i.
aper
The design of vibro replacement
by Heinz J Priebe, Keller Grundbau GmbH,
Kaiserleistr. 44, 63067 Offenbach.
~l
Ih'- -'A}i.::
:=:,,":sl%}}i 'il}}6!
Introduction
Vibro replacement is part of the deep vibratory compaction
techniques whereby loose or soft soil is improved for building
purposes by means of special depth vibrators. These techniques
as well as the equipment required is comprehensively described
elsewhere'.
Contrary to vibro compaction which densifies noncohesive
soil by the aid of vibrations and improves it thereby directly,
vibro replacement improves non compactible cohesive soil by
the installation of load bearing columns of well compacted,
coarse grained backfill material.
The question to what extent the density of compactible soil
will be improved by vibro compaction, depends not only on the
parameters of the soil being difficult to determine, but also on
the procedure adopted and the equipment provided. However,
the difficulty of a reliable prognosis is balanced by the fact that
the improvement achieved can be determined easily by
soundings.
With vibro replacement the conditions are more or less
revers. Considerable efforts only like large-scale load tests can
prove the benefit of stone columns. However, a reliable conclu-
sion can be drawn about the degree of improvement which
results from the existence of the stone columns only without
any densification of the soil between. This is possible because
the essential parameters attributable to the geometry of the
layout and the backfill material can be determined fairly well.
In such a prognosis the properties of the soil, the equipment
and the procedure play an indirect role only and that is mainly
in the estimation of the column diameter.
Basically, the design method described was developed some
20 years ago and published already'. However, in the meantime
it came to several adaptions, extensions and supplements which
justify a new and comprehensive description of the method.
Nevertheless, the derivation of the formulae is renounced with
reference to literature.
It must be emphasised that the design method refers to the
improving effect of stone columns in a soil which is otherwise
unaltered in comparison to the initial state. In a first step a
factor is established by which stone columns improve the
performance of the subsoil in comparison to the state without
columns. According to this improvement factor the
deformation modulus of the composite system is increased
respectively settlements are reduced. All further design steps
refer to this basic value.
In many practical cases the reinforcing effect of stone
columns installed by vibro replacement is superposed with the
densifying effect of vibro compaction, ie the installation of
stone columns densifies the soil between. In these cases, the
densification of the soil has to be evaluated and only then - on
the basis of soil data adapted correspondingly - the design of
vibro replacement follows.
Determination of the basic improvement
factor
The fairly complex system of vibro replacement allows a more
or less accurate evaluation only for the well defined case of an
unlimited load area on an unlimited column grid. In this case a
unit cell with the area A is considered consisting of a single
column with the cross section Ac and the attributable
surrounding soil.
Furthermore the following idealized conditions are assumed:
~The column is based on a rigid layer
OThe column material is uncompressible
OThe bulk density of column and soil is neglected
Hence, the column can not fail in end bearing and any
settlement of the load area results in a bulging of the column
which remains constant all over its length.
The improvement of a soil achieved at these conditions by
the existence of stone columns is evaluated on the assumption
that the column material shears from the beginning whilst the
surrounding soil reacts elastically. Furthermore, the soil is
assumed to be displaced already during the column installation
to such an extent that its initial resistance corresponds to the
liquid state: ie the coefficient of earth pressure amounts to
K= 1. The result of the evaluation is expressed as basic
improvement factor n,.
2+f(IL Ac/A)
Ac li ~
l
A IK~ f(IL Ac/A)
f(1LAc A)=
I} (I 2us) 'I Ac /A)
I I},
21}
' 21} +Ac/A
K.c = tan'(45'-9}c /2)
A poisson's ratio of lIs=1/3 which is adequate for the state of
final settlement in most cases, leads to a simple expression.
Ac [ 5 Ac/A
A [4 K~ (1 Ac/A) J
GROUND ENGINEERING ~ DECEMBER ~ 1995
 TOP: Figure 1. Design chart
for vibro replacement.
BOTTOM: Figure 2.
Consideration of column
compressibility.

