International Journal of Civil, Structural, Environmental and Infrastructure Engineering Research and Development (IJCSEIERD) ISSN 2249-6866 Vol.

2, Issue 2 June 2012 10-16 TJPRC Pvt. Ltd.,

NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF SLOPE REINFORCED WITH STONE COLUMN

1 1 2

PATEL PARESH & 2VASANWALA SANDIP

P.G. Student, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India.

Associate Professor, S.V. National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India.

ABSTRACT
Slope failures in tropical countries are common particularly during rainy seasons. Retaining wall, vegetation, and pile etc. are the common methods adopted for the natural slope stabilization. Stone column can also be used for stabilization of natural clayey slope. A finite-element model was employed to carry out a parametric study on a number of governing factors such as slope angle, optimum location of single & multiple rows of stone column, friction angle of stone column, diameter of stone column. The influence of these factors on factor of safety are compared and discussed in this study.

KEYWORDS: Slope, Stabilization, Stone column. INTRODUCTION

Factor affecting the slope instability are soil properties, pore water pressure, slope geometry, earthquake, and vibration. Various methods are available for the slope stabilization. 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), reinforcement with geosynthetics (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 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: (a) Improving slopes stability of both embankment and natural slopes, (b) Increasing the bearing capacity of shallow foundations constructed on soft soils, (c) Reducing total and differential settlements, (d) 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. Many research articles had been published since the publication of the first method of analysis by Fellenius (Fellenius, 1936) that were either related to slope stability or involved slope stability analysis

11

Numerical Analysis of Slope Reinforced with Stone Column

subjects. Among the available analysis methods; limit equilibrium methods of slices, boundary element methods (Jiang, 1990) finite element methods (Matsui and San, 1992), and neural network methods (Jaritngam et al., 2001), limit equilibrium methods of slices are the most commonly used methods among others since simplicity and ease of use are the main advantages. Based on two-dimensional analysis of slopes, for 3-D analysis, a 3-D stone column must be changed to 2-D. Figure 1 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 strip. 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
S

(1)

Where R is radius of 3-D stone columns, and S is distance between centres of stone columns in each row.

Figure 1 : Plan of grouped stone columns (Barksdale & Bachus, 1983)

FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

The finite element method can be used to study the stability of slopes using a failure definition similar to that in the limit equilibrium method (such as the finite element strength reduction method). Many methods for slope stability analysis using finite elements have been proposed during the last two decades. Among those methods, gravity increase method (Swan and Seo, 1999) and strength reduction method (Matsui and San, 1992) are considered the most widely used methods. In the gravity increase method, gravity forces are increased gradually until the slope fails then the factor of safety is defined as the ratio between the gravitational acceleration at failure and the actual gravitational acceleration. In the strength reduction method, soil strength parameters are reduced until the slope becomes unstable, therefore, the factor of safety is defined as the ratio between the initial strength parameter and the critical strength parameter. Therefore, strength reduction method has exactly the same definition as the limit equilibrium methods (Griffiths and Lane, 1999). The gravity increase method is used to study the

Patel Paresh & Vasanwala Sandip

12

stability of embankments during construction since it gives more reliable results while the strength reduction method is used to study the stability of existing slopes. The Mohr-Coulomb model, used in the analysis, needs six parameters as inputs; , friction angle; c, cohesion; , dilation angle; E, deformation modulus (Youngs modulus); , Poissons ratio; and , unit weight. For slope stability analysis, = 0 was adopted assuming a non-associated flow rule, based on the results by Griffiths and Lane, 1999. Youngs modulus and Poissons ratio are of insignificant importance in slope stability analysis using strength reduction method, due to the nature and mathematical formulation of the method (Matsui and San, 1992). In this paper PLAXIS, finite element software was used to determine the static safety factor of slopes reinforced with single & multi-rows of stone columns. Triangular elements with 15 nodes were used to construct the meshes in 2D analysis assuming plane strain conditions. Figure 2 shows a slope reinforced by a row of stone columns which in this figure X is horizontal distance of column strip from top most of the slope. With the presence of column on the slope face, the shear strength on the slip surface is mobilized.

Figure 2 : Geometry of reinforced slope 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 stone column materials, geometrical specifications of the slope, diameter of the stone columns. Geometry of the study slope is shown in the Figure 2. Several analyses were performed using finite element methods. Tables 1 & Table 2 show soil and stone column material properties used for analysis and further parametric studies.

13

Numerical Analysis of Slope Reinforced with Stone Column

Table 1 : Geotechnical properties of clayey soil Friction angle c (degree) 10 Cohesion Cc (kN/m2) 15 Unit weight c (kN/m3) 17 Modulus of elasticity Ec (kN/m) 5000 Poissons ratio s 0.35

Table 2 : Geometrical and geotechnical properties of stone column Diameter of Column D (m) 0.80, 0.90, 1.00 Friction angle s (degree) 35, 40, 45

Cohesion Cs (kN/m ) 0
2

Unit weight s (kN/m3)

Modulus of elasticity Es (kN/m) 50000

Poissons ratio s 0.30

20

PARAMETRIC STUDIES
Parametric study is being carried out considering the stone column position, diameter & friction angle of stone column material and slope angle by PLAXIS. Effect of Location of Stone column on Factor of Safety 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 effect of location of stone column on safety factor by moving the location of a row of columns along the slope. The greatest safety factor achieved for the single row of stone column (Figure 1) is at a distance of 0.25 times the slope length (i.e. X = 0.25L) and that for the two row of stone column (Figure 2) is at 0.25 & 0.50 times the slope length (i.e. X = 0.25L, 0.50L). The same trend has been observed in all analyses. In addition, this factor decreases by moving the column from the slope crest toward the slope toe.

