1 views

Uploaded by Asad Hafudh

labjack manual

save

- Case Histories Secugrid and Combigrid
- TensarTech Stratum
- Hydrodynamic Processes Afecting Benthic Recruitment
- Design of Bolo Tunnels - Parte-1
- Geosynthetics in Civil Engineering
- Geo Synthetics
- Boos reading 4.pdf
- Faults and Earthquakes.pptx
- Indianrailways by Arun Shrivastava & Rajesh Agarwal
- 1934e Mhm Prlo+Eprint
- Duncan
- Articol d Citit
- Eps 108 Project Outline
- Geosynthetics in Landfills.pdf
- GEOTEXTILES
- Construction Method of Seismic Isolation
- Biology and many other topics
- Bilham 2003 India In Trap Late Quakes
- These Earthquakes Occurred in the Wee Hours When
- EARTHQUAKE.doc
- SBE 12 143(Seismic Analysis)
- WCEE2012_0124
- TANJA-UNESKO-RDM-11-10-11
- Seismic Analysis of Rcc Framed Structures by Static (1)
- eda59ac8-9ad5-4ee8-81fc-45db562ef544 car legal natural hazard disclosure statement
- lec2
- Earthquake
- BDM.pdf
- Art_Seismic Behavior of Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures.pdf
- Shear Force and Shear Stress
- air modeling.pdf
- crank.PDF
- Motor rod
- 31591_01.pdf
- technical english for engineers.pdf
- EN1997_2_Schuppener.pdf
- vadose modeling.pdf
- Crank
- FLAXIS-°³¿ä.pdf
- cariar
- Air Modeling
- Pluviator main.PDF
- syllabus.pdf
- Retaining_Wall_Design_Example.pdf
- Engineering Use of Geotextiles.pdf
- Frame
- TS-0067-F1 - DT85
- aluminum slider details.PDF
- DT85G
- TS-0059-F1 - DT80
- Install Guide
- TS-0071-F1 - DT80G
- Apache 2.0 License - English
- TS-0059-F1 - DT80.pdf
- install_guide.pdf
- Pully Details
- Apache 2.0 License - English.pdf
- UPX 1.0 license - English.pdf
- Iso
- DS7 Manual

You are on page 1of 167

**Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research
**

University of Technology

Building and Construction Engineering Department

**Influence of Geogrid Reinforced Earth in Transfer of
**

Dynamic Loading to the Tunnels

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

By

Mohammad Saham Ismaiel

B.Sc. (Building and Construction Eng., 2013)

Supervised by

Prof. Dr. Mohammad Y. Fattah Assist. Prof. Dr. Nahla M. Salim

**May 2015 Shaaban 1436
**

بِسْمِ اللًِ الرَّحْمهِ الرَّحِيمِ

*وأَن َّليْس ِلإلِوسانِ إِالَّ ما سعي* وأَنَّ سعْيًُ

ســـــوْف يُـــــرى* ثُمَّ ُيجْزايُ الجزاءَ األَوْفَي*

صدق اللًُ العظيم

الىجم ()14-93

To

MY FAMILY

MY FRIENDS

Acknowledgment

Many thanks and praise are due first of all and above all, to my Creator,

Almighty ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Gracious, and the Most

Merciful, Who gave me the ability and the desire to complete this work

despite all the hurdles and constraints in the way of its completion.

**First and foremost, my deepest thanks are presented to Prof Dr.
**

Mohammad Y. Fattah and Assist. Prof. Dr. Nahla Mohamed Salim who

have been the ideal thesis supervisors. Their sage advice, insightful

criticisms, patient encouragement, and great efforts to explain things

clearly, aided in the writing of this thesis in innumerable ways. So, I feel

deeply indebted and grateful to them.

**Thank also extend to Mr. Mohammad Faiq Asswd Ph.D. student to
**

help me in the use of the dynamic load apparatus.

**Appreciation and thanks are also extended to Dr. Zeena Waleed for
**

providing me with her own geogrid reinforcement.

**Profuse thanks are due to the staff of soil mechanics laboratory in the
**

University of Technology.

**Thank also extend to Mr. Khaldoon Satee Ahmed, Ali Malik and
**

Ahmed shamil M. Sc. students for helping me during the Master degree

stages.

**My gratitude is extended to all those who have helped me during the
**

preparation of this work.

**Finally, I would like to express my love and appreciation to my family
**

and all my friends who encouraged me, no word can express my gratitude

to them.

**Mohammad Saham Ismaiel
**

2015

ABSTRACT

Underground facilities are an integral part of the infrastructure of

modern society and are used for a wide range of applications, including

subways and railways, highways, material storage, and sewage and water

transport. Underground facilities built in areas subject to dynamic activity

must withstand both dynamic and static loading.

The stability of underground excavations are affected by its shape,

size of opening, in situ stress, soil conditions etc. Even though the shape of

the opening mainly depends on the purpose for which it is to be used, the

safe design and construction of an underground opening requires the

knowledge of the stress distribution and the displacements that occurs in

and around the openings.

This study focuses on the effect of the geogrid in transfer of the

dynamic load to the underground structure. The underground structure was

simulate as a PVC pipe inside the soil. In order to investigate the response

of soil, footing and underground tunnel to dynamic loading, a physical

model was manufactured. The manufactured physical model could be used

to simulate the application of dynamic loading.

**The total number of the tests carried out is 58 models. Two models
**

were tested under static load with two relative densities (40% and 80%).

All the other 56 model tests were tested under dynamic load which

represent two series were carried out using two relative densities (40% and

80%) corresponding to loose and dense sand, respectively. All the 56 dry

sand models were subjected to dynamic load with two load amplitudes

corresponding to (0.5 ton and 1 ton) using two frequencies 1 and 2 Hz for

each load amplitude. For each amplitudes and frequency of the load, the

sand models were tested without geogrid and with geogrid of two widths

(1B and 2B) where B is the width of the footing. In addition, three series of

I

geogrid depths from the model surface (0.5B, 1B and 1.5B) were carried

out.

The dynamic load was applied in the tests by hydraulic jack system.

The response of the tunnel to dynamic loading includes measuring the

pressure above the crown of the tunnel by using pressure cell

(manufactured by Geokon company) as well as measuring the amplitude of

displacement by using a vibration meter. The response of footing was

elaborated by measuring the total settlement by using sensors in the

dynamic load apparatus.

It was found the pressure above the crown of tunnel decreased by about

(13-65) % when using geogrid reinforcement and this percentages different

according to the intensity of dynamic load and geogrid states and soil

density. Also, the pressure above the crown of the tunnel increases with

increase of load amplitude and frequency while the pressure decreases

when the relative density increase.

It was found the settlement decreased by about (13-45) % when using

geogrid reinforcement in loose sand and this percentages is different

according to the intensity of dynamic load and geogrid states, while, the

settlement has no effect when using the geogrid in dense sand. Also, the

settlement increased when the load amplitude and frequency increased

while, the settlement decreased when the relative density of the sand

increased.

II

CONTENTS

Item

Subject Page

No.

ABSTRACT I

CONTENTS III

LIST OF FIGURES VII

LIST OF TABLES XIV

LIST OF PLATES XV

LIST OF APPENDICES XVI

NOTATIONS XVII

Chapter One

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General 1

1.2 Important Problems in the Design of Tunnel 2

1.3 Objective of the Study 3

1.4 Thesis Layout 3

Chapter Two

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 Dynamic Loads 5

2.2.1 Types of dynamic load 6

2.3 Dynamic Soil Properties 6

2.4 T Behavior of Soil under Dynamic Loading 8

2.5 R Machinery Foundation 9

2.5.1 I Types of machinery foundations 10

2.5.2 R Types of machines 10

III

Item

Subject Page

No.

2.5.3 O Methods of analysis of machinery foundation 11

2.5.4 Factors effecting machine foundation design 12

2.5.5 Vibration criteria 14

2.5.6 Permissible limits of amplitude 14

2.6 Geosynthetics 15

2.7 Underground Structures 16

2.7.1 Construction 16

2.7.2 Stress on tunnel wall 18

2.7.3 Loading on underground structure 18

2.7.4 Soil arching 19

**Previous Studies Related to Dynamic Response of
**

2.8 19

Tunnels

2.9 Summary 33

Chapter Three

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

3.1 Introduction 34

3.2 Testing Program 34

3.3 Material Used and Soil Characterization 36

3.3.1 The soil 36

3.3.1.1 Soil characterization 37

3.3.2 PVC pipe 38

3.3.3 Geogrid reinforcement 39

3.4 Model design and devices 40

3.4.1 Loading steel frame 42

IV

Item

Subject Page

No.

3.4.2 Axial loading system 42

3.4.3 Model footing 44

3.4.4 Data acquisition 45

3.4.5 Shaft encoder 46

3.4.6 Steel container 48

3.4.7 Earth pressure cell and readout 49

3.4.8 Vibration meter 50

3.5 Sand Deposit Preparation 52

3.6 Static Loading Test 55

3.7 Dynamic Loading Test 55

Chapter Four

PRESENTAION AND DISCUSSION OF TEST

RESULTS

4.1 Introduction 57

4.2 Model Test Results under Static Load 57

4.3 Model Test Results under Dynamic Load 59

4.3.1 Effect of depth of the reinforcement 59

4.3.2 Effect of width of the reinforcement 66

4.3.3 Effect of load amplitude 71

4.3.4 Effect of load frequency 78

4.3.5 Effect of soil density 92

4.3.6 Results of the amplitude displacement of tunnel 96

4.4 Summary of Test Results 97

V

Item

Subject Page

No.

Effect of depth of reinforcement on the vertical

4.4.1 97

pressure

Effect of depth of reinforcement on the surface

4.4.2 99

settlement

Effect of width of reinforcement on the vertical

4.4.3 101

pressure

Effect of width of reinforcement on the surface

4.4.4 102

settlement

Comparison of Dynamic Load pressure transmitted

4.5 to tunnel with the ultimate bearing capacity of the 104

surface footing

Chapter Five

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 General 107

5.2 Conclusions 107

5.3 Recommendations 109

References 111

VI

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title

No.

Page

(2.1) Types of dynamic load ( Aguiar, 2008). 6

(2.2) Common types of machine foundations (Rao, 2011). 10

Schematic representation of the test setup (after Tafreshi ,

(2.3)

and Khalaj, 2007).

21

Variation of the maximum ΔD with the number of

(2.4) reinforcement layer for H/D = (a) 1.5, (b) 2.5, (d) 3. (after 21

Tafreshi , and Khalaj, 2007).

Influence of geogrid on vertical and horizontal strain (after

(2.5)

Ilamparuthi 2008 ).

23

Schematic representation of the test setup (Not to scale)

used in the experiments of Mehrjardi . “A, B location of

(2.6)

soil pressure cells and strain gauges; C location of soil

29

pressure cell” (after Mehrjardi et al. 2012 ).

(2.7) Sketch of test setup adopted by Hegde (2014). 32

Pressure and strain above the pipe.(a) vertical pressure (b)

(2.8)

strain (after Hedge, 2014).

32

(3.1) Flow chart of the testing program . 35

(3.2) Grain size distribution of the used soil. 37

(3.3) Loading steel frame. 43

(3.4) Dynamic load wave. 56

(4.1) Static tests result at different relative densities. 58

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.2) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 61

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.3) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 61

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.4) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 61

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.5) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 62

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.6) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 62

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.7) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 62

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

VII

Figure Title

No.

Page

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.8) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 64

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.9) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 64

and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5

(4.10) ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 65

1.5 B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.11) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 65

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.12) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 65

and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.13) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 66

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.14) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 67

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.15) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 68

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.16) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 68

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.17) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 68

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.18) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 69

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.19) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 69

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.20) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 70

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.21) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 70

and b= 2 B).

VIII

Figure Title

No.

Page

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.22) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 70

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.23) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 72

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.24) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 72

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.25) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 72

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.26) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 73

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.27) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 73

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.28) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 73

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.29) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 74

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.30) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 74

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.31) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 74

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.32) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 75

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.33) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 75

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.34) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 75

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.35) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 76

B and b= 1 B).

IX

Figure Title

No.

Page

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.36) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 77

and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.37) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 77

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.38) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 77

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.39) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 78

and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.40) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 78

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.41) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 79

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.42) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 80

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.43) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 80

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.44) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 80

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.45) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 81

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.46) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 81

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.47) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 81

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.48) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 82

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.49) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 82

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

X

Figure Title

No.

Page

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.50) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 82

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.51) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 83

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.52) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 83

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.53) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 83

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.54) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 84

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.55) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 84

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.56) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 84

and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.57) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 85

and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.58) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without 85

and with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.59) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 85

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.60) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 86

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.61) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 86

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.62) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 86

with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.63) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 87

with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 2B).

XI

Figure Title

Page

No.

Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown

(4.64) with time for a =1 ton, w =2 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and 87

with geogrid (d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.65) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 88

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.66) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 88

and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.67) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 89

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.68) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 89

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.69) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 89

and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.70) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 90

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.71) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 90

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.72) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 90

and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.73) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 91

B and b= 1 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.74) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 91

B and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.75) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 91

and b= 2 B).

Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,

(4.76) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 92

B and b= 2 B).

displacement of the tunnel with time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1

(4.77) Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and 97

b= 1 B).

XII

Figure Title

Page

No.

displacement of the tunnel crown with time for a =0.5 ton,

(4.78) w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 97

B and b= 1 B).

Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel

(4.79)

crown and (d/B) ratio for b = 1B

98

Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel

(4.80)

crown and (d/B) ratio for b = 2B

99

Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio

(4.81)

for b= 1B

100

Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio

(4.82)

for b= 2B

100

Relationship between the vertical pressure and (b/B) ratio

(4.83)

for d= 0.5B

101

Relationship between the vertical pressure and (b/B) ratio

(4.84)

for d= 1B

102

Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio

(4.85)

for d= 0.5B

103

Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio

(4.86)

for d= 1B

103

XIII

LIST OF PLATES

Plate

Title Page

No.

(2.1) Geocell. 16

(2.2) Geogrid reinforcement. 16

(3.1) PVC pipe. 38

(3.2) Geogrid used. 40

(3.3) General view of the apparatus. 41

(3.4) The upper and lower faces of steel plate. 43

(3.5) Hydraulic jack. 44

(3.6) The hydraulic control system. 44

(3.7) Strip footing. 45

(3.8) PLC (Programmable Logic Controller ) unit. 47

(3.9) The shaft encoder. 47

(3.10) Steel container. 48

(3.11) Pressure cell. 49

(3.12) Pressure cell readout. 50

(3.13) Vibration meter. 51

(3.14) Vibration meter prope place on tunnel crown. 51

(3.15) Stages of the preparation of the test model. 53

(3.16) Application of static load. 55

XV

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Title Page

No.

(3.1) Physical properties of sand used. 36

(3.2) Engineering properties of geogrid used. 39

(3.3) Technical specification of pressure cell (GEOKON company) 50

(3.4) Different states of sand used. 52

(4.1) Bearing capacity of strip footing over sandy soil 59

(4.2) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for loose sand 93

(4.3) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for dense sand 94

**(4.4) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose 95
**

sand layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 1 ton.

(4.5) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose 96

sand layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 0.5 ton.

(4.6) The ratio between Qd max and Qs for loose sand 104

(4.7) The ratio between Qd max and Qs for dense sand 105

XIV

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix

Title Page

Item

A Additional Results

Results of Variation of Surface Settlement with Time in

A-1 A-1

Dense Sand

Results of Variation of Amplitude of Vibration with

A-2 A-9

Time for Loose and Dense Sand

XVI

NOTATIONS

Symbol Definition

ASTM American society for testing and materials

b Width of reinforcement

B Width of footing

BE Boundary element method

c Cohesion of soil

Cc Coefficient of curvature

Cu Coefficient of uniformity

D Diameter of the pipe

d Depth of geogrid

Df Depth of the footing

DD Damping ratio

Dr Relative density

FE Finite element method

G Dynamic shear modulus

H Depth of geocell

Hz Hertz (cycle/sec).

k0 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure

ky Wave number

LCD Liquid crystal display

Nc, Nq, Nγ Bearing capacity factors which depend on φ

PLC Programmable Logic Controller.