I
u,qg3

The relation between the

improvement factor n0, the
reciprocal area ratio A/A and the
E
&iction angle of the backfill
material yc which enters the
derivation, is illustrated in the well
known diagram of Figure 1.
Consideration of the 6 6 6 10
column compressibility Area Ratio A/Ac
The compacted backfill material
of the columns is still
compressible. Therefore, any load
causes settlements which are not 2,0
connected with bulging of the
columns. Accordingly, in the case
of soil replacement where the area
ratio amounts to A/Ac= 1, the
actual improvement factor does
not achieve an infinite value as 10.0'
pcl
determined theoretically for non 1i2
material, but it 'ompressible

coincides at best with the ratio of

the constrained moduli of column
material and soil. In this case for ~ I

compacted backfill material as well

as for soil, a constrained modulus
is meant as found by large scale
oedometer tests. Unfortunately, in
many cases soundings are carried
out within the columns and wrong
0,0
conclusions about the modulus are 10 '~
2 6 6 So 40 60 60
drawn &om the results which are
sometimes only very moderate. Constrained llodulus Ratio Dc/Ds
It is relatively easy to determine
at which area ratio of column cross section and grid size constrained moduli and not with just an infinite value. The
(Ac/A), the basic improvement factor np corresponds to the additional amount on the area ratio h(A/~ depending on the
ratio of the constrained moduli of columns and soil Dc/Ds. For ratio of the constrained moduli Dc/Ds can be readily taken
example, at ps=1/3 the lower positive result of the following &om the diagram in Figure 2.
expression (with n, = Dc/D, delivers the area ratio (Ac/A),
concerned. Consideration of the overburden
The neglect of the bulk densities of columns and soil means
that the initial pressure difference between the columns and the
soil which creates bulging, depends solely on the distribution of
the foundation load p on columns and soil, and that it is
constant all over the column length. As a matter of fact, to the
As an approximation, the compressibility of the column external loads the weights of the columns Wc and of the soil
material can be considered in using a reduced improvement Ws which possibly exceed the external loads considerably, has
factor n, which results &om the formula developed for the basic to be added. Under consideration of these additional loads the
improvement factor n, when the given reciprocal area ratio initial pressure difference decreases asymptotically and the
A/A is increased by an additional amount of h(A/Ac). bulging is reduced correspondingly. In other words, with
increasing overburden the columns are better supported
Ac I
I/2+f(lss, Ac/A) Ac I laterally and, therefore, can provide more bearing capacity.
L K~ '(ls Ac/A) A/Ac + A(A/Ac) Since the pressure difference is a linear parameter in the
A A

=
1 derivations of the improvement factor, the ratio of the initial
A (A/Ac) 1
pressure difference and the one depending on depth
expressed as depth factor f4 delivers a value by which the
In using the diagram in Figure 1, this procedure corresponds to improvement factor n, increases to the final improvement
such a shifting of the origin of the coordinates on the abscissa factor n,=Q x n, on account of the overburden pressure. For
which denotes the area ratio A/A that the improvement factor example, at a depth where the pressure difference amounts to
32 n, to be drawn &om the diagram, begins with the ratio of the 50% only of the initial value, the depth factor comes to fd = 2.

GROUND ENGINEERING ~ DECEMBER ~ 1995

 TOP: Figure 3. Determination
13 of the depth factor.
BO'ITOM: Figure 4. Limit
value of the depth factor.

1/3
~~ 05

Therefore for safety reasons, in

e this diagram the lower value of the
5 0,7 ~

C soil ys has to be considered always.

