Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DOI 10.1007/s40098-013-0053-7
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 18 January 2013 / Accepted: 18 March 2013 / Published online: 28 March 2013
Indian Geotechnical Society 2013
G. M. Latha (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore 560012, India
e-mail: madhavi@civil.iisc.ernet.in
A. Somwanshi
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd., Pune, India
e-mail: amitbs84@gmail.com
K. H. Reddy
Wipro Limited, Bangalore, India
e-mail: hariprasad.reddy@wipro.com
Introduction
Design of shallow foundations requires calculation of
bearing capacity and settlements. Bearing capacity depends
on the strength of the soil and the settlements depend on the
compressibility of the soil. Reinforcing the soils with geosynthetics is beneficial because it has the advantages of both
decreasing the settlements and increasing the bearing
capacity. It is the pioneering work of Binquet and Lee [4]
that marked the beginning of systematic research in the field
of reinforced earth beds. Subsequently many researchers
have reported the beneficial effects of using soil reinforcement on the performance improvement of shallow foundations [1, 7].
Optimum quantity of reinforcement and the position,
form and configuration of the reinforcement play vital role
in finding cost-effective solutions for most of the geotechnical engineering problems involving reinforced soils.
A number of researchers have presented the theoretical
analyses for determining the bearing capacity of shallow
foundations on reinforced soil. Some of the important
studies in this area are: Binquet and Lee [5], Huang and
Tatsuoka [9], Huang and Menq [8], Wayne et al. [20],
Kumar and Saran [10], Michalowski [14], Kumar and
123
332
Model Studies
Laboratory model plate load tests were conducted on sand
beds prepared in a steel test tank with inside dimensions
900 9 900 9 600 mm. The model footing was 25 mm
thick rigid steel plate and measured 150 9 150 mm, square
in shape. Poorly graded sand is used in the tests and the
average unit weight and relative density of the sand were
kept uniform as 15.6 kN/m3 and 70 % respectively in all
model tests. Four types of geogrids were used to reinforce
the sand beds: Weak biaxial geogrid (WG), Strong biaxial
geogrid (SG), Uniaxial geogrid (UG), and geonet (GN).
The tensile properties of these geosynthetics were determined from standard multi-rib tension test [2] and are listed
in Table 1. Since these tests are model tests, strength and
stiffness of the geogrid have to be scaled down to represent
the field conditions. The reason for using GN is to scale
down the tensile strength of the reinforcing layer for the
model tests as weaker geogrids are not fabricated. Weaker
biaxial geogrid has secant modulus almost one third of the
strong biaxial geogrid, representing low stiffness and GN
has ultimate tensile strength five times less than that of
stronger geogrid, representing low strength.
SG
UG
GN
20
40
40
7.6
18
17
13
2.4
160
450
434
220
530
380
139
35 9 35
30 9 30
220 9 17.2
1.5 9 1.5
123
333
foundation) is relatively large, failure occurs in the reinforced zone as shown in Fig. 2.
