BEHAVIOUR OF FOOTINGS ON SAN

REINFORCED WITH GEOSYNTHETICS

A DISSERTATION

submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF ENGINEERING
in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
(With Specialization in Geotechnical Engineer rm).: ...

N0 044E43
r 4.
By • ,{N

00RD:Es
A. NAG RAJA RAO eFOasmersnessAg

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF ROORKEE
ROORKEE-247 667 (INDIA)

APRIL, 1991
 CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

I here by declare that the work which has been preSentec

in the dissertation entitled, " BEHAVIOUR OF FOOTINGS ON SAND

REINFORCED WITH GEOSYNTHETICS - in. partial fulfilment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of MASTER OF ENGINEERING

in Civil. Engineering with specialization in GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING submitted to the DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,

University of Roorkee, Roorkee is an authentic record of my own

work carried out for a period of eight months during February 1990

to Apr 1991, under the supervision of Dr. Swami SaramProfessor,

and Sri A: S..R. Rao, der, Department of Civil Engineering,

University of Roorkee, Roorkee (INDIA).

The matter embodied in this dissertation was not been

submitted by me for the award of any other degree.

k Nor RCtO
DATE :2--;' (A. NAGARAJA RAO)

ThiS is certified that the above statement made by the

candidate is correct to the best of our knowledge.

=oitk9\-,
C A.S. . RAO ) ( Dr. SWAMI SARAN )
READER 4' ko F3S, PROFESSOR
Department of. Civil Department of CiVil'
•Engineering Engineering •
University of Roorkee University of Roorkee •
Roorkee Roorkee

DATE : 1- (
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my profound gratitude to Dr.Swami Saran,

Professor, Department of Civil Engifieering, University Of Roorkee,

Roorkee, for his guidance, support and encouragement throughOUt

the work. I consider myte/f lucky to have worked under his

supervision during the tenure of this dissertation.

I am deeply indebted to Sri A. S. R. Rao, Reader, Civil

Engineering Department, University Of Roorkee, Roorkee, for

having extended his invaluable guidance and enlightened

suggestions. His kindness and helping nature will always be

remembered with deep sense of gratitude. Without his guidance, it

would have been impossible for me to complete this dissertation.

I avail this opportunity to offer thanks to the staff

members of Geotechnical 'laboratory for their cooperation and

timely_ assistance.

I am grateful to Mr P. Kiran for his timely help.

Last but not the least, I wish to thank all those who

have in someway or the other, helped me in this work.

 SYNOPSIS

The need to improve the bearin capacity and

settlement characteristics of soils has led to the

introduction of the concept of reinforced earth. A wide

range of materials, both natural and manufactured ones, are
available for use as soil reinforcement. Geogrids, a group

under geosynthetics family form one such artificially

manufactured materials, that are strong, nonbiodegradable,

temperature resistant and chemical resistant. There is a

growing need to develop the design and construction

technique for these materials for use in regional soils.

The present investigation deals with the

laboratory studies on the behaviour of a square (20 cm x 20

cm) footing resting on a deep, homogeneous, medium-dense

sand bed reinforced with geogrid mats. The parameters

chosen for investigation are: the depth of the top layer of

reinforcement below the base of the footing, the number of.

layers of reinforcement,and the placement of the footing

with respect to the ground level. Locally available

Amanathgarh sand graded as SP according to IS 1498-1970

was used. Sand was deposited by rainfall technique

to achieve a reproducible relative density of 60 per cent.

The depth of the top layer of reinforcement below

the base of the footing was taken as 0.25 B, 0.50 B and 0.75

B for each value of N, the number of reinforcement layers.

iii
The number of layers of reinforcement used were 1, 2 and 3.,
•

The tests were performed for bOth surface footing (Dent)) and

embedded footing CDem0.5 B3.

On the basis of the load settlement diagrams

obtained from the test data, certain conclusions have been

drawn.

It was observed that there is an optimum depth

below the base of the footing. The first layer of

reinforcement, when placed at this position, would result in

a maximum mobilisation of its tensile strength. Increase in

the number of- layers of reinforcement has led to an increase

in the bearing capacity of the soil and decrease in

settlement. The placement of footing has been observed to

have a significant influence on the optimum depth of first

layer of reinforcement, and also on the bearing capacity and

settlement characteristics.
 CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE NO

CANDIDATE'S DECLARATION

ACKNOWLEGMENT ii

SYNOPSIS iii

NOTATIONS iv

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES vi

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Mechanism of Reinforcement 2

1.3 Strength Characteristics of Reinforced Earth3

1.4 Types of Reinforcement 6

1.4.1 Geosynthetics 8

1.5 Advantages of Soil Reinforcement 12

1.6 Applications of Soil Reinforcement 12

1.7 Aim of Present Investigation la

II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 16

2.1 General 16

2.2 Reinforced Sand 16 .

2.3 Reinforced Clay 16

2.4 Studies on Reinforced Earth Slab 18

III TEST PROGRAMME AND RECORDING OF TEST DATA 28

2.1 General 28

3.2 Materials Used 28

3.2.1 Sand 28

3.2.2 Reinforcement 30

3.3 Test Footing and Tank 32

3.4 Loading Device 32

3.5 Test Setup 32

3.6 Sand Filling 33

3.7 Measurements of Loads and Settlement aa

3.8 Test Procedure 33

3.0 Recording of Test Data and Calculations 33

IV INTERPRETATION 43

4.1 General 43

Pressure-Settlement Characteristics 43

4.3 Influence of Various Test Parameters on

Bearing Capacity 44

4.3.1 Depth of Top Layer of Reinforcement 46

4.3.2 Number of Layers of Reinforcement 60

4.3.3 Position of Footing with respect to

Ground Level 50

4.4 Influence of Various Test Parameters on

Settlement 51
 Depth- of. Top Layer• of Reinforcement , S2

4. 4. 2 Number of Layers' of Reinforcement SS

4.4.3 Position of Footing with respect to

Ground Level S4

CONCLUSIONS SS

SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 67

VI REFERENCES.

FIGURES
 NOTATIONS

A = Area of footing

A' = Efeective area of footing

= Width of footing

B' = Effective width of footing

BCR = Bearing capacity ratio

BPR = Bearing pressure ratio

c. = Cohesion

C = Uniformity ea-efficient
u
3-D = Threedimonsional

D = Depth of Footing with restpect to ground level

f
D = Relative density under test condition.
sit

Eccentricity'of load

= Void ratio under test condition

actual
emirs =-Minimum void-ratio .

e = Maximum void-ratio
MAX
.= specific Gravity of solids

02 = Vertical spacing between adjacent horizontal

layers of. reinforcement

= Co-efficient of active earth pressure

= NuMber of layers of reinforcement

.=. Average bearing pressure for reinforced soil at

desired density

= Average bearing pressure for.unroinforced soil at

desired denmity

qu = Ultimate bearing capacity

= Tensile resistance of the reinforcing .unit thick

section

= Settlement of vertically loaded footing

= Maximum settlement of the footing under vertical

load-

Settlement.ratio.

= Depth of uppermost layer of reinforcement from

the base of the footing .

= Depth of reinforcement zone

= Density of soil

= DenSity of water

= Average density .under test condition

= Ma-ximum average density under test condition

= Minimum.average density under test condition

= Vertical stress on the element if cohosionloss

soil

= Major principal stress at failure

= Applied confining pressure on the test specimen

= - Angle of shearing resistance

 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE NO

1.1 Comparative 'Evaluation of Reinforcing

Materials

3.1 - Proprimties of Sand Used 20

3.2 SpeCifiCation Data . for Notion Geogrid

CE-121 31

3.3 Test details . . 36

3.4 Bearing Capacity Test for UnreinfOrced

Earth Slab . 37

3.5' Bearing Capacity Test for Reinforced:

Earth Slab 38

3.5 . Effect of Number of Layers of Reinforced

on Bearing Capacity Ratio 30

3. 7 Bearing Pressure Ratios for Different

Settlement Values

3. Settlement Ratios at Different Bearing

Pressures

V
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIG. NO TITLE

1.1 Basic Mechanism of Reinforced Earth

2.1 Three Modes of Failure

3.1 Geometry of Reinforced Earth Problem

3.2 Grain Size Distribution Curve for Sand

3.3 Height of Fall versus Density Curve

4.1-4.6 Pressure-.Settlement Curves for Surface FootiAT' '-

4.7-4.12 Pressure-Settlement Curves for Embedded Footing

4.13-4.14 u/B versus Ultimate Bearing Capacity Curves

4.16-4.16 u/B versus Bearing Capacity Ratio Curves

4.17-4.18 N versus Bearing Capacity Ratio Curves

4.19-4.20 u/B versus Bearing Pressure Ratio Curves for

0.06 B Settlement

4.21-4.22 u/B versus Bearing Pressure Ratio Curves for

0.076 B Settlement

4.23-4.24 u/B versus Bearing Pressure Ratio Curves for

0.10 B Settlement

4.26-4.26 u/B versus Settlement Ratio Curves for Surface

Footing

4.27-4.28 u/B versus Settlement Ratio Curves for• Embedded

Footing

4.20-4.30 N versus Settlement Ratio Curveg for Surface

Footing

4.31-4.32 N versus Settlement Ratio Curves for Embedded

Footing
vi
 CHAPTER I

46.43 ;„;

INTRODUCTION

1.1 GENERAL

Granular soils are strong in compressiori and shear

but weak in tension. The performance of such soils can be

substantially improved by introducing reinforcing elements

in the direction of tensile strains in the same way as in

reinforced concrete.

"Reinforced earth" is formed by the association of

frictional soil and tension resistant elements in the form.

of sheets,strips,nets or mats of metal or synthetic fabrics,

and arranged in the soil mass in such a way as to suppress_

the tensile strain which might develop under gravity loads.

These are not only economical but save construction time

also. Reinforced earth construction is the best alternative

- in poor and difficult subsoil conditions and where there is

an emphasis on space and time.

The credit for introducing the modern form of

reinforced soil construction goes to HENRI VIDAL 11964) ,

who with some basic ideas and after some preliminary trials,

constructed a major retaining wall in southern France. By

I.g88 over 4000 structures were built with soil

reinforcement,and extensive research had been carried out ,

which continues - to this day.

Presently, geosynthetics are extensively used as

reinforcing element in the reinforced earth construction all

- . over. the world because of their multifaceted benefits.

Geosynthetics comprise of geotextiles, geomembranes . and

geogrids. Geosynthetic materials. can be manufactured seas

to make themstrong,nonbiodegradable, temperature resistant

and chemical resistant.- The new composite. material,
displaying exceptional properties can be used _virith

advantage by engineers in the construction of many civil

engineering works. The present study aims to throw light

on the use of geogrids in reinforced earth slabbelow

foundation and its possible advantage over other reinforcing

materi al s.

1.2 MECHANISM OF REINFORCEMENT

VI DAL t19703 describes reinforced earth as a

cohesive material. The cohesion is assumed to be induced

due to introduction of reinforcement in an otherwise

cohesi onl ess soil. It was however not been possible to

define this cohesion in a way as to enable its use in the

design of earth reinforced structures.