1

0,5 ~
Koc
oc 1 Z(ts'hd)
Koc Pc

0,3 Com p atibili ty control s

1 5 5 The single steps of the design
Area Ratio A/Ac procedure are not connected
mathematically and they contain
simplifications and
approximations. Therefore, at
marginal cases, compatibility
0,20 controls have to be performed
which guarantee that no more load
is assigned to the columns than
0,18 they can bear at all in accordance
with their compressibility.
At increasing depths, the
0,12 support by the soil reaches such an
extent that the columns do not
8 bulge anymore. However, even
e then the depth factor will not
0,08
/sos
c 1/3 increase to infinity as results from
sn',04 the assumption of a linearly
I/4 ~ )/. Dc /Ds, decreasing pressure difference.
I ec >i 45.0', butfd s 1 Therefore, the first compatibility
control limits the depth factor and
thereby the load assigned to the
0,00 columns so that the settlement of
1 2 3 4 5 8 8 0 the columns resulting from their
Area Ratio A/Ac inherent compressibility does not
exceed the settlement of the
The depth factor fd is calculated on the assumption of a composite system. In the first place this control applies when
linear decrease of the pressure difference as it results from the the existing soil is considered pretty dense or stiff.
pressure lines (pc + yc.d) K,c and (ps+ps d)(Ks=l). However,
it has to be considered that with decreasing lateral D /D,
f <
deformations the coefficient of earth pressure f'rom the columns Pc/Ps
changes from the active value K,c to the value at rest K,c. Up
to the depth where the straight line assumed for the pressure The maximum value of the depth factor can be drawn also
difference meets the actual asymptotic line, the depth factor lies from the diagram in Figure 4. A depth factor fd < I should not
on the safe side. In practical cases the treatment depth is mostly be considered, even though it may result from the calculation.
less. However, safety considerations advise not to include the In this case the second compatibility control is imperatively
advantageous external load on the soil ps in the derivations. required which relates to the maximum value of the
improvement factor. In a certain way this control resembles the
first one. It guarantees that the settlement of the columns
1 P
= resulting from their inherent compressibility does not exceed
Koc Ws/Wc
fo Ac/A
Wc Ac 1

A
the settlement of the surrounding soil resulting from its
Koc Pc Pc/Ps
compressibility by the loads which are assigned to each. In the
pc I/2+f(isAc/A) first place this second control applies when the existing soil is
ps K c'is ~ Ac/A) encountered pretty loose or soft.

Wc = (Yc'A4) Ws = (Ys'44)
n =1+ (
AD,
A Ds
1)

K~ =1 sinq>c
It has to be observed that the actual area ratio Ac/A has to
be appointed in the formula and not the modified value Ac/A.
The simplified diagram in Figure 3 considers the same bulk Because of the simple equation, an independent diagram is not
density y for columns and soil which is not on the safe side. required. 33
GROUND ENGINEERING ~ DECEMBER ~ 1995
 TOP: Figure 5. Proportional
1,0 load on stone columns.
Dasl ied Lines: MIDDLE: Figure 6. Settletnent
m = (n ~ 1 + i le/A) / n of single footings.
0,8
BOTTOM: Figure 7.
pa> 1/3 Settlement of strip footings.
E
5 0,8 ~

I3 0,4
lido'ne:: stone columns receive an
increased portion m of the total
1 load m thereby which depends on
o. the area ratio Ac/A and the
=(n-1)/n (pc ~382'+
0,2
improvement factor n.

m = (n I+ A,/A)/n

0,0
0 10
Simplifying, the recommended
1 8 8
design procedure does not
Area Ratio A/Ac
consider the volume decrease of
the surrounding soil caused by the
bulging of the columns. Therefore
and particularly at a high area
ratio, the soil receives a greater
portion of the total load than
actually calculated. In order not to
overestimate the shear resistance
of the columns when averaging on
the basis of load distribution on
columns and soil, the proportional
load on the columns has to be
reduced. The following
approximation seems to be
adequate:
18 g m'= (n I)/n
0
4
i
1 The diagram in Figure 5 shows in
0
solid lines the proportional load of
0 4 8 12 18 20 24 28 32
the columns m'nd in dashed
Depth/Diameter Ratio d/D lines the not reduced one m.
According to the
proportional loads on columns
and soil, the shear resistance &om
friction of the composite system
0,8
can be readily averaged.

8 tan@ = m'.tanq>, +(I m') tan q>,

0,8
Since in most practical cases
C possible lines of sliding cover
dMerent depths which is dif5cult
E 0,4
3 to survey, it is recommended to
3 consider the depth factor in clear-
2 '8 cut cases only, ie to calculate
0,2
1 o usually with a load portion of the
Z stone columns m,'elated to n,
and not with m,'elated to the
increased factor n,=fa n,.
0 4 8 12 18 20 24 32 The cohesion of the
Depth/Diameter Ratio d/D composite system depends on the
proportional area of the soil.
Shear values of improved ground
c=(i Ac/A) cs
The shear performance of ground improved by vibro
replacement is favourable. While under shear stress rigid The installation of stone columns possibly creates damages to
elements may break successively, stone columns deform until the soil structure which are dificult to survey. For safety
any overload has been transferred to neighbouring columns. for reasons, it seems to be advisable to consider the cohesion also
example a landslide will not occur before the bearing capacity proportional to the loads, ie pretty low, although this proposal
34 of the total group of columns installed has been activated. The is not based on soil mechanical aspects.

