Effect of Reinforced Replacement Soil on Behavior of Soft Clay

Abd EL Samee W. Nashaat and Ahmed S. Rabei

Soil Mechanics and Foundation Civil Engineering Dep., Faculty of Engineering, Beni- Suef University, Beni- Suef,
Egypt.
[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract: In the present study, the analysis is performed using finite element analysis to investigate the effect of
geogrid reinforcement layers number on bearing capacity of soft clay, settlement and contact pressure as well as
location and shape of failure surface at contact surface. The soil replacement used in this study is taken granular soil
over soft clay. The soft clay material model used is Hardening Soil Model. The analysis program consists of sandy
soil replacement with different thicknesses without and with different number of reinforcement layers at different
vertical spacing between reinforcement layers. The parameters investigated included replacement layer thickness,
number of geogrid reinforcement layers, vertical spacing between layers, and footing width. It was concluded that,
the ultimate bearing capacity of soft clay at contact surface with replaced layers increases with increasing geogrid
reinforcement layers number. However, increasing thickness of replaced reinforcement layer increases ultimate
bearing capacity of soft clay. In addition, the ratio between settlement and total thicknesses of replaced layers at
contact surface decreases with increasing replaced of reinforcement thickness and increasing geogrid reinforcement
layers number. However, the stresses in soft clay soil at contact surface between soft clay and replacement soil
decreases with increasing replacement thicknesses and increasing geogrid reinforcement layers number. In addition,
the contact pressure values at contact surface with replacement layer decrease with increasing geogrid reinforcement
layers number. In addition, the failure wedge angle of soft clay increases with increasing replacement thicknesses
and increasing different number of geogrid reinforcement layers. In addition, the contact pressure values at contact
surface with replacement soil layer has been determined.
[Abd EL Samee W. Nashaat and Ahmed S. Rabei. Effect of Reinforced Replacement Soil on Behavior of Soft
Clay. Life Sci J 2019;16(10):17-35]. ISSN: 1097-8135 (Print) / ISSN: 2372-613X (Online).
http://www.lifesciencesite.com. 3. doi:10.7537/marslsj161019.03.

Keywords: Bearing, capacity, reinforced, replacement, soft clay

1. Introduction tests. It was concluded that, the bearing capacity of

Removed and replacement soil is widely used in clay soil has been affected by using the granular fill
construction practices and proved to be an effective layers [2].
technique. Abu-Farsakh et al. (2013) investigated the
Alamshahi and Hataf (2009) presented the effect behavior of reinforced sandy soil foundations -
of a new type of geogrid inclusion on the bearing geosynthetic. The reinforcement layers number and
capacity of a rigid strip footing constructed on a sand the vertical spacing between them as well as type of
slope. A finite element analyses was carried out on a geosynthetic reinforcement have been investigated.
soil slope. It was concluded that the bearing capacity The effect of reinforcement geosynthetic on the
of footings on slope increased by additional grid- distribution of vertical stress in the sand and the strain
anchor layers. It is also included that the load- distribution along the reinforcement were observed. It
settlement behavior and bearing capacity of the rigid was concluded that the reinforcement affects the
footing considerably improved by the inclusion of a behavior of reinforced sand foundation. [3].
reinforcing layer at the appropriate location in the fill Kolay et al. (2013) investigated by placing
slope [1]. geogrids at different depths the improvement of
Ornek et al. (2012) presented the use of the bearing capacity of silty clay soil. Rectangular footing
multi-linear regression model and artificial neural resting on the soil was used in the tests. It was
networks to predict the bearing capacity of circular concluded that increasing number of geogrid layers
footings on compacted granular fill over clay soil. The increases the bearing capacity of soft clay soil [4].
data used have been obtained from a series of field Altalhe et al. (2015) investigated the bearing
tests. Seven footing diameters over three different capacity of strip footing on a sand slope using one,
granular fill layer thicknesses were used in the field two and three reinforcing layers.

