th

The 12 International Conference of

International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India

Analytical Static Stability Analysis of Slopes Reinforced by Stone

Columns
M. Ghazavi
Dept. of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

A. Shahmandi
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Yazd, Yazd, Iran
Keywords: saturated clay, stone column, friction angle, safety factor, closed-form solution
ABSTRACT: Geotechnical engineers have always been concern with the stabilization of slopes. For this purpose,
various methods such as retaining walls, piles, and geosynthetics may be used to increase the safety factor of
slopes prone to failure. The application of stone columns may also be another potential alternative for slope
stabilization. Such columns have normally been used for cohesive soil improvement. In this paper, a closed-form
solution based on limit equilibrium method has been presented to investigate the static stability of slopes
reinforced with multi-rows of stone columns. The slope soil is assumed to be soft, cohesive, and undrained. The
closed-form solution results are compared with the numerical results from the finite element method (FEM) as
coded into GEO-OFFICE software which showed good agreement between the results. One and two rows of
stone columns are used to reinforce the slope and parametric studies have been carried out using the developed
mathematical approach. The results have shown that the safety factor of slope-reinforced with stone columns
generally increases. Moreover, it has been found that to achieve the greatest safety factor for slopes, the best
location of the column is at the top of the slope and around it. Further parametric studies have been carried out to
determine the influencing factors such as stone column diameter, friction angle of stone column material, and
distance between stone columns.

1 Introduction
A number of factors and parameters such as soil properties, pore water pressure resume, slope geometry,
earthquake, and vibration can influence the slope stability. Engineering slope stabilization is generally referred to
stop or decrease the possible of instability process of slopes. Preventing the movement of a slope or increasing
the safety factor (SF) is possible by using structural or geotechnical methods. Among techniques which increase
resisting forces and basically act externally on the soils or rocks sliding are geometrical methods (USDA, 1994),
hydraulic improvement, surface and subsurface drainage (USDA, 1994), structural barriers such as rigid walls
and piles (Hassiotis et al., 1997; Ausilio et al., 2001), physical and mechanical improvement (Komak Panah,
1994), chemical improvement (Andromalos et al., 2000), reinforcement with geosynthetics (Jorge and Zornberg,
2002; Kousik Deb et al., 2007), soil nailing (Turner and Jensen, 2005; Sugawara, 2006), etc.
Stone columns (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983; Cheung, 1998; Kousik Deb et al., 2007; Ambily, 2007) are another
method for slope stabilization. Such columns have been used since 1950 normally for cohesive soil improvement.
It is a hole with circular section which is filled by gravel, rubble and etc and is an effective method to increase the
shear strength on the slip surface of clayey slopes. The most important cases for utilizing stone columns
(Barksdale & Bachus, 1983) are:
1. Improving slopes stability of both embankment and natural slopes

3530

2. Increasing the bearing capacity of shallow foundations constructed on soft soils

3. Reducing total and differential settlements
4. Decreasing the liquefaction potential of sandy soils
The performance of stone columns for reinforced and improved soil is easier and cheaper than other methods
such as geotextile, grouting, and compaction (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983). The diameter of stone column usually
varies between 0.3 to 1.2 m and their intervals between 1.5 to 3 m. Stone columns are normally constructed in
multiple rows, depending on the soil condition.
In this research work, a mathematical approach based on limit equilibrium method was performed to determine
the static safety factor of slopes reinforced with multi-rows of stone columns. This solution was then verified using
GEO-OFFICE finite element software. One and two rows of stone columns are used to reinforce the slope and
then parametric studies have been performed to achieve the best location of the column in slope face and to
determine the effects of contributing parameters such as geotechnical properties of slope soil materials and stone
column materials, geometrical specifications of the slope (height and angle of the slope), diameter of the stone
columns and etc.

2 Closed-form solution for slope stability analysis

2.1 Safety factor equation for un-reinforced slope
Taylor (1937, according to Das, 1941) presented an equation to determine the safety factor of homogenous
undrained ( = 0) clayey slopes (Figure 1):

Figure 1. Slope stability analysis of homogeneous saturated clay ( = 0) (Das, 1941).

From Figure 1, it is seen that the average shear strength of the soil is
strength of clay,

f = cu

where

cu is the undrained shear

is shear strength and is the internal friction angle.

The mobilized shear strength on the slip surface is d

= cd . Therefore, the sliding moment is given by:

M d = w1l1 w2l2

(1)

M R = cu r 2

(2)

The resisting moment is expresses as:

For equilibrium, it is necessary to have

M R = M d . This leads to:

SF =

f cu
cu r 2
=
=
d cd w1l1 w2l2

(3)

where all parameters are shown in figure 1. Also Taylor has been produced charts to determine the safety factor.