GROUND ENGINEERING ~ DECEMBER ~ I 995

 c'=(I-m') c,
Settlement of single and strip footings
It is not (yet) possible to determine directly the performance of
singleor strip footings on vibro replacement. The design
ensues &om the performance of an unlimited column grid
below an unlimited load area. The total settlement swhich
results for this case at homogeneous conditions, is readily to
determine on the basis of the forgoing description with n, as an
average value over the depth d.
d
sn=p'D
o 2
Diagrams, given in Figure 6 and Figure 7, allow to
conclude &om this value the settlements of single or strip
footings on groups of columns. These diagrams with the
diameter of the stone columns D as one parameter - are based
on numerous calculations which considered load distribution
on one side and a lower bearing capacity of the outer columns
of the column group below the footing on the other side.
The diagrams do not refer directly to footing extensions as
would be expected. However, there exists an indirect reference
in that the grid area A required to determine the improvement
factor n, has to be derived as quotient of the footing area and
the number of columns. For example, the settlement reduction
which a larger footing experiences normally at the same load, is
compensated widely by the lower improvement factor which
results &om an increased area ratio as follows &om a larger
footing area on the same number of stone columns. The
approximation given for the diagrams by this assumed
compensation seems to be acceptable for usually considered
area ratios, ie up to some Ac/A=10.
It is clear that the diagrams are valid for homogeneous
conditions only and refer to the settlement s up to a depth d
which is the second parameter counting &om foundation level.
The settlement 2((s of any layer at any depth below the footing
has to be determined as difference of the settlements up to the
depths d, and dof the lower and upper bound of the layer
concerned with n, as an average value over its thickness hd.
hs = [(s/s), d, -(s/s)d]
Do n,
Since n, increases with depth on one side due to the depth
factor, but becomes less significant with depth on the other side
due to the load distribution of a limited footing, it is required
even at homogeneous conditions to subdivide greater depths.
This avoids settlements being too liberally estimated.
Bearing capacity of single and strip
footings
A simple method to estimate the bearing capacity of single and
strip footings on vibro replacement exists by determining at
first a fictitious width b of the footing, using the &iction angle (p
of the improved soil below the footing and the &iction angle (ps
of the untreated soil on the outside, which would develop-
calculated on the basis of the &iction angle (ps of the untreated
soil only - in case of ground failure the same line of sliding
outside of the improved area as the actual footing at actual
conditions. If the border line of treatment coincide with the
edge of the footing - usually the case but not necessarily the
following formula results:
(n,.-/
b=b e'"n <. >,i sin(45+ q)/2) sin(90' q),)
sin(90 <()) sin(45'+q)o/2)
Then, for this fictitious width the bearing capacity is
determined by using the &iction angle of the untreated ground
(ps and an averaged cohesion according to the proportion of
fictitious footing width and failure width outside of the footing.
In pure cohesive soil the failure width equals the footing width,
thus leading to an average cohesion of c"=(c'+cs)/2.
For foundations on layered ground the shear values change
with depth also. The determination of the bearing capacity, eg
according to German Standard DIN4017, becomes rather
complicated with the fictitious width since this width changes
at each layer.
A practical approximation can be achieved as follows. At
first, safeties qe and maximum depths of ground failure lines
does are calculated applying one after another the soil
parameters of every individual layer, eg according to DIN4017.
q, =a/p a=(c, Nvn+q. Nv+I, b Nv,) b/b
~o =b sin(45'+<()2/2) e
In a second step, the final safety Il and maximum depth do, is
averaged successively with the values of the individual layers as
long as do,(, exceeds d<,), being the upper bound of the layer
concerned (d,<,) being the lower bound).
q,,=~,,+[a-q,,] d.)
Gr(n-I)
n(n)
=
Gr<n) Grn(n) [ Gr<n,)- GrO(n)]
Gr(n-l)
l(l) qo(l) dG )
= do,o(<) When d~( l) ) dl( ) then d~.~)
dq.)
Though a little bit uncomfortable, this procedure can still be
performed manually in contrast to the iteration as outlined in
DIN4017. The results of both the procedures do not differ
much.
Liquefaction potential of improved ground
Vibro replacement is suitable particularly for ground
improvement in seismic areas since stone columns possess a
certain flexibility on one side and prevent liquefaction on the
other. The stabilising effect results &om the &ictional resistance
of the columns which carry a considerable amount of the
external load and of the weight of the soil, and their capability
to reduce excess porewater pressure in the soil - at least in close
vicinity almost instantly. The steep reduction of porewater
pressure towards the column is important in that it creates a
kind of a filter cake effect which maintains the lateral support