A simple method of explaining the concept is by

Rankine state of stress theory. - If a two dimensional

element of cohesionless soil is subjected to Uniaxial

stress, it will not be able to• remain in equilibrium , as

the Mohr circle of stress will cut the strength envelope of

the soil Fig.C1.1a). If the element is subjected to equal

biaxial stresses, it will undergo uniform compression.

Fig.(1.1b). If one of the stresses (say tv1) is increased

while maintaining the others constant,. a compression of the

element in the direction of a1 and an expansion in the

direction of a3 will take place. When the lateral strains

reach critical' proportions failure of element results,.
similar to the failure of sample in a triaxial compression

test. At this stage, a3 = kaai , where kais the coefficient

of active earth pressure and Mohr circle of stress is

tangential to the strength envelope.

To hold the element without failure, reinforcement

should be provided in the direction of a3. Interaction

between the soil and reinforcement will generate frictional

forces along the interface. It will be analogous to the

existence of a pair of plates which prevents the lateral

expansion of the soil element.Fig.C1.1c). The additional

lateral pressure will move the Mohr circle to the right and

away from the failure envelope and the soil element will

remain in equilibrium.

1.3 STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF REINFORCED EARTH

Studies have been carried out by YONG if9703 and

SCHLOSSER 1- 19743 to define the strength characteristics •

concept of reinforced earth. • They gave the results of

- triaxial compressive tests on cylindrical samples of sand

containing thin horizontal sheets of tensile reinforcing

material. Yong used woven fibre glass netting and

SchLosser used aluminium foils.

 They reported that -

Cl) the strength increases with increase in

. concentration of reinforcing strip and increase in

confining pressure.
C2D below a certain critical confining pressure;

failure occurs by the sand sliding over the

reinforcement: •

Both investigators concentrated their', analysis to

confining pressuresabove critical confining. pressure when

failure occurs due to tension in reinforCement.

YONG 119723 suggested that the tensile stresses

built up in horizontal reinforcements are transferred to the

soil through sliding friction, which causes an increasein

confining pressure a3.

Thus'

Cl)
if =C a3 + 6u33.N0

where a
lf = Major principal stress at failure

= Applied confining pressure on the

test specimen .

N = tanaC45 +

= Angle of shearing resistance.

According to SCHLOSSER' et. al.11974,7, the Strength

envelope. for the reinforced sand is like cohesive-frictional

Mohr -Coulomb material with strength defined by

= a314 + 2cyrkV C2D

 An analytical expression is -derived for the

cohesion term 'c' for a unit thickness of plane section as :

(3)
2h

Where RT= Tensile resistance of reinforcing

unit thick section

h = Vertical spacing between adjacent

horizontal layers of reinforcement.

From Eqs Ci), C2) and (33, we can have a direct

relationship between La.. and c as

(4)

also

Ag
RT

Either of the two approaches could be used equally

well for analySing the behaviour of reinforced earth :for

maximum strength condition were failure occurs by breaking

of the reinforcement. But when failure occurs by sliding:or',

pullout, it is difficult to understand the mechanism., 'The

above analysis iS also limited to condition with °-

provision for deformatiOn prior to' development of peak

strength. Thus. the hypothieses have not been used in the

field design.

Analytical studies were also carried out 'to

utilize research data in the field application C Vai.shva

1977 ..„). It appears that- more. complex techniques like. FEM .

are required to utilize fully the analytical possibilities_

5
1.4 TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT

A wide range of alternatives 'exist in making a

choice of the reinforcing materials. However. some of these

materials Conly metals) are prone to corrosion and therefore-

suitable preservative treatment must be given before using

the desired reinforcing materials.

The commonly used materials are. bamboo,

polypropylene,. and polyethylene. Galvanised steel strips,

aluminium strips are also used. A comparative evaluation of

some materials is listed in Table 1.1 (Datye 4481_).

6
 TABLE 1.1

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF REINFORCING MATERIALS

CHARACTERISTICS BAMBOO POLY— MILD HIGH TENSILE

PROPYLENE STEEL BARS STEEL

UTS hg/Cm2 1500 - 6000 5200

*
Yield E7/Cm2 1200 — 3000 12000

Allowable stress Eg/Cm2 600 3000 1400 9000

Cost/litre 07s) 3 60 • 20 60

Equivalent sectional area Cm2 2,5 0,5 1 0.16

Cost of 1000 Cm. length with equivalent

sectional area 7.5 30 30 9.6

Cost ratio • 0.25 1 1 0,32

* Area of member having a strength equal to a mild steel section

with an area of 1
* Average value for• commercial grades.

7
 Bamboo as a reinforcing . material is subject to the

attacks of insects, fungus or virus. The cost. of M.S.bars

and polypropylene strips is equal but on adding the cost of

corrosion protection,M.S.bars. become more expensive.

Gecsynthetics, derivatives of polypropylene, are described

in detail bel ow.

1.4.i Geosynthet.ics

Geosynthetics are made from synthetic polymers

like polypropylene, polyethelene, nylon etc. These materials,

are thin, bidimensional,flexible, anticorrosive,.

nonbiodegradable, nontoxic and U.V.stabilized for long life.

They constitute a new group of composite materials hitherto

naturally unavailable and display exceptional properties -

' which can be utilised by engineers in the construction

many civil engineering works.

Geosynthetics include:

Ci3 •geotextiles

Cii3 geogrids

MA.) geomembranes

Civ3 geocomposites

Geosynthetics, like all building materials, are

prone to a progressive deterioration in properties; the rate

and severity of this deterioration is dependent on many

factors. Irradiation by ultraviolet rays causes most severe

B
damage. However, geosynthetics once installed below ground
are not. .exposed to the sun and hence. the damage is minimised •

by planning the construction. Natarajan et.at.(19813

estimated the life of geotextile and geogrids as 15 years'

and 50 years respectively. But these'figures are however

tentative and not based on the actual per

Ci) Geotextiles

Geotextiles are porous fabrics manufactured from

synthetic materials such as polypropylene,polyethelene,nylon

etc. , These are light weight flexible materials,

commercially available in rolls of 2 to 10m width and length

upto 500m and hence can be handled very easily.

Geotextiles can be

CiD woven

cii) nonwoven

ciii) knitted

Woven geotextiles are made up of filaments or

yarns or in two particular directions or overlapped.

These are generally used as reinforcing material

Nonwoven .geotextiles are made up of arranged

fibres or strands which are held together in one of the

following manners:

Cl) needle punching

C2D heat. bonding

C3D resin bonding

C 4) combination bonding.

Nonwoven geotextiles are relatively cheap,have 1

to medium strength and -undergo high elongation before:

failure.
- Knitted geotextiles are made up of fabrics or
yarns connected by straight segments. They may be stretched
in either direction without. significantly 'stressing the

fibres.

Geotextiles can be used for

Ca) filtration

Cb.) drainage

Cc) reinforcement

Cd) separation

Ce) protection.

(ii) Geogrids

They are plastics formed. into a very open net-like2

configuration and are available in a wide

materials and in various hole sizes. They are often,

stretched in one or two directions for improved physical

properties. They may be manufactured by an extrusion

process, in which characteristic diamond shaped or polygonal

apertures are created.

Geogrids are light in weight and come in rolls of

1 m to 5 m Width and length upto 50 m. They are used

in roads,railways, snowfencing, soil stabilisation etc..

They function in two ways:

C1) as reinforcement (mainly.)

(2) as separators (occasionally)

Both geogrids and geotextiles are polymer

10
products. But they are .different in their structure and .

functions. The main difference lies in aperture opening.

Because of more open structure of geogrid, soil particles

interlock in apertures and offer more friction.

The arch action occuring at each mesh of open.
mesh structures of geogrid is missing in geotextile But

where drainage or fiitration is of prime importance,

geotextiles can control seepage better but the limitation

with geotextiles is that they get chocked by finer particles

and may become impermeable over a period of time. Its life

is also reduced if soil contains iron.

ciii) Geomembranes

These are PVC or polythene membranes having very

low permeability compared to geotextiles and are available

as

Ca) homogeneous textiles coated with bitumen

Cb) reinforced fabrics.

These are mainly used for linings and covers of

liquid or solid - storage impoundments.

civ) Geocomposites

Geocomposites are manufactured by a combination

one geosynthetic with other: Hence they will '.hayethe

advantages of both materials :and can be used for all compex.

geotechnical problems where geosynthetics can be used.,

11
 1.5 ADVANTAGES OF SOIL-REINFORCEMENT

Cl) Reinfortement will result in an increased

factor of safty against sliding for slopes .•

(2? Steeper slopes can • be formed using

. reinforcement and will thus result in a reduction of the

quantity of fill material needed to build the embarkment.

(33 It drastically reduces the quantity of earth

•

work •required for side slopes of bridges and for the

construction of buildings on slopes, hence it will be very

beneficial in builtup areas.

(4) It employs prefabricated elements which

facilitates easy handling storage and assembly.

(5)
. The reinforced soil structure is flexible in

nature, which permits larger differential settlements than

conventional rigid structures like gravity walls,

R.C.cantilever walls and hence construction is feasible over

poor subsoils.

(6)It obviates the need for scarce raw materials

. like steel and cement.

(7) When used as a reinforcement below footings,it

improves the bearing capacity of the soil manyfolds.

1.6 APPLICATIONS OF SOIL REINFORCEMENT

Soil reinforcement system can be used in the

following situations:

(I) foundations of structures,embankments and roads_



CiiD retaining walls and bridge abutments

CiiiD in projects where speed is essential

Civ-) roads and embankments in swampy areas

Cv) for situations where there is a space restriction

or right of way is resticted.

1.7 AIM OF PRESENT INVESTIGATION

The feasibility of geogr i ds supplied by M/s Netlon

India as a reinforcing material in sand is proposed to

bestudied. The present inv6sticiation presents. the results

of laboratory model tests using a square footing on

homogeneous, medium dense sand bed reinforced with geogrid

CCE-121D. The parameters chosen for study are the position

of footing with respect to ground level Cy , the depth of

top layer below .the base of the footing Cu) and the number

of reinforcement layers CND.

Tests were performed on a 20 cm x 20 cm x 2.54 cm

footing placed on a dry sand bed in unreinforced and

reinforced conditions, at a - relative density of 60 per cent..

The depth ofthe first layer of reinforcement below the

footing was chOsen as u = 0.25 B, 0.5 9 and 0.75 B for each

N value. The number of layers of reinforcement used were 1,

2 and 3. Vertical spacing between reinforcement layers was

kept. at 0.5 B for all the tests. Same testing schedule was

adapted for both surface footing and footing at 0.5 B below

ground•level. The test tank used was of si ze 1.5 m x 1.5 m

x 1.0 m.

13
 The test results were analysed and the infldence

on bearing capacity and settlement were studied in detail

and significant conclusions drawn. These are reported

herein.

A review of available literature on the behaviour

of reinforced earth slab construction has also been done and

presented briefly.