3531

In these charts, the stability number (m) is given by angle of slope () and dimensionless parameter of D is called
depth factor:

H
h

D=

(4)

With respect to Figure 1, H is vertical space from top of the slope to firm strata and h is slope height. Upon
determining

cd

on the critical slip surface from Equation (3) and the following equation, the safety factor is

obtained using:

cd = .h.m

(5)

Using D and for slope with angle of less than 53, the location of midpoint circle is obtained by nh, where n is a
factor determined using both D and parameters.

2.2 Safety factor equation for reinforced slope with a row of stone column
Based on two-dimensional analysis of slopes, for 3-D analysis, a 3-D stone column must be changed to 2-D.
Figure 2a shows a sample of grouped stone column arrangement. With respect to this figure, one row of
successively stone columns with center to center spacing of s is replaced with an equivalent column. The
volumes of stone column materials are identical in both two and three dimensional conditions. On the basis of
equality of volumes, equivalent strip width for each row of the stone columns is obtained from (Barksdale &
Bachus, 1983; Cheung, 1998):

R 2

(6)

where R is radius of 3-D stone columns, and s is distance between centers of stone columns in each row.
Figure 2b shows a slope reinforced by a row of stone columns which in this figure x is horizontal distance of
column from topmost of the slope. The slope is assumed to be homogeneous and consist of saturated clay in
undrained conditions ( = 0). With the presence of column on the slope face, the shear strength on the slip
surface is mobilized. From figure 2b, exerted forces on the equivalent strip stone column between surface of
slope and slip surface are shown in figure 3.

(b)

(a)

Figure 2. (a) Plan of grouped stone columns (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983); (b) Static slope stability analysis of
homogeneous saturated clay ( = 0) reinforced with a row of column.
Assuming

E1 = E2

and

F1 = F2

from Figures 2b and 3, it may be said that:

w = sat
where w is weight of strip stone column,

sat

R 2
s

(7)

is saturated unit weight of strip stone column materials and h is

height of strip stone column between surface of slope and slip surface. The normal and tangential components of
forces are expressed as:

3532

N = w. cos = sat

R 2
s

h cos

(8)

Figure 3. Exerted forces on the strip stone column.

R 2

T = w.sin = sat

h sin

(9)

where is angle of stone column failure with horizontal direction on the slip surface from Figure 2b:

EF =

R 2
s

1
cos

(10)

The total normal stress on the base of the stone column is:

= N /(

R 2
s

1
) = sat.h. cos 2
cos

(11)

The shear stress on the base of the stone column is given as:

= T /(

R 2
s

1
) = sat .h. cos .sin
cos

(12)

The shear strength on the slip surface of slope-column system is determined using:

f = cu + f = cu + . tan = cu + ( u ) tan = cu + .h. cos 2 . tan

(13)

Where is buoyant unit weight of strip stone column materials. The shear strength mobilized on the slip surface
with the presence of the column is expresses as:

d = cd + d = cd + . tan d = cd + .h. cos 2 . tan d

(14)

The sliding moment is computed from:

M d = w1l1 w2l2

(15)

The resisting moment is given by:

M R = r.cu ( DE + FA) + r. .h
For moment equilibrium, it is necessary to have M R

R 2
s

cos . tan

(16)

= M d and thus the safety factor for reinforced slope can be

determined using:

3533

( SF ) col =

r.cu ( DE + FA) + r. .h

R 2

w1l1 w2 l 2

cos . tan
(17)

The safety factor equation can be converted to:

( SF ) col =

r.cu ( r

R 2
s

1
R 2
) + r. .h
cos . tan
cos
s
w1l1 w2 l2

(18)

where all parameters are shown in Figures 2b and 3. By dividing Equation (18) to safety factor equation for unreinforced slope, Equation (3), the ratio of safety factor for reinforced slope, SF ratio is determined using:

SFratio =

( SF ) col
R 2
.h.R 2 . cos . tan
= 1
+
( SF ) nocol
s.r. . cos
s.cu .r.

(19)

2.3 Safety factor equation for reinforced slope with multi-rows of stone column
A row of column may not provide a satisfactory safety factor, therefore, the above closed-form solution is
generalized for cases where several rows of columns are used for slope stability. Here, two rows of columns on
the slope are assumed and stability analysis is performed. The ratio of generalized closed-form solution for
reinforced slope with multi-rows of stone columns may be determined usin:

SFratio =

( SF ) col
R 2 m 1

=1
( SF ) nocol
s.r. i =1 cos i

where m is numbers of rows of columns located on slope,

.R 2 . tan m

+
hi. cos i
s.cu .r. i =1

and

hi

(20)

belong to each row of columns.

