Dimension Solution Software User Manual

Contents

Getting Started
Footing
Geogrid
Bearing Capacity
Settlement
Product Specification – Structural Geogrid TX5/TX7
References
Getting Started

This program provides the user with a tool that is capable of estimating the bearing
capacity and settlement of footings on natural soils and Tensar geogrid-reinforced soils.
This is an analysis program rather than a design program. As such, the user needs to
input the footing dimensions and an applied bearing pressure, soil parameters, geogrid
type and layout prior to computing the bearing capacity and settlement. This software
utilizes the allowable stress design (ASD) approach for analysis.

This program is supported by Windows 95/97, Windows NT, Vista, Windows7. The user
can access the HELP menu to obtain this document. The instructions will highlight how
to run this program, theories used in development and typical design parameters. The
typical design parameters should be used for reference only. More accurate parameters
should be obtained through testing of the project specific soils.

After installing the software, click DSS.EXE to start the program. The ABOUT dialog
will first show up. Click the CONTINUE button to move on to the DISCLAIMER
screen. If “I Agree” is selected then the WARNING screen is displayed. Click the OK
button, the ABOUT dialog will disappear and the MENUS will be active.

This is the Getting Started Text

Project
Cases
Footing
Geogrids
Bearing
Settlement
Menus

File Menu
Edit Menu

File Menu

New Project
Open Project
Save Project
Save Project As
Close Project
Print Case

Edit Menu
Add a Case
Delete a Case

2|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
New Project
After running the software for the first time or when starting a new project, the user
should click the New Project menu to begin. Every time New Project is selected, the
original default parameters are provided by the program. The project information page
is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – Setting Up A New Project Screen

Open Project
To open a saved project file for edit or modification, the user should select the Open
Project menu. The program loads all the design parameters which have been inputted
and saved by the user previously.

Save Project
To save all the input data and/or changes into a project file, the user should select the
Save Project menu under the File Menu. The recommended extension of a filename is
*.dss. The program will prompt you to save the current project that is open upon exiting
the software.

3|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Close Project
By clicking the Close Project menu, the active project file will be unloaded and you will
be questioned whether you want to save before existing.

Print Case
This program prints out the input data and results of an opened case. Note that on the
Project Information screen the “Print Summary” one page report is selected by default.
Remove the check mark when you wish to print the entire project report.

4|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Add a Case

The program allows the user to add different footing cases under the same file name.
This allows the user to deal with situations that involve different footing dimensions,
loading conditions, and soil profiles. The maximum number of cases that can be added
depends on the operating system and the system resources the user has. Figure 2
illustrates the new case window. Cases are numbered sequentially starting with Case 1.

Delete a Case

If a particular case is not needed as part of the final analysis, it can be deleted by clicking
on that particular case and then selecting the Delete a Case button.

Figure 2 – Starting the First Case for a New Project

5|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Footing

The footing tab is illustrated in Figure 3 and appears in the opening window for each
case. Footing length should be larger than or equal to the footing width. For a strip
footing, a length to width ratio should be selected such that it is greater than or equal to
10. The applied bearing pressure is defined as the total pressure at the bottom of the
footing. This value is used to calculate the minimum factor of safety, which is defined as
the ratio of ultimate bearing capacity to applied bearing pressure (ASD approach). The
user needs to input the applied bearing pressure for each footing case.

Figure 3- Illustration of the Footing Page and Default Values

6|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Geogrids

The length and width of geogrids should be equal to or larger than those of the footing.
The program only considers uniform spacing between geogrid layers. Spacing cannot be
varied but the distance from the bottom of the footing to the first geogrid layer can be
varied for analysis. Only one geogrid type, TX5 and TX7, can be selected for each case.
Information regarding TX5 and TX7 specifications can be found within the Product
Specification section. The distance from the bottom of the footing to the lowest geogrid
should be less than or equal to the total reinforced layer thickness.