Chen [6] discussed two different reinforcing mechanisms: horizontal confinement effect and tension membrane effect. Only horizontal confinement effect is
discussed here as this type of reinforcing mechanism most
likely controls the performance of the reinforced sandy soil
used in the present study. To include the contribution of
reinforcement, the method of superposition can be used and
an additional item DqT is then added to classical bearing
capacity formula for strip footing on unreinforced soil. The
bearing capacity formula now takes the following form:
quR cNc qNq 0:5cBNc DqT
Based on the stability analysis of reinforced soil foundations, an expression is derived to determine the increased
bearing capacity (DqT) due to the insertion of two or more
layers of reinforcement. For strip footings, the increased
bearing capacity DqT can be calculated as:
DqT
N
X
4Ti u i 1h
i1
B2
123
334
u i 1h
p /
tan
rT 1 2
B
4 2
B
p /
B
p /
for u i 1h tan
;
2
4 2
123
7
8
9
10
12
Lbc B
13
Lad B z
14
eavg
11
15
16
335
C2 1;
First layer:
Lab
Lbc B 150 mm
Lad B z 150 120 270 mm
Lab Lbc Lcd Lad
Lad
61:43 150 61:43 270
1:06 %
270
eavg
C3 1
q q
Lab Lcd S2e z=22 13:22 120=22
61:43 mm
u
tanp=4/=2
Bu
2
u2
emax 1:73 %
q q
Lab Lcd S2e z=22 5:92 180=22
90:19 mm
q q
Lcd S2e z=22 23:462 60=22
38:08 mm
Lbc B 150 mm
Lbc B 150 mm
Average strain:
eavg
210
Lad
7:69 %
330
eavg
u
tanp=4/=2
Bu
2
u2
emax 0:234 %
Second layer:
Table 2 Comparison of
ultimate bearing capacities of
reinforced sand beds observed
in model tests with the values
predicted using Chen [6]
S. no.
Reinforcement
type
B (m)
u/B = h/B
Ultimate bearing
capacity qu(R) (kPa)
(measured)
Ultimate bearing
capacity qu(R) (kPa)
(calculated)
Error (%)
WG
0.15
0.67
540
378
30.0
WG
0.15
0.67
441
378
14.3
UG
0.15
0.67
405
526
29.9
SG
0.15
0.67
585
509
13.0
GN
0.15
0.4
675
554
17.9
GN
0.15
0.5
630
479
24.0
7
8
GN
GN
0.15
0.15
0.67
1.0
3
2
495
405
451
300
8.88
25.9
GN
0.15
0.67
459
451
1.7
123
336
Table 3 Calculation of settlement for all the layers of reinforcement as per Chen [6]
Dz (mm)
Es (kPa)
z (mm)
Ie
IeDz/Es
60
3,000
90
1.9
0.038
60
3,000
150
1.35
0.027
60
3,000
210
0.82
0.0164
60
3,000
270
0.27
0.0054
60
3,000
330
0.0868
60
3,000
150
1.35
0.027
60
3,000
210
0.82
0.0164
60
3,000
270
0.27
0.0054
60
R
3,000
330
0
0.0488
60
3,000
210
0.82
60
3,000
270
0.27
0.0054
60
3,000
330
0.0164
0.0218
60
3,000
270
0.27
60
3,000
330
0.0054
0
0.0218
DqT
h
i
ui1h
n 12Tiu i 1h 1 2
tan p4 /2
X
B
B2
i1
280 kPa
For third layer:
Hf
B
ecosp=4/=2 tan / cos / 0:202 m
2 cosp=4 /=2
DqT
n 12Tiu i 1h
X
i1
Step 4
B2
1
2
i
ui1h
2Hf
4 kPa
123
337
T2 5:47 kN/m;
T3 0:74 kN/m
d 44
4ca sa d
2Df Ks ss tan /t
2ct d2 1
quR qb
B
d
B
n
P
4 Ti sT tan d
ct d 955 kPa
i1
B
Ks 20;
ca 0;
18
19
123
338
Table 4 Comparison of
ultimate bearing capacities
of reinforced sand beds
observed in model tests with the
values predicted using
Wayne et al. [20]
Ultimate bearing
capacity qu(R) (kPa)
(calculated)
Error (%)
S.no.