14
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 GENERAL

The beneficial effects • of introducingg

reinforcement in noncohesive soils can be utilised to

improve the bearing capacity of shal 1 ow f oundati ons and

settlement characteristics of footings. resting on them;

The strengthening effect of placing metal strips,

woven ,nonwoven fabrics, and geogrids have been utilised in a

variety of structures over the last two decades. The

analysis of such reinforced earth structures has recently

been i nvesti gated by many researchers. However , a rati onal

soil reinforcement mechanism is' yet to be evol ved.

2. 2 REINFORCED SAND

Generally the . soil used for reinforced ear th

structure is granular. Granular soils are very strong in

compression but have very low tensile strength. Therefore ,

to enable them to withstand higher stresses and to improve

the Basi c pr oper ti es of the f oundati on ma ter i al , layers of

tension resistant materials are incorporated into the

gr anul ar soi I s in the di r ecti on of tens! 1 e str ai n. The

basic mechanism of reinforced earth invol ves the generation

15
of frictional forces between the soil and reinforcement.

These forces are developed in a form. analogous to an

increased confining pressure which enhances the strength of

composite materials.

Vidat (19781 described the reinforced earth as a

cohesive material. The cohesion is assumed to be induced

due to introduction of reinforcement in an otherwise

cohesionless soil,

Experimental and theoritical work by Hausmann

119763 revealed that the increase in the strength of soil

due to presence of reinforcement is reflected either by an

apparent cohesion at higher stress levels occurring due to

rupture of reinforcement or by an increased friction angle

a t. lower -stress levels occurring due to slippage failure.

Triaxial compression tests on reinforced sand samples shows

C Saran et aL. (19781 , Narabl et aL. (19813 3 a small

decrease in , but a substantial increase in the cohesion

intercept,' if the failure of 'sample is due to rupture of

Teinforcement. However, there- is no. unanimity amongst

researchers Whetherthere is a pseudocohesion or an appar ant. •

increase in minor principal stress within the reinforceed

specimen:

2.3 REINFORCED CLAY

Transfer of effective stresses is ver y sl ow in

cohesive soils due to slow 'dissipation of pore pressure.

This means that there are greater chances of occurrence of

16
failure due to slidlng during construction itself.

The main reason for the instability of fine

grained and cohesive soils according to Long and HcRittrfch

(19773 are:

Ci) The bond between cohesive soil and strip

reinforcement is poor• and subject to.

reduction if positive pore water pressures

develop.

(ii) .Long term deformations might. Occur when

plastic soils are reinforced.-

ciii) Fine grained soils are more corrosive than

cohesionless- soils .• It is known that clay

minerals such as Illite accelerate metal

corrosion.

civ) Cohesive soils will normally require

comprehensive drainage and it may be

difficult to place reinforcement- in wet

condition.

Despite all the aforesaid problems many wide

spread benefits and applications would arise if suitable

construction techniques and theoritical analysis could be -

developed to enable fine grained cohesive -soils and waste

materials to be used in reinforced earth construction. A -

significant effect on overall economy can be achieved by

using locally- available C cohesive or noncohesive

material.

IngoLd and HiLLer[19811 conducted studies on .

reinforced clay and reported their work, "Drained

•

17
axisymmetric loading of reinforced clay . Studies on

reinforced clay are picking' up momentum despite enormous

constraints.

Sridharan et al. (19882 conducted tests on a

reinforCed sand mattress on soft soil, with the soft soil.

being simulated-by sawdust.

Purkapastha and Bhatimth [19803 verified the

performance of geogrid and geotextile used as reinforcement

in soft. soil. They noticed that placement of geogrid leads

to more strength than geotextiles.

2.4 STUDIES ON REINFORCED EARTH SLAB

Experimental investigations carried out by

researchers on reinforced earth slab construction are

presented _in this section. From the literature survey, it

clear that the use and behaviour of geogr i d has not received

much attention from researchers. It can also be observed

that no study was undertaken to consider the effect of

placing a footing at a certain depth below ground level.

Btnguet and Lee (19753 conducted model tests on

reinforced earth slab overlying the following formations:

Ca) homogenebus deep sand.

(b) sand above an extensive layer of very soft

material simulating soft clay.

Cc) sand above finite pocket of very soft

material.

A 7.5 cm wide rigid strip footing was used in test

18
tank of 1.5 m x 0.51 m x 0.33 m dimenskons: Aluminium strips

were used as reinforcement. The number of lavers of

reinforcement,'N' and the distance from the groundsurface to

the top of the uppermost layer, 'u' were varied.

The following trends were observed

(13 The pullout failure generally occured with-

lightly reinforced earth slab, where as tie breaking, which

occured in uppermost. layers was associated with heavily

reinforced earth slab.

(23 In all cases where ties did break, it- was

.that the rupture was located approximately below

the edges of footing..

(3) ReinforceMent at depth greater than 1.5 B also

contributes to increase in bearing capacity.

(ID For every soil condition there is an optimum

arangement of reinforcement giving maximum increase in ,

bearing capacity.

Binguet and Lee [1975 Ix)* addressed the analytical

problem of bearing capacity of strip, footing on granular

soils containing horizontal layers of tensile reinforcement..

Based on model tests three possible modes of

bearing capacity failure are considered:

Ci) Shear failure above the uppermost layer of reinforcement ;

This failure- is li kely to occur if the

reinforcoment concentration in the uppermost layer is

sufficiently large to form an effective lower rigid boundary

into which shear zone will not. penetrate. Fig.(2.1a) •

19
(23 Tiepullout :
This type of failure appears to occur if

reinforcements are too short to mobilize required frictional

resistance . Fig.Ca.lb)

(3) Tiebreaking :
This type of failure is likely to appear with long

heavy reinforcement. Usually only one to three layers of

ties were found to be broken in any particular test.

Fig.(2.1c)

Akinmusuru and AkinboLade 11981] conducted model

tests on uniformly graded sand reinforced by rope fibres.

The footing size was 10 cm x 10 cm and tank size 1 m x.1 m x

0.7 .m; the sand, was medirim dense. The parameters choosen

were: depth of top layer below footing u, horizontal spacing

of adjascent strips x vertical spacing z and the number of

layers,N. The results showed that the bearing capacity

ratio BCR (defined as the ratio of the ultimate bearing

capacity of reinforced footing to the ultimate bearing

capacity of unreinforced footing) increases. with decrease in

both the horizontal and vertical spacings, and bearing

capatity increased for u/B values upt.o 0.5 and after that

there was a steady.decrease. For N values upto 3, there is

an increase in bearing capacity but for N > 3 , the increase

was not very substantial. On the whole the bearing capacity

increased upt.o 3 times over the unreinforced case.

Andrews and McGown [19833 studied the effect of

placement of geotextile below a 0.12 m x 0.30 m- strip

20
footing. The uniformity. coefficient of sand was 1.22 and

mean diameter of particles was 0.85 mm.

They concluded that

(1) there will be an increase in bearing capacity

only when the reinforcement is placed along the direction of •

tensile strains in the soil.

(2)•Bearing capacity is increased only with in a

certain range Of settlements, the lower limit being 0.08 B

and the upperlimit depending on the location of geotextile.

c3) Goetextile placed beyond 2 B has no effect on

the bearing capacity.

Fragjv and Lawton (19841 studied the influence

of soil density and reinforcement strip length on the load

settlement characteristics of sand. The sand was graded as

SP and aluminium foils were used as reinforcement. Tests

were performed at relative densities ranging from 51-90%.

Calculation of bearing capacity ratio were made at

settlements corresponding to 4% and 10% of footing width.

Bearing capacity ratio was independent of soil density when

it was calculated at 10% B settlement. The percentage

increase in bearing capacity ratio was less for loose sands

than for dense sands, when calculated at 4% B settlement.

Examination of the strips after tests showed that breakage

occurred when relative density was greater than 70%. For

strip lengths 'between 3 to 7 times the footing width

,bearing capacity ratio increased rapidly and any further

increase in strip length had only. marginal effect.

Ramaswamy et at . (19853 conducted tests on loose

21
sands reinforced by woven geofabrics as reinforcement. . The

parameters studied were the vertical spacing, the number of

layers and the use of stiffened geofabrics as reinforcement.

It was observed that if large settlements during the initial

loading are to be avoided, Stiffened geofabrics were better

than- ordinary fabrics. Further, the optimum increase in

bearing Capacity was found for .N=2 with the two layers

placed at. 0.5 B and 0.9 B from the bottom. of footing:

Alit6 A Guido //9851 carried out model tests. on two

different uniformly graded sands at a relative density of

50%, 0.3 m square - footing was used in a tank of 1.22 m x

1.22 m.x 0.9 m dimensions with •geotextile as reinforcement.

The parameters choosen for study were the depth of top layer

below the footing Cu) ,.Vertical spacing of the layers. CAzD

layers CM), the width of geotextile and the
number

tensile strength of the geotextile.

The following obserVations were made

C13 Sufficient deformation of geotextile is

required - to mobilise its tensile .stress. 'At small -

deformations, the unreinfprced soil is stiffer than the

soil because of the change in failure mode from

one of general' shear to local shear. However at larger

strains the situation is reversed.

(23 For a gi yen value of M , as u/B increases

(Az/B decreases) ,. the bearing capacity.ratio- decreases to a

val ue beyond which no further decrease is observed with u/B

increase..
C 3) For a given value of u/B as N i ncr eases
bearing capacitY r ratio increases.

(43 The bearing capacity ratio increases wi-t.h N

upt.o N 3 , after that there is little change in bearing

capacity ratio with increase in N

(5) A geotextile width of 3 B is considered as

optimum for strength mobilisation.

Hartdai and L'Ixit fig063 used niwar tape, coir rope

and aluminium foil as reinforcement in a medium graded sand

at a relative density of 85% . They concluded that

(13 BCR decreases with increase in depth of top

layer below the base of footing . The optimum depth below the

base of the footingis 0.25 B for all materials.

(2) BCR increases with the number of layers upt.o

third layer and after that it. becomes constant..

(3) With increasing horizontal and vertical

spacings, BCR

(43 BCR increases with length of reinforcement

upto t=4B. After-that, it is almost constant.

PurRavm5tha and Bhaumik fi9e03 investigated the

performance of geogrid and geotextile as reinforcing

material below foundation on very soft soil. Tests were

conducted using two footings of dimensions 10 cm x 10 cm and

12.5 cm x12.5 cmina test box of 1.00 m x 0.10 m x 0.4 m.

The soil mas clayey silt. Depth of reinforcement below the

footing Cu? was varied as 0.25 B, 0.35 B, 0.5 B,• 0.75

1.00 B and 1.25 B with single layer and with two layers as

0.25 B & 0.5 B. 0.375 B & 0.75 B, 0.5 B 8c1.08, 0.02B

& 1.25 B.

23
 It was observed that
CI.) the optimum u- value for maximum improvement

for both geogrid and geotextile reinforcement is 0;35 B.

(23 The bearing capacity .improvement is more for

geotextile than geogrid.It was 46% for geogr i d and 63% for

geot.exti 1 e.