required for the bearing capacity of the columns and which
prevents a higher degree of soil infiltration into the columns
although the column material does not fulfill any established
filter criteria.
The complex conditions in a seismic event are investigated
&equently for more or less homogeneous ground. Nevertheless, 35
GROUND ENGINEERING ~ DECEMBER '995
 practical criteria to evaluate the liquefaction potential were surface. Including some 0.4m of top soil the treated strata
developed rather empirically. For vibro replacement, although consist up to 9m depth of silty and clayey soil occasionally with
carried out already many times against earthquake vibrations, pockets of peat followed by medium dense silty fine sand in
even an empirical evaluation is difficult since - fortunately no which the columns are embedded. Referred to depths, the
damage has been observed so far. given coefficients of volume change mv and the constrained
Usually, safety against liquefaction is concluded &om the moduli D, (= I/mv) as used in the design computations are as
comparison of so-called cyclic stress ratios, namely the one follows:
which is provided by the soil on the basis of its density and the
one which probably develops in a seismic event. ~l' liil~lMiiiigiil~lliiili'1~ii ~1&iii.E:8
For a rough estimation of the efficiency of vibro replacement -1.0 50 pad
it is proposed to reduce the cyclic stress ratio probably 0.0 20 top soil
developed in a seismic event, in the same ratio as the load on 0.4 0.8-0.5 2 soft soll
the soil between the columns is reduced by vibro replacement, 1.0 1 very soft soil
ie to use a corresponding reduction factor a. 1.6 1.2-0.5 1 very soft soil below
a= p,/p= 1/n groundwater
8.2 0.3-0.06 10 firm soil
9.0 20 medium dense sand
Such a reduction seems to be adequate with regard to the
favourable performance of vibro replacement in seismic events.
However, &om soil mechanical aspects this is not proved and At full loading of 130kN/m'ettlements were observed in the
has to be verified ultimately by the increasing number of range of some 0.4m. A computation according to the design
projects carried out worldwide. method (appendix) shows a final settlement of approxtmately
For similar reasons as outlined at the determination of the 0.38m. Taking into consideration the pockets of peat or a
shear values, it is recommended to use in the formula n, rather possible reduction of column diameter with depth, the value
than n,. would be higher and in really good agreement.
A diagram for the reduction factor a is given in Figure 8. The improvement factors n as computed on the basis of
formulae, can be taken readily also &om the diagrams as
Case study worked example follows with reference to the first layer below the ground water
The design method has been used &equently in determining table (No5) which contributes most to the settlements:
the expected behaviour of structures on treated ground.
However, in most cases the application is based on parameters 4.53 -+ Fig. 1 o no ~ 235
indirectly derived &om field tests or even just assumed. As long 100 -o Fig 2 -+ A A/Ai o: 0.05 --> A/Ac = 4.58
as the actual performance of vibro replacement excels such 4.58 -+ Fig. 1 -+ ni -- 2 30
forecasts, more accurate verifications are usually omitted. 4 58, E (7 d) = 19 1.0+ 18 0 4 + 16 0 6 + 15 0 6 + 5 6 6/2
= 61.3 kN/m',
Some full scale field experiments about vibro replacement
which comprise measurements beyond common practice are 130 kN/m' Fig.3 -o fo n 1.38 m n2 = fo ni = 3.17
outlined'. For example, enough details of a tank foundation at
Canvey Island are given so that the design method can be The discrepancy to the computed value of n, = 2.94 is due to
applied and the results verified. the difference between formulae and diagram as outlined in
The diameter of the tank concerned is 36m. it is founded on 'Consideration of the overburden'.
a pad of approximately i m thickness above soil reinforced by
10m long stone columns in a grid with triangular spacing of Conclusions
1.52m and an average diameter of 0.75m measured near Out of the deep vibratory compaction techniques vibro
replacement covers the widest
range with regard to the
application in difierent soils. While
+
vibro compaction is restricted to
0,8 compactible sand and gravel, the
ecI+ 38 0 application of vibro replacement
a extends principally over the total
4 range in grain size of loose soils.
o,s
Even in most of the noncohesive
natural soils suitable for vibro
compaction, backfilling with
I 0,4 coarse grained material is
recommended to increase the
compaction efforts - and this
0,2 ~
means stone column installation.
Pure vibro compaction has
advanced just lately at gigantic
36 0 artificial deposits in different
1 6 s s s 10
Area Ratio A/An Figure 8. Residual pressure on
the soil after vibro replacement.
coastal regions of the world. Appendix A.
Notwithstanding the importance of vibro replacement, the
efficiency of stone columns in soil improvement must not be Keller Grundbau Gabh
overestimated. As long as the existing soil is suitable to be Keieerleiarr. 44, 63067 offenbach, Tel. 069/8051210, Fax. 069/8051221
densified, this should be the preceding aim of any deep prograa VIBRI, version 950904, copyright by KSLLKR Grundbau Gaba

