Global J. of Engg. & Appl.

Sciences, 2012: 2 (1)

Research Paper: Sharma et al., 2012: Pp.37-40

COMPARISON OF INCREASE IN E FOR SAND CUSHION WITH SINGLE LAYER AND DOUBLE LAYER OF
GEOTEXTILES
Sharma, V.J., Vasanvala, S.A and C.H.Solanki
Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat-395007
Corresponding author: nitk.vijay@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In the system of composite piled raft, the short piles made of flexible materials are used to strengthen the
shallow soft soil, while the long piles made of relatively rigid materials are used to reduce the settlements
and the cushion beneath the raft is used to redistribute and adjust the stress ratio of piles to sub soil. In this
paper modulus of elasticity of sand cushion have been increased. An experimental test is developed to study
the improvement in E of sand cushion with inclusion of reinforcement. The reinforcement used is geotextile.
First E of unreinforced sand is determined which is compared with E obtained after inclusion of single layer
and double layer of geotextiles simultaneously . For single layer of geotextile the increase in E for geotextile
of minimum tensile strength was 195% where as 360% for geotextile of higher tensile strength with respect
to unreinforced E. Similarly for double layer of geotextile the increase in E was found to be around 300%
for lower tensile strength geotextile and 595% for higher tensile strength geotextile.
Keywords: Composite piled Raft, Geotextile, Modulus of elasticity, LVDT.
INTRODUCTION
In the system of composite piled raft, the short piles
made of flexible materials were used to strengthen
the shallow soft soil, while the long piles made of
relatively rigid materials were used to reduce the
settlements and the cushion beneath the raft was
used to redistribute and adjust the stress ratio of
piles to subsoil. The behavior of composite piled
raft foundation depends on modulus of elasticity
and Poissons ratio of cushion. As Poissons ratio
has not much effect, modulus of elasticity E of
cushion effects significantly the behavior of
composite piled raft foundation. The modulus of
elasticity of cushion can be improved by inclusion
of reinforcement. Various researchers had carried
out work in this field. Mandal and Sah (1992)
carried out experimental work using geogrid on
clay soil and found out that Maximum bearing
capacity ratio is about 1.36 at u/B=0.175 and
reduction in settlement below the compacted
and saturated clay is about 45% and it occurs
at a distance of 0.25 B from the base of the
square
foundation. Yetimoglu et al., (1994)
reinforced
sand
using
geogrid
adopting
experimental method and concluded that
embedment depth was approximately 0.3 of the
footing width for single layer reinforcement and
0.25 approximately for multilayer reinforcement.
Optimum vertical spacing between reinforcements
was in the range of 0.2B to 0.4B. Alawaji (2001)
carried out experimental work on collapsible soil
and sand by reinforcing it with geogird and
concluded that there is significant difference in the
structural contribution of the tested geogrid which
range from 95% reduction in settlement, to 2000%
increase in elastic modulus and 320% increase in
bearing capacity, the efficiency of the sand-geogrid
system increased with increasing geogrid width and
decreasing geogrid depth. For efficient and
economical reinforcement of sand pad over
collapsible soil, geogrid width of four times the

diameter of loaded area (D) and depth of 0.1D are

recommended. Hataf et al.,(2004) carried out
experimental work using geogrid anchors in well
graded sand .The results showed that By using the
grid-anchor system, the amount of dimensionless
settlement needed to reach its constant value
decreases up to 17% relative to ordinary
reinforcements and up to 50% relative to an
unreinforcedcondition, depending on the number of
reinforcement layers and the percent of applied
load. Also, by using the grid-anchor system, the
number of loading cycles to reach a constant value
of dimensionless settlement decreases up to 33%
relative to ordinary reinforcements and up to 57%
relative to an unreinforcedcondition depending on
the number of reinforcement layers and the percent
of applied load. Frankowska Krystyna (2007)
carried out analytical work on soft subgrade soil
using geosynthetics and developed a theoretical
model which can be used to predict subgrade
reaction for settlements greater than approximately
U0.2-0.3 (/2B). Sharma et al., (2008) used
analytical method to develop new bearing capacity
formulas that incorporate the contribution of
reinforcements to increase in bearing capacity for
both reinforced sand and silty clay soil foundations
based on the proposed failure mechanisms. This
paper emphasizes on the experimental method
adopted to check the improvement of E with
inclusion of single layer
and double layer of
geotextile in sand cushion .Geotextiles of three
different strength were taken and improvement in
E for reinforced sand is compared with E of
unreinforced sand.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:
Experimental work was done on general river sand
which has to be used as cushion material under raft
in composite piled raft foundation. Geotextile
reinforcement is used below the base of the plunger