(33 The improvement is significant at larger

strains.

(43 Placement of an extra layer produces only

marginal benefit. •

Sridhar.an and Phirthy (198e3 performed model tests

on a reinforced sand mattress over soft. 'soil using

geotextile as reinforcement. They used a circular footing

of 15cm diameter, and the soft soil was simulated by

sawdust. •Uniformly graded sand was used as sand mattress.

Reinforcement was placed in single and double layers. They

concluded that the intrease in bearing capatity of sawdust-

due to introduction. of reinforcement is .niland the placement

of reinforcement at the interface of sand . mattress and

sawdust will not .improve load carrying capacity.

Reinforcement should be placed with in the sand mattress.

only to improve the bearing capacity and the increase in

bearing capacity with two layers is over three times that

due to sawdust. alone.

Sreehantaiah 11967.7. conducted tests using • a

rectangular footing. and aluminium foils asreinforcement on

uniformly graded sand at a relative density or 65 per

24
cent.. It was observed that. the BCR reached a peak at u = 0.45

Band decreased thereafter. The settlement was also found to

be less when compared to unreinforced case for all values of

horizontal and vertical spacing of reinforcement for the

same stress intensity.

Sreekantafah 1-1989.7 undertook the study of

behaviour of reinforced earth with square and rectangular

footings , the reinforcement was locally available chicken

mesh. Sand was at a relative density of tY5

r per cent. The

parameters chosen were the depth of first layer below the

footing Cu) and the number of layers CND . The findings

were:

Cl) Optimum u-values for square and strip footings

were 0.3 B and 0.5 B respectively.

C23 The bearing capacity of sand improved by over

three times and settlement reduced by 70 . per cent over

unreinforced sand.

Handal and Manjunath ffQ(401 the

studied

effectiveness of single layer of geosynthetic reinforcement

below a footing. The sand was of relative density 73 per

cent and of medium. gradation. Geotextile,geogrid and

coir rope mat were used as reinforcement. It was observed

that

(1) the BCR decreased with increase in .

Maximum BCR was recorded for u = 0.25 B. for all the

materials.

C 2) The BCR observed was higher for geogr i ds than

for geotextiles and coir rope mat.

25
 C33 BCR increased rapidly with increase in length

of reinforcement. upto , after that,• it remained

constant.

The review of the state-of-the-art can be

summed up as follows ;

The introduction of reinforcement leads to an

increase in the bearing capacity. The extent of improvement

is dependent on type of soil,relative density, type of

reinforcement etc.

The optimum depth of the first layer of

reinforcement below the base of footing is also dependent on

relative density, type of reinforcement and type of footing.

The decrease in. .vertical spacing between

reinforcement layers leads to an increase in bearing

capacity.

With the increase in the number layers, the

bearing capacity increases but the rate of increase

decreases after 3-5 layers, depending on the type of

reinforcement.

The soil becomes stiffer with the introduction of

reinforcement.

It is clear after going through the literature

review that very little work has been reported about the

behaviour of soils reinforced with geogrids. It can also

be seen that all the investigation concern'surface footings

85
only , whereas in actual practice, no footing is located on

the surface. Hence the present study is undertaken to

investigate the response of geogrid when used as

.reinforcement for surface footing as well as for footing

located O. B below ground level.

 CHAPTER III

TEST PROGRAMME AND RECORDING OF TEST DATA

3.1 GENERAL

The present investigation is aimed at studying the

the bearing capacity and settlement characteristics of

square footings on reinforced sand bed. Geogrid was used as

reinforcement. The soil was Amanatgarh sand at a relative

density at 60 percent. The variables chosen for study,

were,depth of the first layer of reinforcement below the

footing,placement of the footing with respect to ground

surface and the number of reinforcement layers. The study

covered the aspects of settlement pattern, bearing pressure

variations and ultimate bearing capacity A schematic

diagram of the earth reinforcement problem investigated is

shown in FigC3.1)

3.2 MATERIALS USED

3.2.1 Sand

Experiments were conducted on locally available

Amanatgarh sand. The grain size distribution of the sand is

shown in Fig 3.2 . The other properties are tabulated in

Table 3.1

28
 The Relative density is defined as
- eactual
max
D =
- e
max mi ri

1 +
actual

' d max rd - 'ted mi n

Dr --
• d • -
Y d max ' d mi n

TABLE 31
PROPERTIES OF SAND USED

PROPERTY VALUE .

1. Soil type S P

2. Effective grain size , Dio 0.190

3. Uniformity coefficient ,Cu 1.580

4. Coefficient of Curvature , - 1.186

c
5. Specific gravity of solids, G ,., 2.650

6. Maximum Void ratio, emax 0. 922

7. Minimum. Void ratio, e 0. 533

min
8. Relative density, D % 60 -
k
9. Void ratio . 0. 677

10. Angle of internal friction, 'T_ 33 °

(direct shear test)
3..2.2 Reinforcement

Netl on Geogr i ds of CE-181 type were used as

reinforcement, which is supplied by M/s Netlon India Ltd..

The size of the sheets was 1.00 m x 1.00 m . properties of

this Geogrid is given in Table 3.2.

30
 TABLE 3.2

SPECIFICATION DATA FOR NETLON GEOGRID. CE-121

SPECIFICATION- DATA

Dimensions
Width 2 m

Length 36 . m

Mesh aperture size 8 X 6 mm

MeSh thickness 3.3 mm

Structural weig ht 730 g/m,

Colour -91ack.

Polymer HD polyethylene

Mechanical properties.
Tensile strength 7.68
Max load Mem

Extension at max. load 20.2%

Load at 10X extension kNoem i6.8.

Elongation at.1/2 peak strength % 3.2

Flexural strength at maximum

strain DIN 53452 MN/lie 35

*Shore hardness D DIN 83605 67

-Vicat softening point

DIN 8346ec 127
*Impact strength (notched Charpy)
DIN 63453 kJ.em 13.2

Tensile impact strength

DIN 53448 J.'m2 4,00
*Abrasion resistance. DIN'

63764 E (Taber) mm3r,100 revs ,10

A.:Tests conducted on raw material

31.
 3.3 TEST FOOTING AND TANK,

A mild steel square plate . of size 20 cm x 20 cm x

2.54 cm was used to make box type square footing. An

•impression was made in the centre of the footing to keep a

steel ball at which load was applied through plunger_

Arrangements were also made to keep dial gauges on the box

type arrangement. A spirit level was also kept to know the

tilting of the footing during tests. The square-footing is

considered to be rigid in the experiments

A wooden tank of1.5 mx1.5 mx1.0 m was used for

performing the test. The tank was covered•with polythelene.

sheets inside to present a smooth surface. Scales were

fixed on the sides to indicate the height froM the bottom.

3.4 LOADING DEVICE

Loads were applied by means of a mechanical lack,

secured to the horizontal cross beam, cutting through a

calibrated proving ring of 5 ton capacity and plunger.

3.5 TEST SETUP •

The test setup consists of the footing, proving .

ring for measurement of loads applied, mechanical jacks, two

dial gauges for settlement measurement. , spirit level and

the tank.

32
3.6 SAND FILLING

To get required uniform density rainfall method

was used to fill the sand in the tank. Sand was allowed to

fall freely under vravity from a serve having apertures of

3 mm dia. spaced 2.54 cm center to center. Height of fall was

decided from a. height verses ,density curve [Fig 3.31 to

achieve the require density.The sei ve was r i sed for every

10 cm of filling:

3.7 MEASUREMENT OF LOADS AND SETTLEMENTS

The loads were applied in equal increments and it

was monitered with the help of diaL gauge fixed in proving

.ring for the purpose. Settlement of footing was measured •

with the help of two dial gauges installed at each end,

with a least count. of 0.01 mm

3.8 TEST PROCEDURE

In total 2€) tests were performed for different

conditions. Of them, ten tests were performed on surface

footing and ten on embedded footing. Of the ten tests, one

was conducted on unreinforced soil and remaining nine tests

were conducted on reinforced soil. The number of layers of

reinforcement used were 1, 2, and 3. For each N value, the

depth of the top layer of reinforement below the base of

footing was chosen at. u = 0.25 B4 O.50 P and 0.75 B. The

vertical spacing between reinforcement layer was kept. at

0.50 B for all tests.

The procedure adopt-ed for performing the tests

presented below

1. Loading beam was raised to the maximum height. The seive

was fixed at the precalculated height. C 50 cm )from bottom

of the tank. Sand was placed by rainfall method, with care

being taken to achieve uniform filling.

2. To check the density, measuring containers were placed

in the tank for collection of sand during filling.

3: After every deposition of 10 cm of sand, the sei ve was

raised by 10 cm for next- filling.

4. At the predetermined depth, the reinforcement layer was

placed after leveling the surface properly, with care being

taken to not to disturb the sand in the central portion.

Filling continued till the top and the same procedure was

adopted for placing the reinforcement at calculated depths.

5.The jack was screwed to loading beam and was fitted with

proving ring andplunger- The complete assembly was lowered

into position. The box footing was placed below the plunger
and r dn the middle of the testtank.

6. Two dial gauges with magnetic basis were placed at the

opposite corners of the footing to measure settlements.

The footing was checked for level, with a spirit level. The

plunger was lowered and desired seating load was applied.

7. Loads were applied in equal increments and settlements

34
were noted after- the dial quage readings were constant. for

reasonably long time.

8. The procedure was continued upt.o the failure of the

footing which was denoted by a sudden fall in the proving

ring reading.

3.9 RECORDING OF TEST DATA AND CALCULATIONS

Table 3.4 and Table 3.5 show the recording of test

data for typical unreinforced and reinforced earth slabs

respectively.

In columnC2D proving ring readings were noted.

When the same was multiplied by its Constant, gave the load

applied and it was recorded in columnC3D.. When this column

reading was divided by the area of the footing (400 Sq.cms)

gave the pressure as shown in coIumnC4).

Dial gauge readings were recorded in their

respective columns and hence vertical settlements were

computed.. Average of these two dial gauge settlement

readings Were given in the last. column,

Pressure - settlement curves were drawn for all

the tests. From these graphs, ultimate bearing capacities,

settlements and bearing pressure at- require settlements

etc., were noted and used in plotting other graphs.

35
 T SIBL. E 3 . 3

TEST DETAILS

(A) SURFACE FOOTING D = 8.0 B (B) FOOTING WITH D = 0.50 B

f

TEST.NO ufB H Eiz/B TEST, NO 11/B N S z/B

1 g: 0 0 1 q: 0 0
2 0.25 1 0.50 2 0.25 1 0.50
3 0.25 2 0.50 3 0.25 2 0.50
4 0.25 3 0.50 4 0.25 3 0,50
5 0.50 1 0.50 5 0,50 1 0.50
6 0,50 2 0.50 6 0.50 2 0,50
7 0.50 3 0.50 7 0.50 3 0.50
8 0.75 1 0.50 8 0.75 1 0,50
9 0.75 2 0.50 9 0.75 2 0.50
10 0.75 3 0.50 10 0.75 3 0,50

//‘:), /\/\
/ 7\ \
/ / \ Df / / \

N=I
S = 0.50 B
=2

=3

FIG 3.1. GEOMETRY OF EARTH REINFORCEMENT

PROBLEM
 TABLE .3-4

BEARING CAPACITY TEST FOR UNREINFORCED EARTH SLAB .