compaction treatment including vibro replacement. However, Vibro Replaceaent at Canvey Island, Reported 1991 by Greenwood
the achievable densification depends on too many parameters >> ~ >> ~ >* ~ >> ~ 4>>* ~ >> ~ * ~ >>> ~ >> ~ ***>~ *>~ >>> ~ > ~ > ~ >e>> ~ > ~ *>> ~ >>>> ~ \ ~ >

to be calculable. On the contrary the improving effect of stone Evaluation of the soil Iaproveaent by vibro Replaceaent
columns possibly supplementary to an achieved densification acc. to priebe,a.: Die Bautechnik 72, 3/1995
can be determined pretty reliably. below an Area Load on a Regular Triangular Coluan Grid
The application of vibro replacement which was introduced
Foundation Pressure 130.00 kN/a2
in the late 1950s, relied for a long time on the experience of the
contractors. Not until the mid-1970s were the first theoretical Coluan Distance 1.52 ~
Kow Distance 1.32 ~
approaches submitted. In its fundamentals, the design method Grid Area 2.00 82
Load Level -1.00 a
outlined originates &om this time. It has proved its reliability Coluan Depth 10.00 8
considered Depth 20.00 8
since then. Subsequent supplements imply refinements or
extensions of the application range but not a radical alteration Coluan Naterial
on the fundamentals. In respect of the complexity of the matter unit Weight 19.00 kN/a3, below 1.60 ~ Depth 12.00 kN/a3
Constrained Nodulus 100.00 NN/82
the design criteria have the advantage of easy use and to cover Friction Angle 40.0O Degrees
Presa. Coefficient .22
in a closed package all cases practically occurring.
Subsoil Strata
References No. Top L. Dia. A/AC DS DC/DS gaaaa ay phi c
I Kirsch, K. 'Die Baugrundverbesserung mit Tiefenruttlern', 40 Jahre I~I I~I INN/a21 ( ka/a3 ] fdeqree)(ks/a21
Spezialtiefbau: 1953-1993, Festschrift, Werner-Veriag GmbH, Dusseldorf, 1993. 1 -1.00 .00 > ~ +**~ 50.00 2.00 19.00 .33 35.00 .00
2 Greenwood, DA. 'Load tests on stone columns'. ASTM Publication STP 1089, 2 .00 .75 4.53 20.00 5.00 18.00 .33 25.00 5.00
3 .40 .75 4.53 2.00 50.00 16.00 .33 .00 25.00
Deep Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction, and Testing, 1991. 4 1.00 .75 4.53 1.00 100.00 15.00 .33 .00 20.00
5 1.60 .75 4.53 1.00 100.00 5.00 .33 .00 20.00
e 8.2o .60 7.08 10.00 10.00 7.00 .33 .00 30.00
Publications of the author to the design method: 7 9.00
10.00
.60
.00
7.08 20.00 5.00 9.00
20.00 5.00 9.00
.33 30.00 .00
3 Abschauung des Setzungsverhaltens eines durch Stopfverdichtung verbesserten
8 >* ~ * ~ > .33 30.00 .00
9 20.00 .00 ~ >> >> ~ 20.00 5.00 9.00 .33 30.00 .00
Baugrundes, Die Bautechnik 53, H.5, 1976.
4 Zur Abschauung des Setzungsverhaltens eines durch Stopfverdichtung
Ground Water Table 1.60 ~