17
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

It was concluded that, increasing number of reinforced i. Bearing capacity of soft clay with reinforced
layers increases the bearing capacity of sandy soil [5]. replaced soil.
Hasanzadeh and Choobbasti (2016) investigated ii. Settlement (vertical displacements) of soft
the use of clay stabilized with different granular clay with reinforced replaced soil.
compacted fill depths on the bearing capacity of clay iii. Contact pressure of soft clay with reinforced
soil. It was concluded that the use of granular fill over replaced soil at contact surface.
clayey soils has a great effect on the bearing capacity iv. Location and shape of failure surface of soft
[6]. clay with reinforced replaced soil.
Hussein et al. (2017) investigated the behavior of
footings resting on geosynthetic reinforced 2. Research Methodology
replacement soil overlying loose sand. The number of 2.1 Material
reinforcement layers (N = 1, 2, 3), length of In the present study, the analysis is performed
reinforcement relative to footing width (L/B = 6, 4, 2), using finite element program to investigate the effect
and thickness of the replacement soil relative to of geogrid reinforcement layers number on bearing
footing width (d/B = 1.2, 1.5, 1.8) were considered. It capacity of soft clay, settlement (vertical
was concluded that the bearing capacity increases by displacements) and contact pressure of soft clay as
increasing the number of reinforcement layers and well as location and shape of failure surface at contact
thickness of replacement soil [7]. surface. The soil replacement over soft clay used in
Mahallawy (2019) investigated the use of this study is taken of sandy soil.
unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced sand bed resting 2.2 Soil Behavior
on stone columns. The investigations included the In this study the soft clay soil has been selected
effect of thickness of unreinforced and geogrid- in the analysis. The Poisson's ratio is taken νs = 0. 35
reinforced sand bed as well as the number of geogrid and the value of elasticity modulus is taken Es=1200
reinforcement. It was concluded that the use of KN/m2. The soil is simulated by a semi-infinite
geogrid reinforcement increases the bearing capacity element isotropic homogeneous elastic material
and decreases the settlement of sandy soil [8]. simulates the soil and the material model used is
In the present study, a reinforced sand soil is Hardening Soil Model. The used material properties
used in the analysis with a different geogrid (Tensar are listed in Tables (1) to (3).
Ux 1500) layers number. The main purpose of the
present study is to investigate the effect of geogrid Table (1): Geogrid reinforcement parameters
reinforcement layers number on the following EA 1560 kN/m
parameters: Tult. 114 kN/m

Table (2) Hardening soil model input parameters (soft clay).

Parameter Name Value Unit
Material model Model Hardening Soil Model -------
Type of material behavior Type Drained -------
Dry soil weight γdry 15.0 KN/m3
Wet soil weight γwet 18.00 KN/m3
Permeability in hor. direction Kx 1.1 x 10-4 m/day
Permeability in ver. direction Ky 1.1 x 10-4 m/day
Reference secant stiffness from E ref
9700 KN/m2
drained triaxial test 50
E ref
Reference tangent stiffness for oedometer primary loading 9700 KN/m2
od
E ref
Reference unloading/reloading stiffness 29100 KN/m2
ur
Power for stress m 1.0
Young's modulus Eref 1200 KN/m2
Poisson ratio νs 0.35 -------
Cohesion Cref 0.59 KN/m2
Friction angle Ǿ 5.50 -------
Dilatancy angle ψ 0 -------
Interface Strength reduction Rinter 0.001 -------

18
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

Table (3): The sand replaced soil properties

Parameter Name Value Unit
Material model Model Mohr-Coulomb -------
Type of material behavior Type Drained -------
Dry soil weight γdry 18.00 KN/m3
Wet soil weight γwet 19.00 KN/m3
Permeability in hor. direction Kx 1 m/day
Permeability in ver. direction Ky 1 m/day
Young's modulus Eref 8500 KN/m2
Poisson ratio νs 0.25 -------
Cohesion Cref 0 KN/m2
Friction angle Ǿ 38 -------
Dilatancy angle ψ 10 -------
Interface Strength reduction Rinter 0.67 -------

