Load versus Settlement of Claybed stabilized with Stone & Reinforced

Stone Columns
S.N. Malarvizhi
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 25.
malarvizhi_ramesh@hotmail.com
K. Ilamparuthi
Division of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Anna University, Chennai 25.
kanniilam@hotmail.com

ABSTRACT: Stone columns are extensively used to improve the bearing capacity of poor ground and reduce

the settlement of structures built on them. In the present investigation, load versus settlement response of the
stone column and reinforced stone column i.e. geogrid-encased stone column was studied in the laboratory.
Load tests were performed on soft clay bed stabilized with single stone column and reinforced stone column
having various slenderness ratios and using different type of encasing material. The settlement in reinforced
stone column is lesser than the stone column and the settlement decreased with the increasing stiffness of the
encasing material. For smaller loads the settlement reduction ratio is less in stone columns but for higher loads
it is less in geogrid encased stone column.
1 INTRODUCTION
Soft clay deposits are extensively located in many
coastal areas and they exhibit poor strength and
compressibility.
Stone column that consist of
granular material compacted in long cylindrical holes
is used as a technique for improving the strength and
consolidation characteristics of soft clays. Load
carrying capacity of a stone column is attributed to
frictional properties of the stone mass, cohesion/
cohesion and frictional properties of soils surrounding
the column, flexibility or rigidity characteristics of
the foundation transmitting stresses to the improved
ground and the magnitude of lateral pressure
developed in the surrounding soil mass and acting on
the sides of the stone column due to interaction
between various elements in the system. The stone
column derives its axial capacity from the passive
earth pressure developed due to the bulging effect of
the column and increased resistance to lateral
deformation under superimposed surcharge load.
The theory of load transfer, estimation of ultimate
bearing capacity and prediction of settlement of stone
columns was first proposed by Greenwood (1970),
Vesic (1972), Hughes and Withers (1974) and later
by Priebe (1976), Aboshi et al. (1979), Datye and
Nagaraju (1981), Greenwood and Kirsch (1983), Van
Impe and De Beer (1983), Balaam and Poulos (1983)

and recently by Madhav et al. (1994). Mitchell and

Huber (1985) proved that the stone columns reduced
the settlement significantly.
Stone columns also have secondary roles. It acts as
vertical drains and thus speeding up the process of
consolidation, replaces the soft soil by a stronger
material and initial compaction of soil during the
process of installation thereby increasing the unit
weight. Stone columns also mitigate the potential for
liquefaction and damage by preventing build up high
pore pressure by providing drainage path.
However, when used in sensitive clays, stone
columns have certain limitations. There is increase in
the settlement of the bed because of the absence of
the lateral restraint. The clay particles get clogged
around the stone column thereby reducing radial
drainage. To overcome these limitations, and to
improve the efficiency of the stone columns with
respect to the strength and the compressibility, stone
columns are encased (reinforced) using geogrids
/geocomposites. Deshpande & Vyas (1996) have
brought out conceptual performance of stone columns
encased in geosynthetic material. Katti et al (1993)
proposed a theory for improvement of soft ground
using stone columns with geosynthetic encasing
based on the particulate concept.
In this study, performance of the encased stone
column was studied with reference to strength and is

322

compared with that of the conventional stone

columns.
2 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
2.1 Properties of materials
Marine clay of high plasticity was collected from the
coastal area of Chennai city in India for forming the
soft clay bed. Granite chips were used to form the
stone column. Netlon Nova curtain (net1) net of
1mm x 1mm aperture, Square mesh net of 4mm x
4mm aperture size (net2) and CE121 (net3) were used
to form cylindrical tubes to encase the stone column.
The Soil was collected at a depth of 5m. Sample
collected was air-dried and pulverised.
The
pulverised sample was sieved through 4.75mm sieve
for easy mixing and quicker hydration. The index
properties tests showed that the fine contents are 74%
out of which clay is 44%. The liquid limit and
plasticity index are 55% and 37% respectively. This
soil is classified as clay of high plasticity (CH). The
undrained shear strength of clay is 6 kN/m2 at
moisture content of 52%.
Granite stone chips varying from 5 to 10 mm were
used to form the columns. The particle sizes for the
columns are as per the guidelines of Nayak (1983),
which suggest that should be in the range of 1/6 to
1/7 diameter of the column.
The properties of the nets used for encasement are
tabulated in Table 1.