Reinforcement
Type
B (m)
u/B = h/B
Ultimate bearing
capacity qu(R) (kPa)
(measured)
WG
0.15
0.67
540
998
WG
0.15
0.67
441
718
62.8
UG
0.15
0.67
405
1,163
187.2
SG
0.15
0.67
585
1,144
95.6
GN
0.15
0.4
675
955
41.5
GN
0.15
0.5
630
855
35.7
7
8
GN
GN
0.15
0.15
0.67
1.0
3
2
495
405
802
655
62.0
61.7
GN
0.15
0.67
459
1,081
135.5
84.8
123
DB 2 d tan a 0:1 m
Step 3
Ultimate bearing
Error (%)
Ultimate bearing
capacity qu(R) (kPa) capacity qu(R) (kPa)
(measured)
(calculated)
WG
0.15
0.67
4 5.93 540
744
37.8
2
3
WG
UG
0.15
0.15
0.67
0.67
3 5.93 441
4 5.93 405
502
959
13.8
136.8
SG
0.15
0.67
4 5.93 585
759
29.7
GN
0.15
0.4
5 5.93 675
1127
67.0
GN
0.15
0.5
4 5.93 630
926
47.0
GN
0.15
0.67
3 5.93 495
586
18.4
GN
0.15
1.0
2 5.93 405
-74
118.2
GN
0.15
0.67
4 5.93 459
828
80.4
10
GN
0.15
0.5
4 5.0
586
900
53.6
11
GN
0.15
0.5
4 4.0
540
871
61.3
339
Regression Model
Regression analysis is a statistical technique used to
examine the relationship between a dependent variable and
a set of independent variables. In multiple linear regression
analysis, it is hypothesized that this relationship is linear
and has the following form:
yi b0 b1 xi1 b2 xi2 bk xik ei ;
20
N
X
21
k1
The critical values for the AndersonDarling goodnessof-fit test are dependent on the specific distribution that is
being tested. The test statistic can then be compared against
SSE
n
X
i1
SSR
n
X
i1
SSE
mean square due to error
nk1
SSR
mean square due to regression
MSR
k
MSE
22
123
340
Sum of
squares
Mean
square
SSR
MSR
MSR/
MSE
MSE
Error
n-k-1
SSE
Total
n-1
SST
where SEb^j is the standard error of the regression coeffi^ , and cjj is diagonal element of (X0 X)-1 correcientb
j
^.
sponding tob
j
23
^
^
b
b
j
j
p ;
SEb^j
cjj MSE
123
25
341
b
h
0:135
0:628
B
B
B
J
Aa
0:0794N 0:0855
3:91
100kN/m
Af
s
27
To determine the effectiveness of the entire model,
significance test for the overall model is performed.
Table 7 presents the results of ANOVA calculations.
SSR
70:9 %
SST
p
s MSE 0:237063
R2 value explains how good the regression model is.
71 % of the linear variation in BCR is being explained by
the factors that are considered in the analysis. The data
used for regression analysis is obtained from laboratory
model tests, in which 100 % repeatability cannot be
guaranteed. The materials involved, methods of sample
preparation and manual testing would impose certain limitations on the results and hence R2 value[70 is reasonable
for this case.
The null hypothesis is rejected because p value is\0.05.
This suggests that at least one of the independent variables
is linearly related to the dependent variable. To determine
the independent variables with linear relation, significance
tests for individual regression coefficients are then conducted. The results of these significance tests are summarized in Table 8. The null hypothesis is rejected because
p value is \0.05 for all the factors. This means that all
R2
123
342
Sum of
squares
Mean
square
7.8200
1.3033
23.19 0.000
0.0562
Error
57
3.2033
Total
63
11.0233
Regression coefficient
SE
p-value
VIF
u/B
-0.6275
0.1834
0.001
2.068
0.07939
0.03472
0.026
2.172
b/B
0.13498
0.03369
0.000
3.609
J/100 kPa
0.08854
0.03697
0.020
3.034
1.060
0.000
2.786
0.5656
0.000
1.023
Aa/Af
s/B
-3.914
4.6157
Table 9 Verification of regression model for experimental data from Chen [6]
Test no.