In order to obtain a bearing capacity ratio (BCR) of 1.5 to 2.5 for typical building footing
sizes - 3 ft (1.0m) wide strip footings or 5 ft (1.5m) to 6ft (1.8m) wide square footings -
the following trial values may be used for the first trial. BCR is defined as the ratio of
bearing capacity of reinforced foundations to that of unreinforced foundations. In
addition to bearing capacity, requirement for settlement also needs to be satisfied.

Table 1 -Trial values for geogrid design

________________________________________________________________________________________

Trial value Recommended (not greater than)

___________________________________________________________
u 0.15B to 0.3B 0.5B
s 0.15B to 0.3B 0.5B
z 0.5B to 1.0B 2.0B
b 2.0B to 3.0B 4.0B
a 0.1B to 0.2B 0.3B
Δl 0.5B to 1.0B 2.0B
N 2 to 4 5
___________________________________________________________
After Wayne, M.H., Han, J., and Akins, K. (1998)

Note:
B - footing width;
u - distance from footing base to uppermost geogrid;
s - spacing between geogrid layers;
z - thickness of reinforced fill;
b - width of reinforced fill;
a - distance from lowest geogrid to bottom of reinforced fill;
Δl - length of geogrid extended beyond each end of strip footing;
N - number of geogrid layers.

7|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Bearing Capacity

Bearing capacity is calculated based on the following assumptions: 1.) static vertical load,
and 2.) level ground surface. For unreinforced foundations, Meyerhof bearing capacity
equations are adopted to calculate the ultimate bearing capacity (Meyerhof, 1963 and
Meyerhof and Hanna, 1978). For reinforced foundations, Meyerhof and Hanna (1978)
and Mandel and Salencon (1972) solutions are modified to calculate the ultimate bearing
capacity. Note that buoyant unit weights should be used for soil layers below the ground
water table (GWT) level.

Ultimate bearing capacity of unreinforced foundations

Three potential failure modes are evaluated by the program:
1.) Shallow failure - failure occurs within the top soil layer;
2.) Punch failure - the footing punches through the top soil layer due to failure of
the middle soil layer;
3.) Deep punch failure - a footing punches through the top and the middle soil
layers due to failure of the lower soil layer.

Ultimate bearing capacity of reinforced foundations

Four potential failure modes are evaluated:

1.) Shallow failure - failure occurs above the uppermost geogrid;
2.) Inter-layer failure - failure occurs in the soil region between the two uppermost
geogrids, and the failure mechanisms include geogrid pullout and overstress;
3.) Deep punch failure - a footing punches through the reinforced zone and the
middle layer due to failure of the lower soil layer, and geogrids may be
pulled-out or overstressed;
4.) Dimension failure - failure occurs along the area boundary of the reinforced
zone .

Notes:

1. The fill material in the reinforced fill zone shall be cohesionless material with a
maximum particle size of 2 inches or less, and an internal friction angle of at least 30
degrees, and shall be compacted to a density of at least 95% maximum density as
determined by Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D 698-91), or an equivalent fill density
measured by other methods. In addition, if gravel is used as the fill material, then it
shall be well graded.
2. For the punching failure mode, the lower soil layer should have a lower strength than
the upper soil layer.

3. Typical values for unconfined compressive strength of clay and effective friction
angle are cited as follows:

Table 2 - Typical values for unconfined compressive strength of clay

8|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
 _________________________________________________________
Unconfined compressive
SPT N value Consistency strength
(blows/ft or 305 mm) (kips/ft2) kPa
_________________________________________________________
0 to 2 Very soft 0 - 0.5 0 - 25
2 to 4 Soft 0.5 - 1 25 - 50
4 to 8 Medium 1-2 50 - 100
8 to 15 Stiff 2-3 100 - 150
15 to 30 Very stiff 3-4 150 - 200
> 30 Hard >4 >200
_________________________________________________________
After Terzaghi and Peck (1967).

