SETTLEMENT DUE TO

MACHINE FOUNDATION FOR

REINFORCED AND UN-
REINFORCED SAND AND
CLAY SOIL
By : Ahmed Hossam Fikry

Msc.
Supervision: Dr. Tamer Mohamed Sorour
In many cases shallow foundations supported by geogrid-reinforced soil may be subjected to cyclic
loading.

This problem will primarily be encountered by vibratory machine foundations. Das [13] and Das and
Shin [14] reported laboratory model test results on settlement caused by cyclic loading on surface
foundations supported, respectively, by reinforced sand and saturated clay.

Sand
The model tests of Das [13] were conducted with a square model foundation on unreinforced and
geogrid-reinforced sand. Details of the sand and geogrid parameters were:

The laboratory tests were conducted by first applying a static load of intensity qs (= qu (R) /FS; FS =
factor of safety) followed by a cyclic load of low frequency (1 cps). The amplitude of the intensity of
cyclic load was qdc(max) . The nature of load application described is shown in Fig. 7.25. Figure 7.26
shows the nature of variation of foundation settlement due to cyclic load application

FIGURE 7.25 Nature of load application—cyclic load test

 FIGURE 7.26 Plot of Sec /B versus n (after Das [13]) ( Note: For

reinforced sand u/B = h/B = 1/3; b/B = 4; d/B = 1-1/3)

Sec with qdc (max) /qu (R) and number of load cycles n. This is for the case of FS = 3. Note that, for
any given test, Sec increases with n and reaches practically a maximum value Sec (max) at n = ncr.
Based on these tests the following conclusions can be drawn.

1. For given values of FS and n, the magnitude of Sec /B increases with

the increase in qdc (max) /qu (R) .

2. If the magnitude of qdc (max) /qu (R) and n remain constant, the value of Sec/B increases with a
decrease in FS.

3. The magnitude of ncr for all tests in reinforced soil is approximately the same, varying between
1.75 × 105

and 2.5 × 105 cycles. Similarly, the magnitude of ncr for all tests in unreinforced soil varies
between 1.5 × 105 and 2.0 × 105 cycles.
The variations of Sec (max) /B obtained from these tests for various values of qdc (max) /qu (R) and
FS are shown in Fig. 7.27. This figure clearly demonstrates

the reduction of the level of permanent settlement caused by geogrid reinforcement due to cyclic
loading. Using the results of Sec (max) given in Fig. 7.27, the variation of settlement ratio ρ for
various combinations of qdc (max) /qu (R) and FS are plotted in Fig. 7.28. The settlement ratio is
defined as

From Fig. 7.28 it can be seen that, although some scattering exists, the settlement ratio is only a
function of qdc (max) /qu (R) and not the factor of safety, FS.

FIGURE 7.27 Plot of Sec(max) /B versus qdc(max) /qu(R) . (after

Das [10]) (Note: For reinforced sand, u/B = h/B = 1/3, b/B = 4, d/B = 1-1/3)
Saturated clay

Laboratory model test results on continuous foundations with similar loading conditions as those
described above (Fig. 7.25) in reinforced saturated clay were provided by Das and Shin [14]. General
parameters of the test program were as follows:

Model foundation: Continuous; B = 76.2 mm

Clay: Moisture content = 34%

Degree of saturation = 96%

Undrained shear strength, cu = 12 kN/m2

Reinforcement: Geogrid; TENSAR BX1100

The general nature of the foundation settlement curve [for a given FS and qdc (max) /qu (R) ]
obtained is shown in Fig. 7.29, which can be divided into three major zones. Zone 1 (for n = 1 to n =
nr ) is a rapid settlement zone during which about 70% of the maximum settlement [Sec (max) ]
takes place. The magnitude of nr is about 10. Zone 2 (n = nr to n = ncr ) is a zone in which the
settlement continues at a retarding rate reaching a maximum at n = ncr. For n! ncr, the settlement of
the foundation due to cyclic loading is negligible. The magni-

tude of ncr for reinforced soil varied from 1.8 × 104 to 2.5 × 104 cycles.

Figure 7.30 shows the summary of the tests conducted, and it is a plot of Sec(max) /B for various
combinations of qdc (max) /qu (R) and FS. It is important to note that, for FS = 4.27, Sec (max) for
reinforced soil was about 20% to 30% smaller than that in unreinforced soil.