BEARING CAPACITY TESTS ON REINFORCED

S A N D SUBGRADES

By B. P. Verma 1 and A. N. R. Char2

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ABSTRACT: Bearing capacity tests on model footings on sand subgrades rein-

forced with galvanized rods placed vertically in the subgrade have shown ben-
eficial effects of the reinforcements. The improvement compares favorably with
the results obtained by investigations using horizontal forms of reinforcements.
The improvement is a function of the spacing, diameter, roughness, and extent
of the reinforcing elements.

INTRODUCTION

Improvement in the load carrying capacity a n d settlement character-

istics of sand subgrades with horizontal reinforcements u n d e r footing
foundations has been reported by A k i n m u s u r u a n d Akinbolade (1), Bin-
quet and Lee (3), Fragaszy a n d Lawton (5), Milovic (7), a n d others. Me-
tallic and nonmetallic, rectangular and circular reinforcing elements were
used in these studies. However, the greatest disadvantage with hori-
zontal reinforcements, is that it cannot be used in in situ conditions. The
subgrade u n d e r the footing has to be relaid a n d compaction of the layer
becomes essential after placing the reinforcing elements. Basset a n d Last
(2) investigated the possibility of using nonhorizontal reinforcements and
suggested further work in this direction d u e to their limited study of the
problem. Installation of root piles for improving foundation subgrades
had been advocated by Lizzi (6). If inclined or vertical reinforcements
are effective, they can be installed more easily in n e w construction and
used for the strengthening of existing foundations. The current inves-
tigation has been conducted to evaluate the efficiency of vertical rein-
forcing elements in improving sand subgrades. Extent, spacing, and
flexibility of the reinforcing elements are considered to be the variables
in this investigation. This paper describes a series of laboratory model
tests designed to determine the influence of the variables on the bearing
capacity and load settling behavior of reinforced sand.

TEST ARRANGEMENT

Two-dimensional model tests were carried out using a 720 x 400 x

90-mm box. A 7-mm thick perspex sheet was used in the frontage for
observing the failure surface. Special care was taken to make the box as
rigid as possible. Three pairs of mild steel angles of 60 x 60 X 6 m m
were used as horizontal stiffeners. Each pair was connected tightly to-
'Grad. Student, Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Indian Inst, of Tech., Kharagpur, India
721302.
2
Prof., Dept. of Civ. Engrg., Indian Inst, of Tech., Kharagpur, India 721302.
Note.—Discussion open until December 1, 1986. To extend the closing date
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals.
The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and possible publication
on September 24, 1985. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engi-
neering, Vol. 112, No. 7, July, 1986. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9410/86/0007-0701/$01.00.
Paper No. 20739.

701

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:701-706.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 1.—Test Setup

gether with nuts and bolts. After the tests, the stiff eners were removed
for sketching the failure surface. The general test set up is shown in Fig.
1. The applied load was recorded with the help of a calibrated proving
ring. The settlement of the footing was recorded by dial gages fixed with

SECTIONAL ELEVATION

e © © a© © e a a e e e e © © e a e a e a e e e
e © o © a « © e ©
a © © © e « s e e ee © e o «
e © © © e e © a © e e o e o ©

PLAN

FIG. 2.—Reinforcement Pattern

702

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:701-706.

 adapters and resting on two extension plates fixed on either side of the
footing. Model footings 40 mm thick were made out of well-seasoned
teak wood and their bases were knurled to simulate the rough base con-
dition of a prototype footing.
The cohesionless test beds were prepared by pouring standard Ennore
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

sand in layers through a funnel held at a constant height, 300 mm above

the surface. The uniformity coefficient and the effective size of the sand
were 1.41 and 0.49 mm, respectively. The dry density of the sand bed
was found to be about 1.58 mg/m 3 (R.D. 71%) for all the tests per-
formed. The surface of the test bed was properly leveled and checked
with a spirit level. Galvanized iron rods of required length and size were
pushed into the sand bed vertically at predetermined spacings. A single
layer of sand particles were bonded onto the surface of these rods with
araldite to simulate a rough surface and were employed in a few tests.
The patterns of reinforcements used in the tests are shown in Fig. 2.
After placing the reinforcements the sand surface was again leveled and
checked with a spirit level before placing the model footing on it. The
footing was pushed into the sand bed at a constant speed of 1 mm per
minute until failure.

TEST RESULTS

The variables of the current investigation are given in Table 1. Two

nondimensional parameters—settlement ratio (SR) and bearing capacity
ratio (BCR)—are used to analyze the test data and are defined as fol-
lows:
0)
SR = - (la)
K
B '
BCR = ^ (lb)
<7o
TABLE 1.—Effect of Vertical Reinforcement on Bearing Capacity of Strip Footing:
Width of Footing = 100 mm

ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY (kPa)

R =B R = IB R = 3B
Spacing Spacing/
(mm) (mm) diameter L = B L = 1.5B L =B L = 1.5B L =B L = 1.5B
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
1.7 18 10.59 759.3 692.4 843.4 847.3 859.1 885.6
1.7 15 8.82 758.3 853.2 939.5
1.7 13 7.65 833.6 927.7 902.3 1,163.1 960.3 1,263.8
1.7 10 5.88 980.7 1,162.7 1,061.7 1,567.1 1,364.9 1,668.2
1.7 (Rough) 13 7.65 1,266.1 1,402.4 1,971.2
2.51 22.5 8.96 859.4 907.1 1,061.6
2.51 18 7.17 905.2 960.5 1,061.6 1,163.1 1,163.1 1,263.8
2.51 15 5.98 1,061.6 1,163.1 1,263.8 1,263.8 1,381.8 1,364.9
2.51 13 5.18 1,466.2 1,668.2 1,971.2
2.51 (Rough) 18 7.17 1,264.1 1,340.0 1,460.2 1,971.5 1,567.1
Unreinforced 504.4

Note: 1 kPa = 0.145 psi; 1 in. = 25.4 mm

703

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:701-706.

