil according to stress-dilatancy theory. These are the mechanistic methods developed by the author (2004, 2005) [that presently incorporates the dilatancy angle as per Schanz and Vermeer (1996)] and that developed by Pulko and Majes (2006), that takes into account the column yield as per Rowe dilatancy theory. Since optimal design of stone column necessitates optimum stress concentration on column, which is generally composed of dense gravel with/or without sand, the vertical stress on granular column is often close to its peak strength and the material dilates. To arrive at closed-form analytic solution to this complex soil-stone column interaction problem, some common assumptions like axi-symmetric soilstone column ‘unit-cell’, elastic host soil and rigid-plastic Mohr-Coulomb stone column material are combined with equilibrium and kinematic conditions. The results reflect the beneficial effect of dilatancy within the optimal range or techno-economic domain of area-ratio. The settlement predictions are compared with other analytical methods available in literature as well as with measured settlement reduction of stonecolumn reinforced ground at different subsoil conditions around the globe reported in literature.INTRODUCTIONStone columns or granular piles are frequently used in stabilization of soft clays, silts and loose silty-sands with large amount of fines. The majority of analytical methods assume infinitely wide loaded area with end-bearing columns having constant diameter and spacing that approximate to axi-symmetric conditions, and the approach is known as ‘unit-cell concept’. Several analytical solutions are available, and many of them (Aboshi et al; 1979, Balaam & Booker; 1981) are based on elastic approach considering the stonecolumn and surrounding soil as elastic materials. However, elastic methods give the ratio between the vertical stress in the column to soil (stress concentration factor) approximately equal to the ratio of constrained modulus of both materials. This ratio was found to be considerably higher than measured in the field and it is believed that elastic methods may overestimate the effects of stone columns on settlement reduction (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983). The elastic and elasto-plastic solutions presented by Balaam and Booker (1981, 1985) indicate that the problem can be idealized by assuming that the stone column is in a triaxial state and possibly yielding, such that there is no shear stress at the stone-soil interface and no yielding in the soil. Similar assumptions of stone column to be in a state of limiting equilibrium and under a triaxial stress state are considered in other methods also (Priebe; 1976, Van Impe & De Beer; 1983, Van Impe & Madhav; 1992, Saha & De; 1994, Saha; 2004, 2005, Pulko & Majes; 2006). In majority of the methods it is assumed that under load the stone-column yields at constant volume. However, the last three cases cited consider another parameter; the dilation of stone column. In Van Impe and Madhav’s (1992) and author’s (2004, 2005) method, the dilation is taken into account through the final value of the volumetric strain of column, whereas Pulko & Majes (2006) considered the stone column as Mohr-Coulomb rigid-plastic; dilating at yield in line with Rowe (1962) dilatancy theory."