2.3 Dimensions of the numerical model: 3. Numerical Analysis

Investigated model were performed for a square 3.1 Research Program
footing resting on sandy soil replacement over soft In the present study, PLAXIS program was used
clay to establish the load versus settlement curves of to determine the effect of geogrid reinforcement layers
unreinforced and reinforced soil system. Dimensions number on bearing capacity of soft clay, settlement
of model cross section refer to the width of footing (B) and contact pressure as well as location and shape of
and thickness of sandy soil replacement (h). Fig (1) failure surface at contact surface. The parameters
shows the proposed numerical model dimensions. The investigated included replacement layer thickness,
footing width of model (B) and the width of number of geogrid reinforcement layers, vertical
replacement soil L=3.0 B and the total height of spacing between layers and footing width. The
replacement soil (h) are shown in Fig (1). analysis program is shown in Table (4).

Fig (1). Dimensions of the numerical model.

Where:
B : Footing width.
h : Total thickness of sandy soil replacement.
h1, h2, h3 and h4: Spacings between center lines of Geogrid reinforcement.
L : Width of sandy soil replacement = 3.0 B.
N : Layers number of geogrid reinforcement.

19
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

Table (4): Investigated cases of study by numerical analysis program.

Model Reinforcement Sandy soil replacement Geogrid reinforcement Vertical spacing between
# Stiffness, kN/m thickness (m) layers number reinforcement layers (S)
1 0.50
2 0.75
Without reinforcement
3 1.00 0.00
layers
4 1.25
5 1.50
6 0.50
7 0.75
8 1.00 1.0 0.5 h
9 1.25
10 1.50
11 0.50
12 0.75
13 1.00 2.0 0.333 h
14 1.25
15 1.50
52
16 0.50
17 0.75
18 1.00 3.0 0.25 h
19 1.25
20 1.50
21 0.50
22 0.75
23 1.00 4.0 0.20 h
24 1.25
25 1.50
26 0.50
27 0.75
28 1.00 5.0 0.167 h
29 1.25
30 1.50

3.2 Typical Numerical Model Results

In the present study, PLAXIS program was used
to the effect of geogrid reinforcement layers number
on bearing capacity of soft clay, settlement and contact
pressure as well as location and shape of failure
surface at contact surface. The settlement (vertical
displacement) in soil due to change of the thicknesses
of sand replacement layer without and with different
geogrid reinforcement layers number. The vertical
displacements (settlement) in surrounding soil as
vectors, contour lines, shading and total stresses in
surrounding soil of soft clay with reinforced replaced
soil have been presented. The obtained results are Fig. (2) Vertical displacements in surrounding soil as
shown in Figs. (2) to (11). vectors of soft clay without geogrid reinforcement
layers number (Hardening Soil Model).

20
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

Fig. (3) Vertical displacements in surrounding soil as Fig. (6) Total displacements in surrounding soil as
contour lines of soft clay with different geogrid vectors of soft clay without geogrid reinforcement
reinforcement layers number = 2.0(Hardening Soil layers number (Hardening Soil Model).
Model).

Fig. (4) Vertical displacements in surrounding soil as

shading of soft clay with different geogrid Fig. (7) Total displacements in surrounding soil as
reinforcement layers number = 3.0(Hardening Soil vectors of soft clay with different geogrid
Model). reinforcement layers number = 1.0. (Hardening Soil
Model).

Fig. (5) Total stresses in surrounding soil as vectors of

soft clay with different geogrid reinforcement layers Fig. (8) Total displacements in surrounding soil as
number = 4.0(Hardening Soil Model). vectors of soft clay with different geogrid
reinforcement layers number = 2.0. (Hardening Soil
Model).

21
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

reinforcement layers number = 4.0. (Hardening Soil

Model).