Wt.
(gm/m )

Nova Curtain

260

Square mesh

475

CE121

730

Aperture
size
Diamond
1mm x 1mm
Square
4mm
Diamond
8mm x 6mm

2.3 Stone/Reinforced Stone Column installation

net1

The center of the cylindrical tank was properly

marked and a PVC pipe of the required diameter was
placed at the center of the tank. Around this pipe,
clay bed was formed. The clay layer was tamped
with a wooden tamper frequently and gently to expel
air during the process of filling. The stone required
to form the column was carefully charged in the tube
in three layers. Each layer was compacted using
12mm diameter rod to achieve a density of 15kN/m3.
For reinforced stone columns the reinforcement
was stitched and placed around the PVC tube. After
preparing the clay bed, the tubes were charged with
stone chips and compacted in layers. The PVC tube
was withdrawn to certain level and charging of stones
for the next layer was continued. The operations of
charging of stones, compaction and withdrawal of
tubes were carried out simultaneously.
Further the bed thus prepared was loaded with a
seating pressure of 5kN/m2 to the entire area of the
bed for 24 hours to obtain uniform bed, which also
ensured proper contact between clay and reinforced
stone column. The test after 24 hours of preparation
of the bed has also ensured gain in their strength of
disturbed clay.

net2

2.4 Experimental setup for the load test

net3

Tests were conducted on a single column of diameter

30 mm for various l/d ratios on a standard loading
frame as a stress-controlled test. The diameter of the
circular steel plate of adequate thickness and rigidity
may be based on the effective tributary soil area of
the stone column for a single column as per the codal
provisions. The diameter is chosen to be 2.3d and
this is slightly higher than size of the plate used for
studies by Narasimha Rao (2000). The lateral
dimension of the tank should be such that the
minimum free distance between the periphery of the
column and the side of the tank should not interface

Table 1. Specifications of the Nets used

Netlon
Identification

consistency index of 0.1. Water content of 52% was

used. Initially the soil was thoroughly mixed with the
water and kept covered for 48 hours in order to
achieve uniform consistency. After 48 hours of
hydration, the soil was mixed and kneaded well and
checked for moisture content. Loss of water, if any
due to evaporation was compensated by adding water
before forming the bed. The conditioned soil was
used to prepare soft clay bed. Care was taken to
avoid the entrapped air by tapping the clay layers
gently with a wooden plank.

Referred
as

The Net3 geogrid had a thickness of 3.1mm with

maximum tensile strength of 7.68kN/m. Columns
encased using Net3 was additionally encased with a
geotextile to allow for drainage without clogging of
soil into the aperture.
2.2 Preparation Of Soft Clay Bed
The air-dried and pulverized clay sample was mixed
with required quantity of water to achieve a

323

with the failure wedges. Meyerhof and Sastry (1978)

and Bowels (1988) established that the failure zone
extends over a radial distance of about 1.5 times the
diameter and over a depth approximately equal to 2
times the diameter of pile from the periphery of the
pile.
The loading arrangement is shown in the Figure 1

stress/strain curve becomes more brittle compared

with untreated ground; after bulging occurs
settlement increases rapidly. The clay bed treated
with stone column to the entire thickness of the bed
i.e. column resisting on hard strata (l/d=9.33)
exhibited rapid increase in the resistance with
settlement. However the rate of increase of resistance
decreases with settlement.
Similar trend was
observed in beds treated with stone column of smaller
length (l/d=5 and l/d=7.5).

100

Load (N)
200

300

400

Settlement (mm)

10

(a)
(b)
Figure 1. Loading of the composite bed
a. Stone Column of diameter d for the full length.
b. Floating Stone Column for different l/d ratios.