SGG11-1
Reinforcement configuration
N = 1, BasXgrid11
u/B = h/B
b/B
J/100 kN/m
Aa/Af
@ s/B = 3 %
@ s/B = 12 %
BCR (exp)
BCR (exp)
BCR (reg)
BCR (reg)
0.167
10
2.68
0.0357
1.30
2.37
2.67
2.79
SGG11-2
0.33
10
2.68
0.0357
1.33
2.27
2.7
2.68
SGG11-3
0.5
10
2.68
0.0357
1.16
2.16
1.06
2.58
SGG11-4
0.667
10
2.68
0.0357
1.1
2.05
0.94
2.47
SGG11-5
1.0
10
2.68
0.0357
1.04
1.84
0.86
2.26
SGG31-1
N = 1,
0.2
10
0.8
0.0238
1.36
2.11
2.51
2.53
SGG31-2
2 9 Miragrid 8XT
0.3
10
0.8
0.0238
1.39
2.05
2.49
2.46
SGG31-3
0.4
10
0.8
0.0238
1.32
1.99
SGG31-4
0.5
10
0.8
0.0238
1.20
1.92
1.89
2.34
SGG12
BasXgrid11
SGG13
SGG14
exp experimental, reg regression
123
0.33
10
2.68
0.0357
1.5
2.35
2.76
2.76
3
4
0.33
0.33
10
10
2.68
2.68
0.0357
0.0357
1.57
1.63
2.43
2.51
2.79
2.95
2.84
2.92
343
References
1. Akinmusuru JO, Akinbolade JA (1981) Stability of loaded footings on reinforced soil. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE
107(6):819827
2. ASTM Standard D 6637 (2001) Standard test method for determining tensile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib
tensile method. American Society for Testing and Materials,
Pennsylvania
3. Ber AK, Ghosh A, Ghosh A (2005) Regression model for bearing
capacity of a square footing on reinforced pond ash. Geotext
Geomembr 23(3):261285
4. Binquet J, Lee KL (1975) Bearing capacity tests on reinforced
earth slabs. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 101(12):12411255
5. Binquet J, Lee KL (1975) Bearing capacity analysis on reinforced
earth slabs. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 101(12):12571276
6. Chen Q (2008) An experimental study on characteristics and
behaviour of reinforced soil foundation. PhD thesis, Louisiana
State University, Louisiana
7. Fragaszy RJ, Lawton E (1984) Bearing capacity of reinforced
sand subgrades. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE 110(10):15001507
8. Huang CC, Menq FY (1997) Deep-footing and wide-slab effects
in reinforced sandy ground. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
123(1):3036
9. Huang CC, Tatsuoka F (1990) Bearing capacity of reinforced
horizontal sandy ground. Geotext Geomembr 9(1):5182
10. Kumar A, Saran S (2003) Closely spaced footings on geogrid
reinforced sand. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE
129(7):660664
11. Kumar A, Walia BS (2006) Bearing capacity of square footings
on reinforced layered soil. J Geotech Geol Eng 24:10011008
12. Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square
footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr
27:281294
13. Meyerhof GG, Hanna AM (1978) Ultimate bearing capacity of
foundations on layered soils under inclined load. Can Geotech J
15(4):565572
14. Michalowski RL (2004) Limit loads on reinforced foundation
soils. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130:381390
15. Minitab Inc (2007) Meet Minitab 15. Reference manual for
Minitab 15. State College PA
16. Schmertmann JH, Hartman JP, Brown PR (1978) Improved strain
influence factor diagrams. J Geotech Eng Div ASCE
104(8):11311135
17. Sharma R, Chen Q, Abu-Farsakh M, Yoon S (2009) Analytical
modeling of geogrid reinforced soil foundation. Geotext Geomembr 27:6372
18. Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some
comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 69:730737
19. Valsangkar AJ, Meyerhof GG (1979) Experimental study of
punching coefficients and shape factor for two-layered soils. Can
Geotech J 16(4):802805
20. Wayne MH, Han J, Akins K (1998) The design of geosynthetic
reinforced foundations. In: Proceedings of ASCEs 1998 annual
convention & exposition ASCE GSP 76, pp 118
123