Fig. (9) Total displacements in surrounding soil as

vectors of soft clay with different geogrid
reinforcement layers number = 3.0. (Hardening Soil
Model). Fig. (11) Total displacements in surrounding soil as
vectors of soft clay with different geogrid
reinforcement layers number = 5.0. (Hardening Soil
Model).

4. Analysis Of Results
The target of this research is to investigate the
effect of geogrid reinforcement layers number on
bearing capacity of soft clay, settlement and contact
pressure as well as location and shape of failure
surface at contact surface.
4.1 Determination Of The Ultimate Bearing
Capacities

Fig. (10) Total displacements in surrounding soil as

vectors of soft clay with different geogrid

Fig. (12) Relationship between Load and settlement for soft clay at point (A) on axis (I-I) at different sand replaced
thicknesses without geogrid reinforcement layers (determination of the ultimate bearing capacity by tangent
method).

22
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

The ultimate bearing capacity was determined by tangent and modified chin methods, for soft clay at
the tangent-tangent and the modified chin methods for contact surface with replaced soil layer without
the different thicknesses of sand replaced layer geogrid reinforcement layers. However, the values of
without and with different geogrid reinforcement ultimate bearing capacities for soft clay at contact
layers number are presented at point (A) on axis's (I – surface with sand replaced layer without and with
I) at contact surface between soft clay and replacement different geogrid reinforcement layers number from
soil. Figs (12) and (13) show examples of different methods are listed in Tables (5) and (6).
determination of the ultimate bearing capacity by

Fig. (13) Relationship between settlement and settlement /load for soft clay at point (A) on axis (I-I) at different
sand replaced thicknesses without geogrid reinforcement layers (determination of the ultimate bearing capacity by
modified chin).

Table (5) Ultimate Bearing capacities of soft clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface with replacement
soil with reinforced replaced soil by using tangent method.
Ultimate Bearing capacities of soft clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface
2
Sandy soil replacement with replacement soil (KN/m )
No.
thickness (m) Geogrid reinforcement layers number
Without reinforcement layers 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
1 0.50 100.00 107.00 113.96 122.27 130.22 139.34
2 0.75 152.00 163.40 174.84 186.73 199.80 214.78
3 1.00 189.00 204.12 219.43 234.57 252.16 272.34
4 1.25 202.00 215.74 229.33 245.38 260.84 278.58
5 1.50 218.00 232.17 246.10 262.10 277.82 295.88

Table (6) Ultimate Bearing capacities of soft clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface with replacement
soil with reinforced replaced soil by using modified chin.
Ultimate Bearing capacities of soft clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface
2
Sandy soil replacement with replacement soil (KN/m )
No.
thickness (m) Geogrid reinforcement layers number
Without reinforcement layers 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
1 0.50 148.00 156.22 167.52 179.13 189.73 204.27
2 0.75 224.96 238.56 257.01 273.56 291.11 314.87
3 1.00 279.72 298.02 322.56 343.65 367.40 399.25
4 1.25 298.96 314.98 337.12 359.48 380.04 408.40
5 1.50 322.64 338.97 361.77 383.98 404.78 433.76

23
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

4.2 Effect Of Geogrid Reinforcement Layers at different of geogrid reinforcement layers number
Number On Ultimate Bearing Capacity Of Soft are listed in Tables (7) and (8). Figs (14) and (15)
Clay At Contact Surface With Reinforced show the relationship between geogrid reinforcement
Replaced Soil layers number and the values of ultimate bearing
The ultimate bearing capacities of soft clay at capacities of soft clay at point (A) on axis's (I–I) at
point (A) on axis's (I–I) at contact surface with contact surface with replacement soil layers at
replacement soil obtained from the numerical analysis different thicknesses of replaced layers.

Fig. (14) The relationship between geogrid reinforcement layers number and the ultimate bearing capacities of soft
clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface with replacement soil layers at different replaced thicknesses (by
tangent method).

