8th International Civil Engineering Congress (ICEC-2016)

“Ensuring Technological Advancement through Innovation Based Knowledge Corridor”

December, 23-24, 2016, Karachi, Pakistan.

A Comparative Study of Ground Improvement by Lime and Granular

Columns
Mansoor Khan1, Shabir Hussain2
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad
mansur.khan1990@gmail.com, civil_engineering32@yahoo.com

Sohaib Naseer3*
National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad
snaseer.ms14@nice.nust.edu.pk

S.M.Jamil4, Liaqat Ali5

National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad
dean@scee.nust.edu.pk, liaqatnit@yahoo.com

Abstract
The rapid increase in construction activities over the past few decades have undeniably increased the
importance of ground improvement techniques. Ground improvement techniques are numerous but all
aim to rectify the engineering behavior of problematic soils so as to achieve desired properties. According
to theoretical and experimental research, reinforcing soil by inclusion of granular/lime columns is
considered to be economical, feasible and effective in soft soils. This research aims at investigating the
effects of floating columns in clayey soil with silty deposits by developing small scale laboratory models.
A comparison is made among lime and granular columns whereby the results of the treated ground are
compared to the untreated ground. The effects of granular/lime columns on soils of different shear
strengths (low-medium- high) and slenderness ratio (L/D) of columns are investigated. Based on the
results, it is concluded that the granular columns gave higher strength than lime columns in the soil of low
shear strength, whereas the lime columns gave more strength than granular columns in soil of higher
shear strength.

Key Words
Ground Improvement, Granular Columns, Lime Columns, Shear Strength, Slenderness ratio

1. Introduction

The growing trend in construction industry and increasing value of land has encouraged engineers to
develop certain techniques to improve the engineering properties of weak soil deposits. There are many
ground improvement techniques which are subject to site specific conditions, nature and intended purpose
of the structure, design specifications and material available, loading conditions, etc. Soft soils are usually
associated with low shear strength and low permeability which decreases their load carrying capacity and
compromise the serviceability of overlying structures. Such soils need proper time to dissipate the excess
pore pressures accumulated due to increasing load on top of it which when not allowed will cause failure
of the soil. Stone columns as a ground improvement technique was first used in Bayonne, France in 1830
by Moreau et al. to support the loads coming from iron works (Hughes and Withers, 1974). In-situ and
laboratory tests indicated significant increase in load carrying capacity of sand column treated ground
(Aiban, 2002; Ashford et al., 2000; Mitchell, 1981). Wong P.K Carried out theoretical studies on lime and
stone columns and proved that both ground improvement techniques are able to provide increase in shear
strength and stiffness of soil mass resulting in increased undrained shear strength after treatment. They are
installed as floating columns which carry the overlying load through skin friction developed along the
length or as end bearing columns which transmits the load to harder strata along with skin resistance.
Stone columns act similar to vertical drains except that they are stiffer than vertical drains and differ than
pile foundations in that they carry the overlying loads by mutual sharing with the surrounding soil. They
have been used to increase the bearing capacity and reduce settlement of soil under storage tanks, earthen
embankments, raft foundations etc. (Ambily and Gandhi, 2005). Stone columns can be installed by either
replacement method (dry) or displacement method (wet) depending upon the nature of soil and site
conditions (Munfakh et al. 1987, Hayward Baker Inc. 1996).
Stone columns fail in three different ways as observed by different researchers. The modes of failure,
after loaded in compression, were identified as bulging (Hughes and Withers 1974, Hughes et al. 1976),
general shear failure (Madhav and Vitkar 1978) and sliding (Aboshi et al. 1979). The bulging of stone
columns usually occurred in the top regions where confining stresses were comparatively lesser (Hughes
and Withers 1974, Balaam and Booker 1981, Greenwood 1970). The column failure mechanism was
controlled by critical column length which is the shortest length of the column which can carry ultimate
load without failure (Hughes and Withers 1975). A critical column length of 4 to 5 times of diameter of
column (D) was identified by different researchers beyond which no significant increase in load carrying
capacity was observed (Hughes and Withers 1974; Mithra and Chattopadhyay 1999; Samadhiya et al.
2008).

