Aterro Com Colunas de Brita-Han e Ye-2002

The International Journal of Geomechanics
Volume 2, Number 2, 135–151 (2002)
A Theoretical Solution for Consolidation

Rates of Stone Column-Reinforced
Foundations Accounting for Smear and
Well Resistance Effects
J. Han and S.L. Ye
Department of Civil Engineering, Widener University, One University Place, PA 19013

Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, 1239 Siping Road,
Shanghai 200092, P.R. China
ABSTRACT. Theoretical and experimental studies have proven that stone columns can be used for
accelerating the consolidation rate of soft soil by providing a drainage path and reducing stresses in the
soil. In constructing stone columns in fine-grained soils, however, soil zones at the interface between the
columns and their surrounding soil can become smeared and the fine-grained soil particles can also be
mixed into aggregates in the columns. The smear and well resistance due to aggregates contaminated with
the fine-grained soil particles reduce the effectiveness of stone columns in dissipating excess pore water
pressures. A theoretical solution is developed in this article for computing the consolidation rates of stone
column reinforced foundations accounting for smear and well resistance effects. In the derivations, stone
columns and soft soil are both considered deforming one-dimensionally and the stone columns having a
higher drained elastic modulus than the surrounding soft soil. A modified coefficient of consolidation is
introduced to account for the effect of the stone column-soil modular ratio or stress concentration ratio.
A parametric study investigates the influences of six important factors on the rate of consolidation. These
influence factors include the diameter ratio of the influence zone to the stone column, the permeability
of the stone column, the stress concentration ratio, the size of the smeared zone, the permeability of the
smeared zone, and the thickness of the soft soil. To assist geotechnical engineers in utilizing the new
solution for the design of stone column reinforced foundations, an illustrative design example is presented
at the end of this article.
I. Introduction
Stone columns, one of the most commonly used soil improvement techniques, have been
utilized worldwide to increase bearing capacities and reduce total and differential settlements of
Key Words and Phrases. stone column, soft clay, consolidation, stress concentration, pore water pressure, smear,
well resistance.
© 2003 ASCE DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:2(135)

ISSN 1532-3641
Downloaded 21 Aug 2009 to 143.107.97.162. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
136 J. Han and S.L. Ye
superstructures constructed on soft soils. Field observations showed that stone columns could
also accelerate the rate of consolidation of soft soils [1, 2]. Field pore water pressure measurement
under an embankment indicated that a homogeneous clay stratum outside a stone column treated
area only completed 25% primary consolidation when the stone column area had reached 100%
primary consolidation [1]. Han and Ye [2] also reported that the rates of settlement of two
similar buildings, one on an unreinforced foundation, and the other on a stone column reinforced
foundation on the same site, reached 66% and 95%, respectively, over the same time period
(480 days). The acceleration of the rate of consolidation was accredited to stone columns for
providing a drainage path and relieving excess pore water pressures by transferring loads from soil
to columns. A numerical study demonstrated that an increase of the stone column-soil modular
ratio can increase the rate of consolidation of soft clays under a rigid raft but not under a flexible
raft [3]. Han and Ye [4] developed a simplified and closed-form solution for estimating the
rate of consolidation of stone column reinforced foundations accounting for the stone column-
soil modular ratio with reasonable accuracy as compared with the Balaam and Booker results [3].
The authors’ previous study also found that the stone column-soil modular ratio is equivalent to the
steady stress concentration ratio when the consolidation is complete [4]. The stress concentration
ratio is defined as the ratio of the stress on the column to that on the soil, which is commonly
adopted in practice. The studies by Balaam and Booker [3] and Han and Ye [5] both assumed
that stone columns are free-draining and no smear or soil disturbance exists. Seed and Booker [6]
concluded that the permeability of a drain must be 200 times greater than that of the surrounding
sand to ensure no buildup in excess pore water pressure within the drain under an earthquake event.
Barksdale [7] indicated the possibility of a reduction in the permeability of the stone column due
to contamination of aggregates with fine-grained soil during the construction. In other words,
the drainage capacity of the stone column may be limited by its permeability. The effect of the
limited permeability is commonly referred to as “well resistance.” In addition, a zone of insitu
soil can become smeared, disturbed, and intruded by stone from the column. Field observations
indicated that the zone of insitu soil intruded by stone at the interface had about 2 to 5 cm thick
when a vibroflotation method was adopted [8]. The combined effects of smear, soil disturbance,
and stone intrusion are referred by Barksdale [7] to as “smear” in general. The intensity of well
resistance and smear depends on the method used for installing the stone columns. A casing
method apparently can minimize the possibility of fine-grained soil mixed into the stone column
as compared with a vibroflotation method, in which the stone column can be easily contaminated
by the fine-grained soil in the slurry. Cassagrande and Poulos [9] indicated that the horizontal
permeability of the soil smeared by a driven casing was about 10 times less than that by a jetting
method. To account for smear and well resistance effects, Barksdale and Bachus [10] suggested
that a reduced diameter to 1/2 ∼ 1/15 of the actual diameter of stone columns should be used
along with the solution for drain wells. This suggested fractional reduction in diameter was based
on back-calculated results from field data. However, this suggestion lacks a theoretical basis and
cannot distinguish different (positive or negative) effects from a variety of influence factors, such
as smear, well resistance, and stress concentration, etc. In addition, the reduction in diameter has
a wide range difficult for a proper selection. The objective of this article is to develop a simplified
theoretical solution for computing the consolidation rates of stone column reinforced foundations
by considering their high modular ratio or stress concentration characteristics, smear, and well
resistance effects, although this problem can also be solved by using Biot’s theory and a finite
element method.
II. Review of solutions for drain wells and stone columns