Global Journal Engineering and Applied Sciences - ISSN 2249-2631(online): 2249-2623(Print) - Rising Research Journal Publication

37

Global J. of Engg. & Appl. Sciences, 2012: 2 (1)

at predetermined depth to improve the modulus of
elasticity of sand cushion Model tank was fabricated
from mild steel having dimensions mentioned
below. All dimensions are inner dimensions. Figure
1. Show a clear picture of test assembly, Piston type
mechanism was attached below the gear-pulley to
move the load-cell mechanism at a constant strain
rate 1.2 mm/min. A load cell of 2 ton is applied
during the whole test. The plunger used for the test
(50mm diameter) was cylindrical shaped. A gear
pulley system with reaction-frame was used to
penetrate the plunger into the sand cushion .A
nominal surcharge of about 14.3 kg (480mmX
480mm) with 53mm diameter hole at the centre
was placed on the top of cushion to counter any
heaving of sand cushion during penetration of
plunger. The sand was placed in the test tank using
the free fall technique for 16.5 kN/m3 density. The
soil was leveled and compacted to the proper depth.
For 16.5 kN/m3 density = 42.9 kg sand was
required to fill 10 cm depth. Three Polypropylene
woven geotextiles of different tensile strengths
were used. Table .1 given below shows properties
of geotextiles used (Table 1). Sieve analysis was
carried out from which particle size distribution
curve (figure 2) was obtained and soil was
classified as SP ie. Poorerly graded sand with
maximum dry density 19.2 kN/m3 and minimum
dry density 15.2 kN/m3.
First sand bed of thickness 300mm was prepared
using free fall technique for 16.5 kN/m3 density.
Surchage plate is kepth on the top of sand bed
surface to encounter heaving of top sand surface
while loading. Plate is placed in the center so that it
edges as well as edges of central hole made in it
does not come in contact with box side wall and
plunger boundary surface respectively during load
application to avoid in friction to come into
picture. The penetration of plunger was carried out
by hand operated jack. A load cell was used to
measure the load transferred to the plunger. The
load was applied at constant strain rate of 1.25
mm/min. The readings for load applied to plunger
for corresponding 0.5mm, 1mm, 1.5mm, 2mm,
2.5mm, 3mm, 4mm, 5mm, 7.5mm, 10mm, and
12.5mm penetrations were noted. The penetration
of plunger and surface deformation of cushion
through LVDT attached at one side of plunger.
First reading for unreinforced sand cushion is
taken. Afterwards geotextiles of different strengths
are placed at depth of 0.6*D (diameter of plunger)
from point of load application simultaneously. First
geotextile of lower tensile strength followed by
intermediate strength and finally higher tensile
strength. Similarly for double layer first a layer of
geotextile is placed at depth of 0.6*D (diameter
of plunger) from point of load application followed
by another layer at spacing of 30mm from first
geotextile layer ( approximately 2/3 *Diameter of
plunger).All three sets of geotextiles are placed in
same fashion simultaneously i.e. first geotextile of

lower tensile strength followed by intermediate

strength and finally higher tensile strength.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As discussed in the method, the experiment was
carried out in three phases. First phase includes
determination of modulus of elasticity of sand
cushion without reinforcement. Second phase
involve determination of E for singly reinforced
sand cushion and third phase where double layer of
geotextiles has been incorporated in sand cushion.
Readings were taken for penetration of plunger
through LVDT and load on plunger through load
cell. Various graphs are plotted between load vs
penetration from which E is calculated for each
case. E is calculated for 5mm settlement in all the
cases. Finally a graph between tensile strength of
geotextiles and Modulus of elasticity of reinforced
sand is plotted which give clear picture of
improvement in E of sand cushion with increase in
tensile strengths of geotextile. Fig 3 and 4 shows
improvement in modulus of elasticity E for single
layer and double layer geotextile. Finally a graph
of Ereinforcedsand/Eunreinforced sand vs tensile strength of
geotextiles(fig.5) is plotted below which indicates
asymtotic behaviour.
CONCLUSIONS
From the above experimental work carried out on
sand cushion of composite piled raft foundation
following conclusions were drawn: 1. Modulus of
elasticity of sand cushion can be improved
experimentally by inclusion of geotextile of
different strength.The increase in modulus of
elasticity with increase in geotextile strength shows
asymptotic behaviour i.e. after reaching the peak it
decreases slightly and then becomes constant. Thus
there is no improvement in E with further increase
in tensile strength of geotextile. 2. The experimental
method adopted to find improvement in modulus of
elasticity of reinforced sand cushion can be usedly
widely and thoroughly. For single layer of geotextile
the increase in E for geotextile of minimum tensile
strength was 195% where as 360% for geotextile
of higher tensile strength .Similarly for double
layer of geotextile the increase in E was found to
be around 300% for lower tensile strength
geotextile and 595% for higher tensile strength
geotextile. 3. As per availability of sand at site
modulus of elasticity can improved with inclusion
of geotextile. Also if cushion material is rarely
available or costly, its thickness can be reduced and
desired E can be obtained with reinforcing it by
adopting above procedure. 4. The geotextile should
be located at depth of 0.6B from point of load
application and spacing between two layers of
geotextile should be kept nearly same.
Acknowledgement: The author would like to
thank M/S Garware Ropes Ltd for providing
geotextile products to carry out the experimental
work. Special appreciation is expressed towards
Dr. M.D. Desai (Retd.HOD Applied Mechanics