Different numerical, analytical, theoretical and experimental models have been developed over the course
of years to analyze the behavior of granular and lime columns in soft soils. Ambily and Gandhi (2007)
performed an analytical as well parametric study over single as well as group of seven stone columns
considering drained behavior of soil surrounding the column. A detailed experimental observation was
carried out and the results were compared with numerical models developed using finite element
packages PLAXIS 2D. Balaam et al. (1978) performed finite element analysis and considered the effects
of stiffness of stone columns on load-deformation behavior of improved ground. Sivakumar et al. (2007)
performed laboratory tests on single floating sand column to examine the load-deformation behavior of
improved soft clay with varying length of the column. The method of installation varied as well which
included: wet compacted columns and previously frozen columns. Najjar (2010) compared results of
different numerical, laboratory and full scale field tests performed on granular columns i.e. stone/sand
columns in order to relate them to the bearing capacity and settlement calculations. Shivashankar et al.
(2011) performed plate load tests on stone columns in layered soils comprising of top weak layer. It was
found out that the stiffness and load carrying capacity was affected due to increasing depth of weak top
layer. Poorooshasb and Meyerhof (1997) studied the efficiency of end bearing lime and stone columns
supporting a rigid mat foundation in reducing the settlement.

This research is aimed at developing small scale models that can be used for laboratory testing to study
the effects of treatment of soft soil deposits with floating granular (stone, sand) and lime columns and
compare the results with that of untreated ground. These columns are installed in weak soil of varying
shear strength to define a limit for the type of soil most responsive to treatment by columns for a selected
column material. The effects of depth of the columns on the load-deformation behavior of improved soil
will also be investigated by increasing the depth of columns.

2. Experimental Setup

2.1 Test Program

A series of model tests of treated soil with sand, stone and lime column was performed in laboratory to
study the efficiency of these columns in improving the load carrying capacity of soil. The steel moulds
used for experimentation had the following dimensions; height = 360 mm, internal diameter = 300 mm,
wall thickness = 6 mm and were locally assembled. Load tests were carried out in two steps; first on
untreated soil and in the second stage on treated soil in a Compression Testing Machine.

Ø=300mm
H=360mm

(a) (b)

Figure 1: Steel moulds: (a) Dimensions (b) Mould loaded in Compression Testing Machine

2.2 Properties of Materials

2.2.1 Soil

Soil was collected from Jahangira District Sawabi, KPK. The soil was pulverized in laboratory to conduct
different tests to obtain various engineering properties like moisture content, grain size distribution,
Atterberg’s limits, unconfined compressive strength and proctor compaction tests. The results are
summarized in table 1.

Table 1: Physical Properties of Soil

Property Results
Optimum Moisture Content (%) 24
Liquid Limit (%) 51
Plastic Limit (%) 28
Plasticity Index 23
Shrinkage Limits (%) 26.43
Specific Gravity 2.56
Passing No. 200 Sieve (%) 100
Silt Contents (%) 40
Clay Contents (%) 60
Maximum Dry Density (lb/ft3) 100
Classification according to CH
USCS
Figure 2: Hydrometer
Analysis of Soil
2.2.2 Sand

Locally available sand from Lawrencepur was used as backfill material in sand columns. The sand was
thoroughly washed and oven dried, sieve analysis was performed and the angle of internal friction was
found using direct shear test. The maximum and minimum dry density was found out to be 94 lb/ft 3 and
89 lb/ft3.

2.2.3 Stone

Crushed marble stones (CaCO 3) were collected from Rashakai, District Mardan, KPK. The stones were
washed and passed through 10 mm sieve and retained on 2 mm sieve were deemed suitable for
constructing columns. Direct shear test was performed on the crushed stones to find its angle of internal
friction “ϕ”. The γmax and γmin of the crushed stones are 105.94 lb/ft 3 and 86 lb/ft3. A light compacting
effort was adopted to achieve a density of 95.5 lb/ft 3 which was used for direct shear test as well.

2.2.4 Lime
Limestone (CaCO3) was obtained from Barakahu area of Islamabad and pulverized. The pulverized lime
was passed through sieve no.4 (4.75 mm) and oven dried for further use as a column material.

Table 2: Engineering Properties of Column Material

S. No. Properties Stone Sand Lime
1.
Gs 2.94 2.7 2.61
2.
Φs 41˚ 31˚ -
3.
γmax 105.94 lb/ft3 94 lb/ft3 90 lb/ft3
4.
γmin 89 lb/ft3 89 lb/ft3 73.4 lb/ft3
5.
Fineness Modulus - 2.018 2.75
6.
Water absorption 0.23 % 0.51 % 0.98 %

2.3 Preparation of Clay Bed

All the tests were performed on soft clay bed at three different shear strengths of 54 kPa, 32 kPa and 14
kPa. Before the preparation of clay bed, unconfined compression tests were performed in cylindrical
sample of 40 mm diameter and 80 mm height. A relationship was developed between moisture content
and unconfined compressive strength. Moisture contents corresponding to desired shear strength were
found to be 31 %, 35 % & 39 %. For preparation of each clay bed, oven dried clay sample was used and
then required amount of water was added to soil to obtain desired shear strength and thoroughly mixed to
form a uniform paste. A thin coat of oil was applied along the inner surface of steel container to reduce
friction between clay and container wall. The soil was filled in the container in six layers, each layer 50
mm thick after compaction. The soil was filled in the container up to a total height of 300 mm. The
surface of each layer was provided with compaction energy of 12375 ft-lb/ft 3 as in the case of Standard
Proctor Test. Each layer was compacted with a tamper of 10 kg dropped from a height of 300 mm and
given 70 blows. Care was taken to ensure that no significant air voids were left out in the test bed.