3 Verification for developed closed-form solutions

In this paper, maximum two rows of stone columns are assumed to be within the slope for reinforcement. Several
analyses were performed using developed equation and the results were compared with GEO-OFFICE software
data. Tables 1 and 2 show soil and stone column material properties used for verification and further parametric
studies.
Table 1. Geotechnical properties of clayey soil.
Modulus of elasticity
[kN/m]

Poissons ratio

Undrained cohesion
[kN/m]

Friction angle
[degree]

5000

0.48

25, 30, 40

Saturated unit
weight
[kN/m]
15, 16, 17

Table 2. Geotechnical and geometrical properties of stone column materials.

Modulus of elasticity
[kN/m]

Poissons ratio

cohesion
[kN/m]

Friction angle
[degree]

50000

0.30

35, 40, 45

Saturated unit
weight
[kN/m]
22

equivalent strip
width
[m]
0.50, 0.65, 0.80

Tables 3 and 4 show two examples for comparison. These results are for of reinforced slpe safety factors. When
undrained cohesion and saturated unit weight of clay are 25 kPa and 17 kN/m, respectively, un-reinforced safety
factor related to Figures 4a and 4b were found 0.865 and 0.842 from Taylors chart.

3534

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Geometrical specification of two samples for slopes under study.

Table 3. Comparison of safety factors related to slope 4a when a row of column is located at x = 0
strip width of column is 0.65m).
Friction angle of stone
column materials
[degree]
35

Geo-Slope
FEM

Geo-Slope
Spencer

Geo-Slope
Bishop

0.913

0.893

0.894

GeoSlope
Ordinary
0.894

40

0.923

0.901

0.90

0.901

0.941

45

0.934

0.911

0.907

0.908

0.959

(equivalent

Closed-form solution
0.925

Table 4. Comparison of safety factors related to slope 4b when two rows of columns are located at x = 0, 1.7 m
(equivalent strip width of column is 0.80m).
Friction angle of stone
column materials
[degree]
35

Geo-Slope
FEM

Geo-Slope
Spencer

Geo-Slope
Bishop

Closed-form solution

0.933

GeoSlope
Ordinary
0.939

0.989

0.935

40

1.015

45

1.043

0.956

0.953

0.964

0.993

0.981

0.975

0.993

1.024

0.965

As seen, the comparison of numerical and limit equilibrium results shows a good agreement. From several
analyses, it has been found that the maximum differences between results are less than 5%. This actually proves
the accuracy of the developed closed-form solution.

4 Parametric studies
In this section, one and two rows of stone columns are used to reinforce the slope and parametric studies have
been performed to determine the effects of contributing parameters such as geotechnical properties of slope soil
materials and stone column materials, geometrical specifications of the slope (height and angle of the slope) and
diameter of the stone columns.
First it is obvious that the best location of stone columns for achievement the greatest safety factor is unknown.
Thus initially, the Taylor method is used to determine the safety factor and slip surface for unreinforced slope.
Upon finding this critical slip surface, the stone column is displaced through the slope face and closed-form
solution is used and the variation of safety factors is found. Among these factors, the best location of the column
is captured.
Apart from using parameters given in Tables 1 and 2, three values of 27, 38 and 45 for slope angles and two
values of 5 and 10 m for slope heights arealso used and the variation of safety factor is determined by moving the
location of a row of columns along the slope. It has been found that when the stone column is located on the
topmost of the slope (column at x = 0), the greatest safety factor is achieved. In addition, this factor decreases by
moving the column from the slope crest toward the slope toe. The same trend has been observed in all analyses.
The variation of SF with respect to the ston location is shown in Figure 5. As seen, steep straight lines represent
this variation.

3535

0.96

1.16

0.94

1.14

0.92

SF

0.9
0.88

SF ratio

no-col
= 35
= 40
= 45

0.86

1.12
1.1

= 35
= 40

1.08

= 45

1.06

0.84

1.04

0.82
0

10

15

20

1.02

25

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

x/h
(b)

(a)

Figure 5. (a) Variations of safety factor versus location of column from the topmost of the slope; (b) Variations of

SFratio versus location of column from the topmost of the slope.