PPV Peak particle velocity

Pu Measured pressure value

PUR Peak uplift resistance

PVC Poly Vinyl Chloride

q Applied vertical stress

Qd max Maximum pressure transmitted to the tunnel

Qult Ultimate bearing capacity.

SSS Settlement of soil surface

t Time

T Load period

U.V Ultraviolet

USCS Unified soil classification system.

Vs Shear wave velocity

Z Depth of the pipe

XVII

Symbol Definition

γ Unit weight of the soil

ΔD Vertical diameter change

ν Poisson’s ratio

φ Angle of soil internal friction.

Frequency of load

n Natural frequency of the soil-foundation system

r Operating frequency of the machine

Amplitude of load

XVIII

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

In process design, the stability of tunnels and other underground

structures under the influence of seismic waves and dynamic load is one of

the important issues that should be studied carefully. Although seismic

waves are not the only cause of earthquakes, however, earthquakes are the

most known source of seismic waves. In addition, the movement of trains

in underground tunnels, the operation of machinery on ground surface and

many other activities as such produce seismic waves that if to be neglected,

may cause different damages such as subsidence. Such damages not only

result in an increase in costs, but also remain to be a source of danger to the

human lives.

In the past, it has always been assumed that earthquakes have no major

effect on tunnels, however the study of tunnel behaviors on seismic loads

and also the damage of these structures, emphasize the necessity of the

stability study under dynamic loading generated by earthquake (Williams,

1997).

Nowadays, the development in industry introduced huge machines

which have a great influence on the performance of the foundations and the

soil underneath and produces another type of vibration load.

Essentially in this, the engineer has to study the problems of shocks and

vibrations on the foundations supporting industrial installations, as well as

the laws governing the propagation of waves from these foundations

through the soil (Rao, 2011).

Problems in dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI) are characterized

by a system consisting of a structure, which rests on or embedded in a soil

region of unbounded extent, and is subjected to a specified time-varying

load. Dynamic analysis of (SSI) refers to how soil deformations affect the

1

Chapter One Introduction

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

motions of buildings being subjected to a dynamic loading (Park and Antin,

2003).

Geosynthetics are very durable polymeric products being used in

different civil engineering applications in order to provide strength,

stability, and durability. Use of geosynthetic materials has become more

and more common in the past 40 years for a number of applications and

they have the potential to reduce the cost of maintenance by increasing the

design life. Geosynthetics could be categorized into seven different

products as follows: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, geomembrances,

geosynthetics clay liners, geofoam, and geocell.

This thesis will address itself to the influence of geogrid reinforced dry

sand in transfer of dynamic loading to underground structure.

**1.2 Important Problems in the Design of Tunnels
**

Rapid growth in urban development has resulted in an increased demand

for the construction of water supply, sewage disposal and transportation

systems. Tunnels are an essential component of these systems and

constitute a major portion of project expenditure. Recent advances in

tunneling technology reduce construction time with consequent decrease in

cost. However, even with modern equipment, experience has shown that

designing of tunnels must include dealing with three important problems

(Al-Damluji et al., 2006):

1. Maintaining stability of face and wall of the tunnel before supported

by lining.

2. Predicting displacements caused by excavation of the tunnel on the

surface and throughout the adjacent ground mass.

3. Predicting the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure acting on

the tunnel. So, there is an urgent need for reliable means to estimate

2

Chapter One Introduction

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

the extent and nature of the movements and disturbance occurring in

areas above and adjacent to tunnels. These deformations may

significantly affect nearby structures and need to be considered

during design.

The state of stress and the displacements in an influence zone around a

tunnel will be modified by the construction of a tunnel. The size of this

influence zone depends on the type and properties of soil, in situ stresses,

tunnel depth and size, the tunnel support system, and tunneling method.

**1.3 Objectives of the Study
**

The main objectives of this study are:

1. Investigating the influence of geogrid reinforced earth in transfer of

dynamic loading to the tunnels.

2. Investigating the displacement that occur above underground

structures especially tunnels due to dynamic loads induced by the

above structures.

3. Determination of the optimum depth and width of geogrid

reinforcement in different densities of sandy soils.

4. Investigating the influence of geogrid on the surface settlement that

occurs due to dynamic loading.

1.4 Thesis Layout

The skeleton of the present thesis is divided into five chapters as follows

after the introduction chapter:

Chapter two: Presents a literature review of the currently accepted

understanding of dry reinforced soil behavior under dynamic loads.

Chapter three: Presents full details of the experimental work including the

testing program, full design of the complete setup for the model tests and

testing procedures.

3

Chapter One Introduction

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Chapter four: Presents analysis and discussion of the test results obtained

from the model tests.

Chapter five: Summarizes the main conclusions from this work and the

recommendations for the future works.

4

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

The behavior of underground structures is usually complicated in

comparison with super structures; this is mainly due to the soil-structure

interaction, which in many cases can hardly be predicted.

Among the underground structures, lifelines are of great importance and

sensitivity because they are quite spread in the urban areas and serve the

vital needs of the societies. Although different codes and provisions are

suggested for the safe design of lifelines, the designed and constructed

lifelines could not escape damaging when subjected to severe dynamic

loadings particularly strong blasts or earthquakes.

This chapter presents a brief review of important literatures that have

concern with the main objectives of this study. Other literature related to

some topics will implicitly be mentioned when these topics will be

discussed.

2.2 Dynamic Loads

The loading may be characterized as dynamic when it varies in time,

value and / or direction (Aguiar, 2008). The main causes of these loads on

soils, foundations and structures are due to one of the following (Banerjee

and Butterfield, 1987):

1. Machine foundation vibration,

2. Pile –driving including settlement and vibration,

3. Traffic and rail induced vibration,

4. Densification by vibration or impact loads,

5. Wave induced oscillation of offshore structures,

6. Effect of explosions,

7. Earthquake.

5

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2.2.1 Types of dynamic load

Dynamic loads can be classified to (Aguiar, 2008):

1. Periodic loading, there is repetition in regular time intervals; the

operation of rotational machines (machine foundation) is a typical

case of periodic loading.

2. Random loading, the load variation presents no regularity, the waves

in offshore structures is a typical case of random loading.

3. Impulse loading, is the case where loading is applied in one single

time (pile driving). Impulse takes place in impact loads much like in

protectors used in the anchoring of ships. Also impact can be induced

by vehicle traffic on bridges.

Figure (2.1) represents the types of dynamic loads.

Figure (2.1): Types of dynamic load (Aguiar, 2008).

**2.3 Soil Dynamic Properties
**

Soil dynamics deals with engineering properties and behavior of soil

under dynamic loads. For the dynamic analysis, soil properties such as

shear wave velocity, dynamic shear modulus, damping of soil and

Poisson‟s ratio are generally required.

6

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

1. Shear wave velocity (Vs): is the most commonly measured

parameter in shallow soil geophysics for soil characterization. The

importance in its utility is that the particle of motion travels

perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation being able to

measure the shear properties of the soil skeleton and not the fluids

that cannot take shear (Luna and Jadi, 2000).

2. Dynamic shear modulus (G): is the most important parameter

influencing the dynamic behavior of the soil-foundation system.

Several methods are available for obtaining dynamic shear modules

such as field measurement of stress wave velocity in place soils, and

laboratory test on soil samples correlation to other soil properties

(Luna and Jadi, 2000).

3. Damping ratio (DD): Damping is a phenomenon of energy

dissipation that opposes free vibrations of a system. Like the

restoring forces, the damping forces oppose the motion, but the

energy dissipated through damping cannot be recovered. A

characteristic feature of damping forces is that they lag the

displacement and are out of phase with the motion. Damping of soil

includes two types, geometric and material damping. Material or

hysteretic damping defined as energy dissipates within the soil test

due to imperfect elasticity of real materials. The amount of dissipated

energy depends on strain (displacement) but is essentially

independent of frequency. While geometric, or radiation damping

defined as the loss of energy through propagation of elastic waves

and it is depend on the poisson's ratio, mass of the foundation and

soil density (Das and Ramana, 2011).

4. Poisson’s ratio (ν): is the ratio of the strain in the direction

perpendicular to loading to the strain in the direction of loading, and

it is used to calculate both the soil stiffness and damping. Poisson‟s

ratio can be computed from the measured values of wave velocities

7

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

traveling through the soil. Generally, Poisson‟s ratio varies from 0.25

to 0.35 for cohesionless soils and from 0.35 to 0.45 for cohesive soils

(Bowles, 1996).

**2.4 Behavior of Soil under Dynamic Loading
**

The soil response under dynamic loads is different from that of static loads,

because it is of significant importance for the stability of structures. Many

researchers stated that the stress-strain behavior of soil is usually found to

be hysteretic and non-linear. In addition, the response of the soil to

dynamic loading depends mainly on the level of stress that induces

dynamic strains as well as the type of the soil. So the real behavior of soils

in general may be elasto-plastic, it provides better estimations of

displacement when subjected to its working load.

**The type of the soil affects its response under dynamic loading
**

conditions. The most significant factors separating different types of soils

are the grain size distribution. Well graded materials are less susceptible to

losing strength under dynamic loading, on the other hand uniform soils are

more susceptible to losing strength under dynamic loading.

Loose, uniform soil is especially subjected to collapse and failure.

Loose soil may densify under vibrating loading and causes permanent

settlement.

The presence of fines in the soil, especially clays inhibits the

dissipation of excess pore water pressure. It also decreases the tendency for

liquefaction, as well as degree of saturation of soil system plays role in this

connection.

When the soil is saturated, a transient dynamic loading will usually

last for a very short duration. The duration is so short that the soil response

is essentially undrained. It is also important to know whether the dynamic

loading is a transient phenomenon, such as a blast loading or earthquake, or

8

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

is a long term phenomenon, like a vibratory loading from rotating

machinery. The distinction is important because a transient dynamic

phenomenon occurs so rapidly that excess pore pressure does not have time

to dissipate. Dissipation of pore water is possible only in the case of very

coarse, clean gravels. In this context, the length of the drainage path is also

important. Even a clean, granular material may retain large excess pore

pressure if the drainage path is so long that the pressures cannot dissipate

during the dynamic loading consequently (MIL-HDBK, 1997).

Dynamic loading may produce a wide range of deformations of soils.

In intermediate range, soil deformations vary from small amplitude near

elastic to plastic following earthquakes; water waves and machine develop

forces in problems that involve dynamic loading of soils. There are two

important parameters; the first is the strain levels induced in the soil, below

the order 10-5. The deformation exhibited by most soils is purely elastic and

recoverable. The phenomena associated with such small strains would be

small amplitude vibration or wave propagation through soils. Over the

intermediate range of strain between 10 -4 and 10-2, the behavior of soils is

elasto-plastic and produces irrecoverable permanent deformations

(Daghigh, 1993). The second dynamic parameter for the soil is the

damping.

2.5 Machinery Foundations

Machinery foundations are one of the most important features of industrial

developments. In both developed and developing countries, growth of

economy is largely attributed to development of industry and infrastructure

facilities.

**Roesset and Jose, (2009) stated that the design of foundations to support
**

heavy machinery was first recognized in the 1920, giving rise to the field of

soil dynamics.

9

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2.5.1 Types of machinery foundations

The foundations supporting machines are classified according to different

bases. However, the most popular types of machine foundations fall within

the following categories and explained in Figure (2.2) (Rao, 2011):

Block foundations resting on soil or piles.

Frame foundations.

Wall foundations.

Spring mounted machines resting on rafts/grade slabs.

2.5.2 Types of machines

**Machines are classified as follows (Srinivasulu and Vaidyanathan, 1977,
**

Arya et al., 1979, Bhatia, 2009 and Azadi and Soltani, 2010):

1- Based on the type of motions:

Rotary machine.

Reciprocating machines.

Impact type machines.

2- Based on the operating speed:

** Very low speed machine (operating at speed up to 100 rpm).
**

Low speed machine (operating at speed 100 to 1500 rpm).

Medium speed machine (operating at speed 1500 to 3000 rpm).

High speed machine (operating at speed 3000 rpm and above).

**Figure (2.2): Common types of machine foundations (Rao, 2011).
**

10

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2.5.3 Methods of analysis of machinery foundations

**A physical system is represented by mathematical model with the basic
**

objective that mathematical model should be compatible with the

prototype. For each mathematical representation, hosts of assumptions and

approximations are made. The extent of the complexity introduced in

mathematical model directly influences the reliability of results. In a broad

sense, mathematical representation not only depends upon machine, soil,

and foundation parameters but also depends upon analysis tools (Bhatia,

2009).

**The theory of analyzing the forced vibrations of shallow and deep
**

foundations has advanced remarkably in lately and has currently reached a

mature state of development. Modern methods for analysis of foundation

vibration attempt to rational account for the dynamic interaction between

the foundation and the supporting soil deposit. This attempt is highly

influenced by the available tools of solving such complex problems.

**Satisfactory design of foundations for vibrating equipment is based
**

on amplitude of displacement considerations. Displacement due to

vibratory loading can be classified under two major divisions that are cyclic

and permanent displacement (Das, 1983).

**A number of different methods have been developed over the years
**

for computing the dynamic response of soil-foundation systems. The key to

the solution of such problems is to compute the matrix of dynamic

impedance functions that relate steady-state forces and displacements at the

base of a foundation-soil system. Such a system is identical to the actual

one, except that the mass of the structure and the foundation is set equal to

zero. Once the harmonic response of such a massless but rigid foundation

has been determined, the response of a massive foundation or of any

11

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

supported structure can be readily evaluated (Banerjee and Butterfield,

1987). Some of the methods for the foundation vibration analysis are:

1- Lumped mass-parameter system method.

2- Richart and Whitman (1967).

**2.5.4 Factors affecting machine foundation design
**

Every foundation must be analyzed for strength and stability. Machine

foundation must satisfy certain requirements that make it adequate. Using

the machine, soil and foundation parameters, the amplitude of vibration is

computed at machine and foundation level. Besides all these factors,

foundation must be designed and analyzed for its strength and durability to

withstand applicable static and dynamic forces. The following requirements

are regarded as typical parameters for design of machine foundation

system:

1. Settlement and bearing capacity of soils

As in the static design of foundation, the machine foundations must

satisfy all settlement and shear failure criteria. Among these criteria

are (Rao, 2011):

Settlements should be within permissible limits.

Foundation block should be structurally adequate to carry the

loads.

2. Foundation type

The most common types of machine foundations are block

foundation and frame foundation. The block type is usually used for

supporting all types of machines (rotary, impact and reciprocating

machines). The frame foundation is used for supporting turbo

generators, turbo compressors and other machine types whose

mechanical system requires frame type (Bhatia, 2009).

12

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3. Foundation material

The most common material used for machine foundation is the

reinforced concrete. In specific cases, structural steel has also been

used for frame foundations. However, the material properties

required for foundation design and analysis are mass density,

dynamic shear modulus, static elastic modulus, and Poisson's ratio.

Other material parameters may be needed for analysis using specific

analysis model and available computer software.

4. Compatibility in geometry between foundation and machine

The geometry of the foundation as well as machine type plays a

great role in the analysis and design of the machine-foundation

system. For this reason, many parameters and limitations should be

taken into consideration in the analysis and design of such system.

These limitations are listed below (Barkan, 1962, Srinivasulu and

Vaidyanathan, 1977, Arya et al., 1979, Das, 1983 and Bhatia, 2009):

Center of gravity: The combined center of gravity of machine

and foundation and the center of contact area (with the soil)

should lie on the same vertical line as far as possible.

Eccentricity: The eccentricity should not exceed 5 percent of

the least width in any horizontal direction.

Area of the block: The size of a foundation should be larger

than the bedplate of the machine it supports with a minimum

all-round clearance of 150mm.

Foundation mass ratio: It is the ratio of the mass of

foundation to that of machine. This ratio is of different values

depending on the machine type. For rotary machine, the mass

ratio of 2.5-4.0 is generally considered appropriate. For

reciprocating machine, the mass ratio is always high and may

reach 8.0.

13

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2.5.5 Vibration criteria

**It is always required that the operating frequency should be smaller than
**

the natural frequency of the foundation-soil system. Resonance should not

occur. The design criterion on frequency can be written as:

Prakash, (1981) and Rao, (2011)

Bhatia, (2009)

where:

r is the operating frequency of the machine, and

n is the natural frequency of the soil-foundation system.

**In the theoretical analysis of machine foundations, these criteria are
**

taken as a guide for performing modal analysis of dynamic soil-structure

interaction.

