Ground improvement using the vibro-stone

column technique
A. Kosho1
A.L.T.E.A & Geostudio 2000, Durres, Albania

ABSTRACT
The vibro stone columns technique is one of the most used techniques for ground improvement processes all over the world. In
recent years this technique is also used in Albania. For the first time in our country this method is used for ground improvement
at Ferry Terminal of Durres, which is the biggest harbour of Albania. In this case the technique is used to reinforce silty clay and
silty sand soils. There are two methods of construction in the vibro replacement technique named: the wet method and the dry
method. In Durres Ferry Terminal building and yard infrastructure the dry method is used. The paper outlines the technique, the
ways of application in different types of soil, and settlement and bearing capacity calculations for this case.
Keywords: vibro methods, stone columns, dry method, settlement, bearing capacity

INTRODUCTION

Albania has seen extensive growth for the past

years with many infrastructure projects in the
construction industry. Current technology affords
many ground improvement techniques to suit a
variety of soil conditions, structure type and
performance criteria. These ground improvement
techniques can offer alternative foundation
system to the conventional pile foundation
system.
2

WHAT IS A STONE COLUMN?

Vibro- replacement stone columns extends the

range of soils that can be improved by vibratory

vibratory techniques to include cohesive soils.

Densification and/ or reinforcement of the soil
with compacted granular columns or stone
column is accomplished by either a top-feed or a
bottom-feed method. Cohesive, mixed and
layered soils generally do not densify easily
when subjected to vibration alone. The vibroreplacement stone column technique was
developed specifically for these soils, effectively
extending the range of soil types that can be
improved with the deep vibratory process. With
vibro-replacement stone columns, crushed stone
is designed to increase bearing capacity, reduce
settlement, mitigate the potential for liquefaction
and improve shear resistance.

ALTEA & Geostudio2000, Rr. Maliq Muco L. 6, Durres, Albania. anikosho@yahoo.com

Figure 1. Bottom-Feed method of stone column construction [1].

2.1

Vibro-Replacement technique

Vibro-replacement is a technique derived by

further developing the Vibro-compaction
process. Soils such as pure silts/clay or mixed
deposits of silts, clays and sands can not be
improved by vibro-compaction because of

their inability to properly respond to vibration.

The vibro-replacement technique introduces a
coarse grained material as load bearing
elements consisting of gravel crushed stone
aggregate as a backfill medium. There are two
methods of construction in the vibroreplacement technique, i.e. the wet and the dry
method.

Regarding the information that we receive,

for the replacement works for Durres Ferry
Terminal Building and Yard Infrastructure we
adopt the dry method as described below.
The essential equipment used for the vibro
techniques is a depth vibrator. For this project
the Beta vibrator was selected. BottomFeed vibro-replacement is a completely dry
operation where the vibrator remains in the
ground during the construction process.
However, the vibrations themselves have
minimal effect on cohesive soils (clays and
silts), so in these and mixed soils, the
penetration of the poker is followed by the
construction of a stone-column. The
displacement of the existing ground by the
penetrating poker allows the construction of
granular columns with high friction angle, so
that the composite soil mass has a greater
average strength and stiffness than the
untreated ground.
McCabe et al. [1] gave an extensive
description of the method, essential parts of
which is repeated next.
The hole created by the poker is filled with
inert crushed stone or gravel (or approved
construction waste in certain circumstances)
and is compacted in stages from the base of the
hole upwards. There are two different
approaches that may be used to construct the
column, depending on the ground conditions.
In the Top-Feed System, the poker is
completely withdrawn after initial penetration
to the design depth. Stone (40-75mm in size) is
then tipped into the hole in controlled volumes
from the ground surface. The column is
compacted in layers (the stone is forced
downwards and outwards) through continued
penetration and withdrawal of the poker. The
Top-Feed System is suitable if the hole formed
by the poker will remain open during
construction of the column.
Alternatively, the stone may be fed from a
rig-mounted hopper through a permanent
delivery tube along the side of the poker,
which bends inwards and allows the stone to
leave from the poker tip. This Bottom-Feed
process requires a smaller grade of stone (15 to
45mm). By remaining in the ground during

column construction, the poker cases its own

hole and hence is suited to ground with a high
water table or running sand conditions. The
process of the Bottom-Feed system is
schematically illustrated in Figure 1.
In addition to improving bearing capacity and
reducing compressibility, stone columns
installed in a uniform grid pattern will help
homogenize variable soil properties, thereby
reducing the potential for differential
settlement. Stone columns serve a secondary
function of acting as vertical drains,
accelerating the dissipation of excess pore
water pressures (and associated primary
settlement) from the imposed loading,
allowing a foundation or floor slab to be
brought into service at an early stage. In
addition to the savings per meter length that
stone columns present over piles, the soft
column heads facilitate the use of ground
bearing slabs, representing further savings
compared to the ground beams and suspended
slabs associated with piled solutions.
Plate load tests (typically 600mm diameter)
are carried out on constructed columns to
verify the compactness of the stone and the
stiffness of the supporting ground at the top of
the column.
However, settlements measured may not be
representative of foundation or slab behavior
due to differences in the load duration and
depth to which the ground is stressed. Longterm zone load tests provide a more realistic
reflection of the stiffness of the ground, when
a plan area of the size of a real foundation is
loaded which will usually straddle several
columns and the intervening untreated ground.
However, due to related cost, these tests are
generally reserved for marginal sites.
In addition to these control measures, it should
be noted that the vibrating poker itself acts as
an investigating tool, which provides an
additional safeguard against unforeseen
ground conditions. A measure of the resistance
to the penetration of the poker is fed back
electronically to the rig operator, who can then
match the quantity of stone supplied to the
lateral resistance of the ground encountered.