Fig. (15) The relationship between geogrid reinforcement layers number and the ultimate bearing capacities of soft
clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface with replacement soil layers at different replaced thicknesses
(modified chin).

24
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

From these figures, it can be concluded that the The settlement (vertical displacement) of soft
ultimate bearing capacity of soft clay at contact clay at point (A) on axis's (I –I) at contact surface with
surface with replacement soil layers increases with replacement soil from numerical analysis at different
increasing geogrid reinforcement layers number at geogrid reinforcement layers number are listed in
different replaced thicknesses. In addition, increasing Tables (7) and (8). Fig (16) shows the relationship
replaced reinforcement soil layer thickness increases between geogrid reinforcement layers number and the
ultimate bearing capacity at different geogrid ratio between settlement and total thicknesses of
reinforcement layers number. replaced layers (∆S\h) of soft clay at contact surface
4.3 Effect Of Geogrid Reinforcement Layers with replaced soil layer at different thicknesses of
Number On Settlement Of Soft Clay At Contact replaced layers.
Surface With Reinforced Replaced Soil

Table (7) Settlement of soft clay at contact surface with replacement soil at geogrid reinforcement layers number.
Settlement of soft clay at contact surface with replaced layer at geogrid reinforcement
Granular soil replacement layers number (mm)
No.
thickness (m) Geogrid reinforcement layers number
Without reinforcement layers 1 2 3 4 5
1 0.50 9.41 8.83 8.27 7.80 7.33 6.88
2 0.75 10.30 9.67 9.06 8.49 8.03 7.56
3 1.00 11.47 10.77 10.09 9.47 8.96 8.42
4 1.25 12.75 11.97 11.21 10.53 9.95 9.34
5 1.50 14.24 13.37 12.52 11.78 11.13 10.47

Table (8) The ratio between settlement and total thicknesses of replaced layers (∆S\h) of soft clay at contact surface
with replaced layer at geogrid reinforcement layers number.
The ratio between settlement and total thicknesses of replaced layers (∆S\h) of soft clay at contact surface with
replaced layer
No. (∆S\h)
Geogrid reinforcement layers number
Without reinforcement layers 1 2 3 4 5
1 ∆S\h 0.19 0.18 0.17 0.16 0.15 0.14
2 ∆S\h 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.10
3 ∆S\h 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.08
4 ∆S\h 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07
5 ∆S\h 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07

Fig. (16) The relationship between geogrid reinforcement layers number and the ratio between settlement and total
thicknesses of replaced layers (∆S\h) of soft clay at contact surface with replaced layer.

25
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

From the above, it can be concluded that 4.4 Effect Of Geogrid Reinforcement Layers
increasing replaced reinforcement soil thickness Number On Stress In Surrounding Soft Clay Soil
decreases the ratio between settlement and total With Reinforced Replaced Soil
thicknesses of replaced layers (∆S\h) at contact surface The stresses of soft clay at point (A) on axis's (I–
with replaced layer. In addition, the ratio between I) at contact surface with reinforcement replacement
settlement and total thicknesses of replaced layers soil at different geogrid reinforcement layers number
(∆S\h) decreases with increasing geogrid are presented. Fig (17) shows the effect of the geogrid
reinforcement layers number. However, increasing reinforcement layers number on stresses of soft clay at
geogrid reinforcement layers number, the settlement contact surface with replacement reinforcement soil.
can be reduced by 14 % at all replacement thicknesses.