Reginald A. Barron has been credited as one of the earliest researchers in solving the consol-
idation problem due to radial flow. In his studies Barron [11] developed solutions for computing
A Theoretical Solution for Consolidation Rates of Stone Column-Reinforced Foundations 137
the consolidation rates of fine-grained soils by drain wells with or without well resistance or
smear. Barron’s work extended Terzaghi’s one-dimensional vertical flow theory to a radial flow
problem. Barron’s solution without well resistance and smear as presented in equation (1) has
been commonly used in practice for designing sand drains and wick drains under an equal strain
condition.
U r = 1 − e− F (N) Tr
8
(1)
where
U r — the average rate of consolidation due to radial flow;
N2 3N 2 −1
F (N) = N 2 −1
ln(N) − 4N 2
;
de
N= dc , the diameter ratio;
cr t
Tr = de2
, the time factor in a radial flow;
cr - the coefficient of consolidation due to radial flow;

dc and de - the diameters of a drain well and its influence zone, respectively;
t - the time period for consolidation.
However, Barron’s solution for the rate of consolidation with well resistance or smear effects
has not been widely adopted due to its complexity. Hansbo [12] proposed a simplified solution
in which a modified factor, Fm , is used instead of F (N) in equation (1) and the modified factor
can be expressed as:
N kr 3 kr
Fm = ln + ln S − + π z(2H − z) (2)
S ks 4 qc
where
ds
S= dc , the diameter ratio of the smeared zone to the drain well;
ds — the diameter of the smeared zone;
kr — the radial permeability of the undisturbed surrounding soil;
ks — the radial permeability of the smeared soil;
H — the longest drainage distance due to vertical flow;
z — the depth in the ground at which the rate of consolidation is computed;
π dc2
qc = kc 4 the discharge capacity of the drain well;
kc — the permeability of the drain well.
A similar solution as above was obtained by Zeng and Xia [13], in which the average rate
of consolidation was computed in terms of the total thickness of the soft soil rather than that at a
certain depth in Hansbo’s solution.
Stone columns and drained wells have two major differences: (1) stone columns have a
larger drained elastic modulus than the surrounding soft soil. The typical elastic modulus ratios
of stone column to soft clay range from 10 to 20 [10]. As pointed out by Lane [14] in his
discussion, Barron’s solution ignored the effect of the stiffness difference between the sand well
and the surrounding soil on the consolidation rate. This statement is also true for Hansbo [12]
and Zeng and Xia [13] solutions. (2) Stone columns have a smaller diameter ratio (influence
diameter/column diameter) than drain wells. Typical diameter ratios for stone columns range
from 1.5 to 5; however, the values for well diameter ratios used by Barron [11] were from 5
to 100. Considering these characteristics of the stone column-reinforced foundation, Han and
Ye [5] developed a simplified and closed-form solution for computing the rate of consolidation
of this foundation under the conditions of no well resistance and smear. The proposed solution
for the rate of consolidation due to radial flow followed Barron’s formula in equation (1) with an
exception that a modified time factor should be used instead, i. e.,
crm t
Trm = (3)
de2
where
Trm — the modified time factor due to radial flow;

