GI v8n1 Paper2

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO.
1 27
Technical Paper by C. Zhan and J.H. Yin
ELASTIC ANALYSIS OF SOIL-GEOSYNTHETIC
INTERACTION
ABSTRACT: A two-dimensional analytical model based on elasticity theory is
developed for modeling soil-geosynthetic interaction for a geosynthetic layer of finite
length embedded horizontally between granular fill and soft ground under a foundation
loading. The soil-geosynthetic interaction is analyzed in both the vertical and horizon-
tal directions. The vertical soil-geosynthetic interaction is modeled using Winkler
springs. The horizontal soil-geosynthetic interaction is simulated using horizontal
shear springs. The geosynthetic reinforcement is assumed to be elastic and only expe-
riences tension without bending and shearing resistance. The soil mass is treated as an
isotropic homogeneous elastic material. The proposed analytical model can be used to
obtain the two-dimensional deformation and stress field in the soil mass and reinforce-
ment. The results from the proposed model are compared with rigorous two-dimen-
sional finite difference modeling results. Material and geometry parametric analyses
are carried out using the proposed model to investigate the effectiveness of soft ground
improvement.
KEYWORDS: Geosynthetic, Reinforcement, Soft ground, Bearing capacity,
Settlement, Winkler foundation.
AUTHORS: C. Zhan, Engineer, Binnie Black & Veatch (Hong Kong) Limited, 11/F,
New Town Tower, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong, Telephone: 1/852-2601-1000, Telefax: 1/
852-2601-3988, E-mail: Zhanc@BV.com; and J.H. Yin, Professor, Department of
Civil and Structural Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom,
Kowloon, Hong Kong, Telephone: 1/852-2766-6065, Telefax: 1/852-2334-6389, E-
mail: cejhyin@polyu.edu.hk.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 55113-
4061, USA, Telephone: 1/651-222-2508, Telefax: 1/651-631-9334. Geosynthetics
International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATE: Original manuscript submitted 17 April 2000, revised version received 22
August 2000, and accepted 27 August 2000. Discussion open until 1 August 2001.
REFERENCE: Zhan, C. and Yin, J.H., 2001, Elastic Analysis of Soil-Geosynthetic
Interaction, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 27-48.
ZHAN AND YIN Elastic Analysis of Soil-Geosynthetic Interaction
28 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 1
1 INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetics have been used for over 70 years; however, its rapid growth is use only
occurred in the last 20 years due to the availability of competent geotextiles (Koerner
1990). Geosynthetics can be utilized for many different functions, such as separation,
reinforcement, filtration, drainage, and as a moisture barrier. Among the many func-
tions, geosynthetic reinforcement is widely recognized as an effective means and cost-
effective method of improving foundations on soft ground. To increase the bearing
capacity and reduce settlement of a foundation on soft ground, a layer of geosynthetics
is placed on the soft ground and then covered with granular fill. The use of geosyn-
thetic reinforcement could effectively confine the soil movement both above and
below the geosynthetic reinforcement and dissipate the concentrated load to the soft
ground. Hausmann (1987) summarized the following three mechanisms as to how the
mechanical behavior of soft ground is improved by geosynthetic reinforcement: (1)
aggregate restraint; (2) subgrade restraint; and (3) membrane support.
Under an applied foundation load, the soil mass tends to move away from the load
center. Due to the large stiffness difference between the geosynthetics and soil mass
and the deformation compatibility requirement, shear stresses develop at the granular
fill (or aggregate)-reinforcement interface and the soft ground (subgrade)-reinforce-
ment interface. The shear stress at the granular fill-reinforcement interface provides a
confinement to the granular fill (aggregate) above the reinforcement. This confinement
increases the strength of the fill material and, consequently, leads to a higher load car-
rying capacity (aggregate restraint). Similarly, the resulting shear stress at the soft
ground-reinforcement interface also restrains the movement of soft ground (subgrade)
below the reinforcement and, consequently, increases the strength of the original soft
ground (subgrade restraint). The shear stresses at the interface along the reinforcement