Fig. (17) Stresses in soft clay at contact surface with reinforcement replacement soil versus geogrid reinforcement
layers number at different replaced thicknesses.

a) thicknesses of replaced layers h =0.50 m

26
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

From these figures, it can be concluded that, the Fig. (18) show the effect of geogrid
stresses in soft clay soil at contact surface with reinforcement layers number on contact pressure of
reinforcement replacement soil decreases with soft clay along axis's (I –I) at contact surface with
increasing replacement reinforcement soil thicknesses replacement reinforcement soil at different thicknesses
and increasing geogrid reinforcement layers number. of replaced soil layers. The relationship between the
4.5 Effect Of Geogrid Reinforcement Layers contact pressures at contact surface with replacement
Number On Contact Pressure At Contact Surface soil layer along axis's (I–I) and geogrid reinforcement
With Reinforced Replaced Soil layers number N=1.0 is presented in Fig. (19).

b) thicknesses of replaced layers h =0.75 m

c) thicknesses of replaced layers h =1.00 m

27
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

d) thicknesses of replaced layers h =1.25 m

e) thicknesses of replaced layers h =1.50 m

Fig. (18) Contact pressure at contact surface with replacement layer along axis's (I–I) at geogrid reinforcement
layers number N=1.0 and at different thicknesses of replaced soil layers.

28
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

Fig. (19) The relationship between geogrid reinforcement layers number and the contact pressures at contact surface
with replacement soil layer along axis's (I – I).

From these figures, it can be shown that the The failure mechanism in the soft clay at contact
contact pressure values at contact surface with surface with replacement soil layer along axis's (I–I)
replacement layer along axis's (I–I) decrease with has been presented. This mechanism is identical from
increasing geogrid reinforcement layers number and what Terzaghi’s failure surface. The failure wedge
increasing thicknesses of replaced soil layers. angles of soft clay at contact surface with replacement
4.6 Effect Of Geogrid Reinforcement Layers soil along axis's (I –I) at different geogrid
Number On Location And Shape Of Failure reinforcement layers number are listed in Table (9).
Surface Fig (22) shows examples of failure mechanism for the
Fig (20) shows the effect of replacement soil soft clay at contact surface with replacement soil layer.
thicknesses without geogrid reinforcement layers on The relationship between geogrid reinforcement layers
the shape and location of the failure mechanism. Fig number and failure wedge angles at contact surface
(21) shows the effect of number of geogrid with replacement soil layer along axis's (I–I) is
reinforcement layers with different replacement presented in Fig. (23).
thicknesses on the shape and location of the failure
mechanism.

Table (9 The failure wedge angles of soft clay at contact surface with replacement soil at geogrid reinforcement
layers number.
The failure wedge angles of soft clay at contact surface with replaced layer at geogrid
Granular soil
reinforcement layers number (deg)
No. replacement
Geogrid reinforcement layers number
thickness (m)
Without reinforcement layers 1 2 3 4 5
1 0.50 24 27 29 31 33 36
2 0.75 27 29 32 35 39 43
3 1.00 29 32 35 38 42 46
4 1.25 32 35 38 41 45 49
5 1.50 34 38 41 44 48 52

29
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

a) Sand replacement layer without geogrid reinforcement b) Sand replacement layer without geogrid
layers thickness = 0.50m reinforcement layers thickness = 0.75m

c) Sand replacement layer without geogrid reinforcement d) Sand replacement layer without geogrid
layers thickness = 1.00m reinforcement layers thickness = 1.25m

e) Sand replacement layer without geogrid reinforcement layers thickness = 1.50m

Fig. (20) Failure surface of granular replacement layer over soft clay without geogrid reinforcement soil layers
thicknesses.

30
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

a) Sand replacement thickness = 0.50 m with number of

geogrid reinforcement layers = 3.0

b) Sand replacement thickness = 0.75 m with number of

geogrid reinforcement layers = 3.0

c) Sand replacement thickness = 1.00 m with number of

geogrid reinforcement layers = 3.0

d) Sand replacement thickness = 1.25 m with number of

geogrid reinforcement layers = 3.0

e) Sand replacement thickness = 1.50 m with number of

geogrid reinforcement layers = 3.0
Fig. (21) Failure surface of number of geogrid reinforcement layers =3.0 with different granular replacement soil
thicknesses over soft clay.