2.5.6 Permissible limits of amplitude

**One of the dynamic problems of foundation is the machinery
**

foundations. The design of a machinery foundation should be such that it

leads to a safe and economical foundation satisfying the requirements of

machinery and structural criteria. The vibrations of machine foundations

induce elastic waves in soil as it generates low strains. The criteria for

design of machine foundations require that the vibration amplitude should

not exceed a given value. Therefore, the machine foundation design

requires a systematic use of principles of soil engineering, soil dynamics,

and theory of vibration (Mandal and Baidya, 2003).

**The amplitudes of displacement or velocity or acceleration of the
**

machine foundation should be within permissible limits. The permissible

limits are depending upon the operating frequency of the machine as well

14

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

as soil type and characteristics. In no case should the permissible amplitude

exceed the limiting amplitude prescribed for the machine by the

manufacturer.

**In fixing the permissible amplitude, consideration should also be
**

given to machine and structures in the neighborhood and the possibility of

resonance or disturbance. From the data available so far, it appears that

vibrations in neighboring structures will be negligible if the vibration of the

foundation is less than 0.20 mm. For machine generating translation and

torsion, the combined amplitudes should be estimated (Prakash, 1981).

**It is very important to explain that the failure of the vibrating
**

foundations is reached when the motion exceeds a limiting value, which is

usually expressed as velocity or acceleration of the foundation. For steady

state vibration, these may be also expressed in terms of an allowable

displacement at specified frequencies.

2.6 Geosynthetics

Geosynthetics are very durable polymeric products being used in

different civil engineering applications in order to provide strength,

stability, and durability. Use of geosynthetic materials has become more

and more common in the past 40 years for a number of applications and

they have the potential to reduce the cost of maintenance by increasing the

design life. Geosynthetics could be categorized into eight different products

as follows: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, geomembranes, geosynthetic

clay liners, geofoam, and geocells. Geocells are three-dimensional

honeycomb shape product made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE).

Examples of geocells are shown in Plate (2.1)

15

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Plate (2.1) : Geocell reinforcement.
**

Geogrids as shown in the Plate (2.2) are a flexible polymeric product,

consisting of sets of parallel tensile ribs used in civil engineering for their

major five functions: separation, reinforcement, filtration, drainage, and

containment (Koerner et al. , 1998).

**The primary potential advantage of geogrids is to increase the bearing
**

capacity of soft soil.

Plate (2.2) : Geogrid reinforcement.

2.7 Underground Tunnel

2.7.1 Construction

**The method chosen to construct a tunnel is dependent firstly on the
**

ground conditions expected on site and secondly on other considerations

such as the availability of plant, time and cost constraints and other

construction considerations. Tunnelling in hard rock is generally

undertaken by drill and blast, road headers, tunnel boring machines or a

16

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

combination of methods followed by the installation of tunnel support

such as rock bolts, steel sets or concrete lining.

The construction of tunnels in soft clay and loose sand was historically

achieved by hand excavation using shovels and picks with openings

supported temporarily by timber and later lined with masonry. Collapses of

tunnel excavations are frequent, however, prompting the invention of the

protective tunneling shield, patented by Marc Brunelin 1820. Brunel‟s

rectangular faced shield was used during the construction of the first

Thames Tunnel between 1825 and 1843 with excavation carried out by

hand within the shield followed by the erection of a brick lining

(Sandstrom, 1963). Peter Barlow patented a cylindrical tunneling shield in

1865 which was used to construct a foot tunnel under the Thames at Tower

Hill in 1869 using bolted cast iron lining instead of masonry, against which

the shield was jacked forward. Permanent linings currently used in shield

tunneling include precast concrete segments, steel or cast iron segments,

cast insitu concrete or reinforced shotcrete (Potts and Zdravkovic, 2001).

Tunneling shields can be divided into two general categories: open and

closed shields.

Another tunneling method now used in urban tunneling projects,

including the Heathrow Express rail tunnel (New and Bowers, 1994),

involves the use of a sprayed concrete lining known as the New Austrian

Tunneling Method, it came to prominence under von Rabcewicz during the

construction of the Schwaikheim Tunnel in 1964. The first use of the

method in soft ground in an urban area was in 1968 in Frankfurt am Main,

Germany (Sauer, 1988). The process involves the excavation of a section of

tunnel followed by the application of concrete (or other temporary support)

to the excavated surface before the installation of a permanent lining. Such

lining is usually a second application of reinforced concrete (or permanent

rock bolts for a hard ground tunnel). For large diameter excavations, the

17

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

advance is usually undertaken by using headings and side drifts to limit the

size of the open excavation face (Potts and Zdravkovic, 2001).

2.7.2 Stresses on tunnel wall

The three principal stresses in a cylindrical tunnel are; the stress

acting in a direction parallel to the axis of the tunnel barrel, is termed the

longitudinal stress, the stress acting in the circumferential direction, is

called the circumferential or tangential stress and the stress acting in the

radial direction and varying through the thickness of the tunnel wall, is

termed the radial stress.

**For thin walled tunnel, where the ratio of the mean radius of the tunnel
**

and the thickness of the tunnel wall is more than 10 the longitudinal stress

and tangential stress are practically uniform throughout the thickness of the

wall and are the only important ones present, the radial stresses are usually

negligibly small (Young, 1989).

**2.7.3 Loading on underground structures
**

underground structures are generally designed to withstand construction

loads, dead loads due to any surrounding fill materials plus the weight of

the structure itself, and any traffic loadings that may be imposed upon it

during its lifetime. The loads on underground structures are as follows

ACPA (2009):

1- Earth load.

2- Surcharge loads.

3- Fluid load.

4- Wheel loading (live load).

• The most important potential loads acting on underground structures

are earth/rock pressures and water pressure.

• Live loads due to vehicle traffic on the surface can be safely

neglected, unless the tunnel is a cut and cover type with a very small

depth of overburden.

18

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

It may be generally stated, that the dimensioning of tunnel sections must

be affected either against the overburden weight (geostatic pressure).

2.7.4 Soil arching

Arching in soil occurs due to stress transfer in a tunneling problem

from moving parts of the soil (settle more) to adjacent parts (settle less)

that can be achieved by considering the vertical stress redistribution in the

soil mass above the spring line (Salim, 2006).

Terzaghi, (1943), explained how stress transfer from yielding parts

of a soil mass to adjacent non-yielding parts leads to the formation of an

arching zone. This problem has two modes of displacement, depending on

whether the trap door is translated into the soil (passive mode) or away

from it (active mode). The passive mode can be used for the evaluation of

the uplift force of anchors, or of any buried structure that can be idealized

as an anchor. The active mode can be used to study the gravitational flow

of granular material between vertical walls (the silo problem) or the ground

pressure on tunnel liners (Lee et al., 2006).

Handy, (1985), studied the soil arching action and concluded that it

develops in two stages, the first involves rotation of the principal stresses

adjacent to rough wall and causes wall pressure to significantly exceed

those from classical theory. The second stage reduces pressures on the

lower wall to give a curvilinear distribution typically centered at a height

0.42 times the height of the wall. He substituted a catenary's arch

describing the path of minor principal stress, which is complementary to

structural arch, and dips downward instead of upward if supportive.

**2.8 Previous Studies Related to Dynamic Response of Tunnels
**

Xiaoyan et al. (2000) studied the seismic analysis of tunnel surrounded by

soft soil in Shanghai by 2 Dimensional dynamic finite element analysis and

19

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

found that the maximum pore water pressure ratio in soil occurs near the

top of the tunnel and it almost has no effect on the tunnel. Using different

depths of input, base boundary will affect the results of dynamic analysis of

the tunnel. The response values with the depth of 280 m of input base

boundary are larger than that with the depth of 50 m of input base

boundary. Using different input motions will also affect the results of

dynamic analysis of the tunnel. Using Tangshan earthquake and Lotung

earthquake record as input motion will get relatively larger response values

of dynamic analysis of the tunnel.

Tafreshi, and Khalaj, (2007) described laboratory tests on small-

diameter high-density polyethylene pipes buried in reinforced sand with

geocell subjected to repeated loads to simulate the vehicle loads. Figure

(2.3) shows the physical model test. The amplitude of applied stress was

5.5 kg/cm2 in all tests. Deformation of the pipe was recorded at eight points

on the circumference of the tested pipes to measure the radial deformations

of the pipe. Also, settlement of the soil surface was measured throughout

the test for up to 1000 cycles of loading. These values increased rapidly

during the initial loading cycles; thereafter the rate of deformation reduced

significantly as the number of cycles increased. The variables examined in

the testing program included relative density of the sand, number of

reinforced layers, and embedment depth of the pipe. The influence of

various reinforced layers at relative densities of 42%, 57%, and 72% in

different embedded depths of 1.5–3 times of pipe diameter were

investigated. The results showed that the percent vertical diameter change

(ΔD) and settlement of soil surface (SSS) can be reduced up to 56% and

65% for ΔD and SSS, respectively, by using geogrid reinforcement, and

increase the safety of embedded pipes. Also, the efficiency of

reinforcement was decreased by increasing the number of reinforcement,

the relative density of soil and the embedded depth of the pipe as shown in

Figure (2.4) . The influence of the first cycle was also found to be one of

20

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

the main behavioral characteristics of buried pipes under repeated loads.

The ratio of deformation of the pipe from the first cycle to the last cycle

changes from 0.5 to 0.9 in different tests. It should be noted that only one

type of pipe, one type of geogrid, and one type of sand are used in

laboratory tests.

Figu

re (2.3): Schematic representation of the test setup adopted by Tafreshi ,

and Khalaj, (2007).

**Figure (2.4): Variation of the maximum ΔD (strain of the pipe) with the
**

number of reinforcement layers for H/D = (a) 1.5, (b) 2.5, (c) 2.5, (d) 3

(after Tafreshi , and Khalaj, 2007).

21

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Tafreshi et al. (2007) studied artificial neural network and regression

model for predicting the vertical deformation of high-density polyethylene

pipes. Small diameter flexible pipes buried in reinforced trenches, which

were subjected to repeated loadings to simulate the heavy vehicle loads

were proposed. The experimental data from tests showed that the vertical

diametric strain (ΔD) of pipe embedded in reinforced sand depends on

relative density of sand, number of reinforced layers and height of

embedment depth of pipe significantly. Therefore, the value of ΔD was

related to the above pointed parameters. A database of 72 experiments from

laboratory tests were utilized to train, validate and test the developed neural

network and regression model. The results showed that the predicted

vertical diametric strain (ΔD) using the trained neural network and

regression model are in good agreement with the experimental results but

the predictions obtained from the neural network are better than regression

model as the maximum percentage of error for training data is less than

1.56% and 27.4%, for neural network and regression model, respectively.

Also the additional set of 24 data was used for validation of the model as

90% of predicted results have less than 7% and 21.5% error for neural

network and regression model, respectively. A parametric study was

conducted using the trained neural network to study the important

parameters on the vertical diametric strain.

Ilamparuthi and Rajkumar (2008) studied the experimental

investigation conducted on flexible PVC pipes buried in loose and dense

conditions of sand bed and subjected to surface pressures. The response of

the pipes was studied with and without geogrid reinforcement. It was

observed that the incorporation of geogrid reinforcement resulted in

significant decrease in the crown deflection of the pipe and offered better

protection to the pipe at shallow burial depths . Figure (2.5) shows the

influence of geogrid on the deflection of the pipe.

22

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (2.5): Influence of geogrid on vertical and horizontal strain (after
**

Ilamparuthi and Rajkumar, 2008 ).

**Fattah et al. (2008, 2015) investigated the validity of using
**

transmitting boundaries in dynamic analysis of soil-tunnel interaction

problems. As a case study, the proposed Baghdad metro line was

considered. The information about the dimensions and material properties

of the concrete tunnel and the surrounding soil were obtained from a

previous study. A parametric study was carried out to investigate the effect

of several parameters including the peak value of the horizontal component

of earthquake displacement records, and the modulus of elasticity of the

soil surrounding the tunnel.

**Both the computer program (Mod-MIXDYN) and (ANSYS) software
**

were used for the analysis. The program « Mod-MIXDYN » is a finite

element code modified in this study by adding a 5-noded mapped infinite

element. The results are compared for three cases, the first case presents the

problem with finite boundaries (traditional boundaries), the second case

simulates the problem with infinite boundaries using infinite elements (5-

node mapped infinite element) presented by Selvadurai and, Karpurapu in

1988, and redefined in this study. Finally, the third case simulates the

infinite boundaries using viscous boundaries (dash-pot elements) as

23

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

adopted in the program ANSYS. It was concluded that the viscous

boundaries are more effective in absorbing the waves resulting from

dynamic loads than mapped infinite elements. This is clear when

comparing the results of both types with those of transient infinite

elements.

**The problem of the proposed “Baghdad metro line” which consists of
**

two routes of 32 km long and 36 stations was also analyzed by Fattah et al.

(2011). The tunnel is circular in cross-section with a 5.9 m outer diameter.

The finite element analyses were carried out using elastic-plastic and

modified Cam clay models for the soil. The excavation has been used

together with transient effects through a fully coupled Biot formulation. All

these models and the excavation technique together with Biot consolidation

were implemented into finite-element computer program named “Modf-

CRISP” developed for the purpose of these analyses. The results indicated

that there is an inward movement at the crown and this movement is

restricted to four and half tunnel diameters. A limited movement can be

noticed at spring line which reaches 0.05% of tunnel diameter, while there

is a heave at the region below the invert, which reaches its maximum value

of about 0.14% of the diameter and is also restricted to a region extending

to 1.5 diameters. The effect of using reduced k0 zone on excess pore water

pressure and surface settlement (vertical and horizontal) was also

considered and it was found that the excess pore water pressure increases

while the settlement trough becomes deeper and narrower using reduced

k0.

**Surface settlements of soil due to tunneling are caused by stress relief
**

and subsidence due to movement of support by excavation. There are

significant discrepancies between empirical solutions to predict surface

settlement trough because of different interpretations and database

collection by different authors. The shape of settlement trough caused by

24

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

tunneling in cohesive ground was investigated by Fattah et al. (2013) using

different approaches, namely analytical solutions, empirical solutions, and

numerical solutions by the finite element method. The width of settlement

trough was obtained by the finite element method through establishing the

change in the slope of the computed settlement profile. The finite element

elastic-plastic analysis gives better predictions than the linear elastic model

with satisfactory estimate for the displacement magnitude and slightly

overestimated width of the surface settlement trough. The finite element

method over predicted the settlement trough width if compared with the

results of Peck for soft and stiff clay, but there is an excellent agreement

with Rankin‟s estimation. The results showed that there is a good

agreement between the complex variable analysis for Z/D = 1.5, while

using Z/D = 2 and 3, the curve diverges in the region far away from the

center of the tunnel.

**Gupta et al. (2009) performed a parametric study to identify the key
**

parameters which have an important influence on the generation and

propagation of vibrations from underground railways. The parameters

related to the tunnel and the soil are considered and their influence on the

free field response was studied. The coupled periodic finite element-

boundary element model and the pipe-in-pipe model have been used. Both

models account for the dynamic interaction between the train, the track, the

tunnel and the soil. A general analytical formulation is used to compute the

response of three-dimensional invariant or periodic media that are excited

by moving loads. The response to moving loads was written in terms of the

axle loads and the transfer functions. The parametric study can be carried

out by separately analyzing the variations in the axle loads and the transfer

functions. The axle loads are mainly influenced by the parameters related

to the vehicle and the track, while the transfer functions are influenced by

the properties of the track, the tunnel and the soil. It was observed that the

25

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

material damping and the shear modulus of the soil have an important

influence on the propagation of vibrations. The influence of structural

changes to the tunnel as well as geometrical properties such as the size and

shape of the tunnel was investigated. It was observed that a larger tunnel

results in a smaller response above the tunnel as more energy is radiated

downwards. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the tunnel geometry has a

considerable influence on the response closer to the tunnel.

Goltabar and Shekarchi (2010) studied the effects of truck load on the

buried pipeline which were done with numerical and experimental

methods. In numerical method, model is assumed half extreme and length

of them are considered extreme, mathematically. For performing of

numerical method, 3Diamentional models were used in Plaxis-

3Diamentional software. For comparison and checking of results,

experimental model was prepared and with using of electrical strain gages

and computer, results of experimental model were recorded. Results

showed that the experimental and finite element models results are

compatible.