15

20

25

d = diameter of the column

l = length of the column
h = thickness of the clay bed

30

c
c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
c+sc(l/d=9.33)

35

Load test were carried out on single columns of

30mm diameter. Loading was done on a plate of
72mm diameter, which was 2.3 times the diameter of
the single column, placed over the clay filled in the
tank of size 300mm diameter and 280mm in height.
Loading was done over clay alone, clay stabilized by
stone column and clay stabilized with stone column
encased within geogrids of the same diameter as that
of the stone columns alone. Load was incremented in
hourly intervals and the settlement of the plate was
recorded by means of two dial gauges set
diametrically opposite.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Load Settlement Response Of Claybed and Stone
Column Treated Bed
In Figure 2, load-settlement behavior of soft clay bed
c and stone column reinforced bed c+sc is
presented. The load-settlement response of clay
column is very identical to that of the behavior of
highly plastic clay. For treated bed, the shape of the

Figure 2. Load Vs Settlement Curve of Stone

Columns having different l/d ratios
c
refers to loading the claybed alone.
c+sc refers loading the stone column stabilized bed
The yield load of these columns are estimated by
plotting load-settlement on a log-log scale and the
load corresponding to the point at which the change
in slope occurred is taken as the yield load. The yield
loads estimated by the log-log method are 116N,
113N and 97N for l/d ratios of 9.33, 7.5 and 5
respectively. The yield resistance of untreated bed is
68N. The increase in carrying capacity is of the order
of 1.71, 1.66 and 1.42 times that of the untreated beds.
The loads are also obtained of settlement of 10% of
the diameter of the column as well as a maximum
settlement of 10mm. The loads obtained by various
composite columns are presented in Table 2.
The yield loads obtained by log-log method are
lesser than that of the loads corresponding to 3mm
(10% diameter of the column) settlement. The load
corresponding to 10mm settlement is always higher

324

Table 2. Load Vs Settlement Response of composite

columns

10

68

15.0

9.33

123

203

116

30.1

c+sc

7.5

87

165

113

21.4

78

113

97

19.0

c+sc+net1

9.33

139

226

136

34.1

9.33

161

316

184

39.4

90

152

113

22.2

9.33

194

407

194

47.4

7.5

129

194

129

31.6

116

119

129

28.4

200

300

Load (N)
400 500

600

700

800

c
c+sc
c+sc+net1
c+sc+net2
c+sc+net3

15

20

25

30

35

Figure 3. Load Vs Settlement of composite bed with

various encasement

c+sc+net2

c+sc+net3

100

Settlement (mm)

103

Ultimate
Bearing Capacity
(kN/m2)

61

L/d

Yield load from loglog plot (N)

Type of
bed

Load at Settlement
of 10mm(N)

Load at Settlement of
3mm(N)

than that of obtained by log-log method. However,

the load corresponding to 10% of diameter of column
is closer to that of the load obtained by log-log plot.
Therefore, the ultimate load of the columns is taken
as the load corresponding to the settlement equal to
10% of the diameter of the column.

c+sc+net1 refers loading claybed stabilized with the

stone column encased with net1
c+sc+net2 refers loading claybed stabilized with the
stone column encased with net2
c+sc+net3 refers loading claybed stabilized with the
stone column encased with net3
3.2 Load Settlement Response Of Claybed with
Stone Column encased with nets
The load-settlement response of reinforced stone
column i.e. stone column encased using three types of
nets is compared with the response of untreated bed
and the bed treated with the stone column alone is
presented in Figure 3. The load carrying capacity of
the composite bed increases when encasement is used.
The difference in load resistance between stone
column and column reinforced with net1 (insect
screen) is negligible irrespective of settlement of
column.

C+sc+net3 bed offered higher resistance than

c+sc+net2 bed for a given settlement of the stabilized
bed. The load-settlement response for the three types
of reinforcement is identical but maximum resistance
is offered by net3. As the stiffness of the encasing
material increases the load carrying capacity of the
composite column increases. The tensile strength of
net1 is very less and therefore the load capacity is
also not remarkable. The load-settlement plot almost
follows the plot of that of the stone column. Whereas
when net3 is used for encasing, the load capacity
increases and the settlement reduced remarkably.
To find the stiffness of the reinforced stone
columns, unconfined compression test was conducted
on short specimens of l/d = 2. The stiffness values
were calculated from the pressure versus settlement
plots and are tabulated in Table 3.
Table 3. Stiffness of composite encased columns
Stiffness
(kN/m2/m)

Net1

Net2

Net3

45

125

148

It was found that as the stiffness of the composite

column increases, the yield load of the composite bed
also increases proportionally. This is presented in
Figure 4.