31
Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

a) thicknesses of replaced layers h =0.50 m

b) thicknesses of replaced layers h =0.75 m

32
Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

c) thicknesses of replaced layers h =1.00 m

d) thicknesses of replaced layers h =1.25 m

33
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

e) thicknesses of replaced layers h =1.50 m

Fig. (22). Failure mechanism of soft clay at contact surface with replacement soil layer along axis's (I–I) at different
thicknesses of replaced layers.

Fig. (23) The relationship between the failure wedge angle at contact surface with replacement layer along axis's (I–
I) and geogrid reinforcement layers number.

From the above, it is clearly shown that the 5. Conclusions

failure wedge angle increases with increasing Based on the obtained results the following
replacement thicknesses and increasing different conclusions are drawn:
number of geogrid reinforcement layers. i. The ultimate bearing capacity of soft clay at
contact surface with replaced layer increases with

34
 Life Science Journal 2019;16(10) http://www.lifesciencesite.com LSJ

increasing geogrid reinforcement layers number and reinforced sand” Soils and Foundations
increasing replaced of reinforcement soil layer 2013;53(2):335–348. The Japanese Geotechnical
thickness. Society. www.sciencedirect.com.
ii. The ratio between settlement and total 4 P. K. Kolay, S. Kumar, and D. Tiwari (2013)
thicknesses of replaced layers at contact surface “Improvement of Bearing Capacity of Shallow
decreases with increasing replaced of reinforcement Foundation on Geogrid Reinforced Silty Clay
thickness and increasing geogrid reinforcement layers and Sand” Hindawi Publishing Corporation
number. Journal of Construction Engineering Volume
iii. The stresses at contact surface between soft 2013, Article ID 293809, 10 pages
clay and replacement soil decreases with increasing http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/293809.
replacement thicknesses and increasing geogrid 5 Enas B. Alt Alh E, Mohd Raihan TAh Aa, and
reinforcement layers number. Fathi M. ABd RABBO (2015) “Behavior of Strip
iv. The contact pressure values at contact surface Footing on Reinforced Sand Slope” Journal of
with replacement soil layer has been determined. Civil Engineering and Management ISSN 1392-
v. The failure wedge angles of soft clay 3730/e ISSN 1822-3605 2015 Volume 21(3):
increases with increasing replacement thicknesses and 376–383 doi:10.3846/13923730.2014.890646.
increasing different number of geogrid reinforcement 6 Ali Hasanzadeh and Asskar Janalizadeh
layers. Choobbasti (2016) “Estimation of Bearing
Capacity of Circular Footings on Clay Stabilized
References with Granular Soil: Case Study” International
1 Saeed Alamshahi and Nader Hataf (2009) Journal of Civil Engineering and Geo-
“Bearing capacity of strip footings on sand Environmental. Vol. 50 (01). Pp.- 47-54. Journal
slopes reinforced with geogrid and grid-anchor” homepage: http://ijceg.ump.edu.my
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 27 (2009) 217– ISSN:21802742.
226. journal homepage: 7 Hussein, M.K., Hussein, M.K. and Amer, M. I.
www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem. (2017) “Laboratory Model Tests on Shallow
2 Murat Ornek, Mustafa Laman, Ahmet Demir and Footings Resting on Geosynthetic Reinforced
Abdulazim Yildiz (2012) “Prediction of bearing Replacement Soil Overlying Loose Sand” eo
capacity of circular footings on soft clay Africa 2017 Conference Marraekech, Morocco
stabilized with granular soil” Soils and 08 – 11 Octobre 2017.
Foundations 2012;52(1):69–80. The Japanese 8 Nagy Abdel Hamid El Mahallawy (2019)
Geotechnical Society. www.sciencedirect.com. “Improvement of soft soils using reinforced sand
3 Murad Abu-Farsakh, Qiming Chen and Radhey over stone columns” Life Sci Journal
Sharma (2013) “An experimental evaluation of 2012;9(2):269-276]. (ISSN: 1097-8135).
the behavior of footings on geosynthetic- http://www.lifesciencesite.com. 43.

9/29/2019

35