verbesserten Baugrundes, Die Bautechnik 65, H. 1, 1988. Top LE Top Level of Stf'atua Concerned
Oie. Coluan Diaaeter
5 Abschauung des Scherwiderstandes eines durch Stopfverdichtung verbesserten A Grid Area Resp. Reference Area
Baugrundes, Die Bautechnik 55, H. 1, 1978. Ac Cross sec'tional Are& of Coluan
DC Conetrained Nodulue of Backfill
6 Vibro Replacement Design Criteria and Quality Control, ASTM Publication Ds Conetrained Nodulus )
STP 1089, Deep Foundation Improvements: Design, Construction, and Testing, gaaae unit weight )
ay Poieeon'6 Ratio ) of Soil
1991. phi Friction Angle )
7 'The prevention of liquefaction by vibro replacement'. Proc of the Int Conf on c Cohesion )
Earthquake Resistant Construction 81 Design, 1990 Balkema, Rotterdam.
8 Die Bemessung von Ruttelstopfverdichtungen, Die Bautechnik 72, H.3, 1995.
Soil Iaproveaent
No. no d(A/AC) nl al phil cl fd n2 a2 Phi2 c2
[deqree1(kN/a2) [degree1(ka/a2)
A grid arcs Used subscripts, dashes and I Layer without Stone Coluana!
2 2.34 1.17 2.01 .50 33.16 2.49 ~ *~ 1.88 .47 32.67 2.66
b foundation widlh apostmphes follow &om the 3 2 34 .09 2 31 .57 25.41 10.84 1.16 2.68 .63 27.73 9.34
c ~ 2.34 .05 2.32 .57 25.54 8.61 1.21 2.82 .65 7.09
28. ~ 4
cohcsioll context. Generally, subscript 5 2.34 .05 2.32 .57 25.54 8.61 1.27 2.94 .66 28.98 6.80
d -inlmvcmcnt depth C means column and S means 6
7
1.'78 .52 1.72
1.78 1.17 1.65
.42
.40
19.35
34.25
17.45 1.24
.00 ~ >+ ~ *
2. 13
1.57
.53
.36
24.0414.05
33.90 .00
D ~.fs
c =
:=
dqjh of ground Mute
'=fssashltus
or
soil. With the cxcepion of Ko
as coclicicnt for carlh prcssure
at lest (Ka for active earth
The
no
proportional
Layer without
Loads on Coluana
Basic Iaproveaent Factor
Stone Columns!
are Approxiaated to ~ 1 I/n

prcsstlrc) subscript 0 means a Addition to the Ares Retro (Coluan Coapreeeibility)

cong of l)gessurc ~gsslpecively~iueial
d(A/AC)
nl Iaproveaent Pactor (with Coluan Compressibility)

( > Recoaaended for Failure Analyses if nl < n2)

'ceot
fd Depth Factor (overburden constraint)
m pluporliensl load c(n stone e> (>*we*
> Overridden by Control Checkinq!)
cuhlmni n2
~ 1,2
Iaproveaent Factor (Add. w3th Overburden Constraint)
Proportional Load on Coluana )
n phil,2 Priction Angle of Coapound ) Attributable to nl resp. n2
area -Sagy, jassssflnslso c1,2 Cohesion of Coapound
p
settleaent
W Depth Infinite w/0 Over-
Load Area Iapr. burden

~
fg )tctblctktn factor sl [ca] ca)
I IkN/a21
earthquake design -1.00 .26 .26 .0
umt %)eight
.00 .14 .26 19.0
.40 I . 37 3. 66 26.2
tl safety gmund Solute 1.00 2.45 6.90 35.8
1.60 25.81 75.93 44.8
Poisstm's ratio 8.20 .48 1.03 77.8
9.00 .41 .65 83.4
-Osf bearing elgalcuy 10.00 6.46 6.4e 92.4
Sic[ion angle 37.37 95.14
37
GROUND ENGINEERING ~ DECEMBER ~ 1995