**Hosseini et al. (2010) studied the seismic analysis of horseshoe
**

tunnels under dynamic loads due to earthquakes by a numerical method . It

was found that with applying the dynamic stress by earthquakes, the stress

and displacement in tunnel periphery is increased. Therefore, for tunnel

stability, the support system must be reinforced. However, with the

increasing of thickness or stiffness of the support system, the inertia is

increased and thus the tunnel flexibility is reduced. Consequently, the

effect of the dynamic stress on the tunnel increases. The symmetry of stress

and displacement distribution of tunnel periphery is adversely affected by

the dynamic loading. Based on the direction of the motion of the seismic

wave, displacement on one side of the tunnel is more than that on the other

side; therefore the balance is disrupted and the potential of instability

26

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

increases. Due to increases of the axial force, the bending moment and the

shear-force applied on tunnel by seismic loading, the dynamic analysis and

also static analysis for tunnel stability is required.

Yang et al. (2010) studied the numerical simulation of dynamic

response of operating metro tunnel induced by ground explosion with the

general commercial program ANSYS/LS-DYNA and found that the blast

induced waves propagate in the soil in the form of hemispherical waves.

The numerical simulation results of the peak pressure and the peak

acceleration in the soil are compared with the predictions. The discrepancy

between two results is analyzed. The distribution and magnitude of the

stress field of the tunnel lining are influenced by the tunnel depth and TNT

equivalence. According to the von Mises failure criterion, the upper part of

the tunnel lining, ranging from 0° to 22.5° of the cross-section and the

horizontal distance 0 to 7 m away from the explosive center, is the unstable

area. The metro tunnel at the above-mentioned area maybe fail when the

tunnel depth is 7 m and the TNT equivalence reaches 1 000 kg. In other

words, the metro tunnel in soft soil might be safer when the tunnel depth is

more than 7 m and the TNT charge of ground surface explosion is no more

than 500 kg.

**Gaoxiao (2011) investigated the properties of soil arching under
**

dynamic loads by performing numerical studies using the Discrete Element

Method and model experiments. In the numerical study, the soil was

modeled as particles using the linear contact stiffness model. The influence

of the covering soil thickness and the dynamic loads amplitude were

proposed. The results showed that there is also transfer for the stress

induced by external dynamic load because of soil arching. The thickness of

the covering soil and the amplitude of the dynamic loads have an influence

on the soil arching under dynamic load. With an increase in thickness of

the covering soil, the required time of failure of soil arching increased

27

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

significantly, however, with increase of the amplitude of dynamic loads,

the possibility of failure of soil arch also increase.

**Mehrjardi et al. (2012) investigated the mitigation of strain in buried
**

flexible service pipes and of the settlement of backfill over such pipes by

the use of geocell reinforcement (as 3Diamentional-inclusion

reinforcement) with rubber soil mixtures under repeated loading conditions.

Two rubber sizes (namely chipped and shredded rubbers) were used, three

different percentages of rubber content in the mixture, two positions for

soil rubber mixture inside the trench, four levels of repeated loading and

the addition of geocell reinforcement over the pipe are the variables

considered. Figure (2.6) shows the schematic representation of the test

setup. Soil surface settlement, vertical diametral strain of the pipe (as an

indication of pipe wall deflection) and stress distribution in the trench,

especially on pipe‟s crown, were assessed and evaluated. Using a material

with high resilience, like the rubber soil mixture, could lead to some critical

issues that should be considered. These include the larger settlement of the

soil surface, transfer of a larger pressure into the pipe and, consequentially,

greater pipe wall strain. For the chipped rubber and soil mixture, the pipe

had the highest strains under the cyclic loading irrespective of the amount

of rubber in the soil. However, the shredded rubber and soil mixture,

dependent on the amount of rubber content, is able to reduce the soil

settlement and plastic pipe‟s diametral strain, attenuating the pipe‟s

accumulating strains and, finally, protecting the buried pipe from fatigue

under repeated loadings. This benefit is enhanced by the combined action

of geocell reinforcement over rubber-modified soil. According to the

results, the minimum soil surface settlement and vertical diametric strain

are provided by 5% of shredded rubber soil mixture placed over the pipe

with a geocell, giving values of, respectively, 0.30 and 0.53 times those

obtained in the unreinforced and untreated soil.

28

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (2.6): Schematic representation of the test setup (Not to scale) used
**

in the experiments of Mehrjardi . “A, B location of soil pressure cells and

strain gauges; C location of soil pressure cell” (after Mehrjardi et al. 2012 )

**Bildik, et al. (2012) investigated the buried pipe behavior by the finite
**

element method using the computer program PLAXIS. The undertaken

analyses have been done with different surcharges and different soil

conditions. Based on the results, it was concluded that the intensity of

surcharge load affect the pipe behavior. The pipe displacements increased

linearly with increase in surcharge load. The results showed that the pipe

displacements decrease with increase of embedment ratio. This behavior

can be explained using stress-displacement behavior. The vertical stress

decreases with increase of embedment ratio. The variation of vertical stress

with embedment ratio from the PLAXIS analyses showed generally similar

behavior with Boussinesq's theory. The pipe behavior is strongly

influenced by the relative density of sand. The pipe displacements decrease

with increase on relative density of sand. The results also showed that the

pipe displacements decrease with increase of rigidity of pipe .

29

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Ozdemir et al. (2012) studied the response of pipelines to vibrations

induced by the operation of a pavement breaker during the rehabilitation of

concrete pavements. An efficient two-and-a-half-dimensional

(2.5Diamentionall) formulation was employed, where the geometry of the

structure and the soil was assumed to be invariant in the longitudinal

direction. The dynamic soil–structure interaction problem is solved by

means of a 2.5Diamentional coupled ﬁnite element–boundary element (FE–

BE) method using a subdomain formulation. The numerical model was

veriﬁed by means of results available in the literature for a buried pipeline

subjected to incident P- and SV-waves with an arbitrary angle of incidence.

The presented methodology is capable to incorporate any type of incident

wave ﬁeld induced by earthquakes, construction activities, trafﬁc,

explosions or industrial activities. The risk of damage to a high pressure

steel natural gas pipeline and a concrete sewer pipe due to the operation of

a pavement breaker is assessed by means of the 2.5Diamentional coupled

FE–BE methodology. It was observed that the stresses in the steel pipeline

due to the operation of the pavement breaker are much lower than those

induced by the operating internal pressure. The steel pipeline behaves in

the linear elastic range under the combined effect of the loadings,

indicating that damage to steel pipelines close to the road due to the

operation of a pavement breaker is unlikely. The maximum principal stress

in the concrete pipe, on the other hand, remains only slightly lower than the

speciﬁed tensile strength. The decision to use a pavement breaker should

hence be taken with care, as its operation may induce tensile stresses in

concrete sewer pipes which are of the same order of magnitude as the

tensile strength of the concrete.

**Adil (2014) performed a numerical calculation on interaction
**

between soil and steel pipelines. Properties of the soil and the pipe may

cause significant effects on the movements of buried pipelines. To improve

30

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

the understanding of the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to dynamic

and static loading, different oil and gas pipes have been considered.

Earthquake load of magnitude 5.4 with a time of shaking of 10 sec and

surface loads (50, 100, 150 and 200 kPa) have been used. To simulate

numerically these effects, 2D finite element analysis through the program

PLAXIS was performed. The results were discussed and fitted by

univariate linear and non-linear analysis. Some influential factors such as

soil types (clay, loose and dense sand), soil layers (one, two and three soil

layers), underground water table, static water loads (of height 20 m above

soil), burying depth, pipe diameter and pipe thickness were discussed in

details. Based on the results, it could be concluded that these factors are

important items on pipeline displacement for both static and dynamic loads.

Some significant comparisons and conclusions were drawn.

**Hegde et al. (2014) described the laboratory tests on small diameter
**

PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) pipes buried in unreinforced and geosynthetic

reinforced sand subjected to static loading. Figure (2.7) shows a sketch of

the test setup. The aim of the study was to evaluate the appropriateness of

the combination of geocell and geogrid reinforcement system in protecting

the underground utilities and buried pipelines. A pipe with external

diameter of 75 mm and thickness of 1.4 mm was placed below the footing

at different depths ranging from 1B to 2B (B is the width of the footing).

Commercially available Neoweb geocells and biaxial geogrids were used

as the reinforcements. Results indicated that the use of combination of

geocell and the geogrid reinforcement system considerably reduces the

deformation of the pipe as compared to unreinforced bed. Above 50%

reduction in the pressure and more than 40% reduction in the strain values

were observed in the reinforced bed as compared to the unreinforced bed at

different depths. Conversely, the performance of the foundation bed was

also found to be marginally influenced by the position of the pipe, even in

31

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

the presence of the relatively stiff reinforcement system. Figure (2.8a)

shows the variation of the vertical pressure on the top of the pipe. For

convenience, the measured pressure value (Pu) was normalized with

applied footing pressure (qu). Similarly, Figure (2.8b) represents the

measured strain values at the top surface of the pipe.

Figure (2.7): Sketch of setup test adopted by Hegde et al. (2014).

**Figure (2.8): Pressures and strains above the pipe. (a) vertical pressure (b)
**

strain (after Hedge et al., 2014).

32

Chapter Two Review of Literature

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Armaghani et al. (2015) examined the effect of performing geogrid to

increase the uplift resistance of buried pipelines, and the effect of burial

depth, pipe diameter, length of geogrid layers and the number of geogrid

layers on the peak uplift resistance (PUR) of loose sand. Thirty three small-

scale tests were performed in the laboratory. Results of laboratory tests

revealed that the depth of burial and pipe diameter have a direct effect on

the PUR results. The findings showed that the number of geogrid layers

does not have a remarkable influence on PUR values. To verify the

experimental results, 33 experiments were back analyzed using „„PLAXIS

3Diamentional TUNNEL‟‟ program. It was found that experimental and

numerical results are in good agreement.

2.9 Summary

General observations on previous studies by various researchers as

reported in the literature are:

1. There is a huge amount of work available in the literature

concentrated on the behavior of tunnel under dynamic load by

analytical or numerical models.

2. There is few data available on the effect of geogrid in transfer of

dynamic loading to the underground tunnel

3. There are very few data on the effect of variation of dynamic load

amplitude and frequency on the behavior of soil and underground

tunnel.

Hence, the present study is directed to study the influence of geogrid

reinforced earth in transfer of dynamic loading to underground tunnel

focusing on the behavior of surface settlement and pressure on the

tunnel crown. Also the effect of different parameters such as: load

amplitude, frequency, geogrid depth and width and relative density will

be studied.

33

CHAPTER THREE

EXPEREMENTAL WORK

3.1 Introduction

The experimental work consists of performing laboratory model tests to

investigate the behavior of dry sand under the effect of dynamic load. The

effect of geogrid on the settlement and transition of dynamic load to the

underground structure was studied considering different parameters such

as: depth of geogrid, width of geogrid, relative density of sand, amplitude

of dynamic force and load frequency.

The focus of this chapter is to describe the engineering properties of the

sand used in the study and to outline the design and manufacturing of the

testing equipment, model preparation and testing procedures.

3.2 Testing Program

The total number of the tests carried out is 58 models. Two models

were tested under static load with two relative densities (40% and 80%).

All the other 56 model tests were tested under dynamic load which

represent two series were carried out using two relative densities (40% and

80%) corresponding to loose and dense sand, respectively according to

Murthy.

All the 56 dry sand models were subjected to dynamic load with two

load amplitudes corresponding to (0.5 ton and 1 ton) using two frequencies

1 and 2 Hz for each load amplitude.

For each amplitude and frequency of the load, the sand models were

tested without geogrid and with geogrid of two widths (1B and 2B) where

B is the width of the footing. In addition, three series of geogrid depths

from the model surface (0.5B, 1B and 1.5B) were carried out. The testing

program of all the tests is summarized in Figure (3.1).

34

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

TESTING PROGRAM

Dry Sand

Relative density = 40%

static load dynamic load=0.5ton dynamic load=1ton

freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz

**without without without without
**

with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid

geogrid geogrid geogrid geogrid

b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B

d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B

d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B

d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5b d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B

Relative density = 80%

static load dynamic load=0.5ton dynamic load=1ton

freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz

**without without without without
**

with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid

geogrid geogrid geogrid geogrid

b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B

d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B

d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B

d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5b d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B

**Figure (3.1): Flowchart of the testing program.
**

35

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

The details of abbreviation for the tested samples as well as example of

models naming are explained below:

B: width of strip footing.

b: width of geogrid.

d: depth of geogrid from the surface.

**3.3 Materials Used and Soil Characterization:
**

3.3.1 The soil

Karbala sand is used in this study. Standard tests were performed to

determine the physical properties of the sand. The tests were performed on

sand with two different densities; loose and dense. The details of these

properties are given in Table (3.1).

Table (3.1) : Physical properties of sand used

No. Index property Index Value

1 Specific gravity 2.65

2 D10 (mm) 0.175

3 D30 (mm) 0.3

4 D60 (mm) 0.48

5 Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 3.2

6 Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.25

7 Maximum void ratio 0.68

8 Minimum void ratio 0.45

9 Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 18.18

10 Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 15.7

11 Angle of internal friction (at Dr. = 40%) 34º

12 Angle of internal friction (at Dr. = 80%) 41º

13 Soil classification (USCS) SP

36

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3.3.1.1 Soil characterization

Laboratory tests which are carried out on the used soil included the

following:

1- Specific gravity: Specific gravity tests were performed in general

accordance with (ASTM) D 854 – 2005 Standard Test Method for Specific

Gravity of Soils.

2- Grain size distribution: Sieve analysis was performed in general

accordance with (ASTM) D 422 – 2001 Standard Test Method for Particle-

Size Analysis of Soils. Grain size distribution of the used sand is shown in

Figure (3.2).

100

90

80

Percent Passing, %

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

10 1 0.1

Grain Size, mm

Figure (3.2): Grain size distribution of the used soil.

**3- Maximum and minimum densities: The maximum index density
**

was performed according to (ASTM 4253, 2000) specification. The soil

sample was divided into three layers and the test was run for 8 minutes for

each layer at a frequency of 60 Hz. A surcharge of 14 kPa was applied to

prevent the sand particles from moving.

37

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

The minimum index density test was performed according to (ASTM,

4254, 2000) specification, the test was conducted using funnel with an

opening of 1.27 cm and was maintained at a constant height of 1.25 to 2.5

cm during falling.

The dry densities were calculated as the weight of soil retained in the

mold divided by the volume of the mold. The test was conducted three

times and the average of three dry densities was taken.

4- Direct shear test: Direct shear box test was performed in general

accordance with ASTM D 3080-90 specification. The direct shear box test

has several particle sizes to box size requirements when preparing

specimens for testing. The minimum specimen width should not be less

than 10 times the maximum particle size diameter and the minimum initial

specimen thickness should not be less than 6 times the maximum particle

diameter.

3.3.2 PVC pipe

**A PVC pipe was used in all tests to simulate the underground tunnel. The
**

pipe has a diameter of 110 mm and 700 mm long, it was placed at a depth

equal to 500 mm from the surface. Plate (3.1) shows the PVC pipe used.

**Plate (3.1): PVC pipe.
**

38

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3.3.3 Geogrid reinforcement

The geogrid was used in some tests, it was manufactured by Factory for

plastic mesh having engineering properties shown in Table (3-2) as

provided by the manufacturing company. The sheet of geogrid was used

from test to test but was replaced whenever any of the strands become

visibly overstressed. Plate (3.2) shows the geogrid reinforcement used.

Table (3.2) : Engineering properties of geogrid used

A- Technical properties

Test

Property Unit Data

method

Tensile strength at 2%

ISO 10310 kN/m 5.1

strain

Tensile strength at 5%

ISO 10310 kN/m 9.1

strain

Peck tensile strength ISO 10310 kN/m 16.0

Yield point elongation ISO 10310 % 20.0

B- Physical, chemical and biological properties

Property Test method Data

Structure Extruded geogrid

Mesh type Diamond

Standard color Black

Polymer type HDPE

U.V stabilizer ASTM D1603 Carbon black

Chemical resistance Excellent

Biological resistance Excellent

Packaging Rolls

C- Technical properties

Property Test method Unit Data

Aperture size Mm 6*10

Mass per unit area ISO 9864 g/m2 700

Roll width M 2.0

Roll length M 20

Roll diameter M 0.40

Gross roll weight Kg 28.0

39

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Plate (3.2): Geogrid used.