2.4 Construction of Granular and Lime Columns

After the preparation of soil bed, columns were constructed by a replacement method. A thin open-ended
seamless steel pipe of 37 mm outer diameter and wall thickness 1 mm was pushed down into the clay at
the center of the steel container up to the desired depth. Slight grease was applied on the outer surface of
the pipe for easy penetration and withdrawal without any significant disturbance to the surrounding soil.
To avoid suction, a maximum height of 50 mm of soil was removed at a time. After removing the soil the
column material were fed into the hole from top in layers of 50 mm each. To achieve a uniform density,
compaction was given with a 1.25 kg circular steel tamper with 15 blows of 100 mm drop to each layer.
This light compaction effort was adopted to ensure that it did not create any disturbance in the
surrounding soft clay by bulging laterally. The procedure was repeated until the column is completed to
the required heights of L/D = 4, 5.5 and 7. After the installation of column, the top surface of the
container was covered with plastic sheet for 4 days as curing period to ensure uniform moisture. After 4
days compression load test was carried out on each model.

2.5 Test Procedure

After preparation of model, the load-deformation behavior was studied by applying vertical load on
surface of untreated as well as treated soil in a compression chamber. A 100 mm thick steel plate with
200 mm diameter was placed at the center of steel container to transfer the uniform load on soil. Strain
gauges were attached to the upper plate to constantly monitor the settlement. The load was applied at a
constant loading rate of 0.025 MN/min. Load was applied continuously until a settlement of 25 mm was
achieved. The sample was extracted from the mould and soil surrounding the column was removed
carefully to observe the failure pattern of the column.

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e) (f)

Figure 3: (a) Mixing and compacting soil (b) Borehole for column (c) Pouring column material
(d) Model wrapped for curing (e) Model testing (f) Failure pattern of composite model
3. Results and Discussions

3.1. Effect of Column Material

The comparison of untreated and soil treated

with columns at relatively high shear strength (S u
= 54 kPa) is shown in figure 4 by comparing the
load-settlement behavior. These results show that
there is a significant increase in load carrying
capacity of treated soil, i.e, 33% to 47% increase
as compared to untreated soil at a settlement
value of 25 mm. Furthermore, it is noted that soil
treated with lime column has a higher load
carrying capacity than granular columns. The
lime column treated soil gives 47% increased
strength whereas the sand column and stone
column treated soil gives a 39% and 33%
increase in strength respectively. It is inferred
from these results that at low moisture content
(higher shear strength), lime columns are more Figure 4: Load-settlement graph of untreated and
effective in this soil as compared to granular treated soil at S = 54 kPa
u
columns.

Figure 5 shows a typical load-settlement behavior of lime and granular columns treated soil and untreated
soil at relatively lower strength (S u= 32 kPa). The increments in strength are observed to be 16% for sand
columns treated soil, 28% for lime column treated soil and 37% for stone columns treated soils as
compared to the untreated soil. Stone columns are considered to be more effective at relatively lower
shear strength values.

Similarly in figure 6, the results for a soil of low shear strength are shown i.e. S u= 14 kPa. As literature
shows that in soft soils i.e. soil of low shear strength (S u=15 kPa - 25 kPa), the effects of stone columns
are more pronounced (Kempfertn 2003) and also preferred in soils with S u < 10 kPa (Raju 1997). The
same trend is observed as the shear strength is reduced from 32 kPa to 14 kPa. Stone column treated soil
shows 10% increase in load carrying capacity compared to untreated soil. While no significant
improvement is shown by sand column and lime column treated soil due to very low shear strength of the
soil.
 Figure 5: Load-settlement graph of untreated and Figure 6: Load-settlement graph of untreated and
treated soil at S = 32 kPa treated soil at Su = 14 kPa
3.2 Effects of L/D Ratiou on Load Carrying
Capacity

Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between loading

intensity and the corresponding settlement of stone
column treated ground at different length to
diameter ratios i.e. L/D = 4, 5.5 and 7. As the
slenderness ratio of column increases the load
carrying capacity decreases. The load carrying
capacity is higher at L/D = 4 (the column is short).
Previous studies show that column length beyond
critical limit does not show any increase in load
carrying capacity due to failure by bulging (Hughes
and Withers 1974; Mithra and Chattopadhyay
1999; Samadhiya et al. 2008).
A similar trend is observed in figure 8 and figure 9
whereby increasing the L/D ratios for sand column Figure 7: Load-settlement graph of stone column
and lime column in soft soil gives reduction in load treated ground at different L/D ratio
carrying capacity.