325

stone column treated ground for the l/d ratio of 9.33

and 5 respectively.

Yield load (N)

250
200

3.4 Load Settlement Response of c+sc+net3

stabilized bed

150
100
50
0
0

50
100
3
Stiffness (kN/m )

150

Figure 4. Yield load versus stiffness of composite

columns
3.3 Load Settlement
stabilized bed

Response

of

c+sc+net2

The load-settlement response of clay beds treated

with reinforced stone column of various lengths with
net3 is presented in Figure 6. The ultimate load of
net3 reinforced stone column and stone column of l/d
ratio of 9.33 are 194N and 123N respectively. The
increase in ultimate resistance is about 67% and
200% higher than the ultimate resistance of stone
column treated bed and untreated bed respectively.
For l/d ratio of 5 the increase is nearly 100% and 50%
higher than the untreated and stone column treated
clay bed.

The results of tests conducted using net2 with l/d

ratios of 5 and 9.33 are compared with stone column
of corresponding l/d ratios is shown in Figure 5.

100

200

Load (N)
300
400

500

600

700

100

Load (N)
200
300

400

500

0
10
Settlement (mm)

Settlement (mm)

10

15

20

15
25
20
30
25

30

c
c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net2+l/d=5
c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)

35

c
c+sc(l/d=5)
c+sc(l/d=7.5)
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net3(l/d=5)
c+sc+net3(l/d=7.5)
c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)

Figure 6. Load Vs Settlement of Stone Columns

Reinforced with Net3

35

Figure 5. Load Vs Settlement Curve of Stone Column

Reinforced with Net 2
The shape of the load-settlement curves is
identical and independent of the length of the column,
but the load increased with the l/d ratio of the stone
column. The ultimate load of reinforced stone column
with l/d ratio of 9.33 and 5 are 161N and 90N
respectively, which are 2.6 times and 1.5 times the
strength of untreated beds. Further, the reinforced
stone column strengths are 1.32 and 1.16 times the

The increase in length of column increases the

ultimate load for a given thickness of the soft clay
bed. The column terminated in hard layer (bottom of
bed) offered higher resistance. The ultimate load of
stone column treated bed is twice that of the untreated
bed for l/d ratio of 9.33 or l/h (depth ratio) of unity.
Similarly, increase in the stiffness of the reinforcing
material also increases the ultimate load for a
particular l/d ratio.
The reinforced stone column has enhanced the
strength of stabilized bed irrespective of the length of

326

the column. The increase in length of the column

exhibited increase in load, but the increase is not
linear. Further, the increase is higher for l/d ratio of
9.33 when compared to other l/d ratios; this may be
attributed to the bearing resistance offered by the hard
surface in which the column was founded.

c
c+sc(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)
c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)

500
450

Modulus (kN/m2)

400

3.5 Comparison of Subgrade Modulus of various

composite beds

350
300
250
200
150
100
50

Subgrade Modulus (kN/m3)

16000

0
0

12000

10

15

20

25

Settlement (mm)

8000

Figure 8. Modulus of the end-bearing composite

column with various reinforcing material
For end-bearing columns, the difference in modulus
value is more significant than in floating columns.
This is because the loads are transferred to the ground
in the case of end-bearing columns.

c+sc+net3(l/d=7.5)

c+sc+net2(l/d=5)

c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)

c+sc(l/d=9.33)

c+sc(l/d=5)

4000

300

Type of bed
250

Figure 7. Subgrade modulus of various

composite beds

Modulus (kN/m2)

c+sc(l/d=5)

The subgrade modulus of treated beds for various

composite columns are compared for a settlement of
3mm in Figure 7. It can be seen that as the l/d ratio
increases, the subgrade modulus also increases
proportionally. The high value of subgrade modulus
for l/d=9.33 can be attributed to the end bearing of
the column to the base of the bed. The subgrade
modulus also increases with the tensile strength of the
material used for encasing.