Table 3 - Typical values for the effective friction angle, φ

__________________________________________________________________
φ (degrees)
Soil material ____________________________________
Loose Dense
__________________________________________________________________

Sand, rounded, uniform 27.5 34

Sand, angular ,well-graded 33 45
Sandy gravel 35 50
Silty sand 27 to 33 30 to 34
Inorganic silt 27 to 30 30 to 35
__________________________________________________________________
After Terzaghi and Peck (1967).
φ - effective peak friction angle measured in triaxial compression tests.

Table 4 - SPT N value versus effective friction angle phi relationships

___________________________________________________________

N value Relative φ (degrees)

(blows/ft or 305mm) density (1) (2)
___________________________________________________________

0 to 4 Very loose < 28 <30

4 to 10 Loose 28 to 30 30 to 35
10 to 30 Medium 30 to 36 35 to 40
30 to 50 Dense 36 to 41 40 to 45
> 50 Very dense > 41 > 45
___________________________________________________________
(1) Peck, Hanson, and Thornburn (1974); (2) Meyerhof (1956).

9|Page
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
In the bearing capacity calculation, effective friction angle may be adjusted as follows.
when the friction angle measured in a triaxial test is greater than 30 degrees (Bowles,
1982):

φ (adj.) =(1.1-0.1 B/L) φ

where, B and L are the footing width and length respectively; φ is the effective friction
angle measured in a triaxial test with site specific soils.

10 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Settlement
The settlement module is independent of the bearing capacity module. As such, changes
in strength values in bearing capacity calculations will not alter settlement results. Three
settlement calculation methods are used to estimate the settlement of unreinforced and
Dimension foundations. As such, the results obtained may not be identical. These
methods are described in the following sections. To estimate the settlement of
Dimension foundations using these design methodologies, the following requirements
should be met:

(1) Minimum factor of safety against bearing failure should be greater than 2.0;
(2) At least two layers of geogrids are used;
(3) The greatest benefit is achieved when the existing soil layer underlying the
Dimension system consists of soft clay or loose cohesionless soil. The soft or loose soil
should be within the depth from footing base of 2B for square footings or 4B for strip
footings, where B is the footing width.

The settlement due to newly-placed, large area fill material for grading purposes is not
automatically associated with the footing load in the calculation. However, the user may
wish to run a separate case to determine this settlement.

Uniform Soil

For a uniform soil, elastic theory (Lawton, 1995) is used to estimate settlement for a
uniform soil with unlimited thickness. This method only applies to circular footings.
When the length to width ratio of a rectangular footing is less than 1.5, this method can
still provide an approximate solution. For such a case, an equivalent diameter is
computed and used in the analysis. See Table 6 for guidelines for the elastic modulus
input values see Variable Soil.

Table 5 - Typical values for Poisson’s ratio, μ, are as follows:

Type Of Soil:
_____________________ μ ________________________
Saturated clay (1) 0.4 - 0.5
(1)
Unsaturated clay 0.1 - 0.3
Sandy clay (1) 0.2 - 0.3
Silt (1) 0.3 - 0.35
(2)
Silty sand 0.2 - 0.4
Loose sand (2) 0.2 - 0.4
(2)
Medium sand 0.25 - 0.4
Dense sand (2) 0.3 - 0.45
(1)
Loess 0.1 - 0.3
__________________________________________________________________
(1)
After Bowles (1982); (2) After Das (1995).

11 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Cohesionless Soil

The Schmertmann method (1970 and 1978) is used for both the unreinforced and
reinforced cases. This method has been modified for the latter case to take into account
the distribution of stress within a Tensar reinforced Dimension system. Starting from the
bottom of the reinforced zone, the Schmertmann method is adopted. The Schmertmann
method in both forms is only applicable to cohesionless soils.