Figure 8: Load-Settlement graph of sand column Figure 9: Load-Settlement graph of lime column
treated soil at different L/D ratio treated soil at different L/D ratio
4. Conclusions

The composite models containing column in the center represented the behavior of interior column
among a group of columns in practice. The experimental work confirmed the use of granular and lime
columns as an effective ground improvement technique. The variance in shear strength of soil showed the
suitability of column material to corresponding shear strength. The conclusions based on the results and
discussions are presented as under;

 The soil treated with granular and lime columns exhibited a stronger response to applied load.
Being a stiffer material than the untreated native soil, the composite material has greater load
carrying capacity and causes reduction in settlement at same loading intensity as compared to
untreated soil.
 When the slenderness ratio (L/D) of the columns is increased, a reduction in load carrying
capacity is observed. This reduction shows that increasing length beyond the critical column
length bears no enhancing effect on the load carrying capacity of the treated soil.
 At higher shear strength, the soil treated with lime columns has greater load carrying capacity
than granular columns owing to greater absorption of moisture from the soil as well as expansion
of the column due to slaking of lime.
 At low shear strength, granular columns are observed to have relatively higher load carrying
capacity than lime columns owing to higher stiffness of the granular material. Lime gets saturated
at high moisture content and it has less stiffness than the granular material so its load carrying
capacity decreases.

5. References

Aboshi H, Ichimoto E, Harada K, Emoki M (1979) The composer-A method to improve the
characteristics of soft clays by inclusion of large diameter sand columns. In: Proceedings of
international conference on soil reinforcement, Paris, pp 211–216
Ambily, P. and Gandhi, S. R (2007) “Behavior of stone columns based on experimental and fem
analysis”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE 133(4):405–415.
Balaam NP (1978) Load settlement behavior of granular piles. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney,
Australia
Balaam NP, Booker JR (1981) Analysis of rigid rafts supported by granular piles. Int J Numer Anal
Method Geomech 5:379–403
Greenwood DA (1970) Mechanical improvement of soils below ground surfaces. In: Proceedings, ground
engineering conference, institution of civil engineers, London, pp 11–22
Hughes, J. M. O., and Withers, N. J. _1974_. “Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone columns.”
Ground Eng.,7_3_, 42–49.
Hughes JMO, Withers NJ, Greenwood DA (1975) A field trial of the reinforcing effect of a stone column
in soil. Geotechnique 25(1):31–44
Hughes, J. M. O., Withers, N. J., and Greenwood, D. A. _1976_. “A field trial of reinforcing effect of stone
column in soil.” Proc., Ground Treatment by Deep Compaction, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, 32–44
Kempfert HG (2003) Ground improvement methods with special emphasis on column-type techniques.
In: Proceedings, international workshop on geotechnics of soft soils—theory and practice, pp
101–112
Madhav MR, Vitkar PP (1978) Strip footing on weak clay stabilized with a granular trench or pile. Can
Geotech J 15(4):605–609
Mitchell JK (1981) Soil improvement—state of the art report. In: Proceedings of the 10th international
conference on soil mech. and found. eng., Stockholm, pp 509–565
Mitra S, Chattopadhyay BC (1999) Stone columns and design limitations. In: Proceedings, Indian
geotechnical conference, Calcutta, India, pp 201–205
Najjar SS, Sadek S, Maakaroun T (2010) Effect of sand columns on the undrained load response of soft
clays. J Geotech &Geoenviron Eng, ASCE 136(9):1263–1277
Poorooshasb HB, Meyerhof GG (1997) Analysis of behaviour of stone columns and lime columns. J
Comput Geotech 20(1):47–70
Samadhiya NK, Maheswari P, Basu P, Kumar MB (2008) Load settlement characteristics of granular piles
with randomly mixed fibers. Indian Geotech J 38(3):345–354
Shivashankar R, Babu MRD, Nayak S, Kumar VR (2011) Experimental studies on behavior of stone
columns in layered soils. Geotech Geol Eng 29(5):749–757
Sivakumar V, Glynn D, Black JA, McNeill (2007) A laboratory model study of the performance of
vibrated stone columns in soft clay. In: Proceedings, 14 th European conference on soil
mechanics and geotechnical engineering, Madrid