crm — the modified consolidation coefficient due to radial flow;

m (1−as )+mv,s as
crm = γkwr v,c
mv,s mv,c (1−as ) = cr 1 + n s
1
N 2 −1
;
mv,c and mv,s — the coefficients of volumetric compressibility of stone columns and
the surrounding soil, respectively;
γw — the unit weight of water;
as — the area replacement ratio, the ratio of the replaced area with a stone column to its
total influence area;
ns — the steady stress concentration ratio, the ratio of the stress on the stone column to
that on the surrounding soil at the time primary consolidation is complete. The steady
stress concentration ratio was typically measured at the elevation of the top of the stone
column in the practical range mostly from 2 to 5 [4]. In the authors’ previous study, it
was found that the steady stress concentration ratio is equal to the ratio of the volumetric
mv,s
compressibility coefficient of the soil to that of the stone column, i. e., ns = mv,c [5].
Similarly, the proposed solution for the rate of consolidation due to vertical flow followed
the Terzaghi one-dimensional solution with the same exception that a modified time factor should
be used, i. e.,
cvm t
Tvm = (4)
H2
where
Tvm — the modified time factor due to vertical flow;
cvm — the modified consolidation coefficient due to vertical flow;

m (1−as )+mv,s as
cvm = γkwv v,c
mv,s mv,c (1−as ) = cv 1 + n s
1
N −1
2 .
For most cases the rate of consolidation due to vertical flow is negligible when compared with
that due to radial flow because the distance for radial flow is much shorter than that for vertical
flow. In this study, the theoretical solution is developed specially for the rate of consolidation due
to radial flow, in other words no vertical flow is considered in the surrounding soil (including the
smeared zone and the undisturbed soil).
III. Derivation of the theoretical solution
In order to obtain a simplified closed-form solution, the following assumptions are made
during the development of the solution:
1. No vertical flow occurs within the surrounding soil (smeared and undisturbed soil);
2. Each stone column has a circular influence zone. The stone column reinforced foundation
is fully saturated and water is incompressible;
3. The stone column and the surrounding soil only deform vertically and have the equal
strain at any depth;
4. The coefficients of compressibility of the smeared zone and the undisturbed soil are
equal;
5. The load is applied instantly and maintained constant during the consolidation;
6. Total vertical stresses within the stone column and the surrounding soil, respectively, are
averaged and uniform;
7. The excess pore water pressure within the stone column is averaged and uniform in terms
of radius.
In addition, the following initial and boundary conditions are assumed in terms of the geom-
etry, the compressibility of the stone column and the soil, and excess pore water pressures defined
in Figure 1:
1. The initial excess pore water pressure

within the surrounding soil at the time of instant
loading is equal to u0 , i. e., ur t=0 = u0 ;
2. Due to the symmetry of the problem, no flow occurs across the external boundary, i. e.,
∂ur
∂r r=r = 0 ;
e

