Finite Element Modeling of a Stone Layer Under a Strip Footing to Estimate Soil Behavior and Determine Optimal Stone Layer Width and Depth

Öz

Various methods can be applied to improve soil behavior in order to increase the bearing capacity or reduce the settlement of footings. These methods can be categorized as stabilization or improvement of soil by use of different geosynthetics; injection methods; grouting or replacing weak soil with stronger materials. One of the most common methods and materials that can be used for improving soils, is placing a stone layer under the footing. In this study, a stone layer under a strip footing is simulated with the finite element method (FEM) to estimate the soil behavior in different conditions. A strip footing with a width of 1m and length of 8m with a 100 kN/m2 uniform load was modelled. Different widths of stone layer from 1B to 3B (B was the strip footing width) with different depths of 0.5B, 1B, 1.5B, and 2B were modelled in Plaxis 3D and results were obtained from the simulation. By reviewing the results, it was found that the optimum dimensions of the stone layer to place under the presented strip footing was 2B width and 1B depth. This result can be applied to real projects with similar conditions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• FEM
• Finite Element Method
• Plaxis
• Soil Improvment

Kaynakça

1. [1] Bergado D. T., Anderson L. R., Miura N., 1994. Balasubramaniam AS., ASCE press, 4, 427.
2. [2] Lo S. R., Zhang r., Mak j., 2010. Geosyntheticencased stone columns in soft clay: A numerical study. Geotextiles Geomembranes, 28, pp. 292-302.
3. [3] Al-Kaisi, A. A. R., Ali H. H., 2013. Mathematical estimation for the bearing capacity of sand column inserted in soft clay soil. Eng. Technol. J., 31, pp. 816-827.
4. [4] Al-Saoudi N. K. S., Al-Kaissi M. M., Rajab N. A. A., 2014. Treatment of soft soil by sand columns. Eng. Technol. J., 32, pp. 2106-2118.
5. [5] Sánchez-Garrido A. J., Navarro I. J., Yepes V., 2022. Evaluating the sustainability of soil improvement techniques in foundation substructures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 1(351), pp.131463.
6. [6] Bagriacik B., 2021. Utilization of alkali-activated construction demolition waste for sandy soil improvement with large-scale laboratory experiments. Construction and Building Materials, 4(302), pp.124-173.
7. [7] Naghizadeh A., Ekolu S. O., 2022. Activator - related effects of sodium hydroxide storage solution in standard testing of fly ash geopolymer mortars for alkali – silica reaction. Materials and Structures, 55(22), pp. 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-021-01875-8
8. [8] Naghizadeh A., Ekolu S. O., 2021. Effects of compositional and physico – chemical mix design parameters on properties of fly ash geopolymer mortars. Journal of Silicon, 13(12), pp. 4669-4680. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-020-00799-2

9. [9] Zornberg J. G., 2002. Peak versus residual shear strength in geosynthetic-reinforced soil design. Geosynthetics International, 9(4), pp. 301-318. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.9.0220
10. [10] Murray J. J., Frost J. D., Wang Y., 2000. Behavior of a sandy silt reinforced with discontinuous recycled fiber inclusions, Recycled and Secondary Materials. Soil Remediation, and in Situ Testing, 1714, pp. 9-17, Transportation Research Record.
11. [11] Consoli N. C., Montardo J. P., Prietto P. D. M., Pasa G. S., 2002. Engineering behavior of a sand reinforced with plastic waste. J. of Geotech. and Geoenviron. Engrg., ASCE, 128(6), pp. 462-472.
12. [12] Yu Y., Damians I. P., Bathurst R. J., 2015. Influence of choice of FLAC and PLAXIS interface models on reinforced soil–structure interactions. Computers and Geotechnics, 1(65), pp.164-174.
13. [13] Wulandari P. S., Tjandra D., 2015. Analysis of geotextile reinforced road embankment using PLAXIS 2D. Procedia Engineering, 1(125), pp. 358-362.
14. [14] Srivastava S., Sinha A., Kumar R., 2022. Simulating the assembly size on seismic response of building clusters using PLAXIS. Materials Today: Proceedings.
15. [15] Gray D. H., Ohashi H., 1983. Mechanics of fiber-reinforcement in sand. J of Geotech Engrg., ASCE, 109(3), pp.335-353.
16. [16] Al-Refeai T. O., 1991. Behavior of antigranulocytes soils reinforced with discrete randomly oriented inclusions. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 10(4), pp. 319-333.
17. [17] Yoo C., 2015. Settlement Behaviour of Embankment on Geosynthetic-Encased Stone Column Installed Soft Ground - A Numerical Investigation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 43, pp. 484-492. DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2015.07.014
18. [18] Kaliakin V., Khabbazian M., Meehan C., 2012. Modelling the Behaviour of Geosynthetic Encased Columns: Influence of Granular Soil Constitutive Model. International Journal of Geomechanics, 12(4), pp. 357–369. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000084
19. [19] Ambily A., Gandhi S., 2007. Behaviour of Stone Columns Based on Experimental and FEM Analysis. Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-Environmental Engineering, 133(4), pp. 405-415. DOI: 0.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2007)133:4(405).