Test No.1 Reinforcement used =- Nome

Least count of dial gauge = 0.01 mm DiR = 0
f
Least count of proving ring = 12.9367 kgs ti/B = 0
Size of footing = 20 m 20 Cms Sz/B = 0
Relative density of sand = 60X
N = 0

Proving ring Load Settlement of footing Pressure Average

S.NO Division Applied D'31 011) DG2 (mm) (Kg/Cm2) settlement
flig/Cm2) Read Net Read Net (mm)

1 0 0 19.17 0 12.54 0 0. 0
2 5 60 18.95 0.22 12.31 0,23 0,16 0:23
3 10 105 18.93 1.24 11.36 . 1.18 0,28. 1.21
4 15 155 16.85 2.32 10.24 2.30 0.41 2.31
5 20 210 15,69 3.43 9.12 3.42 0.55 3.45
6 25 260 .14,42 4.75 7.88 4.66 0.70 4.70
7 30 320 13.05 6.12 6.51 6.03 0.84 6,75
8 35 360 11.60 7.57 5.07 7.47 0.95 7.52
9 40 420 9,92 9,25 4.40 8,14 1.10 8.70
10 45 465 8.00 11.17 3.47 11.07 1.22 11.12
11 50 520 5.90 13.27 25.25 13.29 1.37 13.28
i2 55 575 3.58 15.59 22.00 15,54 1.51, 15.57
13 60 625 0.6i 18.56 19.00 18,54 1.65 18.55
14 65 675 21.67 22.40 15.05 22,49 1.78 22.45
15 70 710 19.34 24.83 12.70 24.84 1.87 24.84
16 75 730 15.05 29.12 8.30 29.24 1.92 29.18

37
 TABLE 3-5

BEARING CAPACITY TEST FOR REINFORCED EARTH SLAB

Test ho.17 Reinforcement used = Geogrid

Least count of dial gauge = 0.01 mm .D /B = 0.50.
Least count of proving ring = 12.9367 Kgs
u/B = 0.50
Size of footing = 20 x 20 Cts
S = 0.50
Relative density of sand = 60x
N

Proving ring Load Settlement of footing Pressure Average

S.NO Division Applied DGi (mm) DG2 (mm) (lig/Cm2) settlement
(1{g/Cm2) Read Net Read Net (mm)

1 0 0 12.65 0 8.86 0 0 0
2 5 65 12.15 8.50 8.20 0.66 0.17 . 0.58
3 16 130 11.49 1.16 7.53 1.34 0.34 1.26
4 15 195 10.59 2.06 6.70 2.16 0.52 2.11
5 20 260 9.76 2.89 5.90 2.96 0.68 2.93
6 25 325 9.04 3.61 5.20 3.66 0.86 3.64
7 30 390 8.25 4.40 4.47 4.40 1.03 4.40
8 35 455 7:55 5.10 3.79 5.87 1.20 5.00
9 40 520 6.83 5.82 3.14 5.73 1.37 5.77
10 45 ' 585 6.12 6.53 2.40 6.46 1.54 6.50
11 50 650 5.40 7.25 1.76 7.10 1.71 7.17
i2 55 715 4.74 7.91 1.15 7.71 1.88 7.81
13 60 780 4.10 8.55 0.60 8.26 12.05 8.40
14 65 845 3.35 9.30 24.89 8.97' 2.22 9.14
15 70 910 2.65 10.00 24.22 9.64' 2.40 9.82
16 80 1080 1.20 11.45 22.85 11.01 2.84 11.23
17 90 1160 24.70 12.95 21.40 12.46 3.05 12.70
18 00 1285 23.15 14.50 19.89 13.97 3.38 14.23
19 110 1400 21.43 16.22 18.25 15.61 3.71 15.93
20'. 115 1475. 20.52 17.13 i7.38 16.48. 3.88 16.80
2i 120 1535 19.50 18.15 16.40 17.46 4.21 17.81
22 125 1605 18.55 19.10 15.45 18.41. 4.38 18.75
23 135 1725 16.35 21.30 13.35 20.51. 4.54 28.91
24 145 1856 14.12 23.53 11.22 22.64 4.87 23.08
25 150 1915 12.55 25.10 9.75 24.11 5.04 24.60
26 155 1980. 11.45 26.20 8.68 25.18 5.21 25.78
27 160 2040 9.78 27.87 7.17 26.72' 5.37 27.29
28 170 2165 5.45 32.20 2.78 31.08 5.70 31.65
29 175 2230 2.37 35.19 0.21 34.08 5.87 34.64
30 180 2295 24.20 38.36 22.04 37.86 6.04 38.11
 TABLE 3 . G
EFFECT OF NUMBER OF LAY ERS ON
BEARING CAPACITY RATIO
(A) SURFACE FOOTING (D
f

S.NO U N Ult.Bearing Capacity 13(A3

lB esks/cm21

i il; 0 1.92 1,00

2 0,25 i 3,12 1.62
3 0.25 2 3.48 1.81
4 0.25 3 4.37 2.28

5 0.50 1 3.22 1.67

6 0.50 2 3.68 1,91
7 0.50 3 4,94 2.57

8 0.75 1 3,03 1.57

9 0.75 2 3.36 1.75 ,
10 0.75 3 3.76 1.96

(B) FOOTING WITH (D =6.5B)

S.NO N Ult.Bearing Capacity 13c:34

U/B (kg/crne)

i g; 0 2.05 1.00
2 0.25 J. 4.41 2.15
3 0.25 2 5.54 2.70
4 0.25 3 6.12 2.98

5 0.50 1 3.84 1,87

6 0.50 2 5,38 2.62
7 0,50 3 6.04 2.95

8 0.75 1 3.73 1,80

9 0.75 2 5,04 2.46
10 0.75 3 5.76 2,81
 TABLE 3. 7
BEARING PRESSURE RATIOS
AT
DIFFERENT SETTLEMENT U ALU ES

( I ) SETTLEMENT = 0.05 B

-40
( 0.25 0.50 0.75
ui13
P4 i Pg,Zge BeR TAgie BCH %XX BO E"Agie
mg.‘ I BCE
P

(A) SURFACE FOOTING D = 0.9 B

f

0 1.15 1.00
1 i.40 1.22 1.66 1.44 i.43 1.24
2 1.63, i.42 1.72 1.50 1.60 1.40
3 1.96 1.70 2.20 1.88 2.10 1.82

(B) FOOTING WITH D = 0.50 B

f

0 1.07 1.00 '

i 1.80 1.68 1.95 1.82 1.70 1.59
2 1.85 1.73 1.74 1.63 1.68 i.57
3 2.66 2.50 2.46 2.30 2.29 2.14

( I I) SETTLEMENT = 0. 075 B

(A) SURFACE FOOTING D = 0.0 B

f

0 1.50 1.80
1 1.95 1.30 2.22 1.48 1.97 1.31
2 2.20 1.47 2.36 1.57 2.1? 1.45
3 2.82 1.88 3.04 2.04' 2.88 1.92

(B) FOOTING WITH D = 9.50 B

f

0 1.49 1.00
1 2.58 1.73 2.70 1.80 2.38 1.60
2 2.73' 1.83 2.60 1.74 2.46 1.65
3 3.70 2.48 3.53 2.37 3.25 2.18

40
 C I I I) SETTLEMENT = 0.10 B

---1.
u./ ( 8.25 8.58 0.75
B
Pressure
14 ECR %Mr ECR %We ECR Pg■Cruir ECR

(A) SURFACE FOOTING D = 8.8 B

• f

0 1.70 1.00
1 2.37 1.36 2.58 1.50 2.38 1.37
2 2.68 1.54 2.90 1.66 2.58 1.48
3 3.56 2.05 3.74 2.15 3.37 3.37

(B) FOOTING WITH Df- 8.58 B

0 1.07 1.00
1 3.30 1.77 3.26 1.76 3.00 1.63
2 3.50 1.88 3.37 1.82 3.17 1.71
3 4.65 2.52 4.26 2.39 4.10 2.22
 .
TABLE 3 .6
SETTLEMENT RATIOS AT DIFFERENT. PRESSURES

Settlement(mm) at Settlement Ratio (SR)

S.NO
1,5 EgiCme 1.75 EgiCm2 1,5 Eq/Cma 1.75 HgAm2

(A) SURFACE FOOTING (D =0 0 B)

. f

I el, 0 15.1 20.2 1.0 1.0

2 0.25 1 10.8 13.2 0.72 0.65
3 0.25 2 9.0 10.9 0,59 0.54
4 0.25 3 7.5 8.8 0,50 0.44

5 0.50 1 8.8 10.8 0.58 0.53

6 0.50 2 8.4 10,2 0.56 0.50
7 0.50 3 6.8 8.0 0.45 0.40

8 0.75 1 10,6 12.8 0,70 0.63

9 8.75 2 9.3 11.2 0.61 0.55
A 0.75 3 6.8 8,2 0.45 0.40

(B) FOOTING WITH D = 0.50 B

f

I ,7: 0 14.2 10.4 1.00 1.00

2 0.25 1 7.5 9,0 0.53 0,49
3 0.25 2 7.8 9.2 0.55 0.50
4 0.25 3 5.4 6.3 0,35 0.34

5 0,50 1 8.2 9.8 0.58 0.53

6 0.50 2 8.6 10.0 0,60 0.54
7 0,50 3 6.0 7,0 0.42 0.38

8 0.75 1 8,6 10.4 0.60 0.56

9 0,75 2 8.9 10.2 0.63 0.55
10 0.75 3 6.3 7.6 0.44 0.41
 CHAPTER IV

INTERPRETATION

4.1 GENERAL

In all, twenty tests were conducted - ten tests on

surface footing (i.e. Dr=0D, and ten tests on footing at a

depth of 0.5 B below ground level. Of the ten tests in each

case, nine tests were on reinforced sand and one on

unreinforced sand. For these tests 71/13 ratio was varied

from 0.25 to 0.75 , and number of layers of reinforcement

from 1 to 3. The vertical spacing between layers of

reinforcement was kept at 0.50 B. The test details are

presented in Table 3.3.

Load settlement data was complied and tabulated as

shown in Table 3.4. The failure load was taken as the load

corresponding to the stage when there is a sudden fall in

the proving ring reading after registering a continuous

increase upto that point. The load divided by the area of

the footing gives the ultimate bearing capacity.

4.2 PRESSURE-SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS

Fig 4.1 to 4.12 show the pressure-settlement plots.

for all the tests. By observing the general shape of the

curves it can be seen that the unreinforted sand fails in

local shear and the reinforced sand in general shear. The

addition of reinforcement does not bring about a major

change in the pressure-settlement behaviour- of sand at

smaller settlements, but the effect is substantial at larger

settlements Csay of the order of 0.10 B). This suggests

that a certain minimum deformation of geogrid is required in

order to mobilise its tensile strength. With the increase

in the number of layers of reinforcement, the soil becomes

stiffer resulting in an increase in bearing capacity and

decrease in settlement.