result in a tensile force in the reinforcement. When the geosynthetic reinforcement
deflects, the vertical component of the reinforcement tensile force reduces the load
transferred to the soft ground, which is commonly referred as membrane support
(Hausmann 1987; Espinoza 1994).
Soil-geosynthetic interaction for a geosynthetic placed between soft ground and
granular fill under a foundation load is a two-dimensional (2-D), plane-strain problem.
Various analytical models have been developed for this problem (Bourdeau et al. 1982;
Love et al. 1987; Madhav and Poorooshasb 1988; Bourdeau 1989; Poorooshasb 1989;
Poran et al. 1989; Ghosh 1991; Poorooshasb 1991; Espinoza 1994; Ghosh and Madhav
1994a,b,c; Khing et al. 1994; Shukla and Chandra 1994, 1995). Madhav and
Poorooshasb (1988) simplify the problem to one dimension and model the soft soil
using Winkler springs. In addition, Madhav and Poorooshasb make the following
assumptions: the granular fill behaves as Pasternak shear layers (Pasternak 1954); the
geosynthetic membrane buried in the granular fills can withstand tensile force only;
and the membrane behavior is elastic. The Madhav and Poorooshasb model was later
extended by Ghosh and Madhav (1994a,b), Shukla and Chandra (1994, 1995), and Yin
(1997a,b) to account for the membrane effect, confinement effect, stiffness of the
geomembrane, and compaction. Yin (1999, 2000) noted that the Pasternak model con-
siders the shear deformation, but not the bending deformation, while the Winkler
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 1 29
model considers the bending deformation (i.e., extension or compression along the
horizontal axial direction of the beam), but not the shear deformation (i.e., shearing in
the vertical direction). Yin (1999, 2000) has successfully applied a Timoshenko Beam
(TB) model for a reinforced granular base on soft ground. The TB model can consider
both the bending deformation and shear deformation and is a step forward to modeling
geosynthetic-reinforced soils; however, both the Pasternak and TB models are one-
dimensional (1-D) models. The true interaction that can be obtained using a two-
dimensional (2-D) model has not been fully realized.
Instead of using a Pasternak shear layer for the granular fill, Bourdeau (1989)
assumed that the vertical stresses in both the granular fill and soft ground follow a sto-
chastic stress distribution. However, this model does not consider the lateral restraint
effect, and it does not satisfy the exact equilibrium equation for the 2-D problem.
To accurately model the soil interaction with a layer of geosynthetic reinforcement
of limited length, the present paper views the reinforcement as a disturbance or pertur-
bation to the original soil mass. The 2-D problem is modeled: (1) without the presence
of the geosynthetic reinforcement; and (2) as a result of the soil mass-reinforcement
interaction. For the case of no reinforcement, the solution is obtained using the Flamant
Solution (Poulos and Davis 1974) for a concentrated line force applied on the surface of
an isotropic homogeneous elastic half-plane (a multi-layer elastic solution can also be
used). For the case with reinforcement (soil-geosynthetic interaction case), the solution
is obtained using equilibrium equations for the geosynthetic reinforcement. If the geo-
synthetics have the same stiffness as the soil mass, the second solution is zero. The soil-
geosynthetic interactions are represented using a Winkler foundation for vertical inter-
action and shear springs for horizontal interaction. The proposed model can be used to
obtain both the stress and displacement fields of the 2-D problem.
2 SOIL-GEOSYNTHETIC INTERACTION
The soil-geosynthetic interaction is modeled as a 2-D, plane-strain problem (Figure 1).
The geosynthetic reinforcement (geotextile, geogrid, geonet, geomembrane, or geo-
composite) is placed horizontally over the soft ground and covered with granular fill.
The reinforcement is assumed to be an elastic material with only tensile resistance. For
simplicity, the soil mass, composed of both granular fill and soft ground, is treated as
an isotropic homogeneous elastic material. Upon any surface loading, such as founda-
tion or traffic loading, both the soil mass and the reinforcement deform. Since the rein-
forcement has a larger stiffness compared to the soil mass, the reinforcement deforms
less than the soil mass under the same loading. As a result, soil mass-reinforcement