3. The ground surface is always free-draining, i. e., uc z=0 = 0;
4. Within the stone column, the boundary at z = H is impervious or because of symmetry,
c
no flow occurs across this boundary, i. e., ∂u ∂z z=H = 0;
5. The quantity of water flowing through the smeared zone into the stone column is equal
∂u0
to that flowing out from the stone column, i. e., 2π rc dz γkws ∂rr = −π rc2 dz γkwc ∂∂zu2c ;
2
r=rc
6. The excess pore water pressures at the interface between the smeared zone and the
undisturbed in situ soil are equal, i. e., u0r r=r = ur r=r ;
s s
7. The excess pore water pressures
at the interface between the smeared zone and the stone
column are equal, i. e., u0r r=r = uc .
c
In any time, both the stone column and the surrounding soil share the applied loads, i. e.,
σ s As + σ c Ac = pA (5)
where
σ c and σ s - average total stresses within the column and the surrounding soil, respec-
tively;
p — the average applied pressure on the total influence area;
Ac , As , and A — cross-section areas of the column, the surrounding soil, and the total
influence area, respectively, therefore A = Ac + As .
FIGURE 1 Definition of terms for modeling consolidation of equivalent cylindrical unit comprising of a stone column
and its surrounding fine-grained soil.
The assumption of equal strain between the column and the surrounding soil yields the
following equation:
∂ε = −mv,s ∂σ 0s = −mv,c ∂σ 0c (6)
where σ 0c and σ 0s - the average effective stresses within the column and the surrounding soil,
respectively;
The rate of soil volumetric strain change with time can be expressed as:
∂ε ∂σ 0
= −mv,s s . (7)
∂t ∂t
Using the basic soil mechanics principle σ 0c = σ c − uc and the relationship in equation (5) yields
the following equation:
p − σ 0s (1 − as )
σ 0c = − uc . (8)
as
From equation (6) and equation (8), the following equation can be obtained:

0 mv,c p − σ s (1 − as )
∂σ s = ∂ − uc . (9)
mv,s as
With the assumption that the applied load is maintained constant during the consolidation, i. e.,
∂p 0
∂t = 0 and the relationship σ s = σ s − ur , equation (9) can be rewritten as:

∂σ 0s mv,c as 1 − as ∂ur ∂uc
=− + . (10)
∂t mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) as ∂t ∂t
Substituting equation (10) into equation (7) yields:

∂ε mv,s mv,c as 1 − as ∂ur ∂uc
=− + . (11)
∂t mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) as ∂t ∂t
The amount of water expelled from the cylindrical surface 2π r dz should be equal to the
volume change within the soil mass π(re2 − r 2 ) dz, i. e.,:
kr ∂ur ∂ε
−2πr dz = π re2 − r 2 dz , (rs ≤ r ≤ re ) (12)
γw ∂r ∂t
ks ∂u0r ∂ε
−2πr dz = π re2 − r 2 dz , (rc ≤ r ≤ rs ) . (13)
γw ∂r ∂t
The above two equations can be simplified as:

∂ur γw re2 ∂ε
=− −r , (rs ≤ r ≤ re ) (14)
∂r 2kr r ∂t

∂u0r γw re2 ∂ε
=− −r , (rc ≤ r ≤ rs ) . (15)
∂r 2ks r ∂t
From the boundary condition (5) and equation (15), the following equation can be obtained:
∂ 2 uc γw 2 ∂ε
= N −1 (16)
∂z 2 kc ∂t
de
where N = dc , the diameter ratio of the influence zone to the stone column.
Considering the equal strain assumption, the rate of the volumetric strain has a function of
depth, z and time, t but is independent of the radial distance, r. The integrals of equations (14)
and (15) with the known boundary conditions are

γw r r 2 − rs2 γw r 2 − rc2 ∂ε
ur = − re2 ln − + re2 ln S − s
2kr rs 2 2ks 2 ∂t
+ uc , (rs ≤ r ≤ re ) (17)

γw r r − rc ∂ε
2 2
u0r = − re ln − + uc , (rc ≤ r ≤ rs ) (18)
2ks rc 2 ∂t
ds
where S = dc , the diameter ratio of the smeared zone to the stone column.
The average excess pore water pressure at the depth, z, can be computed by
Z rs Z re
1 0
ur = ur · 2π r dr + u r · 2π r dr . (19)
π re2 − rc2 rc rs
Substituting equations (17) and (18) into equation (19) yields the following result:
γw re2 F ∂ε
ur = − + uc (20)
2kr ∂t
in which F can be expressed as follows:

N2 N kr 3 S2 kr S2
F = 2 ln + ln S − + 2 1− 1−
N −1 S ks 4 N −1 ks 4N 2

kr 1 1
+ 1− . (21)
ks N − 1
2 4N 2
Substituting equation (11) into equations (20) and (16) yields the following two equations:

γw re2 F mv,s mv,c as 1 − as ∂ur ∂uc
ur = − + + uc (22)
2kr mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) as ∂t ∂t

