Settlement of Shallow Foundations near Reinforced Slopes

Mehdi Raftari Department of , Khorramabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khorramabad, Iran [email protected]

Prof. Dr. Khairul Anuar Kassim Department of Geotechnics & Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, UTM, Johor, Malaysia [email protected]

Dr. Ahmad Safuan A.Rashid Department of Geotechnics & Transportation, Faculty of Civil Engineering, UTM, Johor, Malaysia [email protected]

Hossein Moayedi Faculty of Engineering, Kermanshah University of Technology Kermanshah, Iran [email protected]

ABSTRACT Nowadays, there are many situations that foundations are built near the slopes. To design such foundations large settlement towards the slope are expected. To reduce the settlement as as increasing the bearing ratio, using the geosynthetic reinforcement is common. In some cases the slope is reinforced and this reinforcement could have a significant impact on decrease of shallow settlement on it. In this paper we selected five different slopes from the Lorestan province located in Iran and reinforced it with the appropriate reinforcement. To analyze the models using the Finite Element Method (FEM), the 8.2 was used. Firstly, the settlements of shallow foundation on both reinforced and unreinforced slope were compared. Then other important parameters such as number of layers, vertical spacing between layers, and distance from foundation to slope crest during the design of reinforced structures were tested. As a result, the nearer placement of the footing to crest of the slope increases the settlement, however using the reinforcement could significantly decreases the mentioned settlement. KEYWORDS: Geosynthetic; Reinforced slope; Plaxis; Finite Element analysis

INTRODUCTION Increase in the of shallow foundations on slopes is being always one of the concerns for designers to design appropriate structures such as building’s foundations, , and railways[1]. Nowadays, researchers investigate methods with least cost that they cause increase in

- 797 -

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 798 bearing capacity of shallow foundations. The has been offered by Fellenius in 1937. There are some little studies carried out about bearing capacity of foundations near the slopes that most of them are about sandy [2-6]. Also, there are many researches in field of reinforced layer [7-12]. Some of these researches have been studied on reinforced clayey soils and their behavior [13-18]. Otani [13] says that bearing capacity of reinforced soils is changed by changing in length and depth of reinforced layers, then he suggested an optimum depth and length for the most effectiveness of reinforcement operations on it. Investigations of footing located on slopes are very limit, and all of them have been concentrated on sandy soils[19-20]. Consequently, variety types of limit equilibrium methods or even numerical methods are used in stability analysis of slip surfaces. Furthermore, using reinforcements such as , Geogrid, and geonet is very important against deep and costly foundations because of their advantages like long life, lower cost, filtration, drainable features, and scour. Using these artificial stuff is similar to in for reinforce that it causes considerable increment in soil[3]. This case is very vital for areas with potential like Iran. It is necessary to consider two criteria for design of every foundation; Firstly, final bearing capacity and secondly foundation settlement. The main objective of the present research is obtaining the optimum value for depth, number of reinforced layers, and distance of shallow foundation from crest of slope in the soils of Lorestan province in Iran.

THE KINDS OF SOIL IN LORESTAN PROVINCE In the present research five different soil samples were collected from the five different site investigations in the Lorestan province. Type of Soil in Azna city (sample A), in south of Khorramabad city (sample B), in north of Khorrmabad city (sample C), in Aleshtar city(sample D), and soil in Zagheh city (sample E).

Azna city This city is located at east of Lorestan province with geographical coordinates 33° 27′ 21″ N, 49° 27′ 20″ E. In the based on Unified Classification System (UCS) the type of soil in this area is SC. In the based on results of Hansen’s method have obtained physical and mechanical properties of soil in this area as follow:

Figure 1: Gradation curve – sample A Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 799

Khorramabad city Khorramabad city is located at the center of Lorestan with geographical coordinates 33° 29′ 16″ N, 48° 21′ 21″ E. It is situated in the Zagros Mountain and there is distance between its north and south. The experimental tests have shown that there is difference between type of soil in the north and south. South of Khorramabad city: In the based on UCS the type of soil in this area is low plasticity (ML).

Figure 2: Gradation curve – sample B

North of Khorramabad city: In the based on UCS the type of soil in this area is clayey (SC). The results of experimental tests showed properties of soil in this region as follow:

Figure 3: Gradation curve – sample C

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 800

Aleshtar city This city is located at the north of Lorestan province with geographical coordinates 35° 6′ 0″ N, 47° 26′ 0″ E. In the based on UCS the type of soil in this area is clayey sand (SC). The results of experimental tests have obtained as follow:

Figure 4: Gradation curve – sample D

Zagheh city This city is located at the center of Lorestan province with geographical coordinates 33° 29′ 56″ N, 48° 42′ 31″ E. In the based on UCS the type of soil in this area is low plasticity (CL). The results of experimental tests have obtained as follow:

Figure 5: Gradation curve – sample E

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 801

Table 1: Physical and mechanical properties of soil in the Lorestan province Sample C φ ɤ Hansen(1970) (kg/cm2 ) (degree) (kN/m3 ) Nc Nq Nɤ A 0.13 30 20.2 38.64 26.09 24.44 B 0.06 26 18.1 22.25 11.8 7.9 C 0.05 30 17.8 35.49 23.18 20.79 D 0.05 27 20.4 25.80 13.2 10.2 E 0.15 30 15.3 27.86 16.44 12.84

PROPERTIES OF REINFORCEMENT The used material reinforcement in this study is CE121 with high density Polyethylene polymer. Its Mesh aperture size is 8*6 mm with mesh thickness 3.3. Elongation at one-half peak strength is 3.2 and the flexural strength at maximum strain is 35 MPa. Also, the impact strength is 13.2 kJ·m −2 .The mechanical and physical features of CE121 are shown in Table 2. We modeled Geogrid by using elastic “Geogrid elements” via Plaxis software.

Table 2: Physical and mechanical properties of Geogrid (ce121) Properties CE121

Width (m) 2.5 Length (m) 50-100 Aperture (mm) 8*6 Tensile Strength (KPa) 7.68 Elongation at maximum strain (%) 20.2 Tensile strength at 10% strain (kN/m) 6.80

NUMERICAL PROCESS The two- dimensional FEM analyses are performed by Plaxis 8.2 software. Plaxis software is a two-dimensional FEM computer program that is used for stability analysis and deformation of soils in variety geotechnical problems [3]. In this method structure of analysis are divided to smaller two- dimensional elements in mesh and displacements of each point are related to displacement of nodes through these elements. Finally, strain-stress relationship is calculated by caused strain values. In contrast to displacements, stresses and strains are calculated at individual Gaussian integration points rather than at the nodes. The automatic generation of 6 or 15 node triangle plane strain elements are done for the soil via Plaxis software that we used of 15 nodes to more accuracy. Displacements in nodes are related to displacements of points inside the element by interpolation function. In this analysis we have investigated affecting factors of settlement such as the value of load, the number of reinforcement layers, the space between reinforcement layers, and the distance between foundation and slope crest. The FEM has been analyzed by plane strain conditions. Also Mohr-coulomb model are used for the simulation of soil behavior. Our modeling is a shallow foundation with dimensions 1*1 meter on a slope angle of 45 degree. The height of this slope is 5 meters. The slope consists of homogeneous soil layout. In the center of this foundation we have different loads with these values: 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 kN. Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 802

Figure 6: The schematic view of the slope section

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS

Effect of using Geogrid We analyzed one shallow foundation on a slope in both reinforced and unreinforced situations by loads with 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 kN. A series of 40 difffferent FEM analyses were performed according to mechanical properties of the studied soils. The reinforced sample has been modeled by using three Geogrid layers with vertical spacings of one meeter from each other. Then, the results of this analysis have been offered in both reinforced and unreinforced samples in load- settlement charts in Figure7.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 803

Figure 7: Load- settlement chart for reinforced & unreinforced slopes

As can be seen from the figures the samples A, and C, and D, the settlement under the footing was improved significantly. The charts show that the settlement in the reinforced sample is approximately 50 percent better than unreinforced system in the all of samples. The incline of these charts have been decreased (settlement procedure) in the loads higher than 200 kN. That means the reinforced operations has better performance in the loads higher than 200 kN.

Effect of number of Geogrid layers In this research, 60 models were built to investigation effect of number of Geogrid layers on the shallow foundation settlement located on the slope. These models analyzed in five types of studied soil with one, two, and three Geogrid layer under the 100, 150, 200, 250, 300 loads. In all of the models were considered 1 meter for distance from shallow foundation to crest of the slope. Also vertical spacings between layers are 1 meter that it is equal to width of foundation. The results of analysis have shown in Figure8.

Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 804

Figure 8: Load- settlement chart for surveying number of Geogrid layers

Effect of vertical spacing between layers of Geogrid One of the effective factors on shallow foundation settlement on reinforced slope is vertical spacing between Geogrid layers from each other. These intervals have been defined according to width of foundation (B). We have located every soil sample with reinforced intervals 0.5B, 1B, and 1.5B under 100, 150, 200, 250, and 300 loads. The results of analysis these 60 models have been shown in Figure9. Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 805

Figure 9: Load- settlement chart for surveying vertical spacing between Geogrid layers

As the figures show in order to obtain to the least settlement, optimum vertical spacing between Geogrids (h) should be equivalent with width of foundation (B). Hence, the optimum interval between layers is 1 meter.

Effect of foundation distance than crest of slope Another important subject is the foundation distance from the crest of the slope (D). The slope has been reinforced by three Geogrid layers with vertical spacing of one meter from each other. Four distances defined according to width of foundation (B). These intervals are: 1B, 2B, 3B, and 4B. Then 60 samples were plotted by using numerical analysis results that can have observed in Figure10. Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 806

Figure 10: Load- settlement chart for surveying distance between the foundation and the crest of slope

These charts show that settlement decreases with increase of distance from crest of slope. This reduction is related to interval from 1B to 2B, as the most of settlement occurs in 2B considerably and it causes increase in bearing capacity of this foundation. As increase in foundation distance to edge of slope causes increase in passive bed pressure. This passive bed pressure leads to deeper and broader shear zone.