interaction develops. This interaction results in a load transfer from the soft ground to
the strong reinforcement and, consequently, improves the mechanical behavior of the
soft ground.
Under any surface loading, the deformation of a layer of horizontally embedded
reinforcement can be divided into two components: (i) deformation at the reinforce-
ment location without the presence of the reinforcement as a result of the surface load-
ing; (ii) deformation caused by soil-reinforcement interaction as a result of the
stiffness difference between the two materials. The horizontal and vertical displace-
ments of the reinforcement is given by:
(1)
where: u
0
(x) and w
0
(x) = horizontal and vertical displacements as a result of loading with-
out geosynthetic reinforcement, respectively (Figure 2); and u
i
(x) and w
i
(x) = horizontal
and vertical soil-reinforcement interaction displacements, respectively (Figure 2).
The horizontal interaction displacement, u
i
(x), is related to an interaction shear
stress at the soil-reinforcement interface (Figure 2). Using the horizontal shear spring
concept, the interaction shear stress, (x), at the soil-reinforcement interface is
assumed to be proportional to the horizontal interaction displacement:
(2)
where k
s
is the interface shear modulus at the soil-reinforcement interface. It should be
noted that the interaction shear stress is the sum of both the interaction shear stresses
above and below the geosynthetic reinforcement.
The vertical interaction displacement, w
i
(x), is related to an interaction pressure at
the soil-reinforcement interface. It should be mentioned that the interaction pressure is
not the total pressure at the soil-reinforcement interface. This interaction pressure is
only caused by the presence of the reinforcement. If the soil reinforcement has the
same stiffness as the soil mass, the interaction pressure is zero. Using the Winkler
foundation assumption, the interaction pressure, p(x), is given by:
(3)
u x ( ) u
0
x ( ) u
i
x ( ) + =
w x ( ) w
0
x ( ) w
i
x ( ) + =
x ( ) k
s
u
i
x ( ) =
p x ( ) k w
i
x ( ) =
a a or B/2
x
y
L / 2
h
L / 2
Granular fill
Soft soil
Geosynthetic
Figure 1. Geosynthetic-reinforced soft ground under a foundation loading.
where k is the elastic foundation modulus for the soil mass. The interaction pressure is
also referred to as an additional bearing capacity due to the membrane effect (Espinoza
1994). The interaction pressure is composed of both the interaction pressures above
and below the geosynthetic reinforcement.
For an isolated, infinite, small reinforcement element (Figure 2), the reinforcement
element is subjected to both shear stress and normal pressure at the interface and ten-
sile force within the reinforcement. Equilibrium in the x direction is given by:
(4)
where: and = angles defined in Figure 2; and T = tensile force in the reinforcement.
Since the element size is infinitely small, and will be more or less the same value.
Therefore, the following approximation can be used:
(5)
Substituting Equation 5 into Equation 4 results in:
T cos k
s
u
i
ds
+
2
-------------
( ,
j \
cos + T dT + ( ) cos =
cos cos
+
2
-------------
( ,
j \
cos
x
y
a
dx T + dT
T
Granular fill
B / 2
Soft soil
Deflected
geosynthetic
ds
b
p
a
Geosynthetic before loading
Deformation under
loading without a
geosynthetic
u
0
u
-u
i
w
0 w
-w
i
p
b
Notes:
a
= interaction shear stress above the geosynthetic reinforcement;
b
= interaction shear stress below the reinforce-
ment; p
a
= interaction pressure above reinforcement; p
a
= interaction pressure below the reinforcement; T = tension in the
reinforcement; =
a
+
b
= interaction shear stress; and p = p
a
+ p
b
= interaction pressure.
Figure 2. Force diagram of an isolated, infinitely small reinforcement element.
(6)
Equilibrium in the y direction gives:
(7)
Since the reinforcement is placed horizontally below ground and the reinforcement
deflection is relatively small, the following approximation can be used
(8)
Substituting Equation 8 into Equation 7 results in:
(9)
Using the equilibrium equation in the x direction (Equation 6), Equation 9
becomes:
(10)
Equation 10 is basically the same as that for a thin membrane subjected to a pressure
loading.
Since the vertical displacement of the reinforcement is relatively small, the hori-
zontal distance of the element shown in Figure 2 is approximately the same as the
actual distance between both ends of the element, i.e., ds dx. Therefore, the equilib-
rium equations in both the x and y directions can be simplified as:
(11)
Applying constitutive relationship,
t
= T/t = E(du/dx), to the reinforcement,
where E and t are the elastic modulus and thickness of the reinforcement, respectively,
the equilibrium equations in both the x and y directions can be combined to result in
the following equation in terms of the interaction horizontal displacement, u
i
(x):
(12)
Under any surface loading, the horizontal displacement of the first component,
u
0
(x), can be determined using the Flamant Solution. With boundary conditions corre-
dT
ds
------ k
s
u
i
=
T sin k
s
u
i
ds
+
2
-------------
( ,
j \
sin k w
i
ds + + T dT + ( ) sin =
dw
dx
------- w tan sin = =
Tw k
s
u
i
ds w w
dx
2
------ +
( ,
j \
k w
i
ds + + T dT + ( ) w wdx + ( ) =
w
kw
i
T
--------
ds
dx
------ =
dT
dx
------ k
s
u
i
=
d
2
w
dx
2
---------
k w
i
T
--------- =
d
2
u
i
dx
2
----------
k
s
Et
----- u
i
d
2
u
0
dx
2
----------- =
sponding to the applied surface load and placement of the reinforcement, Equation 12
can be solved and the interaction displacement can be determined. The known interac-
tion displacements can then be used to determine both the interaction shear stress and
interaction pressure at the interface.
3 SOLUTION TO THE 2-D, PLANE-STRAIN PROBLEM
Similar to the solution of reinforcement displacements, the ground movement for the
2-D, plane-strain problem is the sum of the movement as a result of surface loading
without the presence of reinforcement and the movement resulting from the interaction
pressure and interaction shear stress at the soil-reinforcement interface. The ground
deformation (U,V) of geosynthetic-reinforced soft ground can be divided into two
components as follows:
(13)
where: (x,y) = coordinate of the 2-D problem; U
0
(x,y) and V
0
(x,y) = horizontal and ver-
tical displacements at coordinate (x,y) for the 2-D problem under surface loading with-
out the presence of reinforcement, respectively; and U
i
(x,y) and V
i
(x,y) = horizontal
and vertical interaction displacements at coordinate (x,y) for the 2-D problem resulting
from the interaction shear stress and interaction pressure at the soil-reinforcement
interface, respectively.
The stress field for the 2-D problem (
x
,
y
,
xy
) can also be divided into two com-
ponents as follows:
(14)
where:
x
= normal stress component in the x direction;
y
= normal stress component
in the y direction;
xy
= shear stress component; and the superscripts 0 and i represent
the response of the soil mass due to the surface loading without the presence of rein-
forcement and the response of the soil mass as a result of soil-reinforcement interac-
tion, respectively.
Both the stress field and displacement field, as a result of surface loading without the
presence of reinforcement, can be determined using the Flamant Solution. The interaction
component can be determined using the Melan Solution (Poulos and Davis 1974) with the
known interaction shear stress and interaction pressure at the reinforcement position.
4 ANALYSIS OF FOOTING ON REINFORCED SOFT GROUND
Equations 1 to 14 are applicable to a plane-strain problem with horizontally embedded
U x y , ( ) U
0
x y , ( ) U
i
x y , ( ) + =
V x y , ( ) V
0
x y , ( ) V
i
x y , ( ) + =
x
x y , ( )
x
0
x y , ( )
x
i
x y , ( ) + =
y
x y , ( )
y
0
x y , ( )
y
i
x y , ( ) + =
xy
x y , ( )
xy
0
x y , ( )
xy
i
x y , ( ) + =
reinforcement under any surface loading. In the following, the above analysis is used to
study a typical problem of a footing on reinforced soft ground. The footing is simpli-
fied as a uniform distributed surface load (Figure 1). The surface load, P
y
, is constant
over the strip a x a and y = 0, and P
y
= 0 elsewhere on y = 0. The ground move-
ment and stresses as a result of the footing load without reinforcement are given by:
(15)
and
(16)
where: E
s
and = soil elastic modulus and Poissons ratio, respectively, for both the
granular fill and soft soil; r
1
= distance between coordinates (a,0) and (x,y); r
2
= dis-
tance between coordinates (a,0) and (x,y); l = distance from the loading center where
the vertical displacement is taken as zero at x = l and y = 0; and
(17)
At the reinforcement location, the horizontal and vertical displacements without
the presence of reinforcement are given by:
(18)
where h is the reinforcement burial depth:
To determine the interaction displacements, the following finite difference method
is used to solve Equations 11 and 12:
U
0
x y , ( )
1 + ( )P
y
E
s
------------------------ 1 2 ( ) x a ( )
1
x a + ( )
2
a + [ ] 1 ( ) y r
1
2
r
2
2
( ) ln +