∂ 2 uc γw (N 2 − 1)mv,s mv,c as 1 − as ∂ur ∂uc
= + . (23)
∂z2 kc mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) as ∂t ∂t
By canceling out the variable, uc or ur from equations (22) and (23), the following two equations
can be obtained:
∂ 3 ur mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) ∂ 2 ur 1 ∂ur
+ λ − ρ2 =0 (24)
∂z ∂t
2 mv,c (1 − as ) ∂z 2 1 − as ∂t
∂ 3 uw mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) ∂ 2 uc 1 ∂uc
+λ − ρ2 =0 (25)
∂z ∂t
2 mv,c (1 − as ) ∂z 2 1 − as ∂t
where
8cr 8kr N 2 − 1
λ= 2 and ρ =2
.
de F kc de2 F
Equations (24) and (25) can be further simplified as follows:
∂ 3 ur ∂ 2 ur 2 ∂ur
+ λm − ρm =0 (26)
∂z2 ∂t ∂z2 ∂t
∂ 3 uc ∂ 2 uc 2 ∂uc
+ λ m − ρm =0 (27)
∂z2 ∂t ∂z2 ∂t
where

mv,s as + mv,c (1 − as ) 1
λm = λ = λ 1 + ns 2 in terms of the relationships
mv,c (1 − as ) N −1
mv,s 1
ns = and as = 2 , which are same as those in equation (3) or (4) ;
mv,c N
1 N2
ρm
2
= ρ2 = ρ2 2 .
1 − as N −1
From equations (26) and (27), the following relationship can be set:
ur = Cuc (28)
where C is a constant to be determined. Apparently, the constant C must be greater or equal to 1
because the dissipation of excess pore water pressure is from the surrounding soil to the column.
Equations (22) and (23) can be further simplified by rearrangement as:
∂ur as ∂uc
+ = −λm (ur − uc ) (29)
∂t 1 − as ∂t
∂ 2 uc
= −ρ 2 (ur − uc ) . (30)
∂z2
The excess pore water pressure, uc , in the column can be solved by
combining equations (28)
and (30) and utilizing the boundary conditions: uc z=0 = 0 and ∂uc
∂z z=H = 0, i. e.,
πz
uc = C1 sin (31)
2H
and
π2
C =1+ . (32)
4ρ 2 H 2
By substituting equation (31) into equation (29), the constant, C1 , in equation (31) can be obtained
as
 
π 2 λm
4ρ H
2 2 t
C1 = C2 exp − 2  . (33)
π
ρ H
2 2 + 1
1−as
In terms of depth, the average excess pore water pressure in the surrounding soil can be expressed
as
Z
1 H
ur = ur dz . (34)
H 0

The constant, C2 , in equation (33) can be obtained by utilizing the initial condition: ur t=0 = u0 ,
i. e.,
2u0 πρ 2 H 2
C2 = . (35)
4ρ 2 H 2 + π 2
Therefore,
πu0 πz
ur = sin · exp(−βrm t) (36)
2 2H
2πu0 ρ 2 H 2 πz
uc = sin · exp(−βrm t) (37)
4ρ H + π
2 2 2 2H
where

π 2 λm N 2 − 1 8crm 1
βrm = 2 2 = 2 · (38)
π N − 1 + 4N ρ H 2 2 2 de F + π322 G

where crm = cr 1 + ns N 21−1 , the modified consolidation coefficient accounting for stress
concentration on the stone column, which is the same as that previously obtained by Han and
2
Ye [5] and defined in equation (3); G = kkrc dHc , a well resistance factor.
Therefore, the average rate of consolidation due to radial flow is

R
1 H
H 0 ur dz
Ur = 1 − = 1 − exp(−βrm t) . (39)
u0
The above formula can be expressed in a general format:

− 8
0 Trm
U =1−e Fm (40)
crm
where Trm = de2
t, the modified time factor, which is the same as that in equation (3);

N2 N kr 3 S2 kr S2
Fm0 = ln + ln S − + 1 − 1 −
N2 − 1 S ks 4 N2 − 1 ks 4N 2
2
kr 1 1 32 kr H
+ 1− + 2 .
ks N 2 − 1 4N 2 π kc dc
The format of equation (40) is similar with those of the solutions obtained by Hansbo [12] and
Zeng and Xia [13] for drain wells; however, equation (40) takes into account of the characteristics
of stone column reinforced foundations.
IV. A parametric study and discussion