BEHAVIOUR AND DESIGN OF

STONE COLUMNS

Most types of ground improvement are

intended to work with the existing ground
whereas rigid inclusions (piles) are intended to
bypass the ground to some extent. While stone
columns will transmit some load to the soil by
shear stresses (along the column-soil interface)
and end bearing (at the column base), the
predominant load-transfer mechanism (unless
the column is very short) is lateral bulging into
the surrounding soil. Cylindrical Cavity
Expansion Theory (CCET) is applied to many
geotechnical problems, most notably to the
interpretation of the pressuremeter test which
measures horizontal stresses in the ground, see
Wroth [4]. CCET has also been used to model
the bulging behaviour of granular columns
leading to predictions of bearing capacity and
settlement performance.
3.1.1 Bearing Capacity
Hughes and Withers [5] performed pioneering
laboratory studies of sand columns in a
cylindrical chamber containing clay, and used
radiography to track the deformations in and
outside the column. They found that CCET
represent the column behaviour very well, and
proposed that the ultimate vertical stress (q) in
a stone column can be predicted by:
q=

1 + sin '
( 'ro +4cu )
1 sin '

Figure 2. Priebes basic improvement factor

Priebes settlement improvement factor, n,

defined as2 a function of the friction angle of
the stone ', the soils Poissons ratio and an
Area Replacement Ratio dictated by the
column spacing (Figure 2), [3]. The area
replacement ratio is defined as Ac/A, where Ac
is the cross-sectional area of one column and A
is the total cross-sectional area of the unit
cell attributed to each column (Figure 3). Ac/A
is geometrically related to the column radius
(r) and column spacing (s) according to:
Ac
r
= k
A
s

(2)

where k is or 2/3 for square or triangular

column grids, respectively.

(1)

where ' is the friction angle of the stone infill,

'ro is the free-field lateral effective stress and
cu is the undrained shear strength.
3.1.2 Settlement
Absolute
and
differential
settlement
restrictions usually govern the length and
spacing of columns, and the preferred method
of estimating post-treatment settlement in
European practice, was developed by Priebe
[2], based upon CCET. Although this method
is strictly applicable to an infinite array of
columns and empiricicalin its development, it
is found to work well for most applications.

Figure 3. Typical column arrangements, triangular grid

(left) and square grid (right)
2
n = settlement without treatment / settlement with
treatment

Priebes improvement factor n may be derived

from the chart shown in Figure 3 (note the
reciprocal Area Replacement Ratio Ac/A is
used). However, corrections should be applied
to allow for the compressibility of the column
aggregate and influence of the pressure
gradient along the soil-column interface.
4

PLATE BEARING TEST

The plate bearing test is a loading test carried

out by using a plate on treated ground,
essentially used as a control of workmanship.
The maximum load, which should be
applied to a 600 mm diameter plate is 11 ton.
The load should be applied in five equal
increments.
Following each application of load the
settlement should be measured at intervals of
one minute until no change is detected and
then at intervals of 5 minutes. The load should
be held for 10 minutes or until two successive
readings at 5 minutes intervals are the same,
whichever is the greater. The maximum load is
held for 15 minutes or until three successive
readings at 5 minutes intervals are the same,
whichever is the greater.

improved sufficiently to allow standard

foundations to be constructed at shallow depth,
without the need to resort to deep piling.
Where ground conditions are suitable,
stone-column solutions have been shown to be
more cost effective than trench fill in excess of
2m depth. In addition, stone columns can offer
considerable contract program savings over
other ground improvement methods, such as
preloading and vertical drains.
As with all geotechnical projects, a
thorough site investigation with adequate
information
on
soil
strength
and
compressibility is essential [6].
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Skender Allkja,
A.L.T.E.A. & Geostudio 2000, Laboratory
Testing for Construction Materials and
Geotechnical Study, for the valuable
information, and to Luljeta Bozo for reviewing
the paper.
REFERENCES
[1]

Table 1. Loading Levels, example of one test made in

Durres Ferry Terminal
Level

Load
kN

Settlement
mm

0
1
2
3
4
5
6

0
22
44
66
88
110
unload

0.00
0.27
0.82
1.31
1.86
2.44
1.21

Deformation
mm

Midukus
N/mm2

[2]
[3]
[4]

1.13

52.9

CONCLUSIONS

The Albanian construction industry has been

later than many of its European counterparts in
recognising the technical and economic
advantages that Vibro Stone Columns can
provide. Albania has an abundance of soft
estuarine and alluvial soils and these may be

[5]

[6]

McCabe, B.A., McNeill, J.A., and Black, J.A. (2007)

Ground improvement using the vibor-stone column
technique. Presented at the Joint meeting of
Engineers Ireland West Region and the Geotechnical
Society of Ireland, NUI Galway.
Priebe, H.J. (1995) The design of Vibro
Replacement, Ground Engineering (Dec), pp 31-37.
Priebe, H.J. (1976) Evaluation of the settlement
reduction of a foundation improved by VibroReplacement, Bautechnik, No. 5, pp 160-162
Wroth, C.P. (1984) The interpretation of in situ soil
tests, Geotechnique, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp 449-489.
Hughes, J.M.O. and Withers, N.J. (1974)
Reinforcing of soft cohesive soils with stone
columns, Ground Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp 4249.
UNI EN 14731 (2006) Industry Standards and
Regulations: Execution of special geotechnical
works- Ground treatment by deep vibration. Internet