نسخة كاملة

Republic of Iraq
Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

University of Technology
Building and Construction Engineering Department
Influence of Geogrid Reinforced Earth in Transfer of

Dynamic Loading to the Tunnels
A THESIS
SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
By
Mohammad Saham Ismaiel
B.Sc. (Building and Construction Eng., 2013)
Supervised by
Prof. Dr. Mohammad Y. Fattah Assist. Prof. Dr. Nahla M. Salim
May 2015 Shaaban 1436

‫بِسْمِ اللًِ الرَّحْمهِ الرَّحِيمِ‬
‫*وأَن َّليْس ِلإلِوسانِ إِالَّ ما سعي* وأَنَّ سعْيًُ‬
‫ســـــوْف يُـــــرى* ثُمَّ ُيجْزايُ الجزاءَ األَوْفَي*‬
‫صدق اللًُ العظيم‬
‫الىجم (‪)14-93‬‬
To
MY FAMILY
MY FRIENDS
Acknowledgment
Many thanks and praise are due first of all and above all, to my Creator,
Almighty ALLAH, the Most Beneficent, the Most Gracious, and the Most
Merciful, Who gave me the ability and the desire to complete this work
despite all the hurdles and constraints in the way of its completion.
First and foremost, my deepest thanks are presented to Prof Dr.

Mohammad Y. Fattah and Assist. Prof. Dr. Nahla Mohamed Salim who
have been the ideal thesis supervisors. Their sage advice, insightful
criticisms, patient encouragement, and great efforts to explain things
clearly, aided in the writing of this thesis in innumerable ways. So, I feel
deeply indebted and grateful to them.
Thank also extend to Mr. Mohammad Faiq Asswd Ph.D. student to

help me in the use of the dynamic load apparatus.
Appreciation and thanks are also extended to Dr. Zeena Waleed for
providing me with her own geogrid reinforcement.
Profuse thanks are due to the staff of soil mechanics laboratory in the
University of Technology.
Thank also extend to Mr. Khaldoon Satee Ahmed, Ali Malik and
Ahmed shamil M. Sc. students for helping me during the Master degree
stages.
My gratitude is extended to all those who have helped me during the

preparation of this work.
Finally, I would like to express my love and appreciation to my family

and all my friends who encouraged me, no word can express my gratitude
to them.
Mohammad Saham Ismaiel

2015
ABSTRACT
Underground facilities are an integral part of the infrastructure of
modern society and are used for a wide range of applications, including
subways and railways, highways, material storage, and sewage and water
transport. Underground facilities built in areas subject to dynamic activity
must withstand both dynamic and static loading.
The stability of underground excavations are affected by its shape,
size of opening, in situ stress, soil conditions etc. Even though the shape of
the opening mainly depends on the purpose for which it is to be used, the
safe design and construction of an underground opening requires the
knowledge of the stress distribution and the displacements that occurs in
and around the openings.
This study focuses on the effect of the geogrid in transfer of the
dynamic load to the underground structure. The underground structure was
simulate as a PVC pipe inside the soil. In order to investigate the response
of soil, footing and underground tunnel to dynamic loading, a physical
model was manufactured. The manufactured physical model could be used
to simulate the application of dynamic loading.
The total number of the tests carried out is 58 models. Two models
were tested under static load with two relative densities (40% and 80%).
All the other 56 model tests were tested under dynamic load which
represent two series were carried out using two relative densities (40% and
80%) corresponding to loose and dense sand, respectively. All the 56 dry
sand models were subjected to dynamic load with two load amplitudes
corresponding to (0.5 ton and 1 ton) using two frequencies 1 and 2 Hz for
each load amplitude. For each amplitudes and frequency of the load, the
sand models were tested without geogrid and with geogrid of two widths
(1B and 2B) where B is the width of the footing. In addition, three series of
I
geogrid depths from the model surface (0.5B, 1B and 1.5B) were carried
out.
The dynamic load was applied in the tests by hydraulic jack system.
The response of the tunnel to dynamic loading includes measuring the
pressure above the crown of the tunnel by using pressure cell
(manufactured by Geokon company) as well as measuring the amplitude of
displacement by using a vibration meter. The response of footing was
elaborated by measuring the total settlement by using sensors in the
dynamic load apparatus.
It was found the pressure above the crown of tunnel decreased by about
(13-65) % when using geogrid reinforcement and this percentages different
according to the intensity of dynamic load and geogrid states and soil
density. Also, the pressure above the crown of the tunnel increases with
increase of load amplitude and frequency while the pressure decreases
when the relative density increase.
It was found the settlement decreased by about (13-45) % when using
geogrid reinforcement in loose sand and this percentages is different
according to the intensity of dynamic load and geogrid states, while, the
settlement has no effect when using the geogrid in dense sand. Also, the
settlement increased when the load amplitude and frequency increased
while, the settlement decreased when the relative density of the sand
increased.
II
CONTENTS
Item
Subject Page
No.
ABSTRACT I
CONTENTS III
LIST OF FIGURES VII
LIST OF TABLES XIV
LIST OF PLATES XV
LIST OF APPENDICES XVI
NOTATIONS XVII
Chapter One
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General 1
1.2 Important Problems in the Design of Tunnel 2
1.3 Objective of the Study 3
1.4 Thesis Layout 3

Chapter Two
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction 5
2.2 Dynamic Loads 5
2.2.1 Types of dynamic load 6
2.3 Dynamic Soil Properties 6
2.4 T Behavior of Soil under Dynamic Loading 8
2.5 R Machinery Foundation 9
2.5.1 I Types of machinery foundations 10
2.5.2 R Types of machines 10
III
Item
Subject Page
No.
2.5.3 O Methods of analysis of machinery foundation 11
2.5.4 Factors effecting machine foundation design 12
2.5.5 Vibration criteria 14
2.5.6 Permissible limits of amplitude 14
2.6 Geosynthetics 15
2.7 Underground Structures 16
2.7.1 Construction 16
2.7.2 Stress on tunnel wall 18
2.7.3 Loading on underground structure 18
2.7.4 Soil arching 19
Previous Studies Related to Dynamic Response of

2.8 19
Tunnels
2.9 Summary 33
Chapter Three
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
3.1 Introduction 34
3.2 Testing Program 34
3.3 Material Used and Soil Characterization 36
3.3.1 The soil 36
3.3.1.1 Soil characterization 37
3.3.2 PVC pipe 38
3.3.3 Geogrid reinforcement 39
3.4 Model design and devices 40
3.4.1 Loading steel frame 42
IV
Item
Subject Page
No.
3.4.2 Axial loading system 42
3.4.3 Model footing 44
3.4.4 Data acquisition 45
3.4.5 Shaft encoder 46

3.4.6 Steel container 48
3.4.7 Earth pressure cell and readout 49
3.4.8 Vibration meter 50
3.5 Sand Deposit Preparation 52
3.6 Static Loading Test 55
3.7 Dynamic Loading Test 55
Chapter Four
PRESENTAION AND DISCUSSION OF TEST
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction 57
4.2 Model Test Results under Static Load 57
4.3 Model Test Results under Dynamic Load 59
4.3.1 Effect of depth of the reinforcement 59
4.3.2 Effect of width of the reinforcement 66
4.3.3 Effect of load amplitude 71
4.3.4 Effect of load frequency 78
4.3.5 Effect of soil density 92
4.3.6 Results of the amplitude displacement of tunnel 96
4.4 Summary of Test Results 97
V
Item
Subject Page
No.
Effect of depth of reinforcement on the vertical
4.4.1 97
pressure
Effect of depth of reinforcement on the surface
4.4.2 99
settlement
Effect of width of reinforcement on the vertical
4.4.3 101
pressure
Effect of width of reinforcement on the surface
4.4.4 102
settlement
Comparison of Dynamic Load pressure transmitted
4.5 to tunnel with the ultimate bearing capacity of the 104
surface footing
Chapter Five
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 General 107
5.2 Conclusions 107
5.3 Recommendations 109
References 111
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title
No.
Page
(2.1) Types of dynamic load ( Aguiar, 2008). 6
(2.2) Common types of machine foundations (Rao, 2011). 10
Schematic representation of the test setup (after Tafreshi ,
(2.3)
and Khalaj, 2007).
21
Variation of the maximum ΔD with the number of
(2.4) reinforcement layer for H/D = (a) 1.5, (b) 2.5, (d) 3. (after 21
Tafreshi , and Khalaj, 2007).
Influence of geogrid on vertical and horizontal strain (after
(2.5)
Ilamparuthi 2008 ).
23
Schematic representation of the test setup (Not to scale)
used in the experiments of Mehrjardi . “A, B location of
(2.6)
soil pressure cells and strain gauges; C location of soil
29
pressure cell” (after Mehrjardi et al. 2012 ).
(2.7) Sketch of test setup adopted by Hegde (2014). 32
Pressure and strain above the pipe.(a) vertical pressure (b)
(2.8)
strain (after Hedge, 2014).
32
(3.1) Flow chart of the testing program . 35
(3.2) Grain size distribution of the used soil. 37
(3.3) Loading steel frame. 43
(3.4) Dynamic load wave. 56
(4.1) Static tests result at different relative densities. 58
Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
(4.2) with time for a =0.5 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without 61
and with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
and with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).
VII
Figure Title
No.
Page
Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
(4.8) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 64
B and b= 1 B).
(4.9) w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B 64
and b= 1 B).
Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5
(4.10) ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 65
1.5 B and b= 1 B).
B and b= 1 B).
and b= 1 B).
B and b= 1 B).
B and b= 2 B).
and b= 2 B).
VIII
Figure Title
No.
Page
B and b= 2 B).
(4.23) with time for a =1 ton, w =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and 72
with geogrid (d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
with geogrid (d= 1B and b= 1B).
Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton,
B and b= 1 B).
IX
Figure Title
No.
Page
and b= 1 B).
B and b= 1 B).
B and b= 2 B).
and b= 2 B).
B and b= 2 B).
X
Figure Title
No.
Page
XI
Figure Title
Page
No.
B and b= 1 B).
and b= 1 B).
B and b= 1 B).
B and b= 2 B).
and b= 2 B).
B and b= 2 B).
B and b= 1 B).
and b= 1 B).
B and b= 1 B).
B and b= 2 B).
and b= 2 B).
B and b= 2 B).
displacement of the tunnel with time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1
(4.77) Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and 97
b= 1 B).
XII
Figure Title
Page
No.
displacement of the tunnel crown with time for a =0.5 ton,
B and b= 1 B).
Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel
(4.79)
crown and (d/B) ratio for b = 1B
98
Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel
(4.80)
99
Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio
(4.81)
for b= 1B
100
Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio
(4.82)
for b= 2B
100
Relationship between the vertical pressure and (b/B) ratio
(4.83)
for d= 0.5B
101
Relationship between the vertical pressure and (b/B) ratio
(4.84)
for d= 1B
102
Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio
(4.85)
for d= 0.5B
103
Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio
(4.86)
for d= 1B
103
XIII
LIST OF PLATES
Plate
Title Page
No.
(2.1) Geocell. 16
(2.2) Geogrid reinforcement. 16
(3.1) PVC pipe. 38
(3.2) Geogrid used. 40

(3.3) General view of the apparatus. 41
(3.4) The upper and lower faces of steel plate. 43
(3.5) Hydraulic jack. 44
(3.6) The hydraulic control system. 44
(3.7) Strip footing. 45
(3.8) PLC (Programmable Logic Controller ) unit. 47
(3.9) The shaft encoder. 47
(3.10) Steel container. 48
(3.11) Pressure cell. 49

(3.12) Pressure cell readout. 50
(3.13) Vibration meter. 51
(3.14) Vibration meter prope place on tunnel crown. 51
(3.15) Stages of the preparation of the test model. 53
(3.16) Application of static load. 55
XV
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Title Page
No.
(3.1) Physical properties of sand used. 36
(3.2) Engineering properties of geogrid used. 39
(3.3) Technical specification of pressure cell (GEOKON company) 50
(3.4) Different states of sand used. 52
(4.1) Bearing capacity of strip footing over sandy soil 59
(4.2) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for loose sand 93
(4.3) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for dense sand 94
(4.4) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose 95

sand layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 1 ton.
(4.5) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose 96
sand layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 0.5 ton.
(4.6) The ratio between Qd max and Qs for loose sand 104
(4.7) The ratio between Qd max and Qs for dense sand 105
XIV
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Title Page
Item
A Additional Results
Results of Variation of Surface Settlement with Time in
A-1 A-1
Dense Sand
Results of Variation of Amplitude of Vibration with
A-2 A-9
Time for Loose and Dense Sand
XVI
NOTATIONS
Symbol Definition
ASTM American society for testing and materials
b Width of reinforcement
B Width of footing
BE Boundary element method
c Cohesion of soil
Cc Coefficient of curvature
Cu Coefficient of uniformity
D Diameter of the pipe
d Depth of geogrid
Df Depth of the footing
DD Damping ratio
Dr Relative density
FE Finite element method
G Dynamic shear modulus
H Depth of geocell
Hz Hertz (cycle/sec).
k0 Coefficient of lateral earth pressure
ky Wave number
LCD Liquid crystal display
Nc, Nq, Nγ Bearing capacity factors which depend on φ
PLC Programmable Logic Controller.
PPV Peak particle velocity
Pu Measured pressure value
PUR Peak uplift resistance
PVC Poly Vinyl Chloride
q Applied vertical stress
Qd max Maximum pressure transmitted to the tunnel
Qult Ultimate bearing capacity.
SSS Settlement of soil surface
t Time
T Load period
U.V Ultraviolet
USCS Unified soil classification system.
Vs Shear wave velocity
Z Depth of the pipe
XVII
Symbol Definition
γ Unit weight of the soil
ΔD Vertical diameter change
ν Poisson’s ratio
φ Angle of soil internal friction.
Frequency of load
n Natural frequency of the soil-foundation system
r Operating frequency of the machine
Amplitude of load
XVIII
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
In process design, the stability of tunnels and other underground
structures under the influence of seismic waves and dynamic load is one of
the important issues that should be studied carefully. Although seismic
waves are not the only cause of earthquakes, however, earthquakes are the
most known source of seismic waves. In addition, the movement of trains
in underground tunnels, the operation of machinery on ground surface and
many other activities as such produce seismic waves that if to be neglected,
may cause different damages such as subsidence. Such damages not only
result in an increase in costs, but also remain to be a source of danger to the
human lives.
In the past, it has always been assumed that earthquakes have no major
effect on tunnels, however the study of tunnel behaviors on seismic loads
and also the damage of these structures, emphasize the necessity of the
stability study under dynamic loading generated by earthquake (Williams,
1997).
Nowadays, the development in industry introduced huge machines
which have a great influence on the performance of the foundations and the
soil underneath and produces another type of vibration load.
Essentially in this, the engineer has to study the problems of shocks and
vibrations on the foundations supporting industrial installations, as well as
the laws governing the propagation of waves from these foundations
through the soil (Rao, 2011).
Problems in dynamic soil-structure interaction (DSSI) are characterized
by a system consisting of a structure, which rests on or embedded in a soil
region of unbounded extent, and is subjected to a specified time-varying
load. Dynamic analysis of (SSI) refers to how soil deformations affect the
1
Chapter One Introduction
‫ـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
motions of buildings being subjected to a dynamic loading (Park and Antin,
2003).
Geosynthetics are very durable polymeric products being used in
different civil engineering applications in order to provide strength,
stability, and durability. Use of geosynthetic materials has become more
and more common in the past 40 years for a number of applications and
they have the potential to reduce the cost of maintenance by increasing the
design life. Geosynthetics could be categorized into seven different
products as follows: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, geomembrances,
geosynthetics clay liners, geofoam, and geocell.
This thesis will address itself to the influence of geogrid reinforced dry
sand in transfer of dynamic loading to underground structure.
1.2 Important Problems in the Design of Tunnels

Rapid growth in urban development has resulted in an increased demand
for the construction of water supply, sewage disposal and transportation
systems. Tunnels are an essential component of these systems and
constitute a major portion of project expenditure. Recent advances in
tunneling technology reduce construction time with consequent decrease in
cost. However, even with modern equipment, experience has shown that
designing of tunnels must include dealing with three important problems
(Al-Damluji et al., 2006):
1. Maintaining stability of face and wall of the tunnel before supported
by lining.
2. Predicting displacements caused by excavation of the tunnel on the
surface and throughout the adjacent ground mass.
3. Predicting the magnitude and distribution of earth pressure acting on
the tunnel. So, there is an urgent need for reliable means to estimate
2
the extent and nature of the movements and disturbance occurring in
areas above and adjacent to tunnels. These deformations may
significantly affect nearby structures and need to be considered
during design.
The state of stress and the displacements in an influence zone around a
tunnel will be modified by the construction of a tunnel. The size of this
influence zone depends on the type and properties of soil, in situ stresses,
tunnel depth and size, the tunnel support system, and tunneling method.
1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objectives of this study are:
1. Investigating the influence of geogrid reinforced earth in transfer of
dynamic loading to the tunnels.
2. Investigating the displacement that occur above underground
structures especially tunnels due to dynamic loads induced by the
above structures.
3. Determination of the optimum depth and width of geogrid
reinforcement in different densities of sandy soils.
4. Investigating the influence of geogrid on the surface settlement that
occurs due to dynamic loading.
1.4 Thesis Layout

The skeleton of the present thesis is divided into five chapters as follows
after the introduction chapter:
Chapter two: Presents a literature review of the currently accepted
understanding of dry reinforced soil behavior under dynamic loads.
Chapter three: Presents full details of the experimental work including the
testing program, full design of the complete setup for the model tests and
testing procedures.
3
Chapter four: Presents analysis and discussion of the test results obtained
from the model tests.
Chapter five: Summarizes the main conclusions from this work and the
recommendations for the future works.
4
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
The behavior of underground structures is usually complicated in
comparison with super structures; this is mainly due to the soil-structure
interaction, which in many cases can hardly be predicted.
Among the underground structures, lifelines are of great importance and
sensitivity because they are quite spread in the urban areas and serve the
vital needs of the societies. Although different codes and provisions are
suggested for the safe design of lifelines, the designed and constructed
lifelines could not escape damaging when subjected to severe dynamic
loadings particularly strong blasts or earthquakes.
This chapter presents a brief review of important literatures that have
concern with the main objectives of this study. Other literature related to
some topics will implicitly be mentioned when these topics will be
discussed.
2.2 Dynamic Loads

The loading may be characterized as dynamic when it varies in time,
value and / or direction (Aguiar, 2008). The main causes of these loads on
soils, foundations and structures are due to one of the following (Banerjee
and Butterfield, 1987):
1. Machine foundation vibration,
2. Pile –driving including settlement and vibration,
3. Traffic and rail induced vibration,
4. Densification by vibration or impact loads,
5. Wave induced oscillation of offshore structures,
6. Effect of explosions,
7. Earthquake.
5
Chapter Two Review of Literature
2.2.1 Types of dynamic load
Dynamic loads can be classified to (Aguiar, 2008):
1. Periodic loading, there is repetition in regular time intervals; the
operation of rotational machines (machine foundation) is a typical
case of periodic loading.
2. Random loading, the load variation presents no regularity, the waves
in offshore structures is a typical case of random loading.
3. Impulse loading, is the case where loading is applied in one single
time (pile driving). Impulse takes place in impact loads much like in
protectors used in the anchoring of ships. Also impact can be induced
by vehicle traffic on bridges.
Figure (2.1) represents the types of dynamic loads.
Figure (2.1): Types of dynamic load (Aguiar, 2008).
2.3 Soil Dynamic Properties

Soil dynamics deals with engineering properties and behavior of soil
under dynamic loads. For the dynamic analysis, soil properties such as
shear wave velocity, dynamic shear modulus, damping of soil and
Poisson‟s ratio are generally required.
6
1. Shear wave velocity (Vs): is the most commonly measured
parameter in shallow soil geophysics for soil characterization. The
importance in its utility is that the particle of motion travels
perpendicular to the direction of wave propagation being able to
measure the shear properties of the soil skeleton and not the fluids
that cannot take shear (Luna and Jadi, 2000).
2. Dynamic shear modulus (G): is the most important parameter
influencing the dynamic behavior of the soil-foundation system.
Several methods are available for obtaining dynamic shear modules
such as field measurement of stress wave velocity in place soils, and
laboratory test on soil samples correlation to other soil properties
(Luna and Jadi, 2000).
3. Damping ratio (DD): Damping is a phenomenon of energy
dissipation that opposes free vibrations of a system. Like the
restoring forces, the damping forces oppose the motion, but the
energy dissipated through damping cannot be recovered. A
characteristic feature of damping forces is that they lag the
displacement and are out of phase with the motion. Damping of soil
includes two types, geometric and material damping. Material or
hysteretic damping defined as energy dissipates within the soil test
due to imperfect elasticity of real materials. The amount of dissipated
energy depends on strain (displacement) but is essentially
independent of frequency. While geometric, or radiation damping
defined as the loss of energy through propagation of elastic waves
and it is depend on the poisson's ratio, mass of the foundation and
soil density (Das and Ramana, 2011).
4. Poisson’s ratio (ν): is the ratio of the strain in the direction
perpendicular to loading to the strain in the direction of loading, and
it is used to calculate both the soil stiffness and damping. Poisson‟s
ratio can be computed from the measured values of wave velocities
7
traveling through the soil. Generally, Poisson‟s ratio varies from 0.25
to 0.35 for cohesionless soils and from 0.35 to 0.45 for cohesive soils
(Bowles, 1996).
2.4 Behavior of Soil under Dynamic Loading

The soil response under dynamic loads is different from that of static loads,
because it is of significant importance for the stability of structures. Many
researchers stated that the stress-strain behavior of soil is usually found to
be hysteretic and non-linear. In addition, the response of the soil to
dynamic loading depends mainly on the level of stress that induces
dynamic strains as well as the type of the soil. So the real behavior of soils
in general may be elasto-plastic, it provides better estimations of
displacement when subjected to its working load.
The type of the soil affects its response under dynamic loading
conditions. The most significant factors separating different types of soils
are the grain size distribution. Well graded materials are less susceptible to
losing strength under dynamic loading, on the other hand uniform soils are
more susceptible to losing strength under dynamic loading.
Loose, uniform soil is especially subjected to collapse and failure.
Loose soil may densify under vibrating loading and causes permanent
settlement.
The presence of fines in the soil, especially clays inhibits the
dissipation of excess pore water pressure. It also decreases the tendency for
liquefaction, as well as degree of saturation of soil system plays role in this
connection.
When the soil is saturated, a transient dynamic loading will usually
last for a very short duration. The duration is so short that the soil response
is essentially undrained. It is also important to know whether the dynamic
loading is a transient phenomenon, such as a blast loading or earthquake, or
8
is a long term phenomenon, like a vibratory loading from rotating
machinery. The distinction is important because a transient dynamic
phenomenon occurs so rapidly that excess pore pressure does not have time
to dissipate. Dissipation of pore water is possible only in the case of very
coarse, clean gravels. In this context, the length of the drainage path is also
important. Even a clean, granular material may retain large excess pore
pressure if the drainage path is so long that the pressures cannot dissipate
during the dynamic loading consequently (MIL-HDBK, 1997).
Dynamic loading may produce a wide range of deformations of soils.
In intermediate range, soil deformations vary from small amplitude near
elastic to plastic following earthquakes; water waves and machine develop
forces in problems that involve dynamic loading of soils. There are two
important parameters; the first is the strain levels induced in the soil, below
the order 10-5. The deformation exhibited by most soils is purely elastic and
recoverable. The phenomena associated with such small strains would be
small amplitude vibration or wave propagation through soils. Over the
intermediate range of strain between 10 -4 and 10-2, the behavior of soils is
elasto-plastic and produces irrecoverable permanent deformations
(Daghigh, 1993). The second dynamic parameter for the soil is the
damping.
2.5 Machinery Foundations

Machinery foundations are one of the most important features of industrial
developments. In both developed and developing countries, growth of
economy is largely attributed to development of industry and infrastructure
facilities.
Roesset and Jose, (2009) stated that the design of foundations to support
heavy machinery was first recognized in the 1920, giving rise to the field of
soil dynamics.
9
2.5.1 Types of machinery foundations
The foundations supporting machines are classified according to different
bases. However, the most popular types of machine foundations fall within
the following categories and explained in Figure (2.2) (Rao, 2011):
 Block foundations resting on soil or piles.
 Frame foundations.
 Wall foundations.
 Spring mounted machines resting on rafts/grade slabs.
2.5.2 Types of machines
Machines are classified as follows (Srinivasulu and Vaidyanathan, 1977,

Arya et al., 1979, Bhatia, 2009 and Azadi and Soltani, 2010):
1- Based on the type of motions:
 Rotary machine.
 Reciprocating machines.
 Impact type machines.
2- Based on the operating speed:
 Very low speed machine (operating at speed up to 100 rpm).

 Low speed machine (operating at speed 100 to 1500 rpm).
 Medium speed machine (operating at speed 1500 to 3000 rpm).
 High speed machine (operating at speed 3000 rpm and above).
Figure (2.2): Common types of machine foundations (Rao, 2011).

10
2.5.3 Methods of analysis of machinery foundations
A physical system is represented by mathematical model with the basic

objective that mathematical model should be compatible with the
prototype. For each mathematical representation, hosts of assumptions and
approximations are made. The extent of the complexity introduced in
mathematical model directly influences the reliability of results. In a broad
sense, mathematical representation not only depends upon machine, soil,
and foundation parameters but also depends upon analysis tools (Bhatia,
2009).
The theory of analyzing the forced vibrations of shallow and deep

foundations has advanced remarkably in lately and has currently reached a
mature state of development. Modern methods for analysis of foundation
vibration attempt to rational account for the dynamic interaction between
the foundation and the supporting soil deposit. This attempt is highly
influenced by the available tools of solving such complex problems.
Satisfactory design of foundations for vibrating equipment is based

on amplitude of displacement considerations. Displacement due to
vibratory loading can be classified under two major divisions that are cyclic
and permanent displacement (Das, 1983).
A number of different methods have been developed over the years

for computing the dynamic response of soil-foundation systems. The key to
the solution of such problems is to compute the matrix of dynamic
impedance functions that relate steady-state forces and displacements at the
base of a foundation-soil system. Such a system is identical to the actual
one, except that the mass of the structure and the foundation is set equal to
zero. Once the harmonic response of such a massless but rigid foundation
has been determined, the response of a massive foundation or of any
11
supported structure can be readily evaluated (Banerjee and Butterfield,
1987). Some of the methods for the foundation vibration analysis are:
1- Lumped mass-parameter system method.
2- Richart and Whitman (1967).
2.5.4 Factors affecting machine foundation design

Every foundation must be analyzed for strength and stability. Machine
foundation must satisfy certain requirements that make it adequate. Using
the machine, soil and foundation parameters, the amplitude of vibration is
computed at machine and foundation level. Besides all these factors,
foundation must be designed and analyzed for its strength and durability to
withstand applicable static and dynamic forces. The following requirements
are regarded as typical parameters for design of machine foundation
system:
1. Settlement and bearing capacity of soils
As in the static design of foundation, the machine foundations must
satisfy all settlement and shear failure criteria. Among these criteria
are (Rao, 2011):
 Settlements should be within permissible limits.
 Foundation block should be structurally adequate to carry the
loads.
2. Foundation type
The most common types of machine foundations are block
foundation and frame foundation. The block type is usually used for
supporting all types of machines (rotary, impact and reciprocating
machines). The frame foundation is used for supporting turbo
generators, turbo compressors and other machine types whose
mechanical system requires frame type (Bhatia, 2009).
12
3. Foundation material
The most common material used for machine foundation is the
reinforced concrete. In specific cases, structural steel has also been
used for frame foundations. However, the material properties
required for foundation design and analysis are mass density,
dynamic shear modulus, static elastic modulus, and Poisson's ratio.
Other material parameters may be needed for analysis using specific
analysis model and available computer software.
4. Compatibility in geometry between foundation and machine
The geometry of the foundation as well as machine type plays a
great role in the analysis and design of the machine-foundation
system. For this reason, many parameters and limitations should be
taken into consideration in the analysis and design of such system.
These limitations are listed below (Barkan, 1962, Srinivasulu and
Vaidyanathan, 1977, Arya et al., 1979, Das, 1983 and Bhatia, 2009):
 Center of gravity: The combined center of gravity of machine
and foundation and the center of contact area (with the soil)
should lie on the same vertical line as far as possible.
 Eccentricity: The eccentricity should not exceed 5 percent of
the least width in any horizontal direction.
 Area of the block: The size of a foundation should be larger
than the bedplate of the machine it supports with a minimum
all-round clearance of 150mm.
 Foundation mass ratio: It is the ratio of the mass of
foundation to that of machine. This ratio is of different values
depending on the machine type. For rotary machine, the mass
ratio of 2.5-4.0 is generally considered appropriate. For
reciprocating machine, the mass ratio is always high and may
reach 8.0.
13
2.5.5 Vibration criteria
It is always required that the operating frequency should be smaller than

the natural frequency of the foundation-soil system. Resonance should not
occur. The design criterion on frequency can be written as:
Prakash, (1981) and Rao, (2011)
Bhatia, (2009)
where:
r is the operating frequency of the machine, and
n is the natural frequency of the soil-foundation system.
In the theoretical analysis of machine foundations, these criteria are

taken as a guide for performing modal analysis of dynamic soil-structure
interaction.
2.5.6 Permissible limits of amplitude
One of the dynamic problems of foundation is the machinery

foundations. The design of a machinery foundation should be such that it
leads to a safe and economical foundation satisfying the requirements of
machinery and structural criteria. The vibrations of machine foundations
induce elastic waves in soil as it generates low strains. The criteria for
design of machine foundations require that the vibration amplitude should
not exceed a given value. Therefore, the machine foundation design
requires a systematic use of principles of soil engineering, soil dynamics,
and theory of vibration (Mandal and Baidya, 2003).
The amplitudes of displacement or velocity or acceleration of the

machine foundation should be within permissible limits. The permissible
limits are depending upon the operating frequency of the machine as well
14
as soil type and characteristics. In no case should the permissible amplitude
exceed the limiting amplitude prescribed for the machine by the
manufacturer.
In fixing the permissible amplitude, consideration should also be

given to machine and structures in the neighborhood and the possibility of
resonance or disturbance. From the data available so far, it appears that
vibrations in neighboring structures will be negligible if the vibration of the
foundation is less than 0.20 mm. For machine generating translation and
torsion, the combined amplitudes should be estimated (Prakash, 1981).
It is very important to explain that the failure of the vibrating

foundations is reached when the motion exceeds a limiting value, which is
usually expressed as velocity or acceleration of the foundation. For steady
state vibration, these may be also expressed in terms of an allowable
displacement at specified frequencies.
2.6 Geosynthetics
Geosynthetics are very durable polymeric products being used in
different civil engineering applications in order to provide strength,
stability, and durability. Use of geosynthetic materials has become more
and more common in the past 40 years for a number of applications and
they have the potential to reduce the cost of maintenance by increasing the
design life. Geosynthetics could be categorized into eight different products
as follows: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, geomembranes, geosynthetic
clay liners, geofoam, and geocells. Geocells are three-dimensional
honeycomb shape product made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE).
Examples of geocells are shown in Plate (2.1)
15
Plate (2.1) : Geocell reinforcement.

Geogrids as shown in the Plate (2.2) are a flexible polymeric product,
consisting of sets of parallel tensile ribs used in civil engineering for their
major five functions: separation, reinforcement, filtration, drainage, and
containment (Koerner et al. , 1998).
The primary potential advantage of geogrids is to increase the bearing

capacity of soft soil.
Plate (2.2) : Geogrid reinforcement.
2.7 Underground Tunnel

2.7.1 Construction
The method chosen to construct a tunnel is dependent firstly on the

ground conditions expected on site and secondly on other considerations
such as the availability of plant, time and cost constraints and other
construction considerations. Tunnelling in hard rock is generally
undertaken by drill and blast, road headers, tunnel boring machines or a
16
combination of methods followed by the installation of tunnel support
such as rock bolts, steel sets or concrete lining.
The construction of tunnels in soft clay and loose sand was historically
achieved by hand excavation using shovels and picks with openings
supported temporarily by timber and later lined with masonry. Collapses of
tunnel excavations are frequent, however, prompting the invention of the
protective tunneling shield, patented by Marc Brunelin 1820. Brunel‟s
rectangular faced shield was used during the construction of the first
Thames Tunnel between 1825 and 1843 with excavation carried out by
hand within the shield followed by the erection of a brick lining
(Sandstrom, 1963). Peter Barlow patented a cylindrical tunneling shield in
1865 which was used to construct a foot tunnel under the Thames at Tower
Hill in 1869 using bolted cast iron lining instead of masonry, against which
the shield was jacked forward. Permanent linings currently used in shield
tunneling include precast concrete segments, steel or cast iron segments,
cast insitu concrete or reinforced shotcrete (Potts and Zdravkovic, 2001).
Tunneling shields can be divided into two general categories: open and
closed shields.
Another tunneling method now used in urban tunneling projects,
including the Heathrow Express rail tunnel (New and Bowers, 1994),
involves the use of a sprayed concrete lining known as the New Austrian
Tunneling Method, it came to prominence under von Rabcewicz during the
construction of the Schwaikheim Tunnel in 1964. The first use of the
method in soft ground in an urban area was in 1968 in Frankfurt am Main,
Germany (Sauer, 1988). The process involves the excavation of a section of
tunnel followed by the application of concrete (or other temporary support)
to the excavated surface before the installation of a permanent lining. Such
lining is usually a second application of reinforced concrete (or permanent
rock bolts for a hard ground tunnel). For large diameter excavations, the
17
advance is usually undertaken by using headings and side drifts to limit the
size of the open excavation face (Potts and Zdravkovic, 2001).
2.7.2 Stresses on tunnel wall
The three principal stresses in a cylindrical tunnel are; the stress
acting in a direction parallel to the axis of the tunnel barrel, is termed the
longitudinal stress, the stress acting in the circumferential direction, is
called the circumferential or tangential stress and the stress acting in the
radial direction and varying through the thickness of the tunnel wall, is
termed the radial stress.
For thin walled tunnel, where the ratio of the mean radius of the tunnel
and the thickness of the tunnel wall is more than 10 the longitudinal stress
and tangential stress are practically uniform throughout the thickness of the
wall and are the only important ones present, the radial stresses are usually
negligibly small (Young, 1989).
2.7.3 Loading on underground structures

underground structures are generally designed to withstand construction
loads, dead loads due to any surrounding fill materials plus the weight of
the structure itself, and any traffic loadings that may be imposed upon it
during its lifetime. The loads on underground structures are as follows
ACPA (2009):
1- Earth load.
2- Surcharge loads.
3- Fluid load.
4- Wheel loading (live load).
• The most important potential loads acting on underground structures
are earth/rock pressures and water pressure.
• Live loads due to vehicle traffic on the surface can be safely
neglected, unless the tunnel is a cut and cover type with a very small
depth of overburden.
18
It may be generally stated, that the dimensioning of tunnel sections must
be affected either against the overburden weight (geostatic pressure).
2.7.4 Soil arching

Arching in soil occurs due to stress transfer in a tunneling problem
from moving parts of the soil (settle more) to adjacent parts (settle less)
that can be achieved by considering the vertical stress redistribution in the
soil mass above the spring line (Salim, 2006).
Terzaghi, (1943), explained how stress transfer from yielding parts
of a soil mass to adjacent non-yielding parts leads to the formation of an
arching zone. This problem has two modes of displacement, depending on
whether the trap door is translated into the soil (passive mode) or away
from it (active mode). The passive mode can be used for the evaluation of
the uplift force of anchors, or of any buried structure that can be idealized
as an anchor. The active mode can be used to study the gravitational flow
of granular material between vertical walls (the silo problem) or the ground
pressure on tunnel liners (Lee et al., 2006).
Handy, (1985), studied the soil arching action and concluded that it
develops in two stages, the first involves rotation of the principal stresses
adjacent to rough wall and causes wall pressure to significantly exceed
those from classical theory. The second stage reduces pressures on the
lower wall to give a curvilinear distribution typically centered at a height
0.42 times the height of the wall. He substituted a catenary's arch
describing the path of minor principal stress, which is complementary to
structural arch, and dips downward instead of upward if supportive.
2.8 Previous Studies Related to Dynamic Response of Tunnels

Xiaoyan et al. (2000) studied the seismic analysis of tunnel surrounded by
soft soil in Shanghai by 2 Dimensional dynamic finite element analysis and
19
found that the maximum pore water pressure ratio in soil occurs near the
top of the tunnel and it almost has no effect on the tunnel. Using different
depths of input, base boundary will affect the results of dynamic analysis of
the tunnel. The response values with the depth of 280 m of input base
boundary are larger than that with the depth of 50 m of input base
boundary. Using different input motions will also affect the results of
dynamic analysis of the tunnel. Using Tangshan earthquake and Lotung
earthquake record as input motion will get relatively larger response values
of dynamic analysis of the tunnel.
Tafreshi, and Khalaj, (2007) described laboratory tests on small-
diameter high-density polyethylene pipes buried in reinforced sand with
geocell subjected to repeated loads to simulate the vehicle loads. Figure
(2.3) shows the physical model test. The amplitude of applied stress was
5.5 kg/cm2 in all tests. Deformation of the pipe was recorded at eight points
on the circumference of the tested pipes to measure the radial deformations
of the pipe. Also, settlement of the soil surface was measured throughout
the test for up to 1000 cycles of loading. These values increased rapidly
during the initial loading cycles; thereafter the rate of deformation reduced
significantly as the number of cycles increased. The variables examined in
the testing program included relative density of the sand, number of
reinforced layers, and embedment depth of the pipe. The influence of
various reinforced layers at relative densities of 42%, 57%, and 72% in
different embedded depths of 1.5–3 times of pipe diameter were
investigated. The results showed that the percent vertical diameter change
(ΔD) and settlement of soil surface (SSS) can be reduced up to 56% and
65% for ΔD and SSS, respectively, by using geogrid reinforcement, and
increase the safety of embedded pipes. Also, the efficiency of
reinforcement was decreased by increasing the number of reinforcement,
the relative density of soil and the embedded depth of the pipe as shown in
Figure (2.4) . The influence of the first cycle was also found to be one of
20
the main behavioral characteristics of buried pipes under repeated loads.
The ratio of deformation of the pipe from the first cycle to the last cycle
changes from 0.5 to 0.9 in different tests. It should be noted that only one
type of pipe, one type of geogrid, and one type of sand are used in
laboratory tests.
Figu
re (2.3): Schematic representation of the test setup adopted by Tafreshi ,
and Khalaj, (2007).
Figure (2.4): Variation of the maximum ΔD (strain of the pipe) with the
number of reinforcement layers for H/D = (a) 1.5, (b) 2.5, (c) 2.5, (d) 3
(after Tafreshi , and Khalaj, 2007).
21
Tafreshi et al. (2007) studied artificial neural network and regression
model for predicting the vertical deformation of high-density polyethylene
pipes. Small diameter flexible pipes buried in reinforced trenches, which
were subjected to repeated loadings to simulate the heavy vehicle loads
were proposed. The experimental data from tests showed that the vertical
diametric strain (ΔD) of pipe embedded in reinforced sand depends on
relative density of sand, number of reinforced layers and height of
embedment depth of pipe significantly. Therefore, the value of ΔD was
related to the above pointed parameters. A database of 72 experiments from
laboratory tests were utilized to train, validate and test the developed neural
network and regression model. The results showed that the predicted
vertical diametric strain (ΔD) using the trained neural network and
regression model are in good agreement with the experimental results but
the predictions obtained from the neural network are better than regression
model as the maximum percentage of error for training data is less than
1.56% and 27.4%, for neural network and regression model, respectively.
Also the additional set of 24 data was used for validation of the model as
90% of predicted results have less than 7% and 21.5% error for neural
network and regression model, respectively. A parametric study was
conducted using the trained neural network to study the important
parameters on the vertical diametric strain.
Ilamparuthi and Rajkumar (2008) studied the experimental
investigation conducted on flexible PVC pipes buried in loose and dense
conditions of sand bed and subjected to surface pressures. The response of
the pipes was studied with and without geogrid reinforcement. It was
observed that the incorporation of geogrid reinforcement resulted in
significant decrease in the crown deflection of the pipe and offered better
protection to the pipe at shallow burial depths . Figure (2.5) shows the
influence of geogrid on the deflection of the pipe.
22
Figure (2.5): Influence of geogrid on vertical and horizontal strain (after

Ilamparuthi and Rajkumar, 2008 ).
Fattah et al. (2008, 2015) investigated the validity of using

transmitting boundaries in dynamic analysis of soil-tunnel interaction
problems. As a case study, the proposed Baghdad metro line was
considered. The information about the dimensions and material properties
of the concrete tunnel and the surrounding soil were obtained from a
previous study. A parametric study was carried out to investigate the effect
of several parameters including the peak value of the horizontal component
of earthquake displacement records, and the modulus of elasticity of the
soil surrounding the tunnel.
Both the computer program (Mod-MIXDYN) and (ANSYS) software

were used for the analysis. The program « Mod-MIXDYN » is a finite
element code modified in this study by adding a 5-noded mapped infinite
element. The results are compared for three cases, the first case presents the
problem with finite boundaries (traditional boundaries), the second case
simulates the problem with infinite boundaries using infinite elements (5-
node mapped infinite element) presented by Selvadurai and, Karpurapu in
1988, and redefined in this study. Finally, the third case simulates the
infinite boundaries using viscous boundaries (dash-pot elements) as
23
adopted in the program ANSYS. It was concluded that the viscous
boundaries are more effective in absorbing the waves resulting from
dynamic loads than mapped infinite elements. This is clear when
comparing the results of both types with those of transient infinite
elements.
The problem of the proposed “Baghdad metro line” which consists of

two routes of 32 km long and 36 stations was also analyzed by Fattah et al.
(2011). The tunnel is circular in cross-section with a 5.9 m outer diameter.
The finite element analyses were carried out using elastic-plastic and
modified Cam clay models for the soil. The excavation has been used
together with transient effects through a fully coupled Biot formulation. All
these models and the excavation technique together with Biot consolidation
were implemented into finite-element computer program named “Modf-
CRISP” developed for the purpose of these analyses. The results indicated
that there is an inward movement at the crown and this movement is
restricted to four and half tunnel diameters. A limited movement can be
noticed at spring line which reaches 0.05% of tunnel diameter, while there
is a heave at the region below the invert, which reaches its maximum value
of about 0.14% of the diameter and is also restricted to a region extending
to 1.5 diameters. The effect of using reduced k0 zone on excess pore water
pressure and surface settlement (vertical and horizontal) was also
considered and it was found that the excess pore water pressure increases
while the settlement trough becomes deeper and narrower using reduced
k0.
Surface settlements of soil due to tunneling are caused by stress relief

and subsidence due to movement of support by excavation. There are
significant discrepancies between empirical solutions to predict surface
settlement trough because of different interpretations and database
collection by different authors. The shape of settlement trough caused by
24
tunneling in cohesive ground was investigated by Fattah et al. (2013) using
different approaches, namely analytical solutions, empirical solutions, and
numerical solutions by the finite element method. The width of settlement
trough was obtained by the finite element method through establishing the
change in the slope of the computed settlement profile. The finite element
elastic-plastic analysis gives better predictions than the linear elastic model
with satisfactory estimate for the displacement magnitude and slightly
overestimated width of the surface settlement trough. The finite element
method over predicted the settlement trough width if compared with the
results of Peck for soft and stiff clay, but there is an excellent agreement
with Rankin‟s estimation. The results showed that there is a good
agreement between the complex variable analysis for Z/D = 1.5, while
using Z/D = 2 and 3, the curve diverges in the region far away from the
center of the tunnel.
Gupta et al. (2009) performed a parametric study to identify the key

parameters which have an important influence on the generation and
propagation of vibrations from underground railways. The parameters
related to the tunnel and the soil are considered and their influence on the
free field response was studied. The coupled periodic finite element-
boundary element model and the pipe-in-pipe model have been used. Both
models account for the dynamic interaction between the train, the track, the
tunnel and the soil. A general analytical formulation is used to compute the
response of three-dimensional invariant or periodic media that are excited
by moving loads. The response to moving loads was written in terms of the
axle loads and the transfer functions. The parametric study can be carried
out by separately analyzing the variations in the axle loads and the transfer
functions. The axle loads are mainly influenced by the parameters related
to the vehicle and the track, while the transfer functions are influenced by
the properties of the track, the tunnel and the soil. It was observed that the
25
material damping and the shear modulus of the soil have an important
influence on the propagation of vibrations. The influence of structural
changes to the tunnel as well as geometrical properties such as the size and
shape of the tunnel was investigated. It was observed that a larger tunnel
results in a smaller response above the tunnel as more energy is radiated
downwards. Moreover, it is demonstrated that the tunnel geometry has a
considerable influence on the response closer to the tunnel.
Goltabar and Shekarchi (2010) studied the effects of truck load on the
buried pipeline which were done with numerical and experimental
methods. In numerical method, model is assumed half extreme and length
of them are considered extreme, mathematically. For performing of
numerical method, 3Diamentional models were used in Plaxis-
3Diamentional software. For comparison and checking of results,
experimental model was prepared and with using of electrical strain gages
and computer, results of experimental model were recorded. Results
showed that the experimental and finite element models results are
compatible.
Hosseini et al. (2010) studied the seismic analysis of horseshoe

tunnels under dynamic loads due to earthquakes by a numerical method . It
was found that with applying the dynamic stress by earthquakes, the stress
and displacement in tunnel periphery is increased. Therefore, for tunnel
stability, the support system must be reinforced. However, with the
increasing of thickness or stiffness of the support system, the inertia is
increased and thus the tunnel flexibility is reduced. Consequently, the
effect of the dynamic stress on the tunnel increases. The symmetry of stress
and displacement distribution of tunnel periphery is adversely affected by
the dynamic loading. Based on the direction of the motion of the seismic
wave, displacement on one side of the tunnel is more than that on the other
side; therefore the balance is disrupted and the potential of instability
26
increases. Due to increases of the axial force, the bending moment and the
shear-force applied on tunnel by seismic loading, the dynamic analysis and
also static analysis for tunnel stability is required.
Yang et al. (2010) studied the numerical simulation of dynamic
response of operating metro tunnel induced by ground explosion with the
general commercial program ANSYS/LS-DYNA and found that the blast
induced waves propagate in the soil in the form of hemispherical waves.
The numerical simulation results of the peak pressure and the peak
acceleration in the soil are compared with the predictions. The discrepancy
between two results is analyzed. The distribution and magnitude of the
stress field of the tunnel lining are influenced by the tunnel depth and TNT
equivalence. According to the von Mises failure criterion, the upper part of
the tunnel lining, ranging from 0° to 22.5° of the cross-section and the
horizontal distance 0 to 7 m away from the explosive center, is the unstable
area. The metro tunnel at the above-mentioned area maybe fail when the
tunnel depth is 7 m and the TNT equivalence reaches 1 000 kg. In other
words, the metro tunnel in soft soil might be safer when the tunnel depth is
more than 7 m and the TNT charge of ground surface explosion is no more
than 500 kg.
Gaoxiao (2011) investigated the properties of soil arching under

dynamic loads by performing numerical studies using the Discrete Element
Method and model experiments. In the numerical study, the soil was
modeled as particles using the linear contact stiffness model. The influence
of the covering soil thickness and the dynamic loads amplitude were
proposed. The results showed that there is also transfer for the stress
induced by external dynamic load because of soil arching. The thickness of
the covering soil and the amplitude of the dynamic loads have an influence
on the soil arching under dynamic load. With an increase in thickness of
the covering soil, the required time of failure of soil arching increased
27
significantly, however, with increase of the amplitude of dynamic loads,
the possibility of failure of soil arch also increase.
Mehrjardi et al. (2012) investigated the mitigation of strain in buried

flexible service pipes and of the settlement of backfill over such pipes by
the use of geocell reinforcement (as 3Diamentional-inclusion
reinforcement) with rubber soil mixtures under repeated loading conditions.
Two rubber sizes (namely chipped and shredded rubbers) were used, three
different percentages of rubber content in the mixture, two positions for
soil rubber mixture inside the trench, four levels of repeated loading and
the addition of geocell reinforcement over the pipe are the variables
considered. Figure (2.6) shows the schematic representation of the test
setup. Soil surface settlement, vertical diametral strain of the pipe (as an
indication of pipe wall deflection) and stress distribution in the trench,
especially on pipe‟s crown, were assessed and evaluated. Using a material
with high resilience, like the rubber soil mixture, could lead to some critical
issues that should be considered. These include the larger settlement of the
soil surface, transfer of a larger pressure into the pipe and, consequentially,
greater pipe wall strain. For the chipped rubber and soil mixture, the pipe
had the highest strains under the cyclic loading irrespective of the amount
of rubber in the soil. However, the shredded rubber and soil mixture,
dependent on the amount of rubber content, is able to reduce the soil
settlement and plastic pipe‟s diametral strain, attenuating the pipe‟s
accumulating strains and, finally, protecting the buried pipe from fatigue
under repeated loadings. This benefit is enhanced by the combined action
of geocell reinforcement over rubber-modified soil. According to the
results, the minimum soil surface settlement and vertical diametric strain
are provided by 5% of shredded rubber soil mixture placed over the pipe
with a geocell, giving values of, respectively, 0.30 and 0.53 times those
obtained in the unreinforced and untreated soil.
28
Figure (2.6): Schematic representation of the test setup (Not to scale) used
in the experiments of Mehrjardi . “A, B location of soil pressure cells and
strain gauges; C location of soil pressure cell” (after Mehrjardi et al. 2012 )
Bildik, et al. (2012) investigated the buried pipe behavior by the finite
element method using the computer program PLAXIS. The undertaken
analyses have been done with different surcharges and different soil
conditions. Based on the results, it was concluded that the intensity of
surcharge load affect the pipe behavior. The pipe displacements increased
linearly with increase in surcharge load. The results showed that the pipe
displacements decrease with increase of embedment ratio. This behavior
can be explained using stress-displacement behavior. The vertical stress
decreases with increase of embedment ratio. The variation of vertical stress
with embedment ratio from the PLAXIS analyses showed generally similar
behavior with Boussinesq's theory. The pipe behavior is strongly
influenced by the relative density of sand. The pipe displacements decrease
with increase on relative density of sand. The results also showed that the
pipe displacements decrease with increase of rigidity of pipe .
29
Ozdemir et al. (2012) studied the response of pipelines to vibrations
induced by the operation of a pavement breaker during the rehabilitation of
concrete pavements. An efficient two-and-a-half-dimensional
(2.5Diamentionall) formulation was employed, where the geometry of the
structure and the soil was assumed to be invariant in the longitudinal
direction. The dynamic soil–structure interaction problem is solved by
means of a 2.5Diamentional coupled finite element–boundary element (FE–
BE) method using a subdomain formulation. The numerical model was
verified by means of results available in the literature for a buried pipeline
subjected to incident P- and SV-waves with an arbitrary angle of incidence.
The presented methodology is capable to incorporate any type of incident
wave field induced by earthquakes, construction activities, traffic,
explosions or industrial activities. The risk of damage to a high pressure
steel natural gas pipeline and a concrete sewer pipe due to the operation of
a pavement breaker is assessed by means of the 2.5Diamentional coupled
FE–BE methodology. It was observed that the stresses in the steel pipeline
due to the operation of the pavement breaker are much lower than those
induced by the operating internal pressure. The steel pipeline behaves in
the linear elastic range under the combined effect of the loadings,
indicating that damage to steel pipelines close to the road due to the
operation of a pavement breaker is unlikely. The maximum principal stress
in the concrete pipe, on the other hand, remains only slightly lower than the
specified tensile strength. The decision to use a pavement breaker should
hence be taken with care, as its operation may induce tensile stresses in
concrete sewer pipes which are of the same order of magnitude as the
tensile strength of the concrete.
Adil (2014) performed a numerical calculation on interaction

between soil and steel pipelines. Properties of the soil and the pipe may
cause significant effects on the movements of buried pipelines. To improve
30
the understanding of the behavior of buried pipelines subjected to dynamic
and static loading, different oil and gas pipes have been considered.
Earthquake load of magnitude 5.4 with a time of shaking of 10 sec and
surface loads (50, 100, 150 and 200 kPa) have been used. To simulate
numerically these effects, 2D finite element analysis through the program
PLAXIS was performed. The results were discussed and fitted by
univariate linear and non-linear analysis. Some influential factors such as
soil types (clay, loose and dense sand), soil layers (one, two and three soil
layers), underground water table, static water loads (of height 20 m above
soil), burying depth, pipe diameter and pipe thickness were discussed in
details. Based on the results, it could be concluded that these factors are
important items on pipeline displacement for both static and dynamic loads.
Some significant comparisons and conclusions were drawn.
Hegde et al. (2014) described the laboratory tests on small diameter

PVC (Poly Vinyl Chloride) pipes buried in unreinforced and geosynthetic
reinforced sand subjected to static loading. Figure (2.7) shows a sketch of
the test setup. The aim of the study was to evaluate the appropriateness of
the combination of geocell and geogrid reinforcement system in protecting
the underground utilities and buried pipelines. A pipe with external
diameter of 75 mm and thickness of 1.4 mm was placed below the footing
at different depths ranging from 1B to 2B (B is the width of the footing).
Commercially available Neoweb geocells and biaxial geogrids were used
as the reinforcements. Results indicated that the use of combination of
geocell and the geogrid reinforcement system considerably reduces the
deformation of the pipe as compared to unreinforced bed. Above 50%
reduction in the pressure and more than 40% reduction in the strain values
were observed in the reinforced bed as compared to the unreinforced bed at
different depths. Conversely, the performance of the foundation bed was
also found to be marginally influenced by the position of the pipe, even in
31
the presence of the relatively stiff reinforcement system. Figure (2.8a)
shows the variation of the vertical pressure on the top of the pipe. For
convenience, the measured pressure value (Pu) was normalized with
applied footing pressure (qu). Similarly, Figure (2.8b) represents the
measured strain values at the top surface of the pipe.
Figure (2.7): Sketch of setup test adopted by Hegde et al. (2014).
Figure (2.8): Pressures and strains above the pipe. (a) vertical pressure (b)
strain (after Hedge et al., 2014).
32
Armaghani et al. (2015) examined the effect of performing geogrid to
increase the uplift resistance of buried pipelines, and the effect of burial
depth, pipe diameter, length of geogrid layers and the number of geogrid
layers on the peak uplift resistance (PUR) of loose sand. Thirty three small-
scale tests were performed in the laboratory. Results of laboratory tests
revealed that the depth of burial and pipe diameter have a direct effect on
the PUR results. The findings showed that the number of geogrid layers
does not have a remarkable influence on PUR values. To verify the
experimental results, 33 experiments were back analyzed using „„PLAXIS
3Diamentional TUNNEL‟‟ program. It was found that experimental and
numerical results are in good agreement.
2.9 Summary
General observations on previous studies by various researchers as
reported in the literature are:
1. There is a huge amount of work available in the literature
concentrated on the behavior of tunnel under dynamic load by
analytical or numerical models.
2. There is few data available on the effect of geogrid in transfer of
dynamic loading to the underground tunnel
3. There are very few data on the effect of variation of dynamic load
amplitude and frequency on the behavior of soil and underground
tunnel.
Hence, the present study is directed to study the influence of geogrid
reinforced earth in transfer of dynamic loading to underground tunnel
focusing on the behavior of surface settlement and pressure on the
tunnel crown. Also the effect of different parameters such as: load
amplitude, frequency, geogrid depth and width and relative density will
be studied.
33
CHAPTER THREE
EXPEREMENTAL WORK
3.1 Introduction
The experimental work consists of performing laboratory model tests to
investigate the behavior of dry sand under the effect of dynamic load. The
effect of geogrid on the settlement and transition of dynamic load to the
underground structure was studied considering different parameters such
as: depth of geogrid, width of geogrid, relative density of sand, amplitude
of dynamic force and load frequency.
The focus of this chapter is to describe the engineering properties of the
sand used in the study and to outline the design and manufacturing of the
testing equipment, model preparation and testing procedures.
3.2 Testing Program

The total number of the tests carried out is 58 models. Two models
were tested under static load with two relative densities (40% and 80%).
All the other 56 model tests were tested under dynamic load which
represent two series were carried out using two relative densities (40% and
80%) corresponding to loose and dense sand, respectively according to
Murthy.
All the 56 dry sand models were subjected to dynamic load with two
load amplitudes corresponding to (0.5 ton and 1 ton) using two frequencies
1 and 2 Hz for each load amplitude.
For each amplitude and frequency of the load, the sand models were
tested without geogrid and with geogrid of two widths (1B and 2B) where
B is the width of the footing. In addition, three series of geogrid depths
from the model surface (0.5B, 1B and 1.5B) were carried out. The testing
program of all the tests is summarized in Figure (3.1).
34
Chapter Three Experimental Work
TESTING PROGRAM
Dry Sand
Relative density = 40%
static load dynamic load=0.5ton dynamic load=1ton
freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz
without without without without

with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid
geogrid geogrid geogrid geogrid
b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B
d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B
d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B
d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5b d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B
Relative density = 80%
static load dynamic load=0.5ton dynamic load=1ton
freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz freq.=1Hz freq.=2Hz
without without without without

with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid with geogrid
geogrid geogrid geogrid geogrid
b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B b=1B b=2B
d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B d=0.5B
d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B d=1B
d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5b d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B d=1.5B
Figure (3.1): Flowchart of the testing program.

35
The details of abbreviation for the tested samples as well as example of
models naming are explained below:
B: width of strip footing.
b: width of geogrid.
d: depth of geogrid from the surface.
3.3 Materials Used and Soil Characterization:

3.3.1 The soil
Karbala sand is used in this study. Standard tests were performed to
determine the physical properties of the sand. The tests were performed on
sand with two different densities; loose and dense. The details of these
properties are given in Table (3.1).
Table (3.1) : Physical properties of sand used
No. Index property Index Value
1 Specific gravity 2.65
2 D10 (mm) 0.175
3 D30 (mm) 0.3
4 D60 (mm) 0.48
5 Coefficient of uniformity (Cu) 3.2
6 Coefficient of curvature (Cc) 1.25

7 Maximum void ratio 0.68
8 Minimum void ratio 0.45
9 Maximum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 18.18
10 Minimum dry unit weight (kN/m3) 15.7
11 Angle of internal friction (at Dr. = 40%) 34º
12 Angle of internal friction (at Dr. = 80%) 41º
13 Soil classification (USCS) SP
36
3.3.1.1 Soil characterization
Laboratory tests which are carried out on the used soil included the
following:
1- Specific gravity: Specific gravity tests were performed in general
accordance with (ASTM) D 854 – 2005 Standard Test Method for Specific
Gravity of Soils.
2- Grain size distribution: Sieve analysis was performed in general
accordance with (ASTM) D 422 – 2001 Standard Test Method for Particle-
Size Analysis of Soils. Grain size distribution of the used sand is shown in
Figure (3.2).
100
90
80
Percent Passing, %
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1
Grain Size, mm
Figure (3.2): Grain size distribution of the used soil.
3- Maximum and minimum densities: The maximum index density

was performed according to (ASTM 4253, 2000) specification. The soil
sample was divided into three layers and the test was run for 8 minutes for
each layer at a frequency of 60 Hz. A surcharge of 14 kPa was applied to
prevent the sand particles from moving.
37
The minimum index density test was performed according to (ASTM,
4254, 2000) specification, the test was conducted using funnel with an
opening of 1.27 cm and was maintained at a constant height of 1.25 to 2.5
cm during falling.
The dry densities were calculated as the weight of soil retained in the
mold divided by the volume of the mold. The test was conducted three
times and the average of three dry densities was taken.
4- Direct shear test: Direct shear box test was performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 3080-90 specification. The direct shear box test
has several particle sizes to box size requirements when preparing
specimens for testing. The minimum specimen width should not be less
than 10 times the maximum particle size diameter and the minimum initial
specimen thickness should not be less than 6 times the maximum particle
diameter.
3.3.2 PVC pipe
A PVC pipe was used in all tests to simulate the underground tunnel. The
pipe has a diameter of 110 mm and 700 mm long, it was placed at a depth
equal to 500 mm from the surface. Plate (3.1) shows the PVC pipe used.
Plate (3.1): PVC pipe.

38
3.3.3 Geogrid reinforcement
The geogrid was used in some tests, it was manufactured by Factory for
plastic mesh having engineering properties shown in Table (3-2) as
provided by the manufacturing company. The sheet of geogrid was used
from test to test but was replaced whenever any of the strands become
visibly overstressed. Plate (3.2) shows the geogrid reinforcement used.
Table (3.2) : Engineering properties of geogrid used
A- Technical properties
Test
Property Unit Data
method
Tensile strength at 2%
ISO 10310 kN/m 5.1
strain
Tensile strength at 5%
ISO 10310 kN/m 9.1
strain
Peck tensile strength ISO 10310 kN/m 16.0
Yield point elongation ISO 10310 % 20.0
B- Physical, chemical and biological properties
Property Test method Data
Structure Extruded geogrid
Mesh type Diamond
Standard color Black
Polymer type HDPE
U.V stabilizer ASTM D1603 Carbon black
Chemical resistance Excellent
Biological resistance Excellent
Packaging Rolls
C- Technical properties
Property Test method Unit Data
Aperture size Mm 6*10
Mass per unit area ISO 9864 g/m2 700
Roll width M 2.0
Roll length M 20
Roll diameter M 0.40
Gross roll weight Kg 28.0
39
Plate (3.2): Geogrid used.
3.4 Model Design and Devices

To study the effect of geogrid in transfer of dynamic load to the
underground structure in sandy soil, it is necessary to simulate the
conditions as close as possible to those occurring in the field. To achieve
this aim, a special testing apparatus and other accessories were designed
and manufactured by Abd Al-Kaream, (2013) and modified in this study.
The apparatus has the capability of applying different dynamic loads at
different frequencies, The general view of the apparatus is shown in
Plate (3.3).
The apparatus consists of the following parts:

1. Loading steel frame,
2. Axial loading system,
3. Model footing,
4. Data acquisition,
5. Shaft encoder,
6. Steel container.
40
‫‪Chapter Three‬‬ ‫‪Experimental Work‬‬
‫‪Plate (3.3) : General view of the apparatus.‬‬
‫‪41‬‬
3.4.1 Loading steel frame
To support the verticality of piston system used in applying the
central concentrated load, a steel frame was designed and constructed as
shown in Figure (3.3).
The steel frame consists mainly of four columns and four beams.
The cross sectional area of each column and beam are made of steel with
square cross section area of (100 mm×100 mm) and 4 mm thick. The
dimensions of the steel frame (length× width× height) are (1700 mm×
700 mm×1700 mm). To strengthen the steel frame to withstand the
applied load, two beams were added in this work (No. 4 in Figure 3.3).
A 20 mm thick steel plate with dimensions of (700 mm×500 mm)

was welded on the center of the frame in order to carry the hydraulic jack
system and the settlement measurement device (Encoder) as shown in
Plate (3.4).
The steel frame was fixed to the floor base using four base plates of
dimensions (200 mm×200 mm×20 mm). Each base plate was fixed with
the floor using four bolts of 16 mm diameter.
3.4.2 Axial loading system
The axial loading system consists of :
1. Hydraulic jack system: The cross sectional area of the piston is 2025
mm2, the length of the piston is (600 mm) and the maximum limit of load
that can be applied is (8 tones) as shown in Plate (3.5) .
2. Hydraulic control system: The control device consists of a system

responsible for application of the dynamic loading, and the movement of
the piston. The control system contains a valve which is responsible for
controlling the dynamic load as shown in Plate (3.6) .
42
‫‪Figure (3.3) : Loading steel frame.‬‬
‫‪Plate (3.4) : The upper and lower faces of steel plate.‬‬

‫‪43‬‬
Plate (3.5) : Hydraulic jack.
Plate (3.6) : The hydraulic control system.
3.4.3 Model footing
A strip footing of dimensions 710 mm * 110 mm with 30 mm thickness

was manufactured to simulate a road or any strip footing above the
underground structure as shown in Plate (3.7) .
44
Plate (3.7) : Strip footing.
3.4.4 Data acquisition
To study and investigate the real behavior of the tested models during
the application of the dynamic load, it is necessary to find a procedure to
measure and sense the displacement induced by the dynamic load during
the test, which enable the tester to obtain the total accurate information that
consists of a huge data of readings in a very short time. For this reason,
data acquisition system was used.
The Programmable Logic Controller (PLC) can be defined as a digital

computer used for automation of electro-mechanical processes, which are
considered as a high technical process unit. This system analyzes the data
digitally, according to the research requirement. PLC unlike general –
purpose computers, can be designed for multiple inputs and outputs
arrangements, extend temperature ranges and immunity to electrical noise.
Programs to control machine operation are typically stored in battery –
backed-up or non-volatile memory (using 256 kbyte) and its resistance to
45
vibration and impact, and it saves this process from a huge numerical
operations (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).
PLC device includes LCD (Siemens touch panel/Germany made)

touch-screen for viewing simplified ladder logic (only a small portion of
the program being visible at a given time). Typically, this LCD touch-
screen is accompanied by three- push buttons which lead the operator to
more commands related for the test, and enable the programmer to use a
simple application window to get the results.
PLC is usually modular and greatly expandable and the main

difference from the other data acquisition procedures or other computers is
that the PLC is armored for severe conditions such as (dust, moisture, heat
and cool). PLC program is generally executed repeatedly as long as the
controlled system is running and the data is saved in the memory even if
the electricity current was cutoff. The scanning time is not exceeding a few
milliseconds (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).
Special purpose modules, such as timer modules or counter modules,

could be used where the scan time of the processor was too long (more than
two minutes.) to count pulses from the shaft encoder, these pulses can be
counted and collected according to the test procedure (can reach more than
106 readings). The accumulation of these pulses was done by a dedicated
module that is unaffected by the speed of the program execution. These
details are shown in Plate (3.8).
3.4.5 Shaft Encoder
A shaft encoder type (Rotary) can be defined as an electro-mechanical

device that converts the angular positions or motion of the shaft to an
analog or digital code. The output of incremental encoder provides
information about the motion of the shaft which is typically further
processed elsewhere into information such as speed, displacement,
46
revolution per minute (rpm) and position. The output of absolute encoders
indicates the current position of the shaft. As the shaft rotates, the contacts
touch the metal teeth while others fall in the gaps where the metal teeth has
been cutout. The metal teeth is connected to electrical source of electrical
current and each contact is registered by the encoder as an electrical signal
which the PLC can deal with it and translated to a displacement reading as
shown in Plate (3.9) (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).
Plate (3.8) : PLC (Programmable Logic Controller ) unit.
Plate (3.9) : The shaft Encoder.

47
The mechanical encoder type (0.001 mm) sensitivity is the most
widely used of all rotary encoders due to its low cost and ability to provide
signals that can be easily interpreted to provide the accurate motion.
Generally, it is used to control and determine the velocity and

position. The metal teeth shaft was installed to the upper metal plate above
the steel frame with very accurate consideration to keep the shaft in the
required straightness and verticality during the test.
All types of incremental encoders (used in this research) are sine wave
encoders. Instead of producing two quadrature square waves, the output is
quadrature sine wave. Sine wave is a pure frequency, very stable when
passing through an analog circuit, the shape still constant without any
changes but with a reduction of its amplitude. The sine wave represents a
360º degrees or a full circular wave, because the laws of AC circuit theory,
only apply to a true sine wave. Other waveforms, such as square or saw
tooth waves are imperfect recreations of a sine wave with many harmonic
frequencies (Abd Al-Kaream, 2013).
3.4.6 Steel container
The container was used to prepare the test sample, the internal
dimensions are 1000 mm length, 750 mm width and 700 mm depth. Each
part of the container is made of steel plates 5 mm thick. Plate (3.10) shows
the steel container.
Plate (3.10) : Steel container.

48
All inside faces of the container are covered with a 20 mm thick cork
which is used to minimize the vibration transmition of the dynamic load to
the box walls during the test.
3.4.7 Earth pressure cell and readout
Earth pressure cells provide a direct means of measuring total pressure in

or on bridge abutments, diaphragm walls, fills and embankments, retaining
walls surfaces, sheet piling, slurry walls and tunnel lining. They may also
be used to measure earth bearing pressure on foundation slabs and footings
and at the tips of piles. Plate (3.11) shows the earth pressure cell model
4800 manufactured by GEOKON company in U.S.A which is used in this
study, the technical specifications of the cell are given in Table (3.3).
Earth pressure cells are constructed from two thin stainless steel plates
welded together around their periphery and separated by a narrow gap
filled with hydraulic fluid. A length of stainless steel tubing connects the
fluid filled cavity to a pressure transducer that converts the fluid pressure
into an electrical signal transmitted by cable to the readout. They can be
positioned in the fill at different orientations so that the soil pressure can be
measured in two or three directions.
Plate (3.11) : Pressure cell.

49
Table (3. 3) Technical specification of pressure cell (GEOKON company)
Specification value
Transducer type and output Vibrating wire and 2000-3000Hz
Standard range and accuracy 170 kPa ± 0.1% F.S.
Standard cell dimensions (H×D) 6×100 mm
Transducer dimensions (L× D) 150×25 mm
Temperature range -20ºC to + 80 ºC
The vibrating wire readout box model GK404 manufactured by

GEOKON company in U.S.A, used with earth pressure cell and
piezometer, is portable, low-power, hand-held that is capable of running for
more than 20 hours continuously. It is designed for the readout all
GEOKON vibrating wire gages and transducers. Plate (3.12) shows the
readout device. The model GK404 provides 6 excitation positions (A-F)
with display resolution of 0.1 digits. It is displaying the reading of one
connector so that a suitable selector was manufactured to read all the
instruments at the same time.
Plate (3.12) : Pressure cell readout.
3.4.8 Vibration meter
The vertical amplitude of tunnel was measured at the surface of the tunnel.
Vibration meter (VT-8204) of one channel was used in the test. This
vibration meter has a working capacity of 0.001 to 2.217 mm, it is capable
50
of measuring the displacement, velocity, and acceleration of motion
depending on the function set prior to the test. In addition, all the collected
data can be transferred to the computer easily through built in software.
During the tests, one vibration meter was used to measure the amplitude of
dislacement on the surface of the tunnel. The components of the VT- 8204
vibration meter are shown in Plate (3.13). The vibration meter within the
testing models is shown in Plate (3.14).
Plate (3.13) : Vibration meter.
Plate (3.14) : Vibration meter probe placed on the tunnel crown.
51
3.5 Sand Deposit Preparation
The sand deposit was prepared using a steel tamping hummer
manufactured for this purpose. As stated previously in this chapter, two
cases of relative densities are chosen (40% for loose sand and 80% for
dense sand), this means that the weight required to achieve the relative
density is predetermined since the unit weight and the volume of the sand
are predetermined also. The sand is divided into equal weights each weight
represents the quantity of sand required for each layer.
The soil of each layer was compacted to a predetermined depth. A PVC
pipe that simulate a tunnel was installed on a soil bedding of 250 mm. After
that, the pressure cell and vibration meter probe were installed above the
pipe crown and then the soil deposit preparation was completed. Then, the
geogrid was placed in the desired depth and width. After completing the
final layer, the top surface was scraped and leveled by a sharp edge ruler to
get as near as possible a flat surface. The strip footing was then brought in
contact with the top surface of the model. Plate (3.15) presents the steps of
the sand deposit preparation. Table (3.4) summarizes the properties of the
sand used in different states.
Table (3.4): Different states of sand used.
State of Dry unit weight Void Angle of Relative

Sand (γdry) kN/m3 Ratio friction (∅) density (Dr %)
(e)
Loose 16.6 0.59 34º 40%
Dense 17.6 0.5 41º 80%
52
‫)‪(1‬‬ ‫)‪(2‬‬
‫)‪(3‬‬ ‫)‪(4‬‬
‫‪Plate (3.15) : Stages of the preparation of the test model.‬‬
‫‪53‬‬
‫)‪(5‬‬ ‫)‪(6‬‬
‫)‪(7‬‬
‫‪Plate (3.15) : (Continued).‬‬
‫‪54‬‬
3.6 Static Loading Test
The static loading was applied gradually through an axial loading system
manufactured by Rahil, (2007). The system operates at a controlled
displacement of 0.03 mm/sec. Process of the loading is continued till
failure occurs. Plate (3.16) shows the application of static load.
Plate (3.16) : Application of static load.
3.7 Dynamic Loading Test

After the preparation of footing on the surface of the sand layer, a dynamic
load was applied throughout a predetermined sequence. The application of
dynamic load continues for 20 minutes. The function of the dynamic load is
represented by the following equation:
( ) ( )
55
where :
Amplitude of load.
Frequency of load.
t = Time
T = Load period.
The shape of the dynamic wave loading applied is of the form close to the
sinusoidal compressive type as shown in Figure (3.4).
Figure (3.4) Dynamic load wave.
56
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF TEST RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
Soil dynamics engineering explains different combinations of

loadings and unloading which engineers need to consider in design of
structures. A substantial part is vertical cyclic loading with different
frequencies and amplitudes. For example, heavy traffic loading may cause
damage to water and sewer pipelines buried beneath roads. In case of sewer
systems, their failure is linked to potential problems of soil and water
contamination, particularly when the water level is close to the ground
surface or the water is close to the sewer pipeline that failed.
This chapter presents and discusses the results of 58 models
performed on dry sand with and without geogrid subjected to vertical static
and dynamic loading. The investigation focuses on the influence of
parameters such as relative density, load amplitude, depth of geogrid layer
and width of geogrid layer. For all model tests, the applied dynamic load is
applied for 20 minutes.
4.2 Model Test Results under Static Load
As a reference, two model tests are performed under static load using
sand of two different relative densities 40% and 80% which are
corresponding to loose and dense sand, respectively. For all model tests,
the failure is defined as the load causing a settlement corresponding to 10%
of the footing width depending on the proposal given by Terzaghi, (1943).
Figure (4.1) represents the relationship between the applied vertical stress
(q) and the settlement of the two model tests. It is clearly shown that the
mode of failure is local shear failure for Dr = 80% and punching shear
failure for Dr = 40%.
57
Chapter Four Presentation and Discussion of Test Results
This result agrees well with Terzaghi equation (Terzaghi, 1943).
Qult = c NC+ q Nq+ 0.5 Nγ ……………. (4-1)
where: qu = ultimate bearing capacity,
c = cohesion of soil,
Df = the depth of footing,
q = surcharge (γDf),
Nc, Nq and Nγ Terzaghi bearing capacity factors, and
B = width of foundation and γ unit weight of the soil.
For the soil used in this study, the value of c 0 (cohesionless soil)
and (Df 0) (footing at the surface), so Equation 4.1 becomes:
qult 0.5 γ B Nγ ……………. (4-2)
Table (4.1) summarizes the static bearing capacity.
Figure (4.1): Static test results on models at two relative densities of

sand.
58
Table 4.1 : Bearing capacity of strip footing over sandy soil.
Qult. (kPa)
Experimental Theoretical (Eq. 4.2)
Loose sand Dense sand Loose sand Dense sand
15 43 7.2 20.8
Table (4.1) shows that the theoretical bearing capacity equation

underestimates the values of bearing capacity since it is conservative.
4.3 Model Test Results under Dynamic Load
56 models were tested under dynamic load, 48 of these models were tested
with geogrid and for comparison 8 models were tested without geogrid
reinforcement. Three values of depth of geogrid were chosen
corresponding to (0.5B, 1B and 1.5B where B is the width of footing). For
each geogrid depth, two different geogrid widths (1B and 2B) were tried,
two different load amplitudes (1 ton and 0.5 ton), two different load
frequencies (2 Hz and 1 Hz) and two soil relative densities (40% and 80%).
In all test results figures, a comparison is conducted between the results of
tests without geogrid and with geogrid versus time.
4.3.1 Effect of depth of the reinforcement
1- Effect of depth of the reinforcement on the vertical pressure:

The vertical pressure was measured by a pressure cell. Figures (4.2) to
(4.4) show the variation of the vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel
embedded in loose sand with time. In general, the curves follow the same
trend and it can be noticed that when the geogrid is placed at a depth equal
to (0.5B) from the surface, the pressure will decrease by about (10-33)%.
This decrement is because the soil with geogrid reinforcement will behave
as a stiff bed and redistributes the pressure over a wide area as stated by
Mehrjardi et al, (2012) who studied the effect of the geocell to improve the
59
performance of buried pipes, but this percentage decreased to about (7-
13)% when the geogrid is placed at a depth equal to (1B) because the
distribution of load at a depth (1B) gives smaller pressure intensities than at
a depth of (0.5B), whereas no decreasing in pressure was noticed when the
geogrid is placed at depth equal to (1.5B) because the geogrid was placed
at a depth out of the bulb of stresses below the strip footing in comparison
with the results of geogrid and without geogrid. These percentages are
different according to the state of load and geogrid width.
On the other hand, Figures (4.5) to (4.7) present the variation of the
vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel embedded in dense sand with
time. In general, it can be noticed that when the geogrid is placed at a depth
equal to (0.5B) from the surface, the pressure decreases by about (13-60)%
in comparison with the results without geogrid and this percentage is
greater than in loose sand because the efficiency of pressure redistribution
in dense state is better than in loose state due to rearrangement of soil
particles in loose sand and that does not occur in dense sand, but when the
geogrid is at a depth (1B and 1.5B), there is no decrease in the pressure
compared with the results of pressure without geogrid because the geogrid
was placed at a depth out of the active zone of stresses below the footing.
This percentage is different according to the state of load and geogrid.
When a tunnel is installed in soil, soil columns on both sides of the rigid
pipe are more compressive than the soil columns on top of the rigid pipe
because of the higher stiffness of rigid pipes when compared with soils. As
such, soil columns on both sides tend to settle more than the soils on top of
the rigid pipe and this differential settlement causes a downward shear
force acting along the sides of soil columns on top of the rigid pipe. As
such, the load on the rigid pipes becomes larger than the sole weight of soil
columns on its top. Similarly, if a flexible pipe is adopted instead (as in the
case of the present study), the previous phenomenon shall be reversed .
60
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
Figure (4.2) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown with
time for a =0.5 ton, ω =1 Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid (d=
0.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
1.5B and b= 1B).
61
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
0.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =80%, without and with geogrid (d=
1.5B and b= 1B).
62
‫ـــــ ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ‬
2- Effect of depth of reinforcement on the surface settlement:
The surface settlement was measured by sensors in the dynamic load
apparatus as described in Chapter Three. Figures (4.8) to (4.10) show the
variation of the surface settlement with time for model footing on loose
sand. The results show that the vertical settlement can be reduced by about
(20-44)% when using geogrid reinforcement at a depth equals to (0.5 B).
This decrease is attributed to the smaller soil mass above the reinforcing
layer which could have insufficient overburden to generate enough friction
and tension resistance at the soil reinforced interface according to Tafreshi
et al. (2008) who studied the laboratory tests of small diameter pipes buried
in reinforced sand under repeated load. Furthermore, this percentage will
decrease to about (13-37)% when the geogrid is placed at a depth equal to
(1B) because the soil mass increases so the friction and tension resistance
decreases. In addition, when the geogrid is placed at a depth equals to
(1.5B), the results of vertical settlement without geogrid are approximately
close to results of vertical settlement with geogrid. This indicates that the
efficiency of geogrid decreases when the depth increases. The geogrid has
no efficiency at a depth equal to (1.5B) this can be attributed to the stress
zone below the foundation, when the geogrid is placed at a depth of 0.5B or
1B, it is within the stress bulb, so that its presence affects considerably the
values of displacements induced by the dynamic load. These percentages
are different according to the state of load and geogrid. This behavior was
also noticed by Tafreshi and Khalaj (2008) who observed an increase in the
bearing capacity up to approximately 2.7 times by placing the
reinforcement within a homogenous sand at a depth within the range of
u/B= 0.25-0.75 (u is the reinforcement depth and B is the footing width).
On the other hand, Figures (4.11) to (4.13) show the variation of the
surface settlement with time for model footing on dense sand. The results
show that there is no efficiency of using geogrid on the surface settlement
in dense sand and that is compatible with the results of Tafreshi, (2008)
63
who found that the reinforcement at lower relative density is more effective
than higher relative density. Further results will be presented in Appendix
(A).
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
Surface settlement, mm
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
80 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B
90
Figure (4.8) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton, ω
= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 1 B).
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
80 With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 1 B
90
Figure (4.9) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton, ω
= 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).
64
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Figure (4.10) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without and with geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Without geogrid
70
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Without geogrid
70
90
ω = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 1 B).
65
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Without geogrid
70
90
4.3.2 Effect of width of the reinforcement
1- Effect of width of the reinforcement on the vertical pressure:
Figures (4.2) to (4.4) in the previous section (4.3.1) and Figures (4.14) to
(4.16) show the variation of vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel
embedded in loose sand. In general, it can be noticed that when the geogrid
width equals to (1B), the pressure decreases by about (15-46)% compared
with test results without geogrid, but this percentage decreases to (8-33)%
when geogrid width equals to (2B). These results can be discussed as
follows: when the geogrid reinforcement width is 1 B, full interaction will
be mobilized between the geogrid and the soil beneath it, so that the
pressure transferred through the system is small, while geogrid of 2B width
will be subjected to bending and its edges will be raised (this was observed
through the experiments), leading to decrease in the mobilized friction and
interaction with the underlying soil. This behavior was also noticed by
Mehrjardi et al. (2012) who observed that the geocell layer was pulled
down under the plate settlement; however, at a remote distance from the
loading plate periphery, no tension in the geocell was observed.
66
Figures (4.5) to (4.7) in the previous section (4.3.1) and Figures (4.17) to
(4.19) present the variation of the vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel
embedded in dense sand. It can be noticed that when the geogrid width
equals to (1B), the pressure decreases by about (13-68)% compared with
the results without geogrid, on the contrary for loose sand, this percent
increases to (25-70)% when the geogrid width equals to (2B).
This is caused by the high density of the sand, full mobilization of
interaction will be developed between the geogrid and the soil which
inhibits bending of the geogrid during loading, so that the geogrid
reinforcement of 2B width will produce a stiff layer which does not allow
propagation of waves and stresses will not be transmitted to the pipe zone.
Tafreshi and Khalaj (2008) found that the value of PDRF (pipe
diameter reduction factor) and SRF (settlement reduction factor) depends
on the width of reinforcement, because adequate width of the reinforcement
should be provided to mobilize the required frictional resistance. Tafreshi
(2008) found that with an increase of the b/D (where b is the width of
reinforcement and D is the diameter of the pipe), the value of PDRF and
SRF decreases, reaching minimum value at b/D approximately 4-5.
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
Figure (4.14) : Variation of the vertical pressure above the tunnel crown
with time for a =0.5 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
67
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
68
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
2- Effect of width of the reinforcement on the surface settlement:

Figures (4.8) to (4.10) in the previous section (4.3.1) and Figures
(4.20) to (4.22) present the variation of the surface settlement with time for
model footing on loose sand . The results show that the vertical settlement
can be reduced by about (24-44)% when using geogrid reinforcement of
width equals to (2B), while when the width equals to (1B), the results show
that the vertical settlement is reduced to about (13-36)%, this indicates that
when the width of geogrid increases, the surface settlement decreases
because the geogrid of width (2B) can mobilize frictional resistance more
than (1B) this results are compatible with the findings of Tafreshi and
69
Khalaj, (2008) who found that when the width of reinforcement increases,
the settlement decreases.
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Surface settlement,
0
10
20
30
mm
40
50
60 Without geogrid
70
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Surface settlement,
0
10
20
30
mm
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
70
4.3.3 Effect of load amplitude
1- Effect of load amplitude on the vertical pressure
Two different amplitudes of dynamic load (a) were chosen (1 ton and 0.5
ton). Figures (4.2) to (4.4) and Figures (4.14) to (4.16) in the previous
sections in addition to Figures (4.23) to (4.28) show the variation of
vertical pressure on the crown of the tunnel embedded in loose sand with
time. It can be noticed that when the load amplitude decreases from (1) ton
to (0.5) ton, the pressure decreases too by about (57)% .
Comparison between the pressure results with and without geogrid, it

can be noticed that when the load amplitude equals to 1 ton, the pressure
decreases by about (11-46)% , but this percentage decreases to about (7-
38)% when the applied load equals to 0.5 ton.
On the other hand, Figures (4.5) to (4.7), Figures (4.17) to (4.19) in

the previous sections and Figures (4.29) to (4.34) present the variation of
the vertical pressure on the crown of the tunnel embedded in dense sand
with time. It can be noticed that when the load amplitude equals to 1 ton,
the pressure decreased by about (13-27)% compared with test results
without geogrid, but when the load amplitude decreases to 0.5 ton, the
percentage increases to about (68-71)%.
In dense sand, when the load amplitude is high, dilation may take
place leading to decrease the interaction between the geogrid and the sand,
which results in decreasing the efficiency of the geogrid in spreading the
dynamic waves.
71
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
with time for a =1 ton, ω = 1Hz and Dr. =40%, without and with geogrid
(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
With geogrid, d =1 B, b = 1 B
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
With geogrid, d =1.5 B, b = 1 B

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).
72
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
73
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).
74
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
75
2- Effect of load amplitude on the surface settlement
Figures (4.8) to (4.10), Figures (4.20) to (4.22) in the previous sections and
Figures (4.35) to (4.40) present the variation of the surface settlement with
time for model footing on loose sand.. It can be noticed that the vertical
settlement can be reduced by about (25-40)% when using a geogrid under
an applied load amplitude equal to (1 ton). The percent vertical settlement
can be reduced by about (13-35)% when a geogrid layer is used under an
applied load of amplitude equals to (0.5 ton). The results show that the
vertical settlement can be reduced by about (64)% when the load amplitude
decreases from (a = 1 ton to a = 0.5 ton). All of these percentages are
different according to the state of load and geogrid.
These results are compatible with the results of Tafreshi and Khalaj
(2008) who found that the vertical settlement of soil surface can be reduced
up to 65% by using geogrid reinforcement, and increase the safety of
embedded pipes. Also, the efficiency of reinforcement was decreased by
increasing the number of geogrid layers, the relative density of the soil and
the embedded depth of the pipe.
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Figure (4.35) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, ω
76
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
77
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
4.3.4 Effect of load frequency
1- Effect of load frequency on the vertical pressure
Two different frequencies of load were applied; 2 Hz and 1 Hz. Figures

(4.2) to (4.4), Figures (4.14) to (4.16), Figures (4.23) to (4.28) in the
previous sections and Figures (4.41) to (4.52) show the variation of the
vertical pressure on the crown of a tunnel embedded in loose sand with
time. It can be noticed that the pressure decreases when the frequency
decreases this means that the intensity of applied load within a limited time
will be increased, this leads to increase the pressure transferred to the
tunnel. The percentage of decrement in pressure when the frequency
78
decreased is about 20% for a =0.5 ton and 45% for a = 1 ton. This can be
attributed to the time lag of dissipation of elastic waves transfer to the
tunnel which increases with increasing of both the amplitude of dynamic
load and its frequency. Figures (4.5) to (4.7), Figures (4.17) to (4.19),
Figures (4.29) to (4.34) in the previous sections and Figures (4.53) to (4.64)
present the variation of pressure with time for dense sand, the percentage
decreases to 9% for a = 0.5 ton and 18% for a = 1 ton.
In addition, it can be noticed that the percentage of decrease in vertical

pressure of tests without and with geogrid for a load frequency equal to 2
Hz is approximately close or similar to the percentage of test with
frequency equals to 1 Hz.
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
79
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
With geogrid, d = 1.5 B, b =1 B

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
80
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
With geogrid,d = 1.5 B, b = 2 B

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b =1 B
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
81
120
Without geogrid
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 1B).
120
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40 Without geogrid
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
82
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40 Without geogrid
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
83
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
84
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 1B).
85
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 1B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 0.5B and b= 2B).
86
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa
80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1B and b= 2B).
120
Without geogrid
100
Pressure, kPa

80
60
40
20
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
(d= 1.5B and b= 2B).
2- Effect of load frequency on the surface settlement

Figures (4.8) to (4.10), Figures (4.20) to (4.22), Figures (4.35) to (4.40) in
the previous section and Figures (4.65) to (4.76) present the variation of the
surface settlement with time for model footing on loose sand. The results
show that the vertical settlement can be reduced by about (4)% when the
frequency decreased from (2 Hz to 1 Hz), this means that the intensity of
applied load within a limited time will be increased which leads to increase
in the surface settlement. It can also be noticed that the vertical settlement
can be reduced by about (13-36)% when using a geogrid under an applied
87
frequency equal to (2 Hz), while the vertical settlement is reduced by about
(27-44)% when the applied frequency equals to (1 Hz).
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
88
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
89
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time ,sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
91
Time, sec.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70 Without geogrid
90
4.3.5 Effect of soil density
1- Effect of relative density on the vertical pressure
Two different soil relative densities were used (40%) and (80%). For
comparison between test results, Figures (4.2) and (4.5) in the previous
sections show the variation of the pressure on the underground tunnel with
time for loose and dense sand, respectively. It can be noticed that when the
relative density increases from (40%) to (80%), the vertical pressure
decreases by about (55)% . This behavior due to the arching phenomena
which occurs as the stress transfer in a tunneling problem from moving
parts of the soil (settle more) to adjacent parts (settle less) that can be
achieved by considering the vertical stress redistribution in the soil mass
above the spring line (Salim, 2006).
2- Effect of relative density on the surface settlement
Figures (4.8) and (4.11) in the previous section, present the variation of the
surface settlement with time for model footing on loose and dense sand,
respectively. The results show that, the vertical settlement can be reduced
by about (80)% when the relative density of sand increased from (40% to
80%). This is attributed to the loose relative density which is similar to low
stiffness of the backfill and poor soil support during pipe installation while
92
the dense relative density corresponds to high stiffness of the backfill and
good soil support, so the high relative densities increase the stiffness of
backfill material and cause reduction in the surface settlement as stated by
Tafreshi and Khalaj (2008).
Table (4.2) and (4.3) summarize the results of measured vertical

pressure above the tunnel crown for different load amplitudes in loose and
dense sand respectively.
Table (4.2) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for loose sand
A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 40%.
Average Maximum
Test pressure pressure
(kPa) (kPa)
Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 62.38 79.38
With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 41.60 53.39
With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 57.59 71.66
All the tests with amplitude of a = 1 ton in loose sand with geogrid at
(d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results of tests without
geogrid.
93
B. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 40%.
Average Maximum
Test Pressure pressure
(kPa) (kPa)
All the tests with amplitude of a = 0.5 ton in loose sand with geogrid at
(d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results of tests without
geogrid.
Table (4.3) Vertical pressure above the tunnel crown for dense sand
A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 80%.
Average Maximum
(kPa) (kPa)

All the tests with amplitude of a = 1 ton in dense sand with geogrid
at (d=1 B and d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results of tests
without geogrid
94
B. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 80%
Average Maximum
(kPa) (kPa)

All the tests with amplitude of a = 0.5 ton in dense sand with
geogrid at (d=1 B and d=1.5 B) showed results similar or near to the results
of tests without geogrid
Tables (4.4) and (4.5) summarize the results of surface settlement above the
tunnel embedded in loose sand under a load amplitude of 1 ton and 2 ton,
respectively
Table (4.4) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose sand
layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 1 ton.
Test Maximum settlement (mm)
Without geogrid, ω = 2 Hz. 62.68
With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 40.00
With geogrid, d = 1 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 41.60

95
All the tests with amplitude of a = 1ton in loose sand with geogrid at
(d=1.5B) have a results equal or near to the results of tests without geogrid.
Table (4.5) The maximum settlement measured at the surface of loose sand
layer subjected to dynamic load of amplitude = 0.5 ton.
Test Maximum settlement (mm)
All the tests with amplitude of a = 0.5 ton in loose sand with geogrid at
(d=1.5 B) have a results equal or near to the results of tests without
geogrid.
4.3.6 Results of the amplitude of displacement above the tunnel
The amplitude of displacement of the tunnel crown was measured by a

vibration meter as illustrated in Chapter Three. The results show that there
is no effect of geogrid, load amplitude and soil density on the amplitude of
displacement as shown in Figures presented in Appendix (A). While, when
the frequency increased, the amplitude of displacement increased too as
shown in Figures (4.77) and (4.78). This may be attributed to the accuracy
of the vibration meter used in the study.
96
2.5
Displacement, mm
2
1.5
1
Without geogrid
0.5 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
Figure (4.77) : Displacement of the tunnel crown with time for a =0.5 ton,
2.5
Displacement, mm
1.5
1
Without geogrid
0.5 With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 1 B
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Time, sec.
Figure (4.78) : Displacement of the tunnel crown with time for a =0.5 ton,
4.4 Summary of Test Results

4.4.1 Effect of depth of reinforcement on the vertical pressure
Figures (4.79) and (4.80) show the relationship between the vertical
pressure on the tunnel crown and (d/B) ratio. The results show that the
maximum decrement in pressure occurs when the (d/B) ratio is 0.5.
97
90
a=0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%
80
a= 0.5ton, freq=2 Hz, Dr.=40%
70 a=1ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%
a=1ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

60
a= 0.5ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%
Pressure, kPa
50 a= 0.5ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%
a=1ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%

40
a= 1ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d/B
Figure (4.79) : Relationship between the vertical pressure on the tunnel

98
90
a=0.5 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

80
a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
70
a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%
60 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%

Pressure, kPa
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d/B

crown and (d/B) ratio for b = 2B.
4.4.2 Effect of depth of reinforcement on the surface settlement

Figures (4.81) and (4.82) show the relationship between the surface
settlement and (d/B) ratio. The results show that the maximum decrement
in the surface settlement occurs when the (d/B) ratio is 0.5.
99
70
60
Surface settlement, mm a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%
40 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
d/B
Figure (4.81) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio
for b = 1B.
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
d/B
Figure (4.82) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (d/B) ratio
for b = 2B.
For dense sand there is no effect of geogrid on the surface settlement.
100
4.4.3 Effect of width of reinforcement on the vertical pressure
Figures (4.83) and (4.84) show the relationship between the vertical
pressure on the tunnel crown and (b/B) ratio. The results show that the
maximum decrement in pressure occurs when the (b/B) ratio is 1 in loose
sand and 2 in dense sand.
90
80 a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr=40%
70

60
Pressure, kPa
50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=80%
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
b/B

crown and (b/B) ratio for d = 0.5B.
101
90
a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.= 40%

80
70 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
60 a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=80%

Pressure, kPa
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
b/B

crown and (b/B) ratio for d = 1B.
All the tests in loose and dense sand with geogrid at depth (d= 1.5 B)
revealed results similar or near to the results of tests without geogrid.
4.4.4 Effect of width of reinforcement on the surface settlement

Figures (4.85) and (4.86) show the relationship between the surface
settlement and (b/B) ratio. The results show that the maximum decrement
in the surface settlement occurs when the (d/B) ratio is 2.
102
70
60
Surface settlement, mm a= 0.5 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%

40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
b/B
Figure (4.85) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio
for d = 0.5B.
70
60
50 a= 1 ton, freq= 1Hz, Dr.=40%
40 a= 1 ton, freq= 2Hz, Dr.=40%
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4
b/B
Figure (4.86) : Relationship between the surface settlement and (b/B) ratio
for d = 1B.
For dense sand, there is no effect of geogrid on the surface settlement.
103
4.5 Comparison of Dynamic Load Pressure Transmitted to
Tunnel with the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the Surface
Footing.
Tables (4.6) and (4.7) show comparison between the maximum pressure
transmitted to the tunnel (Qd max) and the ultimate bearing capacity of the
surface footing (Qult) for loose and dense sand respectively.
Table (4.6) The ratio between Qd max and Qult for loose sand
A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 40%.
Test
104
B. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 40%.
Test
With geogrid, d = 0.5 B, b = 2 B, ω = 2 Hz. 2
Table (4.7) The ratio between Qd max and Qult for dense sand
A. a = 1 ton, Dr. = 80%.
Test

A. a = 0.5 ton, Dr. = 80%.
Test

105
The results presented in Tables (4.6) and (4.7) reveal that the
dynamic pressure transmitted to the tunnel is affected considerably by the
frequency and amplitude of load and relative density of the sand. It is
worthy mentioning that the models showed a Qd max/Qult ratio greater than 1
also showed failure of the surface footing by visual inspection and recorded
settlement.
106
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS
5.1 General
This chapter summarizes the main conclusions drawn through the
analysis of 58 test models performed on reinforced by geogrid and
unreinforced sand, with different relative densities under different dynamic
loads and the recommendations to be made for future work.
5.2 Conclusions
The main conclusions can be listed as follows:
1. When the geogrid is placed at depth equal to (0.5B) from the surface
in loose sand, the pressure on the crown of tunnel will decrease by
about (10-33)%, but when the depth equals to (1B), the pressure will
decrease by about (7-13)%, whereas no decrease in the pressure was
noticed when the geogrid is placed at depth equal to (1.5B) in
comparison between results with geogrid and without geogrid.
While, in dense sand when the geogrid is placed at a depth equals to
(0.5B) from the surface, the pressure decreases by about (13-60)% in
comparison with the results without geogrid, but when the geogrid is
at a depth (1B and 1.5B), there is no decrease in the pressure.
2. The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by about (20-
44)% when using geogrid reinforcement at a depth equals to (0.5 B).
Also, at depth equal to (1 B), the percent vertical settlement is
reduced by about (13-37)%. In addition, when the geogrid is placed
at a depth equals to (1.5B), the results of vertical settlement without
geogrid are approximately close to results of vertical settlement with
geogrid. This indicates that the efficiency of geogrid decreases when
the depth increases. The geogrid has no efficiency at a depth equal to
(1.5B). On the other hand, there is no efficiency of geogrid on the
surface settlement results in dense sand.
107
Chapter Five Conclusions and Recommendations
3. When the geogrid width equals to (1B) in loose sand, the pressure on
the crown of tunnel decreases by about (15-46)% compared with test
results without geogrid, but this percentage decreases to (8-33)%
when the geogrid width equals to (2B). On the contrary, in dense
sand, when the geogrid width equals to (1B), the pressure decreases
by about (13-68)% compared with the results without geogrid, but
this percentage increases to (25-70)% when the geogrid width equals
to (2B). The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by
about (24-44)% when using geogrid reinforcement of width equals to
(2B), while when the width equals to (1B), the results show that the
percent vertical settlement is reduced to about (13-36)%, this
indicates that when the width of geogrid increases, the surface
settlement decreases.
4. When the amplitude of the dynamic load decreases from (1) ton to
(0.5) ton, the pressure above the tunnel crown decreases too by about
(57)%.
5. Comparison between the pressure results without geogrid and
pressure results with geogrid in loose sand, showed that when the
load amplitude equals 1 ton, the pressure on the tunnel crown
decreases by about (11-46)% , but this percentage decreases to about
(7-38)% when the applied load equals to 0.5 ton. On the other hand,
the results in dense sand showed that when the load amplitude equals
to 1 ton, the pressure decreased by about (13-27)% compared with
(68-71)% for 0.5 ton amplitude. These percentages are different
according to the states of load and geogrid width and depth.
6. The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by about
(64)% when the load amplitude decreased from (1) ton to (0.5) ton.
while, the percent vertical settlement is reduced by about (4)% when
the frequency decreased from (2 Hz to 1 Hz).
108
7. The percent vertical settlement in loose sand is reduced by about (25-
40)% when using a geogrid under an applied load amplitude equal to
(1 ton). The percent vertical settlement is reduced by about (13-
35)% when a geogrid layer is used under an applied load of
amplitude equals to (0.5 ton). While, the percent vertical settlement
in loose sand is reduced by about (13-36)% when using a geogrid
under an applied frequency equal to (2 Hz), while the percent
vertical settlement is reduced by about (27-44)% when the applied
frequency equals to (1 Hz). All of these percentages are different
according to the state of load and geogrid.
8. The pressure on the crown of the tunnel in loose sand decreases
when the frequency decreases by about (20% for a =0.5 ton and 45%
for a = 1 ton). While, in dense sand the percentage decreases to (9%
for a = 0.5 ton and 18% for a = 1 ton).
9. When the relative density increases from (40%) to (80%), the
vertical pressure on the tunnel crown decreases by about (55)% .
Also, The percent vertical settlement can be reduced by about (80)%
when the relative density of sand increased from (40% to 80%).
10. The dynamic pressure transmitted to the tunnel is affected
considerably by the frequency and amplitude of load and relative
density of the sand. It is worth mentioning that the models showed a
Qd max/Qult ratio greater than 1 also showed failure of the surface
footing by visual inspection and recorded settlement.
5.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations can be suggested for further research:
1. Studying the effect of geogrid in transfer of dynamic load to
underground structure in saturated sand.
2. Studying the effect of geocell (anothor type of geosynthetics) in
transfer of dynamic load to underground structure.
109
3. Using vibration meter more accurate and with larger capacity to
measure the displacement velocity and acceleration.
4. Studying the effect of multi-layer geogrid reinforcement in transfer
of the dynamic load to underground structure.
110
References
 Abd Al-Kaream, K. W. (2013), "The Dynamic Behavior of Machine

Foundation on Saturated Sand", M.Sc. Thesis, Building and
Construction Engineering Department, University of Technology,
Iraq.
 ACPA, (2009) Design Data 1" Highway Live Loads on Concrete
Pipe", American Concrete pipe Association
 Adil, H. M. (2014), "Dynamic and Static Analysis of the Oil and Gas
Pipelines", M.SC. Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Atilim
University, Turkey.
 Aguiar, M. F. (2008), “A Comparative Study of Vibration Frequency
Estimates of the Surface Foundations of Wind Turbines Built on the
Sand Dunes of the Ceará Coast”, DewImagazin No. 33. A. S. Moura,
S. A. D. Neto; Federal University of Ceará – Brazil.
 Al-Damluji, O. F., Fattah, M. Y. and Al-Adhamii, R. A. J. (2006), "
Determination of Depth of Placement of Tunnel and Cavities by the
Boundary Element Method", Journal of Engineering, No. (1), Vol.
(12), pp. 53-70.
 Armaghani, D. J., Faizi, K., Hajihassani, M., Mohamad, E. T. and
Nazir, R. (2015), "Effects of Soil Reinforcement on Uplift
Resistance of Buried Pipeline", Measurement. No. 64, pp. 57-63.
 Arya, S. C., O'neill, M. W. and Pincus, G. (1979), "Design of
Structures and Foundations for Vibrating Machines", Gulf
Publishing Company, Books Division.
 ASTM D3080-1998. "Standard Test Method for Direct Shear Test of
Soils under Consolidated Drained Conditions", American Society of
Testing and Materials.
111
References
 ASTM D422-2001. "Standard Test Method for Particle Size-
Analysis of Soils", American Society of Testing and Material.
 ASTM D4253-2000. "Standard Test Method for Maximum Index
Density and Unit Weight of Soils Using a Vibratory Table",
American Society of Testing and Materials.
 ASTM D4254-2000. "Standard Test Method for Minimum Index
Density and Unit Weight of Soils and Calculation of Relative
Density", American Society of Testing and Materials.
 ASTM D854-2005. "Standard Test Method for Specific Gravity of
Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer", American Society of Testing and
Materials.
 Azadi, M. R. E. and Soltani, A. A. (2010), "The Effects of Soil-
Foundation-Structure Interaction on the Dynamic Response of
Delijan Cement-Storage Silo under Earthquake Loading", Electronic
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering (EJGE), 15. pp 659-676.
 Banerjee, P. K. and Butterfield, R. (1987), "Dynamic Behavior of
Foundations and Buried Structures", Elsevier Applied Science,
London .
 Barkan, D., D. (1962), "Dynamics of Bases and Foundations",
McGraw-Hill New York.
 Bhatia, K. (2009), "Foundations for Industrial Machines: Handbook
for Practicing Engineers", CRC. press.
 Bildik, S., Laman, M. and Sukaeiman, M. T. (2012), "Prametric
Studies of Buried Pipes Using Finite Element Analysis", 3rd
International Conference on New Development in Soil Mechanics
and Geotechnical Engineering, Turkey, pp. 141-147.
 Bowles, J. E. (1996), “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 5 th
Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Companiy, Inc., pp. 1175.
112
References
 Daghigh, Y. (1993), “Numerical Simulation of Dynamic Behavior
of an Earth Dam during Seismic Loading,” Ph.D. Thesis, Delft
University of Technology, Netherlands.
 Das, B. M. (1983), "Fundamentals of Soil Dynamics", Elsevier New
York.
 Das, B. M. and Ramana, G. (2011), "Principles of Soil Dynamics",
Cl-Engineering.
 Fattah, M. Y., Hamood, M. J., Dawood, S. H., (2008), “The Respone
of Tunnels to Earthquake Excitations”, 7th European Conference on
Structural Dynamics (EURODYN 2008), at the Institute of Sound
and Vibration Research University of Southampton.
 Fattah, M. Y., Shlash, K. T., Salim, N. M., (2011), “Effect of
Reduced Ko Zone on Time Dependent Analysis of Tunnels”,
Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2011, Article ID 963502, 12
pages, 2011. doi:10.1155/2011/963502, Hindawi Publishing
Corporation.
 Fattah, M. Y., Shlash, K. T., Salim, N. M., (2013), “Prediction of
Settlement Trough Induced by Tunneling in Cohesive Ground”, Acta
Geotechnica, DOI 10.1007/s11440-012-0169-4, Springer, Vol. 8, pp.
167–179.
 Gaoxiao, H., Quanmei, G., Shunhua, Z. (2011), "Mechanical
Analysis of Soil Arching under Dynamic Load", Geotechnical
Conference, Canada
 Goltabar, A. M. and Shekarchi, M. (2010), "Investigation of Traffic
Load on the Buried Pipeline by Using of Real Scale Experimental
and Plaxis-3D Software", Journal of Applied Science, Engineering
and Technology. Vol. 2, pp. 107-113.
113
References
 Gupta, S., Stanus, Y., Lombeart, G., Degrande, G. (2009), "Influence
of Tunnel and Soil Parameters on Vibrations from Underground
Railways", Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 327, pp. 70-91.
 Handy, R. L. (1985), "The Arching in Soil", Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 111, No. GT3, p.p 302-318.
 Hedge, A., Kadabinakatti, S. and Sitharam, T. G. (2014). "Protection
of Buried Pipelines Using Combination of Geocell and Geogrid
Reinforcement : Experimental Study", Ground Improvement and
Geosynthetics. No. 238, pp. 289-298.
 Hosseini, N., Oraee, K. and Gholinejad, M. (2010), "Seismic
Analysis of Horseshoe Tunnels under Dynamic Loads due to
Earthquakes", Underground Coal Operator's Conference, Australia,
pp. 140-145,
 Ilamparuthi, K. and Rajkumar, R. (2008), "Experimental Study on
the Behavior of Buried Flexible Plastic Pipe", The Electronic Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol. (13), Bund. C, pp. 1-10.
 Koerner, J., Soong, T.-Y. and Koerner, R. M., 1998, “Earth
Retaining Wall Costs in the USA,” GRI Report #10, Geosynthetic
Institute, Folsom, Pennsylvania, 38 pages.
 Lee, C.J., Wu, B.R., Chen, H.T. and Chiang, K.H., (2006), "Tunnel
Stability and Arching Effects During Tunneling in Soft Clayey Soil".
Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, Elsevier, Vol. 21,
p.p.119-132.
 Luna, R. and Jadi, H. (2000), "Determination of Dynamic Soil
Properties Using Geophysical Methods," Proceedings of the First
International Conference on the Application of Geophysical and
NDT Methodologies to Transportation Facilities and Infrastructure,
St. Louis, MO, December 2000, pp. 1-15.
114
References
 Mandal, A. and Baidya, D. K. (2003), "Influence of A Rigid
Boundary on the Dynamic Response of A Foundation: An
Experimental Investigation", Electronic Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering (EJGE), Vol. (8).
 Mehrjardi, T. Gh., Tafreshi, M. S. N. and Dawson, A. R. (2012),
"Combined Use of Geocell Reinforcement and Rubber-Soil Mixtures
to Improve Performance of Buried Pipes", Geotextile and
Geomembrance. Vol. 34, pp. 116-130.
 MIL-HDBK-1007/3 (1997), “Soil Dynamics and Special Design
Aspects”, Department of Defense, United States of America, pp.
144.
 Murthy, V. N. (2007)." Principles and Practices of Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering", Marcel Dekker, inc. 270 Madison
Avenue. New York. New York 10016. PP. 45.
 New, B.M. and Bowers, K.H. (1994), "Ground Movement Model
Validation at the Heathrow Express Trial Tunnel", Proceedings
Tunnelling ’94, London, pp. 301-329.
 Ozdemir, Z., Coulier, P., Lak, M. A., Francois, S., Lombaert, G.,
Degrande, G. (2012), "Numerical Evaluation of the Dynamic
Response of Pipe Lines to Vibrations Induced by the Operation of a
Pavement Breaker", Soil Dynamic and Earthquake Engineering, Vol.
44, pp. 153-167.
 Park, S. H. and Antin, N., (2003), "A Space Time Discontinuous
Galerkin Method for Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis",
16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, University of
Washington, July 2003
 Potts, D.M. and Zdravkovic, L. (2001). "Finite Element Analysis in
Geotechnical Engineering: Application", Thomas Telford, London.
 Prakash, S. (1981), "Soil Dynamics", McGraw-Hill New York.
115
References
 Rahil, F. H. (2007). "Improvement of Soft Clay underneath a
Railway Track Model Using Stone Column Technique", PhD.
Thesis, Building and Construction Engineering Department,
University of Technology, Iraq.
 Rao, N. K. (2011), "Foundation Design: Theory and Practice", John
Wiley and Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.
 Richart, F. E. and Whitman, R. (1967), "Comparison of Footing
Vibration Tests with Theory", Journal of Soil Mechanics and
Foundations Division, ASCE, 93, No. 6, pp. 143-167.
 Roesset, J. M. and Jose, M. (2009), "Some Applications of Soil
Dynamics", The Seventeenth Buchanan Lecture, Texas A and M
University.
 Salim, N. M. (2006), "Time-Dependent Analysis of Tunnels in Clays
Using the Finite Element Analysis Method", Ph.D. Thesis, Building
and Construction Engineering Department, University of
Technology, Iraq.
 Sandstrom, G. E. (1963). "The History of Tunneling", Barrie and
Rockliff.
 Sauer, G. (1988), "Further Insights into the NATM - When an
Innovation is Something New: from Practice to Theory in
Tunneling", 23rd Sir Julius Wernher Memorial Lecture. Tunneling
’88, London, IMM.
 Srinivasulu, P. and Vaidyanathan, C. (1977), "Handbook of Machine
Foundations", Tata McGraw-Hill.
 Tafreshi, M. S. N. and Khalaj, O. (2007), "Laboratory Test of Small
Diameter HDPE Pipes Buried in Reinforced Sand under Repeated-
Load", Geotextiles and Geomembrances, Vol. (26), pp. 145-163.
 Tafreshi, M. S. N., Mehrjardi, T. Gh. and Tafreshi, M. S. M. (2007),
"Analysis of Buried Plastic Pipes in Reinforced Sand under
116
References
Repeated-load Using Neural Network and Regression Model",
International Journal of Civil Engineering. No. 2, Vol. 5, pp. 188-
133.
 Terzaghi, K. (1943), “Theoretical Soil Mechanics”, Wiley, New
York.
 Williams, O, (1997), "Engineering and Design -Tunnels of Shafts in
Rock", U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC 20314-
1000, p. 236
 Xiaoyan, H. U., Jian, Z. H. O. U. and Zhanfei, H. U. (2000),
"Seismic Analysis of Tunnel Surrounded by Soft Soil in Shanghai",
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland,
Newzwland, pp. 1-7.
 Yang, Y., Xie, X. and Wang, R. (2010), "Numerical Simulation of
Dynamic Response of Operating Metro Tunnel Induced by Ground
Explosion", Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical
Engineering. No. 2, Vol. 4, pp. 373-384.
 Young, W. C. (1989), "Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain", 6th
edition, McGraw-Hill.
117
Appendix(A)
Appendix (A)
Additional Results
A-1 Results of Variation of Surface Settlement with Time in

Dense Sand
Figure (A.1) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =1 ton, w
= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b=
2 B).
1 B).
A-1
Appendix(A)
= 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2
B).
B).
2 B).
A-2
Appendix(A)
1 B).
2 B).
1 B).
A-3
Appendix(A)
B).
B).
2 B).
A-4
Appendix(A)
1 B).
Figure (A.13) : Variation of the surface settlement with time for a =0.5 ton,
w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 0.5 B and
b= 2 B).
b= 2 B).
A-5
Appendix(A)
w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with geogrid (d= 1 B and b=
2 B).
1 B).
b= 2 B).
A-6
Appendix(A)
b= 1 B).
b= 2 B).
b= 1 B).
A-7
Appendix(A)
2 B).
1 B).
b= 2 B).
A-8
Appendix(A)
b= 1 B).
A-2 Results of Variation of Amplitude of Vibration with Time for

Loose and Dense Sand.
Figure (A.25) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with

time for a =1 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with
geogrid (d= 0.5 B and b= 2 B).

A-9
Appendix(A)

geogrid (d= 1 B and b= 2 B).


A-10
Appendix(A)



A-11
Appendix(A)



A-12
Appendix(A)


time for a =0.5 ton, w = 2 Hz and Dr. = 40%, without geogrid and with

A-13
Appendix(A)



A-14
Appendix(A)



A-15
Appendix(A)



A-16
Appendix(A)



A-17
Appendix(A)



A-18
Appendix(A)



A-19
Appendix(A)



A-20
Appendix(A)



A-21
Appendix(A)



A-22
Appendix(A)



A-23
Appendix(A)



A-24
‫)‪Appendix(A‬‬
‫‪Figure (A.72) : Variation of the displacement of vibration on tunnel with‬‬

‫‪time for a =0.5 ton, w = 1 Hz and Dr. = 80%, without geogrid and with‬‬
‫‪geogrid (d= 1.5 B and b= 1 B).‬‬
‫‪A-25‬‬
‫الخالصة‬
‫اٌ انًُشآد رحذ األسظٍخ ًْ جضء ال ٌزجضأ يٍ انجٍُخ انزحزٍخ نهًجزًغ انحذٌش‪ٔ ،‬رغزخذو‬
‫نًجًٕػخ ٔاعؼخ يٍ انزطجٍمبد‪ ،‬ثًب فً رنك يزشٔ االَفبق ٔانغكك انحذٌذٌخ ٔانطشق انغشٌؼخ‬
‫ٔيخبصٌ انًٕاد‪َٔ ،‬مم انًٍبِ ٔانصشف انصحً‪ٔ .‬اٌ انًُشآد رحذ األسظٍخ انزً رجُى فً انًُبغك‬
‫انخبظؼخ نهُشبغ انذٌُبيٍكً ٌجت اٌ رزحًم كال يٍ انحًهٍٍ انغبكٍ ٔانذٌُبيٍكً يؼب ‪.‬‬
‫ٌزؤصش اعزمشاس انحفشٌبد رحذ األسض ثشكهٓب‪ٔ ،‬حجى انفزحخ‪ٔ ،‬اإلجٓبد انًٕلؼً اظبفخ انى‬
‫ظشٔف انزشثخ ٔغٍشْب‪ .‬ػهى انشغى يٍ أٌ شكم انفزحخ ٌؼزًذ ثصٕسح اعبعٍخ ػهى انغشض‬
‫انًغزخذيخ يٍ اجهّ‪ ،‬اال اٌ انزصًٍى اَيٍ ٔاَشبء فزحخ رحذ األسض ٌزطهت يؼشفخ رٕصٌغ انعغػ‬
‫ٔاالصاحخ انزً رحذس داخم ٔحٕل انفزحبد‪.‬‬
‫رشكض ْزِ انذساعخ ػهى رؤصٍش انًشجكبد فً َمم انحًم انذٌُبيٍكً نًُشؤ رحذ االسض‪ .‬حٍش‬
‫اٌ ْزا انًُشؤ رى رًضٍهّ ثبَجٕة ثالعزٍكً ثذاخم انزشثخ‪ٔ .‬الجم انزحمك يٍ اعزجبثخ انزشثخ‪ ،‬االعبط‬
‫ٔ انُفك رحذ االسض نهحًم انذٌُبيٍكً رى رصٍُغ ًَٕرط يبدي‪ًٌٔ .‬كٍ اعزخذاو ْزا انًُٕرط‬
‫نًحبكبح رطجٍك انزحًٍم انذٌُبيٍكً‪.‬‬
‫اٌ اجًبنً ػذد االخزجبساد انزً اجشٌذ ْٕ ‪ًَٕ 58‬رط‪ًَٕ .‬رجٍٍ رى فحصٓى رحذ ربصٍش‬
‫انحًم انغبكٍ ثبعزخذاو كضبفزٍٍ َغجٍزٍٍ (‪ .)%84 ٔ %44‬جًٍغ ال ‪ًَٕ 56‬رط انًزجٍمخ رى فحصٓب‬
‫رحذ ربصٍش انحًبل انذٌُبيٍكً ٔانزً لذيذ ػهى شكم عهغهزٍٍ ثبعزخذاو كضبفزٍٍ َغجٍٍزٍٍ (‪ٔ ٪44‬‬
‫‪ٔ )٪84‬انزً رًضم انزشثخ انعؼٍفخ ٔ انمٌٕخ ػهى انزٕانً‪ .‬رى إخعبع جًٍغ ًَبرط انشيم ال‪56‬‬
‫انجبفخ نهحًم انذٌُبيٍكً انى َٕػٍٍ يٍ عؼخ انحًم انًمبثهخ نـ(‪ 4.5‬غٍ ٔ ‪ 1‬غٍ) ثبعزخذاو رشددٌٍ‬
‫‪ْ 2 ٔ 1‬شرض نكم عؼخ حًم‪ .‬رى اخزجبس ًَٕرط انشيم نكم يٍ انغؼخ ٔرشدد انحًم يغ انًشجكبد‬
‫ٔثذَٔٓب ثؼشظٍٍ (‪ )B2 ٔ B1‬حٍش ‪ ْٕ B‬ػشض االعبط‪ .‬ثبالظبفخ انى رنك رى رُفٍز صالصخ‬
‫يجًٕػبد يٍ اػًبق انًشجكبد يٍ عطح انًُٕرط (‪.)B1.5 ٔ B1 ، B4.5‬‬
‫رى رغهٍػ انحًم انذٌُبيٍكً فً االخزجبساد ثٕاعطخ َظبو سفغ ٍْذسٔنٍكً‪ٔ .‬رزعًٍ اعزجبثخ‬
‫انُفك نهحًم انذٌُبيٍكً لٍبط انعغػ فٕق لًخ انُفك ثبعزخذاو خهٍخ انعغػ (انًصُؼخ يٍ لجم‬
‫ششكخ ‪ٔ )Geokon‬كزنك لٍبط عؼخ االصاحخ ثبعزخذاو جٓبص لٍبط االْزضاص ‪ٔ.‬لذ حممذ اعزجبثخ‬
‫األعبط ػٍ غشٌك لٍبط انٓجٕغ انكهً ثبعزخذاو أجٓضح االعزشؼبس فً جٓبص انزحًٍم انذٌُبيٍكً‪.‬‬
‫رجٍٍ اٌ انعغػ فٕق لًخ انُفك اَخفط ثُحٕ (‪ )65% -13%‬ػُذ اعزخذاو انزغهٍح‬
‫ثبنًشجكبد ٔرزغٍش ْزِ انُغت ٔفمب نشذح انحًم ٔحبنخ انًشجكبد ٔكضبفخ انزشثخ‪ .‬أٌعب‪ ،‬فؤٌ انعغػ‬
‫فٕق لًخ انُفك ٌضداد ثضٌبدح عؼخ انحًم ٔانزشدد فً حٍٍ ٌمم انعغػ ػُذ صٌبدح انكضبفخ انُغجٍخ‪.‬‬
‫رجٍٍ اٌ انٓجٕغ ٌمم ثُغجخ حٕانً (‪ )45%-13%‬ػُذ اعزخذاو انزغهٍح ثبنًشجكبد فً انشيم‬
‫انعؼٍف ْٔزِ انُغت انًئٌٕخ رخزهف ٔفمب نشذح انحًم انذٌُبيٍكً ٔحبنخ انًشجكبد‪ ،‬فً حٍٍ اٌ‬
‫انشجكبد نٍظ نٓب ربصٍش فً انشيبل انمٌٕخ‪ .‬أٌعب‪ ،‬فؤٌ انٓجٕغ اصداد ثضٌبدح عؼخ انحًم ٔانزشدد فً‬
‫حٍٍ اَخفط ثبصدٌبد انكضبفخ انُغجٍخ نهشيبل‪.‬‬
‫جمهورية العراق‬
‫وزارة التعليم العالي والبحث العلمي‬
‫الجامعة التكنولوجية‬
‫قسم هندسة البناء واالنشاءات‬
‫تأثير االرض المسلحة بالمشبكات في انتقال الحمل الديناميكي‬

‫الى االنفاق‬
‫رسالة مقدمة الى قسم هندسة البناء واالنشاءات‬
‫الجامعة التكنولوجية‬
‫كجزء من متطلبات نيل شهادة الماجستير‬
‫في علوم هندسة البناء واالنشاءات – الهندسة الجيوتكنيكية‬
‫من قبل‬
‫دمحم سهم اسماعيل‬

‫بكالوريوس (هندسة البناء و االنشاءات) ‪2013 /‬‬
‫بأشراف‬
‫أ ‪.‬م ‪.‬د نهلة دمحم سليم‬ ‫أ ‪.‬د دمحم يوسف فتاح‬
‫ايار ‪ 2015‬م‬ ‫شعبان ‪1436‬ﻫ‬

نسخة كاملة

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

نسخة كاملة

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Republic of Iraq

Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research

Influence of Geogrid Reinforced Earth in Transfer of

Mohammad Saham Ismaiel

B.Sc. (Building and Construction Eng., 2013)

Prof. Dr. Mohammad Y. Fattah Assist. Prof. Dr. Nahla M. Salim

May 2015 Shaaban 1436

‫*وأَن َّليْس ِلإلِوسانِ إِالَّ ما سعي* وأَنَّ سعْيًُ‬

‫ســـــوْف يُـــــرى* ثُمَّ ُيجْزايُ الجزاءَ األَوْفَي*‬

‫صدق اللًُ العظيم‬

First and foremost, my deepest thanks are presented to Prof Dr.

Thank also extend to Mr. Mohammad Faiq Asswd Ph.D. student to

My gratitude is extended to all those who have helped me during the

Finally, I would like to express my love and appreciation to my family

Mohammad Saham Ismaiel

1.2 Important Problems in the Design of Tunnel 2

1.3 Objective of the Study 3

1.4 Thesis Layout 3

2.2 Dynamic Loads 5

2.2.1 Types of dynamic load 6

2.3 Dynamic Soil Properties 6

2.4 T Behavior of Soil under Dynamic Loading 8

2.5 R Machinery Foundation 9

2.5.1 I Types of machinery foundations 10

2.5.2 R Types of machines 10

2.5.4 Factors effecting machine foundation design 12

2.5.5 Vibration criteria 14

2.5.6 Permissible limits of amplitude 14

2.7.3 Loading on underground structure 18

2.7.4 Soil arching 19

Previous Studies Related to Dynamic Response of

3.2 Testing Program 34

3.3 Material Used and Soil Characterization 36

3.3.1 The soil 36

3.3.1.1 Soil characterization 37

3.3.2 PVC pipe 38

3.3.3 Geogrid reinforcement 39

3.4 Model design and devices 40

3.4.1 Loading steel frame 42

3.4.3 Model footing 44

3.4.4 Data acquisition 45

3.4.5 Shaft encoder 46

3.4.7 Earth pressure cell and readout 49

3.4.8 Vibration meter 50

3.5 Sand Deposit Preparation 52

3.6 Static Loading Test 55

3.7 Dynamic Loading Test 55

4.2 Model Test Results under Static Load 57

4.3 Model Test Results under Dynamic Load 59

4.3.1 Effect of depth of the reinforcement 59

4.3.2 Effect of width of the reinforcement 66

4.3.3 Effect of load amplitude 71

4.3.4 Effect of load frequency 78

4.3.5 Effect of soil density 92

4.3.6 Results of the amplitude displacement of tunnel 96

4.4 Summary of Test Results 97

5.2 Conclusions 107

5.3 Recommendations 109

(3.1) PVC pipe. 38

(3.2) Geogrid used. 40

(3.10) Steel container. 48

(3.11) Pressure cell. 49

(3.2) Engineering properties of geogrid used. 39

‫وأَن َّليْس ِلإلِوسانِ إِالَّ ما سعي وأَنَّ سعْيًُ‬