Advertisement

Effect of Strain Rate on Cyclic Behavior of Pond Ash Reinforced with Geocell

  • Swaraj ChowdhuryEmail author
  • NiharRanjan Patra
Conference paper
Part of the Sustainable Civil Infrastructures book series (SUCI)

Abstract

This paper studies the effect shear strain on cyclic behavior of unreinforced and geocell reinforced pond ash samples. Pond ash was collected from upstream side of an ash embankment of Panki thermal power plant, Kanpur, India (seismic zone III). The size of pond ash samples was 70 mm × 140 mm. According to the size of the sample, geocells were fabricated using high density polyethylene sheets with three interconnected cells of circular cross section. A series of consolidated undrained (CU) cyclic triaxial tests at a constant loading frequency of 1 Hz were carried out on pond ash samples with and without geocell reinforcement. These tests were carried out with varying cyclic shear strain rate (0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4%) over a constant confining pressure of 50 kPa. Results show that geocell reinforced pond ash exhibit better liquefaction potential and secant shear modulus than unreinforced pond ash samples. The secant shear modulus decreases with increase in cyclic shear strain rate from 0.2% to 0.4% for both unreinforced and geocell reinforced pond ash samples. The decrease is more pronounce in unreinforced pond ash samples. The number of cycles for initiation of initial liquefaction increases about 89% to 105% for geocell reinforced pond ash samples as compared to unreinforced samples.

Keywords

Pond ash Geocell Sample size Cyclic shear strain rate Liquefaction resistance Secant shear modulus 

References

  1. American Society for Testing Materials D5311: Standard test method for load controlled cyclic triaxial strength of soil. Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (1992)Google Scholar
  2. American Society for Testing Materials D3999: Standard test method for determination of the modulus and damping properties of soils using the cyclic triaxial test apparatus. Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (1996)Google Scholar
  3. American Society for Testing Materials D4595: Standard test method for tensile properties of geotextiles by the wide-width strip method. Annual book of ASTM standards, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA (2011)Google Scholar
  4. Bathurst, R.J., Karpurapu, R.: Large scale triaxial compression testing of geocells reinforced granular soils. Geotech. Test. J. 16, 296–303 (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1520/gtj10050j. ASTMCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boominathan, A., Hari, S.: Liquefaction strength of fly ash reinforced with randomly distributed fibers. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 22, 1027–1033 (2002).  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0267-7261(02)00127-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bureau of Indian Standards: Test for soils for determination of water content—Dry density relation using light weight compaction (reaffirmed, 2011). IS: 2720 (Part VII), New Delhi, India (1980a)Google Scholar
  7. Bureau of Indian Standards: Tests for soils for determination of specific gravity (reaffirmed, 2002). IS: 2720 (Part III), New Delhi, India (1980b)Google Scholar
  8. Bureau of Indian Standards: Tests for soils for grain size analysis (reaffirmed, 2006). IS: 2720 (Part IV), New Delhi, India (1985)Google Scholar
  9. Bureau of Indian Standards: Tests for soils for determination of consolidation properties (reaffirmed, 2002). IS: 2720 (Part XV), New Delhi, India (1965)Google Scholar
  10. Chandrasekaran, B., et al.: Strength of fabric reinforced sand under axisymmetric loading. Geotext. Geomembr. 8, 293–310 (1989).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(89)90013-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chenet, R.H., et al.: Confinement effect of geocells on sand samples under triaxial compression. Geotext. Geomembr. 37, 35–44 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.01.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dey, A.K., Gandhi, S.R.: Evaluation of liquefaction potential of pond ash. In: Proceedings 2nd International Conference on Geotechnical Engineering for Disaster Mitigation and Rehabilitation, 315–320. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  13. Dhadse, S., et al.: Flyash characteristics, utilization and government initiatives in India: a review. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 67, 11–18 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. Jakka, R.S., et al.: Liquefaction behavior of loose and compacted pond ash. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 30, 580–590 (2010a).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.01.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jakka, R.S., et al.: Shear behaviour of loose and compacted pond ash. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 28, 763–778 (2010b).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9337-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Dawson, A.R.: Comparison of bearing capacity of a strip footing on sand with geocell and with planar forms of geotextile reinforcement. Geotext. Geomembr. 28, 72–84 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moghaddas Tafreshi, S.N., Dawson, A.R.: A comparison of static and cyclic loading responses of foundations on geocell-reinforced sand. Geotext. Geomembr. 32, 55–68 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.12.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pandian, N.S.: Flyash characterization with reference to geotechnical applications. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 84(6), 189–216 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. Pokharel, S.K., et al.: Investigation of factors influencing behavior of single geocell-reinforced bases under static loading. Geotext. Geomembr. 28, 570–578 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rajagopal, K., et al.: Behavior of sand confined with single and multiple geocells. Geotext. Geomembr. 17, 171–184 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0266-1144(98)00034-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Shen, C.W.: The mechanical characteristics of geocell-reinforced earth. Master thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, China (2005)Google Scholar
  22. Sireesh, S., et al.: Bearing capacity of circular footing on geocell-sand mattress overlying clay bed with void. Geotext. Geomembr. 27, 89–98 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.09.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Thakur, J.K., et al.: Performance of geocellreinforcedrecycled asphalt pavement (RAP) bases over weak subgrade under cyclic plate loading. Geotext. Geomembr. 35, 14–24 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vijayasri, T., et al.: Cyclic behavior and liquefaction potential of Renusagar pond ash reinforced with geotextiles. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28, 04016125 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.0001633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wesseloo, J., et al.: The stress - strain behavior of multiple cell geocell packs. Geotext. Geomembr. 27, 31–38 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang, L., et al.: Bearing capacity of geocell reinforcement in embankment engineering. Geotext. Geomembr. 28, 475–482 (2010).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2009.12.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of TechnologyKanpurIndia

Personalised recommendations