Global Journal Engineering and Applied Sciences - ISSN 2249-2631(online): 2249-2623(Print) - Rising Research Journal Publication

38

Global J. of Engg. & Appl. Sciences, 2012: 2 (1)

Department ,SVNIT) for sharing his knowledge and
experience which has proved as guidance for the
present work
REFERENCES
Alawaji H.A. 2001, Settlement and bearing capacity
of geogrid-reinforced sand over collapsible
soil, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19 (16):
75-88.
Frankowska Krystyna, K. 2007. Influence of
geosynthetic reinforcement on load -settlement
characteristics of two- layer subgrade.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25:366376.
Hataf N., Boushehrian A.H. and A. Ghahramani.
2004. Experimental and numerical behaviour

of Shallow Foundations on Sand reinforced

with geogrid and grid Anchor Under cyclic
loading, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23
(11): 144-173.
Mandal and Sah, 1992. Bearing capacity tests on
geogrid - reinforced clay, Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 27 (23): 176-182.
Sharma Radhey, Chen Qiming , Murad Abu- Farsakh,
Yoon Sungmin, 2009. Analytical modeling of
geogrid reinforced soil foundation, Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 27 (6): 63-72.
Yetimoglu et al., 1994, Bearing capacity of
rectangular footing on geogrid reinforced
sand., Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (19):
217-226.

Figure 1. Schematic views of the test apparatus

Figure 2. Particle size distribution curve

Particle size distridution curve

150
100
%Finer
50
0
0.01

0.1

10

Particle size D mm

Figure 3: Graph for single layers of geotextiles placed simultaneously at 0.6D from point of load application

Single layer of GT
6000
E of reinforced 4000
sand
2000
KN/m2
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Single layer of GT

Tensile strength of GT
in KN/m

Global Journal Engineering and Applied Sciences - ISSN 2249-2631(online): 2249-2623(Print) - Rising Research Journal Publication

39

Global J. of Engg. & Appl. Sciences, 2012: 2 (1)

Figure 4: Graph for double layers of geotextiles placed simultaneously at 0.6D from point of load application
and spacing of 0.6D between geotextile layers.

Double layer of GT
E of reinforced
sand
KN/m2

10000
5000
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Double layer of GT

Tensile strength of GT
in KN/m
Figure 5: Comparison of E between single layer and double layer of geotextiles

Ratio
Ereinforced
sand to Eunreinforced
sand

8
6
4
2
0

For single laye GT

For double layer GT
0

20

40

60

80

100

Tensile strength of

Table1.Mechnical properties of various geotextiles used for experimental work

PROPERTY

TEST METHOD
SEPC.
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES GWF 26-130

Tensile strength

WARP
WEFT

Tensile strength

WARP
WEFT

Tensile strength

WARP
WEFT

RESULTS

IS 1969

28 g /m 2
26 g /m2
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES GWF 40-220
IS 1969
55 g /m2
40 g /m2
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES GWF 80-350
IS 1969
80 g /m2
78 g /m2

33
29
65
44
94
96

Table 2. Summary of particle size distribution test on sand

Sr. No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Test
D10
D30
D60
Gravel (%)
Sand (%)
Clay and silt (%)
Sieve analysis

8
9
10
11
12
13

IS classification
Specific gravity test
Free swell index
Maximum dry density (kN/m 3)
Minimum dry density (kN/m 3)
Relative density Dr =

Result
0.275
0.640
1.163
0
98.24
1.76
Cu = 4.229
Cc = 1.28
SP
2.65
0
19.2
15.2
x 100

32.5

****************

Global Journal Engineering and Applied Sciences - ISSN 2249-2631(online): 2249-2623(Print) - Rising Research Journal Publication

40