4.1 Stone column effects on slope stability
Stone columns have two impacts on increasing slope stability:
1. Reduction of pore water pressure by dissipation
2. Increasing the shear strength on the slip surface due to high friction angle of stone column materials.
Stone columns can drain well and reduce pore water pressure with time elapse. However, in short time, columns
are unable to perform this mechanism. The presence of the column causes pore pressures dissipate considerably
on the slip surface-column intersection. The pore water pressure at each level in column is approximately equal
to u

= w .hw where w is water unit weight and hw is water depth from the slope surface at the column location.

The main reason for safety factor increase is high column material friction angle, which is offered at the failure
surface. The presence of stone column causes the safety factor value suddenly increases for the slip surface that
this surface passes the column material. With accuracy to this mechanism new closed-form solution has been
found. Figure 6 show examples of variations of pore water pressure and shear strength on slip surface of
reinforced slope by a row of column which is located in the topmost the slope, in these figures, d is horizontal
distance of column location from failure starting point on slip surface.

250

250

Shear strength (kPa))

Pore water pressure (kPa)

300

200
150
100
50

200
150
100
50
0

0
0

d/h

d/h

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. (a) Distribution curve of pore water pressure on slip surface; (b) Shear strength variations on slip
surface versus location of column from failure starting point (from GEO-OFFICE analyses).

5 Conclusions
In this research work closed-form solution for static stability analysis of clayey slopes reinforced with stone
columns has been presented. The data extracted from this solution have been verified using the available
commercial software as coded into GEO-OFFICE. Several parametric analyses have been performed using the
closed-form solution. The following conclusions are drawn based on this study:

3536

1. The safety factor values of stone column-reinforced slopes are influenced by various parameters including
geometrical specifications of slope, geotechnical properties of soil and stone column materials, center to center
spacing of columns, location of columns, number of column rows and etc.
2. If slope is reinforced by a row of column, the maximum safety factor is achieved when the column is located on
the topmost of slope. Wth further moving the column toward the slope toe, the factor of safety dectreases.
3. With increasing the sliding active force, for example due to low undrained shear strength of slope soil,
increasing the slope height or the slope angle, the influence of column on safety factor values increases.
4. With increasing equivalent width of stone columns and friction angle of column materials, safety factor values
increase remarkably.
5. The safety factor values for slopes reinforced with two rows of columns are higher for cases when columns are
located on the topmost of the slope and around it and column rows are very close.

6 References
Ambily A.P., Gandhi S.R. 2007. Behavior of stone columns based on experimental and FEM analyses, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, (4), 405-415.
Ausilio E., Conte E., Dente G. 2001. Stability analysis of slope reinforced with piles, Computers and Geotechnics, (28), 591611.
Bowles J.E. 1984. Physical and Geotechnical Properties of Soils, Singapore, Mc Graw Hill Inc.
Cheung K. 1998. Geogrid reinforced light weight embankment on stone columns, Roading Geotechnics, 273-278.
Das B.M. 1941. Principles of Geotechnical Engineering, Boston, PWS Publishing Company.
Desai C.S., Abel J.F. 1972. Introduction to the Finite Element Method. Melbourne, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Fredlund D.G., Scoular R.E.G. 1999. Using limit equilibrium concepts in finite element slope stability analysis, Slope Stability
Engineering, Saskatoon, University of Saskatchewan.
GEO-OFFICE International Ltd. 2002. Users Guide GEO-OFFICE Office, Alberta.
Griffiths D.V., Lane P.A. 1999. Slope stability analysis by finite elements, Geotechnique, 49(3), 387-403.
Hassiotis S., Chameau J.L., Gunarante M. 1997. Design method for stabilization of slopes with piles, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(4), 314-323.
Jorge G., Zornberg M. 2002. Geosynthetic reinforcement in landfill design, American Society of Civil Engineering.
Komak Panah A. 1994. Slope Remediation, International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran .
Kousik D., Basudhar P.K., Chandra S. 2007. Generalized model for geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill-soft soil with stone
columns, International Journal of Geomechanics, (4), 266-276.
Rocscience Inc. 2004. Application of Finite Element Method to Slope Stability, Toronto.
Barksdale R.D., Bachus R.C. 1983. Design and construction of stone columns, Federal Highway Administration Office of
Engineering and Highway Operations, Volume and , Washington, DC.
Sugawara J. 2006. Soil nailing technology and Japanese landslide mitigation works, An International Conference on
Geotechnical Engineering, Singapoe.
Turner J.P., Jensen W.G. 2005. Landslide stabilization using soil nail and mechanically stabilized earth wall, case study,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, (2), 141-150.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1994. Slope stability reference guide for national forests in the United States, Volume
, Washington, DC.

3537