4.3 INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS TEST PARAMETERS ON BEARING CAPACITY

The parameters chosen for study are, the depth of

top layer below the base of footingCu), number of layers of

reinforcementCND and the placement of the footing with

respect to ground level Cy. To study the effect of the

chosen parameters on the bearing capacity, the following non

dimensional parameters are defined:

"Bearing Capacity Ratio" , BCR is defined as the

ratio of the ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced soil to

the ultimate bearing capacity of unreinforced soil.

"Bearing pressure ratio" , BPR is defined as the

ratio of bearing pressures of reinforced soil and

unreinforcod soil at the same settlement

44
4.3.1 Depth of Top Layer. of Reinforcement :

Figs.4.13 and 4.14 show the variation of ultimate

bearing capacity with u/B values. The introduction of

reinforcement at any u/B-value between 0.25 and 0.75 leads

to an increase in bearing capacity over unreinforced soil.

For surface footing (Fig.4.12), the ultimate,

bearing capacity increases for- u = 0.25 B to 0.50 B and

reaches a maximum at u = 0.50 B and decreases thereafter-.

This trend was observed irrespectiVe of the number of layers

of reinforcement, with the only difference that the bearing

capacity increased at the respective u/B value. For

example, the bearing capacity values for N = 3 and u = 0.25

P
B, 0.5 B and 0.75 B are respectively 4.37 Kg/cm-,4.94 Kg/cm2
2
and3. 76 Kg/cm [Table 3.6]. The bearing capacity of

unreinforced sand is 1.921 Kg/cm2 .

For the footing at depth Df = 0.50 B below ground

level (Fig.4.14), the bearing capacity recorded a maximum

value at u = 0.25 B and decreased thereafter. Here also the
increase in the number of layers of reinforcement has led to
an increase in bearing capacity, without however, changing

the pattern mentioned above. The bearing capacity values

for. N = 3 and u = 0.25 B, 0.5 B and 0.75 B are 6.12 Kg/cm , 2

2 2
6.02 Kg/cm and 5.76 Kg/cm ; respectively [Table3.6]. Thus

this shows clearly that other conditions remaining the same •

position of top layer of reinforcement below a footing has a

45
bearing on the mobilisation of strength of reinforcement_

TO bring about the influence of u-value on bearing

capacity more clearly, plots are drawn for- u/B versus BCR
(Bearing CapaCity Ratio).

Fig 4.15 shows u/B versus BCR plots for the surface

footing. BCR increased with increase in u-value from 0.25 B

to 0.50 B and decreased thereafter. For N'= 2 the BCR was

1.81, 1.92 and 1.75 for u = 0.25 B, 0.50 B and 0.75 B

respectively [Table 3.6], registering an improvement

81%, gl% and 75% over the corresponding values of bearing

capacity for the unreinforced sand. This suggests that by

placing the top layer of geogrid at a optimum depth below

the footing 10 per cent increase in strength is obtained

compared to that obtained for other u-values, all other

factors remaining the same. For N = 3 and u = 0.50 B, BCR

is 2.57. The same gain in strength is in fact, 30 per cent

more than those for other u-values. Hence the importance of

placing reinforcement at optimum depth should be noted.

Fig 4.16 shows the u/B versus BCR curves for

footing with D = 0.5 B. The BCR recorded a maximum value
f
at u = 0.25 B and decreased with increasing u-value. The

percentage increase in bearing capacity of sand bed with the

reinforcement placed at u = 0.25 B over those for other

u-values was 30%, 10% and 5% for N values of 1, 2 and 3

respectively. This reinforces the earlier claim that there

46
is an optimum depth below a surface footing or embedded
footing , where if the first layer- of reinforcement is
placed, will produce a maximum strength mobilisation.
The significance of optimum u-value can perhaps be explained
as follows.

for- a surface footing (Fig 3.1) when u = 0.25 B,

there is only 5 cm depth CO.25 BD of soil above the

reinforcement acting as overburden and the structural .load

transfer to the reinforcement is also small. This results in

an insufficient pullout resistance in the reinforcement.

Though the strength- of the reinforcement mobilised, the
footing under- goes larger settlements compared to other

u-values and ultimately,the footing fails by the pullout of

the first layer of reinforcement below the footing.

When u = 0.75 B, the overburden is of 15 cm depth

C0.75 BD which is sufficient to generate pullout resistance.

But the failure surface passes through a greater depth of

unreinforced soil and at greater- settlements,a failure surface

is - developed along the geogrid itself; resulting in the

shear failure along the reinforcement. The overburden,

which facilitates the generation of pullout resistance, if

present in greater depth, acts as a restraint on the
reinforcement and prevents it from undergoing equal
settlement along with the soil which is above the
reinforcement and below the footing; Hence the soil above

the reinforcement undergoes more settlement than the

reinforcement in the initial stages loading. This

47
coupled with the early generation of failure surface along

the geogrid makes u = 0.75 B unfavourable location for

maximum mobilisation of strength.

When u = 0.5 8, all the conditions are favourable.

The overburden is sufficient to generate pullout resistance

and also the reinforcement interferes the failure envelope at

a comparatively favourable - location. All these conditions

make the reinforcement mobilise its tension in an effective

way resulting in greater ultimate bearing capacity over

other u-values. The footing in this case also fails by

shear failure along the reinforcement as in the case of u =

0.75 B but at a larger bearing capacity and larger

settlement.

For footing with Df = 0.50 B,CFig 3.2) ,the optimum

u-value observed is 0.25 B as against 0.50 B for the

surface footing. The only difference between the two cases

is that one is a surface footing and the other embedded, all

other- factors romaining the sama. Tho roason for than

difference in optimum u-value in the two cases may be as

follows:

For reinforcement with u = 0.25 B Cin the embedded

footing), the overburden above the first layer of

reinforcement is 0.75 B as against 0.25 B for the surface

footing. This is sufficient to generate pullout

resistance, hence tie-pullout can be ruled out. Being

48
nearer to the base of the footing compared to the situation

for other t.lvalues, the load transfer to the reinforcement .

occurs at an early stage, resulting in an early and

effective mobilisation of strength of reinforcement.

For u = 0.50 B the'overburden. is 1.0 B thick as

against 0.50 B for- surface footing,which makes the

reinfOrceMent stiffer- than when it is placed at u = 0.25 B.

Hence the soil above the reinforcement undergoes more

settlements than the reinforcement in the initial stages of

loading. This leads to slightly more settlement than when .

u = 0.25 B for the same mobilisation of strength. When the

footing fails, it is by the generation of failure surface

along the reinforcement Cshear failure). As can be expected

in a mariner similar to the case of surface footing the shear-

failure occurs for reinforcement with u = 0.75 B first, then

far u = (L UC) sknd 0.28 D in thost

The above explanation is further confirmed by the

u/B versus BFR plots for 10 mm, 15 mm and ao mm

settlements,CFigs 4.18 to 4.23). These plots show the same

pattern as observed in the case of u/B versus BCR curves

CFtg 4.15,4.16), thus making it clear that even if one

considers bearing pressure value for similar settlements

much before failure, the first layer of reinforcement placed

•
at the optimum depth has an advantage over reinforcement at

other u-values.

49
4.3.2 Number of Layers of ReinforceMent (ND

Fig 4.10 and 4.17 show the plots for -value

versus BCR. For any given' u-value, ttva- bearing capacity

increases with the increase 'in the, number of layerS; For
the optimum depth of u = 0.50 B for surface footing, the SCR
values for N = 1, 2 and 3 are 1.67, 1.92 and 2.57.
respectively [Table 4.2]. That-is, ,*n increase in _BCR of

67% ea% and 157% over the BCR of unreinforced soil, in that
order. It can be observed from the above data that with the

increase in the number of layers of reinforceMent the rate

of increase in bearing capacity is also increasing.

For footing with Dr = 0.50 B, with the first layer

of reinforcement at the optimum depth of 0.25 B below the

base of.footing, the BCR values are 1.97, 2.63 and 2.95 for

N = 1, 2 and 3 respectively. From , the data, it can be

noticed that though the BCR is increasing with increase in

N-value, the rate of increase i n. this case is showing a

diminishing trend.

In general, it can be concluded that the ultimate

bea:ring capaicity can be increased by two to three times by

increasing the quantity of reinforcement.

4.3.3 Position of Footing with respect to Ground'Level CDp

.1ocated at a depth of 0.50 B below ground level, suggest
that there `is a change in the soil-reinforcement response
with regard to the ' position of footing.

For surface footing, the optimum u-value was

recorded as 0.50 B as compared to the embedded footing CDf =
0.50 B, depth below the ground level), which has the optimum

u-value of 0.25 B. This phenomenon has been explained in

the previous section.

It can also be noticed from Table 4.'2,that. for

the same number of layer's of reinforcement and for the same
u-value, the strength mobilised by the surface footing is
less as compared to the embedded footing. Thiscan bedue
to the beneficial effect of the overburden, which - results

in an early and effective mobilisation of pullout resistance

by the reinforcement.

Thus it can be concluded that the benefit of

reinforcement accrues more to an embedded footing than to a
surface footing, all other factors remaining the same.

4.4 INFLUENCE OF VARIOUS.TEST PARAMETERS ON SETTLEMENT

To study the effect of various test parameters on

the settlement characteristics of footings on sand bed,

nondimensional factor. known as 'settlement ratiO'CSR). is

introduced. It is defined as the ratio of settlement of
reinforced soil to the settlement of unreinforced soil at

the same bearing pressure.

The general trend of the graphs of Figs.4.1 to

4.12 show that the introduction of reinforcement leads to a
decrease in the settlement over unreinforced soil at all
bearing pressures. But the settlement tolerance is more for

reinforced soil with a corresponding increase in bearing

capacity, suggesting that the soil can withstand larger
settlements without failure. Hence any study for evaluating
the effect of various Parameters on settlement behaviour
should be done in conjunction with the study of variation in
bearing capacity also.

4.4.1 Depth of Top Layer of Reinforcement Cu)

Figs 4.24 to 4.27 show the u/B versus settlement

ratio curves drawn for surface footing and footing at 0.5 B
depth below ground level, for two bearing pressures of 1.5

Kg/cm2and 1.75 Kg/cm2. For surface footing, settlement

ratio CSRD decreases with increase in u-values up to 0.50 B
and then it increases for u > 0.50 B. Where as for footing
with Df = 0.50 B, the SR is minimum at u = 0.25 B and it
increases with increase in u-value. So at the respective
optimum u-values for both surface and embedded footings, the
soil undergoes the least settlement to mobilise the same
strength as compared to the unreinforced sand bed. It was
also observed from Figs 4.24 to 4.27 that SR values for the

52
 •

same N-value are less at a bearing pressure of 1.75 Kg/cm

2
compared to SR values at a bearing pressure of 1.50 kg/cm .
This shows that the beneficial effect of reinforcement in
terms of settlement reduction increases at larger bearing
pressures.