=
V
0
x y , ( )
1 + ( )P
y
E
s
------------------------ 1 2 ( )y
1

2
( ) 1 ( ) x a ( ) r
1
2
ln x a + ( ) r
2
2
ln l a + ( ) l a + ( )
2
l a ( ) l a ( )
2
ln ln + +

=
x
0
P
y
------
1

2
y x a ( )
r
1
2
-------------------
y x a + ( )
r
2
2
------------------- + =
y
0
P
y
------
1

2
y x a ( )
r
1
2
-------------------
y x a + ( )
r
2
2
------------------- + =
xy
0
P
y
------ y
2 1
r
1
2
-----
1
r
2
2
-----
( ,
j \
=
1
y
x a
----------- atan =
2
y
x a +
------------ atan =
r
1
2
x a ( )
2
y
2
+ = r
2
2
x a + ( )
2
y
2
+ =
u
0
x ( ) U
0
x h , ( ) =
w
0
x ( ) V
0
x h , ( ) =
(19)
where the superscript j represents the finite difference grid.
To solve Equation 19, boundary conditions are required. At the center of the geo-
synthetic reinforcement, the symmetry condition requires that the horizontal interac-
tion displacement is zero and the vertical interaction displacement gradient is zero. At
the far end of the geosynthetic, the tensile force in the geosynthetic and the interaction
pressure are zero. The boundary condition can be written as follows:
(20)
where L is the length of geosynthetic reinforcement.
After obtaining the interaction displacements, both the geosynthetic interaction
shear stress and interaction pressure can be calculated from the horizontal and vertical
interaction displacements, respectively. The resulting interaction shear stress and inter-
action pressure values can then be used to obtain the stress and displacement fields of
the soil mass using the Melan Solution.
5 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED MODEL WITH RIGOROUS
FINITE DIFFERENCE ANALYSES
The soil-geosynthetic interaction is analyzed using both the proposed mechanical
model and a rigorous 2-D finite difference model using the computer program FLAC
(FLAC 1998). In the FLAC analyses, the geosynthetics are assumed to be fully bonded
to the soil medium. Both the soil mass and the geosynthetics are treated as an elastic
material. The geosynthetics are modeled as cable elements. The physical property
parameters used for the soil mass and the geosynthetics are given in Table 1.
A 51 51 finite difference grid is used as shown in Figure 3. Only half of the plane
is analyzed as a result of the symmetry condition. The vertical boundary on the right-
hand side is set 20 m away from the loading center. Both vertical boundaries are
assumed to be free in the vertical direction with restricted horizontal displacement.
The bottom horizontal boundary is set 30 m below ground, restricted in the vertical
direction, and assumed to be free in the horizontal direction. A surface load of 100 kPa
is applied over 1 m x 1 m. Comparisons of the finite difference results from
u
i
j 1 +
2
k
s
Et
----- x
2
+
( ,
j \
u
i
j
u
i
j 1
d
2
u
0
j
dx
2
------------ x
2
+ + 0 =
w
i
j 1 +
2
k
Et
du
j
dx
--------
---------------- x
2
+
( ,
, (
, (
, (
j \
w
i
j
w
i
j 1
d
2
w
0
j
dx
2
------------- x
2
+ + 0 =
u
i
x 0 =
0, =
d u
i
u
0
+ ( )
dx
------------------------
x L 2 =
0 =
dw
i
dx
--------
x 0 =
0, = w
i
x L 2 =
0 =
Table 1. Physical properties of the soil and geosynthetic.
Physical property Value
Elastic modulus of soil, E
s
1.0 kPa
Poissons ratio of soil, 0.45
Geosynthetic modulus, E 8 GPa
Geosynthetic thickness, t 5 mm
Geosynthetic length, L 6 m
Interface shear modulus, k
s
800 kPa/m
Foundation modulus, k 500 kPa/m
-1.250
-7.50
-2.50
2.50
7.50
12.50
17.50
22.50
-7.50 -2.50 2.50 7.50 12.50 17.50 22.50 27.50
Pressure of 100 kPa
Figure 3. Finite difference mesh used in the present study.
Pressure = 100 kPa
FLAC with the results from the proposed model are presented in this section.
In the proposed mechanical model, the soil-geosynthetic interaction is simulated by
using the foundation modulus and interface shear modulus. The foundation modulus
can be directly estimated from soil modulus and foundation width as E
s
/B(1
2
),
where B is the foundation width. The interface shear modulus can also be evaluated
from the soil properties and geometric parameters.
To estimate the interface shear modulus, a finite difference analysis is carried out
using FLAC for a semi-infinite elastic solid subjected to horizontal constant traction,
P
x
= 100 kPa, over a distance of 0 x 3 and 100 kPa over a distance of 3 x 0,
z , and y = 1. The soil parameters given in Table 1 are used in the analysis.
The finite difference mesh is given in Figure 3. Symmetry boundary conditions are
applied at x = 0. In the proposed mechanical model, the interface shear modulus is
defined as the ratio of shear stress to the corresponding shear deformation at the rein-
forcement location. As a result, the ratio between the applied constant traction, P
x
=
100 kPa, and the corresponding horizontal displacement determined from FLAC anal-
ysis, is the interface shear modulus.
Figure 4 is a plot of the estimated interface shear modulus profile from FLAC. The
estimated value is between 600 and 1,500 kPa/m with an average value of 800 kPa/m.
In the following calculation, the average interface shear modulus of 800 kPa/m is used
for the proposed mechanical model.
Comparisons of the geosynthetic horizontal displacement using FLAC and the pro-
posed model are shown in Figure 5. In general, the two results are similar with only
minor variations. This variation is mainly attributed to the assumption used in the pro-
posed model for modeling the soil-geosynthetic interactions. In the model, the soil-
geosynthetic interactions are simplified as Winkler springs in the vertical direction and
shear springs in the horizontal direction. The comparison of geosynthetic tensile force
values obtained using the model and FLAC is given in Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6,
0
300
600
900
1200
1500
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Distance from center (m)
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e