 PRESSURE kPa——
. 0 200 100 600 BOO 1000 1200 1400 1600 IBOO 2000 2200
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

z 15
£

\W \\ \
DIAM. OF REINF. BAR (mm)
\\\1-7 2'5I 17
W
251 251 1-7 251 251 (ROUGH)
SPACING. OF REINF. BAR (mm) 15 225 13 IS 15 10 13 18

FIG. 3.—Bearing Pressure—Settlement Ratio Curves

DIAM. OF REINF. SPACING OF

BARS(mm) REINF. BARS(mm)

O 2-51 18
(ROUGH)

40
10
15
18

530
13
225

2.0

10 1,5 20 25 30 35 40
SETTLEMENT RATIO (7.) -

FIG. 4.—Bearing Capacity Ratio—Settlement Ratio Curves

704

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:701-706.

 AYB
100 1000 5000
_rrr
p- CONTACT PRESSURE
B- FOOTING WIDTH
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Y- UNIT WEIGHT OF SOIL

A- NON DIMENSIONAL
FACTOR- f (SHAPE
FACTORS,SETTLEMENT
RATIO) REF. 4

REINFORCED SAND

100

FIG. 5.—Evaluation of Failure Load (Ret. 4)

in which co and B are settlement and width of footing, respectively, while

cj and q0 are the bearing pressures for the reinforced and the unrein-
forced soil, respectively, at a given settlement ratio. Fig. 3 shows the
bearing pressure-settlement ratio relations obtained for the case of L =
1.5B and R = IB (Fig. 2) and have been compared in Fig. 4, employing
the settlement ratio and bearing capacity ratio. Similar relations have
been obtained in the case of other tests reported in Table 1. It has been
observed that a general shear failure occurs in the case of unreinforced
and lightly reinforced sand subgrades, while a well-defined failure point
in the load-settlement relation is not present in the case of sufficiently
reinforced sand subgrades. The evaluation of ultimate load was, there-
fore, conducted through the method suggested by De Beer (4) and em-
ployed by Vesic (8); it is shown for two typical cases in Fig. 5. The results
are reported in Table 1. It is observed that the bearing capacity ratio
decreases with increasing settlement ratio, attains a minimum value, and
thereafter increases substantially with increasing settlement ratios.

CONCLUSIONS

The study shows the beneficial effect of using vertical reinforcing rods
for sand subgrades. The improvement in bearing capacity compares fa-
705

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:701-706.

 vorably with the results obtained by investigators using a horizontal form
of reinforcement. The greatest advantage of this m e t h o d is that relaying
of the subgrade is not required as in the case of horizontal reinforce-
ment.
The results in Table 1 s h o w that for a given spacing of reinforcements
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of North Dakota on 11/18/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(density), the bearing capacity is a function of the diameter and rough-

ness of the reinforcements while for a given type of reinforcement used,
bearing capacity increases with increasing density of reinforcements, and
is in conformity with the few results reported by Basset a n d Last (2). It
is observed that flexible reinforcements with a height of one-and-a-half
times the width of the footing for length of twice the width of the footing
on either side, with a spacing of six diameters, can be used to derive a
substantial improvement. However, since the ratio of the diameters of
the reinforcing rods to the particles for a field installation is likely to be
different, further tests on bigger footing models are necessary.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writers are grateful to the authorities of the Indian Institute of

Technology, Kharagpur, India, for the facilities and encouragement given.

APPENDIX.—REFERENCES

1. Akinmusuru, J. O., and Akinbolade, J. A., "Stability of Loaded Footings on

Reinforced Soil," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol.
107, No. GT6, June, 1981, pp. 819-827.
2. Bassett, R. H., and Last, N. C , "Reinforcing Earth Below Footings and Em-
bankments," Proceedings, Symposium on Earth Reinforcement, ASCE Annual
Convention, Pittsburgh, Pa., 1978, pp. 202-231.
3. Binquet, J., and Lee, K. L., "Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced Earth Slabs,"
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. GT12, Dec,
1975, pp. 1241-1255.
4. De Beer, E. E., "Experimental Determination of the Shape Factors and the
Bearing Capacity Factors of Sand," Geotechnique, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1970, pp. 387-
411.
5. Fragaszy, R. J., and Lawton, E., "Bearing Capacity of Reinforced Sand
Subgrades," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 110,
No. 10, Oct., 1984, pp. 1500-1507.
6. Lizzi, F., "Recticulated Root Pile Structures for in-situ Soil Strengthening,
Theoretical Aspects and Model Tests," Proceedings, International Conference
on Soil Reinforcement, Vol. 2, Paris, France, 1979, pp. 317-324.
7. Milovic, D., "Bearing Capacity Tests on Reinforced Sand," Proceedings, Ninth
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Vol.
1, Tokyo, Japan, 1977, pp. 651-654.
8. Vesic, A. S., "Analysis of Ultimate Loads of Shallow Foundations," Journal of
the Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 99, No. SMI,
Jan., 1973, pp. 45-71.

706

J. Geotech. Engrg. 1986.112:701-706.