The settleMent ratio values were in the range of

0.3 to 0.6 for any u-value, with smaller SR values recorded
for N = 3 and larger SR values for N = 1 [Table 3.8]. From
the table it can be deduced that the settlements can be
decreased by an average of 50 per cent by introducing the
reinforcement, with minimum SR values recorded for optimum
u-value, obtained on the basis of ultimate bearing capacity.
Thus, it can be concluded that the layer placed at
u-value has an advantage over other u-values in terms.pf
both bearing capacity and settlement.

4,4.2 Number of.Layers of Reinforcement CND

Figs 4.28 to 4.31 show the change in settleMent

ratio with increase in N-valUe, for surface footing and
footing at Df =-0.50 B. Two bearing "pressures,..
and 1.75 Kg/cm2have been selected fori. dr-awing thia, gra.phsa.

The general pattern of curves for both, types of footings

indicates a decrease in settlement ratio with increase i n

N-value. 'This shows that the settlement .behairiour: is

modified by. introducing the reinforcement. The settlement
ratio decreased by an average of 50 per cent. on introducing.

53
the first layer, and on a further increase in

reinforcement, led to an average decrease of 10 per cent,

over the corresponding SR values, [Table a.e]. Thus the
first layer of reinforcement is instrumental in reducing
settlement ratio and the additional layers of reinforcement
make the soil stiffer with a consequent increase in their.
resistance to deformation.

4.4.3 Position of Footing with respect to Ground Level (12,1,3

The position of footing influences the optimum

u-value for maximum bearing capacity. But the optimum
u-value for bearing capacity also happens to be the optimum
u-value from settlement consideration, as explained in
section 4.4.1 and from Figs 4.24 to 4.27. For the same
N-value and same u-value for a surface footing and the
footing with Df = 0.50 B, the settlement ratio is less for

the surface footing as compared to the embedded

footing, [Table 3.8]. Hence when the footing is embedded,
reinforcement makes the soil stiffer as compared to
surface footing.

54
 CHAPTER

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the experimental investigation, the

following conclusions have been drawn. These are valid for
medium-dense sand reinforced with geogrids.

1. The ultimate bearing capacity of the footing

on reinforced earth slab was found to be aboUt two to three .
times higher.than that of the unreinforced earth slab:

The improvement in bearing capacity was found

to be more for the embedded. footings than for the surfaCe.
footings.

3.- The optimum depth for the location of the top

layer of reinforcement below the baSe of the footing was

found to be 0.50 B for the surface footing and 0.25 B for

the embedded footing The difference is possibly dueto the.
influence of overburden
4. .Tho bc.aring capacity of bcDth tticr surfago
footing and embedded footing increases with increase in 'the

number of layers of reinforcement but margin of increase in

progressively smaller.

5. At a. given bearing pressure, 'settlement of

reinforced sand bed was considerably smaller than for the
unreinforced case.

55
 O. The first layer of reinforcement was found to

be most effective in reducing the settlement. Subsequent

increase in the number of layers of reinforcement produce

progressivelY diminishing influence on settlement.

7. At the same bearing pressure, settlement of

the reinforced embedded footing is lesser than the

settlement for the reinforced surface footing when the

number- of layers of reinforcement and the depth of the first

layer of reinforcement are the same.

56
 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDIES '

Based on the present studies, following

suggestions are made for further research.

1. Tests were conducted for only one case of embedded

footing. It will be worthwhile to study in detail the
influence of the depth of embedment of the footing on the

bearing capacity and settlement characteristics.

2. The soil- should be tested at different relative densities

to evaluate the varying effects of soil reinforcement on
sand beds at different placement densities.

3. Influence of the vertical spacing between the layers of

geogrid reinforcement and the extent of reinforcement

should be studied.

4. Geogrids with different available mesh structures and

aperture sizes should be used to establish the influence of
aperture size and its shape on the soil-geogrid response.

5. In the present study all tests were conducted on dry sand

beds. Means should be devised to study the influence of

reinforcement when used in saturated and partially saturated

soil conditions.

6. Suitability of geogrids to as reinforcement in fine

grained soils namely silts and clays may be explained.

57
 REFERENCES

1.Akinmusuru, J. 0., and Akinbolade, J. A. E1981],"Stability

of Loaded Footings• on Reinforced Soil," Journal of the

Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT 6,

pp. 819-827.

2. Battllino; D. [1983], "Some Experiences in Reinforced

Cohesive Earth," Proc. Eigth International Conference on

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Helsinki, Vol.

pp. 463-480.

3.Basset, R. H. and Last, N. C. 11978], "Reinforced Earth

Below Footings and Embemkments," Proc. Symposium on Earth

Reinforcement, ASCE, Pittsburgh, pp. 202-231.

4.Binquet, J and Lee, K. L. C1975 • a], "Bearing Capacity

Tests on Reinforced Earth Slabs," Journal of the.

Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT

12, pp. 1241-1255.

5.Binquet, J. and Lee, K. L. 11975 b], "Bearing Capacity

Analysis of Reinforced Earth Slabs," Journal of the
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, . GT 1
pp. 1257-1276.

58
6.Broms,- B. B. [1077], "Polyster Fabric as Reinforcement in

Soils," Proc. International Conference on the use of Fabric

in Geotechnics, Paris, Vol. I, - pp. 129-135.

7.Datye, K R. [1981], "Low Cost and Energy Saving

Techniques for Ground Improvement, Soil stabilization and

Soil Reinforcement," Indian Geotechnical Society, Fourth

Annual Lecture, Hyderabad.

8.Fragaszy, R. J. and Lawton, E. [1984]. "Bearing Capacity

of Reinforced Sand Subgrades," Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, No. GT 10, pp. 1500-1507.

9.Gray, D. H. and Refeai, T. A. [1986], "Behaviour of Fabric

versus Fibre-Reinforced Sand," Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 112, No. GT 8, pp. 804-820.

10.Guido, V. A., Biesiadecki, G. L. and Sullivan, M. J.

[1985], "Bearing Capacity of a . Geotextile-Reinforced

Foundation," Proc. the elevanth International Conference on

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco,

Vol. 3, pp. 1777-1780.

11.Guido, V. A Chang, D. K. and Sweeney, M. A. [1086],

"Comparison of Geogrid and Geotextile Reinforced Earth

Slabs," Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 23, pp. 435-440.

59
_
12. Hausmann, M. R. and Vagneron, J. M. [1977], "Analysis of
Soil Fabric.Interaction," Proc. International Conference on
the use of Fabrics in Geotechnics, Paris, Vol. III, pp.
139-144.

13.Jagdish, N. [1985], "Reinforced Earth," Indian

Geotechnical Journal, Vol. I, pp. 1-25

14. Jalota and Srivastava [1088], "Strength and Deformation

Behaviour of Alluvial Clay," Proc. Indian Geotechnical
Conference, Allahabad, Vol. I, pp. 219-224.

15. Jha, K. and Mandal, J. N. [1988], "A Review of Research

and Literature on the use of Geosynthetics in Modern
Geotechnical World," Proc. First Indian Geotextiles
Conference on Reinforced Soil and Geotextiles, Bombay, Vol.
I, pp. F85-F92

16 Long, N. T. , Guegan, Y. and Legeay, G. t1972] , "Etude de

la Tenre Armee a '1' Appareil Triaxial," Repport de
Recherche du Laboratoire Central Des Fonts et Chaussees,
Paris, No. 17.

17.Mandal, J. N. and Majumdar CiOQ03, "Elaning Cra.paLcAty

Single Layer of Goosynthetic Sand Subgrade," Proc. Indian

Geotechnical Conference, Bombay, Vol. I, pp. 7-10_

60
M.Milovic, O. "Bearing :Capacity Testa on Reinforced
Sand," Proc. Ninth International Conference on Sbil

Mechanics and Foundatio- Engineering, TokYo,Vol.I, pp. 651-654.

•
•

25.Natarajan, T. K. and Murthy, A. V. [1987],

"Geotextile. Reinforcement in Soils," ProC.- -Indian,

Geotechnical Conference, Bangalore, Vol. I, pp. 335-339.

26. Purkayastha, R. D. and Bhaumik, M. . K. [19883,

"Performance of Geogrid and Geotextile below Foundation on .

Soft Soil," Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conference, Allahabad,

Vol. I, pp. 109-204.

27.Ramaswamy, S. V. (1085], "Feasibility Studies on Ground

ReinforCement with Geofabrics as ReknfOrcement," Proc.

Indian Geotechnical Conference, Roorkee, Vol: I', pp. 65-70.

28.Saran, S. and Khan, I. C19891, "Evaluation

Frictional Characteristics of Earth' Reinforcing materials,"

Proc. Indian ViahE;Lica.packm, Vc,1. I,
pp. 455-458.

E9. Schlosser, F. and Long, N. T. [1974]' , "Recent Results. in

French Research on Reinforced Earth," Journal of the
Construction Division, ASCE, No. 603, pp., 223-237.

30.Singh, H. C1984], "Behaviour of Eccentrically, Loaded

61
FootingS on Reinforced. Earth Saab,"' M.E. Disertation,-
U.O.R: Roorkee,

31.Sreekantaiah, H. R. 119873, "An Investigation

Rectangular Footing on Reinforced sand," Proc. Indian
Geotechnical Society, Bangalore, Vol.I, pp. 121-124.

32.Sreekantaiah, H. R. [ 1O89], "Behaviour of Footings on

Reinforced Sands," Proc. Indian Geotechnical Conference,
Vishakapatnam, Vol. I, pp. 401-405.

33.Talwar, .D. V. [1981], "Behaviour of Reinforced Earth in

Retaining Structures and Shallow Foundations," Ph.D. Thesis,
U.O.R., Roorkee, India.

B4. Verna, 13: P. and Char, A. N. R. cioapl, "Bearing Capacity.

Tests on Reinforced Sand Subgrados," Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering:, ASCE, Vol. 112; No. GT 7, pp. 701-706.

35. Vidal. H. E1978], "The Development and Future of

Reinforced Earth," key note address, Symp. on Earth
Reinforcement, ASCE, Pittsburgh, pp. 1-61.