A. Influence factors
Six important influence factors have been selected for an investigation in this parametric
study.
1. Diameter ratio of the influence zone to the stone column

With a typical diameter ratio for stone column reinforced foundations from 1.5 to 5.0 in
practice, the reduction of the diameter ratio accelerates the rate of consolidation of the soft soil as
shown in Figure 2. The reduction of the diameter ratio occurs when the spacing of stone columns
is reduced and/or the diameter of the stone column is enlarged. The reduction of the diameter
ratio can also be considered as the shortening of the drainage path.
FIGURE 2 Influence of the diameter ratio on the rate of consolidation.
2. Permeability of stone columns
A reduction of the permeability of the stone column, kc , increases the permeability ratio,
kr /kc , so that the rate of consolidation is reduced as shown in Figure 3. The reduction of the
permeability of the stone column may be attributed by the deposition of fine materials from slurry
to the column during the installation.
FIGURE 3 Influence of the permeability of stone columns on the rate of consolidation.
3. Stress concentration ratio

As discussed in Section II, one of the major differences between stone columns and drain
wells is that stone columns have a high modular ratio of the columns to the soil, which results
in the stress concentration from the soil to the columns. The effect of the stress concentration
ratio on the rate of consolidation for stone columns without smear and well resistance has been
investigated by Han and Ye [5]. The same effect is observed for the case with well resistance as
shown in Figure 4, that is, the average rate of consolidation accelerated with an increase of the
stress concentration ratio.
4. Size of the smeared zone

As shown in Figure 5, an increase of the smeared zone reduces the average rate of consoli-
dation. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the permeability of the smeared zone is
less than that of the undisturbed soil. In other words, minimizing the size of the smeared zone
can enhance the rate of consolidation. Reference [8] indicated that the stone-soil mixture zone
could be effectively reduced if the rate of filling aggregates into a hole and the diameter of the
column were well controlled without increasing the electrical current during the installation using
vibroflotation.
FIGURE 4 Influence of the stress concentration ratio on the rate of consolidation.
FIGURE 5 Influence of the size of smeared zone on the rate of consolidation.
5. Permeability of the smeared zone

For most cases, the smearing of soft soil reduces the permeability of the soil because of
changing the soil fabric and destroying the existing horizontal drainage fine layers. The reduction
of the permeability of the soil due to smearing significantly reduces the average rate of consolida-
tion as shown in Figure 6. It may happen that the smeared zone has a higher permeability when
the stones penetrates into the surrounding soil and creates a stone-soil mixture layer.
FIGURE 6 Influence of the permeability of smeared zone on the rate of consolidation.
6. Thickness of soft soil

Figure 7 demonstrates that an increase of the thickness of soft soil reduces the average rate of
consolidation. This reduction can be explained an increase of the drainage path for water draining
out after it enters the stone column.
FIGURE 7 Influence of the thickness of soft soil on the rate of consolidation.
B. Comparison of different methods

Four different methods have been selected in this study for comparison, which include the
Barron solution [11] for drain wells and the authors’ previous solution [5] for stone columns
without smear and well resistance effects, the Hansbo solution [12] for drain wells with smear
and well resistance effects, and the solution proposed in this study for stone columns with smear
and well resistance effects. As shown in Figure 8, the computed average rate of consolidation
by Han and Ye [5] is always higher than that by Barron [11]. This is because the Han and Ye
FIGURE 8 Comparison of computed rates of consolidation using different methods.
solution [5] considers the modular ratio of stone columns to the surrounding soil or the stress
concentration ratio, which accelerated the rate of consolidation. With the same reason due to the
modular ratio or the stress concentration ratio effect, the proposed solution in this article always
calculates a higher rate of consolidation than the Hansbo solution [12]. Compared with the new
solution, the authors’ previous solution overestimated the rate of consolidation by ignoring the
smear and well resistance effects. As shown in Figure 8, the computed rate of consolidation
using this proposed method could be less than that using the Barron solution. By using a reduced
diameter of drain well, the Barron solution may compute the same rate of consolidation as this
proposed method uses the actual diameter of stone column and considers the effects of smear,
well resistance, and stress concentration. This implication provides a theoretical explanation for
the diameter reduction approximation method used by Barksdale and Bachus [10] for accounting
for the smear and well resistance effects.
C. Change of vertical stress

