TECHNICAL NOTE Eun C. Shin,' Braja M. Das Vijay K. Puri,) Shing-Chung Yen,* and Echo! B. Cook* Bearing Capacity of Strip Foundation on Geogrid-Reinforced Clay suveneycs Si, £.C, 09,8. PHY, Kes. salar abi feo ee IEFERENCE: Sin EC ip aamaion on Gevp of stp foundations a shown in Fig. 1.1 Phe tir soto eng na ete Waris aden awh Tee ing 1 tng, the Non d, December 1993, pp. 534-511 December 1993, pp the clay, each having a width B. The first layer of geogrid is ABSTRACT: Laboratory mode test results are presente! for the ocated at.a depth u measured from the bottom of the foundation ABSTRACT: Labor of os oundation spore by asst ‘The distance between “cach consecutive layer of geogrid is equal mate tearing eT hy ars ood. Te ess ee cone, Ths the depth of einorsement dd, can be given as Ped ay eye pe of ay, The average mosture content of the cay acted in oe Og untran sear stengts Laborato wate eng ta ene an =u tv - ih a tee the ng forcement ners ands iste ards even eels toon ‘The improvement the tina as a se oti fh i Le fm ole bong cast dation dae oo reiforcement generally ete si. Sie om called betring capacity cto (CR) which defined as KEYWORDS: cays, bearing capaciies, bearing capacity fatio, geO™ ‘pad, sup foundation, undraied shear sreosth o several aratory mol test sas are presently vale ae aan Je rlted to the improvement of the in ta era of shallow fountains supported By and To beating apn gate gs Cudo e 198; KH et ed ae gta 195), Some of the laboratory todel "Fy given soil ant type of ogi and Fora gven a6 eral 93 Om a 9) So nds: yp and st ene api nw ese tes were cot ho al mdr ce” ei he aber (mths) o 08 ST wih sip outs o atwabc bingy tsimum yea 8 (lB. and wean aa oun supported Dy eatin Cggq thereat In sia manne, oer PARAMS iat sal an ee re amr et w= oD sated ey a pal es niet gn nh er cy ato ch i A ne carne othe sy to ten te ci (ian Dawson and Le (18) rr eaters uD) (IB) and a), ERT #8) and Dasa a pe entation ofthe opine gray ales can ret efor gi efnomenin strate hey where suum i the ultimate bearing capacity with soil einfore: rent, aad q, isthe ultimate bearing capacity without reinforce Laboratory Model Tests “Graduate student, Department of Civil Ensiecring and Meskanis, Souther inns Univer). cand, 1 290 5 For the present laboratory model tests, « natural clayey so Sarangi prin of Ace Alia Sher eis Un ws sed The soil had 98% finer than No. 200 U S. sieve (O47 { versiy, Carbondale, 2001-3 Mum opening), The grain-size analysis ofthe soils show iF Ty cae Profesor, Deparinent of Civil Enginering and Mecha, pening). The Br ysis ofthe soi shown in Fi Southern Moe Unvcry, Carbonale I, 6201-603 2 Other physical properties of the sil are: rae ate protean, Deparment of Cra Engineering and Mechanics, ‘Southern Hlinois University, Carbondale, IL 629016609 1. Liquid limit = 44%, rahe hos Uae Ce ccrgand Mechanics, Southern 2+ PUN ine 20% m6 3, Specitie gravity of sol solids = 2.74 ‘5 1998 by the American Socio for Testing and Materia> ‘Minis Univer, Carbondale, UL 6 e538SHIN ET AL ON GEOGRID-REINFORCED CLAY 535 3 Saturated clay o-0 _] FIG. 1—Sirip foundation on geogri-reinforced clay. ‘The clayey soil obtained from the field was pulverized in the \uboratory and mixed with predetermined amounts of water. For imiform moisture distribution, the moist soil was then placed in veveral plastic bags and cured for about a week before u AA biaxial geogrid was used as reinforcing material. The phys- tal properties of the geogrid are given in Table 1. “The model foundation measured 76.2. mm (B) x 3048 mm snd was made out of an aluminum plate. The model test box rnessured 1.09 m (length) % 304.8:mm (wid) % 0.91 m (height. The long sides of the box were made of thick Plexiglas and were ‘nuced with angle iron to avoid yielding during soil compaction aad the actual model tests. The ends of the model foundation bere made as smooth as possible to reduce friction during the 100 —-—~ 80 ° 10 01 001 Grain size (ram) ‘001 0.0005 BO 2 Gina dbo of the clayey sl sed he mode tests. No attempt was made to determine the frictional resistance ‘between the edges of the model foundation and the Plexiglas For actual model tests, the moist soil was placed in the test ‘box and compacted in 25.4-mm-thick layers by means of a flat- bottomed hammer. The geogrid layers were placed in the clay at desired values of w/B and hiB, ‘The model foundation was placed on the surface of the compacted clay bed. Load on the ‘model foundation was applied by a hydraulic jack. The load and corresponding settlement were measured by a proving ring and two dial gauges placed on each side of the center line of the foundation. For any given test, the time for loading to failure varied between 10 (0 15 min. The undrsined shear strength, 6. of the compacted clay was determined at the end of each hearing capacity test using a hand-held shear vane device, ‘Seven series of tests Were conducted, details of which are given in Table 2. Test Series A was conducted with unteinforced clay Series B, C, D, and E were conducted to evaluate (w/B),, and (biB),,. The purpose of Series F and G was to evaluate (dB), It needs to be pointed out that, in Test Series B, C, D, E, F, and G, the HB ratio was kept constant (= 0.333) only for con- venience. Other parameters (Le., w'B, b/B, and dB) remaining constant, the variation of hi will have some influence on the magnitude of BCR but not on (uiB).,, (b/B),, and (d/B),.. For all tests, the bottom layer of reinforcement was located at a distance of 4B oF more above the bottom of the model test box. Hence the interference on the bottom of the model fest box on (aiB),, was not considered to be significant TABLE 1— Physical properties ofthe geogyd Parameter ‘Quantity Structure Pnctured sheet drawn Polymer PPINDPE co-polymer Junetion method Uniired “Aperture size (MD/XMD) 25.4 unmv38 02 mm ib thickness 0.702 mn “Function thickness 279 mm636 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING JOURNAL “TABLE 2—Detals of laboratory model 16: Renae ue N WB bie Nin Comments A L 3.14 Tests without reinforcement 2 on B38 025 4 033 2.34680 314 gvogeidevinforcement C Swi od 4 oa 2 eaesw 3d Seorid reinforcement D S02 06 4 G38 Za Celso S4b Teste with googrid reinforcement E 2w% 08 4 GS Paola 314 Tests with geogrd reinforcement F Mw2 04 34,56 038 ’ 3a Tests with geoged reinforcement G Boe OF 125456 0333 4 Gan Teste with geogridreinforsment Note: (i) N = number of geogrid layers: c, = undrained cohesion (8 Porecnswithc, = 314 KNinc: Moisture content = 42.5% TReerage most unit woaght = 17.4 kim" ‘Average degree of saturstion ~ 97% (6) For tests with 6, = 6.02 KN/m?: Moisture content TKeerage most unit weight = 18.1 KN "2 317% ‘Average demee of saturation = 98% Laboratory Model Test Results Test Series A ‘These tests were conducted on unreinforced clay. The average plots of the load per unit area q versus sB (s = settlement) Botained from these tests arc shown in Fig 3. The ultimate bearing capacity for each of these g versus s/B plots can be Getermined by asing the criteria described by Vesic (1973), a> ording to which i is defined as the peak load per unit area or the load per unit area at which the q versus s/B plot becomes practical Hinear (ice A/B)/Sq isa maximum, The magnitudes Pr uhe ultimate bearing capacity q, for Tests 1 and 2 were 16.34 and 31.03 kNim?. For strip surface foundations Ne 6 Using the experimental ultimate bearing capacities and the corresponding average values of ¢,, the magnitudes of N, ean be Calculated as 521 for Test 1 and 5.15 for Test 2, These values gre in excellent agreement with the theoretical value of Ne ~ SM Test Series B, C, D. and E ‘The tests in these four series were conducted primarily to evaluate (wB)., and (BiB)... For al tests, the average value of 4 ‘Load per unit area, q (kN/m") 0 10 s Sm) 10 3 15 20 30 Unreinforced clay ‘© Ultimate bearing capacity. 4, IG. 3—Plot of load per unit area versus B—Test Sis A