Pa
 (a)

DIEFORMED SHAPE
-1

(b ) --IP- 1
0-
3 3

t
0- =
3

REINFORCEMENT
lc )

IMAGINARY
END PLATE
cr-

FIG.1.1 BASIC MECHANISM OF REINFORCED EARTH

 411111111/.7-77----

>s,

(a) u/B >2/3:SHEAR ABOVE REINFORCEMENTS

H H
;...:■7- 1•• -- 7„.A1 ,_i_
.
„___,„_•_________2_„_z_____
.
•. .
_
•

4-
.. . ..- ...
. ...
Num .■•
--
--------7/-
' .. . ...
___. --=- 7
.. ,
CIA u/B < 2/3 & N<2 OR 3,OR SHORT TIES. TIES. PULL OUT

(c) u/B<2/3, LONG TIES 8. N>4: UPPER TIES BREAK

FIG. 2.1 THREE• MODES OF FAILURE

 (f)

0
U-
FINESAND

DIST RIBUTIO N
MEDIUMSAND

LU

u)

I 1111111 O Li.
O 0 O 0 0
0 CO LO

2:13NI3 1N331:13d
 0
N

IP
O
O

11

tl O
oo

tt
cc
U
E
0 O
LID (7)
z
0
0

O LL
‘a.
LL
0

0 I

I
O
N
0.?
co
C.6

O
Lfl O Ln O Ln Ln O
N: (IR LID

03 /51 AlISN30
 PRESSURE ( kg/cm )
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
3.0 3.5

D f = 0.0 B
'12
N =1
Sz = 0.50B
0
16 = 0.258
u = 0.50 B •
u = 0.75B ❑

20

24

28

32

36

40

FIG,4.1 PRESSURE - SETTLEMENT CURVES FOR SURFACE FOOTING

 PRESSURE (kg/cm2 )
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6
I I I

O 0.0 B
f
N =2
S T= 0.50B

FIG.4.2 PRESSURE-SETTLEMENT CURVES FOR SURFACE FOOTING

 CD
z
F-
0
0

FORSURFA C E
c`i L.LJ

vi
= fY

a.

I 1 I , LT_
...r oo (NI LID o .4 CO
.-- N N
(Ww)IN3W31.1.13S --a-


• 1:1 o
O
ori CO CO
CO tfl
c) N LA
Ul C$
11 II II
CNI M c=9
7
1 :
0
II II II II
•- N
C 1.4
0
Li-
14-1
U

V)

cc
0
LL
In
NE
. rr)
rn
cc
L AY
U
LU
ce
PRESSURE- SETT LEMENT
O
If)
V) CN1
LLJ
CL

LPI
O
c5
LL

1 I I. 1 I I
co N W
.--, ..... 0 ■T ' CO N W 0
N N N Cn co ■T

M INN31113S; ---9-
(U
 0a • 0
03 03 ;
03
o L r
O irj ) O CsJ
II II II II II II II
N
0 (Z) z, (1)
L!]

0
0
LL_
LU
U
LL.
0

Li)

O
LL
Lf)
LU
E
•fr
U
LL
CC
N
In N
LtJ
CC 2
0-
LtJ

9 F-
U)

Lv

cn
LI)
Lv
•

LU

Li_

0 -t oo U:)

(ww) 11■131,131113S
 PRESSURE ( kg/ cm2)
0;5 1.0. 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3..5 4.0

12

16

D = 0.0B
20 u = 0-75B
S z = 050B
SETTLEMENT . (m m?

N
24 N =1..__A
N = 2_.-•
N = 3—...13
28

1
32

36

40

FIG.4.6 PRESSURE-SETTLEMENT CURVES FOR SURFACE FOOTING

 0< • ❑

07 an no cel
ci. Si ul c, un
c...) ui r-
000
il II II II II
N t
O =V) 7 M M 7

O
O

EMBEDDED
0

0
LL
Ui

LL
C.)

PRESSURE-SETTLEMENT
In

In
0

IL

O v co
(NI c.3
(mu) IN31,4311135


In
tri

FIG.4.8 PRESSURE-SETT LEMENTCURVESFOR EMBEDDED FOOT ING

0
ri

Lr)

1 A I I I I I I ;
v co N to 0 v co
— — csi " (NI M

(WW} 11'131.131113S --■

 0 • 1:1

•
Li?
lD
1:13
c=. CO CO co
Li" o Li"
Ln
Cr) oo c3
t II II II
7

0
Li"
z
FL"
0
0

EMBEDDED
CC
0 0
"E
U)
LT LL1
Lf?
LLI re) CC
lZ
(1) U
1.4
LU

PRESSURE- SETT LEMENT

0
O
c-5

LI,
CN

Li"

0)

Lf?
0

I I I
N Lo a -4. co
.... — NI EN NI LD
cr)
O
PILO IN31431113S
 o <3 • El

CO CO CO
0 1n 0
O ci p c=,
II II II II II II
4-•
7V) Z ZM

t.r
LIl

z
H
O O
O
LL

PRESSURE-SETT LEMENTCURVESFOREMBEDDED
O

NE L!1

LO
CC
O
V) P)
In

rz •
CL

Lf)

(.6
LL
Ln
O

CO N 0 CO N lD 0
fr)

(WW) 1N31431113S
 o • <1 r3

CO CO CO
(7
In trt In
O O O N
to II II I II II !I
-N
0 7 Ln Z

PRESSURE-SET TLEMENT CURVESFOR EMBEDDED

O

In

O
ri

If?
O

co N lD o v co N lD 0
N
(Will) 1N31431113S
 0<•0

O •-• C•1
II II II it

m zz zz

0
z
0
0
IL

FOREMBED DED
O

U/
LU

U
F-
LU
2
w

w
cn
(-4
w
Cf)
Lf)
LU
0_
c■i
0

CIS
IL
In
CD

I I I I I t I
■.? a0 C•4 W 0 •s7 CO IN W 0
C■1 s.1 Cs' el (r) `4

(ww) IN3W31113S
 6.0

f =0.508
N = 1 .. . .. 0
N=2 A
5.0
E N 3 .....

rn

t--- 4.0

L.1

3.0
04

"Lm.
LC
J

I' I I I
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
DEPTH OF FIRST LAYE,U./B —'
U •
FIG.414 13-- VERSUS ULTIMATE BEARING
CAPACITY CURVES FOR EMBEDDED FOOTING
5.

Df =0.013

N = 2 .... A
cv— 4.0 N = 3 - o

0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

DEPTH OF FIRST LAYER U./ B

FIG.4.13 VERSUS ULTIMATE BEARING

CAPACITY CURVES FOR SURFACE FOOTINc,
 CC
0 .51 CI 0
LL

tr) LI 2
Z >
EE CC C
C
U IL
rn
0 w
CC
CC
(f)

FIR
W.
CC >,
I— .2
U. W
I g
6

LID

LL
1 0
14

d34:1`011Vd .A113VdV3 ONRIV39

0
0
LL

SURFAC E FOOTING
0 W
no Z
ct
< U
LU CO 0
0
in Li) Q.
o I— 0
N (1)
>4
LA I-
0
<
C■I a-

LO

0
CV
2138 '011'01 .1113VdV3 9NIdV39


EMBEDDED FOOTING
0 (r)
Z 1-1J
E cc
<
Lu U
03 0

NUMBER OF LAYERS, N
U)
D <
C:C
CC
>-
>
E3
z <
0_
U

839 01.101 IJ.IJYdVJ DNI8V39

< 0 0
cr
• 0
.. .
.
03 OD CO
03 in 0 lf)
O N Ln r'-
ci
11 LI 11 11
4-•
M DDD

CC Z <
03
-
M •

N
(5
,
838ObaAI.OVA0 91■118V3EI
 O.

a
0
0
LU
2

01.1.Vd 3811SS32id 9N12:1V39

Z.
O

O
O
N fh
H II II

Z Z

cr

• O
N

011V el 32:111SSRld DNItiV39

 z
1l
rV
0 <I 0

CO 0

DEPTHOF FtR STLAYER U./B

tf) 0

°I cc' Su
r
D 2
(f) Ell
U)
Li]
cc
N
c\I

Ude ` 011Vd 3811SS3eld 9N12:IV39

o •

RATIO CURVES FOR

REFERENCE SETTLEMENT VALUE = 0.075B

SURFACE FOOTING
04

o. 0
N N

IN 01Y4 32:111SS34ci 9NItIV39

REFERENC ESETTL EMENTVAL UE = 0.10 B

BEARING
z
H
0 0
0

OF FIRST LAYER , 11113

a
O 0
Z Z Z
O
0

In I-
N CL
O LL.1

C+') (.1
. Hd9 011Vd 32:111S338d DNI8V39

RATIO CUR VE S FOR

SET TL EMENT. VALUE = 0.108

VER SUSBEARING

In

El a 0
0
DEPTH OFFIR ST LAYER , l1/ B

C?
0 C■1 Ctl
11 II11 II
0
Z ZZ In

LL.
In
N
O

0 IL
LA 0

d El 011Vel 32:11ISSRld ONI8V30



V)
E

4. •
tT
0 < ❑ Z•
N
II
LLI O
_0
0
rn fi
j cn
u
z (J) U
REFERENC E

jj LL

"-1,
1.11 •••■

IL I co 1 In
h_
In z 1-- fX
W 0
o LU (1) LL
o

N
0
IL
0
0 In
tr) c`l
6 p 0

US 011V8 101.131113S

0
NE

cri
0
VI
FOR SURFACEFOOT ING

LLJ
CC co
VI Irl
VI
U./ II II II 11
CC
cL. z Z z
LLJ

LLI
CC
LLI .
U-1

0
LL
o • Lt.) o Ln
o t, VI CV . •
.-: 6 6 6

iS ' 011V8 1N314311.1.3S

 Ui

6 0
0
1—
0 4 0 Ln a 0
fY w
0
LI) >
c-> eri Z

FIRST
II II
ICO W 03
Z Z z
WW
_J

C•I
I— et
WO

DE
CO
N

u-) 0 in 0 LL
o
o N.. u? r•J
I-1 0 0 ci
ES' 011V8 1N31.13113S

cn

Ln DZ
c>
-■ r-- D uH
0 .4 1:1
n00
in
O co
, cc II: Li-
ro CC
4 a
II II it
REFER ENCE

zzz 0 ui
Ln >- I—
< 3ICOZ a
WW
2 in
W
W
I— cc
C*I
W 0
U.) LL
DEPT

O
I
O
o Li, o to
o r\ in cN
.-z 6 6 b
IS' 011V2i 1e,131113S


F-
NE LU
2
cn ❑ <3 0
Ln
r•-•

LU LU 0
CC cci co
tn In
o c..4 VI
-.
.6 00 0
1/..

z V) 0
'A

LU 11 II II It

0- 0 7 7 7
0
L/) Li..
LU
>—

C
•

LL1
11-
LU Z0
cc
m Q
z ix
'd

0
cr)

U-
• In
O 6

011V8 .1.1■13W31113S

SETTL EMENT
0 <1 0
= 0.75

RATIOCURVESFOR

(f)
z
0
LAYERS , N

LL
0
LLJ

z
LU
z
Lit
U-
NUMBEROF

LiJ

0)

O In
In (NI
O 6
JS' 011Vel. IN31.131113S
 U1

EMBEDDEDFOOTING
CC

SETT LEMENT RATIO

cc
0
IL
N
P)

c5
IL

MS 011\1 8 1N3W3111h

(f)
FOREMBEDDEDFOOTING
CC
NE 04 ❑
U
SETT LEMENTRAT IO

LI1
CO c0 cri co
O 1.11 ca
UJ Lf1e.j V1 N
rx ° 6 c;
n 11 II II
NUMBEROF LAYERS, N
REF ERENCE

LL

tn o tn
v.: ul c■,
o ci a
dS 1 011Y8 11431431113S