Figure 3 : Effective location of single row of stone column (D = 0.8 m, = 45)

Patel Paresh & Vasanwala Sandip

14

Figure 4 : Effective location of two rows of stone column (D = 1 m, = 45) Effect of Column Diameter on Factor of Safety The relation between diameter of column, friction angle of column & safety factor is depicted in the Figure 6 for single row of column located at 0.25L from the crest. It can be seen that considerable amount of increase in factor of safety is achieved for larger diameter of stone column.

Figure 6 : Effect column diameter with single row stone column (X = 0.25L, = 35) Effect of Angle of Internal Friction of Stone column on Factor of Safety The effect of friction angle of column material on the factor of safety is shown in the Figure 7, considering the different value of column diameter with single row of stone column at distance 0.25L from the crest of the slope. The safety factor of 1m diameter reinforced slope is about 1.10 times the unreinforced slope. Similar results are observed for other diameter of stone columns.

15

Numerical Analysis of Slope Reinforced with Stone Column

Figure 7 : Effect of angle of internal friction of column material (X = 0.25L, = 25) Effect of Slope Angle on Factor of Safety Figure 8 depicts the effect of slope angle on safety factor. A considerable increase in safety factor is observed for gentle slope. About 1.80 times FOS increases if slope angle decrease from 45 to 25. And 1.47 times FOS increase for slope varying from 45 to 35.

Figure 8 : Effect of slope angle on factor safety ( D = 1m, X = 0.25L, s=45 )

CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of slope reinforced with the stone column was done considering the different parameters such as friction angle of column material, diameter of column, location of column and slope angle. The following conclusions may be drawn from the above analytical results. The effective location of a single row of stone column is at a distance of 0.25L and that for two rows of stone column is 0.25L & 0.50L from the crest. Both, angle of internal friction & diameter of column having a significant effect on stabilization of slope. For a gentle slope, higher factor of safety is achieved than of steeper slope.

Patel Paresh & Vasanwala Sandip

16

REFERENCES
1. 2. 3. Ambily A.P., and Gandhi S.R. (2007). Behavior of stone columns based on experimental and FEM analyses. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133(4), 405-415. Ausilio E., Conte E., and Dente G. (2001). Stability analysis of slope reinforced with piles. Computers and Geotechnics, 28(591). 6-11. Barksdale R.D., and Bachus R.C. (1983). Design and construction of stone columns. Federal Highway Administration Office of Engineering and Highway Operations, Volume and , Washington, DC. 4. 5. Brinkgreve RBJ, Vermeer PA. (2001). Plaxis 2D, Tokyo: Balkema Publishers. Cheung K. (1998). Geogrid reinforced light weight embankment on stone columns. Proceedings of the New Zealand Geotechnical Society Symposium-Roading Geotechnics 98, Auckland, New Zealand, 273-278. 6. 7. 8. 9. Fellenius W. (1936). Calculation of the stability of earth dams. 2nd international congress on large dams, Int Commiss Large Dams, 445-449. Griffiths DV., and Lane PA. (1999). Slope stability analysis by finite elements. Geotechnique, 49, 387-403. Hassiotis S., Chameau J.L., and Gunarante M. (1997). Design method for stabilization of slopes with piles. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123(4), 314-323. Jaritngam S., Chuchom S., Limsakul C., and Jaritngam R. (2001). Slope stability analysis using neural network, The 6th mining, metallurgical and petroleum engineering conference on resources exploration and utilization for sustainable environment (REUSE), 24-26. 10. Jiang Y. S. (1990). Slope analysis using boundary elements. Springer-Verlag Publishers, New York. 11. Komak Panah A. (1994). Slope Remediation. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran, Iran. 12. Kousik D., Basudhar P.K., and Chandra S. (2007). Generalized model for geosynthetic-reinforced granular fill-soft soil with stone columns. International Journal of Geomechanics, 4, 266-276. 13. Matsui T., and San K. (1992). Finite element slope stability analysis by shear strength reduction technique. Soil Foundation, Vol 32, pp 59-70. 14. Sugawara J. (2006). Soil nailing technology and Japanese landslide mitigation works. An International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Singapoe. 15. Swan CC., and Seo Y. (1999). Limit state analysis of earthen slopes using dual continuum/FEM approaches. International Journal of Numerical & Analytical Methods in Geomechanics, 23,13591371. 16. Turner J.P., and Jensen W.G. (2005). Landslide stabilization using soil nail and mechanically stabilized earth wall, case study. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2,141150. 17. USDA-United States Department of Agriculture (1994). Slope stability reference guide for national forests in the United States, Volume , Washington, DC. 18. Zornberg, J. G. (2002). Geosynthetic reinforcement in landfill design, GSP 141 International Perspectives on Soil Reinforcement Applications, American Society of Civil Engineering.