s
h
e
a
r

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
k
P
a
/
m
)
Average value of 802 kPa/m
Interface shear modulus
estimated from FLAC
Figure 4. Variation of interface shear modulus along the geosynthetic reinforcement.
the proposed model predicts lower tensile force at the center and higher tensile force
close to edge of the geosynthetic.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Proposed model
FLAC analysis
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Proposed model
FLAC analysis
Figure 5. Comparison of the horizontal displacement along the geosynthetic
reinforcement using the proposed model and a FLAC analysis.
Figure 6. Comparison of tensile force along the geosynthetic reinforcement using the
proposed model and a FLAC analysis.
6 PARAMETRIC ANALYSES
To evaluate the effectiveness of ground improvement using geosynthetics, parametric
analyses were carried out for geosynthetic burial depth, geosynthetic length, interface
shear modulus, soil elastic modulus, and geosynthetic stiffness. For the remaining
parameters, the baseline values given in Table 2 were used. In the following discus-
sions, both the vertical and horizontal displacements are the displacements of geosyn-
thetic reinforcement.
Typical parametric analyses results are given in Figures 7, 8, and 9 using the base-
line parameters in Table 2. Figure 7 presents the variation of horizontal displacement
along the length of the geosynthetic. The three curves in Figure 7 represent the hori-
zontal displacement without a geosynthetic layer, horizontal displacement with a geo-
synthetic layer, and the interaction displacement, respectively. It is evident that the
presence of a geosynthetic layer significantly reduces the horizontal displacement,
which consequently provides a restraint to the soil mass both above and below the geo-
synthetic. The restraint provided by the geosynthetic is reflected by the magnitude of
the tensile force generated in the geosynthetic (Figure 8). As expected, the tensile force
is a maximum at the center and approaches zero at the far end of the geosynthetic
layer. The vertical displacement profile along the geosynthetic reinforcement is given
in Figure 9. The presence of geosynthetics reduces the vertical displacement; however,
the reduction is not as significant as the horizontal displacement shown in Figure 7.
This is expected because geosynthetics mainly provide ground restraint along the
direction of its placement.
As discussed in Section 1, the improvement of soft ground due to geosynthetics is
attributed to three mechanisms: (1) aggregate restraint, (2) subgrade restraint, and (3)
membrane support. Mechanisms 1 and 2 are reflected in the magnitude of the tensile
force in the geosynthetic. The larger the tensile force, the greater the restraint to both
the aggregate and subgrade. The membrane support is reflected in the reduction in ver-
tical displacement along the geosynthetic, which is defined as the ratio of the interac-
Table 2. Baseline parameters.
Baseline parameter Value
Elastic modulus of soil, E
s
1.0 MPa
Poisson's ratio of soil, 0.45
Geosynthetic stiffness, Et 40 MPa-m
Interface shear modulus, k
s
1.0 MPa/m
Foundation modulus, k 0.5 MPa/m
Foundation width, B 2.0 m
Geosynthetic burial depth, h 1.0 m
Length of geosynthetic, L 6.0 m
tion vertical displacement, w
i
(x), to the vertical displacement without geosynthetics,
w
0
(x). The larger the vertical displacement reduction, the greater the membrane sup-
port. In the remainder of this section, the maximum tensile force and the maximum
vertical displacement reduction along the geosynthetic are used to evaluate improve-
ment to soft ground using geosynthetics.
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Displacement with geosynthetics
Displacement without geosynthetics
Interaction displacement
Figure 7. Variation of horizontal displacement along the geosynthetic reinforcement.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Figure 8. Variation of tensile force along the geosynthetic reinforcement.
The placement of geosynthetic reinforcement at different depths below ground
results in different magnitudes of ground improvement. Figure 10 shows the depen-
dence of the maximum tensile force and the maximum vertical displacement reduction
on geosynthetic burial depth. It is evident that the maximum vertical displacement
reduction is a maximum when the burial depth is 0.8 m. The optimal location of the
geosynthetic for providing restraint to both the aggregate and subgrade is 1.5 m below
ground. Overall, in order to maximize ground improvement, geosynthetics should be
placed 0.35B to 0.7B below ground.
Ground improvement is also affected by geosynthetic length. Figure 11 presents
the variation of the maximum tensile force and the maximum vertical displacement
reduction with geosynthetic length. Both the maximum tensile force and the maximum
vertical displacement reduction increase with increased geosynthetic length. However,
the increase becomes insignificant when the geosynthetic length is greater than 3B.
Consequently, the best and most economical improvement to the soft ground can be
achieved when the geosynthetic length is between 2.5B to 3B. It should be noted that
change in burial depth could also affect the optimal geosynthetic length.
Figure 12 presents the variation of the maximum tensile force and the maximum
vertical displacement reduction with interface shear modulus. Figure 12 clearly shows
that the increase in the interface shear modulus increases both the maximum tensile
force and the maximum vertical displacement reduction as expected. Consequently, to
better improve the strength of soft ground using geosynthetics, the soil-geosynthetic
interface (i.e., the aggregate above the geosynthetic and the subgrade below the geo-
synthetic) shear modulus should be maximized.
The effectiveness of soft ground improvement is highly dependent on the stiffness
difference between the geosynthetics and the soft ground. Figure 13 shows the varia-
tion of the maximum tensile force and the maximum vertical displacement reduction
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Displacement with geosynthetics
Displacement without geosynthetics
Interaction displacement
Figure 9. Variation of vertical displacement along the geosynthetic.
with the soil elastic modulus. It is evident from Figure 13 that both the maximum ten-
sile force and the maximum vertical displacement reduction decrease with the increase
in the soil elastic modulus. As expected, geosynthetics are most effective for very soft
ground.
Figure 14 is a plot of the variation of the maximum tensile force and the maximum
vertical displacement reduction with geosynthetic stiffness and shows that increased
geosynthetic stiffness can also improve the strength of soft ground. As evident from
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Geosynthetic burial depth (m)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
w
i

