Plate load tests for investigation of the load–settlement behaviour of shallow foundation on bitumen-coated geogrid reinforced soil bed

Akbar, Asif; Bhat, Javed Ahmad; Mir, Bashir Ahmed

doi:10.1007/s41062-020-00397-6

Cited by 13 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 64 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The width of the geogrid was adopted as 4 B as the bearing capacity increment was assessed to reach up to 95% at this width [1]. Many authors have used a wider dimension of geogrid in past studies [14,[51][52][53][54]. The properties of the sand layer are as follows: friction angle, φ = 43°, unit weight, γ = 21.7 kN/m 3 [11], Young's modulus, E = 40,000 kN/m 2 [34].…”

Section: Numerical Modelling Of the Field Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study on the Reinforced Sand-Bed and the Stone Column in Improving the Clay Deposit Supporting Isolated Footing

Krishnamurthy,

Maniam Rajan

2024

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The working mechanism of a geotechnical structure can be understood from the deformations and the vertical stresses in the soil media. This article attempts to study the deformation, vertical stress development, and distribution of improved clay deposits carrying a single isolated footing. Through PLAXIS 3D software, numerical analyses were conducted for the ground improvement methods, such as the geogrid reinforced sand-bed (GRSB) and ordinary and geogrid encased stone column installation (OSC and GESC). In GRSB, the results show that the stresses were maximum at the sand–clay interface at a depth of 0.67 B (B—footing width). It is proposed to place an additional layer of geogrid at the interface, and it must be within the critical depth, i.e., the width of the footing. Furthermore, for the current study, the stiffness of the geogrid in the sand layer greater than 500 kN/m was insignificant in soil improvement, whereas the optimum axial stiffness of the stone column encasement was 1,000 kN/m based on the stress concentration factor. The stone column installation improved the clay layer even below the depth of 0.67 B, improving the capacity of clay to carry higher vertical stresses on par with the stone columns. The GRSB carried higher vertical stresses than the unimproved ground. However, the OSC and GESC could carry vertical stresses higher than the GRSB. This knowledge can allow the practitioners to decide the depth of placement of the reinforcement and also to choose an alternate if one method is not feasible for the site.

show abstract