c+sc+net2(l/d=5)
c+sc+net3(l/d=5)

150
100
50
0
0

10

15

20

25

Settlement (mm)

Figure 9. Modulus of the floating composite column

with various reinforcing material

3.6 Modulus of variation of end-bearing and

floating columns with settlement
In order to understand the reduction in the stiffness of
composite columns with settlement, modulus of
composite columns were determined from the loadsettlement results for various strain levels. Figures 8
and 9 shows the modulus of the composite bed for
end-bearing and floating columns respectively. The
rate of decrease of the modulus with respect to
settlement is high in case of the column reinforced
with net3 and low in the virgin clay bed. At a
settlement of 3mm, the modulus value is very high
for c+sc+net3 bed.

200

3.7 Comparison of Modular ratio for various

composite beds
Modular ratio is a parameter, which indicates relative
stiffness of the materials used for the stabilization.
Further this parameter gives an idea on ratio of load
sharing between reinforced column and clay. In
order to understand this, the modular ratios of
stabilized beds were obtained from the results of load
test by applying the principle of equal strain for
various settlement values. The modular ratios thus

327

the lengths of the floating column studied the

variation of ultimate bearing capacity is negligible.
2

Ultimate Bearing Capacity (kN/m )

obtained are presented in Figure 10 for columns with

l/h = 1 and area ratio () = 0.174.
30
c+sc(l/d=9.33)

= 0.174

c+sc+net1(l/d=9.33)

25

c+sc+net2(l/d=9.33)

Modular ratio (Esc/Eclay)

c+sc+net3(l/d=9.33)

20

15

50
c+sc+net2
40

c+sc+net3
c+sc

30
20
10
0

(h-l)/d ratio

10

Figure 11. Variation of Ultimate Bearing Capacity

with (h-l)/d ratio
5

3.9 Settlement ratio of the composite bed

0
5

10
15
Setttlement (mm)

20

Figure 10. Variation of Modular ratios with

Settlement
From the graph one can infer that the modular
ratio is a function of deformation (settlement) of
column. For stone column (c+sc) and stone column
with net1 (c+sc+net1), the modular ratio is higher at
initial loads and decreases with deformation till the
deformation is less than 10% of the diameter of
column thereafter the ratio remains almost constant
irrespective of deformation. However, the modular
ratio of these two columns is lesser than the beds
stabilized with c+sc+net2 and c+sc+net3 for
settlements higher than 3mm.
In case of beds stabilized with c+sc+net2 and
c+sc+net3, the modular ratio increases with
settlement but the increase beyond the settlement of 3
to 4mm is gradual. However, c+sc+net3 exhibited
higher modular ratio with higher rate of increase
while comparing with other reinforced columns.

The reduction in settlement between the claybed

treated with reinforced stone columns and stone
column are presented in Figure 12 for end-bearing
stone columns. At initial stage of loading, settlement
in the reinforced stone column is marginally higher
than that of the bed treated with stone column, which
is about 1.1 times.
1.20
Settlement RSC/Settlement SC

0.40

c+sc+net1
c+sc+net2
c+sc+net3

0.00
0

50

100

150

200

250

Load (N)

Figure 12. Settlement reduction ratio of reinforced

stone column treated bed with stone column bed

3.8 Ultimate Bearing Capacity of Stabilized Bed

The variation of ultimate bearing capacity of endbearing and floating columns are compared in Figure
11. As the thickness of the claybed at the bottom of
the column increases bearing capacity decreases
irrespective of the stiffness of the columns. However,
the bearing capacity of composite columns is higher
than the bed treated with stone column, irrespective
of whether the column is end-bearing or floating. For

0.80

The marginal increase in settlement of composite

beds is due to initial readjustment of the stone
particles in the reinforced casing. However, as the
load increases, the settlement ratio decreases rapidly
until certain intensity of load thereafter the rate of
reduction in settlement is lesser. The rate of
reduction in settlement with load is higher if the
stiffness of the column is higher.