/

w
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Geosynthetic length (m)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
w
i

/

w
0
Figure 10. Variation of the maximum tensile force and maximum vertical displacement
reduction with geosynthetic burial depth.
reduction with geosynthetic length.
Tensile force
w
i
(x) / w
0
(x)
Tensile force
w
i
(x) / w
0
(x)
Figure 14, greater geosynthetic stiffness values increases both the maximum tensile
force and the maximum vertical displacement reduction. However, the increase
becomes negligible when the geosynthetic stiffness exceeds 15 MPa-m.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Soil elastic modulus (MPa)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
w
i

/

w
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Interface shear modulus (MPa/m)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
w
i

/

w
0
Figure 13. Variation of maximum tensile force and maximum vertical displacement
reduction with soil elastic modulus.
reduction with interface shear modulus.
Tensile force
w
i
(x) / w
0
(x)
Tensile force
w
i
(x) / w
0
(x)
7 CONCLUSIONS
A two-dimensional analytical model based on elasticity theory is developed for model-
ing soil-geosynthetic interaction whereby a layer of geosynthetics of finite length is
placed horizontally between the granular fill and soft ground under foundation load-
ing. The mechanical model considers the soil-geosynthetic interactions in both the hor-
izontal and vertical directions. The proposed model can be used to obtain both the
stress and displacement fields of the two-dimensional problem. The results from the
proposed model are compared with the results from the finite difference program
FLAC. The two results agree with minor variations due to the assumptions used for
both the horizontal and vertical soil-geosynthetic interactions.
Parametric analyses are carried out for material properties and geometric parame-
ters. Based on the parametric analyses, the following conclusions can be made:
The geosynthetic reinforcement is most effective when it is placed 0.35B to 0.7B
below ground.
A geosynthetic length of 2.5B to 3B would be economical and effective in improv-
ing soft ground; however, it is expected that this could be greatly affected when the
geosynthetic burial depth is changed.
An increase in interface shear modulus greatly improves the soft ground.
Both a decrease in soil modulus and increase in geosynthetic stiffness would result
in an increase in soft ground improvement.
It should be noted that the above conclusions are limited to the cases analyzed. If dif-
ferent baseline parameters are used, different results may possibly be obtained.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 20 40 60 80 100
Geosynthetic stiffness (MPa-m)
T
e
n
s
i
l
e

