Advertisement

Behavior of Pyramidal Shell Foundations on Reinforced Sandy Soil

  • Hassan Sawsan A. 
  • Al-Soud Madhat S. 
  • Mohammed Shahad A. 
Original Paper
  • 7 Downloads

Abstract

Shell foundation has been considered as the best shallow foundation for transferring heavy load to weak soils because of the high bearing capacity values, where a conventional shallow foundation submit to excessive settlement. An experimental work has been conducted to investigate the behavior of pyramidal shell foundations as compared with flat counterpart on loose sandy soils. Four types of aluminum rigid foundation were casted for this purpose; flat footing and shell footing of dimension (20 × 20 cm) and different angles (20°, 30°, and 45°). Twenty eight loading tests were carried out on these types of footings which were settled on the surface of loose sand layer with and without geogrid reinforcement. The geogrid sheet was inserted within the sand layer (single and double layers) under the footing base. The shell foundation on reinforced and unreinforced sand showed higher ultimate load capacity than those on unreinforced sand for flat foundation and the load- settlement curves were clearly modified. The shell foundations over reinforced soil can be considered as a good method to increase the effective depth of the foundation and decrease the resulting settlement. The bearing capacity ratio (BCR) reaches to 88.5% and settlement reduction factor (SRF) reaches to 37.3%, where the BCR is the ratio of bearing capacity for a foundation resting on reinforced (qR) to that resting on unreinforced soil (q) while the SRF is the ratio of settlement for a foundation resting on reinforced soil (SR) to that resting on unreinforced soil. The experimental work were also verified and analyzed numerically using ABAQUS software taking into a consideration the effect of different relative densities (15%, 20%, 30%) on settlement and bearing capacity of soil. The improvement range was greater at relative density (15%), compared with the others which reflects the improvement in loose condition due to shell effect. This confirms the premise that shells are reputably better performers in weaker soils that necessitate a large load transferred to them.

Keywords

Sandy soil Geogrid reinforcement Shell footing Soil improvement Bearing capacity ratio 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Mustansiriyah University/College of Engineering for the support offered during the present work.

References

  1. Abaqus Theory Guide (2015): Version 2016, Abaqus Inc., Dassault SystèmesGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Farsakh M, Chen Q, Yoon S (2008) Use of reinforced soil foundation (RSF) to support shallow foundation. Final Report. Louisiana transportation research center (LTRC), Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD), Baton Rouge, LA, Report No. FHWA/LA.07/424Google Scholar
  3. Adachi T, Tamura T, Yashima A (1985) Behavior and simulation of sandy ground tunnel. In: Proceeding of 11th international conference on soil mechanic and foundation engineering, vol 2, Sanfrancisco, pp 709–713Google Scholar
  4. ASTM (2006a) D854-10 Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometerGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM (2006b) D1194-94 Standard test method for bearing capacity of soil for static load and spread footingsGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM (2006c) D 2435-04 Standard test method for one-dimensional consolidation properties of soil using incremental loadingGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM (2006d) D2487 Standard practice for classification of soils for engineering purposes (unified soil classification system)Google Scholar
  8. ASTM (2006e) D3080 Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditionsGoogle Scholar
  9. ASTM (2006f) D4253 Standard test methods for maximum index density and unit weight of soils using a vibratory tableGoogle Scholar
  10. ASTM (2006g) D4254 Standard Test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative densityGoogle Scholar
  11. ASTM (2006h) D6637-01 Standard test method for determining tensile properties of geogrids by the single or multi-rib tensile methodGoogle Scholar
  12. ASTM (2006i) D6913.04 Standard test methods for particle size distribution (gradation) of soils using sieve analysisGoogle Scholar
  13. ASTM (2006j) E8/E8M standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materialGoogle Scholar
  14. Azzam WR, Nasr AM (2014) Bearing capacity of shell strip footing on reinforced sand. J Adv Res 5:727–737.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2014.04.003 Google Scholar
  15. Bairagi NK, Buraghohain DN (1985) Application of finite element to hyper shell footings. In: 2nd International conference on computer aided analysis and design in civil engineering proceedings, vol 3. University of Rooker, India, pp 61–69Google Scholar
  16. Bolton MD (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Geotechnique 36(1):65–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bowles JE (1996) Foundation analysis and design, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Chen Q (2007) An experimental study on characteristics and behavior of reinforced soil foundation. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Louisiana State, USAGoogle Scholar
  19. Esmaili D, Hataf N (2008) Experimental and numerical investigation of ultimate load capacity of shell foundations on reinforced and unreinforced sand. Iran J Sci Technol Trans B, Eng 32(B5):491–500Google Scholar
  20. Fattah MY, Waryosh WA, Al-Hamdani MAE (2015a) Experimental and theoretical studies on bearing capacity of conical shell foundations composed of reactive powder concrete. Acta Geodyn Geomater J 12(180):411–426.  https://doi.org/10.13168/AGG.0037 Google Scholar
  21. Fattah MY, Waryosh WA, Al-Hamdani MAE (2015b) Investigation on the behavior of conical shell foundations composed of reactive powder concrete embedded on sandy soil. Adv Struct Eng 18(11):1859–1873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernando N. Sendanayake E. Sendanayake D, De Silva N (2011) The experimental investigation of failure mechanism and bearing capacity of different types of shallow foundations. Civil Engineering Reserch of Industry, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Moratuwa, pp 67–72Google Scholar
  23. Hanna AM, Abdel-Rahman MM (1990) Ultimate bearing capacity of triangular shell strip footings on sand. J Geotech Eng, ASCE 116(12):1851–1863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hanna AM, Abdel-Rahman MM (1998) Experimental investigation of shell foundation on dry sand. Can Geotech J 35:847–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hassan SA (2002) Finite element analysis of shell footings. M.Sc. Thesis, College of Engineering, Al-Mustansiriyah University, Baghdad, IraqGoogle Scholar
  26. Haut BBK, Mohammed TA (2006) Finite element study using FE Code (PLAXIS) on the geotechnical behavior of shell footings. J Comput Sci 2(1):104–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kolbuzewski J (1948) An experimental study of the maximum and minimum porosities of sand. In: Proc. 2nd international conference on soil mechanic and foundation engineering, vol 11, pp 58–165Google Scholar
  28. Kurian NP (1994) Behavior of Shell foundations under subsidence of core soil. In: Proceeding XIII international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, New Delhi, vol 2, pp 591–594Google Scholar
  29. Kurian NP (1995) Parametric studies on the behavior of conical shell foundations. In: Proceeding V East Asia—Pacific conference on structural engineering and construction, Gold Coast, Australia, vol 2, pp 1733–1738Google Scholar
  30. Kurian NP (2006) Shell foundation. Narosa Publishing House, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  31. Kusakabe O (1995) Foundations. In: Taylor RN (ed) Geotechnical centrifuge technology, London: Blackie Academic and Professional, chapter 6Google Scholar
  32. Lambe TW, Whitmen RV (1979) Soil mechanics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Latha GM, Somwanshi A (2009) Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand. Geotext Geomembr 27(2):81–294Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hassan Sawsan A. 
    • 1
  • Al-Soud Madhat S. 
    • 1
  • Mohammed Shahad A. 
    • 1
  1. 1.Civil Engineering DepartmentMustansiriyah UniversityBaghdadIraq

Personalised recommendations