Variable Soil

The stress distribution method has been adopted to compute stresses at different depths.
Field and laboratory research has demonstrated that the inclusion of Tensar geogrids can
increase the stress distribution angle, therefore, different stress distribution angles are
used within and below the reinforced zone. Elastic modulus values are interpreted from
their correlation to SPT blow count numbers. Typical elastic modulus values for
cohesionless soils are listed in the following table:

Table 6 - Elastic modulus for cohesionless soil, E (ksf)

____________________________________________________
Soil type L/B = 1 L/B 10
____________________________________________________
Silts, sandy silts, slightly
cohesive silt-sand mixtures 10N 14N
Clean, fine to medium sands
& slightly silty sands 17.5N 24.5N
Coarse sands & sands with
little gravel 25N 35N
Sandy gravel's & gravel 30N 42N

____________________________________________________
N - SPT N value.
After Schmertmann(1970) and Schmertmann, Hartman, and Brown (1978).

When no test data is available, elastic modulus of the engineered backfill materials in the
reinforced zone can be estimated by assuming SPT N value equal to 25 to 40. In
laboratory studies ( Dong, et., al., 2010), the inclusion of TX5 and TX7 geogrids within
backfill materials have led to an increase in the elastic modulus of reinforced fill by 1.5 to
3.5 for two geogrid layers or 4.0 to 8.0 for three geogrid layers. The high value may be
used for TX7 geogrids while the low value may be used for TX5 geogrids.

12 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
The compression index value is used to calculate settlement due to consolidation of
layers of cohesive soil layers. Typical values are as follows:

Table 7 - Typical values for Compression Index, Cc/(1+e0)

________________________________________________________________________________

Liquid Limit Cc e0 Cc/(1+e0)

______________________________________________________
30 0.18 0.90 0.095
50 0.36 1.10 0.171
70 0.54 1.30 0.235
100 0.81 1.50 0.324
______________________________________________________
Cc=0.009*(LL -10)
After Peck, Hanson and Thornburn (1974)

Typically, Cr/Cc ratio can be assumed to be 0.05 to 0.10 (Holtz and Kovacs, 1981).
When OCR is equal to or less than 1.0, there is no need to input Cr/Cc ratio.

Table 8 - Maximum permissible settlement

__________________________________________________________________
Type of Movement Limiting factor Maximum settlement
__________________________________________________________________
Total settlement Drainage and access 0.15 to 0.6 m (0.5 to 2 ft)
Probability of differential
settlement
Masonry walls 25 to 50 mm (1 to 2 in.)
Framed buildings 50 to 100 mm (2 to 4 in.)

Tilting Tower, stacks 0.004B

Rolling of trucks, stacking
of goods 0.01S
Crane rails 0.003S
Curvature Brick walls in buildings 0.0005S to 0.002S
Reinforced concrete building
frame 0.003S
Steel building frame, continuous 0.002S
Steel building frame, simple 0.005S
Max. permissible Floor slab, 100 mm thick 0.02S
settlement
______________________________________________________________
B - base width; S - column spacing., After Sowers (1979).

13 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Product Specification - Structural Geogrid TX5/TX7
Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc. reserves the right to change its product specifications at
any time. It is the responsibility of the specifier and purchaser to ensure that product
specifications used for design and procurement purposes are current and consistent with
the products used in each instance. Please contact Tensar Earth technologies. Inc. at
www.tensarcorp.com for assistance .

The structural geogrid shall be an integrally formed grid structure manufactured of a

stress resistant polypropylene material with molecular weight and molecular
characteristics which impart: (a) high resistance to loss of load capacity or structural
integrity when the geogrid is subjected to mechanical stress in installation; (b) high
resistance to deformation when the geogrid is subjected to applied force in use; and (c)
high resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when the geogrid is
subjected to long-term environmental stress.

The structural geogrid shall accept applied force in use by positive mechanical interlock
(i.e. by direct mechanical keying) with: (a) compacted soil or construction fill materials;
(b) contiguous sections of itself when overlapped and embedded in compacted soil or
construction fill materials; and (c) rigid mechanical connectors such as bodkins, pins or
hooks. The structural geogrid shall possess sufficient flexural stiffness to enable efficient
installation over weak or wet in situ soils and sufficient torsional stiffness to resist in
plane movement of compacted soil or construction fill materials when these are subject to
rotating lateral displacement forces such as a moving vehicle causes in a roadway
foundation. The structural geogrid shall possess complete continuity of all properties
throughout its structure and shall be suitable for internal reinforcement of compacted soil
or particulate construction fill materials to improve their load bearing capacity in
structural load bearing applications such as foundation improvement systems. The
structural geogrid shall otherwise have the following characteristics:

Product Type - Integrally Formed Structural Geogrid

Load Transfer Mechanism - Positive Mechanical Interlock

The geogrid shall have the nominal characteristics shown in the table below, and shall be
certified in writing by the manufacturer to be TX5 or TX7:

TX5
Properties Longitudinal Diagonal Transverse General

Rib pitch, mm 40 (1.60) 40 (1.60) -

(in)
Mid-rib depth, - 1.3 (0.05) 1.2 (0.05)
mm (in)
Mid-rib width, - 0.9 (0.04) 1.2 (0.05)
mm (in)

14 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
 Rib shape rectangular
Aperture shape triangular

TX7
Properties Longitudinal Diagonal Transverse General

Rib pitch, mm 40 (1.60) 40 (1.60) -

(in)
Mid-rib depth, - 2.0 (0.08) 1.6 (0.06)
mm (in)
Mid-rib width, - 1.0 (0.04) 1.3 (0.05)
mm (in)
Rib shape rectangular
Aperture shape triangular

- Interaction Coefficient (Granular Soils) 1.0

Durability

- Resistance to Long Term Degradation1 % 100

Dimensions and Delivery

The structural geogrid shall be delivered to the jobsite in roll form with each roll
individually identified and nominally
measuring 4.0 meters (13.1 ft.) in width and 50.3 meters (164 ft.) in length. A typical
truckload quantity is 300 rolls. On special request, the structural geogrid may also be
custom cut to specific lengths or widths to suit site specific engineering designs.

Notes:

1. Resistance to loss of load capacity or structural integrity when subjected to

chemically aggressive environments measured via EPA 9090 immersion testing.

Tensar Earth Technologies, Inc.

2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 500
Alpharetta, GA 30009
(800) 836-7271

This product specification supersedes all prior specifications for the product described
above and it is not applicable to any products shipped to jobsite prior to June 1, 2011.

References
Bowles, J.E. (1982). Foundation Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill Book
Company.

15 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International
Das, B.M.(1995). Principles of Foundation Engineering, 3rd ed., PWS Publishing
Company, Boston.

Dong, Y.-L., Han, J., and Bai, X.-H. (2010). Bearing capacities of geogrid-reinforced
sand bases under static loading. Proceedings of the GeoShanghai International
Conference 2010, Shanghai, China.

Lawton, E.C. (1995). Part 5A Non-grouting techniques. Practical Foundation Engineering

Handbook, edited by R.W. Brown, McGraw-Hill.

Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D. (1981). An introduction to geotechnical engineering.

Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1956). Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless soils.
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 82, No. SM1.

Mandel, J. and Salencon (1972). Force portante dun sol sur une assise rigide.
Geotechnique, Vol. 22.

Meyerhof, G.G. (1963). Some recent research on the bearing capacity of foundations.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 1, No.1, September.

Peck, R.B., Hanson, W.E., and Thornburn, T.H. (1974). Foundation Engineering, 2nd ed.,
Jos. Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.

Schmertmann, J.H.(1970). Static cone to compute static settlement over sand. Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, No. SM3.

Schmertmann, J.H., Hartman, J.P., and Brown, P.R. (1978). Improved strain influence
factor diagrams. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No.
GT8.

Sowers, G.F. (1979). Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical

Engineering, 4th ed., MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York.

Terzaghi, K. and Peck, R.B. (1967). Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, 2nd ed.,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Wayne, M.H., Han, J., and Akins, K. (1998) "The Design of Geosynthetic Reinforced
Foundations," Geosynthetics in Foundation Reinforcement and Erosion Control Systems,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 76, Bowders, J.J., Scranton, H.B., and Broderick,
G.P. (Editors), 1998, pp 1-18.

16 | P a g e
Dimension Software User’s Manual, © Copyright 2011 Tensar International