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
w
i

/

w
0
Figure 14. Variation of maximum tensile force and maximum vertical displacement
reduction with geosynthetic stiffness.
Tensile force
w
i
(x) / w
0
(x)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The financial support from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU Project
No.YB68) for the research and preparation of the present paper is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Bourdeau, P.L., 1989, Modeling of Membrane Action in a Two Layer Reinforced Soil
System, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 7, Nos. 1-2, pp. 19-36.
Bourdeau, P.L., Harr, M.E., and Hottz, R.D., 1982, Soil Fabric Interaction: An Ana-
lytical Model, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Geotex-
tiles, IFAI, Vol. 2, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA, August 1982, pp. 387-391.
Espinoza, R.D., 1994, Soil-Geotextile Interaction: Evaluation of Membrane Sup-
port, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 281-293.
FLAC, 1998, Software and Manuals, Version 3.4, ITASCA, USA.
Ghosh, C., 1991, Modeling and Analysis of Reinforced Foundation Beds, Ph.D. The-
sis, Department of Civil Engineering, I.I.T., Kanpur, India, 218 p.
Ghosh, C. and Madhav, M.R., 1994a, Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil System:
Confinement Effect, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp.727-741.
Ghosh, C. and Madhav, M.R., 1994b, Reinforced Granular Fill-Soft Soil System:
Membrane Effect, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 743-759.
Ghosh, C. and Madhav, M.R., 1994c, Settlement Response of a Reinforced Shallow
Earth Bed, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 643-656.
Hausmann, M.R., 1987, Geotextiles for Unpaved Roads - A Review of Design Proce-
dures, Geotextile and Geomembranes, No. 5, pp. 201-233.
Khing, K.H., Das, B.M., Puri, V.K., Yen, S.C., and Cook, E.E., 1994, Foundation on
Strong Sand Underlain by Weak Clay with Geogrid at the Interface, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 199-206.
Koerner, R.M., 1990, Designing with Geosynthetics, Second Edition, Prentice-Hall
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 652 p.
Love, J.P., Burd, H.J., Milligan, G.W.E., and Houlsby, G.T., 1987, Analytical and
Model Studies of Reinforcement of a Layer of Granular Fill on a Soft Clay Sub-
grade, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 611-622.
Madhav, M.R. and Poorooshasb, H.B., 1988, A New Model for Geosynthetic Rein-
forced Soil, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 277-290.
Pasternak, P.L., 1954, On a New Method of Analysis of an Elastic Foundation by
Means of Two Foundation Constants, Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstro Liberaturi po
Stroitelsvui Arkhitekture, Moscow. (in Russian)
Poorooshasb, H.S., 1991, On Mechanics of Heavily Reinforced Granular Mats, Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 134-152.
Poorooshasb, H.S., 1989, Analysis of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil using a Simple
Transform Function, Computers and Geotechnics, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 289-309.
Poran, C.J., Herrmann, L.R., and Romastad, K.M., 1989, Finite Element Analysis of
Footings on Geogrid-Reinforced Soil, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 89, IFAI,
Vol. 1, San Diego, California, USA, February 1989, pp. 231-242.
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H., 1974, Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York, USA, 411 p.
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S., 1995, Modeling Geosynthetic-Reinforced Engineered
Granular Fills on Soft Soil, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 603-617.
Shukla, S.K. and Chandra, S., 1994, A Study of Settlement Response of a Geosyn-
thetic-Reinforced Compressible Granular Fill-Soft Soil System, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 13, No. 9, pp. 627-639.
Yin, J.-H., 2000, Closed-Form Solution for Reinforced Timoshenko Beam on Elastic
Foundation, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE. (in press)
Yin, J.H., 1999, Comparative Modeling Study on Reinforced Beam on Elastic Foun-
dation, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 126,
No. 3, pp. 265-271.
Yin, J.H., 1997a, Modeling Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Fills Over Soft Soil,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 165-185.
Yin, J.H., 1997b, A Nonlinear Model of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Granular Fill Over
Soft Soil, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 523-537.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
a = half-width of foundation (m)
B = width of foundation (m)
E = elastic modulus of geosynthetic (Pa)
E
s
= elastic modulus of granular fill and soft soil (Pa)
h = geosynthetic burial depth (m)
k = elastic foundation modulus for soil mass (Pa/m)
k
s
= interface shear modulus at soil-geosynthetic interface (Pa/m)
L = length of geosynthetic (m)
l = distance from loading center where vertical displacement is taken as
zero at x = 1 and y = O (m)
P
x
= constant horizontal traction (Pa)
P
y
= applied surface load (Pa)
p(x) = interaction pressure at soil-geosynthetic interface (Pa)
p
a
= soil-geosynthetic interaction pressure above geosynthetic (Pa)
p
b
= soil-geosynthetic interaction pressure below geosynthetic (Pa)
r
1
= distance between coordinates (a,0) and (x,y) (m)
r
2
= distance between coordinates (a,0) and (x,y) (m)
T = tensile force in geosynthetic (N)
t = thickness of geosynthetic (m)
U(x,y) = horizontal displacement at coordinate within soil mass (m)
U
i
(x,y) = horizontal interaction displacement at coordinate within soil mass (m)
U
0
(x,y) = horizontal displacement at coordinate within soil mass without the presence
of geosynthetics (m)
u(x) = horizontal displacement of geosynthetic (m)
u
i
(x) = horizontal geosynthetic displacement due to soil-geosynthetic
interaction (m)
u
0
(x) = horizontal displacement without geosynthetic at location of
geosynthetic (m)
V(x,y) = vertical displacement at coordinate within soil mass (m)
V
i
(x,y) = vertical interaction displacement at coordinate within soil mass (m)
V
0
(x,y) = vertical displacement at coordinate within soil mass without the presence
of geosynthetics (m)
w(x) = vertical displacement of geosynthetic (m)
w
i
(x) = vertical geosynthetic displacement due to soil-geosynthetic interaction (m)
w
0
(x) = vertical displacement without geosynthetic at location of geosynthetic (m)
x = distance in horizontal direction (m)
y = distance in vertical direction (m)
= gradient of geosynthetic vertical displacement at coordinate (x) ()
= gradient of geosynthetic vertical displacement at coordinate (x + dx) ()
= Poissons ratio of granular fill and soft soil (dimensionless)
1
= angle defined in Equation 17 ()
2
= angle defined in Equation 17 ()
t
= tensile stress in geosynthetic (Pa)
x
= normal stress component in x direction (Pa)
y
= normal stress component in y direction (Pa)
(x) = soil-geosynthetic interface shear stress (Pa)
a
= soil-geosynthetic interaction stress above geosynthetic (Pa)
b
= soil-geosynthetic interaction stress below geosynthetic (Pa)
xy
= shear stress component (Pa)

GI v8n1 Paper2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GI v8n1 Paper2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL 2001, VOL. 8, NO.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen