GEOSYNTHETICS AND

REINFORCED SOIL STRUCTURES

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soil - II

Prof K. Rajagopal
p
Department of Civil Engineering
g g
IIT Madras, Chennai 600 036
e-mail: [email protected]
STRENGTH ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED
SOIL
Consider a dry Granular soil with shear strength
properties of c=0 and friction angle =¢
1R
1u

3 3
3 3

1R
1u

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2

Additional Strength due to reinforcement depends on

 Vertical spacing of reinforcement layers (density of

reinforcement)
 Strength and stiffness of the reinforcement
 I
Interaction
i between
b soilil and
d reinforcement
i f

3  1u  1R

2/24
 Limiting stresses in Unreinforced Soil

Ultimate pressures in unreinforced soil

1u = Kp 3
1  sin 
K a  1  sin 
3u = Ka 1
1  sin 
K p  1  sin 
in which Ka and Kp are Rankine active and
passive pressure coefficients respectively

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 4/24

 Forces Developed in Reinforcement Layer
Reinforcement
R i f t may fail
f il iin ttwo modes
d Normal pressure = v

* Rupture
* Pullout
P
Let Tensile strength of the
reinforcement be Tu Embedment length = L

Let width of reinforcement be “b”

Shear resistance developed along the length of the reinforcement
Rp= 2 * V* L * b * tan 
If Rp > Tu - pullout
p llo t fail
failure
re occ
occurs
rs
If Tu < Rp - reinforcement will rupture
= interface friction angle between soil and reinforcement
reinforcement,

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 5/24

 Equilibrium analysis of soil wedge
Wedge is in equilibrium under the action of 1
A B

ii. Confining pressure 3 on face AC

ii. Vertical pressure 1 on face AB 3 3

iii. Normal and tangential stresses n and  C

on surface
f BCC
iv. Total reinforcement force T developed 1
in all layers
y cut byy the p
plane BC A B

Let the length BC be equal to “b”

3 T

AC = b cos  n
AB = b sin C

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 6/24

 1
A B
Considering the equilibrium,

3 T
 V  0   b sin    b cos    b sin   1  
1 n
 n
C
 H  0  3b cos    T   b sin    n b cos   2 

 = n tan because of soil to soil interaction on BC

Substituting  in Eqs. 1 & 2, we get

 1 sin    n cos  tan    n sin   3 
 3 cos   T   n sin  tan    n cos   4 
b
Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 7/24
 From Eq. 3

 1 sin   1 sin  cos 

  
n
sin  cos  sin   cos  sin 
cos   sin 
cos 
 1 sin  cos 
  5 
sin(    )
Substituting this in Eq.4

 T  sin 2
 tan  cos 
 3 cos    1
b sin    
 1 sin
i  cos  cos 

sin    

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 8/24

 T sin 2  tan  cos  sin  cos  cos 
 3 cos    1  1
b sin     sin    

T  sin cos cos  sin2  sin 

  3 cos   1  
b  sin     
sin cos    1 sin
 1 
sin    tan   

tan      T tan    
 1   3   ( 6)
tan  b sin 
What is T?

If SV is
i th
the vertical
ti l spacing,
i
No of reinforcement layers cut by the wedge = b cos/Sv

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 9/24

If TU is the tensile strength of a single reinforcement layer

b cos 
 T  TU S (rupture capacity)  7 
V

If p
pullout is the failure mode,, the net tensile force
generated at the verge of failure is,
b cos 
 T  2 1 br  8 
SV

 = friction factor = tan 

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 10/24

CASE-I Rupture
p Failure

tan    T tan   
1   3  
tan b sin
tan    b cos tan   
3  TU
tan bSV sin

 TU  tan    
 1    3    9 
 S V  tan 

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 11/24

 What is the limiting 1 at which failure happens, as  is the
arbitraryy variable
 1   tan     
    0
    tan  

  
     10 
 4 2
which is the familiar quantity from Rankine
Rankine’s
s theory

Substituting this in the above equation

 TU  2  
1   3   tan  45  
 SV   2
 TU 
 1R    3   K P  10 
 SV 

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 12/24

For unreinforced soil, there is no contribution from
the reinforcement
  1U   3 K P
 1   3 K P  2 c K P  11 
R


 
 12 
TU
   3   K P
 SV 
By equating the two
equations we get
equations,
C 
3  1u  1R
 13 
TU
 C  apparentt cohesion
h i  KP
2 SV
Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 13/24
Case-2 Sliding Failure
B substituting
By f T from
b tit ti for f Eq.
E (8) in
i Eq.
E (6)
tan     2 1b r  cos  tan    
1   3   14 
t 
tan SV i 
sin
or
tan(    )
1   3 ttan 
2 br  tan(    )
1
SV tan 
 1
For finding the limiting 1 when failure occurs 0

 
Once again, we get   
4 2

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 14/24

  3K P
 1R   3KP
2br 
1 KP
SV
KP 1  sin  r 2 r 
KP   tan  45  
2 br  1  sin   2 
1 KP r
SV

K p
 Kp
  R

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 15/24

We can say that the friction angle of reinforced sand will be
more than that of unreinforced sand when failure mode is by
pullout or frictional failure.

F i ti
Frictional
l ffailure
il occurs when
h
b cos  b cos 
2 1br   TU
SV S V • At low
l confining
fi i
pressures, pullout
2 3 K P b r 
 TU failure happens
pp
2br 
1 KP
SV • At high confining
pressures rupture
pressures,
 2br  
TU  1  K P  failure happens
   SV 
2br K P
3

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 16/24

 Numerical Examples
Case – 1 R
C Rupture
t off R
Reinforcement
i f t (l
(low strength
t th
reinforcement at very high confining pressure)

 TU  C 
TU

 1R   3   K P 2 SV
KP
 SV 

Say TU = 30 kN/m; SV = 0.5 m; =30

1  sin 
KP  3
1  sin 
30
C   3  51 . 96 kPa
2  0 .5

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 17/24

C  TU
 1/Sv
 Friction angle
Highly frictional soils to be used in reinforced soil

Case – 2 Pullout failure ((At low confining

gppressures, or for
very strong reinforcement we have pullout failure)
 
 K P 
 1R  
1  2br  K
3

 SV
P


KP 1  sin  r   
KP    tan 2  45  r 
2br 
1 K P 1  sin  r  2
SV
Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 18/24
Say Kp = 3, =30 SV = 0.5 m br = 50 mm = 0.05 m

3
KP   4.69
y 
say, =0.60
1
2  0.05 0.6
3   R  40 .4 
0.5
Say, =0.70 KP  3
 5.17
1
2 0.05 0.7
3
  R  42 . 5 
0.5

With hi
higher
h iinterfacial
t f i l ffriction,
i ti b
benefit
fit off th
the reinforcement
i f t llayers
is higher.

19/24
Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2
Critical confining pressure
 2br  
T U 1  K P 
   SV 
2br  K P
3C

Say, TU = 30 kN/m Kp = 3, =30o SV = 0.5 m

0 05 m  = 0.6
br = 0.05 06
 2  0 . 05  0 . 6 
30  1   3
3   0 .5 
c
2  0 . 05  0 . 6  3

 3  106 .7 kPa
C
kP

As TU increases, 3C increases.

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 20/24
 Hausmann (1976) approach
Dueto the reinforcement , the reinforced soil develops higher
strength when tested at the same confining pressure. We may
also think that we need lesser external pressure to develop the
same failure stress.

 3  K A 1
U
R


1  3
sin  
1  3
 1   3R  1  ( 3   R )
i r 
sin  U

 1   3R  1  ( 3   R )
U

3R 3U
R 1

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 21/24

  3U  R
1 
1 1 1 K A  F

 3U  R 1 K A  F
1 
1 1
 R = additional
R
confining
fi i pressure 

induced in the soil by

the
h reinforcement
i f
layers

R 3R 3U
F  factor  R 1
1
Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 22/24
 

 3R  3U 1
R

 1   3 R K P  2C K P
  3R   R K P
From the above
above, we get
2C K P   R K P

C
 R KP
  R
2 2 K a

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 23/24

What is R?

R is related to the strength of reinforcement, vertical

spacing, interaction and other factors

Reinforcem ent force per unit width  

R 
SV
TU
 
SV

 = efficiency factor to account for uneven distribution of

reinforcement forces

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 24/24

Strength Analysis of Reinforced Soils - 2 25/24