CONCLUSION Several numerical modeling were analyzed to evaluate the effect of Geogrid reinforcement, layer, depth, and distance from the slope on the settlement of the loaded footing at the top of the slope. Based on mentioned analysis, the following conclusions are drawn. Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 807

• Foundation settlement on an unreinforced slope is more severe than reinforced slope. As settlement in reinforced situation with three Geogrid layers decreases about 50 percent. This reduction is higher in loads greater than 200 kN. It means that the necessity of using reinforcement in larger loads is more. • The number of reinforced layers effects on settlement decrease. We observe minimal reduction in model with three Geogrid layers with default vertical spacing 1 meter from each other. • In order to obtain to the least settlement, optimum vertical spacing between Geogrids (h) should be equivalent with width of foundation (B). Hence, the optimum vertical interval between layers is 1 meter. • By increasing the distance between foundation and crest of slope with two times of its width decreases the settlement significantly and after that reduction has steady trend. Increase in passive bed pressure leads to this reduction. This passive bed pressure leads to deeper and broader shear zone.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT We would like to express our gratitude to University Technology Malaysia for help and support.

REFERENCES 1. R. Baker (2003) “Sufficient conditions for existence of physically significant solutions in limiting equilibrium slope stability analysis,” Elsevier, vol. 40, pp. 3717-3735. 2. B. Hansen (1970) “A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity”, Copenhagen: Danish Geotechnical Institute Bui, 28: 5−11. 3. A S Vesic (1973) “Analysis of ultimate loads of shallow foundations,” JSMFD, ASCE, 99(SMI): 45−73. 4. S. A. Naeini, B. Khadem Rabe, and E. Mahmoodi,(2012) “ Bearing capacity and settlement of strip footing on geosynthetic reinforced clayey slopes,” Central South University Press and SpringerVerlag Berlin Heidelberg, vol. 19, pp. 1116–1124. 5. F. Castelli, and E. Motta (2010) “Bearing capacity of strip footings near slopes,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 28(2): 187−198. 6. J. Bowles (1996) “Foundation analysis and design,” 5th Ed. New York:McGraw –Hill. 7. Y. Xiaoli, W. Zhibin, and Z. LI Liang (2007) “Bearing capacity of foundation on slope determined by energy dissipation method and model experiments,” Journal of Central South University of Technology, 14(1): 125−128. 8. A. Kumar, M.L. Ohri, and R. K. Bansal (2007) “Bearing capacity tests of strip footings on reinforced layered soil,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 25(2): 139−150. Vol. 18 [2013], Bund. D 808

9. G. M. Latha, and A. Somwanshi (2009) “Bearing capacity of square footings on geosynthetic reinforced sand,” and , 27(4): 281−294. 10. J. H. Boushehrian, and N. Hataf (2003) “Experimental and numerical investigation of the bearing capacity of model circular and ring footings on reinforced sand,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes 21, Elsevier, pp. 241–256. 11. G. M. Latha, S. K. Dash, and K. Rajagopal (2008) “Equivalent continuum simulations of geocell reinforced sand beds supporting strip footings,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 26(4): 387−398. 12. S. D. Cho, T. G. Ham , K. S. Yang, and S. K. You (2009) “An experimental study on the effect of reinforcing materials for the stabilization of soft ground,” in Civil and Environmental Engineering, 4: 281−285. 13. S. G. Thallak, S. Saride, S. D. Kumar (2007) “Performance of surface footing on geocell reinforced soft clay beds,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 25(5): 509−524. 14. J. Otani, H. Ochiai, and K. Yamamoto (1998) “Bearing capacity analysis of reinforced foundation on cohesive soil,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 16: 195−206. 15. A. R. Estabragh, A. T. Bordbar, and A. A. Javadi (2011) “Mechanical behavior of a clay soid reinforced with nylon fibers,” Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 29(5): 899−908. 16. A. H. Boushehrian, and N. Hataf (2009) “Bearing capacity of ring footings on reinforced clay,” Geosynthetics in Civil and Environmental Engineering (4): 328−331. 17. H. I. Park, and S. R. Lee (2010) “Evaluation of bearing capacity for multilayered clay deposits with geosynthetic reinforcement using discrete element method,” Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 28(4): 363−374. 18. L. M. Wei, J. D. Niu, and H. J. Huo (2009) “Effect of reinforced sand cushion on the limit fill height of on soft clay foundation,” Geosynthetics in Civil and Environmental Engineering, 4: 261−265. 19. F. Abdrabbo, K. H. Gaaver, and E. A. Omer (2008) “Behavior of strip footings on reinforced and unreinforced sand slope,” Proceeding of Geocongress 2008: Geosustainability and Geohazard Mitigation (GSP 178). Orleans: ASCE, 25−32. 20. S. Alamshahi, and N. Hataf (2009) “Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand slopes reinforced with geogrid and gridanchor,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27(3): 217−226.

© 2013, EJGE