The change of average vertical effective stress in the soil can be derived from equation (10)
as follows:

0 1 4ρ 2 H 2
1σ s = 2 N −1+ 2 2
2
u0 Ur . (41)
N + ns − 1 4ρ H + π 2
The average vertical total stress in the soil is
σ s = u0 (1 − Ur ) + 1σ 0s . (42)
The initial excess pore water pressure can be calculated by considering equal strain in the soil
and the column:
pN 2
u0 = Ecu
(43)
N2 − 1 + Esu
where Ecu — undrained constrained modulus of the column;

Esu — undrained constrained modulus of the soil.
Due to the stone column being free-draining, the undrained constrained modulus of the
stone column should be close to its effective constrained modulus. However, the fine-grained
soil typically has a much higher undrained constrained modulus than its effective constrained
modulus. Equation (43) implies that the initial pore water pressure in the soil can be greater than
the average applied pressure if the undrained modulus of the soil is greater than that of the column
at the moment of loading. This implication is consistent with the finding obtained by Balaam and
Booker [3] using a finite element method.
As shown in Figure 9, the average vertical effective stress in the soil increases with the time
due to the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. However, the average vertical total stress
in the soil decreases with the time due to the stress concentration from the soil to the column.
Equations (40) and (41) indicate that the rate of change in the vertical stresses depends on the
stress concentration ratio, ns (or modular ratio of the column to the soil).
FIGURE 9 Variation of vertical stresses in soil with time.
V. A design example
An example has been selected to illustrate how the solution developed in this article can be
used for actual design. Consider a project in which stone columns with a diameter of 0.85 m
and a spacing of 1.5 m (square pattern) are used for treating 13 m soft clay underlain by a dense
and permeable sand layer. The soft clay has a coefficient of consolidation in radial flow of
5.0 × 10−4 cm2 /sec. Due to the installation, there exists a smeared zone with a thickness of
42.5 mm around stone columns. The radial permeability of the smeared zone is 1/10 times that
of the in situ soft clay. Assume the permeability of stone columns is 100 times that of the in situ
soft clay. The design is required to calculate the average rate of consolidation of the soft clay due
to radial flow after 100 kPa instant loading for 60 days.
Considering the square pattern of stone columns, the equivalent influence diameter, de =
1.13 × 1.5 m = 1.70 m and the diameter ratio, N = 1.70 m/0.85 m = 2.0. With the steady stress
concentration ratio typically ranging from 2.0 to 5.0, the steady stress concentration ratio of 3.0 is
selected in this design. The modified coefficient of consolidation due to radial flow is calculated
as 1.00 × 10−3 cm2 /sec and the modified time factor, Trm = 0.179 using equation (3). Due to
the existence of top and bottom drainage surfaces between the soft clay, half the thickness of the
soft clay is used for computing the well resistance effect. Considering the well resistance with a
permeability ratio of the soil to the column, kkrc = 0.01 and the smearing with a permeability ratio
of the undisturbed soil to the smeared zone, kkrs = 10 and a diameter ratio of the smeared zone
to the stone column, S = 1.1, the parameter,Fm0 , can be calculated as 2.73 using equation (40).
Therefore, the computed average rate of consolidation due to radial flow reaches 0.408 (or 40.8%)
in 60 days after the loading. If the diameter reduction method is used, the reduction factor of 1/4
should be used along with the Barron solution in order to have an equivalent rate of consolidation,
which falls within the range of 1/2 to 1/15.
VI. Conclusions
Considering the characteristics of stone column reinforced foundations, a simplified theoret-
ical closed-form solution has been developed in this article for computing the rate of consolidation
accounting for smear and well resistance effects. The parametric study indicates that the reduction
of the permeability of the stone column and/or the smeared zone and/or the stress concentration
ratio decreases the rate of consolidation. However, the reduction of the diameter ratio (N = ddec ),
the smeared zone size, and/or soft soil thickness increases the rate of the consolidation. Com-
pared with other solutions for drain wells or the authors’ previous solution for stone columns
without smear and well resistance effects, the proposed solution in this article has addressed
more comprehensive issues related to the consolidation rates of stone column reinforced founda-
tions. This solution has been developed relying on solid theoretical bases rather than an empirical
approximation like the diameter reduction method.
References
[1] G.A. Munfakah, S.K. Sarkar, and R.J. Castelli, Performance of a test embankment founded on stone columns,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Pilings and Ground Treatment for Foundations,
London, pp. 259–265, (1983).
[2] J. Han and S.L. Ye, Settlement analysis of buildings on the soft clays stabilized by stone columns, Proceedings
of the International Conference on Soil Improvement and Pile Foundations, Nanjing, China, pp. 446–451, (1992).
[3] N.P. Balaam and J.R. Booker, Analysis of rigid rafts supported by granular piles, International Journal for
Numerical and Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 5, pp. 379–403, (1981).
[4] J.K. Mitchell, Soil improvement—state of the art report, Proceedings of the 10th ICSMFE, Stockholm, 4, pp. 509–
565, (1981).
[5] J. Han and S.L. Ye, A simplified solution for the consolidation rate of stone column reinforced foundations, ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(7), pp. 597–603, (2001).
[6] H.B. Seed and J.R. Booker, Stabilization of potentially liquefiable sand deposits, Report EERC 76-10, University
of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, California, (1976).
[7] R.D. Barksdale, Applications of the state of the art of stone columns—liquefaction, local bearing failure, and
example calculations, Technical Report REMR-GT-7, The Georgia Institute of Technology, 90, (1987).
[8] Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, A New Technology in Soil Improvement—Vibroflotation, (in Chinese),
China Hydraulic Press, (1984).
[9] L. Cassagrande and S. Poulos, On the effectiveness of sand drains, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 6, pp. 287–
326, (1968).
[10] R.D. Barksdale and R.C. Bachus, Design and Construction of Stone Columns, FHWA/RD-83/026, 194, (1983).
[11] R.A. Barron, Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells, Proceedings, ASCE, 73(6), pp. 811–835, (1947).
[12] S. Hansbo, Consolidation of fine-grained soils by prefabricated drains, Proc. Of 10th Int. Conf. On Soil Mech. and
Found. Eng., Stockholm, 3, pp. 677-682, (1981).
[13] G.X. Zeng and K.H. Xia, The influence of well resistance on the rate of consolidation of drain wells, in Chinese,
preprint, the First Chinese Soil Improvement Conference, Shanghai, China, (1986).
[14] K.S. Lane, Consolidation of fine-grained soils by drain wells—discussion, Proceedings, ASCE, 74(1), pp. 153-155,
(1948).