328

4 CONCLUSIONS
1. Encasing the stone column with geogrids resulted
in an increase of load carrying capacity
irrespective of whether the column is end-bearing
or floating. In case of floating columns the l/d
ratio has less influence on the capacity of column
for the lengths studied in this investigation.
2. The ultimate load capacity of the reinforced
column increases with the stiffness of the
reinforcement.
3. The ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced stone
column and stone column treated beds are three
times and two times that of the untreated bed.
4. The encased stone column is stiffer than stone
columns, thereby reducing the load on clay,
consequently reducing the settlement.
5. Modular ratio of reinforced columns (end-bearing)
increases with increase in settlement irrespective
of the type of encasing material, however, the
increase is negligible in case of stone column and
net1 encased stone column. But the increase is
appreciable and the modular ratio is 17 to 25 for
the settlement between 5 and 20mm.
The conclusions drawn are for an area ratio of 0.174.
In order to have better understanding on the
performance of reinforced stone column more tests
are warranted by varying area ratio, moisture content
of clay and l/d ratio of columns.
REFERENCES
Aboshi, H., Ichimoto, E., Enoki, M. and Haraka, K.
The Compozer A Method to Improve
Characteristics of Soft Clays by Inclusion of Large
Diameter Sand Columns. Proceedings of
International Conference on Soil Reinforcement:
Reinforced Earth and other Techniques, Paris, Vol.
1, p.211-216(1979).
Balaam, N.P. and Poulos, H.G, The behavior of
foundations supported by clay stabilized by stone
columns, Proceedings of Specialty sessions, VII
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering, Helinski.Vol.2.(1983)
Bowels, J.E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 4th
Edition, McGraw Hill, 278 p(1988).
Datye, K.R. and Nagaraju, S.S., Design Approach
and Field Control for Stone Columns.
Proceedings of 10th International Conference on
Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
Stockholm, pp.637-640(1981).
Deshpande, P.M and Vyas, A.V., Interactive encased
stone column foundation, Sixth International

Conference and Exhibition on Piling and Deep

foundation, DFI96, ISSMFE, Bombay, pp119(1996)
Greenwood, D.A., Mechanical Improvement of soils
below ground surface, Conference on Ground
Engineering, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, pp. 11-22(1970).
Greenwood, D.A. and Kirsch, K., Specialist Ground
Treatment by vibratory and dynamic methods
State of Art, Advances in Piling and Ground
Treatment for Foundations, Institution of Civil
Engineers, London, England, pp 17-45(1983).
Hughes, J.M.O and Withers, N.J., Reinforcing of
soft cohesive soils with stone columns, Ground
Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 3 pp. 42-42 and pp. 4749(1974).
Katti, R.K., Katti, A.R and Naik, S., Monograph to
analysis of stone columns with and without geosynthetic encasing, CBRI publication, New
Delhi.(1993)
Madhav, M.R., Miura, N. & Alamgir, M., Analysis
of Granular Column Reinforced Ground, 5th
International
Conference
on
Geotextile,
Geomembranes
and
Related
Products,
Singapore.(1994)
Meyerhof, G.G. and Sastry V.V.R.N, Bearing
capacity of piles in layered soils, part I and II,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 15, pp. 171189(1978).
Mitchell, J.K. and Huber, T.R., Performance of a
stone
column
foundation,
Journal
of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, 111, pp. 205223(1985).
Narasimha Rao S.N., Studies on groups of stone
columns in soft clays, Symposium on Ground
Improvement Techniques for practicing engineers,
Chennai, pp.84-93(2000).
Nayak, N.V., Recent advances in ground improvements
by stone column, Proceedings of Indian
Geotechnical Conference, Madras, Vol. 1, p. V19(1983).
Priebe, H. J., "An evaluation of settlement reduction
in soil improved by vibroreplacement". (en
alemn). Bautechnik, n 53, pp. 160-162(1976).
Van Impe, W. Y, De Beer, E., "Improvement of
settlement behaviour of softy layers by means of
stone columns", Proceedings of 8th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering, Helsinki. pp. 309-312(1983).
Vesic, A.S., Expansion of Cavities in Infinite Soil
Mass, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 98, No. SM3,
pp. 265-290(1972).

329