**3.4 Model Design and Devices
**

To study the effect of geogrid in transfer of dynamic load to the

underground structure in sandy soil, it is necessary to simulate the

conditions as close as possible to those occurring in the field. To achieve

this aim, a special testing apparatus and other accessories were designed

and manufactured by Abd Al-Kaream, (2013) and modified in this study.

The apparatus has the capability of applying different dynamic loads at

different frequencies, The general view of the apparatus is shown in

Plate (3.3).

**The apparatus consists of the following parts:
**

1. Loading steel frame,

2. Axial loading system,

3. Model footing,

4. Data acquisition,

5. Shaft encoder,

6. Steel container.

40

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Plate (3.3) : General view of the apparatus.

41

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3.4.1 Loading steel frame

To support the verticality of piston system used in applying the

central concentrated load, a steel frame was designed and constructed as

shown in Figure (3.3).

**The steel frame consists mainly of four columns and four beams.
**

The cross sectional area of each column and beam are made of steel with

square cross section area of (100 mm×100 mm) and 4 mm thick. The

dimensions of the steel frame (length× width× height) are (1700 mm×

700 mm×1700 mm). To strengthen the steel frame to withstand the

applied load, two beams were added in this work (No. 4 in Figure 3.3).

**A 20 mm thick steel plate with dimensions of (700 mm×500 mm)
**

was welded on the center of the frame in order to carry the hydraulic jack

system and the settlement measurement device (Encoder) as shown in

Plate (3.4).

**The steel frame was fixed to the floor base using four base plates of
**

dimensions (200 mm×200 mm×20 mm). Each base plate was fixed with

the floor using four bolts of 16 mm diameter.

3.4.2 Axial loading system

The axial loading system consists of :

**1. Hydraulic jack system: The cross sectional area of the piston is 2025
**

mm2, the length of the piston is (600 mm) and the maximum limit of load

that can be applied is (8 tones) as shown in Plate (3.5) .

**2. Hydraulic control system: The control device consists of a system
**

responsible for application of the dynamic loading, and the movement of

the piston. The control system contains a valve which is responsible for

controlling the dynamic load as shown in Plate (3.6) .

42

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Figure (3.3) : Loading steel frame.

**Plate (3.4) : The upper and lower faces of steel plate.
**

43

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Plate (3.5) : Hydraulic jack.

Plate (3.6) : The hydraulic control system.

3.4.3 Model footing

**A strip footing of dimensions 710 mm * 110 mm with 30 mm thickness
**

was manufactured to simulate a road or any strip footing above the

underground structure as shown in Plate (3.7) .

44

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Plate (3.7) : Strip footing.

3.4.4 Data acquisition

**To study and investigate the real behavior of the tested models during
**

the application of the dynamic load, it is necessary to find a procedure to

measure and sense the displacement induced by the dynamic load during

the test, which enable the tester to obtain the total accurate information that

consists of a huge data of readings in a very short time. For this reason,

data acquisition system was used.

**The Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) can be defined as a digital
**

computer used for automation of electro-mechanical processes, which are

considered as a high technical process unit. This system analyzes the data

digitally, according to the research requirement. PLC unlike general –

purpose computers, can be designed for multiple inputs and outputs

arrangements, extend temperature ranges and immunity to electrical noise.

Programs to control machine operation are typically stored in battery –

backed-up or non-volatile memory (using 256 kbyte) and its resistance to

45

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

vibration and impact, and it saves this process from a huge numerical

operations (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).

**PLC device includes LCD (Siemens touch panel/Germany made)
**

touch-screen for viewing simplified ladder logic (only a small portion of

the program being visible at a given time). Typically, this LCD touch-

screen is accompanied by three- push buttons which lead the operator to

more commands related for the test, and enable the programmer to use a

simple application window to get the results.

**PLC is usually modular and greatly expandable and the main
**

difference from the other data acquisition procedures or other computers is

that the PLC is armored for severe conditions such as (dust, moisture, heat

and cool). PLC program is generally executed repeatedly as long as the

controlled system is running and the data is saved in the memory even if

the electricity current was cutoff. The scanning time is not exceeding a few

milliseconds (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).

**Special purpose modules, such as timer modules or counter modules,
**

could be used where the scan time of the processor was too long (more than

two minutes.) to count pulses from the shaft encoder, these pulses can be

counted and collected according to the test procedure (can reach more than

106 readings). The accumulation of these pulses was done by a dedicated

module that is unaffected by the speed of the program execution. These

details are shown in Plate (3.8).

3.4.5 Shaft Encoder

**A shaft encoder type (Rotary) can be defined as an electro-mechanical
**

device that converts the angular positions or motion of the shaft to an

analog or digital code. The output of incremental encoder provides

information about the motion of the shaft which is typically further

processed elsewhere into information such as speed, displacement,

46

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

revolution per minute (rpm) and position. The output of absolute encoders

indicates the current position of the shaft. As the shaft rotates, the contacts

touch the metal teeth while others fall in the gaps where the metal teeth has

been cutout. The metal teeth is connected to electrical source of electrical

current and each contact is registered by the encoder as an electrical signal

which the PLC can deal with it and translated to a displacement reading as

shown in Plate (3.9) (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).

Plate (3.8) : PLC (Programmable Logic Controller ) unit.

**Plate (3.9) : The shaft Encoder.
**

47

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

The mechanical encoder type (0.001 mm) sensitivity is the most

widely used of all rotary encoders due to its low cost and ability to provide

signals that can be easily interpreted to provide the accurate motion.

**Generally, it is used to control and determine the velocity and
**

position. The metal teeth shaft was installed to the upper metal plate above

the steel frame with very accurate consideration to keep the shaft in the

required straightness and verticality during the test.

All types of incremental encoders (used in this research) are sine wave

encoders. Instead of producing two quadrature square waves, the output is

quadrature sine wave. Sine wave is a pure frequency, very stable when

passing through an analog circuit, the shape still constant without any

changes but with a reduction of its amplitude. The sine wave represents a

360º degrees or a full circular wave, because the laws of AC circuit theory,

only apply to a true sine wave. Other waveforms, such as square or saw

tooth waves are imperfect recreations of a sine wave with many harmonic

frequencies (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).

3.4.6 Steel container

**The container was used to prepare the test sample, the internal
**

dimensions are 1000 mm length, 750 mm width and 700 mm depth. Each

part of the container is made of steel plates 5 mm thick. Plate (3.10) shows

the steel container.

**Plate (3.10) : Steel container.
**

48

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

All inside faces of the container are covered with a 20 mm thick cork

which is used to minimize the vibration transmition of the dynamic load to

the box walls during the test.

3.4.7 Earth pressure cell and readout

**Earth pressure cells provide a direct means of measuring total pressure in
**

or on bridge abutments, diaphragm walls, fills and embankments, retaining

walls surfaces, sheet piling, slurry walls and tunnel lining. They may also

be used to measure earth bearing pressure on foundation slabs and footings

and at the tips of piles. Plate (3.11) shows the earth pressure cell model

4800 manufactured by GEOKON company in U.S.A which is used in this

study, the technical specifications of the cell are given in Table (3.3).

Earth pressure cells are constructed from two thin stainless steel plates

welded together around their periphery and separated by a narrow gap

filled with hydraulic fluid. A length of stainless steel tubing connects the

fluid filled cavity to a pressure transducer that converts the fluid pressure

into an electrical signal transmitted by cable to the readout. They can be

positioned in the fill at different orientations so that the soil pressure can be

measured in two or three directions.

**Plate (3.11) : Pressure cell.
**

49

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Table (3. 3) Technical specification of pressure cell (GEOKON company)

Specification value

Transducer type and output Vibrating wire and 2000-3000Hz

Standard range and accuracy 170 kPa ± 0.1% F.S.

Standard cell dimensions (H×D) 6×100 mm

Transducer dimensions (L× D) 150×25 mm

Temperature range -20ºC to + 80 ºC

**The vibrating wire readout box model GK404 manufactured by
**

GEOKON company in U.S.A, used with earth pressure cell and

piezometer, is portable, low-power, hand-held that is capable of running for

more than 20 hours continuously. It is designed for the readout all

GEOKON vibrating wire gages and transducers. Plate (3.12) shows the

readout device. The model GK404 provides 6 excitation positions (A-F)

with display resolution of 0.1 digits. It is displaying the reading of one

connector so that a suitable selector was manufactured to read all the

instruments at the same time.

Plate (3.12) : Pressure cell readout.

3.4.8 Vibration meter

**The vertical amplitude of tunnel was measured at the surface of the tunnel.
**

Vibration meter (VT-8204) of one channel was used in the test. This

vibration meter has a working capacity of 0.001 to 2.217 mm, it is capable

50

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

of measuring the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of motion

depending on the function set prior to the test. In addition, all the collected

data can be transferred to the computer easily through built in software.

During the tests, one vibration meter was used to measure the amplitude of

dislacement on the surface of the tunnel. The components of the VT- 8204

vibration meter are shown in Plate (3.13). The vibration meter within the

testing models is shown in Plate (3.14).

Plate (3.13) : Vibration meter.

Plate (3.14) : Vibration meter probe placed on the tunnel crown.

51

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3.5 Sand Deposit Preparation

The sand deposit was prepared using a steel tamping hummer

manufactured for this purpose. As stated previously in this chapter, two

cases of relative densities are chosen (40% for loose sand and 80% for

dense sand), this means that the weight required to achieve the relative

density is predetermined since the unit weight and the volume of the sand

are predetermined also. The sand is divided into equal weights each weight

represents the quantity of sand required for each layer.

The soil of each layer was compacted to a predetermined depth. A PVC

pipe that simulate a tunnel was installed on a soil bedding of 250 mm. After

that, the pressure cell and vibration meter probe were installed above the

pipe crown and then the soil deposit preparation was completed. Then, the

geogrid was placed in the desired depth and width. After completing the

final layer, the top surface was scraped and leveled by a sharp edge ruler to

get as near as possible a flat surface. The strip footing was then brought in

contact with the top surface of the model. Plate (3.15) presents the steps of

the sand deposit preparation. Table (3.4) summarizes the properties of the

sand used in different states.

Table (3.4): Different states of sand used.

**State of Dry unit weight Void Angle of Relative
**

Sand (γdry) kN/m3 Ratio friction (∅) density (Dr %)

(e)

Loose 16.6 0.59 34º 40%

Dense 17.6 0.5 41º 80%

52

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

)(1 )(2

)(3 )(4

Plate (3.15) : Stages of the preparation of the test model.

53

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

)(5 )(6

)(7

Plate (3.15) : (Continued).

54

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3.6 Static Loading Test

**The static loading was applied gradually through an axial loading system
**

manufactured by Rahil, (2007). The system operates at a controlled

displacement of 0.03 mm/sec. Process of the loading is continued till

failure occurs. Plate (3.16) shows the application of static load.

Plate (3.16) : Application of static load.

**3.7 Dynamic Loading Test
**

After the preparation of footing on the surface of the sand layer, a dynamic

load was applied throughout a predetermined sequence. The application of

dynamic load continues for 20 minutes. The function of the dynamic load is

represented by the following equation:

( ) ( )

55

Chapter Three Experimental Work

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

where :

Amplitude of load.

Frequency of load.

t = Time

T = Load period.

**The shape of the dynamic wave loading applied is of the form close to the
**

sinusoidal compressive type as shown in Figure (3.4).

Figure (3.4) Dynamic load wave.

56

CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS

4.1 Introduction

**Soil dynamics engineering explains different combinations of
**

loadings and unloading which engineers need to consider in design of

structures. A substantial part is vertical cyclic loading with different

frequencies and amplitudes. For example, heavy traffic loading may cause

damage to water and sewer pipelines buried beneath roads. In case of sewer

systems, their failure is linked to potential problems of soil and water

contamination, particularly when the water level is close to the ground

surface or the water is close to the sewer pipeline that failed.

This chapter presents and discusses the results of 58 models

performed on dry sand with and without geogrid subjected to vertical static

and dynamic loading. The investigation focuses on the influence of

parameters such as relative density, load amplitude, depth of geogrid layer

and width of geogrid layer. For all model tests, the applied dynamic load is

applied for 20 minutes.

4.2 Model Test Results under Static Load

**As a reference, two model tests are performed under static load using
**

sand of two different relative densities 40% and 80% which are

corresponding to loose and dense sand, respectively. For all model tests,

the failure is defined as the load causing a settlement corresponding to 10%

of the footing width depending on the proposal given by Terzaghi, (1943).

Figure (4.1) represents the relationship between the applied vertical stress

(q) and the settlement of the two model tests. It is clearly shown that the

mode of failure is local shear failure for Dr = 80% and punching shear

failure for Dr = 40%.

57

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

This result agrees well with Terzaghi equation (Terzaghi, 1943).

Qult = c NC+ q Nq+ 0.5 Nγ ……………. (4-1)

where: qu = ultimate bearing capacity,

c = cohesion of soil,

Df = the depth of footing,

q = surcharge (γDf),

Nc, Nq and Nγ Terzaghi bearing capacity factors, and

B = width of foundation and γ unit weight of the soil.

For the soil used in this study, the value of c 0 (cohesionless soil)

and (Df 0) (footing at the surface), so Equation 4.1 becomes:

qult 0.5 γ B Nγ ……………. (4-2)

Table (4.1) summarizes the static bearing capacity.

**Figure (4.1): Static test results on models at two relative densities of
**

sand.

58

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Table 4.1 : Bearing capacity of strip footing over sandy soil.

Qult. (kPa)

Experimental Theoretical (Eq. 4.2)

Loose sand Dense sand Loose sand Dense sand

15 43 7.2 20.8

**Table (4.1) shows that the theoretical bearing capacity equation
**

underestimates the values of bearing capacity since it is conservative.

4.3 Model Test Results under Dynamic Load

56 models were tested under dynamic load, 48 of these models were tested

with geogrid and for comparison 8 models were tested without geogrid

reinforcement. Three values of depth of geogrid were chosen

corresponding to (0.5B, 1B and 1.5B where B is the width of footing). For

each geogrid depth, two different geogrid widths (1B and 2B) were tried,

two different load amplitudes (1 ton and 0.5 ton), two different load

frequencies (2 Hz and 1 Hz) and two soil relative densities (40% and 80%).

In all test results figures, a comparison is conducted between the results of

tests without geogrid and with geogrid versus time.

4.3.1 Effect of depth of the reinforcement

**1- Effect of depth of the reinforcement on the vertical pressure:
**

The vertical pressure was measured by a pressure cell. Figures (4.2) to

(4.4) show the variation of the vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel

embedded in loose sand with time. In general, the curves follow the same

trend and it can be noticed that when the geogrid is placed at a depth equal

to (0.5B) from the surface, the pressure will decrease by about (10-33)%.

This decrement is because the soil with geogrid reinforcement will behave

as a stiff bed and redistributes the pressure over a wide area as stated by

Mehrjardi et al, (2012) who studied the effect of the geocell to improve the

59

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

performance of buried pipes, but this percentage decreased to about (7-

13)% when the geogrid is placed at a depth equal to (1B) because the

distribution of load at a depth (1B) gives smaller pressure intensities than at

a depth of (0.5B), whereas no decreasing in pressure was noticed when the

geogrid is placed at depth equal to (1.5B) because the geogrid was placed

at a depth out of the bulb of stresses below the strip footing in comparison

with the results of geogrid and without geogrid. These percentages are

different according to the state of load and geogrid width.

On the other hand, Figures (4.5) to (4.7) present the variation of the

vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel embedded in dense sand with

time. In general, it can be noticed that when the geogrid is placed at a depth

equal to (0.5B) from the surface, the pressure decreases by about (13-60)%

in comparison with the results without geogrid and this percentage is

greater than in loose sand because the efficiency of pressure redistribution

in dense state is better than in loose state due to rearrangement of soil

particles in loose sand and that does not occur in dense sand, but when the

geogrid is at a depth (1B and 1.5B), there is no decrease in the pressure

compared with the results of pressure without geogrid because the geogrid

was placed at a depth out of the active zone of stresses below the footing.

This percentage is different according to the state of load and geogrid.

When a tunnel is installed in soil, soil columns on both sides of the rigid

pipe are more compressive than the soil columns on top of the rigid pipe

because of the higher stiffness of rigid pipes when compared with soils. As

such, soil columns on both sides tend to settle more than the soils on top of

the rigid pipe and this differential settlement causes a downward shear

force acting along the sides of soil columns on top of the rigid pipe. As

such, the load on the rigid pipes becomes larger than the sole weight of soil

columns on its top. Similarly, if a flexible pipe is adopted instead (as in the

case of the present study), the previous phenomenon shall be reversed .

60

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.2) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, ω =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid (d=

0.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.3) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, ω =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid (d=

1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.4) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, ω =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid (d=

1.5B and b= 1B).

61

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.5) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, ω =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid (d=

0.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.6) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, ω =1 Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid (d=

1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.7) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid (d=

1.5B and b= 1B).

62

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2- Effect of depth of reinforcement on the surface settlement:

The surface settlement was measured by sensors in the dynamic load

apparatus as described in Chapter Three. Figures (4.8) to (4.10) show the

variation of the surface settlement with time for model footing on loose

sand. The results show that the vertical settlement can be reduced by about

(20-44)% when using geogrid reinforcement at a depth equals to (0.5 B).

This decrease is attributed to the smaller soil mass above the reinforcing

layer which could have insufficient overburden to generate enough friction

and tension resistance at the soil reinforced interface according to Tafreshi

et al. (2008) who studied the laboratory tests of small diameter pipes buried

in reinforced sand under repeated load. Furthermore, this percentage will

decrease to about (13-37)% when the geogrid is placed at a depth equal to

(1B) because the soil mass increases so the friction and tension resistance

decreases. In addition, when the geogrid is placed at a depth equals to

(1.5B), the results of vertical settlement without geogrid are approximately

close to results of vertical settlement with geogrid. This indicates that the

efficiency of geogrid decreases when the depth increases. The geogrid has

no efficiency at a depth equal to (1.5B) this can be attributed to the stress

zone below the foundation, when the geogrid is placed at a depth of 0.5B or

1B, it is within the stress bulb, so that its presence affects considerably the

values of displacements induced by the dynamic load. These percentages

are different according to the state of load and geogrid. This behavior was

also noticed by Tafreshi and Khalaj (2008) who observed an increase in the

bearing capacity up to approximately 2.7 times by placing the

reinforcement within a homogenous sand at a depth within the range of

u/B= 0.25-0.75 (u is the reinforcement depth and B is the footing width).

On the other hand, Figures (4.11) to (4.13) show the variation of the

surface settlement with time for model footing on dense sand. The results

show that there is no efficiency of using geogrid on the surface settlement

in dense sand and that is compatible with the results of Tafreshi, (2008)

63

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

who found that the reinforcement at lower relative density is more effective

than higher relative density. Further results will be presented in Appendix

(A).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

Surface settlement, mm

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.8) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton, ω
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

Surface settlement, mm

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.9) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton, ω
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

64

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.10) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Without geogrid

70

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.11) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Without geogrid

70

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

90

Figure (4.12) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

65

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Without geogrid

70

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.13) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

4.3.2 Effect of width of the reinforcement

1- Effect of width of the reinforcement on the vertical pressure:

**Figures (4.2) to (4.4) in the previous section (4.3.1) and Figures (4.14) to
**

(4.16) show the variation of vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel

embedded in loose sand. In general, it can be noticed that when the geogrid

width equals to (1B), the pressure decreases by about (15-46)% compared

with test results without geogrid, but this percentage decreases to (8-33)%

when geogrid width equals to (2B). These results can be discussed as

follows: when the geogrid reinforcement width is 1 B, full interaction will

be mobilized between the geogrid and the soil beneath it, so that the

pressure transferred through the system is small, while geogrid of 2B width

will be subjected to bending and its edges will be raised (this was observed

through the experiments), leading to decrease in the mobilized friction and

interaction with the underlying soil. This behavior was also noticed by

Mehrjardi et al. (2012) who observed that the geocell layer was pulled

down under the plate settlement; however, at a remote distance from the

loading plate periphery, no tension in the geocell was observed.

66

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Figures (4.5) to (4.7) in the previous section (4.3.1) and Figures (4.17) to

(4.19) present the variation of the vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel

embedded in dense sand. It can be noticed that when the geogrid width

equals to (1B), the pressure decreases by about (13-68)% compared with

the results without geogrid, on the contrary for loose sand, this percent

increases to (25-70)% when the geogrid width equals to (2B).

This is caused by the high density of the sand, full mobilization of

interaction will be developed between the geogrid and the soil which

inhibits bending of the geogrid during loading, so that the geogrid

reinforcement of 2B width will produce a stiff layer which does not allow

propagation of waves and stresses will not be transmitted to the pipe zone.

Tafreshi and Khalaj (2008) found that the value of PDRF (pipe

diameter reduction factor) and SRF (settlement reduction factor) depends

on the width of reinforcement, because adequate width of the reinforcement

should be provided to mobilize the required frictional resistance. Tafreshi

(2008) found that with an increase of the b/D (where b is the width of

reinforcement and D is the diameter of the pipe), the value of PDRF and

SRF decreases, reaching minimum value at b/D approximately 4-5.

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.14) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

67

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.15) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.16) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.17) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

68

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.18) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.19) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

**2- Effect of width of the reinforcement on the surface settlement:
**

Figures (4.8) to (4.10) in the previous section (4.3.1) and Figures

(4.20) to (4.22) present the variation of the surface settlement with time for

model footing on loose sand . The results show that the vertical settlement

can be reduced by about (24-44)% when using geogrid reinforcement of

width equals to (2B), while when the width equals to (1B), the results show

that the vertical settlement is reduced to about (13-36)%, this indicates that

when the width of geogrid increases, the surface settlement decreases

because the geogrid of width (2B) can mobilize frictional resistance more

than (1B) this results are compatible with the findings of Tafreshi and

69

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Khalaj, (2008) who found that when the width of reinforcement increases,

the settlement decreases.

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement,

0

10

20

30

mm

40

50

60 Without geogrid

70

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.20) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement,

0

10

20

30

mm

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.21) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.22) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

70

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

4.3.3 Effect of load amplitude

1- Effect of load amplitude on the vertical pressure

**Two different amplitudes of dynamic load (a) were chosen (1 ton and 0.5
**

ton). Figures (4.2) to (4.4) and Figures (4.14) to (4.16) in the previous

sections in addition to Figures (4.23) to (4.28) show the variation of

vertical pressure on the crown of the tunnel embedded in loose sand with

time. It can be noticed that when the load amplitude decreases from (1) ton

to (0.5) ton, the pressure decreases too by about (57)% .

**Comparison between the pressure results with and without geogrid, it
**

can be noticed that when the load amplitude equals to 1 ton, the pressure

decreases by about (11-46)% , but this percentage decreases to about (7-

38)% when the applied load equals to 0.5 ton.

**On the other hand, Figures (4.5) to (4.7), Figures (4.17) to (4.19) in
**

the previous sections and Figures (4.29) to (4.34) present the variation of

the vertical pressure on the crown of the tunnel embedded in dense sand

with time. It can be noticed that when the load amplitude equals to 1 ton,

the pressure decreased by about (13-27)% compared with test results

without geogrid, but when the load amplitude decreases to 0.5 ton, the

percentage increases to about (68-71)%.

**In dense sand, when the load amplitude is high, dilation may take
**

place leading to decrease the interaction between the geogrid and the sand,

which results in decreasing the efficiency of the geogrid in spreading the

dynamic waves.

71

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.23) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d =1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.24) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d =1.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.25) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

72

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.26) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.27) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.28) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

73

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.29) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.30) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.31) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

74

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.32) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.33) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.34) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

75

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2- Effect of load amplitude on the surface settlement

**Figures (4.8) to (4.10), Figures (4.20) to (4.22) in the previous sections and
**

Figures (4.35) to (4.40) present the variation of the surface settlement with

time for model footing on loose sand.. It can be noticed that the vertical

settlement can be reduced by about (25-40)% when using a geogrid under

an applied load amplitude equal to (1 ton). The percent vertical settlement

can be reduced by about (13-35)% when a geogrid layer is used under an

applied load of amplitude equals to (0.5 ton). The results show that the

vertical settlement can be reduced by about (64)% when the load amplitude

decreases from (a = 1 ton to a = 0.5 ton). All of these percentages are

different according to the state of load and geogrid.

**These results are compatible with the results of Tafreshi and Khalaj
**

(2008) who found that the vertical settlement of soil surface can be reduced

up to 65% by using geogrid reinforcement, and increase the safety of

embedded pipes. Also, the efficiency of reinforcement was decreased by

increasing the number of geogrid layers, the relative density of the soil and

the embedded depth of the pipe.

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.35) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

76

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.36) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.37) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.38) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

77

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.39) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.40) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

4.3.4 Effect of load frequency

1- Effect of load frequency on the vertical pressure

**Two different frequencies of load were applied; 2 Hz and 1 Hz. Figures
**

(4.2) to (4.4), Figures (4.14) to (4.16), Figures (4.23) to (4.28) in the

previous sections and Figures (4.41) to (4.52) show the variation of the

vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel embedded in loose sand with

time. It can be noticed that the pressure decreases when the frequency

decreases this means that the intensity of applied load within a limited time

will be increased, this leads to increase the pressure transferred to the

tunnel. The percentage of decrement in pressure when the frequency

78

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

decreased is about 20% for a =0.5 ton and 45% for a = 1 ton. This can be

attributed to the time lag of dissipation of elastic waves transfer to the

tunnel which increases with increasing of both the amplitude of dynamic

load and its frequency. Figures (4.5) to (4.7), Figures (4.17) to (4.19),

Figures (4.29) to (4.34) in the previous sections and Figures (4.53) to (4.64)

present the variation of pressure with time for dense sand, the percentage

decreases to 9% for a = 0.5 ton and 18% for a = 1 ton.

**In addition, it can be noticed that the percentage of decrease in vertical
**

pressure of tests without and with geogrid for a load frequency equal to 2

Hz is approximately close or similar to the percentage of test with

frequency equals to 1 Hz.

120

Without geogrid

100

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

Pressure, kPa

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.41) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

79

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.42) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b =1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.43) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.44) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

80

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.45) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid,d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.46) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b =1 B

Pressure, kPa

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.47) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

81

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

Pressure, kPa

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.48) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 1B).

120

100

Pressure, kPa

80

60

40 Without geogrid

20 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.49) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.50) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

82

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.51) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

100

Pressure, kPa

80

60

40 Without geogrid

20 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.52) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.53) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

83

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.54) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.55) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.56) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

84

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.57) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.58) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.59) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).

85

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.60) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.61) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.62) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).

86

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

120

Without geogrid

100

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.63) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1B and b= 2B).

120

Without geogrid

100

Pressure, kPa

With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80

60

40

20

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.64) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
**

with time for a =1 ton, ω = 2Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid

(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).

**2- Effect of load frequency on the surface settlement
**

Figures (4.8) to (4.10), Figures (4.20) to (4.22), Figures (4.35) to (4.40) in

the previous section and Figures (4.65) to (4.76) present the variation of the

surface settlement with time for model footing on loose sand. The results

show that the vertical settlement can be reduced by about (4)% when the

frequency decreased from (2 Hz to 1 Hz), this means that the intensity of

applied load within a limited time will be increased which leads to increase

in the surface settlement. It can also be noticed that the vertical settlement

can be reduced by about (13-36)% when using a geogrid under an applied

87

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

frequency equal to (2 Hz), while the vertical settlement is reduced by about

(27-44)% when the applied frequency equals to (1 Hz).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

Surface settlement, mm

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.65) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

0

Surface settlement, mm

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.66) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

88

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.67) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

90

**Figure (4.68) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.69) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,

ω = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

89

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

90

**Figure (4.70) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.71) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B

90

Figure (4.72) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

90

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 1 B

90

**Figure (4.73) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

Time ,sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B

90

**Figure (4.74) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.75) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

91

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Time, sec.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Surface settlement, mm

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70 Without geogrid

80 With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

90

Figure (4.76) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

4.3.5 Effect of soil density

1- Effect of relative density on the vertical pressure

Two different soil relative densities were used (40%) and (80%). For

comparison between test results, Figures (4.2) and (4.5) in the previous

sections show the variation of the pressure on the underground tunnel with

time for loose and dense sand, respectively. It can be noticed that when the

relative density increases from (40%) to (80%), the vertical pressure

decreases by about (55)% . This behavior due to the arching phenomena

which occurs as the stress transfer in a tunneling problem from moving

parts of the soil (settle more) to adjacent parts (settle less) that can be

achieved by considering the vertical stress redistribution in the soil mass

above the spring line (Salim, 2006).

2- Effect of relative density on the surface settlement

**Figures (4.8) and (4.11) in the previous section, present the variation of the
**

surface settlement with time for model footing on loose and dense sand,

respectively. The results show that, the vertical settlement can be reduced

by about (80)% when the relative density of sand increased from (40% to

80%). This is attributed to the loose relative density which is similar to low

stiffness of the backfill and poor soil support during pipe installation while

92

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

the dense relative density corresponds to high stiffness of the backfill and

good soil support, so the high relative densities increase the stiffness of

backfill material and cause reduction in the surface settlement as stated by

Tafreshi and Khalaj (2008).

**Table (4.2) and (4.3) summarize the results of measured vertical
**

pressure above the tunnel crown for different load amplitudes in loose and

dense sand respectively.

**Table (4.2) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for loose sand
**

A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 40%.

Average Maximum

Test pressure pressure

(kPa) (kPa)

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 62.38 79.38

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 41.60 53.39

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 31.57 42.57

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 57.59 71.66

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 38.66 49.82

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 27.52 41.00

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 18.60 27.50

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 14.80 21.90

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 23.80 35.20

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 17.40 25.70

**All the tests with amplitude of a = 1 ton in loose sand with geogrid at
**

(d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results of tests without

geogrid.

93

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

B. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 40%.

Average Maximum

Test Pressure pressure

(kPa) (kPa)

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 28.15 33.42

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 26.00 30.20

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 18.03 22.10

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 25.94 30.81

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 25.07 28.90

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 21.70 26.80

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 19.80 24.10

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 12.10 16.48

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 20.60 24.60

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 17.50 22.7

**All the tests with amplitude of a = 0.5 ton in loose sand with geogrid at
**

(d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results of tests without

geogrid.

Table (4.3) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for dense sand

A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 80%.

Average Maximum

Test pressure pressure

(kPa) (kPa)

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 26.18 37.22

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 18.90 30.45

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 22.66 32.65

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 22.28 30.34

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 16.52 25.14

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 18.90 28.82

All the tests with amplitude of a = 1 ton in dense sand with geogrid

at (d=1 B and d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results of tests

without geogrid

94

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

B. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 80%

Average Maximum

Test pressure pressure

(kPa) (kPa)

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 8.52 11.60

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 2.46 4.35

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 2.53 4.52

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 7.83 11.02

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 2.37 3.93

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 2.10 4.10

All the tests with amplitude of a = 0.5 ton in dense sand with

geogrid at (d=1 B and d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results

of tests without geogrid

**Tables (4.4) and (4.5) summarize the results of surface settlement above the
**

tunnel embedded in loose sand under a load amplitude of 1 ton and 2 ton,

respectively

**Table (4.4) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose sand
**

layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 1 ton.

Test Maximum settlement (mm)

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 62.68

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 40.00

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 44.50

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 41.60

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 46.56

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 61.00

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 36.20

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 39.00

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 38.00

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 41.70

95

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

All the tests with amplitude of a = 1ton in loose sand with geogrid at

(d=1.5B) have a results equal or near to the results of tests without geogrid.

**Table (4.5) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose sand
**

layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 0.5 ton.

Test Maximum settlement (mm)

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 23.00

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 15.60

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 18.60

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 17.50

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 20.00

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 21.92

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 12.10

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 14.10

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 14.30

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 16.00

**All the tests with amplitude of a = 0.5 ton in loose sand with geogrid at
**

(d=1.5 B) have a results equal or near to the results of tests without

geogrid.

4.3.6 Results of the amplitude of displacement above the tunnel

**The amplitude of displacement of the tunnel crown was measured by a
**

vibration meter as illustrated in Chapter Three. The results show that there

is no effect of geogrid, load amplitude and soil density on the amplitude of

displacement as shown in Figures presented in Appendix (A). While, when

the frequency increased, the amplitude of displacement increased too as

shown in Figures (4.77) and (4.78). This may be attributed to the accuracy

of the vibration meter used in the study.

96

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

2.5

Displacement, mm

2

1.5

1

Without geogrid

0.5 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.77) : Displacement of the tunnel crown with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

2.5

Displacement, mm

2

1.5

1

Without geogrid

0.5 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Time, sec.

**Figure (4.78) : Displacement of the tunnel crown with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

ω = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

**4.4 Summary of Test Results
**

4.4.1 Effect of depth of reinforcement on the vertical pressure

Figures (4.79) and (4.80) show the relationship between the vertical

pressure on the tunnel crown and (d/B) ratio. The results show that the

maximum decrement in pressure occurs when the (d/B) ratio is 0.5.

97

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

90

a=0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

80

a= 0.5ton, freq=2 Hz, Dr.=40%

70 a=1ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

**a=1ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
**

60

a= 0.5ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%

Pressure, kPa

50 a= 0.5ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

**a=1ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%
**

40

a= 1ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

30

20

10

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

d/B

**Figure (4.79) : Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel
**

crown and (d/B) ratio for b = 1B

98

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

90

**a=0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%
**

80

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

70

a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

60 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

**a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%
**

Pressure, kPa

50

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

40

a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%

30

a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

20

10

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

d/B

**Figure (4.80) : Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel
**

crown and (d/B) ratio for b = 2B.

**4.4.2 Effect of depth of reinforcement on the surface settlement
**

Figures (4.81) and (4.82) show the relationship between the surface

settlement and (d/B) ratio. The results show that the maximum decrement

in the surface settlement occurs when the (d/B) ratio is 0.5.

99

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

70

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

60

Surface settlement, mm a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

40 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

30

20

10

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

d/B

**Figure (4.81) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio
**

for b = 1B.

70

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

60

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

Surface settlement, mm

50

a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

40

a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

30

20

10

0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

d/B

**Figure (4.82) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio
**

for b = 2B.

For dense sand there is no effect of geogrid on the surface settlement.

100

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

4.4.3 Effect of width of reinforcement on the vertical pressure

Figures (4.83) and (4.84) show the relationship between the vertical

pressure on the tunnel crown and (b/B) ratio. The results show that the

maximum decrement in pressure occurs when the (b/B) ratio is 1 in loose

sand and 2 in dense sand.

90

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

80 a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr=40%

a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

70

a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

**a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%
**

60

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

Pressure, kPa

50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%

a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

40

30

20

10

0

0 1 2 3 4

b/B

**Figure (4.83) : Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel
**

crown and (b/B) ratio for d = 0.5B.

101

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

90

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

**a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.= 40%
**

80

a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

70 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%

60 a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

**a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%
**

Pressure, kPa

50

a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

40

30

20

10

0

0 1 2 3 4

b/B

**Figure (4.84) : Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel
**

crown and (b/B) ratio for d = 1B.

All the tests in loose and dense sand with geogrid at depth (d= 1.5 B)

revealed results similar or near to the results of tests without geogrid.

**4.4.4 Effect of width of reinforcement on the surface settlement
**

Figures (4.85) and (4.86) show the relationship between the surface

settlement and (b/B) ratio. The results show that the maximum decrement

in the surface settlement occurs when the (d/B) ratio is 2.

102

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

70

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

60

Surface settlement, mm a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

**a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
**

40

30

20

10

0

0 1 2 3 4

b/B

**Figure (4.85) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio
**

for d = 0.5B.

70

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

60

a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

Surface settlement, mm

50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

40 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

30

20

10

0

0 1 2 3 4

b/B

**Figure (4.86) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio
**

for d = 1B.

For dense sand, there is no effect of geogrid on the surface settlement.

103

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

4.5 Comparison of Dynamic Load Pressure Transmitted to

Tunnel with the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the Surface

Footing.

Tables (4.6) and (4.7) show comparison between the maximum pressure

transmitted to the tunnel (Qd max) and the ultimate bearing capacity of the

surface footing (Qult) for loose and dense sand respectively.

**Table (4.6) The ratio between Qd max and Qult for loose sand
**

A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 40%.

Test

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 5.29

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 3.5

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 2.83

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 4.77

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 3.32

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 2.73

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.83

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.46

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 2.34

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.71

104

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

B. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 40%.

Test

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 2.22

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 2

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 1.47

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 2.05

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 1.92

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 1.78

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.61

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.09

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.64

With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 1.51

**Table (4.7) The ratio between Qd max and Qult for dense sand
**

A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 80%.

Test

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 0.86

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 0.71

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 0.76

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 0.7

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 0.58

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 0.67

A. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 80%.

Test

Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 0.26

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 0.101

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 2 Hz. 0.105

Without geogrid, ω = 1 Hz. 0.256

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 1 Hz. 0.091

With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B, ω = 1 Hz. 0.095

105

Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

The results presented in Tables (4.6) and (4.7) reveal that the

dynamic pressure transmitted to the tunnel is affected considerably by the

frequency and amplitude of load and relative density of the sand. It is

worthy mentioning that the models showed a Qd max/Qult ratio greater than 1

also showed failure of the surface footing by visual inspection and recorded

settlement.

106

CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS

5.1 General

This chapter summarizes the main conclusions drawn through the

analysis of 58 test models performed on reinforced by geogrid and

unreinforced sand, with different relative densities under different dynamic

loads and the recommendations to be made for future work.

5.2 Conclusions

The main conclusions can be listed as follows:

1. When the geogrid is placed at depth equal to (0.5B) from the surface

in loose sand, the pressure on the crown of tunnel will decrease by

about (10-33)%, but when the depth equals to (1B), the pressure will

decrease by about (7-13)%, whereas no decrease in the pressure was

noticed when the geogrid is placed at depth equal to (1.5B) in

comparison between results with geogrid and without geogrid.

While, in dense sand when the geogrid is placed at a depth equals to

(0.5B) from the surface, the pressure decreases by about (13-60)% in

comparison with the results without geogrid, but when the geogrid is

at a depth (1B and 1.5B), there is no decrease in the pressure.

2. The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by about (20-

44)% when using geogrid reinforcement at a depth equals to (0.5 B).

Also, at depth equal to (1 B), the percent vertical settlement is

reduced by about (13-37)%. In addition, when the geogrid is placed

at a depth equals to (1.5B), the results of vertical settlement without

geogrid are approximately close to results of vertical settlement with

geogrid. This indicates that the efficiency of geogrid decreases when

the depth increases. The geogrid has no efficiency at a depth equal to

(1.5B). On the other hand, there is no efficiency of geogrid on the

surface settlement results in dense sand.

107

Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3. When the geogrid width equals to (1B) in loose sand, the pressure on

the crown of tunnel decreases by about (15-46)% compared with test

results without geogrid, but this percentage decreases to (8-33)%

when the geogrid width equals to (2B). On the contrary, in dense

sand, when the geogrid width equals to (1B), the pressure decreases

by about (13-68)% compared with the results without geogrid, but

this percentage increases to (25-70)% when the geogrid width equals

to (2B). The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by

about (24-44)% when using geogrid reinforcement of width equals to

(2B), while when the width equals to (1B), the results show that the

percent vertical settlement is reduced to about (13-36)%, this

indicates that when the width of geogrid increases, the surface

settlement decreases.

4. When the amplitude of the dynamic load decreases from (1) ton to

(0.5) ton, the pressure above the tunnel crown decreases too by about

(57)%.

5. Comparison between the pressure results without geogrid and

pressure results with geogrid in loose sand, showed that when the

load amplitude equals 1 ton, the pressure on the tunnel crown

decreases by about (11-46)% , but this percentage decreases to about

(7-38)% when the applied load equals to 0.5 ton. On the other hand,

the results in dense sand showed that when the load amplitude equals

to 1 ton, the pressure decreased by about (13-27)% compared with

(68-71)% for 0.5 ton amplitude. These percentages are different

according to the states of load and geogrid width and depth.

6. The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by about

(64)% when the load amplitude decreased from (1) ton to (0.5) ton.

while, the percent vertical settlement is reduced by about (4)% when

the frequency decreased from (2 Hz to 1 Hz).

108

Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

7. The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by about (25-

40)% when using a geogrid under an applied load amplitude equal to

(1 ton). The percent vertical settlement is reduced by about (13-

35)% when a geogrid layer is used under an applied load of

amplitude equals to (0.5 ton). While, the percent vertical settlement

in loose sand is reduced by about (13-36)% when using a geogrid

under an applied frequency equal to (2 Hz), while the percent

vertical settlement is reduced by about (27-44)% when the applied

frequency equals to (1 Hz). All of these percentages are different

according to the state of load and geogrid.

8. The pressure on the crown of the tunnel in loose sand decreases

when the frequency decreases by about (20% for a =0.5 ton and 45%

for a = 1 ton). While, in dense sand the percentage decreases to (9%

for a = 0.5 ton and 18% for a = 1 ton).

9. When the relative density increases from (40%) to (80%), the

vertical pressure on the tunnel crown decreases by about (55)% .

Also, The percent vertical settlement can be reduced by about (80)%

when the relative density of sand increased from (40% to 80%).

10. The dynamic pressure transmitted to the tunnel is affected

considerably by the frequency and amplitude of load and relative

density of the sand. It is worth mentioning that the models showed a

Qd max/Qult ratio greater than 1 also showed failure of the surface

footing by visual inspection and recorded settlement.

5.3 Recommendations

The following recommendations can be suggested for further research:

1. Studying the effect of geogrid in transfer of dynamic load to

underground structure in saturated sand.

2. Studying the effect of geocell (anothor type of geosynthetics) in

transfer of dynamic load to underground structure.

109

Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

3. Using vibration meter more accurate and with larger capacity to

measure the displacement velocity and acceleration.

4. Studying the effect of multi-layer geogrid reinforcement in transfer

of the dynamic load to underground structure.

110

References

** Abd Al-Kaream, K. W. (2013), "The Dynamic Behavior of Machine
**

Foundation on Saturated Sand", M.Sc. Thesis, Building and

Construction Engineering Department, University of Technology,

Iraq.

ACPA, (2009) Design Data 1" Highway Live Loads on Concrete

Pipe", American Concrete pipe Association

Adil, H. M. (2014), "Dynamic and Static Analysis of the Oil and Gas

Pipelines", M.SC. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Atilim

University, Turkey.

Aguiar, M. F. (2008), “A Comparative Study of Vibration Frequency

Estimates of the Surface Foundations of Wind Turbines Built on the

Sand Dunes of the Ceará Coast”, DewImagazin No. 33. A. S. Moura,

S. A. D. Neto; Federal University of Ceará – Brazil.

Al-Damluji, O. F., Fattah, M. Y. and Al-Adhamii, R. A. J. (2006), "

Determination of Depth of Placement of Tunnel and Cavities by the

Boundary Element Method", Journal of Engineering, No. (1), Vol.

(12), pp. 53-70.

Armaghani, D. J., Faizi, K., Hajihassani, M., Mohamad, E. T. and

Nazir, R. (2015), "Effects of Soil Reinforcement on Uplift

Resistance of Buried Pipeline", Measurement. No. 64, pp. 57-63.

Arya, S. C., O'neill, M. W. and Pincus, G. (1979), "Design of

Structures and Foundations for Vibrating Machines", Gulf

Publishing Company, Books Division.

ASTM D3080-1998. "Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of

Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions", American Society of

Testing and Materials.

111

References

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

ASTM D422-2001. "Standard Test Method for Particle Size-

Analysis of Soils", American Society of Testing and Material.

ASTM D4253-2000. "Standard Test Method for Maximum Index

Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table",

American Society of Testing and Materials.

ASTM D4254-2000. "Standard Test Method for Minimum Index

Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative

Density", American Society of Testing and Materials.

ASTM D854-2005. "Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of

Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer", American Society of Testing and

Materials.

Azadi, M. R. E. and Soltani, A. A. (2010), "The Effects of Soil-

Foundation-Structure Interaction on the Dynamic Response of

Delijan Cement-Storage Silo under Earthquake Loading", Electronic

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), 15. pp 659-676.

Banerjee, P. K. and Butterfield, R. (1987), "Dynamic Behavior of

Foundations and Buried Structures", Elsevier Applied Science,

London .

Barkan, D., D. (1962), "Dynamics of Bases and Foundations",

McGraw-Hill New York.

Bhatia, K. (2009), "Foundations for Industrial Machines: Handbook

for Practicing Engineers", CRC. press.

Bildik, S., Laman, M. and Sukaeiman, M. T. (2012), "Prametric

Studies of Buried Pipes Using Finite Element Analysis", 3rd

International Conference on New Development in Soil Mechanics

and Geotechnical Engineering, Turkey, pp. 141-147.

Bowles, J. E. (1996), “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 5 th

Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Companiy, Inc., pp. 1175.

112

References

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Daghigh, Y. (1993), “Numerical Simulation of Dynamic Behavior

of an Earth Dam during Seismic Loading,” Ph.D. Thesis, Delft

University of Technology, Netherlands.

Das, B. M. (1983), "Fundamentals of Soil Dynamics", Elsevier New

York.

Das, B. M. and Ramana, G. (2011), "Principles of Soil Dynamics",

Cl-Engineering.

Fattah, M. Y., Hamood, M. J., Dawood, S. H., (2008), “The Respone

of Tunnels to Earthquake Excitations”, 7th European Conference on

Structural Dynamics (EURODYN 2008), at the Institute of Sound

and Vibration Research University of Southampton.

Fattah, M. Y., Shlash, K. T., Salim, N. M., (2011), “Effect of

Reduced Ko Zone on Time Dependent Analysis of Tunnels”,

Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2011, Article ID 963502, 12

pages, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/963502, Hindawi Publishing

Corporation.

Fattah, M. Y., Shlash, K. T., Salim, N. M., (2013), “Prediction of

Settlement Trough Induced by Tunneling in Cohesive Ground”, Acta

Geotechnica, DOI 10.1007/s11440-012-0169-4, Springer, Vol. 8, pp.

167–179.

Gaoxiao, H., Quanmei, G., Shunhua, Z. (2011), "Mechanical

Analysis of Soil Arching under Dynamic Load", Geotechnical

Conference, Canada

Goltabar, A. M. and Shekarchi, M. (2010), "Investigation of Traffic

Load on the Buried Pipeline by Using of Real Scale Experimental

and Plaxis-3D Software", Journal of Applied Science, Engineering

and Technology. Vol. 2, pp. 107-113.

113

References

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Gupta, S., Stanus, Y., Lombeart, G., Degrande, G. (2009), "Influence

of Tunnel and Soil Parameters on Vibrations from Underground

Railways", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 327, pp. 70-91.

Handy, R. L. (1985), "The Arching in Soil", Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. GT3, p.p 302-318.

Hedge, A., Kadabinakatti, S. and Sitharam, T. G. (2014). "Protection

of Buried Pipelines Using Combination of Geocell and Geogrid

Reinforcement : Experimental Study", Ground Improvement and

Geosynthetics. No. 238, pp. 289-298.

Hosseini, N., Oraee, K. and Gholinejad, M. (2010), "Seismic

Analysis of Horseshoe Tunnels under Dynamic Loads due to

Earthquakes", Underground Coal Operator's Conference, Australia,

pp. 140-145,

Ilamparuthi, K. and Rajkumar, R. (2008), "Experimental Study on

the Behavior of Buried Flexible Plastic Pipe", The Electronic Journal

of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. (13), Bund. C, pp. 1-10.

Koerner, J., Soong, T.-Y. and Koerner, R. M., 1998, “Earth

Retaining Wall Costs in the USA,” GRI Report #10, Geosynthetic

Institute, Folsom, Pennsylvania, 38 pages.

Lee, C.J., Wu, B.R., Chen, H.T. and Chiang, K.H., (2006), "Tunnel

Stability and Arching Effects During Tunneling in Soft Clayey Soil".

Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Elsevier, Vol. 21,

p.p.119-132.

Luna, R. and Jadi, H. (2000), "Determination of Dynamic Soil

Properties Using Geophysical Methods," Proceedings of the First

International Conference on the Application of Geophysical and

NDT Methodologies to Transportation Facilities and Infrastructure,

St. Louis, MO, December 2000, pp. 1-15.

114

References

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Mandal, A. and Baidya, D. K. (2003), "Influence of A Rigid

Boundary on the Dynamic Response of A Foundation: An

Experimental Investigation", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical

Engineering (EJGE), Vol. (8).

Mehrjardi, T. Gh., Tafreshi, M. S. N. and Dawson, A. R. (2012),

"Combined Use of Geocell Reinforcement and Rubber-Soil Mixtures

to Improve Performance of Buried Pipes", Geotextile and

Geomembrance. Vol. 34, pp. 116-130.

MIL-HDBK-1007/3 (1997), “Soil Dynamics and Special Design

Aspects”, Department of Defense, United States of America, pp.

144.

Murthy, V. N. (2007)." Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics

and Foundation Engineering", Marcel Dekker, inc. 270 Madison

Avenue. New York. New York 10016. PP. 45.

New, B.M. and Bowers, K.H. (1994), "Ground Movement Model

Validation at the Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel", Proceedings

Tunnelling ’94, London, pp. 301-329.

Ozdemir, Z., Coulier, P., Lak, M. A., Francois, S., Lombaert, G.,

Degrande, G. (2012), "Numerical Evaluation of the Dynamic

Response of Pipe Lines to Vibrations Induced by the Operation of a

Pavement Breaker", Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Vol.

44, pp. 153-167.

Park, S. H. and Antin, N., (2003), "A Space Time Discontinuous

Galerkin Method for Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis",

16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of

Washington, July 2003

Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L. (2001). "Finite Element Analysis in

Geotechnical Engineering: Application", Thomas Telford, London.

Prakash, S. (1981), "Soil Dynamics", McGraw-Hill New York.

115

References

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Rahil, F. H. (2007). "Improvement of Soft Clay underneath a

Railway Track Model Using Stone Column Technique", PhD.

Thesis, Building and Construction Engineering Department,

University of Technology, Iraq.

Rao, N. K. (2011), "Foundation Design: Theory and Practice", John

Wiley and Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.

Richart, F. E. and Whitman, R. (1967), "Comparison of Footing

Vibration Tests with Theory", Journal of Soil Mechanics and

Foundations Division, ASCE, 93, No. 6, pp. 143-167.

Roesset, J. M. and Jose, M. (2009), "Some Applications of Soil

Dynamics", The Seventeenth Buchanan Lecture, Texas A and M

University.

Salim, N. M. (2006), "Time-Dependent Analysis of Tunnels in Clays

Using the Finite Element Analysis Method", Ph.D. Thesis, Building

and Construction Engineering Department, University of

Technology, Iraq.

Sandstrom, G. E. (1963). "The History of Tunneling", Barrie and

Rockliff.

Sauer, G. (1988), "Further Insights into the NATM - When an

Innovation is Something New: from Practice to Theory in

Tunneling", 23rd Sir Julius Wernher Memorial Lecture. Tunneling

’88, London, IMM.

Srinivasulu, P. and Vaidyanathan, C. (1977), "Handbook of Machine

Foundations", Tata McGraw-Hill.

Tafreshi, M. S. N. and Khalaj, O. (2007), "Laboratory Test of Small

Diameter HDPE Pipes Buried in Reinforced Sand under Repeated-

Load", Geotextiles and Geomembrances, Vol. (26), pp. 145-163.

Tafreshi, M. S. N., Mehrjardi, T. Gh. and Tafreshi, M. S. M. (2007),

"Analysis of Buried Plastic Pipes in Reinforced Sand under

116

References

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Repeated-load Using Neural Network and Regression Model",

International Journal of Civil Engineering. No. 2, Vol. 5, pp. 188-

133.

Terzaghi, K. (1943), “Theoretical Soil Mechanics”, Wiley, New

York.

Williams, O, (1997), "Engineering and Design -Tunnels of Shafts in

Rock", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-

1000, p. 236

Xiaoyan, H. U., Jian, Z. H. O. U. and Zhanfei, H. U. (2000),

"Seismic Analysis of Tunnel Surrounded by Soft Soil in Shanghai",

12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland,

Newzwland, pp. 1-7.

Yang, Y., Xie, X. and Wang, R. (2010), "Numerical Simulation of

Dynamic Response of Operating Metro Tunnel Induced by Ground

Explosion", Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical

Engineering. No. 2, Vol. 4, pp. 373-384.

Young, W. C. (1989), "Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain", 6th

edition, McGraw-Hill.

117

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

Appendix (A)

Additional Results

**A-1 Results of Variation of Surface Settlement with Time in
**

Dense Sand

**Figure (A.1) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b=

2 B).

**Figure (A.2) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b=

1 B).

A-1

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.3) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2

B).

**Figure (A.4) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1

B).

**Figure (A.5) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b=

2 B).

A-2

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.6) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b=

1 B).

**Figure (A.7) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b=

2 B).

**Figure (A.8) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b=

1 B).

A-3

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.9) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2

B).

**Figure (A.10) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1

B).

**Figure (A.11) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b=

2 B).

A-4

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.12) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
**

= 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b=

1 B).

**Figure (A.13) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and

b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.14) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and

b= 2 B).

A-5

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.15) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b=

2 B).

**Figure (A.16) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b=

1 B).

**Figure (A.17) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and

b= 2 B).

A-6

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.18) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and

b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.19) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and

b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.20) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and

b= 1 B).

A-7

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.21) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b=

2 B).

**Figure (A.22) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b=

1 B).

**Figure (A.23) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and

b= 2 B).

A-8

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.24) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
**

w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and

b= 1 B).

**A-2 Results of Variation of Amplitude of Vibration with Time for
**

Loose and Dense Sand.

**Figure (A.25) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.26) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-9

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.27) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.28) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.29) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-10

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.30) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.31) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.32) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-11

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.33) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.34) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.35) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-12

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.36) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.37) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.38) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-13

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.39) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.40) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.41) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-14

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.42) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.43) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.44) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-15

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.45) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.46) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.47) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-16

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.48) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.49) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.50) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-17

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.51) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.52) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.53) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-18

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.54) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.55) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.56) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-19

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.57) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.58) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.59) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-20

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.60) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =1 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.61) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.62) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-21

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.63) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.64) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.65) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-22

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.66) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.67) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.68) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-23

Appendix(A)

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.69) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).

**Figure (A.70) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).

**Figure (A.71) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-24

)Appendix(A

ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

**Figure (A.72) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with
**

time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with

geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).

A-25

الخالصة

اٌ انًُشآد رحذ األسظٍخ ًْ جضء ال ٌزجضأ يٍ انجٍُخ انزحزٍخ نهًجزًغ انحذٌشٔ ،رغزخذو

نًجًٕػخ ٔاعؼخ يٍ انزطجٍمبد ،ثًب فً رنك يزشٔ االَفبق ٔانغكك انحذٌذٌخ ٔانطشق انغشٌؼخ

ٔيخبصٌ انًٕادَٔ ،مم انًٍبِ ٔانصشف انصحًٔ .اٌ انًُشآد رحذ األسظٍخ انزً رجُى فً انًُبغك

انخبظؼخ نهُشبغ انذٌُبيٍكً ٌجت اٌ رزحًم كال يٍ انحًهٍٍ انغبكٍ ٔانذٌُبيٍكً يؼب .

**ٌزؤصش اعزمشاس انحفشٌبد رحذ األسض ثشكهٓبٔ ،حجى انفزحخٔ ،اإلجٓبد انًٕلؼً اظبفخ انى
**

ظشٔف انزشثخ ٔغٍشْب .ػهى انشغى يٍ أٌ شكم انفزحخ ٌؼزًذ ثصٕسح اعبعٍخ ػهى انغشض

انًغزخذيخ يٍ اجهّ ،اال اٌ انزصًٍى اَيٍ ٔاَشبء فزحخ رحذ األسض ٌزطهت يؼشفخ رٕصٌغ انعغػ

ٔاالصاحخ انزً رحذس داخم ٔحٕل انفزحبد.

**رشكض ْزِ انذساعخ ػهى رؤصٍش انًشجكبد فً َمم انحًم انذٌُبيٍكً نًُشؤ رحذ االسض .حٍش
**

اٌ ْزا انًُشؤ رى رًضٍهّ ثبَجٕة ثالعزٍكً ثذاخم انزشثخٔ .الجم انزحمك يٍ اعزجبثخ انزشثخ ،االعبط

ٔ انُفك رحذ االسض نهحًم انذٌُبيٍكً رى رصٍُغ ًَٕرط يبدئًٌ .كٍ اعزخذاو ْزا انًُٕرط

نًحبكبح رطجٍك انزحًٍم انذٌُبيٍكً.

**اٌ اجًبنً ػذد االخزجبساد انزً اجشٌذ ْٕ ًَٕ 58رطًَٕ .رجٍٍ رى فحصٓى رحذ ربصٍش
**

انحًم انغبكٍ ثبعزخذاو كضبفزٍٍ َغجٍزٍٍ ( .)%84 ٔ %44جًٍغ ال ًَٕ 56رط انًزجٍمخ رى فحصٓب

رحذ ربصٍش انحًبل انذٌُبيٍكً ٔانزً لذيذ ػهى شكم عهغهزٍٍ ثبعزخذاو كضبفزٍٍ َغجٍٍزٍٍ (ٔ ٪44

ٔ )٪84انزً رًضم انزشثخ انعؼٍفخ ٔ انمٌٕخ ػهى انزٕانً .رى إخعبع جًٍغ ًَبرط انشيم ال56

انجبفخ نهحًم انذٌُبيٍكً انى َٕػٍٍ يٍ عؼخ انحًم انًمبثهخ نـ( 4.5غٍ ٔ 1غٍ) ثبعزخذاو رشددٌٍ

ْ 2 ٔ 1شرض نكم عؼخ حًم .رى اخزجبس ًَٕرط انشيم نكم يٍ انغؼخ ٔرشدد انحًم يغ انًشجكبد

ٔثذَٔٓب ثؼشظٍٍ ( )B2 ٔ B1حٍش ْٕ Bػشض االعبط .ثبالظبفخ انى رنك رى رُفٍز صالصخ

يجًٕػبد يٍ اػًبق انًشجكبد يٍ عطح انًُٕرط (.)B1.5 ٔ B1 ، B4.5

**رى رغهٍػ انحًم انذٌُبيٍكً فً االخزجبساد ثٕاعطخ َظبو سفغ ٍْذسٔنٍكًٔ .رزعًٍ اعزجبثخ
**

انُفك نهحًم انذٌُبيٍكً لٍبط انعغػ فٕق لًخ انُفك ثبعزخذاو خهٍخ انعغػ (انًصُؼخ يٍ لجم

ششكخ ٔ )Geokonكزنك لٍبط عؼخ االصاحخ ثبعزخذاو جٓبص لٍبط االْزضاص ٔ.لذ حممذ اعزجبثخ

األعبط ػٍ غشٌك لٍبط انٓجٕغ انكهً ثبعزخذاو أجٓضح االعزشؼبس فً جٓبص انزحًٍم انذٌُبيٍكً.

**رجٍٍ اٌ انعغػ فٕق لًخ انُفك اَخفط ثُحٕ ( )65% -13%ػُذ اعزخذاو انزغهٍح
**

ثبنًشجكبد ٔرزغٍش ْزِ انُغت ٔفمب نشذح انحًم ٔحبنخ انًشجكبد ٔكضبفخ انزشثخ .أٌعب ،فؤٌ انعغػ

فٕق لًخ انُفك ٌضداد ثضٌبدح عؼخ انحًم ٔانزشدد فً حٍٍ ٌمم انعغػ ػُذ صٌبدح انكضبفخ انُغجٍخ.

رجٍٍ اٌ انٓجٕغ ٌمم ثُغجخ حٕانً ( )45%-13%ػُذ اعزخذاو انزغهٍح ثبنًشجكبد فً انشيم

انعؼٍف ْٔزِ انُغت انًئٌٕخ رخزهف ٔفمب نشذح انحًم انذٌُبيٍكً ٔحبنخ انًشجكبد ،فً حٍٍ اٌ

انشجكبد نٍظ نٓب ربصٍش فً انشيبل انمٌٕخ .أٌعب ،فؤٌ انٓجٕغ اصداد ثضٌبدح عؼخ انحًم ٔانزشدد فً

حٍٍ اَخفط ثبصدٌبد انكضبفخ انُغجٍخ نهشيبل.

جمهورية العراق

وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي

الجامعة التكنولوجية

قسم هندسة البناء واالنشاءات

**تأثير االرض المسلحة بالمشبكات في انتقال الحمل الديناميكي
**

الى االنفاق

رسالة مقدمة الى قسم هندسة البناء واالنشاءات

الجامعة التكنولوجية

كجزء من متطلبات نيل شهادة الماجستير

في علوم هندسة البناء واالنشاءات – الهندسة الجيوتكنيكية

من قبل

**دمحم سهم اسماعيل
**

بكالوريوس (هندسة البناء و االنشاءات) 2013 /

بأشراف

أ .م .د نهلة دمحم سليم أ .د دمحم يوسف فتاح

ايار 2015م شعبان 1436ﻫ

- Case Histories Secugrid and CombigridUploaded byoanaariadna
- TensarTech StratumUploaded byMilan Popovic
- Hydrodynamic Processes Afecting Benthic RecruitmentUploaded byMaharAl-hasan
- Design of Bolo Tunnels - Parte-1Uploaded byJavier_GL
- Geosynthetics in Civil EngineeringUploaded byJharolTQ
- Geo SyntheticsUploaded byedgarabraham
- Boos reading 4.pdfUploaded byFlorenciaAnabellaFleitas
- Faults and Earthquakes.pptxUploaded byKing Nehpets Alcz
- Indianrailways by Arun Shrivastava & Rajesh AgarwalUploaded byBobi Arisandi
- 1934e Mhm Prlo+EprintUploaded byJohnny Condori Uribe
- DuncanUploaded byLeonardo Faúndez G
- Articol d CititUploaded byEmanuel Roca
- Eps 108 Project OutlineUploaded byJia94
- Geosynthetics in Landfills.pdfUploaded byomi kandpal
- GEOTEXTILESUploaded bySENTHIL KUMAR
- Construction Method of Seismic IsolationUploaded byDyego Clemente Ferrer
- Biology and many other topicsUploaded bymythien94
- Bilham 2003 India In Trap Late QuakesUploaded byLauri Myllyvirta
- These Earthquakes Occurred in the Wee Hours WhenUploaded byAr Puneet Arora
- EARTHQUAKE.docUploaded byBongTizonDiaz
- SBE 12 143(Seismic Analysis)Uploaded bysvrao4u
- WCEE2012_0124Uploaded bygorgika papand
- TANJA-UNESKO-RDM-11-10-11Uploaded byAflah Habeeb Mohammed C.L
- Seismic Analysis of Rcc Framed Structures by Static (1)Uploaded byAkshay Kumar Sahoo
- eda59ac8-9ad5-4ee8-81fc-45db562ef544 car legal natural hazard disclosure statementUploaded byapi-327995017
- lec2Uploaded byJanaki Raman
- EarthquakeUploaded bySumedh Hedaoo
- BDM.pdfUploaded byaandueza_1
- Art_Seismic Behavior of Steel Girder Bridge Superstructures.pdfUploaded byMarco Figueiredo
- Shear Force and Shear StressUploaded byAGEGTAM

- air modeling.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- crank.PDFUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Motor rodUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- 31591_01.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- technical english for engineers.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- EN1997_2_Schuppener.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- vadose modeling.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- CrankUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- FLAXIS-°³¿ä.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- cariarUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Air ModelingUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Pluviator main.PDFUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- syllabus.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Retaining_Wall_Design_Example.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Engineering Use of Geotextiles.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- FrameUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- TS-0067-F1 - DT85Uploaded byAsad Hafudh
- aluminum slider details.PDFUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- DT85GUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- TS-0059-F1 - DT80Uploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Install GuideUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- TS-0071-F1 - DT80GUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Apache 2.0 License - EnglishUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- TS-0059-F1 - DT80.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- install_guide.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Pully DetailsUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- Apache 2.0 License - English.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- UPX 1.0 license - English.pdfUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- IsoUploaded byAsad Hafudh
- DS7 ManualUploaded byAsad Hafudh