Aterro Com Colunas de Brita-Han e Ye-2002

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Aterro Com Colunas de Brita-Han e Ye-2002

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The International Journal of Geomechanics

Volume 2, Number 2, 135–151 (2002)

A Theoretical Solution for Consolidation

Department of Civil Engineering, Widener University, One University Place, PA 19013

© 2003 ASCE DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2002)2:2(135)

II. Review of solutions for drain wells and stone columns

cr - the coefficient of consolidation due to radial flow;

Trm — the modified time factor due to radial flow;

1. The initial excess pore water pressure

∂ε = −mv,s ∂σ 0s = −mv,c ∂σ 0c (6)

in which F can be expressed as follows:

Therefore, the average rate of consolidation due to radial flow is

The above formula can be expressed in a general format:

IV. A parametric study and discussion

1. Diameter ratio of the influence zone to the stone column

FIGURE 2 Influence of the diameter ratio on the rate of consolidation.

FIGURE 3 Influence of the permeability of stone columns on the rate of consolidation.

3. Stress concentration ratio

4. Size of the smeared zone

FIGURE 4 Influence of the stress concentration ratio on the rate of consolidation.

FIGURE 5 Influence of the size of smeared zone on the rate of consolidation.

5. Permeability of the smeared zone

FIGURE 6 Influence of the permeability of smeared zone on the rate of consolidation.

6. Thickness of soft soil

FIGURE 7 Influence of the thickness of soft soil on the rate of consolidation.

B. Comparison of different methods

FIGURE 8 Comparison of computed rates of consolidation using different methods.

C. Change of vertical stress

where Ecu — undrained constrained modulus of the column;

FIGURE 9 Variation of vertical stresses in soil with time.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi